my views on Homosexuality

[LindsayBrooke]

I believe that women and men were made for eachother. 2 women or 2 men just werent ment to be. I think that maybe alot of homosexuals today are just in rebelion against society... Everybody has an urge to go against the "norm". I think its a choice and these people choose to be gay then convience theirselves that thats the only way for them. Think of it like another disorder.. maybe an eating disorder, they convience theirself that the choices they make are right and good, and good for them.. In the end they never really can go back to where they used to be. I guess homosexuality then becomes a "real" way of life. People with the same disorder enjoy eachothers company because they have the same mirage in what they see as reality.

[keith]

I believe that women and men were made for eachother. 2 women or 2 men just werent ment to be. I think that maybe alot of homosexuals today are just in rebelion against society... Everybody has an urge to go against the "norm". I think its a choice and these people choose to be gay then convience theirselves that thats the only way for them. Think of it like another disorder.. maybe an eating disorder, they convience theirself that the choices they make are right and good, and good for them.. In the end they never really can go back to where they used to be. I guess homosexuality then becomes a "real" way of life. People with the same disorder enjoy eachothers company because they have the same mirage in what they see as reality.

Hi Lindsay. I was watching a TV documentary a couple of nights ago where they took a gay man from England to Love In Action - a ministry for those wanting to leave homosexuality behind. The guy was not a christian and in the end he left but seeing the struggle he was going thru' and his clear sense of shame and self loathing was very moving. Perhaps some do choose this path in life but for others it is obviously not as simple as choice like being a vegetarian or whatever. From a psychological point of view one might say that certain patterns of behaving become reinforced by repetition and relearning neural pathways is no easy thing. An interesting insight this guy had was that he felt he was searching for something good - the love he never had from the father who left him - but perhaps saw now that he had been looking in the wrong places. BTW the documentary quoted a figure of 400,000 people contact ex-gay ministries in the USA each year. If they are getting that much contact then clearly there are a lot of dissatisfied gay people around.

[Ryokan]

I believe that women and men were made for eachother. 2 women or 2 men just werent ment to be. I think that maybe alot of homosexuals today are just in rebelion against society... Everybody has an urge to go against the "norm". I think its a choice and these people choose to be gay then convience theirselves that thats the only way for them. Think of it like another disorder.. maybe an eating disorder, they convience theirself that the choices they make are right and good, and good for them.. In the end they never really can go back to where they used to be. I guess homosexuality then becomes a "real" way of life. People with the same disorder enjoy eachothers company because they have the same mirage in what they see as reality.
While this is an excellent assertion, or at least a assertion. But what reason do you have to back this up?

[Piebald]

One thing I've always wondered: What if there are multiple causes for homosexual orientations? What if, in fact, there are multiple homosexual orientations? Do we still all treat them the same? We know that human sexuality can go from bisexuality to full-on Gender dysphoria (i.e. I'm an X trapped in a Y's body).

[Ryokan]

One thing I've always wondered: What if there are multiple causes for homosexual orientations? What if, in fact, there are multiple homosexual orientations? Do we still all treat them the same? We know that human sexuality can go from bisexuality to full-on Gender dysphoria (i.e. I'm an X trapped in a Y's body).
Well, I am skeptical of the whole homosexual orientation as a set characteristic idea. For some it is, but other's not so much. I really do think a spectrum is the best way of looking at it. That said, I don't think it is the governments places to tell its citizens who they should sleep with, as long as they aren't violating that person's rights.

[Piebald]

I don't think it is the governments places to tell its citizens who they should sleep with, as long as they aren't violating that person's rights


I agree, but I am very curious about the origin of homosexualit(ies)y.

[Ryokan]

I agree, but I am very curious about the origin of homosexualit(ies)y.
Even hamster and apes exibit it. In alot of primates, its a way to prevent male/male and female/female competition. Its probably an accident of evolution that people can be socialized or have a predisposition towards same sex relationships. Or something which maybe humans no longer need, but our ancestors who were more great apish than us needed, like our appendix or tonsils.

[Skeptic]

If they are getting that much contact then clearly there are a lot of dissatisfied gay people around.Odd, isn't it? how people who society widely considers loathsome and worthy of vitriolic hatred seem to have more psychological problems than average . . .

Byron

[EvoUK]

Just what I was thinking...

[technomage]

Odd, isn't it? how people who society widely considers loathsome and worthy of vitriolic hatred seem to have more psychological problems than average . . .

Exceedingly odd. Oh, I bet I know--vitriolic hatred doesn't actually cause any emotional harm on the recipient, and besides, those nasty perverts deserve it anyway. :ahem:

Though I must also salute Hamster for not expressing the hatred of homosexuals that I have seen some "Christians" :judge: display.

[keith]

Well, I am skeptical of the whole homosexual orientation as a set characteristic idea. For some it is, but other's not so much. I really do think a spectrum is the best way of looking at it. That said, I don't think it is the governments places to tell its citizens who they should sleep with, as long as they aren't violating that person's rights.

As with other discussions about homosexuality on Tweb there are several themes intertwined. There is the moral strand (should people be doing this), the political (should the government intervene) and the psychological (why might people want to do this).

The first, the moral argument could be argued from reason e.g. observations from nature, or from revelation e.g. Bible/Koran etc says this is wrong. Since this is a psychology thread not a Christianity one or a hermeneutics one I shall not go there.

The political issue may vary slightly between US/Europe but the Human Rights Act which the UK and other Europeans have signed up to is based on the prime importance of individual freedom of choice. On that basis what individual adults consent to is a matter of personal choice and/or conscience. We do not live in theocracies in the West. I for one would not seek to live in one either. Total consistency would then call for laws against all kinds of other things e.g. the Bible calls pride an abomination . Would we want a law about it?

The third strand, why might people want to do this, is itself part of the wider nature versus nurture debate that pops up in many other areas of psychology. IMHO it seems most likely that there is an interplay between the two. For sure, we can talk about temperament or disposition having influence. We can also talk about societal influences. We can also talk about how the life choices of individuals lay down neural pathways and behaviours can become engrained patterns.

In a UK context there are not many ex-gay ministries and they are not widely accepted as an idea. I would see this as a societal bias against anything that smacks of religion and is the other side of the coin from the experience of anyone pro-gay who happens to live in the Bible Belt. I would see a more consistent position from a psychology perspective to defend the right to seek changes in behaviour ( after all we do this with domestic violence offenders or narcotics users). Surely psychotherapy or counselling is predicated on the idea that humans are capable of change.

The argument about whether anyone should even want to make such a change is IMHO a related but seperate argument.

[BeHereNow]

I agree, but I am very curious about the origin of homosexualit(ies)y.

I'm led to believe it differs from person to person.

1. Due to the social stigma, as Lindsay described, it will obviously attract people looking to become pariahs, just like drug culture or music scenes do.

2. There is also the situation of people looking for a family, and accepting whatever family accepts them. This, again, happens in multiple milieux, such as gangs or sports. The person will adapt their preferences to meet the requirements of acceptance within the peer group.

3. Of course, there is also the natural preference. Homosexuality is abnormal, yes - statistics will tell us that much. But denying the reality is like saying people with other genetic abnormalities don't exist. Nature doesn't always get it right, but nature is nature, and thus even its mistakes are usually accepted as right. Some homosexuality is undeniably natural.

4. As a combination of both #1 and #3, some people are confused about what they want, and experiment for awhile.

The problem with the popular discourse on homosexuality is that people tend to grab either the first or third thing I mentioned and paint the walls with it. It seems that, in this day and age, most people would realize that there's usually no such thing as a one right answer, or an easy answer.

[Thomas2003]

"Since this is a psychology thread not a Christianity one or a hermeneutics one I shall not go there."

I think the problem, or rather in understanding the issue, originates with this errant presupposition.

That is to say that psychology, or what passes for the "science" of the mind, is somehow neutral when in actual reality is rests upon religious presuppositions of humanism.

Psychology is properly a branch of theology, Christianity has a voice here. Theology is the study of the word of God and is basic to all other areas of study. Man is a creature created by God, his mind as his body is governed by God and God speaks to this in Scripture. Psychology is concerned with man's nature and inner life, it is inescapably religious and only Christianity speaks to it in terms of reality.

Humanism and popular psychology posits that man is plastic and has no constant nature, that he was derived from chaos and the lower forms of animals - his behavior is to be studied as you would any other animal. That anthropology is the key to man's psychology. Hence man in this view can be molded by whatever agency can control man. Education is held up as the highest expression of plastic man molding and the mind is viewed as a clean slate in which to write.

In the Biblical view man is created in the image of God in knowledge, righteousness and holiness with a purpose and meaning consistent with that creation - to be an image bearer. The image of God in man cannot be nullified, but this is no where more intended in the definition of a sexual activity in an ontological sense - that man is or can be a "homosexual." Sexuality is an aspect of man's behavior, not what a man is.

The state of depravity, of sin, is what must addressed in the question of sodomy and its practitioners. One must avoid both the tendency to follow humanistic psychology's presupposition of man as plastic; and also many Christians tendency to view sodomites only in terms of the fall. They must be viewed in terms of the ontology of man, the image of God in man, and the restoration of that image in Jesus Christ.

Scripture first refers to sodomites as "sinners exceedingly." From this we learn that the implications of sin are so great that man represses the image of God in himself to such an extent that he dishonors his own body. He depersonalizes himself and seeks an impersonal use of sex. The sexual use of the body is abstracted from man as a form of self-atonement and attempts to re-create himself, in his own image, by de-facing God's image.

This is enforced by humanistic psychology to reduce him in terms of sexuality and implicity denies the image of God in man and cannot provide any answers for him.

Sexuality which violates God's created nature and limitations does not satisfy, it only creates a more urgent appetite, that drives an intensified quest or burning. Fresh and intensified sin is needed to feel revitalized because the judgment of sin overwhelms the conscience. Sodomites are demanding recognition in society as an act of confession seeking forgiveness of sin. It is an ungodly quest for public atonement since he cannot find any satisfaction in self-atonement, it is no different today than in Sodom.

Scripture defines it as a "burning" or "burning out" of man in Roman 1.27 As this continues the conscience becomes seared and the repression of the image of God makes one reprobate.

Repentance is the solution, regeneration by the Holy Spirit in the image of God, through faith in Jesus Christ can heal this sin as all others and restore man to his calling as an image bearer. The so called "homosexual" must become a "homologia", a confessor of the Truth. They must confess their sin and guilt before Christ and seek repentance.

[cazz]

Actually it's caused by an imbalance in the soul--the masculine and feminine polarities. A soul blames a part of its genderless self (the masculine or feminine aspect) of the Father/Mother God as causing its problems and suffering. As a lack of understanding, this soul has an imbalance, a partiality, a bias. Men often find disgust with the female body, women try to overpower men by intellect or some other guilt-ridden force (which can be sex and ridicule, including feminism).

If this is not the cause, then it can be do to an immediate series or previous life in which a soul lived in a specific gendered human form. If a soul takes on a new body of the opposite gender, now, because of its egotistical association with the physical body, it may misidentify itself and become sexually confused (an "identity crisis").

Tragic, really, but you'd be surprised how many people have a homosexual imbalance; this imbalance not only causes homosexual acts and desires, but for some it can go the opposite extreme and cause "heterosexual" desires but with spite and anger. Such men will often hate "homosexuals" and/or possibly even beat their own wife. Horrible, indeed, but such a person is hypocritically carrying around the same homosexual imbalance. Self-righteousness frees no one !...nor is it cool :smile:

Have you known a woman who withholds sexual favors from her husband? Such a woman may be, as some may call, a "lesbian"--but I personally would rather say she has a homosexual imbalance, and indeed this spiritual cause outpictures the hate and problem into society, into this material realm in such tragic ways. People parading about their right to sexual exploration and self-pleasure, people crusading against "homosexuals" about their right to hate and oppress them, woman parading about their never-ending fight to be treated like a man (although I do agree women deserve more love by other people on earth today), men promiscuously having sex with woman, prostitutes, beating woman, etc. It's not a healthy thing, indeed, but it goes to the very core of one's identity (or, sense of identity)--the soul.

The spirit itself is perfect, indeed, as light cannot be stained, but the identity, in its quest to awaken the beast (in our quest to awaken these animals, these human bodies we are embodied in and to heighten their vibration and awareness), can indeed become confused with the beast. It is your job to psychologically pitchfork the beast and find out what the deeper cause is.
Does your body become "horny" or "sexually aroused" easily and want to enact it? Perhaps this lust is a confusion of the higher truth--your practically sexual, or, rather, intimate and loving relationship with the spiritual master. I myself find that although I am the Son of God, I also have times where I have masturbated unnecessarily because of a feeling in my pelvic region and body, my heart, that felt like sexual desire or need.

The truth is, however, that this is not so--the soul is located beneath the belly button in the pelvic region and when I feel it becoming aroused, it is truly my soul intimately receiving light in an almost sexual manner, as the lightbeam of God, of the Christ mind, of my husband Jesus Christ (there are other masters, Buddha, for example, so understand if you will) penetrates and illuminates me. The beast itself, whom I am incarnated in presently may interpret this according to its identity. When you no longer identify yourself with the beast, you can begin to see clearly who and what you are, and what is going on. This relationship is more intimate than human sex. It is the intimacy of me with my spiritual master, with a part of me, a part of us. As I see now the beast thought it was its own sexual desire, its own sexual experience, and so it felt compelled to outpicture and enact it, be it through lust, masturbation, pornography, and/or real sexual activity.

But the reality is that my soul was the one having intercourse--ME. My beast/body did not and does not need to. Furthermore I need not hate myself (my feminine aspect), as I see now that as I allow myself to be the bride of Christ in something most people would think "blasphemous" or "shameful" or some other strange assumption of their right to spiritual intimacy, I have no problem giving myself to the Christ as a wife to her husband, and so I don't need to hate my feminine aspect nor be disgusted, but I can be her, even if my human form's gender is male. I am not embarrassed nor ashamed.

Okay, bye, and much love--be more and make your choices.

[Ruth]

People with the same disorder enjoy eachothers company because they have the same mirage in what they see as reality. It's called religion Lindsay, for the same reasons. You really should go out and make some Gay friends.

[QUIC]

People with the same disorder enjoy eachothers company because they have the same mirage in what they see as reality.

I think someone else needs a glimse of "Reality".

[quaist]

I think Homosexuality is something you're more or less born into, and you can't decide whether you want to be it or not. This has imho nothing to do with religios beliefs.

[Mal !]

I think Homosexuality is something you're more or less born into, and you can't decide whether you want to be it or not. This has imho nothing to do with religios beliefs.

Nope that is a deception!

God made us male and female... no in-betweens. :sigh:

[quaist]

Nope that is a deception!

God made us male and female... no in-betweens. :sigh:

But: God made everything, right? Why are you sure that he didn't make homosexuality too? I don't think that's something humans created.

[cazz]

We are thoughts in the mind of God, everything is God, so humans can create using limitation, that is a possibility. Obviously in existence all that exists is possibility, and truly anything is possible, it's only a matter of repetition with stupid acts that people can create atrocities that break the flow and cause entropy

[stormrunner]

What is this about “choosing to be heterosexual or homosexual”? – Think instead of being right handed or left-handed. But, being left handed, always acting right-handed - as awkward and as uncomfortable as that might be at times. Maintained always in public and often, by so much repetition and practice, in private as well. What if being left-handed drew attention, derision, ridicule, exclusion, taunting, rejection, inequality - and unequal access to civil rights and privileges? What if you spent your life acting right handed such that even your best friends or your family or your coworkers would never suspect? Perhaps you’d even flaunt your practiced right-handed penmanship to bolster you right-handed subterfuge? What if you cried at night from the effort and energy and pain of the constant lying – such that you become confused as to who you are or what you had done to be born this way?

Suppose it meant that you were exclusively attracted to left handed people – OK, once in a while to a really hot right-handed person or someone who was ambidextrous – but if you saw a right-handed person walking down the street with a left handed person – you would find yourself focused in on the left-handed person.

Because society taught you that left-handedness was evil, sinful, immoral, corrupt, such that one of the worst epithets one could call another was, “hey you lefty’”. “Yeah, lefty, why don’t you go off and pee with your left hand, pervert”.

And if lefties would somehow be quicker to sense the subtle uncomfortableness and awkwardness of the masquerade, and through glances and innuendo acknowledge each other one to the other.

Or they could in some places meet late in the night at desolate and out of the way venues where few rightees, or at least few rightwing rightees, might be encountered. And there they would meet all the lefties – toasting to each other, glasses held high by proud left hands.

But then, being left-handed is so different from being homosexual.

Or is it?

[quaist]

Hey stormrunner, I think you're view on this is pretty interesting.
Because it is true that media, parents and society are teaching you, that the only "true" love is between man and woman. They don't really say homosexuality is wrong, but they don't talk about that at all, and that's even worse as just to say it's wrong. It's very important to talk with teens about things like that, because the opinion which the media wants to teach, can't be good for children. If not parents or other adults talk with them about it, they will get an opinion about it elsewhere. And I think that´s really a problem nowadays.

[PeanutButter]

Nope that is a deception!

God made us male and female... no in-betweens. :sigh:

[Emphasis mine] That is not entirely accurate.

[Warcraft3]

They don't really say homosexuality is wrong, but they don't talk about that at all, and that's even worse as just to say it's wrong.

:rofl:

How is it 'worse' then saying it is wrong?

[Warcraft3]

Odd, isn't it? how people who society widely considers loathsome and worthy of vitriolic hatred seem to have more psychological problems than average . . .

Byron

:ahem:

Spare me.....

I certainly do not see society as a whole being "loathsome" or showing "vitriolic hatred" towards homosexuals....

Most people I know really just dont care as long as homosexuals dont come onto to them...

From my observation of people who claim to be "born gay" (not all gays and lesbians claim this) I am not surprised they might have psychological problems....they have some traits that are greatly exaggerated and seem to be a bit "off" in many ways...

I believe that in many cases homosexuals are born with some kind of an abnormality making them attracted to the same sex, causing them to have some exaggerated characteristics, and probably contributing to have some kind of psychological problems

[Arthur]

If I may start by going back to Lindsey's original post, homosexual behaviour (which is what it is) goes back about as far as we have historical records, as far as I can tell. In parts of ancient Greece is was actually encouraged. So I guess the idea that SSHs (self-styled homosexuals) today are simply "in rebellion" - though it may be true for some individuals - doesn't hold too much water as a general explanation.

As to the self-loathing, I'm afraid that isn't up to much either. Again it may be true that some individuals are reacting to public opinion, but I have dealt with quite a few SSH men and women, many of whom were highly conflicted because their behaviour was incongruent in regard to their own moral values.

We might also consider the strangeness of the position that SSHs have, by definition, adopted - that who they have sexual encounters with (or who they would like to have sexual encounters with) is THE focus of their entire self-image.
Compare that with the drug addict, whose whole life focuses around where their next "fix" is coming from; the gambling addict, whose whole life focuses around actually gambling or finding the money to go gambling; or the alcoholic whose entire waking life is focused around where their next drink is coming from.

I am what I put in my veins (or up my nose)
I am what I win, or lose
I am what I drink
I am who I have sex with.

To get a better understanding of this point, the heterosexuals in this discussion might like to try to spend just one full day giving constant conscious consideration to your sexual preferences in everything you do.

In short, in my experience (and I live in a town which recently had the dubious distinction of being named "The town most homosexuals would like to go to to be married") homosexuality is indeed an addiction to sexual activity and prospers because - in very general terms - SSHs are extremely promiscuous, even when supposedly in an allegedly "stable relationship."
(It is also my experience that this promiscuity is even more common amongst men than amongst women - reflecting common views about the "meaning" of sexual activity for men and women in general. Which also supports that SSHs are not some kind of "race apart".)

As to whether SSHs bother anyone else, it is again my experience that quite a few of them will indeed try to push themselves on other people, even when - and sometimes because - those people are heterosexual.

Which is reflected in Quentin Crisp's famous comment to the effect that the tragedy for homosexual men is that they want a relationship with a "real" (i.e. heterosexual) man, but by definition, anyone who would have that kind of a relationship with an SSH clearly isn't a "real" man. (As far as I can tell this is why many SSHs make a big deal about having had sexual encounters with married men or women - as though marriage was somehow a guarantee of someone's "hetero" sexuality.)

It seems to me that the Christian position on this subject is quite clear and unambiguous as it is in any other situation - love the sinner but not the sin.

Best wishes

Arthur

[Cynic Sage]

Even hamster and apes exibit it. In alot of primates, its a way to prevent male/male and female/female competition. Its probably an accident of evolution that people can be socialized or have a predisposition towards same sex relationships. Or something which maybe humans no longer need, but our ancestors who were more great apish than us needed, like our appendix or tonsils.

Hamsters? I'd have to disagree. If we are speaking of the Syrian Hamster you will find that since reaching adulthood they live their entire lives alone and will fight with any other hamster or rodent that enters its territory (exception being mating season when hamsters of opposing gender secrete pheramones to lead them to each other). Good luck trying to get two males or females to mate.

[Ryokan]

Hamsters? I'd have to disagree. If we are speaking of the Syrian Hamster you will find that since reaching adulthood they live their entire lives alone and will fight with any other hamster or rodent that enters its territory (exception being mating season when hamsters of opposing gender secrete pheramones to lead them to each other). Good luck trying to get two males or females to mate.
Its not a matter of luck. Its been documented. Ape males are very territorial too, and I hope you are not denying that?

[Barry Desborough]

[QUOTE=Thomas2003
Humanism and popular psychology posits that man is plastic and has no constant nature, that he was derived from chaos and the lower forms of animals - his behavior is to be studied as you would any other animal. That anthropology is the key to man's psychology. Hence man in this view can be molded by whatever agency can control man. Education is held up as the highest expression of plastic man molding and the mind is viewed as a clean slate in which to write.

[/QUOTE]

You should read Steven Pinker's 'The Blank Slate', a critique of the notion that "man is plastic and has no constant nature."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/014027605X/qid=1132330161/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/203-9567769-5499954

The psychology you should be considering is evolutionary psychology. This is only one hypothesis, but there are some suggestions that the female relatives of homosexuals produce more children than average. (Corna et al. 2004 - See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB403.html ) If there is a genetic basis to homosexuality, this is a way in which such genetic predisposition may be preserved. It may be viewed as an evolutionarily stable strategy. If this is so, it has been with us virtually forever. It may also help explain the tendency for those pursuing the 'mainstream' reproductive strategy to denigrate homosexuality. It is indirect competition. Hence the religio-mythical justification, which would be after the fact. Remember, our emotional responses (if we have them) of distaste or disgust come before their rationalisations. Don't forget developmental factors, such as abnormal foetal exposure to androgens, but of course genetic and environmental factors are usually intimately linked.

[Barry Desborough]

Hi Lindsay. I was watching a TV documentary a couple of nights ago where they took a gay man from England to Love In Action - a ministry for those wanting to leave homosexuality behind. The guy was not a christian and in the end he left but seeing the struggle he was going thru' and his clear sense of shame and self loathing was very moving. Perhaps some do choose this path in life but for others it is obviously not as simple as choice like being a vegetarian or whatever. From a psychological point of view one might say that certain patterns of behaving become reinforced by repetition and relearning neural pathways is no easy thing. An interesting insight this guy had was that he felt he was searching for something good - the love he never had from the father who left him - but perhaps saw now that he had been looking in the wrong places. BTW the documentary quoted a figure of 400,000 people contact ex-gay ministries in the USA each year. If they are getting that much contact then clearly there are a lot of dissatisfied gay people around.

Yes, I saw that. The poor guy had a dreadful abusive upbinging. Most gay's don't, so he should not be viewed as representative. Anyway, he hated his gay lifestyle which was a promiscuous one. Perhaps he was looking for a stable loving relationship such as the ones a number of my gay friends and aquaintances enjoy. I think that if he was straight, he would have an easier, simpler life, but he would still have problems with relationships.

The Love in Action regime was straight out of the indoctrination and brainwashing textbooks. As you say, he left, but he did pick up from some of the individuals he got to know personally, and by thinking about his life for himself, a sense of self-worth which he took away with him. He did not become 'straight' but decided to stop being 'cheap'.

[Cynic Sage]

Its not a matter of luck. Its been documented. Ape males are very territorial too, and I hope you are not denying that?

But are you sure we're talking about Syrian Hamsters and not some other specie of hamster (like Russian-Dwarf or Chinese)?

[Ryokan]

But are you sure we're talking about Syrian Hamsters and not some other specie of hamster (like Russian-Dwarf or Chinese)?
Maybe. The point, i think, stands regardless.

[infide]

Yes, I saw that. The poor guy had a dreadful abusive upbinging. Most gay's don't, so he should not be viewed as representative.

I have found in my anecdotal experiance with those who struggle in this area that a very high percentage have some kind of traumatic abuse in their upbringing ( i would guess in the 80th percentile, maybe 85% ), often of a sexual nature. So, "most gay's don't" doesnt seem accurate at all, unless you are speaking of the severity of the abuse this particular person went through. Though, it is very hard to place judgements of "more severe" or "less severe" in terms of abuse. Some people who are abused horribly end up psychologically better off (resiliance, etc) than others who were abused merely verbally, for example. The human mind is a complex and mysterious thing.

peace,
jd

[Mark Little]

I have found in my anecdotal experiance with those who struggle in this area that a very high percentage have some kind of traumatic abuse in their upbringing ( i would guess in the 80th percentile, maybe 85% ), often of a sexual nature.Isn't fair to say that this also true of promiscious hetrosexuals?So, "most gay's don't" doesnt seem accurate at all, unless you are speaking of the severity of the abuse this particular person went through.Since you say that you have dealt with people who struggle in this area, what information do you have about those who have not struggled?

It would be nonsense to judge hetrosexual behavoir by those poor unfortunates who have been abused, so it seems unwise to generalise about homosexuals as well.

[GeminiQueen]

"Think of it like another disorder.. maybe an eating disorder, they convience theirself that the choices they make are right and good, and good for them.. In the end they never really can go back to where they used to be."

Homosexual individuals submit themselves to a major transformation once they acknowledge their sexuality; one, as you mentioned, is highly opposed by the majority of people in society today. I think there are individuals who claim to be homosexual but really aren't, perhaps it is a decision propelled by some other cause, or, like you mentioned, they possibly pursue this opposed track of sexuality for attention, however, there are individuals who are undeniably gay or undeniably lesbian. These are the people who claim that since they were young they've always known that they were (and would always be) attracted to the same sex. For these true homosexuals it is clear that this decision is not the result of seeking social attention or simply wanting to be different; it seems to be more of a biological/genetic factor. In this case it is not a disorder; that is a misleading connotation since disorder is "confusion, disarray, a disturbance of the normal physical or mental health of." Homosexuals are anything but confused; they are quite cognizant of their preferences and pursue them accordingly... just like we do. I believe that homosexuals should be entitled to whatever it is they want to, let it be marriage, love or raising children together. Who has the authority to deny someone of happiness? Especially when that happiness does anything but infringe on your own?

GeminiQueen

[Keepupthefire]

Exceedingly odd. Oh, I bet I know--vitriolic hatred doesn't actually cause any emotional harm on the recipient, and besides, those nasty perverts deserve it anyway. :ahem:

Though I must also salute Hamster for not expressing the hatred of homosexuals that I have seen some "Christians" :judge: display.


I realize this thread is an old thread but what do you mean by hatred of homosexuals. Examples I would like to see.

A bit about me though. I hate anything that is not what God intended for his creation. I don't hate a person for what they do, I hate what god hates an thats what he didn't intend for his creation. Kinda like adding something that was never intended and is harmful in someway we might not understand. But on faith must accept what we do not know from God. If you misunderstand me let me know I'll re-word it.

[Borky]

A bit about me though. I hate anything that is not what God intended for his creation. I don't hate a person for what they do, I hate what god hates an thats what he didn't intend for his creation.

If every song was played the same way, would everyone be happy?

[kawaika]

Sigh, I don't even know if I should post, but I guess I will...

I don't know if everyone was born as a homosexual or a heterosexual. I do know that when I was younger (10+ years ago) I was physically attracted to males. But I was also attracted to females. I never told anyone about this until recently. I never went to some doctor and received shock treatment or anything like that. All I know is that my sexual preference did change: from male and female to just female. Can everyone else's preference change? I don't really know. According to NARTH, yes. But I don't know.

[LindaK]

Nope that is a deception!

God made us male and female... no in-betweens. :sigh:

If this is the case how to you explain those who are born androgynous (hermaphrodite)?

I have no opinion of homosexuality, because I have not had a need to have such an opinion.

But I have wondered on occasion about one thing or another...for example, I thought it was odd that years ago a homosexual organization was barred from a St. Patrick's Day parade in NY because the word homosexual was on their banner. Here is what struck me odd - Part 1. The spokesman for the organization in his appeal (or appall) statement made comments to the effect...we are people just like everyone else, we put our pants on one leg at a time, we are not going to rub your nose in our preference. Part 2 - Then why have the word "homosexual" on your banner? Doesn't that speak ONLY of what you do “behind closed doors” (so to speak)? Are we to then have a group behind a banner that says "Women in pink hats who prefer Missionary Position" or "Dumbfounded for Doggie Style?"

Ok...a bit of an exaggeration and I hope I wasn't too graphic, but I just thought it odd. I am not in favor of denying jobs to someone who is homosexual or rioting against same...just curious about some things.

I wonder at my reaction if one of my children or nieces or nephews announced that he/she was homosexual…I would love them…I know that.

[GeminiQueen]

Good lord. Keepupthefire- you don't make any sense. If God is the ultimate creator like you credit him to be, he most definitely cannot despise the lifestyle of homosexuals since he obviously allowed room within his creation for it to exist. The creator is ultimately what a creator would be: in their making and producing they are cognizant of each and every element used or could be, therefore he is knowledgeable of homosexual relations and if so then he purposedly allowed for them to occur... here's an idea: let homosexuals be homosexuals, let heterosexuals be heterosexuals, let asexuals be asexuals. Instead of trying to JUDGE and SCRUTINIZE other lifestyles, try to enjoy your own if that's possible. Stop discriminating, open your mind for a chance and let people live the lives they want too, what is it to you anyway? How is a homosexual relationship going to harm you? Also, if it doesn't RELATE to you, don't bother with it. I'm so tired of these people being judged against, let them be. They didn't do anything to you, probably don't even know who you are.

[Keepupthefire]

[QUOTE=GeminiQueen]Good lord. Keepupthefire- you don't make any sense. If God is the ultimate creator like you credit him to be, he most definitely cannot despise the lifestyle of homosexuals since he obviously allowed room within his creation for it to exist. The creator is ultimately what a creator would be: in their making and producing they are cognizant of each and every element used or could be, therefore he is knowledgeable of homosexual relations and if so then he purposedly allowed for them to occur... here's an idea: let homosexuals be homosexuals, let heterosexuals be heterosexuals, let asexuals be asexuals. Instead of trying to JUDGE and SCRUTINIZE other lifestyles, try to enjoy your own if that's possible. Stop discriminating, open your mind for a chance and let people live the lives they want too, what is it to you anyway? How is a homosexual relationship going to harm you? Also, if it doesn't RELATE to you, don't bother with it. I'm so tired of these people being judged against, let them be. They didn't do anything to you, probably don't even know who you are.[/QUOTE

What was the Threads title? I can post my views right?

Yes God is the ultimate creator. Did God create murders? No! Did God create rebellious humanity? No. But he created them with the potential to live outside his intentions for them, or in it. They have free-will, and without that it's not love.

I believe that was my point an it made sense. Homosexuality is outside of what God had in mind. Therefore, it was not what he intended. He did not purposfully allow humanity to sin an then call it an abomination. Just because someone he created doesn't live up to what he wants doesn't make God liable for their deviation.

About the judgment accusation, When I confront someone with their sins I don't come with condemnation, I come with what God says. I show them what God says. I just happen to be in agreement with God because of what he says. We seem to define judgement differently. By your definition you would have to remain indifferent to choices whether bad or good. You would not be able to say what is bad or what is good for that would be to discriminate between two opposing views or choices. We have laws that discriminate against gambling, prostitution, an private drug use.It is people of your views that give the word discriminate a bad connotation.

And this is why government regulates the institution of marriage yes discrimination which is actually not a bad word.

Marriage is not merely a personal, private act. Children are part of marriage, and as such, the greater society is affected. It is neither wise nor desirable to deregulate marriage because, in so doing, our society would indeed suffer. No, marriage is a public good, and it is precisely one of the areas in which the government should and must continue to regulate in order to protect the public good.

In their book, The Case for Marriage, Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher write: "Marriage is not merely a private taste or a private relation; it is an important public good. As marriage weakens, the costs are borne not only by individual children or families but by all of us taxpayers, citizens, and neighbors. We all incur the costs of higher crime, welfare, education and healthcare expenditures, and in reduced security for our own marriage investments. Simply as a matter of public health alone, to take just one public consequence of marriage's decline, a new campaign to reduce marriage failure is as important as the campaign to reduce smoking.,"

Listen to the story of Jackii Edwards who summarized her experience of being raised by a lesbian mother: "We constantly wonder if we will eventually become gay. There is humiliation when other kids see our parents kissing a same-sex lover in front of us. Trust me, it's hard on the children, no matter how much they love their gay parent. The homosexual community may never admit it, but the damage stemming from their actions can be profound."

Sanctioning same-sex marriage would have a profound destabilizing effect on the health, welfare, education, and morals of the country. We should not play Russian roulette with marriage. We must draw a line in the sand and preserve marriage once and for all between one man and one woman.

Actually I personnally know many homosexuals, bisexuals, one transexual. I lived with a bisexual as well. Most where molested, raped(by men and women), or their fathers where inattentive to them an where regarded as undeserving of their love.

If you have children do you tell them right from wrong, don't touch, if you do your being inconsistent with your ideology.

[Arthur]

Hi Keepupthefire

Good answer, if I may say so.

The notion that self-styled homosexuals (SSHs) live and work in some kind of vacuum so that their choices and actions cannot affect anyone else is quite frankly so self-evidently untrue I am forced to wonder why any intelligent person would offer it as a serious argument.

In the UK, just recently, the Lord Chancellor issued an instruction to all judges that they must not use the word "homosexual" any longer, because it might offend some homosexuals! Instead they MUST be addressed as "gays and lesbians".
Is that an example of how SSHs keep to themselves and don't affect anyone else.

Or how about the ongoing demand, in a number of countries, that SSHs should be allowed to "marry".
Is trying to redefine the legal definition of the estate and purpose of "marriage" an example of how SSHs keep to themselves and don't impose their sexual choices on anyone else?

I don't think so.

What several participants in this discussion seem to ignore, or simply never knew, is that many homosexuals are very keen to impose themselves on the rest of society. Not least because they believe, to quote the film maker Derek Jarman (who died of homosexually transmitted AIDS) - All men are naturally homosexual, but most of them are afraid to face it!

I've lived virtually all of my life in a town where the per capita incidence of homosexuals is generally recognised as being way above average for the country as a whole.
(No, there's nothing unusual in the drinking water, it's just that so many SSHs have moved here from all over the UK.)
And from many years of personal experience and observations the one thing I can promise you without a shadow of a doubt is that whilst many SSHs are indeed content to limit the expression of their chosen sexuality to appropriate situations, there are also plenty of "predatory" SSHs who, like other kinds of addicts, are keen to involve everyone else in their addictive behaviour - from "in your face" behaviour in public through to attempted seduction and outright rape.

Finally, may I briefly touch on the subject of "natural" behaviour.

Firstly, as has been said before, what a cheetah, a chimpanzee or a grass snake does is indeed natural - for a cheetah, a chimpanzee or a grass snake, respectively. So the argument that a few animals have been witnessed engaging in what appear - to the observer - to be homosexual acts is entirely invalid as a reflection on homosexual behaviour in human since humans aren't cheetahs, chimps, snakes or any other kind of "animal". This argument is pure anthropomorphisation, not valid scientific discussion.

Secondly, if one is going to use the "God created homosexuality" argument then one should at least be consistent - even at the expense of destroying the argument.

That is to say, whilst Genesis says that God created everything, it also says that Adam and Eve's choice to experience the "fruit" of the "tree of knowledge" lead to an event commonly referred to as "The Fall".
In short, before The Fall the world and everything in it was perfect, afterwards it was no longer perfect.
One might reasonably argue, then, that before The Fall our genes would have been copied perfectly in every newly created child. There would have been no losses of genetic material and no mutations. After the The Fall, however, perfect copying was, and is regularly interspersed with coding errors of one kind or another which are certainly NOT of God's making.

So even if someone could produce genuine evidence that homosexual behaviour has a genetic basis (and to date, AFAIK, what little evidence there is depends entirely on statistical possibilities, not hard and fast physiological evidence) then it still wouldn't demonstrate that homosexual behaviour has been ordained by God.

Regards

Arthur

[Wisdomlover]

I think that God makes people the way he makes them. I think that some maybe born gay and some others may have circumstances that happened to them, that may make them prefer a homosexual relationship. My thoughts are maybe the "circumstances theory" of mine is perhaps stemed from being sexually abused.

[Keepupthefire]

Hi Keepupthefire

Good answer, if I may say so.

The notion that self-styled homosexuals (SSHs) live and work in some kind of vacuum so that their choices and actions cannot affect anyone else is quite frankly so self-evidently untrue I am forced to wonder why any intelligent person would offer it as a serious argument.

In the UK, just recently, the Lord Chancellor issued an instruction to all judges that they must not use the word "homosexual" any longer, because it might offend some homosexuals! Instead they MUST be addressed as "gays and lesbians".
Is that an example of how SSHs keep to themselves and don't affect anyone else.

Or how about the ongoing demand, in a number of countries, that SSHs should be allowed to "marry".
Is trying to redefine the legal definition of the estate and purpose of "marriage" an example of how SSHs keep to themselves and don't impose their sexual choices on anyone else?

I don't think so.

What several participants in this discussion seem to ignore, or simply never knew, is that many homosexuals are very keen to impose themselves on the rest of society. Not least because they believe, to quote the film maker Derek Jarman (who died of homosexually transmitted AIDS) - All men are naturally homosexual, but most of them are afraid to face it!

I've lived virtually all of my life in a town where the per capita incidence of homosexuals is generally recognised as being way above average for the country as a whole.
(No, there's nothing unusual in the drinking water, it's just that so many SSHs have moved here from all over the UK.)
And from many years of personal experience and observations the one thing I can promise you without a shadow of a doubt is that whilst many SSHs are indeed content to limit the expression of their chosen sexuality to appropriate situations, there are also plenty of "predatory" SSHs who, like other kinds of addicts, are keen to involve everyone else in their addictive behaviour - from "in your face" behaviour in public through to attempted seduction and outright rape.

Finally, may I briefly touch on the subject of "natural" behaviour.

Firstly, as has been said before, what a cheetah, a chimpanzee or a grass snake does is indeed natural - for a cheetah, a chimpanzee or a grass snake, respectively. So the argument that a few animals have been witnessed engaging in what appear - to the observer - to be homosexual acts is entirely invalid as a reflection on homosexual behaviour in human since humans aren't cheetahs, chimps, snakes or any other kind of "animal". This argument is pure anthropomorphisation, not valid scientific discussion.

Secondly, if one is going to use the "God created homosexuality" argument then one should at least be consistent - even at the expense of destroying the argument.

That is to say, whilst Genesis says that God created everything, it also says that Adam and Eve's choice to experience the "fruit" of the "tree of knowledge" lead to an event commonly referred to as "The Fall".
In short, before The Fall the world and everything in it was perfect, afterwards it was no longer perfect.
One might reasonably argue, then, that before The Fall our genes would have been copied perfectly in every newly created child. There would have been no losses of genetic material and no mutations. After the The Fall, however, perfect copying was, and is regularly interspersed with coding errors of one kind or another which are certainly NOT of God's making.

So even if someone could produce genuine evidence that homosexual behaviour has a genetic basis (and to date, AFAIK, what little evidence there is depends entirely on statistical possibilities, not hard and fast physiological evidence) then it still wouldn't demonstrate that homosexual behaviour has been ordained by God.

Regards

Arthur


Hello Arthur,

I thank you for your encouraging words. They are a blessing. Are you a Christian? I see no Icon.

I see that the UK as well has the PC(politically correct) bug.

Good day,

Shawn

[Keepupthefire]

I think that God makes people the way he makes them. I think that some maybe born gay and some others may have circumstances that happened to them, that may make them prefer a homosexual relationship. My thoughts are maybe the "circumstances theory" of mine is perhaps stemed from being sexually abused.
Have you sought healing for the abuse?

[stormrunner]

Hi Keepupthefire

Good answer, if I may say so.

The notion that self-styled homosexuals (SSHs) live and work in some kind of vacuum so that their choices and actions cannot affect anyone else is quite frankly so self-evidently untrue I am forced to wonder why any intelligent person would offer it as a serious argument.

In the UK, just recently, the Lord Chancellor issued an instruction to all judges that they must not use the word "homosexual" any longer, because it might offend some homosexuals! Instead they MUST be addressed as "gays and lesbians".
Is that an example of how SSHs keep to themselves and don't affect anyone else.

Or how about the ongoing demand, in a number of countries, that SSHs should be allowed to "marry".
Is trying to redefine the legal definition of the estate and purpose of "marriage" an example of how SSHs keep to themselves and don't impose their sexual choices on anyone else?

I don't think so.

What several participants in this discussion seem to ignore, or simply never knew, is that many homosexuals are very keen to impose themselves on the rest of society. Not least because they believe, to quote the film maker Derek Jarman (who died of homosexually transmitted AIDS) - All men are naturally homosexual, but most of them are afraid to face it!

I've lived virtually all of my life in a town where the per capita incidence of homosexuals is generally recognised as being way above average for the country as a whole.
(No, there's nothing unusual in the drinking water, it's just that so many SSHs have moved here from all over the UK.)
And from many years of personal experience and observations the one thing I can promise you without a shadow of a doubt is that whilst many SSHs are indeed content to limit the expression of their chosen sexuality to appropriate situations, there are also plenty of "predatory" SSHs who, like other kinds of addicts, are keen to involve everyone else in their addictive behaviour - from "in your face" behaviour in public through to attempted seduction and outright rape.

Finally, may I briefly touch on the subject of "natural" behaviour.

Firstly, as has been said before, what a cheetah, a chimpanzee or a grass snake does is indeed natural - for a cheetah, a chimpanzee or a grass snake, respectively. So the argument that a few animals have been witnessed engaging in what appear - to the observer - to be homosexual acts is entirely invalid as a reflection on homosexual behaviour in human since humans aren't cheetahs, chimps, snakes or any other kind of "animal". This argument is pure anthropomorphisation, not valid scientific discussion.

Secondly, if one is going to use the "God created homosexuality" argument then one should at least be consistent - even at the expense of destroying the argument.

That is to say, whilst Genesis says that God created everything, it also says that Adam and Eve's choice to experience the "fruit" of the "tree of knowledge" lead to an event commonly referred to as "The Fall".
In short, before The Fall the world and everything in it was perfect, afterwards it was no longer perfect.
One might reasonably argue, then, that before The Fall our genes would have been copied perfectly in every newly created child. There would have been no losses of genetic material and no mutations. After the The Fall, however, perfect copying was, and is regularly interspersed with coding errors of one kind or another which are certainly NOT of God's making.

So even if someone could produce genuine evidence that homosexual behaviour has a genetic basis (and to date, AFAIK, what little evidence there is depends entirely on statistical possibilities, not hard and fast physiological evidence) then it still wouldn't demonstrate that homosexual behaviour has been ordained by God.

Regards

Arthur
Your comments are not supported by Biblical research and certainly are not supported by current science.

In fact the main theme of Jesus was to love your neighbor as yourself and not to judge others as judgment is for God. Jesus was accepting and loving and expressed humility.

Homosexuality is not inherently evil or a sin – and it is irresponsive to equate it to such immoral behavior as theft, murder, rape, or similar acts of man that hurt other people. Unfortunately gays have been so marginalized, so pushed into the shadows by homophobes and religious zealots and extreme fundamentalists that few are visible in our communities – much like an ice berg, the larger part in below the surface. And I wonder that those who are so aggravated and vociferous against gays have ever stopped to think what anxiety and pain they have inflected on those who are their family, neighbors, and colleagues. All in the name of religion.

Additionally, our common history over the centuries has shown time and time again this dark theme in human nature to use man made belief systems to demonize others who are different for any number of reasons. This has led to countless atrocities, pain, prejudice, violence, bias, and intolerance towards individuals, who while basically no more good or evil then they, are excluded from full and open participation in society.

It is no accident that there is a boundary where truth grapples with ignorance. It happens often when new science or realization becomes so dominate that it intrudes on older religious of societal belief. Certainly readers here are familiar with the conflicts that occurred as realizations from astronomy or archeology or paleontology seemed to conflict with some religious belief system of the time.

There are ongoing conversations in many organized religions and societies today that are trying to deal with our new understanding of homosexuality. And as peoples become more educated and enlightened there is often a more tolerant and accepting attitude taken.

As for Christianity and the Bible, I would remind the readers that there is a current and active discussion in theological circles about the very few verses and complete lack of specific words from Jesus on this subject. And those who are trying to understand the culture and dynamics of the place and time of Jesus, are attempting to see in context how Jesus taught us to deal with loving monogamous committed adult gay relationships.

It doesn’t take science or religion for me to come to my conclusion. For I had that from my childhood Bible teaching and my sense of Jesus and his teaching of love and kindness and acceptance. And those who would deny a gay person or a gay couple, who are moral and good in their lives, from full welcome into their family, church, community – well, that is a judgment that God will exact.

[GeminiQueen]

Don't worry, I haven't left yet. Stormrunner, you're getting ahead of me : )

[zuqiu85]

In fact the main theme of Jesus was to love your neighbor as yourself and not to judge others as judgment is for God. Jesus was accepting and loving and expressed humility.

I would have to disagree. This is an oversimplification of Jesus's ministry and teachings. Jesus taught about the kingdom of heaven as a wake-up call to believers (he left the missionary work to the apostles), not a bunch of wishy-washy feel-good moral lessons. Just because Jesus was loving and accepting to the prostitute in John 8 doesn't mean he condoned her behavior. Likewise, Christians can be loving and accepting without approving of homosexual lifestyles.

As for Christianity and the Bible, I would remind the readers that there is a current and active discussion in theological circles about the very few verses and complete lack of specific words from Jesus on this subject. And those who are trying to understand the culture and dynamics of the place and time of Jesus, are attempting to see in context how Jesus taught us to deal with loving monogamous committed adult gay relationships.

This is not very convincing. Some might use the lack of specific words from Jesus as an indication that there was no need for him to bring up the subject because people already agreed with the fact that homosexual behavior is wrong. Since you can use this argument both ways, this is not useful as evidence.

It is no accident that there is a boundary where truth grapples with ignorance. It happens often when new science or realization becomes so dominate that it intrudes on older religious of societal belief. Certainly readers here are familiar with the conflicts that occurred as realizations from astronomy or archeology or paleontology seemed to conflict with some religious belief system of the time.

There are probably many people who would disagree with this statement. I would imagine that many of the science and apologetics forums deal with this issue in greater depth.


Here are some of my own opinions:

Maybe people can be born with a certain sexual orientation, but that doesn't make it right! Of course, if you are arguing from the viewpoint that there is no God (and hence no real standard for morality), then of course homosexuality is OK! There is no way for a Christian to say that homosexual behavior is justified unless you choose to ignore the many verses (in the Old and the New Testament) speaking out against it.

I believe that it is not too unreasonable to suggest that people can develop homosexual tendencies over time. We can look at the recent scandal in the Catholic church. Were those priests born pedophiles, or did they become that way (as some suggest) because they are required to be (but unable to handle the struggles of being) celibate? Likewise, a heterosexual can, over the course of time, develop the habit of looking at pornography and have it become an addiction that controls and destroys their life. All these simply fall under the category of "sexual immorality", as described in the Bible. Everyone is susceptible to it; no one is immune. Homosexuality is only one of many sins, and it strikes me that some Christians would put a disproportionate amount of energy into "fighting" homosexuality. The job of the Christian is to spread the Gospel, not to create an ideal "Christian" society on Earth.

[stormrunner]

Perhaps at some future Judgment Day, we will be called on to answer for our actions and perhaps then we will not be able to justify those actions as being the way we were taught or told – the clear message of unconditional love and non-judgmental behavior may overrule. Perhaps the ability God gave humans to independently think, reason, and question, is both a way we are related to God; and the use of that gift, the criteria on which we will be judged.

We are privy to the lessons of history and to the evolution of civilizations – and the lessons we might learn about how peoples have been misled by religious zealots and fundamentalists are many. In a lifetime in America we have witnessed substantial change in attitudes about black Americans, about women, and about the mentally ill. And, much earlier in time, issues such as whether the Earth is flat, whether the Earth is the center of the universe, and whether scientifically proven evolution is to even be considered, have been disputed – against the rhetoric and beliefs of fundamentalists.

The Bible is not the exclusive property of fundamentalists – and their interpretation is not necessarily the interpretation God intended. And when fundamentalists seize on a few scattered somewhat ambiguous verses out of context and possibly out of character of the overriding message of Jesus, then this is particularly suspect.

Scientific study accepts that perhaps five percent of the population – or one out of twenty – is exclusively homosexual. These people have been with us though this journey of civilization. They are our brothers and sisters, our children, our friends, neighbors, colleagues and acquaintances – often without us even knowing. This large population is subject to bias, discrimination, and prejudice, at least, and violence at worst. And as science now accepts, these people did not choose their sexual orientation any more than they did their other characteristics of chance – these are the varieties and variations that God created.
After slavery was abolished, most people came to realize how bad it had been. As women were given equality with men, most people came to realize how bad it had been. As mentally ill were treated humanely, most people came to realize how bad it had been. But the heroes to me were those who saw the evil when it was in place and took a stand against it then. Those are the ones in favor in my eyes and I would imagine in God’s. I think there will be a time in the future when two adults in a loving committed relationship will be celebrated whether that be a traditional husband-wife or a same sex couple. Enlightened peoples, enlightened countries, and in America, enlightened states and religions, are today seeing the truth to this.

From many American Protestant pulpits exhortations justifying slavery, deriding the equality of women, condemning interracial marriage – have been a mainstay until community good sense prevailed. And today many American pulpits decry homosexuality.

I will include in the following post a theological approach for those who like to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[stormrunner]

As an independent thinker, and as someone who questions that homosexuality is a sin, and as someone who sees the condemnation of homosexuals by fundamentalists as a conflict with my inner sense of God’s message, I have turned to the Bible to look at what it says on the matter. The following is extracted from Internet research but is largely attributed to the contribution of Dr. Rembert S. Truluck - Doctor of Theology from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 1968. Southern Baptist Pastor from 1953 to 1973, Professor of Religion at Baptist College of Charleston, SC, 1973-1981.

===============================================================
Genesis 19:5:

"Bring them out to us that we may know them."

"Know" simply means know. No hint at homosexuality exists in the original Hebrew. No later Bible references to Sodom ever mention homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. Many modern translations add words to the text to create the lie that the people of Sodom were homosexual.

"SODOMY" is not a biblical word. Laws against sodomy not only violate the Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state; they also use an incorrect and wrongly translated term for the laws. A "Sodomite" in the Bible is simply a person who lives in Sodom, which included Lot and his family. The term "sodomite" in the King James Version of Deuteronomy 23:17 and I Kings 14:24 is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew word for "temple prostitute." (See the recent book by Mark D. Jordan: The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology. University of Chicago Press, 1997.)

The average person assumes that the Bible clearly condemns male-to-male sexual intercourse as "sodomy" and that the city of Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, which is seen as the worst of all sins in the Bible. These assumptions are based on no evidence at all in the Bible.

No Jewish scholars before the first Christian century taught that the sin of Sodom was sexual. None of the biblical references to Sodom mention sexual sins but view Sodom as an example of injustice, lack of hospitality to strangers, idolatry and as a symbol for desolation and destruction. See Deuteronomy 29:22-28; 32:32; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Jeremiah 49:18; 50:41; Isaiah 13:19-22 and Matthew 10:14-15. In Jude 7, the term "strange flesh" is Greek hetero sarkos ("different flesh" and from which the word "heterosexual" comes) and refers to foreign idols or people. It is not homo ("the same") flesh or people. Sarkos is never used in the New Testament as a word for "sex."

The word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is Hebrew YADA. It is used 943 times in the Old Testament to "know" God, good and evil, the truth, the law, people, places, things, etc. It is a very flexible word, as are many Hebrew words. In Genesis 19:5, the word was used to express the request of the people of Sodom that Lot should bring out the strangers in his house so that they could know who they were. Sodom was a tiny fortress in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it protected. Lot himself was an alien in their midst.

Lot's strange response to the request was to offer his young daughters to the men, an offer that seems to me to be far more reprehensible than any problem of sexual orientation. If the men were homosexual, why did Lot offer to give them his daughters? These hostile and violent people were heterosexual, and homosexual orientation had nothing to do with the incident.

Special note on YADA: The Hebrew word YADA "to know" is never used in the Old Testament to mean "to have sex with". People have been conditioned to think that "to know someone biblically,” means to have sex. The use of YADA in Genesis 4:1-2 to say that Adam knew Eve and she conceived and gave birth to Cain is followed by saying that later she gave birth to his brother Abel without any reference to YADA. Why? Simply because YADA does not mean to have sex. It is a general term that describes many kinds of intimate relationships. Studies of all of the uses of YADA in the Old conclude that it never means what we mean by sexual intercourse. Just substitute a common slang expression for sexual intercourse instead of the word "know" in Genesis 4:1 and you will see how inappropriate the idea is. The Old Testament Hebrew writers never thought or wrote in those terms. The Bible never gives any details about sexual acts. The only clear Hebrew term for sexual acts is "to lie with," which is left without any further explanation.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN SODOM?

To twist the story to say what it does not say is to miss what it does say. The story does not deal with sexual orientation or with homosexuality and has no bearing at all on the issue of God's acceptance or rejection of Gays and Lesbians. The story of Sodom clearly teaches that evil and violent people who attack aliens and strangers whom they do not know or understand receive God's quick and terrible punishment.

The purpose of the story is to show that misunderstood, strange, or feared minorities in any community are in danger from violence by the majority when that majority is ignorant, ungodly, selfish and afraid. The real message of Sodom is backwards from the claims of homophobic preachers and teachers. The Gay and Lesbian minority in our society today is more like the guests in Lot's house who were protected behind closed doors ("in the closet") than like the frightened mindless mob that wanted to expose, humiliate and destroy people that they did not "know" and control.

Set the record straight! Genesis 19 is about the fear (like homophobia) and anger of a mob (like many misguided religious fanatics) directed against a small group of isolated strangers (like Gays and Lesbians today) in their midst. Sexual orientation is not the issue here or anywhere else in the Bible.

Read also the strange story in Judges 19:1-30 of the Levite in Gibeah, which was patterned after the story of Lot and the angels in Genesis 19. Jewish teachers before the time of Christ never saw either of these stories as having any connection with homosexuality or sexual orientation. Neither should we.

Leviticus 18:22:

"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:

"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the Baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship.

Because these two verses in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) have been used more than any other Bible texts to condemn and reject gay and lesbian people, the following material is given to help you think objectively about traditional abusive use of the Bible regarding homosexuals.

The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is obviously a hypocritical selective use of the Bible against gays and lesbians. Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an "abomination." Leviticus 20:25 demands that "you are to make a distinction between the clean and unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean." You can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others.

Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing. Nobody today who claims to be a Christian tries to keep these laws, and few people even know about them! Why do you think that most people don't know about them?

Read Leviticus 23 to see the detailed regulations concerning "complete rest" on the Sabbath day and demands of animal sacrifices to be carried out according to exact instructions. Leviticus 18:19 forbids a husband from having sex with his wife during her menstrual period. Leviticus 19:19 forbids mixed breeding of various kinds of cattle, sowing various kinds of seeds in your field or wearing "a garment made from two kinds of material mixed together." Leviticus 19:27 demands that "you shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard." The next verse forbids "tattoo marks on yourself." Most people do not even know that these laws are in the Bible and are demanded equally with all the others.

Why don't fundamentalists organize protests and picket seafood restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores, barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell suits and dresses made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials? All of these products and services are "abominations" in Leviticus. When have you heard a preacher condemn the demonic abomination of garments that are made of mixed fabrics?

The warning is given in Leviticus 26:14-16 that "If you do not obey me and do not carry out all of these commandments, if instead, you reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances so as not to carry out all my commandments ...I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up." The list of punishments and terrors that will come from not keeping all of the commandments continues through many verses.

Read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5 about hypocrites who judge others. "Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves... Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ...You hypocrite!"

If you have been led to misuse Leviticus and other parts of the Bible in order to condemn and hate and reject people, you are on the wrong path. Jesus quoted only one passage from Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (19:18). Jesus used Leviticus to teach love. Many false teachers use Leviticus and other writings to condemn, humiliate and destroy. I know which approach seems truly Christian to me. Jesus never condemned homosexuals or even mentioned anything that could be taken as a reference to sexual orientation.

Any charge against Gays and Lesbians based on the life and teachings of Jesus has to be dismissed for a lack of evidence!

The use of Leviticus to judge and condemn anyone today is ludicrous and absurd in the light of the total content of the book. To call the content of the Book of Leviticus the "word of God" and try to enforce any part of it today is without support in the teachings of Jesus and in the letters of Paul.

As I have exceeded the word length - I will conclude on the next message.

Back to back posts are not permitted. Please review the Campus Decorum (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_decorum_spamming) The maximum post length is 24K characters not including quoted material. Do not use multiple posts to circumvent this restriction. Additionally, please allow the other person to respond to your post before making additional substantive posts and points directed towards that same person (i.e. back-to-back responses to a single post are not allowed.

[stormrunner]

(continuation from previous post)

Jesus in Mark 7:18-23 chided his disciples for their lack of spiritual understanding. The religious leaders had condemned Jesus and his disciples because they did not wash and eat according to the Law. Jesus said, "Are you too so uncomprehending? Don't you see that whatever goes into your mouth from the outside cannot defile you; because it does not go into your heart, but into your stomach, and is eliminated? (Thus Jesus declared all foods clean."). And Jesus added, "That which proceeds from within you, out of your heart, defiles you. Evil thoughts, abusive sex acts, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting, wickedness, deceit, not caring, envy, slander, arrogance and foolishness: all of these evil things proceed from within and defile you."

Paul also rejected the absolute commands of Leviticus in Colossians 2:8-23, where he said, "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 'Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!' (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using) in accordance with human commandments and teachings? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against human indulgence." (2:20-23). Paul declared in 2:14 that Jesus has "canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us which was hostile to us; and Jesus has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

Many people have answered the argument that most of the "abominations" in Leviticus referred to food by saying that the people back then knew that pork was unhealthy, and that is why pigs were declared to be unclean. If you follow that logic, you would declare anything that is unhealthy to be an "abomination." We know that cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, fat food and many other things are unhealthy; so why are they not also called "abominations" and condemned by the rabid Bible literalists with protests and pickets against cigarette machines, all liquor stores and bars, all fast food outlets, and any store that sells anything that is unhealthy? The reason is simple. The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject anyone is impossible to justify in the light of the facts.

The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is absurd and makes literal legalistic bible based religion look ridiculous.

Romans 1:26-27:

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Note: All of this refers to idolatrous religious practices that were common in the time of Paul.

Taking anything that Paul said out its context is like trying to drive a car blindfolded. You don't know where you are, where you have been, where you are going, or who you just ran over and killed!

Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said. As 2 Peter 3:16-18 pointed out, we have to be on guard against using Paul's writings in unhealthy and destructive ways.

The theme of the first 3 chapters of Romans is expressed in 1:16: "The gospel is the power of God for spiritual freedom (salvation) for all who believe." Paul showed that all people equally need and can have Jesus in their lives. Paul's gospel is inclusive, as expressed in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Romans 1:26-27 is part of Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals. Read all of Romans 1:18 to 2:4 for the context of the verses.

Romans 1:26-27 contains some words used only here by Paul. Familiar words are used here in unusual ways. The passage is very difficult to translate. The argument is directed against some form of idolatry that would have been known to Paul's readers. To us, 2,000 years later and in a totally different culture, the argument is vague and indirect.

Verse 25 is clearly a denunciation of idol worship, "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." Paul at no point in his writing dealt with same-sex orientation or the expression of love and affection between two people of the same sex who love each other.

Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, the second largest city in the empire and the crossroads of world trade and culture. Pausanius observed at about the same time as Paul that there were over 1,000 religions in Corinth. The most prominent were the fertility cult of Aphrodite, worship of Apollo, and the Delphi Oracle, which was across the bay from Corinth. Paul's readers would have been aware of the religious climate from which he wrote Romans and would have understood Paul a lot better than we do.

The word "passions" in 1:26 is the same word used to speak of the suffering and death of Jesus in Acts 1:3 and does not mean what we mean by "passion" today. Eros is the Greek word for romantic love, but eros is never used even once in the New Testament. "Passions" in 1:26 probably refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.

We do not know the meaning of "burn" in 1:27, because Paul never used this particular word anywhere else, and it's origin is uncertain. The term "against nature" is also strange here, since exactly the same term is used by Paul in Romans 11:21-24 to speak of God acting "against nature" by including the Gentiles with the Jews in the family of God. "Against nature" was used to speak of something that was not done in the usual way, but did not necessarily mean that something "against nature" was evil, since God also "acted against nature."

One more word needs special attention. "Committing indecent acts" in 1:27 is translated by King James Version as "working that which is unseemly." Phillips goes far beyond the evidence and renders it as "Shameful horrors!" The Greek word is askemosunen and is formed of the word for "outer appearance" plus the negative particle. It speaks of the inner or hidden part or parts of the individual that are not ordinarily seen or known in public. "Indecent" in 1 Corinthians 12:23 referred to the parts of the body that remain hidden but are necessary and receive honor. 1 Corinthians 13:5 used the word to say that love does not behave "indecently."

This word for "indecency" was used to translate Deuteronomy 24:1 into Greek to say that a man could divorce his wife if he "found some indecency in her." The religious teachers argued endlessly about what "some indecency" meant. Some said it was anything that displeased the husband. Others were more strict and said it could only refer to adultery. In Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus commented on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but he did not define the term.

Paul was certainly aware of the variety of ways that the teachers interpreted the word "indecency," and he used it in a variety of ways himself. To read into "indecent acts" a whole world of homosexual ideas is to abandon the realities of objective academic study and to embark on useless and damaging speculation that cannot be supported by the meaning of the word or by Paul's use of it elsewhere.

If Paul had intended to condemn homosexuals as the worst of all sinners, he certainly had the language skills to do a clearer job of it than emerges from Romans 1:26-27. The fact is that Paul nowhere condemned or mentioned romantic love and sexual relations between people of the same sex who love each other. Paul never commented on sexual orientation. As in the rest of the Bible, Paul nowhere even hinted that Lesbians and Gay men can or should change their sexual orientation.

SPECIAL NOTE on Romans 1:31, where the King James Version translated the Greek word astorgous as "without natural affection." This is one of the characteristics of people "with a reprobate mind" (KJV of 1:28). The word for "reprobate" is more recently translated as "depraved" or "perverted" in order more neatly to fit the sexualizing of everything possible in the list. The literal meaning of "reprobate" (Greek dokimon) is "to fail to measure up" or "to fail to meet the test" and simply means that the list of things that follows is the result of a mind that has abandoned God. The word astorgous, "without natural affection," is used only here and in 2 Timothy 3:3. It has nothing at all to do with homosexuality or with sex. It is the Greek word for "family love" or "family ties" with the negative prefix. It refers to people who despise and reject their family members. Rather than being directed at homosexuals, it is a term that is directed at people who despise and reject their own homosexual children and brothers and sisters! Modern translators, knowing this, usually render the word as "unloving," and the implication of some sort of "unnatural" or "perverted" affection is removed. Many more translation corrections are needed elsewhere!

The use of Romans 1:26-27 against homosexuals turns out to be a blunt instrument to batter and wound people who were not intended in the original text. Paul clearly taught throughout Romans, Galatians and his other letters that God's freely given and all-inclusive love is for every person on earth. Notice what Paul said about judging others in Romans 2:1: "Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

I Corinthians 6:9:

"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."
Note: The Greek words translated "effeminate" and "homosexual" do not mean effeminate or homosexual!

I Timothy 1:9-10:

"Law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and fornicators and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound (healthy) teaching."
Note: The Greek word translated "homosexual" does not mean homosexual!

These two verses contain completely wrong translations to create "homosexual ghosts" that do not really exist! Ghosts may not hurt you, but they can make you hurt yourself! The homosexual ghosts in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 were created by the inaccurate and intentionally misleading translation of two Greek words.

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 sound very convincing in including lesbians and gay men in the most dreadful lists of depraved human behavior imaginable. The fact is that the word translated "homosexual" does not mean "homosexual" and the word translated "effeminate" does not mean "effeminate"!

The English word "homosexual" is a composite word made from a Greek term (homo, "the same") and a Latin term (sexualis, "sex"). The term "homosexual" is of modern origin and was not used until about 100 years ago. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to the word "homosexual." No Bible before the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used "homosexual" in any Bible translation.

The word translated as "homosexual" or "sexual pervert" or some other similar term is Greek arsenokoites, which was formed from two words meaning "male" and "bed". This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We do not know what it means. The word is obscure and uncertain. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world, as revealed in the excavations at Pompeii and other sites.

When early Greek speaking Christian preachers condemned homosexuality, they did not use this word. John Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) preached in Greek against homosexuality, but he never used this word for homosexuals, and when he preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, he did not mention homosexuals. See the full discussion of this in John Boswell's book: Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality - Appendix 1, "Lexicography and Saint Paul," pages 335-353.

"Soft" does not mean "effeminate." The word translated "effeminate in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is Greek malakoi and means "soft" or "vulnerable." The word is translated as "soft" in reference to clothing in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and as "illness" in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. It is not used anywhere else in the New Testament and carries no hint of reference to sexual orientation. Malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 probably refers those who are "soft," "pliable," "unreliable," or "without courage or stability." The translation of malakoi as "effeminate" is incorrect, ignorant, degrading to women, and impossible to justify based on ancient usage compared to the meaning of "effeminate" today.

This incorrect rendering of malakoi and arsenokoites as references to gender orientation has been disastrous for millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual people. This mistaken translation has enlisted a mighty army of ignorant religious fanatics against homosexual people and has turned many Lesbians and Gays against the Bible, which holds for them as for all people the good news of God's love in Christ.
Three of the passages: Genesis 19:5; I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 are incorrectly translated. The other three: Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 are taken out of their original setting of condemning idolatrous religious practices and wrongly used to judge and condemn people of the same sex who love each other. None of these passages refer to people of the same sex who love each other. None originally were aimed at homosexuals

Back to back posts are not permitted. Please review the Campus Decorum (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_decorum_spamming) The maximum post length is 24K characters not including quoted material. Do not use multiple posts to circumvent this restriction. Additionally, please allow the other person to respond to your post before making additional substantive posts and points directed towards that same person (i.e. back-to-back responses to a single post are not allowed.

[zuqiu85]

Here are some links that respond directly to some of the points brought up in the previous posts:

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.html

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html

http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html

Here's my own opinion: trying to equate Old Testament laws against homosexual behavior with Old Testament laws against certain foods doesn't really add up, purely from a logical point of view. There may not be a clear moral principle in determining the morality of consuming certain foods, but there definitely is a clear principle with regards to sexual practices. Food is eaten, digested, and expelled from the body, and extra pounds can be worked off through exercise. With sexual immorality, it's not so simple. This is something that affects the mind and the spirit. Also, we shouldn't forget that God created us "male and female", not "male and female and those in between". If God really had homosexuality in mind when he designed us, why did he never send any prophets to tell the Jews to stop discriminating against homosexuals? If you look at all the cultures that have existed throughout history, my guess is that you would be hard-pressed to find any that actually viewed homosexual couples on the same level as heterosexual ones. Their "acceptance" was due to a lack of understanding of God's original design.

I would definitely agree that Christians are guilty of misusing God's word to discriminate and oppress people. It's definitely not easy to talk about such topics without being hypocritical. Instead of condemning, we should work together, encouraging each other to overcome our own sins.

[Keepupthefire]

I'll reply to Stormrunners reply's when I have a bit more time. Perhaps this weekend if all goes well. I don't have the time to get into this right now.


Keepupthefire
P.S. zuqiu85, Thanks for the support.

[Keepupthefire]

Your comments are not supported by Biblical research and certainly are not supported by current science.

What scientific research are we asserting? I can find some scientific research that supports homosexuality as being caused by evironmental factors.

In fact the main theme of Jesus was to love your neighbor as yourself and not to judge others as judgment is for God. Jesus was accepting and loving and expressed humility.

Ah not true, in fact his first sermon was about repentence. In fact, if you follow the whole bible the prophets have been saying all along repent. You quote part Matthew 7 an not all of it. You have misunderstood Jesus, read the rest of that sermon. You have redefined the word judgement to mean that warning other people of there sins is a sin in itself.

Judgement is to sentence one accused of a crime. I will not be the one sentencing sinners. I am to expose sin, and to give the solution, that is the Gospel(Matthew 28:18-20). It says we are to teach them to obey his commandments. How are we to "teach" if we cannot tell what they do is wrong? Do you not teach your children(if any children)?


Homosexuality is not inherently evil or a sin – and it is irresponsive to equate it to such immoral behavior as theft, murder, rape, or similar acts of man that hurt other people.

What bible do you read from? Mine says:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11. 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

And I can commit much scripture in favor of homosexuality as a sin, as well as, the choice of change(repentence).

Unfortunately gays have been so marginalized, so pushed into the shadows by homophobes and religious zealots and extreme fundamentalists that few are visible in our communities – much like an ice berg, the larger part in below the surface. And I wonder that those who are so aggravated and vociferous against gays have ever stopped to think what anxiety and pain they have inflected on those who are their family, neighbors, and colleagues. All in the name of religion.

Perhaps you should research the scandinavian countries more an see if your comment about the effects of marginalization have caused the homosexual pain. The Scandinavians countries are the most likely to be accepting of that lifestyle seeing how they have civil unions. You'll find that suicide rates have risen or remained the same for homosexuals, as well as, marriage rates have declined for heterosexuals due to their false understanding of marriage.

Additionally, our common history over the centuries has shown time and time again this dark theme in human nature to use man made belief systems to demonize others who are different for any number of reasons. This has led to countless atrocities, pain, prejudice, violence, bias, and intolerance towards individuals, who while basically no more good or evil then they, are excluded from full and open participation in society.

Ah so now it is "man made beliefs". You use scripture to change my mind but yet you have no faith in it yourself.

If we have to get into history, we can talk about homosexuals fondness of young boys. You've heard the old term "bugger of boys" right? I find that repulsive. And why not regulate homosexuals from taking the virginity of young boys? Ever heard of NAMBLA? Check them out. But maybe you approve of child sex. In 1994 England reduced homosexual sex from the age of 21 to 18. Again in July,1998 England reduced the age to 16. In Denmark, where Christianity has lost much of its presence, the age has been reduced to 14.

As you can see, we are indeed returning to our old ways, as in the days of the Grecco/Roman world. NAMBLA has strong advocates for lowering the age of legal homosexual sex in the United States.There is more I could say. You might want to try the book called: Under the Influence, subtilted: How Christianity Transformed Civilization, by author Alvin J. Schmidt.

It is no accident that there is a boundary where truth grapples with ignorance. It happens often when new science or realization becomes so dominate that it intrudes on older religious of societal belief. Certainly readers here are familiar with the conflicts that occurred as realizations from astronomy or archeology or paleontology seemed to conflict with some religious belief system of the time.

It's not about ignorance, it is about what is being taught. The presuppositions
we bring with us doesn't allow for open-minded discussion.

There are ongoing conversations in many organized religions and societies today that are trying to deal with our new understanding of homosexuality. And as peoples become more educated and enlightened there is often a more tolerant and accepting attitude taken.

See now again there is that redefining of a good word. Tolerance I'll give you the real definition an seeing how you are relativistic in nature by your use of words. I'll give you the heads up on what judgemental really is.

Are We Intolerant?
Intolerance has been commonly associated with religion—and not without basis. For example, the passage “compel them to come in [compelle intrare]” in Luke 14:23 (KJV) was used by religious authorities to justify a “conquest theology” during and after the Middle Ages.10
The Crusades, the Inquisition, and other abuses of religion are certainly a blot on Christendom’s history. However, what our society usually overlooks is both that a religious culture can foster genuine tolerance and that secularism—a “non-religious”11 outlook on life—may pose a far greater threat to tolerance.
Closely tied to the notion of “judgment” is “tolerance.” Although many accuse absolutists of intolerance, these accusers most likely have an unclear and distorted notion of what tolerance really is. They often are unaware that the concept of tolerance implies a close relationship to truth. Contrary to popular definitions, true tolerance means “putting up with error”—not “being accepting of all views.” We don’t tolerate what we enjoy or approve of—like chocolate or Bach’s music. By definition, what we tolerate is what we disapprove of or what we believe to be false and erroneous.12 Furthermore, tolerance presupposes an adequate grasp of what another person believes—as well as a knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of such belief. Actually, if disagreement didn’t exist, then tolerance would be unnecessary. It is because real differences exist between people that tolerance becomes necessary and virtuous.
The contemporary definition of tolerance as acceptance is simply wrong-headed. It lands a person in massive inconsistencies. Take the matter of “comparative religions.” The leveling approach of comparative religions (“when we talk with people from other religious groups, we should consider all religions equal”) arbitrarily asserts without qualification the equal validity or relative nature of all religions. Dialogue, however, shouldn’t begin by assuming the equality of all religions or truth claims (the erroneous definition of tolerance), but with regard for the equality of persons. Dialogue implies respect, not agreement.
A Christian can interact with and respect a Buddhist while still believing on rational grounds that he is mistaken. In fact, the belief that both views cannot be right is an impetus to engage in meaningful dialogue. Dialogue thus becomes an opportunity for both sides to reexamine their presuppositions and clarify their positions.13 True tolerance grants people the right to dissent.
It is very important that a Christian criticized for intolerance asks his accuser what he means by “intolerance.” The accuser will probably say something like “not being accepting of another’s beliefs.” To this the Christian can gently respond, “But you are not being accepting of my position. You think I am wrong.” The relativist simply cannot be accepting of all positions as true without falling into severe contradictions.
The reality of God actually makes tolerance intelligible, because God is the source of truth and because God has made human beings in his likeness. Naturalistic secularism has no such foundation for tolerance. If tolerance is a value, it isn’t obvious from nature; so if there is no God and we are just hulks of protoplasmic guck, how could tolerance be an objective value at all? Instead, if objective truth exists, as religion maintains, then we musk seek and seriously discuss it despite our differing worldviews. But if objective truth doesn’t exist, as secularism generally maintains, then relativism obliterates genuine differences of perspective.

As for Christianity and the Bible, I would remind the readers that there is a current and active discussion in theological circles about the very few verses and complete lack of specific words from Jesus on this subject. And those who are trying to understand the culture and dynamics of the place and time of Jesus, are attempting to see in context how Jesus taught us to deal with loving monogamous committed adult gay relationships.

You mean like the one where Jesus quotes Genesis about how when two people come together to become one flesh? I don't see homosexuals coming together to become one flesh. Sure they can adopt, but they can't naturally produce a child. Men whom lie with men do not make "one flesh". Only someone insane would think it natural that the intended purpose of the male genitalia was to give a BJ. I've even read from a sexual therapist that the male penis was specifically designed for stimulating both sexes(that is opposite). Oh when I was still under God's wrath I chose to read Playboy thats where I got the sex therapists understanding so don't say it's a biased argument.

It doesn’t take science or religion for me to come to my conclusion. For I had that from my childhood Bible teaching and my sense of Jesus and his teaching of love and kindness and acceptance. And those who would deny a gay person or a gay couple, who are moral and good in their lives, from full welcome into their family, church, community – well, that is a judgment that God will exact.

He taught love, kindness, to refrain from sexually immoral practices, to repent, an much more. He also, called the Pharisees white-washed tombs, hyprocrits, an more. Try reading the Seven Woes in Matthew 23. Try reading how he cleared out the Temple Matthew 21:12-17. You make the mistake of thinking Jesus is just one side of a coin. There is justice an there is mercy. You can't have one without the other. Jesus didn't accept sin as you would have your readers believe, he hated it. He loved the sinners for he stayed with them. But you say he loves both sinner and sin. He does no such thing. He loves only the sinner.

Oh, our church doesn't turn away homosexuals, but we insist they repent. We have had at least 5 homosexuals find sanctification. One was our councelor(was a lesbian), she is married with an has children, but she went to Colorado to get her Master's Degree. We have a man who was homosexual who is married an has children he runs the men's ministry. It's amazing that God takes the worst case scenario for the men's ministry an transforms him to be in that ministry. Same with our past councelor..a ex-lesbian our councelor Amen! The glory was given to God.

[stormrunner]

I hope the readers will also appreciate that there are false prophets and there are those who will revel in their own self-sanctity, and lack the humility to admit that they are not the sole deliverers of God's wisdom. That wisdom, in my mind, would be simple and elegant enough to be readily available to all, regardless of intellect or access, and is something that we routinely refer to in our lives as, "knowing the difference between right and wrong".

I choose not to be intimidated in my beliefs while at the same time remaining open to new and higher truths. Eventually such religious rants and certitude are seen by common sense for what they are - for their hypocrisy, and as Shakespeare well put it, "She doest protest too much".

Note that not one of the theological arguments put forward in my two previous posts were challenged. Instead, this poster – anonymously I might add, conjures up the specter of gay sex as somehow to be deviant when compared to straight sex. Thoughtful individuals will realize that that tactic is merely “pushing buttons” - for sex between any two people, gay or straight, can be described as loving and affectionate and mutually healthy or can be described as hurtful and dirty and pornographic – depending on one’s agenda.

Well readers, what we have here is the classic confrontation that is happening in this country between progressive thinkers and conservative thinkers, but more broadly it is a vivid example of the conflicts between religions, nations, civilizations – now and throughout history.

Note it has degenerated into name calling and more and more emotion – and little of the love and caring and nonjudgmental behavior I learned as a child that was the essence of the message of Jesus. I have been called ignorant and unchristian. Humm, it is like this person occupies some enlightened high ground and has some higher access to God’s wishes and God’s intent than someone else.

I’m not an anonymous poster who enjoys the power of imposing his belief system over others, I am just a person who is searching and I don’t pretend to know this mystery we call God. But somewhere between 50 and 100 thousand years ago we humans gained this amazing ability, above any living thing in our experience, to think and to examine and to create. I’m not the wisest or brightest person, nor arrogant enough to assume I have answers about this mystery over others. I do think that having been given this ability to think for myself carries a responsibility to question, to search, to take responsibility - and not to give that responsibility away to anyone. Whatever the ultimate judgment is, I doubt that I will be able to excuse my behaviors by saying, “well my minister, priest, mullah, or whatever religious bureaucracy of the moment, told me that these were Your rules”.

And as even different Christian denominations, with all their learned men and theologians, are having differing views on homosexuality, I wonder if we as a civilization are entering a period of reexamining how we view homosexuality.

And to Keepupthefire, I just feel very fortunate that I live today in America and not in some earlier time where I fear people of your ilk would have tortured me in an Inquisition or burned me at a the stake in some witch trial.

[EvoUK]

I haven't seen this thread in ages. Who resurrects old threads man? We have necromancers in the house.


Looking back though, I forgot how much this thread made me laugh when I first saw it. Homosexuality is a rebellion against society? Bwa ha ha ha ha!

[Keepupthefire]

I choose not to be intimidated in my beliefs while at the same time remaining open to new and higher truths. Eventually such religious rants and certitude are seen by common sense for what they are - for their hypocrisy, and as Shakespeare well put it, "She doest protest too much".

What is it thats higher truthes if it's not God's truthes reveal in his Word? I don't discard old true truths when it isn't wise to do so. God doesn't just make things up as there are boundaries that are not to be crossed or else reap what consequences come. What Morals that is in his Word should be progressive. And if progressive is the way to go...then why should we take any of God's word as trustworthy if he should just change with the times?

Note that not one of the theological arguments put forward in my two previous posts were challenged.

Well, your readers can discern better than you can, that I specifically replied to your assertions.

Instead, this poster – anonymously I might add,


:hrm: Since when was it a requirement to introduce ourselves? In fact you didn't yourself. Practice what you preach. Oh by the way my name is Shawn.

Thoughtful individuals will realize that that tactic is merely “pushing buttons” - for sex between any two people, gay or straight, can be described as loving and affectionate and mutually healthy or can be described as hurtful and dirty and pornographic – depending on one’s agenda.,

Or just someone emoting instead of having meaningful debate without the assertions. The above is sooo postmodernistic it's unreal. How does sex(either straight, or gay) become healthy or hurtfuland dirty based upon one's agenda? Worldviews don't change the outcome of an objective consequence of sex.

Well readers, what we have here is the classic confrontation that is happening in this country between progressive thinkers and conservative thinkers, but more broadly it is a vivid example of the conflicts between religions, nations, civilizations – now and throughout history.

True somewhat, but more likely worldview is more accurate. Progressive morals now thats a concept. Must be as I said realtivistic.

Note it has degenerated into name calling and more and more emotion – and little of the love and caring and nonjudgmental behavior I learned as a child that was the essence of the message of Jesus. I have been called ignorant and unchristian. Humm, it is like this person occupies some enlightened high ground and has some higher access to God’s wishes and God’s intent than someone else.

I think the readers can see that I have not called anyone names in my replies, nor have I labeled anyone in any demeaning way. In response to the enlightening part yeah the answer to that is the Holy Spirit, he directs me in what is moral, for only the Holy Spirit can give a accurate interpretation. For the Holy Spirit only knows the deep things of God.

I’m not an anonymous poster who enjoys the power of imposing his belief system over others,

No, you insist by trying to shame me as a bigotist, backwards, witch hunting, conservative, actually I haven't said anything that isn't backed by God's word. I'm saying I'm parroting what God said. If you have a problem with what I say, then you have a problem with what God says. Unless, of course you can rebuke me with God's Word an be used by God to correct me.

I am just a person who is searching and I don’t pretend to know this mystery we call God.

Well this implies that for you the Bible is not the revelation of God. Or you play buffet with it picking an choosing to live out what you like in the Word like so many people do. An God calls that idoltry, because you replace God with yourself as your own God.

But somewhere between 50 and 100 thousand years ago we humans gained this amazing ability, above any living thing in our experience, to think and to examine and to create.

I will not debate you on how old the earth is. But don't you think 50-100 thousand years is a bit off? An thats a wide gap.

I’m not the wisest or brightest person, nor arrogant enough to assume I have answers about this mystery over others.

I have no problem with believing I have some answers to lifes mysteries. It's not arrogant to accept God's Word as infallible. I can be rest assured to use it effectively.

I do think that having been given this ability to think for myself carries a responsibility to question, to search, to take responsibility - and not to give that responsibility away to anyone. Whatever the ultimate judgment is, I doubt that I will be able to excuse my behaviors by saying, “well my minister, priest, mullah, or whatever religious bureaucracy of the moment, told me that these were Your rules”.


Paul mentioned how the the Bereans were of more noble character, based upon the fact that they searched the scriptures diligently to see if what Paul said was true. So..that being said and this is also what my body of believers accepts I believe your accurate. I'm in full agreement. Now just don't go attributing it to me since I don't surround myself with teachers that teach what my itching ear desires to hear rather than the truth.

And as even different Christian denominations, with all their learned men and theologians, are having differing views on homosexuality, I wonder if we as a civilization are entering a period of reexamining how we view homosexuality.

Yes some compromise which is what you have been raised with it seems. Your not accepting God's Word is a testimony to that, Otherwise you would use his word more to rebuke me an correct me.

And to Keepupthefire, I just feel very fortunate that I live today in America and not in some earlier time where I fear people of your ilk would have tortured me in an Inquisition or burned me at a the stake in some witch trial.

Why are you a witch? And as I stated in my previous response:

Are We Intolerant?
Intolerance has been commonly associated with religion—and not without basis. For example, the passage “compel them to come in [compelle intrare]” in Luke 14:23 (KJV) was used by religious authorities to justify a “conquest theology” during and after the Middle Ages.10
The Crusades, the Inquisition, and other abuses of religion are certainly a blot on Christendom’s history.

Well it's too bad you feel that way about me. I have no idea where you get your ideas from on how I treat others, for your idea of me is direct conflict with the said above italicized an bolded. I never mentioned anything about persecution or implied so. I'm going to link you to another post I've commented on maybe this will show you how I feel about it better.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=2764

[Arthur]

Your comments are not supported by Biblical research and certainly are not supported by current science.

1. The New Testament clearly prohibits homosexality. Since you say you have researched the subject I'm sure you already know which passages I'm referring to.

2. I really don't know what you mean by "current science". What evidence do you have in mind? If you really have a point to make I invite you to provide clear and specific details of any scientific investigations which support your claim.

In fact the main theme of Jesus was to love your neighbor as yourself and not to judge others as judgment is for God. Jesus was accepting and loving and expressed humility.

Especially towards the money changers in the Temple?

You **appear** to have a conveniently one-sided view of Christ's behaviour and teaching.

Homosexuality is not inherently evil or a sin – and it is irresponsive to equate it to such immoral behavior as theft, murder, rape, or similar acts of man that hurt other people. Unfortunately gays have been so marginalized, so pushed into the shadows by homophobes and religious zealots and extreme fundamentalists that few are visible in our communities – much like an ice berg, the larger part in below the surface.

And presumably you believe that the "Gay Pride" marches in Sydney, Brighton, San Fransisco, etc., etc. don't really happen because SSHs are just too scared to show their faces in public?

I'm sorry, I thought you had some sound knowledge of this subject.

In reality the reason we see relatively few self-styled homosexuals is simply because there really aren't that many of them. The numbers have been seriously over-estimated until quite recently.

Kinsey, the sexologist, estimated that people who favoured homosexual behaviour was around 10% of the population.
What only became clear was that he included in this number everyone who had ever had any kind of homosexual experience, even if it was merely childhood experimentation, and even if it was a one off event.

In the 1960s in Britain, prior to changing the law that prohibited homosexual relations between men, a research project that reported to Parliament estimated that 5% of men, and a slightly lower proportion of women were "practicing homosexuals".

The first ever major survey carried out in the UK, in the early 1990s (major in that it included many thousands of interviewees) found that even 5% was a major overestimate, and that the figure was more like 1-3% (in "round numbers", just over 1% of interviewees had an exclusive preference for homosexual activity, around 3% were involved in homosexual activities from time to time, but had heterosexual relationships as well.)

A bit of a drop from 10%.

Note also that none of the research to date has shown an unequivocal genetic/physiological basis for homosexual preference. Moreover even if there was a basis in the genotype, this still would mean it would necessarily be expressed in the phenotype.
In fact, contrary to your suggestion, exclusively homosexual activity is CONTRARY to current scientific views, especially of pro-evolutionists, since homosexually activity precludes the perpetuation of genetic material!

Additionally, our common history over the centuries has shown time and time again this dark theme in human nature to use man made belief systems to demonize others who are different for any number of reasons. This has led to countless atrocities, pain, prejudice, violence, bias, and intolerance towards individuals, who while basically no more good or evil then they, are excluded from full and open participation in society.

Sorry, like most of your post this is pure rhetoric, NOT rational argument.

Of course you are entitled to your views, but do yourself a favour and learn to differentiate between what is based on knowledge and what is based on emotional reaction.

For example, your claim that something in the New Testament somehow doesn't really count because there is no record of Jesus personally comment ing on it is as daft and unjustified as saying dumping toxic waste is perfectly OK because it isn't specifically forbidden in the NT.

As to your plea to allow SSHs to be happy, plenty of ex-SSHs are living successful, happy lives. Maybe you should check that out. Or do you only believe the militant propaganda that claims that few people, if any, have successfully and lastingly changed from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation?
If that's the case I'm sorry again - you're falling for a pack of lies.

Regards

Arthur

[stormrunner]

1. The New Testament clearly prohibits homosexality. Since you say you have researched the subject I'm sure you already know which passages I'm referring to.

2. I really don't know what you mean by "current science". What evidence do you have in mind? If you really have a point to make I invite you to provide clear and specific details of any scientific investigations which support your claim.



Especially towards the money changers in the Temple?

You **appear** to have a conveniently one-sided view of Christ's behaviour and teaching.



And presumably you believe that the "Gay Pride" marches in Sydney, Brighton, San Fransisco, etc., etc. don't really happen because SSHs are just too scared to show their faces in public?

I'm sorry, I thought you had some sound knowledge of this subject.

In reality the reason we see relatively few self-styled homosexuals is simply because there really aren't that many of them. The numbers have been seriously over-estimated until quite recently.

Kinsey, the sexologist, estimated that people who favoured homosexual behaviour was around 10% of the population.
What only became clear was that he included in this number everyone who had ever had any kind of homosexual experience, even if it was merely childhood experimentation, and even if it was a one off event.

In the 1960s in Britain, prior to changing the law that prohibited homosexual relations between men, a research project that reported to Parliament estimated that 5% of men, and a slightly lower proportion of women were "practicing homosexuals".

The first ever major survey carried out in the UK, in the early 1990s (major in that it included many thousands of interviewees) found that even 5% was a major overestimate, and that the figure was more like 1-3% (in "round numbers", just over 1% of interviewees had an exclusive preference for homosexual activity, around 3% were involved in homosexual activities from time to time, but had heterosexual relationships as well.)

A bit of a drop from 10%.

Note also that none of the research to date has shown an unequivocal genetic/physiological basis for homosexual preference. Moreover even if there was a basis in the genotype, this still would mean it would necessarily be expressed in the phenotype.
In fact, contrary to your suggestion, exclusively homosexual activity is CONTRARY to current scientific views, especially of pro-evolutionists, since homosexually activity precludes the perpetuation of genetic material!



Sorry, like most of your post this is pure rhetoric, NOT rational argument.

Of course you are entitled to your views, but do yourself a favour and learn to differentiate between what is based on knowledge and what is based on emotional reaction.

For example, your claim that something in the New Testament somehow doesn't really count because there is no record of Jesus personally comment ing on it is as daft and unjustified as saying dumping toxic waste is perfectly OK because it isn't specifically forbidden in the NT.

As to your plea to allow SSHs to be happy, plenty of ex-SSHs are living successful, happy lives. Maybe you should check that out. Or do you only believe the militant propaganda that claims that few people, if any, have successfully and lastingly changed from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation?
If that's the case I'm sorry again - you're falling for a pack of lies.

Regards

Arthur
I'm sorry you remain an egotistic, homophobic, close-minded, ignorant bigot. If you were the representation of Christianity, I'd turn away. But I'm thankful that I have the message of Christ in my heart - and a brain that can accept science and common sense and reasonable intercourse.

God will judge us both. I hope that love, caring, and tolerance will beat out arrogance, smugness, and meanness of spirit.

You don't want to discuss theology or even have a fair Socratic debate - all you want to do is to out shout any other voice. So I leave this site to you and your kind and look to find fellowship and intelligent discussion elsewhere.

Regards,

Bill Garnett

www.billgarnett.com

Please do NOT advertise or promote websites in your posts. You may put a link to your personal website in your signature if you so choose

[Matt M]

I'm sorry you remain an egotistic, homophobic, close-minded, ignorant bigot.

You have some nerve to be saying this, you bastard.
Maybe you ought to shut up or you might get your throat cut.

Profanity is not allowed.

[RumTumTugger]

Folks this area is not for rough and tumble discussion but for discussing things in a respectful manner towards all parties in the discussion. If you can't keep it that way take it to the lockerroom or I will. This means no unfounded ad hominum name calling or threats.

[Arthur]

I'm sorry you remain an egotistic, homophobic, close-minded, ignorant bigot. If you were the representation of Christianity, I'd turn away. But I'm thankful that I have the message of Christ in my heart - and a brain that can accept science and common sense and reasonable intercourse.

Fine. So please allow us the benefit of the science you refer to.

You don't want to discuss theology or even have a fair Socratic debate - all you want to do is to out shout any other voice. So I leave this site to you and your kind and look to find fellowship and intelligent discussion elsewhere.

On the contrary, I would be very happy to exchange ideas on the subject.
But to constitute a useful discussion the ideas have to be something more than emotional outpouring - which inevitably lapses into personal attacks. Which benefits nobody.

Regards

Arthur

[stormrunner]

Fine. So please allow us the benefit of the science you refer to.



On the contrary, I would be very happy to exchange ideas on the subject.
But to constitute a useful discussion the ideas have to be something more than emotional outpouring - which inevitably lapses into personal attacks. Which benefits nobody.

Regards

Arthur
Dear Arthur,

Perhaps we could start here:

http://online.logcabin.org/talking_points/Burr_White_Paper.html?print=t

And I can cite many, many more studies. The science is there and you can find it as easily as I can. As I have noted before, the American Psychological Association, The American Medical Association, and the World Health Organization are in agreement on the science. It seems a bit paranoid to suggest that all these preeminent scientific organizations are biased or their positions dominated by some agenda.

In fairness, I suggest you cite the opposing science.

Bill Garnett

[Tux314]

Dear Arthur,

Perhaps we could start here:

http://online.logcabin.org/talking_points/Burr_White_Paper.html?print=t

And I can cite many, many more studies.

I'm not Arthur, but I did take a look at that link. I didn't find much actual science - only conclusions, with unsupported assertions that the conclusions were obvious to the scientific community. Right from the beginning the article failed to note the distinction between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior - a distiction the Catholic Church, whom he cites, does make. It did try to address this distinction, but it only played games with terminology and comparisons to handedness. It failed to provide any sort of actual argument. In fact, I'm not aware of many organizations that claim people chose their sexual feelings, especially in the "ex-gay" scene. This seems to be a common straw man burned against the ex-gay movement. Perhaps, however, this article wasn't intended to address that crowd. I personally don't believe that people choose their sexual feelings, although I do believe that some may seek change (a few will probably succeed while many won't), and I do believe that people can choose what they do as a result of their feelings. Sometimes God expects people to do difficult things.

The comparisons to handedness pretty much showed only similarities - a likely sign of selective reporting. He also didn't cite his sources for where he got his "scientific" data. Frankly, I didn't see much science in your citation.

The science is there and you can find it as easily as I can.

You have yet to show much actual science...

As I have noted before, the American Psychological Association, The American Medical Association, and the World Health Organization are in agreement on the science.

There are others who testify that these organizations make claims that contradict their personal experience - see here (http://www.peoplecanchange.com/GA_Therapy.htm), for example. (Their experiences are detailed at this page (http://www.peoplecanchange.com/About_Us.htm).) Not scientific, but in my opinion still valid. I'm not by any means claiming that anyone who wishes to change their sexual orientation will be successful - many who attempt to change aren't - but I don't think we can just dismiss the facts from either side.

It seems a bit paranoid to suggest that all these preeminent scientific organizations are biased or their positions dominated by some agenda.

I believe that everyone is biased, and every organization is likely to inherit some bias from its workers. Humans are not capable of complete objectivity. This is not to say that we cannot come to conclusions, or that all positions are dominated by an agenda per se, but I do believe that an agenda has affected the major psychological organizations in this particular case.

In fairness, I suggest you cite the opposing science.

Science that attempts to support which position? Can you actually cite the science that supports your conclusions, rather than just the conclusions some particular organizations have come to?

[stormrunner]

The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 142,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 49 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 58 state and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare.

They agree that homosexuality is not a choice.

In fact there is not one credible scientific conclusion to suggest that homosexuality is is a choice.

However, psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies.

[Shadow Phoenix]

The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 142,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 49 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 58 state and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare.

They agree that homosexuality is not a choice.

In fact there is not one credible scientific conclusion to suggest that homosexuality is is a choice.

However, psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies.

Excuse me, but this seems to be an odd statement to make about homophobia.

First off Stormrunner, I have hydrophobia to a degree. It is truly irrational I will grant, but it is there. I will not go underwater. Now may I ask your response to me? Are you going to laugh at me and mock me because I do not go underwater?

What about a friend of mine who is afraid of spiders? Are you going to mock her because she doesn't like spiders? What about Acrophobia? Will you laugh at someone because they don't want to fly on an airplane?

Such acts would be considered cruel as we should not show contempt to people with phobias but show concerns and if a phobia is truly there, it can be shown to be irrational. However, I see homophobia being used by the homosexual side as a message of contempt and a view that is to be looked down on. Why do the homosexuals never show love to people with homophobia?

Of course, could it not also be possible to disagree with homosexuality and have homophobia? Because I am a Christian, do I automatically have atheismophobia? Islamophobia? Hinduphobia? Does a preterist like myself have Dispiephobia? Does a Calvinist have Arminiaphobia and an Arminian Calvinophobia?

Of course, it could just be that it's simple disagreement and in this case is not a fear but could actually be based on rational reasons. Whether that's true or not is another debate, but to simply scream "phobia" is irrelevant."

On the other hand, I could turn the tables and say what you are going through is simply Fundyphobia. It's quite simple what that is.

However, psychoanalytic theory holds that Fundyphobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly non-fundy people hold for fundy individuals -- is the result of repressed fundy urges that the person is either unaware of or denies

So tell me, if this is where you're coming from, are you a closet fundamentalist?

[Sparko]

so let me get this right...

1. Those who disagree or dislike Homosexuals are Homophobes.

2. Homophobes are closet homosexuals.

right?

Therefore:

Only Gays hate Gays.

[Tux314]

The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 142,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 49 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 58 state and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare.

They agree that homosexuality is not a choice.

In fact there is not one credible scientific conclusion to suggest that homosexuality is is a choice.

It appears you didn't actually read my post. I told you that the "homosexuality is a choice" position is a straw man that most people you disagree with don't hold.

It does depend on how you define "homosexuality." People on both sides sometimes take advantage of the ambiguity of that term. If you're talking same-sex attraction, I and many other people don't claim that anyone chooses to experience same-sex attraction, although there is the claim that some people can be successful at changing after the fact. The studies for this one are summarized well by New Direction here (http://www.newdirection.ca/a_change.htm).

If you're talking same-sex behavior, you might want to come up with other examples of behaviors (besides unconscious behaviors such as breathing) that are not the result of choice, and explain why same-sex behavior is unchosen for the same reason. To claim that any behavior is unchosen is to make an extraordinary claim, and it needs to be backed up with evidence. People generally control their own actions.

[stormrunner]

This is a link to a study on homophobia:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040202035152/www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html

This is a link to a contemporary conversation (Jon Stewart and Bill Bennett) on homosexuality:

http://knowthyneighbor.blogs.com/

This is s link to current science (albeit on a biased site) concerning homosexuality:

http://online.logcabin.org/talking_points/Burr_White_Paper.html?print=t

This is a link to a sociological study about masculinity:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050803064454.htm

This is a link to an interesting university published work on the nature of relationships:

https://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9396/9396.intro.html

And this is a link to a theological argument that suggests that the Bible may well not condemn homosexual monogamous committed relationships:

http://www.predict-the-future.com/fundamentalists.html

Clearly how society is to react to homosexuality is a matter of current debate. Fortunately most educated, enlightened, and fair-minded people are willing to accept gays into full and equal community participation. Unfortunately, most people are not yet educated, enlightened, or fair-minded when it comes to gays.

If God did not intend that gays be biased, prejudiced, discriminated, persecuted, and denied of equal rights and participation in His congregations – then the past and continuing action and reaction to gays by the “Christian” community may be the far greater sin.

Please do not make your arguement via weblinks. You may use a link as a reference for you typed out arguement however.

[Shadow Phoenix]

This is a link to a study on homophobia:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040202035152/www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html

This is a link to a contemporary conversation (Jon Stewart and Bill Bennett) on homosexuality:

http://knowthyneighbor.blogs.com/

This is s link to current science (albeit on a biased site) concerning homosexuality:

http://online.logcabin.org/talking_points/Burr_White_Paper.html?print=t

This is a link to a sociological study about masculinity:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050803064454.htm

This is a link to an interesting university published work on the nature of relationships:

https://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9396/9396.intro.html

And this is a link to a theological argument that suggests that the Bible may well not condemn homosexual monogamous committed relationships:

http://www.predict-the-future.com/fundamentalists.html

Clearly how society is to react to homosexuality is a matter of current debate. Fortunately most educated, enlightened, and fair-minded people are willing to accept gays into full and equal community participation. Unfortunately, most people are not yet educated, enlightened, or fair-minded when it comes to gays.

If God did not intend that gays be biased, prejudiced, discriminated, persecuted, and denied of equal rights and participation in His congregations – then the past and continuing action and reaction to gays by the “Christian” community may be the far greater sin.

Oh wow. This is such a great response to my points. I like the way you answer when you say....uhhh....ummmm....okay, my points weren't addressed....

Storm. Is this really the way you handle different people? If people don't agree with your view, they're automatically uneducated, unenlightened, and unfair-minded?

Tell me Storm, does my friend with arachnophobia have secret desires to be a spider? If someone's afraid of clowns, do they have a secret desire to be a clown?

Tell me Storm. Do you really suffer from fundyphobia as I pointed out? I could say that if denial is the first sign, your refusal to address that point could indicate that you have fundyphobia and you fear that one day, you will become a fundy yourself so you have to speak out against them to avoid your own desires.

Clearly how society is to react to fundamentalism is a matter of current debate. Fortunately most educated, enlightened, and fair-minded people are willing to accept fundies into full and equal community participation. Unfortunately, most people are not yet educated, enlightened, or fair-minded when it comes to fundies.

If God did not intend that fundies be biased, prejudiced, discriminated, persecuted, and denied of equal rights and participation in society – then the past and continuing action and reaction to fundies by the “the enlightened” community may be the far greater sin.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 142,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 49 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 58 state and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare.

They agree that homosexuality is not a choice.Do they also hold that there is a disorder called homphobia? Is such a disease or condition classified in any authoritative peer reviewed anthology of medical, psychological or psychiatric conditions?

Does the APA accept the classification that people who think homosexuality is dysfunctional and that homosexual acts are wrong are suffering from a phobia?

I'm curious now that you mentioned them.

[Epoetker]

I distrust any pronouncements on human psychological nature from an association, since such corporations are inevitably going to make the most politically correct pronouncements that go over well with all their members.

Also psychology, like spying, nursing, and other people-oriented jobs, is a rather favorite field for gays to go into, so I'm guessing they're not going to step on their toes. Unanimity and avoidance of 'drama' is more important than truth in any corporation, and it only gets more important as the corporation gets bigger.

[stormrunner]

OK guys, I’ll start it off. But I wonder if it’s worth the effort. Someone will still be willing to spend their day posting with the sensitivity of a 50’s car-full of Deep South white-bread yokels throwing beer cans at niggers as they drive by. Or worse, the Bible carrying religious nuts who I remember from the preacher in Midnight Cowboy. So just to let those types know - we won’t go away, we will face you, we will wear you down and thin you out. And you know why? Because we have far more to gain than you can ever imagine you would lose. And we can’t afford to lose amendment fights – because once adopted by required super majorities; it will take a super majority to repeal it - a mere fourteen states can do that – and it surely won’t then be repealed within a generation.

This is our time in history and this is our lives – and don’t think you wouldn’t do the same if you were in our shoes. The big difference is that we can’t see ourselves, in your shoes, ever being so suspiciously homophobic or hypocritically unholy. Get a life.

Today there are millions of AIDS babies in the world suffering unbelievable pain, and this is in many ways a direct result of the homophobia that existed when AIDS first arose in the American gay community in the 1980’s and was not given the compassionate and crisis response that a similar new disease would have been given if the victims were white Christian heterosexual men. I say this, as I want to convey that the attitude toward gays does matter. And that much of the attitude towards gays is a result of an interpretation of scripture taken out of context, colored by individual bias, exaggerated relative to the overriding message of Jesus, and devoid of an intuitive reasoning that love is the most important message of all.

Racial slurs no matter what the context is definetly against campus decorum.

[stormrunner]

Today there are millions of AIDS babies in the world suffering unbelievable pain, and this is in many ways a direct result of the homophobia that existed when AIDS first arose in the American gay community in the 1980’s and was not given the compassionate and crisis response that a similar new disease would have been given if the victims were white Christian heterosexual men. I say this, as I want to convey that the attitude toward gays does matter. And that much of the attitude towards gays is a result of an interpretation of scripture taken out of context, colored by individual bias, exaggerated relative to the overriding message of Jesus, and devoid of an intuitive reasoning that love is the most important message of all.

Please remember that back to back posting is not allowed. Campus Decorum (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_decorum_postlength)

[Cynic Sage]

Today there are millions of AIDS babies in the world suffering unbelievable pain, and this is in many ways a direct result of the homophobia that existed when AIDS first arose in the American gay community in the 1980’s and was not given the compassionate and crisis response that a similar new disease would have been given if the victims were white Christian heterosexual men. I say this, as I want to convey that the attitude toward gays does matter. And that much of the attitude towards gays is a result of an interpretation of scripture taken out of context, colored by individual bias, exaggerated relative to the overriding message of Jesus, and devoid of an intuitive reasoning that love is the most important message of all.

Translation:

I can't back up my claim that the Church teaching that homosexual-relations are sinful is a result of Bible-passages being mistranslated and/or taken out of context. So insteead I'm going to rape the tragedy of people suffering from AIDS in order to make a fallacious appeal to emotion (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html).

[stormrunner]

Translation:

I can't back up my claim that the Church teaching that homosexual-relations are sinful is a result of Bible-passages being mistranslated and/or taken out of context. So insteead I'm going to rape the tragedy of people suffering from AIDS in order to make a fallacious appeal to emotion (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html).

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 sound very convincing in including lesbians and gay men in the most dreadful lists of depraved human behavior imaginable. The fact is that the word translated "homosexual" does not mean "homosexual" and the word translated "effeminate" does not mean "effeminate"!

The English word "homosexual" is a composite word made from a Greek term (homo, "the same") and a Latin term (sexualis, "sex"). The term "homosexual" is of modern origin and was not used until about 100 years ago. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to the word "homosexual." No Bible before the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used "homosexual" in any Bible translation.

The word translated as "homosexual" or "sexual pervert" or some other similar term is Greek arsenokoites, which was formed from two words meaning "male" and "bed". This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We do not know what it means. The word is obscure and uncertain. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world, as revealed in the excavations at Pompeii and other sites.

When early Greek speaking Christian preachers condemned homosexuality, they did not use this word. John Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) preached in Greek against homosexuality, but he never used this word for homosexuals, and when he preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, he did not mention homosexuals. See the full discussion of this in John Boswell's book: Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality - Appendix 1, "Lexicography and Saint Paul," pages 335-353.

"Soft" does not mean "effeminate." The word translated "effeminate in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is Greek malakoi and means "soft" or "vulnerable." The word is translated as "soft" in reference to clothing in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and as "illness" in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. It is not used anywhere else in the New Testament and carries no hint of reference to sexual orientation. Malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 probably refers those who are "soft," "pliable," "unreliable," or "without courage or stability." The translation of malakoi as "effeminate" is incorrect, ignorant, degrading to women, and impossible to justify based on ancient usage compared to the meaning of "effeminate" today.

This incorrect rendering of malakoi and arsenokoites as references to gender orientation has been disastrous for millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual people. This mistaken translation has enlisted a mighty army of ignorant religious fanatics against homosexual people and has turned many Lesbians and Gays against the Bible, which holds for them as for all people the good news of God's love in Christ.
Three of the passages: Genesis 19:5; I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 are incorrectly translated. The other three: Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 are taken out of their original setting of condemning idolatrous religious practices and wrongly used to judge and condemn people of the same sex who love each other. None of these passages refer to people of the same sex who love each other. None originally were aimed at homosexuals

Now in your wonderful Christian and loving manner, why don't you begin to defend your homophobic interpretation of scripture?

[Sparko]

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 sound very convincing in including lesbians and gay men in the most dreadful lists of depraved human behavior imaginable. The fact is that the word translated "homosexual" does not mean "homosexual" and the word translated "effeminate" does not mean "effeminate"!

The English word "homosexual" is a composite word made from a Greek term (homo, "the same") and a Latin term (sexualis, "sex"). The term "homosexual" is of modern origin and was not used until about 100 years ago. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to the word "homosexual." No Bible before the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used "homosexual" in any Bible translation.

that's about the lamest exegesis I have ever read.

First of all Koite doesn't just mean "bed" it means "sexual intercourse" or literally the same thing as HOMO (Arseno) SEXUAL (Koites)

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2845

Let's go back and see how they translated arsenokoites over 400 years ago before the word homosexual was invented.

King James: 1611 AD: 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Pretty much the same thing.

You also are completely ignoring Romans 1 that doesn't even bother with the word homosexual but actually goes on to describe the act and say it is unnatural and perverted. For both men and women.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Bible translators know that arsenokoites is formed as a construct of two words straight out of Leviticus 18, which literally describe a man who sleeps with a man.

Stormrunner, it means homosexual. Deal with it.


But Stormrunner, I still have those two questions. When you're ready, could you answer them, since you appeals to the American Psychological Association? Here they are again:

Does the APA hold that there is a disorder called homphobia? Is such a disease or condition classified in any authoritative peer reviewed anthology of medical, psychological or psychiatric conditions?

Does the APA accept the classification that people who think homosexuality is dysfunctional and that homosexual acts are wrong are suffering from a phobia?

Thanks.

[Goth_S]

Clearly how society is to react to homosexuality is a matter of current debate. Fortunately most educated, enlightened, and fair-minded people are willing to accept gays into full and equal community participation. Unfortunately, most people are not yet educated, enlightened, or fair-minded when it comes to gays.

If God did not intend that gays be biased, prejudiced, discriminated, persecuted, and denied of equal rights and participation in His congregations – then the past and continuing action and reaction to gays by the “Christian” community may be the far greater sin.


Very well said.
Very well said indeed.

[Sparko]

So should we coddle proponents of other sexual sins too? Adultery? Incest? I could go on but I don't want to get inflammatory I am genuinely curious why it is wrong to denounce homosexuality as a sin if our bible teaches it is? Just like it teaches Adultery is a sin, and Incest.

[Shadow Phoenix]

OK guys, I’ll start it off. But I wonder if it’s worth the effort. Someone will still be willing to spend their day posting with the sensitivity of a 50’s car-full of Deep South white-bread yokels throwing beer cans at * edited by a moderator * as they drive by. Or worse, the Bible carrying religious nuts who I remember from the preacher in Midnight Cowboy. So just to let those types know - we won’t go away, we will face you, we will wear you down and thin you out. And you know why? Because we have far more to gain than you can ever imagine you would lose. And we can’t afford to lose amendment fights – because once adopted by required super majorities; it will take a super majority to repeal it - a mere fourteen states can do that – and it surely won’t then be repealed within a generation.

This is our time in history and this is our lives – and don’t think you wouldn’t do the same if you were in our shoes. The big difference is that we can’t see ourselves, in your shoes, ever being so suspiciously homophobic or hypocritically unholy. Get a life.

Today there are millions of AIDS babies in the world suffering unbelievable pain, and this is in many ways a direct result of the homophobia that existed when AIDS first arose in the American gay community in the 1980’s and was not given the compassionate and crisis response that a similar new disease would have been given if the victims were white Christian heterosexual men. I say this, as I want to convey that the attitude toward gays does matter. And that much of the attitude towards gays is a result of an interpretation of scripture taken out of context, colored by individual bias, exaggerated relative to the overriding message of Jesus, and devoid of an intuitive reasoning that love is the most important message of all.



*Sniffs thinking that he just walked out of a theater shownig of Braveheart and just saw Stormrunner riding on a horse and screaming "They may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom!"

Storm. I'm really sorry to see that you suffer from fundyphobia. Your case reveals that you have deep-seated tendencies towards becoming a fundamentalist, as seen from your *coughs* exegesis of 1 Cor. 6:9. The attempt at least shows that you probably want to read the Scriptures in the correct way instead of outright denying them, and we all know a good fundy cannot deny the Scriptures.

Now if you want to lead a charge, go ahead please. You know, I'm not really threatened by you. Why should I be? Even if you did "win" this battle, why should I still fear? I know who's on the throne and the last time I checked, he's a lot stronger than the homosexual rights movement is.

I see that you could have a career in politics if you keep this up. You have a great way of poisoning the wells without really giving any evidence whatsoever of your position. Of course, I find it interesting that the people who are screaming for tolerance and acceptance aren't so tolerant and accepting of people who disagree with them. Maybe you are more like us than you realize.

Now I find it odd that you blame AIDS babies on homophobia. WOuldn't the fault of AIDS babies mainly be those who were actively spreading the disease and couldn't keep their pants on and couldn't care less who else suffered? Last I saw, white heterosexual Christian men weren't exactly being exemplified in the media today.

Oh. The most important message is love? Really? Then love is your idol. God is love but love is not God. If love is the highest, then once you reach that love then what do you have? You've reached the maximum.

Also, love does imply some hatred. I love my family. You know what that means? It means that I hate what is bad for them. I love truth. That means I hate lies. I love justice. That means I hate injustice. Now, if you want to say that you love everything, you have to admit that you love homophobia.

Or you could just admit you're quite hypocritical and intolerant and self-righteous yourself in that what you condemn others of, you are just as guilty of.

[stormrunner]

Bible translators know that arsenokoites is formed as a construct of two words straight out of Leviticus 18, which literally describe a man who sleeps with a man.

Stormrunner, it means homosexual. Deal with it.


But Stormrunner, I still have those two questions. When you're ready, could you answer them, since you appeals to the American Psychological Association? Here they are again:

Does the APA hold that there is a disorder called homphobia? Is such a disease or condition classified in any authoritative peer reviewed anthology of medical, psychological or psychiatric conditions?

Does the APA accept the classification that people who think homosexuality is dysfunctional and that homosexual acts are wrong are suffering from a phobia?

Thanks.


Wjat is homphobia?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

So you have nothing to back yourself up, so you pont out a typo instead?

That speaks volumes. Should I infer the answer to my questions from that?

[stormrunner]

that's about the lamest exegesis I have ever read.

First of all Koite doesn't just mean "bed" it means "sexual intercourse" or literally the same thing as HOMO (Arseno) SEXUAL (Koites)

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2845

Let's go back and see how they translated arsenokoites over 400 years ago before the word homosexual was invented.

King James: 1611 AD: 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Pretty much the same thing.

You also are completely ignoring Romans 1 that doesn't even bother with the word homosexual but actually goes on to describe the act and say it is unnatural and perverted. For both men and women.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Romans 1:31, where the King James Version translated the Greek word astorgous as "without natural affection." This is one of the characteristics of people "with a reprobate mind" (KJV of 1:28). The word for "reprobate" is more recently translated as "depraved" or "perverted" in order more neatly to fit the sexualizing of everything possible in the list. The literal meaning of "reprobate" (Greek dokimon) is "to fail to measure up" or "to fail to meet the test" and simply means that the list of things that follows is the result of a mind that has abandoned God. The word astorgous, "without natural affection," is used only here and in 2 Timothy 3:3. It has nothing at all to do with homosexuality or with sex. It is the Greek word for "family love" or "family ties" with the negative prefix. It refers to people who despise and reject their family members. Rather than being directed at homosexuals, it is a term that is directed at people who despise and reject their own homosexual children and brothers and sisters! Modern translators, knowing this, usually render the word as "unloving," and the implication of some sort of "unnatural" or "perverted" affection is removed. Many more translation corrections are needed elsewhere!

The use of Romans 1:26-27 against homosexuals turns out to be a blunt instrument to batter and wound people who were not intended in the original text. Paul clearly taught throughout Romans, Galatians and his other letters that God's freely given and all-inclusive love is for every person on earth. Notice what Paul said about judging others in Romans 2:1: "Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

What is your interest in reinforcing the condemnation of homsexuals?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Wjat is homphobia?What is Wjat?




So, Stormrunner, does the APA hold that there is a disorder called homophobia? Is such a disease or condition classified in any authoritative peer reviewed anthology of medical, psychological or psychiatric conditions?

Does the APA accept the classification that people who think homosexuality is dysfunctional and that homosexual acts are wrong are suffering from a phobia?


You cited them as a virtually indisputable authority, so I'd really like to know the answer to these two questions.

[stormrunner]

What is Wjat?
Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.'

Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the nonhomophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did.

When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men. As the authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.'

Article: 'Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?' by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr, University of Georgia, in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.

And if you want a similar study that speaks to what happens when a man feels his manliness is threatened, I'll also provide that.

Do you have some feelings about your sexuality that perhaps is under the surface of your not so subtle attacks on me?

[Sparko]

Romans 1:31, where the King James Version translated the Greek word astorgous as "without natural affection." This is one of the characteristics of people "with a reprobate mind" (KJV of 1:28). The word for "reprobate" is more recently translated as "depraved" or "perverted" in order more neatly to fit the sexualizing of everything possible in the list. The literal meaning of "reprobate" (Greek dokimon) is "to fail to measure up" or "to fail to meet the test" and simply means that the list of things that follows is the result of a mind that has abandoned God. The word astorgous, "without natural affection," is used only here and in 2 Timothy 3:3. It has nothing at all to do with homosexuality or with sex. It is the Greek word for "family love" or "family ties" with the negative prefix. It refers to people who despise and reject their family members. Rather than being directed at homosexuals, it is a term that is directed at people who despise and reject their own homosexual children and brothers and sisters! Modern translators, knowing this, usually render the word as "unloving," and the implication of some sort of "unnatural" or "perverted" affection is removed. Many more translation corrections are needed elsewhere!

I have no idea what you are trying to say above because it has nothing to do with what I posted.

Again, Arsenokoines literally translates into HOMO-SEXUAL. There is no getting around it.



The use of Romans 1:26-27 against homosexuals turns out to be a blunt instrument to batter and wound people who were not intended in the original text. Paul clearly taught throughout Romans, Galatians and his other letters that God's freely given and all-inclusive love is for every person on earth. Notice what Paul said about judging others in Romans 2:1: "Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

:duh: Please Stormrunner! How can you misread Romans 1????

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

That is pretty clearly a description of Homosexuality no matter what planet you are from. It says that the natural order is men and woman having natural relations (meaning sexual relations) and instead the men were inflammed with lust for other men. The phrase "in the same" way refers back to women having unnatural relations with other women. It covers both gays and lesbians. Clearly. No doubt.


Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

It goes on to call those relations indecent and perverted. Again pretty clear.



What is your interest in reinforcing the condemnation of homsexuals?

I have no interest in condemning homosexuals as people. Just the act. Men on Men sex and Woman on Woman sex is clearly shown to be a sin. I have the same problem with THAT sin as I do with any other sin. I think extramarital sex is a sin, as is adultery, lying, murder, beating your wife, or having sex with sheep. They are all sins and should be condemned as such.
Hopefully by pointing out the sinful acts those that engage in them will realize they are sinning and turn to God and repent and be saved. My interest in condemning sin is to help open the eyes of sinners to the Gospel and salvation. How can one be saved if they don't know they are sinners?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.'

Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the nonhomophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did.

When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men. As the authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.'

Article: 'Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?' by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr, University of Georgia, in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.

And if you want a similar study that speaks to what happens when a man feels his manliness is threatened, I'll also provide that.

Do you have some feelings about your sexuality that perhaps is under the surface of your not so subtle attacks on me?Attacks on you?

Why are you so insecure? When a person disagrees with me, I don;t interpret as an attack on me. You should do likewise.

But I see you chose not to answer my two questions:

Does the APA hold that there is a disorder called homophobia? Is such a disease or condition classified in any authoritative peer reviewed anthology of medical, psychological or psychiatric conditions?

Does the APA accept the classification that people who think homosexuality is dysfunctional and that homosexual acts are wrong are suffering from a phobia?

[stormrunner]

Not to my knowledge - it is only a psychoanalytic theory that is being tested.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

OK, so people are quite within their rights to reject your labelling of "homophobia" as unwarranted, scientifically unestablished prejudice?

Bear in mind how recently homosexuality was regarded by psychological establishments as a disease.

So they don't say that homphobia is a classifiable disorder, but they have said that homosexuality is. How much to you really trust instituional trendiness?

[stormrunner]

I have no idea what you are trying to say above because it has nothing to do with what I posted.

Again, Arsenokoines literally translates into HOMO-SEXUAL. There is no getting around it.




:duh: Please Stormrunner! How can you misread Romans 1????

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

That is pretty clearly a description of Homosexuality no matter what planet you are from. It says that the natural order is men and woman having natural relations (meaning sexual relations) and instead the men were inflammed with lust for other men. The phrase "in the same" way refers back to women having unnatural relations with other women. It covers both gays and lesbians. Clearly. No doubt.


Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

It goes on to call those relations indecent and perverted. Again pretty clear.





I have no interest in condemning homosexuals as people. Just the act. Men on Men sex and Woman on Woman sex is clearly shown to be a sin. I have the same problem with THAT sin as I do with any other sin. I think extramarital sex is a sin, as is adultery, lying, murder, beating your wife, or having sex with sheep. They are all sins and should be condemned as such.
Hopefully by pointing out the sinful acts those that engage in them will realize they are sinning and turn to God and repent and be saved. My interest in condemning sin is to help open the eyes of sinners to the Gospel and salvation. How can one be saved if they don't know they are sinners?

Is it irrelevant to construct a context of the times of Jesus? Of people, who are not so sophisticated, are mostly illiterate, are oppressed by Roman occupation, and lead rather simple lives close to subsistence level? In such a context could not homosexuality be seen also in context? I remember in the 60’s that my only exposure to homosexuals was that they were queers, faggots, and perverts. I had no understanding of any monogamous relationship between two men that was analogous to the romantic and traditional heterosexual stereotypes.

I have no qualm with the great truths and the overriding laws of behavior pronounced by the Bible. I have no desire to kill, or steal, or commit adultery, or lie. However, I think much of the Bible is parable, moral allegory, or even exaggeration. I don’t think that we all came from Adam and Eve (if so their children would have had to be incestuous); I don’t believe Noah lived to be 500 years old. I have no problem eating pork. I believe that God wants me to read the Bible in conversation with my reason.

And I do not have the answer to whether homosexuality is a sin. I believe that two men loving and caring for each other in a monogamous relationship is seen by society in a changing way, and also that scripture is viewed anew by each generation. You say it is not for me to interpret the scripture – that I must be spoon-fed. By whom? By you? By church elders? Somehow, I don’t think that will be sufficient excuse when I stand before God. I was given the ability to know right from wrong. As a child I was on a bus in Richmond when the driver told a black person that they were not sitting far enough back in the bus. I knew then that he was wrong – even though there were mixed messages about this coming to me from my environment.

I know that many confuse homosexuality – they try to tie it to pedophilia, drug abuse, sexual orgies, promiscuity, AIDS, effeminacy, nanny behavior, lisping, cross dressing. Well then you should also confuse heterosexuality with all the same attributes. I am talking about the loving and caring committed and monogamous love between two men that is analogous to that of our romantic and stereotype heterosexual love that is fully accepted and blessed by family, community, church, and government – and which is withheld from gays. The scientific world views sexual orientation not so different from being right handed or left handed. To accuse as demonic those who would want society to treat such individuals with love and inclusion may be the real sin in God’s eye.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Stormrunner, one question: Does it matter to you what the Bible says about homosexuality? If reading the BIble "in conversation with your reason" means filtering out it's flat condemnation of homosexual behaviour, does it really matter whether you can explain such texts or not? Why appeal to Scripture at all when your reason is already the trump card?

[stormrunner]

Stormrunner, one question: Does it matter to you what the Bible says about homosexuality? If reading the BIble "in conversation with your reason" means filtering out it's flat condemnation of homosexual behaviour, does it really matter whether you can explain such texts or not? Why appeal to Scripture at all when your reason is already the trump card?

The Bible does not have a flat condemnation of homosexuality -- that is only your position in a debate where learned theologians are on both sides of that issue. I am clearer of the Biblical expression of unconditional love and admonition about judgmental behavior.

And God gave me "reason" -- and I believe it purposeful, and that I will be accountable for my choices -- including my choice to use reason over ignorance. Science informs me as it has men of reason throughout history. It trumps ignorance and superstition.

And religion after religion has fallen while reason and the gradual uncovering of truth and God's plan continues, despite the harpings of conservative religious zealots.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The Bible does not have a flat condemnation of homosexuality -- that is only your position in a debate where learned theologians are on both sides of that issue. I am clearer of the Biblical expression of unconditional love and admonition about judgmental behavior.That's no tmy position at all. It's not even what i said. I said that the Bible flatly condemns homosexual acts.

The Bible just does condemn those Acts. It explicitly condemns men who have sexual relations with other men. It is utterly unambiguous. Your comment suggests that there is a fair balance in the debate with the same kind of scholarship on each side. That's just wildly false. Virtually all biblical scholars would accept the statement that the Bible flatly condemns homosexual acts. A comparitavely very tiny handful would dispute that.
And God gave me "reason" -- and I believe it purposeful, and that I will be accountable for my choices -- including my choice to use reason over ignorance. Science informs me as it has men of reason throughout history. It trumps ignorance and superstition.Science offers no moral facts at all. If you think it does, you clearly don't know what science is.
And religion after religion has fallen while reason and the gradual uncovering of truth and God's plan continues, despite the harpings of conservative religious zealots.Your language is equivalent to me talking about filth ridden faggots. Your double standard is utterly disgusting.

[stormrunner]

That's no tmy position at all. It's not even what i said. I said that the Bible flatly condemns homosexual acts.

The Bible just does condemn those Acts. It explicitly condemns men who have sexual relations with other men. It is utterly unambiguous. Your comment suggests that there is a fair balance in the debate with the same kind of scholarship on each side. That's just wildly false. Virtually all biblical scholars would accept the statement that the Bible flatly condemns homosexual acts. A comparitavely very tiny handful would dispute that.
Science offers no moral facts at all. If you think it does, you clearly don't know what science is.
Your language is equivalent to me talking about filth ridden faggots. Your double standard is utterly disgusting.
No, the Bible does not flatly condemn homosexual acts - unless you are a literalist, believing the Bible is inerrant, and unwilling to use common sense in your spiritual search. And if so, you must tread carefully in life, for it is not just the Old Testament that has prohibitions that are largely dismissed in 2006.

Do the texts of the New Testament, when taken at face value, support a structure of society in which women are oppressed? Such texts can best be criticized, not by constructing an imaginary, alternative history of early Christianity in which women enjoyed equality, but on the basis of theological convictions that God's Spirit has brought to maturity within the church. Does the New Testament's inherited monotheism bring with it a virus of intolerance toward diversity that has infected Christian attitudes and behavior? These texts can best be criticized, not by inventing a history of Christianity that was non-Jewish, but by invoking other moral and religious principles within the text to counter the virus of intolerance.

And it was science that said that the Earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa. It was science that said that the universe is older than a few thousand years. Perhaps you don't see these as moral positions - - but to choose truth over ignorance, to me, is moral.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

No, the Bible does not flatly condemn homosexual acts - unless you are a literalist, believing the Bible is inerrant, and unwilling to use common sense in your spiritual search. And if so, you must tread carefully in life, for it is not just the Old Testament that has prohibitions that are largely dismissed in 2006.Here you are pursuing to contradictory lines of argument. On the one hand you say that the Bible does not flatly condemn homosexual acts. On the other, you concede that if a person reads the Bible literally, as though it were inerrant, it does.

So what you accept is that the Ble does flatly condemn homosexual acts, but that it is not inerrant, so we should not accept what it flatly says.
Do the texts of the New Testament, when taken at face value, support a structure of society in which women are oppressed?No.
Does the New Testament's inherited monotheism bring with it a virus of intolerance toward diversity that has infected Christian attitudes and behavior?Yes. And this is what the Bible teaches, that truth is exclusive. Not everything is equally true and right in this world.
And it was science that said that the Earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa. It was science that said that the universe is older than a few thousand years. Perhaps you don't see these as moral positions - - but to choose truth over ignorance, to me, is moral.Actually it was the Christian scientists who taught that the earth orbitted the sun. But that's an entirely different matter.

At least we can agree that homophobia is not an illness in the real world, and that the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour. We just disagree about whether we should accept what the Bible says about homosexual behaviour.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Storm. I notice you're not responding to my points which I find quite revealing. I'm wondering if it might indicate not only fundyphobia which is showing that you are repressing tendencies to be a fundamentalist, or if it could be showing even apologiaphobia, where maybe you'll find you're repressing tendencies to be an apologist.

I find it interesting that when you don't want to answer your opponents, you seem to instead label them with a "disease" and call it homophobia. The odd thing is that usually when we meet people with diseases, we tend to want to empathize with them and care for them. You, instead, by using the same term so much are wanting to mock them, and it could be you're not responding because it just isn't funny when I turn the tables on you.

Has it occurred to you that some people could just think homosexuality is wrong and not have repressed homosexual urges and desires? Could some people that think it's wrong have such repressed urges and desires? Sure. That doesn't mean all do though.

In fact, it's entirely irrelevant. Let us suppose that there is a minister out there who is watching pornography on the internet, but then stands up before his congregation and preaches that watching pornography is a sin. Lo and behold, one day a secretary of his walks into his office and what does she see on his computer? He's sitting there watching pornography. The congregation finds out and the minister is sent to treatment.

Here's the question. Does the stance on whehter or not pornography is wrong change? No. Can we see the minister was being hypocritical? Yeah. Was he violating his own standards? Absolutely. This doesn't tell us though whether or not watching pornography is wrong or not. That's the same question here. Is homosexual behavior wrong or not and you won't find that out by psychoanalyzing people. You have to look at the act itself.

Now I see you're wanting to use the Bible some. What I find odd is that you're wanting to argue that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. Why? You said you don't believe in Adam and Eve or that Noah lived 500 years. Why not just say "The Bible is wrong there just as it's wrong when it condemns homosexuality." Why do you have this need to show the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality when you have no problem saying it's wrong on other areas?

Also, I would agree to read the Bible with reason. There is one giant disclaimer I would make though. You cannot go against what the Biblical writer is trying to say. For an example, I'm reading Plato at this moment. Now I can read a part here and say "I agree with that" and I can say "I disagree with that." What I should try to avoid though is having Plato say anything other than what Plato meant to say.

That's simply how you read any literature. When I read your posts, I disagree. However, I have to read them with trying to find the view that you intend to convey. How I respond to that is my own choice, but it would be wrong of me to make you say something you doin't intend to say.

So Storm, I'd appreciate if you'd tell me why you want the Bible to not condemn homosexuality but you think it's okay to be wrong on every other area. I'd also appreciate it if you would stop calling us homophobes when we disagree instead of examining the act of homosexuality itself. Otherwise, I shall just keep calling you a fundyphobe with repressed fundamentalist tendencies. (I wonder if I could take that idea of watching videos and have groups watch Jerry Falwell sermons or Tim LaHaye sermons or anyone else I might choose to test for various degrees of fundyphobia)

Ultimately, let's get to the real issue at hand, when you're ready.

[Puddleglum]

stormrunner,

A)

How would you feel about six bisexuals who wanted to have a committed relationship with eachother?

B)

Why is it wrong to oppress women?

C)

By what standard do you define oppression?

[Cynic Sage]

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 sound very convincing in including lesbians and gay men in the most dreadful lists of depraved human behavior imaginable. The fact is that the word translated "homosexual" does not mean "homosexual" and the word translated "effeminate" does not mean "effeminate"!

The English word "homosexual" is a composite word made from a Greek term (homo, "the same") and a Latin term (sexualis, "sex"). The term "homosexual" is of modern origin and was not used until about 100 years ago. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to the word "homosexual." No Bible before the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used "homosexual" in any Bible translation.

Using that logic we can say that in the days of John Henry Ford his company did not make cars, because the word used back then was "automobile".

The word translated as "homosexual" or "sexual pervert" or some other similar term is Greek arsenokoites, which was formed from two words meaning "male" and "bed". This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We do not know what it means. The word is obscure and uncertain. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world, as revealed in the excavations at Pompeii and other sites.

When early Greek speaking Christian preachers condemned homosexuality, they did not use this word. John Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) preached in Greek against homosexuality, but he never used this word for homosexuals, and when he preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, he did not mention homosexuals. See the full discussion of this in John Boswell's book: Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality - Appendix 1, "Lexicography and Saint Paul," pages 335-353.

"Soft" does not mean "effeminate." The word translated "effeminate in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is Greek malakoi and means "soft" or "vulnerable." The word is translated as "soft" in reference to clothing in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and as "illness" in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. It is not used anywhere else in the New Testament and carries no hint of reference to sexual orientation. Malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 probably refers those who are "soft," "pliable," "unreliable," or "without courage or stability." The translation of malakoi as "effeminate" is incorrect, ignorant, degrading to women, and impossible to justify based on ancient usage compared to the meaning of "effeminate" today.

I would have to disagree with you there:

No, we're still not going to muck around in the social aspect of this question; here, we'll just be asking the simple exegetical question, "What relevance does Romans 1:27-8, 1 Cor. 6:9, and 1 Tim. 1:10 have to homosexuality?"

Let's start with Romans, that makes sense:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.There's plenty of farcical exegesis floating around which claims that this verse is not addressed to everyday homosexual behavior but to temple prostitution, and non-homosexuals engaging in homosexual sex against their own nature. The latter point, though perhaps an "out" for some exegetes (including Byrne, whose commentary on Romans is our primary source) begs the question of reading modern understandings into an ancient text; and whether indeed homosexuality is a natural inclination, an argument that is beside our mission statement to evaluate. However, taken within the historical and social context, there is simply no way that one can read this as a slam against only "temple" acts which permits a "non-religious" homosexuality. In fact, such a position puts the politically correct cart in front of the exegetical horse.

As Byrne points out [65-9; see also Dunn, Romans, 65-6] Paul here draws upon a "conventional polemic against the Gentile world and its idolatry." The Jews regarded homosexuality for whatever reason as a sin -- period. It was regarded as shameful because it "blurred the all-important distinction of gender role." This leads to a conclusion that cannot be got around: Since Paul drew on this conventional polemic, there is no way that this can be an "against temple sex only" position, because according to Jewish thought, this sort of homosexual behavior was a symptom of Gentile idolatry. It is because they were idolaters that they engaged in the sinful homosexual act, which was sinful completely apart from religious considerations.

That's the simple fact of the matter, and while one could theoretically get around this with a proposition of homosexuality being inborn, practically speaking there is no getting around the clear message of Paul -- via his Jewish forebears -- that the homosexual act as a choice is manifestly a sinful one.

Now for Corinthians (and Timothy, which we need not quote for it just uses a word found in Corinthians):
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God?There's also a lot of conspiracy-mongering claiming that understanding "effeminate" in terms of homosexuality is misleading and that the word means "soft" or "vulnerable" and probably refers to those who are unreliable or lacking in courage. That's certainly not supported by other uses of the same word (malakos): Witherington's Corinthians commentary [166] notes uses of it referring to a "young male prostitute". Lexicons like BAGD, as Wold notes in Out of Order [189], clearly say that the word is used of "men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually" and cites "numerous examples from Greek literature" of the word used this way. Critics argue in reply that the word has no specific referent for the homosexual act, just having feminine characteristics, but of course the "passive" partner in such a relationship DOES act out that very sort of characteristic. In addition, Wold notes [192] that at Paul's time, the common preference for a "passive" homosexual partner WAS one that was effeminate (whereas prior to the 5th century BC, the preference was for a masculine partner). Finally, other Greek terms for the passive partner, clearly used in homosexual contexts, are words that have no "inherent" homosexual meaning but are borrowed words used to describe the passive homosexual. Critics have a substantial burden to carry before they can simply dismiss this word.

The reference to "abusers of self with mankind" uses a word also found in 1 Tim. 1:10 (arsenokoitai). Critics try to make some issue of this being an "obscure" or "uncertain" word for Paul's use of it seems to be the first ever use of it. The idea that it means male-female sex is a desperate move; the two parts of the word mean "male" and "sexual intercourse," and Paul hardly needed to invent a word male-female sex. Furthermore, the word is clearly derived from the LXX translations of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html), which used the words arsenos koitin and arsenos ou koimethese. Paul is merely creating a compound word from two clear words used of homosexual relations in Leviticus. It also ought to be noted that with these two words Paul would cover the "passive" and "active" role in the male homosexual relationship [Wold, 191] recognized by classical Greek writers.



source.
(http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.html)
This incorrect rendering of malakoi and arsenokoites as references to gender orientation has been disastrous for millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual people. This mistaken translation has enlisted a mighty army of ignorant religious fanatics against homosexual people and has turned many Lesbians and Gays against the Bible, which holds for them as for all people the good news of God's love in Christ.

Using your reasoning I could just as easily say that your translation of "arsenokoites" as "male-prostitute that services a woman" "has been disatrous for millions of Gigolos. This mistaken translation has enlisted a mighty army of ignorant religious fanatics against male sex-trade workers that service women and has turned many gigolos and Pimps against the Bible, which holds for them as for all people the good news of God's love in Christ."

Arguing from outrage sure is fun, don't have to use your brain or anything.
[attachment]

Three of the passages: Genesis 19:5; I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 are incorrectly translated. The other three: Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 are taken out of their original setting of condemning idolatrous religious practices and wrongly used to judge and condemn people of the same sex who love each other. None of these passages refer to people of the same sex who love each other. None originally were aimed at homosexuals.

For the Genesis passage you mentioned:

Our source for this essay in Donald Wold's Out of Order: Homosexuality and the Bible in the Ancient Near East. Our purpose is to look at the question of what Genesis says with respect to homosexuality, and with specific focus on one passage that is often taken to refer to homosexuality, but is argued by critics to not do so (Sodom and Gommorah), and then look at a passage that is seldom understood to refer to homosexuality, but that Wold argues does so, in a condemning way.

Let's start with the one that everyone discusses:
Genesis 19:4-11 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.Common critics' points, with our answers (including from Wold):




"Know" doesn't mean sexuality, it just means, "get to know". Critics admit that the word used (the very common yada) does at times refer euphemistically to sexual activity, but that this is seldom the case. However, Wold points out that the presence of a mixed group, as opposed to merely elders, speaks against this being any sort of "welcoming committee" (for elders had that role in an ancient village or city [82ff -- there is no evidence, Wold notes, for the claim that Lot violated hospitality by not getting permission to have a guest; no such custom is known]). Critics also fail to consider the full semantic field: In other languages of the period, there are equivalent verbs to yada (in Egyptian, Ugaritic, Akkadian) which are clearly used with a sexual connotation. In addition, critics admit that yada means sexual intercourse in Judges 19:25, a story which scholars unhesitatingly identify as having used Gen. 19 as a literary model. It is also clear that yada is used sexually of Lot's daughters in 19:8. Finally, the LXX translators used a Greek verb which clearly indicated that they understood yada in 19:5 in a sexual sense (hence, it is false to claim that no Jewish scholars read the text this way prior to Christianity).
They were just being inhospitable. Of course, there is no doubt under our view that the Sodomites were also inhospitable! But the refusal to take Lot's daughters shows that the matter was likely one of social dominance: the men wished to show that they were social superiors to Lot's visitors, and they wished to accomplish this by means of the socially-dominating act of homosexuality. Moreover, the "persistence of the Sodomites does not reflect the demeanor of would-be hospitable folk." If it were, Lot would have hardly protested as he did.


source. (http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html)

And Leviticus:

To answer our inquirer, we have to start here with some basics. The laws of the OT can be broken down into three categories:



First, universal moral laws. This includes do not steal, do not kill, by common agreement (even among liberals...hee hee...).
Second, cultural universals. By this I mean laws geared to Israel's culture that have a universal moral law behind them. (As an example, some have suggested the prohibition on trimming your beard [Lev. 19:27] relates to pagan practices that cut facial hair for magical purposes. So the universal behind this cultural would be, don't do the occult.)
Finally, ceremonial laws. Instructions for building the Ark of the Covenant, for example. All of this has been superseded by Christ and won't come into our discussion again.
The question becomes this: Are the Leviticus passages in question in the first category as we say, or in the second category (related to temple cults, seed value, etc.) as the liberals say? I have to conclude that there are in category 1, for the following reasons:



Note first the CONTEXT of the 2 Lev. prohibitions: 18:22 and 20:13. Both are set in the middle of other laws regarding sexual behavior: Don't lay with your mom, your aunt, etc. Can it be seriously argued that *these* have anything to do with wasting seed, temple cults, etc.? (It should be added that nowhere is there any evidence that the Jews regarded semen as symbolic of life, as in other cultures; Wold, Out of Order, 115.) On the contrary, the context of the commands is that of Category 1 laws: Universal absolutes. This is especially so for the 2nd cite, which is smack in the middle of such prohibitions: Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD, who makes you holy. If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head. If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you. If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible. If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people. Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible. If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless. If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless. Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. Note that what we have here involves a series of crimes and punishments. The punishments range from "worst to best", from death to expulsion to barrenness. This suggests that the crimes are in a "worst to best" range as well, and our verse of concern is smack in the middle - and one of those that gets the death penalty! The context, the structure of the commands, and the punishment together suggest that what we have here is a universal condemnation of all such behavior!




But here's a pushback - what about 18:22, which is, admittedly, after a prohibition on sacrificing to Molech: 18:22-4 Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. I say this "admittedly" because I can see the liberal theologians trying to say, "See, that's a context that shows the next prohibition on men and men relates to temple practice!" All right: Then to be quite blunt, and begging pardons for the crudity, what about the prohibition following that one, about having sex with animals? Can we say that no such prohibition existed if you wanted to have sexual relations with an animal, as long as it wasn't having to do with a religious rite? I think even liberals might choke on that one! The conclusion must be as Wold [119] offers: The inclusion of Molech here is an incidental; here, the homosexual element is shown as (yet another) reason why worship of Molech is wrong.



I have now seen one arguer try to get around this argument. Jeramy Townsley offers this:

The one counter-argument that can be raised against this is that, if we say that each of these behaviors are now "clean" and we can engage in them then we are supporting incest and bestiality, since prohibitions against both of these are found in Leviticus 18 and 20. But this is not necessarily the case. While these particular chapters are designed to delineate ritualistic uncleanness, that doesn't mean that any of these activities can't be classified under another branch of law. For example, bestiality is mentioned in two other passages other than in Leviticus (Ex 22.19, and Dt 27.21), as is incest. Homosexuality, however, is never mentioned outside of these passages...That homosexuality is "never mentioned outside of these passages" is irrelevant (and in fact untrue; see our entry on homosexuality here (http://www.tektonics.org/TK-H.html)). The two examples given, Ex. 22:19 and Deut. 27:21, are part of clusters of miscellaneous laws that do not go out and mention every possible alternative. Thus we would have the absurd conclusion, using Townsley's logic, that Deut. 27:22-3...

Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with his mother in law. And all the people shall say, Amen....unlike Lev. 18, allows incest with those relatives not named in Lev. 18 (father, grandchildren, aunt)! This is simply a case of Townsley trying to nitpick away the prohibition with a non-stated distinction. One may as well argue back that the reason that such behavior was "unclean" was because it was a generally prohibited relationship.




It's important to note that the Jews NEVER interpreted these verses in any way other than against plain old homosexual behavior. They never saw any kind of "culture factor" behind this prohibition. (See here the works of Philo and Josephus, for example.)
It *is* a valid practice to look for a "cultural factor" behind laws like the one about cutting your beard. But these involved things that were "universal" at the time, and work under the assumption that there is no "normal" use of beard cutting - i.e., to look hip or something. One presumably would never cut one's beard like that UNLESS they had some nasty plans! So if we want to say that the "men and men" cites are "cultural" we have to assume that there was no "normal" way that there could be "men and men" - which would mean that non-ritual homosexuality was thought to not be a normal practice, or was non-existent!


Here's a point to ponder: If these were prohibitions against temple prostitution, why are "men and men" only mentioned when men and women combos were also used in the temples? Why single out "men and men" here? Who not just say "temple prostitution"? As in...


...there are very SPECIFIC condemnations of temple prostitution elsewhere (Deut. 23:17-8). This would suggest that the Lev. cites are not "roundabouts" or allusions to that practice.
As side note, I'll add here that some try to circumvent this conclusion by dating Leviticus c. 520-400 BC and/or suggesting it was composed as a "mirror reaction" by Israeli men who were raped by Babylonian or Persian soldiers. I think such psychobabble as this can be safely ignored as entirely speculative and presuming the very thing that needs to be proven.)
A second side note is an argument used by Townsley and others, saying: The usage here is not a single Hebrew word or idiom which can refer to any sex acts between the same gender. Rather, the texts clearly say, "if a man lies with a man as with a woman." There is no leeway in these texts to include lesbian acts in this pronouncement. This is important, because it does not seem consistent to condemn male homosexuality and not female homosexuality, if the point of condemning homosexuality is because it is "unnatural." Townsley is falling into the same trap as skeptics like Dennis McKinsey: Ancient law codes, being didactic, do not need to be "consistent" with our modern, precision-oriented expectations; the condemnation of male homosexuality applies by exension to female homosexuality, just as laws that say "If a man..." do not mean a woman can get away with the same act with no punishment. (It's also questionable how widespread such behavior would have been anyway, given how closely guarded daughters would have been in the ancient household.)


source. (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html)

Now in your wonderful Christian and loving manner, why don't you begin to defend your homophobic interpretation of scripture?

Why yes, Bill. I have stopped beating my wife. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html):ahem:

Stormrunner, you really need to get it through your head that not everyone who disagrees with you on your translations of certain greek words hates homosexuals.

[Tux314]

Stormrunner, why do you accept recognized experts in the field of psychology but not in the field of biblical studies? Most people would agree that the translators of the major Bible translations (NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, etc.) are experts in interpreting and understanding the Greek and Hebrew used in the Bible. Basically all major translations use some form of "homosexual" in their translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Why do you not accept the conclusions of these scholars? They are as widely recognized in biblical scholarship as the APA is in scientific scholarship.
Maybe you're a KJV onlyist, and you really are a closet fundamentalist. KJV onlyists like to claim all these translations are evil.

Would you mind explaining the relevance of the fact that the word "homosexual" is fairly young? After all, English as a language is younger than the Bible. Just about all words in English were coined after the Bible was written. Only a subset of KJV onlyists would deny that...

We still have the fact that the Greek used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 does derive from that used in Leviticus. There is no real evidence to indicate that the Leviticus passages were referring specifically to cult practices.

Also, why do you keep ignoring my questions about the distinction between same-sex attraction and same-sex behavior? The Bible refers to same-sex behavior, but never to same-sex attraction. The word "homosexual" in modern times does often denote same-sex attraction, so unfortunately it can lead to the misinterpretation of the New Testament passages. However, this doesn't change what the passages mean - same-sex behavior is a sin.

I agree that the church and many Christians take stances that are unloving and perhaps even "homophobic." Just as many students at a secular high school tell gay jokes even though they don't believe sexual morals exist. I suspect this latter group may represent those in the experiment you mentioned previously - those who simply have a moral objection to same-sex behavior usually also have a moral objection to pornography and thus would not be willing to participate in a study using such methodology.

There are also Christians who make the mistake of elevating same-sex behavior over other sins, perhaps because it can be easiest to condemn sins you aren't involved in. We Christians need to focus more on our own failings such as greed and pride. However, this doesn't mean that we should ignore or accept any particular sin.

I agree that no one should be denied full participation in society or the church on the basis of same-sex attraction. After all, it's probably unchosen in most if not all cases, and only some succeed at changing it. However, this does not necessitate any conclusion about same-sex behavior. I think the church and society should deal with same-sex behavior as it would other sexual sins. If a pastor can be dismissed for adultery, a pastor can be dismissed for same-sex behavior. If a person confesses same-sex behavior and is repentant, even if he or she is not initially successful in overcoming the sin, the church by no means should reject or shun the person. Everybody struggles with something. However, if a person blatantly opposes biblical sexual morals, we must follow Paul's advice:

I wrote to you in my letter to have no company with sexual sinners; yet not at all meaning with the sexual sinners of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then you would have to leave the world. But as it is, I wrote to you not to associate with anyone who is called a brother who is a sexual sinner, or covetous, or an idolater, or a slanderer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner. Don’t even eat with such a person. For what have I to do with also judging those who are outside? Don’t you judge those who are within? But those who are outside, God judges. “Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.”

However, it would be hypocritical to apply this passage to practicing homosexuals if it is not also applied to adulterers, opposite-sex couples living together unmarried, etc.

In society at large, we don't "discriminate" against adulterers for example, so it would be inconsistent to apply similar "discrimination" to practicing homosexuals.

You also must realize that same-sex behavior is a choice, because behavior in general is chosen. What the APA is noting, and I believe correctly so (although they also make claims I disagree with), is that same-sex attraction is not a choice. It's no secret that unmarried men are usually attracted to women and that married men are attracted to more women than simply their spouses. This does not justify sexual sin for them, just as same-sex attraction does not justify same-sex behavior.

If you are telling me that science goes against the morality I am describing, you're going to have to tell me just how. This you have yet to do. You have only cited some conclusions (perhaps correct, perhaps not) about same-sex attraction and then illogically applied them to same-sex behavior.

[Sparko]

I have no qualm with the great truths and the overriding laws of behavior pronounced by the Bible. I have no desire to kill, or steal, or commit adultery, or lie. However, I think much of the Bible is parable, moral allegory, or even exaggeration.

blah blah blah


And I do not have the answer to whether homosexuality is a sin.

blah blah


So basically now that you can no longer keep up the charade that the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality as a sin, your recourse it that you simply don't choose to believe the bible because it is just parable and exaggeration.

I guess that settles it then. You are simply arguing your own authority and the bible does condemn homosexuality as a sin.

So much for your whole thread then. Why didn't you just say that you didn't care what the bible said anyway instead of trying to convince us that it didn't say what it plainly says?

I choose to believe what the bible says and accept the teachings of the apostles on what is sin and what is not.

[stormrunner]

In all fairness, I think I can arrive at my own conclusions. I don't pretend to know the ultimate answers -- I'm a searcher. And I admit, I'm a bit suspicious of smug answers -- and of those who don't demonstrate by the actions in their lives, the very Christian principles they preach. There does seem to me to be a fair correlation between religious conservatives and hypocrisy.

There also seems to be many posters who see this as a game where they want to be on top -- and they are competitive and are driven to win. I'm a bit competitive myself - but winning to me is either having a deeper and truer spiritual life; or sharing my point of view and hopefully being a catalyst for someone else to find a deeper and truer spiritual life.

It also seems the height of naiveté to swallow the Bible – hook, line, and sinker -- wholly out of context of all the other input in our experience that may or may not also be God inspired. It suggests to me an unenlightened view of history and a disturbing mindset to desperately hold on to a simple belief system, (like Santa Claus), feeling that God would forsake them if they used their own rational resources to seek Him independently. I know the early Christians were able to stand boldly in the Roman coliseums in front of hungry lions, and without ever having seen or read the King James Version of the Bible or perhaps any Bible. They had heard the Word, I believe, of this man Jesus, who preached love – that God loved us and that we were to love each other. What a beautiful concept.

There is something enormously intuitive about the broad and predominate messages of Jesus as they have come to us over the ages.

I find it enormously confusing and seemingly inconsistent that religious conservatives would find so much energy to obstruct any and all rights and freedoms and acceptance to homosexuals and to homosexual relationships (that are monogamous and committed and loving). I suspect their motives -- and I am aware over my lifetime of the suffering they bring to homosexuals. I feel somewhat fortunate that, although late in my life, I am beginning to see a more scientific, a more reasonable, a more compassionate, a more enlightened approach taken towards homosexuals by some governments and some religions. I hope that trend continues.

I have lived in both Saudi Arabia and in The Netherlands. I have seen how religious conservatives (in Saudi they are Muslim of course) are not too different from the religious conservatives I have known in Christian countries. They seem to not be satisfied in having their own belief system – they seem obsessive in imposing their belief system on those around them. This seems to me to have far lees to do about their respective religions and a lot more to do with a type of personality – and a personality I find more and more offensive.

[Shadow Phoenix]

In all fairness, I think I can arrive at my own conclusions. I don't pretend to know the ultimate answers -- I'm a searcher. And I admit, I'm a bit suspicious of smug answers -- and of those who don't demonstrate by the actions in their lives, the very Christian principles they preach. There does seem to me to be a fair correlation between religious conservatives and hypocrisy.

No one's denying that you can arrive at your own conclusions. We're just affirming that your conclusions are wrong. Now granted, there is some hypocrisy but as my earlier post shows (Which you also have never responded to), hypocrisy does not indicate a lack of truth. I may be the biggest hypocrite out there. The real question is, "Is what I'm saying true."

There also seems to be many posters who see this as a game where they want to be on top -- and they are competitive and are driven to win. I'm a bit competitive myself - but winning to me is either having a deeper and truer spiritual life; or sharing my point of view and hopefully being a catalyst for someone else to find a deeper and truer spiritual life.

Again irrelevant. What matters is if what is being said is true.

It also seems the height of naiveté to swallow the Bible – hook, line, and sinker -- wholly out of context of all the other input in our experience that may or may not also be God inspired. It suggests to me an unenlightened view of history and a disturbing mindset to desperately hold on to a simple belief system, (like Santa Claus), feeling that God would forsake them if they used their own rational resources to seek Him independently. I know the early Christians were able to stand boldly in the Roman coliseums in front of hungry lions, and without ever having seen or read the King James Version of the Bible or perhaps any Bible. They had heard the Word, I believe, of this man Jesus, who preached love – that God loved us and that we were to love each other. What a beautiful concept.

Oh yeah. That's what all of us have done. We're all obviously so irrational because we believe the Bible and we are blessed that Stormrunner has come by to enlighten us with his wisdom. I find it amazing that you think that we believe the Bible is the only source of truth. No Christian who knows what he's talking about will say that. If I want to learn mathematics for instance, I pick up a math textbook and not the Bible.

Also, how can you really refer to Christianity as a "simple belief system?" Have you ever read a tome in your life on systematic theology from a Christian perspective? This is a deep and complex belief system that touches on every area of life.

Also, the early church did have a Bible. First off, they had the OT, and second off, they quoted many of the books that we call the NT today and treated them as books with authority alongside the OT.

Another point is that Jesus's great message was not love. Jesus's message was the Kingdom of God arriving in his person. The Jewish leaders and Romans would not care about some Mr. Rogers figure strolling through Jerusalem telling everyone to hold hands and sing "Kum-Bu-Yah."

What changed them was not knowing that they were loved. What changed them was this. They knew that a dead man had come back by his own power and because he had done that, they would do the same. Have you ever read anything on church history or did you have so much naivete that you accepted the skeptical view "hook, line, and sinker?"

There is something enormously intuitive about the broad and predominate messages of Jesus as they have come to us over the ages.

Now have you read anything on biblical transmission?

I find it enormously confusing and seemingly inconsistent that religious conservatives would find so much energy to obstruct any and all rights and freedoms and acceptance to homosexuals and to homosexual relationships (that are monogamous and committed and loving). I suspect their motives -- and I am aware over my lifetime of the suffering they bring to homosexuals. I feel somewhat fortunate that, although late in my life, I am beginning to see a more scientific, a more reasonable, a more compassionate, a more enlightened approach taken towards homosexuals by some governments and some religions. I hope that trend continues.

Let's see. We conservatives have a book that we believe comes from God that says homosexuality is a sin and we're incosistent when we act on that. Can someone run that by me again?

Stormrunner. Homosexuals are not being restricted. They have the same rights as anyone else. They can marry whoever they choose, provided it's someone of the opposite sex. You don't want homosexuals to have equal rights. You want them to have unequal rights.

Now the homosexuals are supposedly suffering so much at our hands. Therefore, we ought to change our stance? What was this you were just saying about the Romans throwing the Christians to the lions? There are Christians being persecuted all around the world Storm. Becuase of that, are you going to change to our stance?

In the end, you're arguing in a circle to say your actions are the more compassionate and more loving and more scientific and more enlightened. Are you our beacon now in this storm that if we follow your path on how to handle homosexuality that we shall all dwell in righteousness and peace and love?

I have lived in both Saudi Arabia and in The Netherlands. I have seen how religious conservatives (in Saudi they are Muslim of course) are not too different from the religious conservatives I have known in Christian countries. They seem to not be satisfied in having their own belief system – they seem obsessive in imposing their belief system on those around them. This seems to me to have far lees to do about their respective religions and a lot more to do with a type of personality – and a personality I find more and more offensive.

Ooooh! This will be a fun one to play with! Let's go!

I have lived in both Saudi Arabia and in The Netherlands. I have seen how left-wing homosexuals are not too different from the left-wing beliefs I have known in liberal countries. They seem to not be satisfied in having their own belief system (that they should have the right to marry someone of the same sex.)– they seem obsessive in imposing their belief system on those around them. (So everyone should believe in same-sex marriage) This seems to me to have far lees to do about their respective religions and a lot more to do with a type of personality – and a personality I find more and more offensive.

I agree. I find it offensive that the homosexual community wants to me to recognize as acceptable what I see as sin. Could you maybe see if you can get them to stop imposing that belief system on me?

[Goth_S]

I spy, with my little eye, a few problems:



Stormrunner. Homosexuals are not being restricted. They have the same rights as anyone else. They can marry whoever they choose, provided it's someone of the opposite sex. You don't want homosexuals to have equal rights. You want them to have unequal rights.

No, they want to have equal rights. Simply because you do not choose to marry another man, does not mean that you should not have that right.
Conversely, if homosexuals do not wish to marry a woman, does not mean they should be stripped of that right.




Now the homosexuals are supposedly suffering so much at our hands. Therefore, we ought to change our stance? What was this you were just saying about the Romans throwing the Christians to the lions? There are Christians being persecuted all around the world Storm. Becuase of that, are you going to change to our stance?


Your stance and views are fine, untill they infringe on the lives of others.
If you can legislate your religious views, what's to stop you from making prayer manditory? What's to stop you from making it a crime of treason to refuse to go to church?



In the end, you're arguing in a circle to say your actions are the more compassionate and more loving and more scientific and more enlightened. Are you our beacon now in this storm that if we follow your path on how to handle homosexuality that we shall all dwell in righteousness and peace and love?

Well....how is forcing others to comply with your views in any way shape or form, in keeping with your doctrine of "love or compassion" ?
Esp. when it's an aspect of someone else's life.




I agree. I find it offensive that the homosexual community wants to me to recognize as acceptable what I see as sin. Could you maybe see if you can get them to stop imposing that belief system on me?

Nobody wants you to view anything as acceptable if you do not find it so. I find chrisitanity unaceptable. Doesn't mean I'm gonna stop you from keeping it. The trick, is letting others have the same treatment regardless of your beleif system.

Same thing with your tract on homophobia. You can be a homophobe all you want. Fine by me. Tolerance is not synonomous with acceptance. Tolerance is how you tolerate a screaming kid in the supermarket.
The split comes from when you start using that homophobia, to the detriment of others.

[TuckEverlasting]

I spy, with my little eye, a few problems:

I don't see them. :wink:

No, they want to have equal rights.

:sigh: This again... :no:

They've already got equal rights; viz., they have the same rights as anyone else. The rest of your paragraph is irrelevant to this particular point.

If you can legislate your religious views, what's to stop you from making prayer manditory?

Here's my question for you, Goth_S: we make laws, some of which are necessarily based on moral positions. On which moral code should we base those laws?

[Sparko]

I spy, with my little eye, a few problems:





No, they want to have equal rights. Simply because you do not choose to marry another man, does not mean that you should not have that right.
Conversely, if homosexuals do not wish to marry a woman, does not mean they should be stripped of that right.

Now you are asking for additional rights for everyone: to marry the same sex. That is a different subject altogether. Currently we all have the same right to marry the same people under the law. We (hetero and homosexuals) can marry a human being of the opposite sex as long as they are not a close relative and can willingly consent to marriage. Nick was right, we have equal rights.




Your stance and views are fine, untill they infringe on the lives of others.
If you can legislate your religious views, what's to stop you from making prayer manditory? What's to stop you from making it a crime of treason to refuse to go to church?

Well....how is forcing others to comply with your views in any way shape or form, in keeping with your doctrine of "love or compassion" ?
Esp. when it's an aspect of someone else's life.



Ah the old slippery slope argument. Are you sure you want to go down that road? I mean everytime a Christian brings up such an argument, like saying gay marriage will lead to the acceptance of sexual perversions as normal, like marrying your sister, your dog, or even your child, we are pooh-poohed as being reactionaries who are trying to use scare tactics for no good reason. And here you are trying that same tactic with us. If you want to go down that road we can compare scare tactics and see which is scarier: praying in public or marrying a 10-year-old.

Same thing with your tract on homophobia. You can be a homophobe all you want. Fine by me. Tolerance is not synonomous with acceptance. Tolerance is how you tolerate a screaming kid in the supermarket.
The split comes from when you start using that homophobia, to the detriment of others.

That is pretty close. Tolerant means allowing a person to express their opinion without actually having to agree with it. Nobody is saying homosexuals can't express their opinions or even argue for homosexual marriage. But if you extend tolerence to stopping even disenting opinions why they you are as guilty of that as we are. You are telling us WE are wrong and that we have no right to tell you that YOU are wrong. Not very fair is it?

[Goth_S]

Now you are asking for additional rights for everyone: to marry the same sex. That is a different subject altogether. Currently we all have the same right to marry the same people under the law. We (hetero and homosexuals) can marry a human being of the opposite sex as long as they are not a close relative and can willingly consent to marriage. Nick was right, we have equal rights.


Depends on whom you ask. In my home, everyone has an equal and unadulterated right to worship satan. You do not, however, have the right to bring a crucifix into my home.
Is this "equal rights" ?

Consider, that you have no desire to be homosexual (I assume) so you have no problem forcing others to do as you do, and call it equality. Yet you have no desire to worship satan (I assume) yet I call my system "equality" ?



Ah the old slippery slope argument. Are you sure you want to go down that road? I mean everytime a Christian brings up such an argument, like saying gay marriage will lead to the acceptance of sexual perversions as normal, like marrying your sister, your dog, or even your child, we are pooh-poohed as being reactionaries who are trying to use scare tactics for no good reason. And here you are trying that same tactic with us. If you want to go down that road we can compare scare tactics and see which is scarier: praying in public or marrying a 10-year-old.

Could you possibly bring me some evidence to support the idea that all homosexuals or at least, a reasonable portion, are pedophilic in nature?

The argument about homosexual marriage is one of personal biological ordained desires. The other is a detriment to society at large, because it causes direct, acute, harm to another specifically.




That is pretty close. Tolerant means allowing a person to express their opinion without actually having to agree with it. Nobody is saying homosexuals can't express their opinions or even argue for homosexual marriage. But if you extend tolerence to stopping even disenting opinions why they you are as guilty of that as we are. You are telling us WE are wrong and that we have no right to tell you that YOU are wrong. Not very fair is it?


Did I stop you from dissenting an opinion? No. Did I stop you from telling me I was wrong? No.

Perhaps you could rephrase this to make it relevant to what I said?

[Sparko]

Depends on whom you ask. In my home, everyone has an equal and unadulterated right to worship satan. You do not, however, have the right to bring a crucifix into my home.
Is this "equal rights" ?

Consider, that you have no desire to be homosexual (I assume) so you have no problem forcing others to do as you do, and call it equality. Yet you have no desire to worship satan (I assume) yet I call my system "equality" ?

As far as I can tell that is completely non sequitor to what we have been discussing. A private home is not the same thing as the public arena of law.

Under the current laws of marriage, hetero- and homosexuals have the same rights. They may want MORE rights but they can't complain they don't have the same rights. I don't have the right to marry my schnauzer, and niether does anyone else. If someone WAS into bestiality, would you say that they didn't have the same rights as I did, even if they wanted to marry their dog but couldn't? Of course not.







Could you possibly bring me some evidence to support the idea that all homosexuals or at least, a reasonable portion, are pedophilic in nature?

I wasn't even making that claim. I was merely answering your slippery slope argument. The Christian slippery slope argument goes like this (very simplified):

1. If we allow Gays to have their way to marry one another, then the laws will have been relaxed as to say "you can marry any one you love"

2. What's to stop someone from using their same arguments and saying they should have the right to marry their sister, since they are both consenting adults.

3. Or their dog. After all the dog did not dissent, that must be implied consent.

4. Or their child. As their parent they can give consent for their child under the law.

and so on.

Looking at the netherlands we can actually see some of this happening.

If you want to go down the slippery slope argument with prayer, etc, you are opening pandoras box. That was what I was trying to say.


The argument about homosexual marriage is one of personal biological ordained desires. The other is a detriment to society at large, because it causes direct, acute, harm to another specifically.

Huh? You don't think that pedophilia is a personal biological desire? LOL. And who are you to decide what is harm to another? I mean I have a friend who is homosexual and he almost died form a ruptured anus. Sounds like harm to me. And who would be harmed if someone married their sibling?









Did I stop you from dissenting an opinion? No. Did I stop you from telling me I was wrong? No.

serendipity strikes... there is a good post on tolerence here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1536442&postcount=1



Perhaps you could rephrase this to make it relevant to what I said?


You said: "The split comes from when you start using that homophobia, to the detriment of others."

How is dissenting with homosexuality detrimental to others? It is merely expressing an opinion. You assume homosexuals have the 'right' to do what they want despite the law and if anyone speaks against that or tries to keep the laws the same they are harming them. That is not the case.

Would you argue that speaking out against incest is wrong because it is detrimental to those who want to marry their siblings? What about their 'rights' to love and marry who they want?

I smell a double standard.

[GreatWhiteHype2]

No one's denying that you can arrive at your own conclusions. We're just affirming that your conclusions are wrong. Now granted, there is some hypocrisy but as my earlier post shows (Which you also have never responded to), hypocrisy does not indicate a lack of truth. I may be the biggest hypocrite out there. The real question is, "Is what I'm saying true."


Nick, I agree with you on your major points in this post, but there are a few places I'd quibble with your approach. First off, hypocrisy does indicate a lack of truth...now, if you're talking about truth standing apart from your actions by itself, then yes, I agree with you. However, when it comes to the testimony your life is giving on a daily basis, the hypocrisy you (hypothetically) show in various issues shows whether you've truly given the whole of your life over to the "truth" or not.

Here's a simple test case: You and I make the claim that we are forgiven. In order for that to be true (if 1st John is true), we must be extending forgiveness to others in order to be forgiven by God. Our lifestyle must show a commitment to forgiveness in order for our message to have any impact. Thus, our hypocrisy (or lack thereof) clearly shows whether we believe something to be true or not.

I highlight this because the Bible refutes the Western dichotomy between "belief" and "action." We think we can make a claim that we "believe" something when our life states the opposite. This is hypocrisy, and it shows we really don't believe it. This may sound simplistic, but I think a full-orbed understanding of the Bible leads us to this position. Our lives must reinforce what we say we believe, or we don't really believe it (this deeply affects the power of our stated "beliefs" on those we witness to...especially those who see us on a daily basis)



Another point is that Jesus's great message was not love. Jesus's message was the Kingdom of God arriving in his person. The Jewish leaders and Romans would not care about some Mr. Rogers figure strolling through Jerusalem telling everyone to hold hands and sing "Kum-Bu-Yah."

I disagree. Something's whispering in my ear about the first and greatest commandment and the "second is like it."


What changed them was not knowing that they were loved. What changed them was this. They knew that a dead man had come back by his own power and because he had done that, they would do the same. Have you ever read anything on church history or did you have so much naivete that you accepted the skeptical view "hook, line, and sinker?"


Again, I disagree. It's extremely reductionistic to make the claim that the life-altering truth of the gospel was simply Jesus returning from the dead. The way Jesus lived, those he spent time around (those rejected by society and considered second-class citizens), and the message he preached were paradigm-shattering as well, and just as much a part of the gospel as his death and resurrection. I guarantee you those who came into contact with Jesus were changed by his radical love and compassion for them.

I think you're working with a very shallow, secular definition of love here, Nick. Jesus' call to love God and others with everything we are is radically different than the tolerant, accepting, smarmy kind of love Stormrunner is advocating that you're (and I would agree with you) arguing against. Jesus' exemplification of love was one that was at once compassionate and challenging, deeply caring and tough, highly tolerant and yet highly demanding. The balance he walked was tremendous and blows my mind to think about as I read of his interactions with others. Jesus' definition of love is not the Joel Osteen/Max Lucado/self-esteem/always-affirming/never-challenging kind of love. I think the most powerful passage in the oft-quoted "he who is without sin, cast the first stone" encounter is not the stone-throwing sentence, but rather the combination of Jesus' gaze and command, "Go and sin no more" to the forgiven woman. That's the gaze of a holy God laying her bare, cutting past the front to her heart, and him speaking powerfully into her life. We would do well to emulate THIS kind of love.

So...people WERE fundamentally changed by this kind of love, and ultimately that this love was big enough and radical enough that Jesus chose the cross. Participation in the kingdom of God carries the ethical expectation that we will love in this manner, and in so doing, are extending the kingdom's power and reign.


I find it offensive that the homosexual community wants to me to recognize as acceptable what I see as sin. Could you maybe see if you can get them to stop imposing that belief system on me?

Well-said. This should be turned around on those who claim we cannot speak in the public square or challenge their perspective more often. I think your stance in this thread is conveying that message...I just thought I'd comment on several ancillary issues.

[Goth_S]

As far as I can tell that is completely non sequitor to what we have been discussing. A private home is not the same thing as the public arena of law.

Mmmm...close, but not exactly.

My comparison, was to your argument about similar rights.
If gay marriage were to be legalised, I fail to see how that effects the equality of the issue. You only consider gays to have "equal rights" because you are not affected by the currently anti-gay laws.

Under your statement, you have a right to an abortion as well. Even though (I'm assuming) you're male.

Not a very good argument on your part, IMO.

Under the current laws of marriage, hetero- and homosexuals have the same rights. They may want MORE rights but they can't complain they don't have the same rights. I don't have the right to marry my schnauzer, and niether does anyone else. If someone WAS into bestiality, would you say that they didn't have the same rights as I did, even if they wanted to marry their dog but couldn't? Of course not.

You're biologically predisposed to heterosexuality. Homosexuality is not some mere fetish, but a biological predisposition.

Denying them the ability to act on it, is where the inequality comes from.


I wasn't even making that claim. I was merely answering your slippery slope argument. The Christian slippery slope argument goes like this (very simplified):

1. If we allow Gays to have their way to marry one another, then the laws will have been relaxed as to say "you can marry any one you love"

2. What's to stop someone from using their same arguments and saying they should have the right to marry their sister, since they are both consenting adults.

3. Or their dog. After all the dog did not dissent, that must be implied consent.

4. Or their child. As their parent they can give consent for their child under the law.

and so on.

Looking at the netherlands we can actually see some of this happening.

If you want to go down the slippery slope argument with prayer, etc, you are opening pandoras box. That was what I was trying to say.

That was not my intention. But I don't believe that it's quite that slippery of a slope.

-Gay marriage requires two consenting adults.
-The love expressed in homosexual unions are biological in nature, not simply a sexual fetish
-Animals are neither capable of dissent, nor consent, so that argument goes out the window.
-A child is not capable of making it's own legal choices, and arrainged marriages, and young marriages have been shown to have a consistent damaging effect on all parties involved. And I can cite the entire nation of India is a prime example.




Huh? You don't think that pedophilia is a personal biological desire? LOL.

I've seen no evidence to support this case, however a child is:
A) not capable of making it's own decisions
B) pedophilia *does* have consistent documented evidence that supports my claim that it is destructive in nature, to all parties involved.



And who are you to decide what is harm to another? I mean I have a friend who is homosexual and he almost died form a ruptured anus. Sounds like harm to me.

Two consenting adults take responsibility for their actions. However, this form of *harm* is not even close to being on par with the sort of harm that can come from a sexualy abused child. Different league entirely.
Especially if you want to make comparisons to things that *are* of a fetish nature which often cause some degree of harm.

Part of why I also support drug use.


And who would be harmed if someone married their sibling?

Extremely high probability of birth defects, genetic disorders, a high increase in marrying inside the family merely to preserve finacial resources, etc. etc.




serendipity strikes... there is a good post on tolerence here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1536442&postcount=1

I'll try to read it asap, thank you for pointing it out.



You said: "The split comes from when you start using that homophobia, to the detriment of others."

How is dissenting with homosexuality detrimental to others? It is merely expressing an opinion. You assume homosexuals have the 'right' to do what they want despite the law and if anyone speaks against that or tries to keep the laws the same they are harming them. That is not the case.

So....if I denied your ability to marry a woman, you'd be fine with it?


Would you argue that speaking out against incest is wrong because it is detrimental to those who want to marry their siblings? What about their 'rights' to love and marry who they want?
I smell a double standard.

First off, "speaking out" and legalising are two different words entirely, let's keep that in mind at all times, please and thanks.

[Sparko]

Mmmm...close, but not exactly.

My comparison, was to your argument about similar rights.
If gay marriage were to be legalised, I fail to see how that effects the equality of the issue. You only consider gays to have "equal rights" because you are not affected by the currently anti-gay laws.

Under your statement, you have a right to an abortion as well. Even though (I'm assuming) you're male.

Not a very good argument on your part, IMO.

If gays ARE allowed to marry then I would have the right to marry a male too (even though I would not want to) and we would still have equal rights. So what? That doesn't mean that right now gays don't have the same rights as I do. Of course they do. They just want MORE rights than they have. And really it is not a "right" anyway. We are talking about permissions not rights.





You're biologically predisposed to heterosexuality. Homosexuality is not some mere fetish, but a biological predisposition.

Is it? Care to prove that?

Denying them the ability to act on it, is where the inequality comes from.

So if someone was biologically predisposed to be an axe murderer would they have the right to act on it? I have seen studies that show that such criminal behavior is genetically based. I have a genetic predisposition to addiction particularly alchoholism (my dad was one and there is plenty of evidence that it is genetic in nature too) so should I feel free to act on it? Does something being based on biology make it morally right?





That was not my intention. But I don't believe that it's quite that slippery of a slope.

-Gay marriage requires two consenting adults.
-The love expressed in homosexual unions are biological in nature, not simply a sexual fetish
-Animals are neither capable of dissent, nor consent, so that argument goes out the window.
-A child is not capable of making it's own legal choices,


To all that I merely have a one word answer. "...yet."

So far all you have done is toss out your opinion on what you think is right and wrong. Who are you to make that distinction for the whole of society?

(yes I am playing devil's advocate here)

I've seen no evidence to support this case, however a child is:
A) not capable of making it's own decisions
B) pedophilia *does* have consistent documented evidence that supports my claim that it is destructive in nature, to all parties involved.

Again... sure children can make their own decisions. It is society who puts a limit on when those choices has the weight of legality or not. If society decides a 12 year old can consent to sex then there is no reason why that society can't allow that 12 year old to get married. Again, check out the Netherlands. They are heading in that direction. The slippery slope has turned into an avalanche.

Two consenting adults take responsibility for their actions. However, this form of *harm* is not even close to being on par with the sort of harm that can come from a sexualy abused child. Different league entirely.
Especially if you want to make comparisons to things that *are* of a fetish nature which often cause some degree of harm.


Again, you arbitrarily label something you don't like as a fetish. I see homosexuality as a fetish. And if the child wants to have sex with an older person and society has made it legal, it is no longer 'abuse' in the eyes of the law, is it? Or are you saying that there are objective morals that transcend whatever human law says?

Part of why I also support drug use. Which has a lot of evidence for harming the user and those around them. Your argument just got weaker.






Extremely high probability of birth defects, genetic disorders, a high increase in marrying inside the family merely to preserve finacial resources, etc. etc.


What if they don't have children? there are lots of married couples that don't have children. Your argument sounds a lot like the Christian argument that Gays should not marry because they can't have kids.


So....if I denied your ability to marry a woman, you'd be fine with it? If the law denied that ability to everyone, then I could not claim discrimination, that's for sure.

[Goth_S]

If gays ARE allowed to marry then I would have the right to marry a male too (even though I would not want to) and we would still have equal rights. So what? That doesn't mean that right now gays don't have the same rights as I do. Of course they do. They just want MORE rights than they have. And really it is not a "right" anyway. We are talking about permissions not rights.

Perhaps it could be more accurately termed in a different manner.
Such as, *applicable rights* or something.

Obviously affirmative action doesn't apply to whites, yes?
But it was a very important law, that helped minorities fulfill their goals.




Is it? Care to prove that?

Proof is tricky. I could however, offer some support for my assertion.
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm



So if someone was biologically predisposed to be an axe murderer would they have the right to act on it? I have seen studies that show that such criminal behavior is genetically based. I have a genetic predisposition to addiction particularly alchoholism (my dad was one and there is plenty of evidence that it is genetic in nature too) so should I feel free to act on it? Does something being based on biology make it morally right?

One is overtly destructive, and fatal to others. Homosexuality on the other hand, is relatively benign.
Apples to oranges, I feel.

To all that I merely have a one word answer. "...yet."

So far all you have done is toss out your opinion on what you think is right and wrong. Who are you to make that distinction for the whole of society?

(yes I am playing devil's advocate here)

I actually admire anybody that plays devils advocate. I have a habit of doing so myself. However, I would say that my argument for homosexuality, is rooted in some logic. One of my favorite threads around here on Tweb, was titled, "reasons of faith aside, what's wrong with homosexuality" or something to that effect.

The arguments against it were, to keep it short, poor.

I tend to be fairly Libertarian at most times, though I'm relatively conservative on a number of issues, and far leftist on others.
But ultimately, my primary tool for deciding when the government should step in, is on issues where the potential harm to the greater masses outweighs the potential gain.

Thus far, I've not seen any evidence to support the notion that homosexuality would cause more harm than good.
Incest, child marraiges, and the like however, have consistent evidence to support that claim.



Again... sure children can make their own decisions. It is society who puts a limit on when those choices has the weight of legality or not. If society decides a 12 year old can consent to sex then there is no reason why that society can't allow that 12 year old to get married. Again, check out the Netherlands. They are heading in that direction. The slippery slope has turned into an avalanche.

I dissagree. The reason we do not allow children to have the same legal power as adults, is due to their limited grasp of such concepts, and their limited ability to consider all aspects. By age 18, you're expected to have a reasonable grasp of such elements.
It's about being taken advantage of. Not simply due to their ability to choose.




Again, you arbitrarily label something you don't like as a fetish. I see homosexuality as a fetish. And if the child wants to have sex with an older person and society has made it legal, it is no longer 'abuse' in the eyes of the law, is it? Or are you saying that there are objective morals that transcend whatever human law says?

Err....

The "S" part of my name, is the first letter of a slur applied to women. Fetishes are not exactly "bad" in my eyes by default. They become bad due to the potential harm that may come from them.

I have no problem with someone fantasising about kids. It's acting on that fantasy, that's dangerous. I've always wanted to jump out of an airplane without a parachute. Doesn't mean it qualifies as a work of genius should I pursue it.

I'm definately not stating that there are objective morality. Merely a cause and effect relationship between things, and what is sacrificed compared to what is gained.

What is gained by stopping homosexuals to marry? What is lost?



Which has a lot of evidence for harming the user and those around them. Your argument just got weaker.

Not exactly. I threw that out there as a wild-card. I figured you'd hit it, and I'm glad you did. I see it as an interesting parrallel, which could indeed, damage my argument.

No point in fighting for a cause if it has an intrinsic weakness, no?
Part of that, "devils advocate" thing.


What if they don't have children? there are lots of married couples that don't have children. Your argument sounds a lot like the Christian argument that Gays should not marry because they can't have kids.

That's a very big part of it. But, not all of it. In the event that two sterile siblings were married, the question of forces can also come into play. It's a common tactic in many countries, and can be quite mentally damaging.

Of course that really would be my only argument against it. If it could be shown that marriage between siblings that do not produce children is not harmful, then really why should I care?

If that is the case you present, then feel free to advocate sibling marriage with my blessing.

If you wanna petition the government, I'll be happy to sign.




If the law denied that ability to everyone, then I could not claim
discrimination, that's for sure.

True. An all encompasing law, discriminates against no one individually, but rather all parties with impariality.


The question is, is it *right.*

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Goth said " Homosexuality on the other hand, is relatively benign."

Sorry, can't agree. In a debate against Rev Barry Lynn, James White presented the following evidence:


In 1994, there was a study published by the Omega Journal of Death and Dying, and in that particular study they studied the obituaries printed in homosexual publications; in other words, these were materials that were provided by homosexual organizations, there is no ‘anti-gay bias,’ shall we say, in that kind of material, against a control group at the same time period of non-homosexual people. And by comparing that data they discovered that for married men, the median age of death was 75 years of age, and 80% of married men lived past the age of 65. For single or divorced men, the median age of death was 57 years of age, and only 32% of those men lived past the age of 65.

“For homosexual men without AIDS, the median age of death was 42 years of age, and 9% lived past the age of 65. For homosexual men without AIDS and with a long-term sexual partner, the median age of death was 41 years and 7% lived past the age of 65; homosexual men with AIDS, but without a long-term sexual partner, average age… median death… age of death 39 years of age, less than 2% lived past the age of 65; and for homosexual men with AIDS and with a long-term sexual partner, average median age 39 years and less than 2% lived past the age of 65. If you’re wondering, yes, they did examine lesbians as well, and the median age of death was 44 years.





source: http://69.49.233.15/docs/whitevslynn.html

[Goth_S]

Goth said " Homosexuality on the other hand, is relatively benign."

Sorry, can't agree. In a debate against Rev Barry Lynn, James White presented the following evidence:

Source: http://69.49.233.15/docs/whitevslynn.html


This is still benign. Who am I to stop you from abstaining from seeing a doctor in favor of a faith healer?
Who am I to stop you from suicide, as long as you abstain from creating any peripheral victims?


Does this argument go hand in hand with anti-smoking campaigns? I like to smoke. I also drink. Both create satisfaction within the user, but significantly shorten the life span.

Is this argument enough to stop me from doing these things?

My claim, is that while the practice itself might be harmful to the user, I'm looking more at the harm towards society at large.

The way I see it, it's not my job to stop people from killing themselves.

When I die, if for some reason I can't get cryonics to pick me up, I intend to off-myself. And with the way my life is going currently, I figure that choice ought to be up to me, without being infringed by others.

Life is still to short however, despite whatever habits we might entertain, to live without whatever satisfaction we can find. The question I have to face is, "Is this person's choices going to effect me in a manner that causes me harm? Is this an issue that I'm willing to devote my precious time to attacking? And if I succeed, what benefit do I get out of it?"

The answer to all those questions that I have come to, in the face of homosexuality, is very little indeed.

If homosexual marriage is legalised, I dare say it would hardly effect me.
As it remains illegal, it *does* effect me, because it's stopping someone from living life how they want, when I cannot find any reason how it would hurt anybody else.

"....When they came for us, there was no one left to speak" *

That whole thing.


I just don't like denying anybody the ability to do what they want, when no reasonable justification has been brought to my attention.





*pearls if you know the quote.

[stormrunner]

I have yet to master the technique others use on this site to selectively respond to specific quotes from previous posters -- and as there has been so much discussion from several posters since I last posted and as many were responses to my post, I would like to just make some general comments.

The resistance to social change has in the recent past been supported by Biblical interpretation – I could mention several examples but particularly the recent issue of anti-miscegenation laws. This makes progressive thinkers, as I see myself, suspicious of conservative arguments that seem to follow along rather analogous paths to resist a social change that they later (perhaps reluctantly) embrace. In Virginia, where I live, gay marriage is actually rather crassly being used as a political tool to fire up a conservative base who might otherwise not vote or who would vote to change their current elected representatives.

Just last night on the Colbert Report, Bart D. Ehrman, author of Misquoting Jesus, mentions that the Bible story of the adulteress woman who is saved by Jesus from stoning, may actually be a decades or centuries latter “addition” to the Bible. Clearly, there are translation disagreements among the most knowledgeable Bible experts and surely history (e.g. The Council of Nicea, the compilation of the King James Version) has influenced the Bible. And each denomination -- Eastern Orthodox, to Southern Baptist, to Episcopalian, -- has their own sacred text. Here I will take a chance and suggest this piece from Luke Timothy Johnson (although the moderator may delete it – I’m confused as to why my offered links are deleted and others remain): http://artfuljesus.0catch.com/johnson3.html

Johnson’s message says to me that that the Jesus message is expanded or informed via our own evolving spiritual growth through societal and religious institutions.

Additionally, to be constituent, such passages as 1 Corinthians 14 33-35, if argued to be taken in context of the times, then suggests that other Biblical verses be also so treated. The homosexuality of 2006 may be very different from the homosexuality of year six. It seems possible, and even likely, that such things as promiscuity, male rape of young boys, pedophilias, temple prostitution, effeminate characteristics, etc, may play a part in the rather scant verses thought relevant to this discussion. And a rather noticeable silence from Jesus on the subject this board finds of such import. There seems to be a selective tendency to bring a modern translation based on our current society and language on much of the scriptures, but a reluctance of the majority to do the same with homosexual love – perhaps this is the tyranny of the majority.

I lived in Amsterdam for two and a half years and bristle at the use of the almost urban legend about drugs, sex, and moral decay there. And the subtle implication of obtuse correlations being causation – and this is often applied to The Netherlands and to Scandinavia. The reality is that in terms of crime, education, health care, and other quality of life measures, The Netherlands could well be an example to the United States. In fact we incarcerate 13 times as many people per population as does The Netherlands and their crime rate is commensurately lower.

I also lived in Riyadh for six years and have some familiarity with Muslims and Islam – and am well aware the Koran does not have the deficiencies of the Bible in that it has remained intact, word for word as delivered to Mohammed by God (assuming God dictated the Koran to Mohammed). I do not believe in the Koran, however, I can easily see how millions do and wonder that had I, or anyone on this board, been raised in a Muslim country, would we not also -- and perhaps as fiercely and adamantly, argue its sole authority. My point is that (and this is a belief) God’s message would be universal and available to all across time and space. And the most quintessential elements of God’s message (to me) are found in Christianity, Islam, and even Buddhism. Obviously it will be God who decides, but my inclination is that at it most basic – God rewards “good” and punishes “evil”.

I don’t really see any good argument posited to counter the evolving science on homosexuality (e.g. AMA, APA, WHO) and perhaps more importantly the seemingly natural affinity in humans towards family and monogamous relationships – I quote one paragraph from the book, Inside the American Couple, edited by Yalom and Carstensen:

“Here we are at the dawn of a new millennium still cherishing the belief that being part of a couple represents some central part of being human. Individuals, despite gender and sexual orientation, continue to search for soul mates, to move in together, to vow to love each other, and, when legally allowed, to enter into marriages. Despite myriad modern tendencies that could render long-term couplehood obsolete (such as casual sex, cohabitation, and increase in divorce and single parenting), more than 90 percent of Americans marry at some time during their lives. However anxious we may be as a society in the face of dissolving marriages and dysfunctional families, individuals continue to place their hopes in the marital bond. They exchange public promises to remain together—for better, for worse, for a lifetime. And among those who do not marry, partnering is still very widespread; few people live through adulthood without at least one lengthy, intimate relationship."

There is a dark shadow on the ickiness of homosexual sex and hardly ever the opposite perspective. I frankly have seen straight porn and find that type of sex personally icky. More to the point, recent surveys suggest a fair proportion of straights wander far off missionary position sex and apparently there is a lot of anal and oral going on in the straight community.

And there is a fair amount of broad brushing homosexuals with the promiscuity, pedophilia, cross-dressing, effeminate queen, etc. brush. These are areas where I also have concerns – in straight and gay life – but I think this is a distraction from the issue of genuine committed monogamous loving relationships.

Few on the board address the issue of the harm that exclusion of gays does to gays, and does to our communities. I do think it is fair to say what authors have argued, that the lukewarm approach to AIDS in the early years was related to the bias against gays and had the medical response been different, millions of people today might not be infected – including millions of children. Please don’t so blithely gloss over this – as someone who has grown up gay in America, I have first hand experience of how just being gay (not necessary even engaging in gay sex) can prejudice or even destroy one’s relation with family, church, workplace, or community.

Bottom line for me is “what would Jesus do” – and of course I don’t know. And, to be honest, at 63, I find I still revert back to my early Southern Baptist Sunday School sense of who Jesus was and what I was taught his message was. And for the life of me, I still can’t understand the fervent opposition to a loving gay relationship by fundamentalist conservatives.

[Sparko]

Goth,

Do you deny that legalizing gay marriage will give legitimate ammunition to those who want to legalize other forms of marriage? Are Christians just trying to scare people or being paranoid? Is there any society on earth where we can look and see what happens when the society becomes so liberal that they legalize drugs and gay marriage and so on?

Why yes, there is. As I have said before you simply need to look at the Netherlands, where they have legalized drugs, euthanasia, same sex marriage and now they are well on their way to legalizing pedophilia and bestiality.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/30052006/6/n-odds-dutch-pedophiles-launch-political-party.html

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals.

Sure it is doubtful it will succeed today. But who knows about tomorrow?

[Goth_S]

Goth,

Do you deny that legalizing gay marriage will give legitimate ammunition to those who want to legalize other forms of marriage? Are Christians just trying to scare people or being paranoid? Is there any society on earth where we can look and see what happens when the society becomes so liberal that they legalize drugs and gay marriage and so on?

Can we keep this free of "filthy liberals!" and "Psycho conservatives!" exclamations, por favor?
Trying to paint all freaks out there as liberals, is no different from trying to paint christian conservatives, as bible thumping gun-nuts with a southern drawl.

And yes, I do deny that homosexual marriage will give ammunition to those other forms of marriage, and I have allready stated my reasons for this in my previous post, which didn't get a response.

In addition, I'm not going to outlaw one form of marraige, simply because it might open the door to others that can be proven to be more harmful.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and all that...


Why yes, there is. As I have said before you simply need to look at the Netherlands, where they have legalized drugs, euthanasia, same sex marriage and now they are well on their way to legalizing pedophilia and bestiality.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/30052006/6/n-odds-dutch-pedophiles-launch-political-party.html



Sure it is doubtful it will succeed today. But who knows about tomorrow?



And.....?


We've got NAMBLA that has been trying that for years, and their here in America no less! We've never tolerated such behavior in our entire history, it has absolutely no basis in logic, and I have never seen a pro-pedopilic argument that could show that harm didn't arise from the union.
So if your argument follows suit, what legal precident are *they* following?
And ultimately, it *still* isn't in keeping with the guidelines I presented previously which apparently you hand-waved away.



To wit:
I don't agree with this chain of thought one bit.



EDIT:


And furthermore, the Netherlands has shown itself to have quite a success with it's drug and sex policies.

[Sparko]

Can we keep this free of "filthy liberals!" and "Psycho conservatives!" exclamations, por favor?
Trying to paint all freaks out there as liberals, is no different from trying to paint christian conservatives, as bible thumping gun-nuts with a southern drawl.

And yes, I do deny that homosexual marriage will give ammunition to those other forms of marriage, and I have allready stated my reasons for this in my previous post, which didn't get a response.

In addition, I'm not going to outlaw one form of marraige, simply because it might open the door to others that can be proven to be more harmful.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and all that...






And.....?


We've got NAMBLA that has been trying that for years, and their here in America no less! We've never tolerated such behavior in our entire history, it has absolutely no basis in logic, and I have never seen a pro-pedopilic argument that could show that harm didn't arise from the union.
So if your argument follows suit, what legal precident are *they* following?
And ultimately, it *still* isn't in keeping with the guidelines I presented previously which apparently you hand-waved away.



To wit:
I don't agree with this chain of thought one bit.


So then I take it you are retracting your whole argument against ApologiaNick then where you use the slippery slope argument against Christianity, claiming we will force prayer, and turn the whole country into a theocracy under the iron fist rule of some Christian dictator or whatnot?

[Goth_S]

So then I take it you are retracting your whole argument against ApologiaNick then where you use the slippery slope argument against Christianity, claiming we will force prayer, and turn the whole country into a theocracy under the iron fist rule of some Christian dictator or whatnot?


mmmmmm....what?


I'm afraid I don't understand why you would come to this rather drastic conclusion. Could you outline your rationale por favor?

The fact that you make the considerably large jump from my argument, which was concerned with personal freedoms, to some bizarre landscape of fiction in which gay marraige somehow enters into the realm of christian theocratic governments, is nothing short of a superman-feat.

I never claimed such things, and stating as such, is something of a red herring at best.


I'm forced to ask the question if you've been paying attention.

[Sparko]

mmmmmm....what?


I'm afraid I don't understand why you would come to this rather drastic conclusion. Could you outline your rationale por favor?

The fact that you make the considerably large jump from my argument, which was concerned with personal freedoms, to some bizarre landscape of fiction in which gay marraige somehow enters into the realm of christian theocratic governments, is nothing short of a superman-feat.

I never claimed such things, and stating as such, is something of a red herring at best.


I'm forced to ask the question if you've been paying attention.

oh yeah. I have been paying attention. I see you espousing a double standard. On one hand you use a lame slippery slope argument with Nick (with no evidence) claiming that if we are not careful pretty soon the Christians will be forcing the atheists down on their knees to pray and on the other hand, when I use the slippery slope argument with you, with actual evidence by the way, you blithely hand wave it away as spurious and say such things as "Don't throw the baby away with the bathwater"

Your bias is showing.

[Goth_S]

Easy now, I've no malice towards you or your argument.

I simply want a coherant response, as you happen to be on the other side of the fence, and I'm interested in what you have to say. Being a relatively hot topic, I don't think it would be wise to jump to conclusions, without hearing the opposing viewpoint. I could be an asset to your cause, you know, if you could punch a hole in my logic.

I'm placing myself squarely in your iron sights. I'm asking you to pull the trigger.


oh yeah. I have been paying attention. I see you espousing a double standard. On one hand you use a lame slippery slope argument with Nick (with no evidence) claiming that if we are not careful pretty soon the Christians will be forcing the atheists down on their knees to pray and on the other hand, when I use the slippery slope argument with you, with actual evidence by the way, you blithely hand wave it away as spurious and say such things as "Don't throw the baby away with the bathwater"

Your bias is showing.


Do be a dear and quote me, as I dissagree with your rather rapid conclusion.

[Keepupthefire]

Now in your wonderful Christian and loving manner, why don't you begin to defend your homophobic interpretation of scripture?

Just from reading this I have to say you don't practice what you preach. You insist on everyone to defend ourselves in a loving manner, but you use the word's homophobic like it's going out of style. Do yourself a favor drop the labeling of people an you might get a respectful response. Even so, I don't condone anyone else trading "tit for tat."

As for the rest of your post here it was better.

Shawn

[Sparko]

Easy now, I've no malice towards you or your argument.

I simply want a coherant response, as you happen to be on the other side of the fence, and I'm interested in what you have to say. Being a relatively hot topic, I don't think it would be wise to jump to conclusions, without hearing the opposing viewpoint. I could be an asset to your cause, you know, if you could punch a hole in my logic.

I'm placing myself squarely in your iron sights. I'm asking you to pull the trigger.

Do be a dear and quote me, as I dissagree with your rather rapid conclusion.

OK...


If you can legislate your religious views, what's to stop you from making prayer manditory? What's to stop you from making it a crime of treason to refuse to go to church?

That was in reaction to Nick saying that we should not change our stance on homosexuality being a sin. He never even mentioned legislating homosexuality away.

Sounds like the slippery slope argument to me.

I say.. (to paraphrase you)
The fact that you make the considerably large jump from Nick's argument, which was concerned with homosexuality being a sin, to some bizarre landscape of fiction in which forced prayer and church attendance somehow enters into the realm of christian theocratic governments, is nothing short of a superman-feat.

And PS> I don't have any malace toward you, Goth, in fact I like you and your spunkiness and civility. I just wanted to show you a blind spot that I saw in your stance that you might not be seeing.

There is nothing wrong with sticking by your guns and arguing for your beliefs. Whether you are arguing for gay marriage, or we are arguing against it and that homosexuality is a sin. Just as you don't think Gay Marriage is going to lead to ruination, I don't think that supporting the bible in saying that homosexuality is a sin and Gay marriage is wrong will lead to forced church attendance.

Friends?

:hi:

[Shadow Phoenix]

I spy, with my little eye, a few problems:

Let us see if they are problems or misinterpretations.





No, they want to have equal rights. Simply because you do not choose to marry another man, does not mean that you should not have that right.
Conversely, if homosexuals do not wish to marry a woman, does not mean they should be stripped of that right.

Equal means the same last I checked. Do homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same right now, to marry someone of the opposite sex. Yep. Thus, we have equal rights. You can say you don't like it and that's another point, but you cannot deny it's equal.







Your stance and views are fine, untill they infringe on the lives of others.
If you can legislate your religious views, what's to stop you from making prayer manditory? What's to stop you from making it a crime of treason to refuse to go to church?

Before you can argue this, you have to point to the moral standard that you think should be accepted. After all, all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind. What moral doctrine are you espousing?





Well....how is forcing others to comply with your views in any way shape or form, in keeping with your doctrine of "love or compassion" ?
Esp. when it's an aspect of someone else's life.

Yes. I happen to find the government does often force views on us. Every law does that Goth. Every law is the enforcement of some moral rule for if a law has no moral basis, it is flawed.

The law tells me to drive the speed limit and if I don't, I'm in trouble. (As I found out on June 12th.) The law tells me to not murder my neighbor. The law tells me that I am to earn my living honestly.

I hope you're not advocating that we can't legislate morality. It is the only thing we can legislate.





Nobody wants you to view anything as acceptable if you do not find it so. I find chrisitanity unaceptable. Doesn't mean I'm gonna stop you from keeping it. The trick, is letting others have the same treatment regardless of your beleif system.

Goth. That's the thing. If homosexual marriages are made legal, then the government will make it so I am to recognize them by law. That is going against the Christian worldview I hold entirely. No one is stopping homosexuals from living together in monogamous relationships if they choose. I just refuse to call it marriage.

Same thing with your tract on homophobia. You can be a homophobe all you want. Fine by me. Tolerance is not synonomous with acceptance. Tolerance is how you tolerate a screaming kid in the supermarket.
The split comes from when you start using that homophobia, to the detriment of others.

Tolerance is actually what I'm doing right now. Tolerance is that I disagree with you 100% but still respect you as a person.

However, I am not the one who used the term homophobia first. It was Stormrunner who did so and I am merely responding to him. Why do you assume I'm homophobic because I find homosexuality unacceptable. Since you find Christianity unacceptable, should I call you a Christophobe?

[Keepupthefire]

This is still benign. Who am I to stop you from abstaining from seeing a doctor in favor of a faith healer?
Who am I to stop you from suicide, as long as you abstain from creating any peripheral victims?


Does this argument go hand in hand with anti-smoking campaigns? I like to smoke. I also drink. Both create satisfaction within the user, but significantly shorten the life span.

Is this argument enough to stop me from doing these things?

My claim, is that while the practice itself might be harmful to the user, I'm looking more at the harm towards society at large.

The way I see it, it's not my job to stop people from killing themselves.

When I die, if for some reason I can't get cryonics to pick me up, I intend to off-myself. And with the way my life is going currently, I figure that choice ought to be up to me, without being infringed by others.

Life is still to short however, despite whatever habits we might entertain, to live without whatever satisfaction we can find. The question I have to face is, "Is this person's choices going to effect me in a manner that causes me harm? Is this an issue that I'm willing to devote my precious time to attacking? And if I succeed, what benefit do I get out of it?"

The answer to all those questions that I have come to, in the face of homosexuality, is very little indeed.

If homosexual marriage is legalised, I dare say it would hardly effect me.
As it remains illegal, it *does* effect me, because it's stopping someone from living life how they want, when I cannot find any reason how it would hurt anybody else.

"....When they came for us, there was no one left to speak" *

That whole thing.


I just don't like denying anybody the ability to do what they want, when no reasonable justification has been brought to my attention.





*pearls if you know the quote.
"....When they came for us, there was no one left to speak" *

That would be Pastor Martin Nemoller's famous quote when the nazi's where coming an nobody would listen.

[Goth_S]

That was in reaction to Nick saying that we should not change our stance on homosexuality being a sin. He never even mentioned legislating homosexuality away.

Sounds like the slippery slope argument to me.

I say.. (to paraphrase you)
The fact that you make the considerably large jump from Nick's argument, which was concerned with homosexuality being a sin, to some bizarre landscape of fiction in which forced prayer and church attendance somehow enters into the realm of christian theocratic governments, is nothing short of a superman-feat.

And PS> I don't have any malace toward you, Goth, in fact I like you and your spunkiness and civility. I just wanted to show you a blind spot that I saw in your stance that you might not be seeing.


oooooh, sharp eye.

I apologise to both you and apologia nick, and retract that statement if I may. You are indeed correct, it *was* a deviation and an extrapolation based on nothing more than my feelings on the issue. It was indeed, a mirror image of the very same anti-homosexual marriage rhetoric that so commonly punctuates anti-gay marriage advocates' arguments.

I cry your pardon sir.



There is nothing wrong with sticking by your guns and arguing for your beliefs. Whether you are arguing for gay marriage, or we are arguing against it and that homosexuality is a sin. Just as you don't think Gay Marriage is going to lead to ruination, I don't think that supporting the bible in saying that homosexuality is a sin and Gay marriage is wrong will lead to forced church attendance.

Friends?

:hi:


Definately friends. :)

While I do retract that statement, I also beleive that legislating purely out of religious beleifs when they can not be shown to have substantial support. (unlike the support I gave for *my* statement* which was poor at best)


That *substantial support* is what I'm looking for.

[Goth_S]

Equal means the same last I checked. Do homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same right now, to marry someone of the opposite sex. Yep. Thus, we have equal rights. You can say you don't like it and that's another point, but you cannot deny it's equal.

We have the same rights, true. I'm not entirely sure if I would go so far as to call them "equal" however.



Before you can argue this, you have to point to the moral standard that you think should be accepted. After all, all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind. What moral doctrine are you espousing?

Causality, mostly. I have not seen significant evidence to support the notion that homosexuals are more dangerous, or prone to dangerous behavior that would harm or potential harm perepheral victims in any manner greater than a heterosexual couple would.

Rather than asking "should they be allowed to marry" I think the question should be more accurately phrased, "why not?"


Yes. I happen to find the government does often force views on us. Every law does that Goth. Every law is the enforcement of some moral rule for if a law has no moral basis, it is flawed.

The law tells me to drive the speed limit and if I don't, I'm in trouble. (As I found out on June 12th.) The law tells me to not murder my neighbor. The law tells me that I am to earn my living honestly.

I hope you're not advocating that we can't legislate morality. It is the only thing we can legislate.

I do not beleive that this is legislating morality, rather forced compliance.
You cannot force me to be moral. You can force me to *act* in a manner you deem moral.

However, morality is nothing more than the consensus of the populace.
The Spartans had no problem with killing. They made it something of a point of glory in all truth. As common minds change, so does the common definition of what is and isn't "moral."
The older humanity gets, the more I see morality being judged highly on causality. I think that's the direction we ought to continue it.


Goth. That's the thing. If homosexual marriages are made legal, then the government will make it so I am to recognize them by law. That is going against the Christian worldview I hold entirely. No one is stopping homosexuals from living together in monogamous relationships if they choose. I just refuse to call it marriage.

Ok, let's try for some common ground.

I'm a firm beleiver in the seperation between church and state. I don't want a bible within the walls of any federal building, and I certaintly don't want legislation to come from it's pages.

However, as firmly as I stand on the seperation between religion that effects a few, and politics that effect everyone, I feel the exact same about the law within the walls of the church.

The law cannot and indeed, MUST NOT, be allowed the power to do things such as, oh I dunno...outlaw baptisms or something.
The law has no place there. Period.
So at least I attack and defend the institution of religion with a fair hand.

My problem, comes from the power marriage has. Marriage is not simply a religious institution. It's recognised, enforced, and subject to the guidelines, of the law. One can be married within the walls of a church, or a courtroom with the same result.

So obviously, it's not simply a matter of weather or not it's a purely religious or legal institution, because it's both.

I would never force any church to marry a gay couple if they didn't want to.
But what's the problem with bestowing the title of married to a gay couple if it was not in the halls of a church?

And ultimately, why does your world view, and refusal to call them married, have anything to do with weather or not it should be allowed?



Tolerance is actually what I'm doing right now. Tolerance is that I disagree with you 100% but still respect you as a person.

However, I am not the one who used the term homophobia first. It was Stormrunner who did so and I am merely responding to him. Why do you assume I'm homophobic because I find homosexuality unacceptable. Since you find Christianity unacceptable, should I call you a Christophobe?

No, actually I was voicing agreement with you.
If indeed, you are homophobic, that's fine by me. I really don't care one way or the other. I can't force you to be loving and accepting of the homosexual way of life.
There's a quote from one of my favorite movies, "The Way of the Gun" that sums up my feelings pretty good. This hitman is talking to a doctor about political correctness:

"If I slap a girls [butt] and she turns around and slaps me, she's standing up for her rights. But if a [gay] guy slaps my [butt] and I turn around and punch his lights out, I'm a homophobe"

My point is, your personal feelings on the matter are yours entirely and you're free to hold it. I just don't want to see personal feelings being legislated, without any regard to physical evidence that runs contrary.

Simply because I feel christianity is immoral and ultimately, a poor model for one's life, doesn't mean I have the right to dictate your movements.

[Goth_S]

"....When they came for us, there was no one left to speak" *

That would be Pastor Martin Nemoller's famous quote when the nazi's where coming an nobody would listen.


One of my favorites, despite the fact he was actualy a nazi sympathiser and an anti-semite.


Pearls to you. :smile:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

While I do retract that statement, I also beleive that legislating purely out of religious beleifs when they can not be shown to have substantial support. (unlike the support I gave for *my* statement* which was poor at best)


That *substantial support* is what I'm looking for.On a deviation here - isn't that just your biased view of religion showing through? I mean, obviously people like Nick or Sparko *do* think there are substantial reasons to believe that what Christianity teaches is true. To say "only legislate on what has reasonable and substantial support," and then expecting that everyone will understand that to exclude religious reasons for legislating - is just anti Christian prejudice. Don't take that last sentence as a personal attack, it's not meant to be, but don't you see how you're just asking them to assume that their religious beliefs are indefensible?

[Shadow Phoenix]

We have the same rights, true. I'm not entirely sure if I would go so far as to call them "equal" however.

Difference being?





Causality, mostly. I have not seen significant evidence to support the notion that homosexuals are more dangerous, or prone to dangerous behavior that would harm or potential harm perepheral victims in any manner greater than a heterosexual couple would.

Rather than asking "should they be allowed to marry" I think the question should be more accurately phrased, "why not?"

If marriage can be changed to be anything, then it means essentially nothing. Homosexuals can already form their unions all they want. It just won't be recognized by the government. That's what they really want. They want everyone to have to accept their lifestyle. I will still refuse. I will accept them as persons. I will not accept their lifestyle as moral.




I do not beleive that this is legislating morality, rather forced compliance.
You cannot force me to be moral. You can force me to *act* in a manner you deem moral.

Please tell me a law without a moral basis. Even if you think that basis is invalid, it still has a moral basis.

No. I can't be forced to be moral but the thought of serious jail time and fines can be an effective incentive. Also, I would say it's possible for moral views of the populace to change when laws are passed. (Roe V. Wade for instance)

However, morality is nothing more than the consensus of the populace.
The Spartans had no problem with killing. They made it something of a point of glory in all truth. As common minds change, so does the common definition of what is and isn't "moral."
The older humanity gets, the more I see morality being judged highly on causality. I think that's the direction we ought to continue it.

Which means that right now, homosexual marriage is immoral, but you want society to do that which is immoral? If mroality can be turned to be anything we want it to be, then I'll still contend that it's essentially nothing.

I think we should also lock up people like Martin Luther King Jr. and others who take a stand against the society at the time and tell it to change its ways. they're obviously immoral.




Ok, let's try for some common ground.

I'm a firm beleiver in the seperation between church and state. I don't want a bible within the walls of any federal building, and I certaintly don't want legislation to come from it's pages.

First off, the separataion of church and state is NOWHERE in the constitution. Also, the founding fathers held a very high view of the Bible and how important it was for morality. Like it or not, the morality that we often have here today is based on Scripture.

However, as firmly as I stand on the seperation between religion that effects a few, and politics that effect everyone, I feel the exact same about the law within the walls of the church.

The law cannot and indeed, MUST NOT, be allowed the power to do things such as, oh I dunno...outlaw baptisms or something.
The law has no place there. Period.
So at least I attack and defend the institution of religion with a fair hand.

So then the law should not also force the church to accept what it deems as sinful, such as homosexual marriage.

My problem, comes from the power marriage has. Marriage is not simply a religious institution. It's recognised, enforced, and subject to the guidelines, of the law. One can be married within the walls of a church, or a courtroom with the same result.

So obviously, it's not simply a matter of weather or not it's a purely religious or legal institution, because it's both.

I would never force any church to marry a gay couple if they didn't want to.
But what's the problem with bestowing the title of married to a gay couple if it was not in the halls of a church?

Because we do not define marriage. We describe marriage. The purpose of marriage has been historically to produce children and obviously, homosexual couples can't really contribute to that.

And ultimately, why does your world view, and refusal to call them married, have anything to do with weather or not it should be allowed?

I could ask you the same question.





No, actually I was voicing agreement with you.
If indeed, you are homophobic, that's fine by me. I really don't care one way or the other. I can't force you to be loving and accepting of the homosexual way of life.
There's a quote from one of my favorite movies, "The Way of the Gun" that sums up my feelings pretty good. This hitman is talking to a doctor about political correctness:

"If I slap a girls [butt] and she turns around and slaps me, she's standing up for her rights. But if a [gay] guy slaps my [butt] and I turn around and punch his lights out, I'm a homophobe"

My point is, your personal feelings on the matter are yours entirely and you're free to hold it. I just don't want to see personal feelings being legislated, without any regard to physical evidence that runs contrary.

First off, why is the term homophobe being tossed around? Should I in my evangelism call non-believers Christophobes since they will not accept the Christian worldview?

Secondly, if you don't want personal feelings legislated, why do I keep hearing you say how you feel over and over in this? If no feelings should be seen as the basis, that includes yours.

Simply because I feel christianity is immoral and ultimately, a poor model for one's life, doesn't mean I have the right to dictate your movements.

And in all of this, you've yet to give your moral basis. You seem to think Christianity is immoral, but what if society disagrees? If they do, by what standard do you call it immoral? It'll have to be something outside of society determining morality, thus defeating your position.

[Goth_S]

Difference being?

Primarily because they are not applicable to a homosexual.
I can have an abortion. You cannot. Simply because you have the right to seek one, doesn't mean it helps you out in any grand way.

Not really an issue of contention, but a minor view point.


If marriage can be changed to be anything, then it means essentially nothing. Homosexuals can already form their unions all they want. It just won't be recognized by the government. That's what they really want. They want everyone to have to accept their lifestyle. I will still refuse. I will accept them as persons. I will not accept their lifestyle as moral.

It doesn't mean anything *now* my dear. Explain to me, what difference a man marrying a man, makes to anything please, so that I might better understand your position.

And their unions are (in some cases) recognised by the government. Is that not the same thing?

I do not accept your religion as moral. Is this to say, that I should seek to bar you from having rights?
Ultimately nobody is expecting you to accept it as moral. Just asking for a little live and let live policy making.




Please tell me a law without a moral basis. Even if you think that basis is invalid, it still has a moral basis.

Ok, explain to me why I must pay 5 dollars to the city and get a peice of paper, before I can have a garage sale. Where's the "moral basis" in that?
Where's the morality in denying the freedom to marry another man?

Morality is a tricky word, and you'll have to explan why your particular flavor dominates my own.


No. I can't be forced to be moral but the thought of serious jail time and fines can be an effective incentive. Also, I would say it's possible for moral views of the populace to change when laws are passed. (Roe V. Wade for instance)

Agreed.

Also, is this to say that we could change the moral views of the populace so that homosexual unions were allowable?



Which means that right now, homosexual marriage is immoral, but you want society to do that which is immoral? If mroality can be turned to be anything we want it to be, then I'll still contend that it's essentially nothing.

I think we should also lock up people like Martin Luther King Jr. and others who take a stand against the society at the time and tell it to change its ways. they're obviously immoral.

You stated that it can be changed in popular opinion, and here you deny this. I'm confused to say the least.

Morality ultimately, is subjective.


First off, the separataion of church and state is NOWHERE in the constitution. Also, the founding fathers held a very high view of the Bible and how important it was for morality. Like it or not, the morality that we often have here today is based on Scripture.

Err..no.

I figured it was only a matter of time before we went this direction. But I've been somewhat salivating to get my teeth into it, because this nation was *not* as christian influenced as many would have one beleive.

While it is true, that the words "seperation of church and state" do not appear in the constitution, neither do the words, "right to a fair trial" appear. :wink:

What is important, is that the 6th amendmant creates *conditions* for a fair trial, and thus the intent is exhibited.

The same is true for the seperation between church and state. While that exact phrase is not in the constitution, this sentance IS:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The purpose of this is to ensure that the government doesn't tell you what to beleive, teach or worship in regards to religion, but also so that the government does not allow itself to be dictated by it.


And if you wanna get into the founding fathers, I would point out things like Benjamin Franklin's desires to pray before each meeting that were completely struck down by every other member of the convention.
And if you *really* wanted to make a thing of it, I would point out the numerous Masonic symbols in our government as evidence of it's influence as well.

As for inspiration from scripture, well, perhaps you could make a case for that. But I'll bet I could make a better case for human nature. These were people coming from a previous state of religious persecution. They wanted a nation free of that sort of dictatorship under the iron fist of religion.
Many of the so called, "religiously inspired" moral dogmas that we see prevelant in many goveernments, are really just universal displays of altruism.

Need I point out that the so called "golden rule" was actually spoken by confuscious around what, 500 B.C. ?

So let's not assume that such moral dictums are purely religious in nature.



So then the law should not also force the church to accept what it deems as sinful, such as homosexual marriage.

Depends on what you mean by "accept."



Because we do not define marriage. We describe marriage. The purpose of marriage has been historically to produce children and obviously, homosexual couples can't really contribute to that.

No, we define it.
Could you please explain your rationale on that note?

As for children, what's the deal with that? I had my tubes tied when I turned 18. Does this mean I'm not allowed to get married?

Dizzying to be sure!



I could ask you the same question.

Causality.

Your turn.



First off, why is the term homophobe being tossed around? Should I in my evangelism call non-believers Christophobes since they will not accept the Christian worldview?

I did not mean in direct relation to you. I have no problem being termed a christophobe in general use. I would have no problem being a homophobe. I happen to be fairly arachnaphobic as well.

But yes, I think we should drop that area of discussion, as it really has no frutiful end.

Secondly, if you don't want personal feelings legislated, why do I keep hearing you say how you feel over and over in this? If no feelings should be seen as the basis, that includes yours.

Because I'm attempting to retain a civil conversation without making firm absolutes. It's a discussion tactic. I have a habit of getting very intense at times, and this is my method of coping. Instead of stating, "YOUR WRONG NICK!!!" I try to say things like "I feel" or "I think" etc. etc.

That's my reason *most* of the time at least.

I believe that causality is the only manner in which morality is delinated to the masses in recent times, and I shudder to see a sense of "morality" that is taught not from an observation of the cause and effect, but from a book that simply says so.



And in all of this, you've yet to give your moral basis. You seem to think Christianity is immoral, but what if society disagrees? If they do, by what standard do you call it immoral? It'll have to be something outside of society determining morality, thus defeating your position.


As I said, causality. Society is the physical manifestation of causality, and thusly fluctuates.

So it is in essence, both within, and removed and yet defined, from a society.

So I don't consider my position defeated.

[Goth_S]

On a deviation here - isn't that just your biased view of religion showing through? I mean, obviously people like Nick or Sparko *do* think there are substantial reasons to believe that what Christianity teaches is true. To say "only legislate on what has reasonable and substantial support," and then expecting that everyone will understand that to exclude religious reasons for legislating - is just anti Christian prejudice. Don't take that last sentence as a personal attack, it's not meant to be, but don't you see how you're just asking them to assume that their religious beliefs are indefensible?


I do have a religious bias. I'm a Satanist, you're a Christian. So obviously, a little bias is unavoidable. However, I'm attempting to curtail it's control over my actions, by asking religious individuals to defend their stances. If it can survive my onslaught and that of others, then it should stand and be respected. Or fall and be ignored.


Such is the nature of discussion.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Primarily because they are not applicable to a homosexual.
I can have an abortion. You cannot. Simply because you have the right to seek one, doesn't mean it helps you out in any grand way.

Not really an issue of contention, but a minor view point.

What was asked is if they were equal. They do have equal rights and they are applicable to homosexuals. Homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex.




It doesn't mean anything *now* my dear. Explain to me, what difference a man marrying a man, makes to anything please, so that I might better understand your position.

And their unions are (in some cases) recognised by the government. Is that not the same thing?

I do not accept your religion as moral. Is this to say, that I should seek to bar you from having rights?
Ultimately nobody is expecting you to accept it as moral. Just asking for a little live and let live policy making.

It means everything. Marriage is an institute recognized by the government for the continuing of society by the raising of children in an environment with a mother and a father. A child needs both of them. For this reason, I'd also be against single parents adoptiong.

And yes, I am being expected to accept it as moral. What will happen when I read the Scriptures and get to a passage condemning homosexuality and I'm told I'm using "hate speech"?






Ok, explain to me why I must pay 5 dollars to the city and get a peice of paper, before I can have a garage sale. Where's the "moral basis" in that?
Where's the morality in denying the freedom to marry another man?

Morality is a tricky word, and you'll have to explan why your particular flavor dominates my own.

You would have to ask your city officials on that one. I will give them the benefit of the doubt, but if you think the law is immoral, then by all means challenge it. That's the way government works.

The morality in going against homosexuality is that homosexuality damages the lifespan of the homosexual, unions are rarely long-lasting and monogamous, and they are by nature incapable of ever producing children.




Agreed.

Also, is this to say that we could change the moral views of the populace so that homosexual unions were allowable?

Moral views can change of course. No one is denying that since as soon as people change a view on any moral issue, there is a change. However, because a view changes does not mean that objective morality changes. Objective truth is not what "everyone believes" but what corresponds to reality.





You stated that it can be changed in popular opinion, and here you deny this. I'm confused to say the least.

Morality ultimately, is subjective.

King fought against an immoral system and changed it. He changed the view of the people to correspond to reality. It wasn't that segregation was immoral while the populace disagreeed with King and moral when they sided with him. Segregation was always immoral. People's views change. Objective morality doesn't.

And if morality is subjective, then I am sure you will have no objections to if I want to treat homosexuals however I want.




Err..no.

I figured it was only a matter of time before we went this direction. But I've been somewhat salivating to get my teeth into it, because this nation was *not* as christian influenced as many would have one beleive.

While it is true, that the words "seperation of church and state" do not appear in the constitution, neither do the words, "right to a fair trial" appear. :wink:

What is important, is that the 6th amendmant creates *conditions* for a fair trial, and thus the intent is exhibited.

The same is true for the seperation between church and state. While that exact phrase is not in the constitution, this sentance IS:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The purpose of this is to ensure that the government doesn't tell you what to beleive, teach or worship in regards to religion, but also so that the government does not allow itself to be dictated by it.

It's freedom of religion. It's not freedom from religion. Remember that some states at the time even after accepting this had state-churches. Atheists were not allowed to hold office and government funds were used for missionary efforts. Worship services were held frequently in the White House and even today sessions of Congress are opened with prayer.


And if you wanna get into the founding fathers, I would point out things like Benjamin Franklin's desires to pray before each meeting that were completely struck down by every other member of the convention.
And if you *really* wanted to make a thing of it, I would point out the numerous Masonic symbols in our government as evidence of it's influence as well.

As for inspiration from scripture, well, perhaps you could make a case for that. But I'll bet I could make a better case for human nature. These were people coming from a previous state of religious persecution. They wanted a nation free of that sort of dictatorship under the iron fist of religion.
Many of the so called, "religiously inspired" moral dogmas that we see prevelant in many goveernments, are really just universal displays of altruism.

If men were angels, there would be no need of government. THe founding fathers knew human nature all too well which is why they set up the government with checks and balances the way they did. The way the Supreme Court acts today is shameful in light of that.

Need I point out that the so called "golden rule" was actually spoken by confuscious around what, 500 B.C. ?

Reference please?

So let's not assume that such moral dictums are purely religious in nature.

Morality is either rooted in God or in man. If in man, I will simply ask, which man?





Depends on what you mean by "accept."

I would say recognize as legitimate in this case.





No, we define it.
Could you please explain your rationale on that note?

As for children, what's the deal with that? I had my tubes tied when I turned 18. Does this mean I'm not allowed to get married?

Dizzying to be sure!

By nature though, a woman is capable of producing children with a man. The exceptions do not set the standard. By nature though, homosexuals are incapable of producing children.

If we can define it, why not define it as being between a man and a boy, or a man and a horse, or a mother and a daughter? Why not?





Causality.

Your turn.

Causality in what way?





I did not mean in direct relation to you. I have no problem being termed a christophobe in general use. I would have no problem being a homophobe. I happen to be fairly arachnaphobic as well.

But yes, I think we should drop that area of discussion, as it really has no frutiful end.

Then let us. I would not bring it up and only use it in response.



Because I'm attempting to retain a civil conversation without making firm absolutes. It's a discussion tactic. I have a habit of getting very intense at times, and this is my method of coping. Instead of stating, "YOUR WRONG NICK!!!" I try to say things like "I feel" or "I think" etc. etc.

That's my reason *most* of the time at least.

I believe that causality is the only manner in which morality is delinated to the masses in recent times, and I shudder to see a sense of "morality" that is taught not from an observation of the cause and effect, but from a book that simply says so.

Personally, I avoid the word feel when it refers to rationality. It seems in America we've replaced thinking with feeling.

Do I believe because the book says so? No. That would be a misrepresentation of my view. I believe it because the God behind the book has shown himself to be true and has shown himself to be the creator of the universe and all that I see and is omniscient in all ways which leads me to believe he could be right on this.






As I said, causality. Society is the physical manifestation of causality, and thusly fluctuates.

So it is in essence, both within, and removed and yet defined, from a society.

So I don't consider my position defeated.

Please explain what you mean about this. Is causality the eternal principle?

[Goth_S]

What was asked is if they were equal. They do have equal rights and they are applicable to homosexuals. Homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex.

But is it applicable to their situation?


It means everything. Marriage is an institute recognized by the government for the continuing of society by the raising of children in an environment with a mother and a father. A child needs both of them. For this reason, I'd also be against single parents adoptiong.

I was raised in adoption homes untill I was 15. It was overcroweded, underfunded, and nobody cared enough to remember your name.
I doubt highly that the lack of a mother or father would kill our society. Kids tend to adapt quickly. I survived at least.


And yes, I am being expected to accept it as moral. What will happen when I read the Scriptures and get to a passage condemning homosexuality and I'm told I'm using "hate speech"?

Are you?

The only reason you might not feel that way, is because of your affiliations.
Most of the bible isn't exactly a bed-time story for kids.
I would rate most of it R at the very least.


You would have to ask your city officials on that one. I will give them the benefit of the doubt, but if you think the law is immoral, then by all means challenge it. That's the way government works.

hence our little discussion.


The morality in going against homosexuality is that homosexuality damages the lifespan of the homosexual, unions are rarely long-lasting and monogamous, and they are by nature incapable of ever producing children.

-Is someone else's life your concern? At what point does concern for your fellow man, broach the realm of personal rights? I smoke. You have no right to tell me not to. I also drink, and the same goes for that. Since when did you become the person to tell me how to live my life*?

-Is children such a deal here? I can't have children. I had my tubes tied when I turned legal. (18)
Is this to say I'm not a candidate for marriage? What of sterile couples?


*under the premise that it does not harm you unduly, such as drunk driving etc.

Moral views can change of course. No one is denying that since as soon as people change a view on any moral issue, there is a change. However, because a view changes does not mean that objective morality changes. Objective truth is not what "everyone believes" but what corresponds to reality.

No such thing as "objective morality."


King fought against an immoral system and changed it. He changed the view of the people to correspond to reality. It wasn't that segregation was immoral while the populace disagreeed with King and moral when they sided with him. Segregation was always immoral. People's views change. Objective morality doesn't.

Could you prove it?

And if morality is subjective, then I am sure you will have no objections to if I want to treat homosexuals however I want.

You allready do.
You've made a decision based on what is important to you, or what you beleive in, just as I have.

We could go round and round about the validity of what our decisions are based on, but the fact that we each have made a conscious choice in our treatment of others, is not something I beleive anybody could make a case against.


It's freedom of religion. It's not freedom from religion. Remember that some states at the time even after accepting this had state-churches. Atheists were not allowed to hold office and government funds were used for missionary efforts. Worship services were held frequently in the White House and even today sessions of Congress are opened with prayer.


True. I still oppose said prayers in congress. But killing that beast, is a long way off. And I could make a pretty good case against your argument in regards to religion, but I'd rather keep the issue on homosexuality.

Besides, I get pretty spiky when it comes to religion trying to force itself down my throat, and religion in politics is destined to do just that.

Make another thread if you wish, and please PM me with the link, as I have such a hard time finding things around here. I'd be happy to engage you there. :)

If men were angels, there would be no need of government. THe founding fathers knew human nature all too well which is why they set up the government with checks and balances the way they did. The way the Supreme Court acts today is shameful in light of that.

I'll agree with that.


Reference please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius

Morality is either rooted in God or in man. If in man, I will simply ask, which man?

All men. A conglomeration. Built off the foundation of genetically inspired altruism, and simple cause and effect relationships.

Many people often make the mistake of assuming that since an athiest doesn't beleive in heaven or hell, that one beleives there are no consequences for actions, and life would become a "do as you please" scenario in which everything would burn.

I'm happy to say that's not really the case.


I would say recognize as legitimate in this case.

What does it matter what you recognise? I'm asking for the state.
You can dissagree with it all you like, just as I dissagree with christianity all I like.

My tax dollar still pay for your churches though....

Something to mull over...



By nature though, a woman is capable of producing children with a man. The exceptions do not set the standard. By nature though, homosexuals are incapable of producing children.

And homosexuals are still a fringe group, just as sterile couples and people like myself with no desire to have children.
So I fail to understand the corrolary.

If we can define it, why not define it as being between a man and a boy, or a man and a horse, or a mother and a daughter? Why not?


Children don't apply, due to their lack of legal ability. That lack is based on their relative ignorance of life circumstances, law, and the neccessary experience to make such decisions.

As for the man and the horse....whatever floats one's boat. People eat animals, I suppose under that logic, I can't say anything if they choose to have sex with them. Provided the animal doesn't come to harm.




Causality in what way?

Cause and effect relationships. It's illegal to throw rocks at people, due to the harm that could result, and the complete lack of compliance from said victim. Laws are generally based around this system. Sometimes in some exceptions such as homosexuality, they are not. But in most cases.

I look at a harm vs. gain relationship before I make choices.


Personally, I avoid the word feel when it refers to rationality. It seems in America we've replaced thinking with feeling.

I'm simply trying to respect your views, and not tell you you're out-right wrong. If you wish, I'll use more appropriate terminology, if you understand I do not beleive in objective truths, and therefore, acknowlege that you could indeed, be correct. I simply respect you from reading your work, and have no interest in offending.

However, I would use the argument that anti-homosexual laws are based on feeling, rather than thought. :wink:


Do I believe because the book says so? No. That would be a misrepresentation of my view. I believe it because the God behind the book has shown himself to be true and has shown himself to be the creator of the universe and all that I see and is omniscient in all ways which leads me to believe he could be right on this.

Has he? Could you provide evidence for this assertion?



Please explain what you mean about this. Is causality the eternal principle?

Yes. There are no objective truths. Only what functions towards one goal, and what functions towards another, and the interactions between.

[Steven]

“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. 9. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. 10. But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. 11. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. 12. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13. Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.” Jude 1:7-13

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19. since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but
their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23. and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30. slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31. they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” Romans 1:18-32

[Warcraft3]

What is important, is that the 6th amendmant creates *conditions* for a fair trial, and thus the intent is exhibited.

The same is true for the seperation between church and state. While that exact phrase is not in the constitution, this sentance IS:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The purpose of this is to ensure that the government doesn't tell you what to beleive, teach or worship in regards to religion, but also so that the government does not allow itself to be dictated by it.

Excellent point and I agree with your conclusions regarding this issue.

As long as we have people in government though, there will always be decisions that are affected by personal belief. But "affected" is not the same as "dictated".

As for children, what's the deal with that? I had my tubes tied when I turned 18. Does this mean I'm not allowed to get married?

I think you are missing the point here....

When we bring children into the picture thats where I actually do have a slight problem with the homosexual lifestyle. I could care less if they can marry as long as we dont put them on equal footing with a heterosexual couple when it comes to adopting young children.

In the case of adoption (especially young children) we should give preferential treatment to the heterosexual couples and only consider the homosexual couples as a secondary option.

[Shadow Phoenix]

But is it applicable to their situation?

Entirely. The right to marry is there whether it's utilized or not, but it's the same for everyone. Again, homosexuals aren't asking for equal rights. They're asking for different rights.




I was raised in adoption homes untill I was 15. It was overcroweded, underfunded, and nobody cared enough to remember your name.
I doubt highly that the lack of a mother or father would kill our society. Kids tend to adapt quickly. I survived at least.

I don't know your story so I can't comment on it, but it does seem that those who grow up without a strong role model in each sex will suffer from it. A son can be damaged by an absentee father or a daughter by an over-protective mother even. However, each provides something important to raising a child.

Of course, if you disagree, you could just tell which parent doesn't really matter.




Are you?

The only reason you might not feel that way, is because of your affiliations.
Most of the bible isn't exactly a bed-time story for kids.
I would rate most of it R at the very least.

Nor was it written to be a bedtime story. This is serious stuff, because it is true stuff. Like I said, this isn't an episode of Mr. Rogers. The God of the Bible takes sin quite seriously when he deals with it.

Am I being censored like this yet? No. I do believe we are getting there as Canada has though.

-Is someone else's life your concern? At what point does concern for your fellow man, broach the realm of personal rights? I smoke. You have no right to tell me not to. I also drink, and the same goes for that. Since when did you become the person to tell me how to live my life*?

-Is children such a deal here? I can't have children. I had my tubes tied when I turned legal. (18)
Is this to say I'm not a candidate for marriage? What of sterile couples?


*under the premise that it does not harm you unduly, such as drunk driving etc.

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.

So much of what I do is out of concern for my fellow man. I could handle driving fast on the road, but I don't because of my fellow man. I don't go through life with the view that I have to look out for me and let everyone else handle things themselves. If someone's doing something that will kill them, the loving thing to do is to warn them.



No such thing as "objective morality."

Then I would also add that I can do whatever I want to anyone regardless of personal rights. Who needs them? If there's no objective morality, why play this game like there is?




Could you prove it?

If there's no objective morality, why even have this discussion? Why talk about moral issues if there is no right and wrong involved?

Or is there no moral difference between giving a child a sucker and murdering them?



You allready do.
You've made a decision based on what is important to you, or what you beleive in, just as I have.

We could go round and round about the validity of what our decisions are based on, but the fact that we each have made a conscious choice in our treatment of others, is not something I beleive anybody could make a case against.

The only one that holds me from living a total lifestyle of wickedness is Christ. I believe our culture has been so saturated by Christianity that even those who aren't Christians still have much of the moral worldview of Christianity in them holding them back.





True. I still oppose said prayers in congress. But killing that beast, is a long way off. And I could make a pretty good case against your argument in regards to religion, but I'd rather keep the issue on homosexuality.

Besides, I get pretty spiky when it comes to religion trying to force itself down my throat, and religion in politics is destined to do just that.

Make another thread if you wish, and please PM me with the link, as I have such a hard time finding things around here. I'd be happy to engage you there. :)

Maybe someone else will. I've got enough threads going as it is. However, I will say I'm not wanting to force my religion down anyone's throat. No one's forcing you to become a Christian. This slippery slope fallacy has already been exposed by Sparko and Theonomy.

Of course, the government wants to make it that we see the homosexual lifestyle as legitimate, thus forcing a viewpoint contrary to my religion down my throat.








http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius

Did you read the reference? It says exactly what I expected it to say. Confucius gave a negative rule of "Do not to do others what you do not want done to you." Christ gave a positive of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."



All men. A conglomeration. Built off the foundation of genetically inspired altruism, and simple cause and effect relationships.

Many people often make the mistake of assuming that since an athiest doesn't beleive in heaven or hell, that one beleives there are no consequences for actions, and life would become a "do as you please" scenario in which everything would burn.

I'm happy to say that's not really the case.

I am quite certain that if this happened, all men would not be the basis of morality. SOME MEN would be the basis of reality. I would even say why should I care about altruism?




What does it matter what you recognise? I'm asking for the state.
You can dissagree with it all you like, just as I dissagree with christianity all I like.

My tax dollar still pay for your churches though....

Something to mull over...

If the state were to start to define marriage, then it could be redefined to be between a man and a boy, a man and a horse, a daughter and a mother. Why not after all?





And homosexuals are still a fringe group, just as sterile couples and people like myself with no desire to have children.
So I fail to understand the corrolary.

With a man and a woman, if all the reproductive systems are in order, there is nothing preventing childbirth. It's only a matter of time. With a homosexual couple, there is not a chance.




Children don't apply, due to their lack of legal ability. That lack is based on their relative ignorance of life circumstances, law, and the neccessary experience to make such decisions.

As for the man and the horse....whatever floats one's boat. People eat animals, I suppose under that logic, I can't say anything if they choose to have sex with them. Provided the animal doesn't come to harm.

But surely it wouldn't be wrong to have a man marry a boy would it?






Cause and effect relationships. It's illegal to throw rocks at people, due to the harm that could result, and the complete lack of compliance from said victim. Laws are generally based around this system. Sometimes in some exceptions such as homosexuality, they are not. But in most cases.

I look at a harm vs. gain relationship before I make choices.

What's wrong with harming someone?




I'm simply trying to respect your views, and not tell you you're out-right wrong. If you wish, I'll use more appropriate terminology, if you understand I do not beleive in objective truths, and therefore, acknowlege that you could indeed, be correct. I simply respect you from reading your work, and have no interest in offending.

However, I would use the argument that anti-homosexual laws are based on feeling, rather than thought. :wink:

I'm curious if any of this is objectively true. After all, if it isn't, why should I care?




Has he? Could you provide evidence for this assertion?

Why should I have to give evidence for God's existence?





Yes. There are no objective truths. Only what functions towards one goal, and what functions towards another, and the interactions between.

Is any of this true?

[Goth_S]

Entirely. The right to marry is there whether it's utilized or not, but it's the same for everyone. Again, homosexuals aren't asking for equal rights. They're asking for different rights.

I would again, substitute the word "applicable" and repeat my argument about abortions for males.



I don't know your story so I can't comment on it, but it does seem that those who grow up without a strong role model in each sex will suffer from it. A son can be damaged by an absentee father or a daughter by an over-protective mother even. However, each provides something important to raising a child.

Of course, if you disagree, you could just tell which parent doesn't really matter.

Neither matter solely by virtue of the sex.


Nor was it written to be a bedtime story. This is serious stuff, because it is true stuff. Like I said, this isn't an episode of Mr. Rogers. The God of the Bible takes sin quite seriously when he deals with it.

Am I being censored like this yet? No. I do believe we are getting there as Canada has though.

I'm not touching this argument with a 20ft flaming pole with a condom on it.


The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.

So much of what I do is out of concern for my fellow man. I could handle driving fast on the road, but I don't because of my fellow man. I don't go through life with the view that I have to look out for me and let everyone else handle things themselves. If someone's doing something that will kill them, the loving thing to do is to warn them.

Then keep your fist to yourself, and let them marry.
There is plenty of time and opportunity allready for you to warn them of their actions.


Then I would also add that I can do whatever I want to anyone regardless of personal rights. Who needs them? If there's no objective morality, why play this game like there is?

Well, probably because of natural consequence. That's that causality thing.



If there's no objective morality, why even have this discussion? Why talk about moral issues if there is no right and wrong involved?

Or is there no moral difference between giving a child a sucker and murdering them?

Depends on the circumstances. Giving a diabetic kid a sucker might bring about both scenarios.


The only one that holds me from living a total lifestyle of wickedness is Christ. I believe our culture has been so saturated by Christianity that even those who aren't Christians still have much of the moral worldview of Christianity in them holding them back.

Balderdash.

I would be ever so pleased if you could bring me any sort of evidence for this assertion, as your effectively implying that "moral" behavior did not exist pre-christ, and that nobody that isn't familiar with christianity or it's teachings, is incapable of "moral" behavior.

That's a very very big brush your using to paint the world with and I think it deserves an equally big bucket of paint to justify it.


Maybe someone else will. I've got enough threads going as it is. However, I will say I'm not wanting to force my religion down anyone's throat. No one's forcing you to become a Christian. This slippery slope fallacy has already been exposed by Sparko and Theonomy.

I was mainly speaking in pure refference to the concept of seperation and church and state. A scenario in which the two are entwined, is going to result in that end. Not a slippery slope, as I'm not using it in the context of this homosexuality argument.

In any event, a mute point.

Of course, the government wants to make it that we see the homosexual lifestyle as legitimate, thus forcing a viewpoint contrary to my religion down my throat.

Repeating yourself is a side step. Nobody is asking you to accept it as "good" or whathaveyou. That's not the issue. I think a great number of nasty things in connection with the church, yet they exist tax-free.

The issue is, why do you feel it's acceptable to deny rights to homosexuals, simply because you don't like them.


Did you read the reference? It says exactly what I expected it to say. Confucius gave a negative rule of "Do not to do others what you do not want done to you." Christ gave a positive of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I fail to see the major problem here.



I am quite certain that if this happened, all men would not be the basis of morality. SOME MEN would be the basis of reality. I would even say why should I care about altruism?

Why should you indeed? Excellent question.
Cause and effect works weather or not you care.

Pop Quiz:

I steal your car. What do you do?


If the state were to start to define marriage, then it could be redefined to be between a man and a boy, a man and a horse, a daughter and a mother. Why not after all?

Instead of repeating yourself, perhaps you could answer my response to this question as I've allready answered it instead of side-stepping.



With a man and a woman, if all the reproductive systems are in order, there is nothing preventing childbirth. It's only a matter of time. With a homosexual couple, there is not a chance.

Again, not a response to my previous statement. Merely re-hashing yours.
I've allready answered this question.



But surely it wouldn't be wrong to have a man marry a boy would it?

Again, I've allready answered this.



What's wrong with harming someone?

Depends on the situation.

There are pragmatic and logical methods for perpetuating a society. Causality pretty much dictates it's natural flow.

I'm curious if any of this is objectively true. After all, if it isn't, why should I care?


Lemme ask you a better question.
If there is objective morality, where does it come from, and how do you prove it exists?


Why should I have to give evidence for God's existence?

Because you asserted that he does.
Burden of proof is on you, my friend.




Is any of this true?

In the sense that it was intended, yes.
In the sense of a contradiction that you are implying, no.

[Wyzaard]

If marriage can be changed to be anything, then it means essentially nothing. Homosexuals can already form their unions all they want. It just won't be recognized by the government. That's what they really want. They want everyone to have to accept their lifestyle. I will still refuse. I will accept them as persons. I will not accept their lifestyle as moral.


Fine, be that way. However, to deny them equal rights under the law violates the letter and the spirit of our constitution.


Please tell me a law without a moral basis. Even if you think that basis is invalid, it still has a moral basis.


Laws are implemented for pragmatic reasons; just because your particular religion speaks about a certain act does not mean the legislation about said act was set in place because of your religion's thoughts about the act.

[Steven]

God said in His word:

18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. rom 1:18-32

[Warcraft3]

God said in His word:

18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. rom 1:18-32


Way to quote scripture at people Steven :thumb: Such a skillful use of Gods Word :ahem:

***Hint:
One thing about a sword is that it takes skill to use effectively....your post is severly lacking that skill.

[Steven]

Way to quote scripture at people Steven :thumb: Such a skillful use of Gods Word :ahem:

***Hint:
One thing about a sword is that it takes skill to use effectively....your post is severly lacking that skill.

I find it interesting that all I did was post Scripture, and yet you can't resist going personal. Perhaps it is not me that is lacking in skill.

[Warcraft3]

I find it interesting that all I did was post Scripture, and yet you can't resist going personal. Perhaps it is not me that is lacking in skill.

Nothing personal at all Steven.....just pointing something out to you.

There are time and places to "just quote scripture" and one needs to know when to do so.

If you have nothing to say then simply say nothing...dont quote scripture at people. Its rather ineffective and silly.

[Steven]

Nothing personal at all Steven.....just pointing something out to you.

There are time and places to "just quote scripture" and one needs to know when to do so.

If you have nothing to say then simply say nothing...dont quote scripture at people. Its rather ineffective and silly.


See, thats where we disagree. Scripture is very important and useful in such a situation. Perhaps you would be more effective for the Kingdom of God if you quoted more Scripture and less of your opinons. Nothing personal, though.

"Is not my word like fire? saith Jehovah; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?" Jeremiah 23:29

"And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times." Psalms 12:6

[Shadow Phoenix]

I would again, substitute the word "applicable" and repeat my argument about abortions for males.

Abortions for males? Males are in no way capable of having children by nature! There is a huge difference there. The point is still the same. The law is not there to give people what they want but what is good for them. It's a shock to some people, but what you want is not always good for you.

I still hold my point as standing. Homosexuals are wanting different rights, not equal rights.





Neither matter solely by virtue of the sex.

It seems obvious that they're disposable from the viewpoint I'm seeing.









Then keep your fist to yourself, and let them marry.
There is plenty of time and opportunity allready for you to warn them of their actions.

Let's suppose someone was taking a poison slowly with no beneficial results that would kill them in the end. Is it the right thing to try to get them to stop though so they could be saved?

We step in when someone is murdered and say that this ought not to have happened because it resulted in the premature death of someone in a way they did not have to go. However, it's apparently okay if that death takes place over a long period of time. Exactly how much time is allowable before it becomes okay?




Well, probably because of natural consequence. That's that causality thing.

And what would that consequence be? We argue about morality so we can have what happen?





Depends on the circumstances. Giving a diabetic kid a sucker might bring about both scenarios.

I think it's somewhat obvious that I did not mean the sucker would kill the child. I'm curious though now as to what situations you would say it is morally permissible if I was to murder a child.




Balderdash.

I would be ever so pleased if you could bring me any sort of evidence for this assertion, as your effectively implying that "moral" behavior did not exist pre-christ, and that nobody that isn't familiar with christianity or it's teachings, is incapable of "moral" behavior.

That's a very very big brush your using to paint the world with and I think it deserves an equally big bucket of paint to justify it.

Oh no. There were moral people of course. The Greeks were frequently speaking on the cardinal virtues carried on through the tradition of Augustine, St. Aquinas, and modern writers like C.S. Lewis.

However, the world at the time often had such activities as children being abandoned, rampant adultery and promiscuity, and the gladiator games of Rome. Areas that have been reached by the gospel have turned around morally. A number of missionary accounts could show this.








Repeating yourself is a side step. Nobody is asking you to accept it as "good" or whathaveyou. That's not the issue. I think a great number of nasty things in connection with the church, yet they exist tax-free.

The issue is, why do you feel it's acceptable to deny rights to homosexuals, simply because you don't like them.

Again, no one's denying them rights. They have the same rights as everyone else. Also, this has nothing to do with whether I like or dislike homosexuals. This is about my stance on homosexuality. I separate the people from the action.

I am against homosexuality because I see it as the breakdown of the family unit for one thing. The living generation is to provide the next generation literally and raise them in a home of a mother and a father. A homosexual couple cannot do that.




I fail to see the major problem here.

The problem is that he did NOT teach the golden rule. He taught a negative. Christ taught a positive. Even the article you referenced me to points out that it's close to the golden rule but is not the golden rule.





Why should you indeed? Excellent question.
Cause and effect works weather or not you care.

If your view is correct, I shouldn't.

Pop Quiz:

I steal your car. What do you do?

I call the police.




Instead of repeating yourself, perhaps you could answer my response to this question as I've allready answered it instead of side-stepping.

You gave a legal reason, but why should I care about it? If there is no objective morality, why should anyone care about being ethical or obeying the law? Trying to create a morality when you know that there is none is simply living in denial.





Again, not a response to my previous statement. Merely re-hashing yours.
I've allready answered this question.

I will say my response still stands. Sterile couples are exceptions to a group that can normally reproduce. Homosexuals by nature cannot reproduce with each other.





Again, I've allready answered this.

If there is no objective morality, the answer is "no." Someone call NAMBLA and tell them....





Depends on the situation.

There are pragmatic and logical methods for perpetuating a society. Causality pretty much dictates it's natural flow.

Please tell me upon what basis you determine when it is okay and when it is not to harm someone.




Lemme ask you a better question.
If there is objective morality, where does it come from, and how do you prove it exists?

It comes from God first off.

Secondly, I would say we see it exists because we all live by it everyday to an extent. What kind of world would it be if everyone went and made their own rules?




Because you asserted that he does.
Burden of proof is on you, my friend.

Why should it be? I hold that belief in God is properly basic. If you're going to want me to give evidence, I await your evidence for evidentialism. Give me a reason why I cannot simply hold belief in God as properly basic.






In the sense that it was intended, yes.
In the sense of a contradiction that you are implying, no.

Truth by intention? Wish I'd known that for several tests in my school years.

[Sevivon1913]

Who invented the ridiculous concept of distinguishing "homo" from "hetero" intercourse? By even suggesting NORMAL procreation is merely one alternative, you are giving "sodomites" way too much respect.

[Goth_S]

Abortions for males? Males are in no way capable of having children by nature! There is a huge difference there. The point is still the same. The law is not there to give people what they want but what is good for them. It's a shock to some people, but what you want is not always good for you.

I still hold my point as standing. Homosexuals are wanting different rights, not equal rights.

Are you a homosexual?

Yes or no please.


It seems obvious that they're disposable from the viewpoint I'm seeing.

Caregivers are inherrantly essential in whatever form.
Male or female aspects are not intrinsically important.




Let's suppose someone was taking a poison slowly with no beneficial results that would kill them in the end. Is it the right thing to try to get them to stop though so they could be saved?

No. Not unless that action was inhibiting or harming another unduly.
Explaining your position, or discussion with said individual is acceptable.
Direct interferance is not.


We step in when someone is murdered and say that this ought not to have happened because it resulted in the premature death of someone in a way they did not have to go. However, it's apparently okay if that death takes place over a long period of time. Exactly how much time is allowable before it becomes okay?

A murder is a direct infringement upon the life of another.
Suicide is not.
There is a considerable difference.



And what would that consequence be? We argue about morality so we can have what happen?

To ensure that our lives are free from infringment by others.
Essentially that's what it all boils down to.

We'll be getting into this more, a few lines down where I asked you for your reaction to me stealing your car.



I think it's somewhat obvious that I did not mean the sucker would kill the child. I'm curious though now as to what situations you would say it is morally permissible if I was to murder a child.

And I was simply attempting to illustrate the gray area that naturally occurs in day to day existance. I am fully aware of what you meant of course.

Permissable to murder a child....well...

During Veitraq, a number of small children have been brutally killed. The ones I use for my example, are those carrying grenades, explosives, or other weapons with the intent to kill our troops.

Self preservation is the highest law, so in those particular instances, the killing of a child was essential. Sad, but essential.



Oh no. There were moral people of course. The Greeks were frequently speaking on the cardinal virtues carried on through the tradition of Augustine, St. Aquinas, and modern writers like C.S. Lewis.

However, the world at the time often had such activities as children being abandoned, rampant adultery and promiscuity, and the gladiator games of Rome. Areas that have been reached by the gospel have turned around morally. A number of missionary accounts could show this.

Then morality is not exclusive to christianity.
The *christian* flavor of morality, however, is.



Again, no one's denying them rights. They have the same rights as everyone else. Also, this has nothing to do with whether I like or dislike homosexuals. This is about my stance on homosexuality. I separate the people from the action.

Allow me to retract the word "them" and replace homosexuals with homosexuality please. I did not mean to imply that you had something against the individuals, merely the act. Apologies.


I am against homosexuality because I see it as the breakdown of the family unit for one thing. The living generation is to provide the next generation literally and raise them in a home of a mother and a father. A homosexual couple cannot do that.

Neither can a sterile couple.
Amusingly enough, you're also looking at a large group of people relatively guaranteed to never have an abortion. If they want to adopt, they'll have to actually pass relatively strict requirements mandated by the state, just like heterosexual couples when adopting.

Heterosexuals currently, only have to wiggle a few body parts to get a child, with no qualifications aside from their physical health.

I fail to see how a "breakdown" of the "family unit" would take place.

Don't you think it's a tad amusing that homosexuals actualy have to pass a test to have children, and you don't?

Heck, I have to have a license to own my pistol, but I can (well....I *could* had I not tied my tubes) have a child without any qualifications at all!

I find that amusing....I surely do.


The problem is that he did NOT teach the golden rule. He taught a negative. Christ taught a positive. Even the article you referenced me to points out that it's close to the golden rule but is not the golden rule.

I like confuscious' words better. Allows for a lack of interferance. That "do" part bugs me.
However, it's relatively the same bloody thing, unless you really want to pluck straws at this one.


If your view is correct, I shouldn't.

Why? Can you name me an instance of altruism that could be shown to fail to benefit you in some manner?



I call the police.

Now for the million dollar question:

*why* do you call the police?


You gave a legal reason, but why should I care about it? If there is no objective morality, why should anyone care about being ethical or obeying the law? Trying to create a morality when you know that there is none is simply living in denial.

The law is a set of rules that we as a society agree to live by. Laws being the collective understanding of "morality."
Things that are typically considered "moral" follow a pretty logical thought pattern, but remains flexible due to societal changes.

The missionary ventures that you speak of did not bring morality to the masses. They merely changed the modus operandi to one you agree with.

It's not a matter of denial. Merely a matter of accepting that morality is a human institution. The cosmos could care very little about who's blood we spill, or what child goes hungry.

Only humans care, and only humans will suffer the consequences.
As I do not like to suffer, I follow whatever code of "morality" best suites that desire.

I don't refrain from stealing simply because the law says so. And I certaintly don't refrain from stealing because of the many dieties that have stated policies against it.

I refrain from stealing because ultimately it's in my own best interest.
I do not wish to go to jail, and I do not wish to be hunted down by some vengeful store keeper.

Cause...and effect.

Conversely, I support the laws that say stealing is illegal, because I do not wish *my* things to be stolen.

Again, cause and effect. Morality is merely a title we apply to this institution of thought.

Makes us feel noble and whatnot.


I will say my response still stands. Sterile couples are exceptions to a group that can normally reproduce. Homosexuals by nature cannot reproduce with each other.

And I would again, ask why you fail to see that homosexuals are also an exception to a group that can normaly reproduce. *chuckle*

Are you perhaps, under the assumption that if we allow homosexual marriages, that humanity will simply die out? Will we all suddenly lapse into a large collective of roaming sodomites?
Will homosexual marriages harm your ability to conceive children?

If there is no objective morality, the answer is "no." Someone call NAMBLA and tell them....


*chuckle*
Let me ask you this then:
Why do you beleive sex with children is "bad"?


Please tell me upon what basis you determine when it is okay and when it is not to harm someone.

If your walking down the street, it's not ok to shoot you.
If you're stealing my T.V. your life is forfeit.

It's a matter of cause and effect, and who/how that action effects.

Is it O.K. to be a religious peson? Absolutely! Is it ok to beat your wife, regardless of the size of the stick?
Nope.






It comes from God first off.

I would help me greatly in understanding your position, if you could provide me some material to support this assertion.

Secondly, I would say we see it exists because we all live by it everyday to an extent. What kind of world would it be if everyone went and made their own rules?

Do we not allready make our own rules? Been to the voting booths lately?




Why should it be? I hold that belief in God is properly basic. If you're going to want me to give evidence, I await your evidence for evidentialism. Give me a reason why I cannot simply hold belief in God as properly basic.

As you made the assertion, it's up to you to prove it. Otherwise, if you wish to play that game, I can turn it quickly around and state that my beleif in the pink bunnies of OZ are intrinsicly basic, and leave it to you to disprove.

However, in the interest of conversation, I'll oblige you this once.

You can beleive whatever you will. All opinions however, are not equal.
I can state with reasonable faith, that if I throw a ball into the air, it will return to the earth according to the laws of gravity.

I cannot say however, with 100% confidence that it will function as such, each and every time. However, the numerous counts of past experiences will provide a reasonable amount of support for my assertion that the ball will indeed, return to the earth just like it's predacessors.

Evidence in this model, is ultimately the key to reaching a reasonable conclusion.

This gives my opinion that the ball will indeed return to earth, a certain amount of weight. Far more, than a person who denies that the ball will fall.

If one is to claim that a function is basic, or intrinsic of our condition, then one must be capable of making a reasonable case for such assertions, based on whatever evidence supports it.
Without that evidence, any claim is immediately handicapped in the face of potentialy overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


If I wanted to be a real wise-gal, I could also claim that my support for homosexual marriages is "properly basic" and therefore, no evidence on my part is needed to defend it. :wink:



Truth by intention? Wish I'd known that for several tests in my school years.


One of my favorite clauses.
I use it often.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Let us put a disclaimer up here. Nothing Goth_S says is objectively true first off. If we see anything that is a statement on morality such as something being wrong, we are obviously misunderstanding as she has no objective morality. Let's go into the message now

Are you a homosexual?

Yes or no please.

As irrelevant as this is to the truth of my claim, no. I am quite attracted to the ladies.




Caregivers are inherrantly essential in whatever form.
Male or female aspects are not intrinsically important.

I disagree entirely. There are some traits a mother passes on and some a father passes on due to their own personalities. A son and a daughter need both.






No. Not unless that action was inhibiting or harming another unduly.
Explaining your position, or discussion with said individual is acceptable.
Direct interferance is not.

The last statement must be in error as there is no objective morality.




A murder is a direct infringement upon the life of another.
Suicide is not.
There is a considerable difference.

Surely there's no wrong in infringing on the life of another now is there Goth? I'd hate to see you giving an objective moral rule you think I ought to follow.





To ensure that our lives are free from infringment by others.
Essentially that's what it all boils down to.

We'll be getting into this more, a few lines down where I asked you for your reaction to me stealing your car.

The best way to do that is to live in a cave all our lives and interact with no one. When I go to work everyday, my life is being infringed by people.

Of course, there's nothing objectively wrong with that....





And I was simply attempting to illustrate the gray area that naturally occurs in day to day existance. I am fully aware of what you meant of course.

Permissable to murder a child....well...

During Veitraq, a number of small children have been brutally killed. The ones I use for my example, are those carrying grenades, explosives, or other weapons with the intent to kill our troops.

Self preservation is the highest law, so in those particular instances, the killing of a child was essential. Sad, but essential.

Essential? Nonsense. This action is immoral and I have no qualms saying such.

Also, the pointing of gray areas is a nonsense attempt to deny objective morality. Because I do not know what twilight is does not mean I don't know what darkness and daylight are.





Then morality is not exclusive to christianity.
The *christian* flavor of morality, however, is.

If you read Romans 2, you'd know we agree. Every man has the moral code built into them. We will say though that Christ is the greatest teacher of morality and pushes us to a new level of morality unheard of in those times.







Neither can a sterile couple.
Amusingly enough, you're also looking at a large group of people relatively guaranteed to never have an abortion. If they want to adopt, they'll have to actually pass relatively strict requirements mandated by the state, just like heterosexual couples when adopting.

Heterosexuals currently, only have to wiggle a few body parts to get a child, with no qualifications aside from their physical health.

I fail to see how a "breakdown" of the "family unit" would take place.

Don't you think it's a tad amusing that homosexuals actualy have to pass a test to have children, and you don't?

Heck, I have to have a license to own my pistol, but I can (well....I *could* had I not tied my tubes) have a child without any qualifications at all!

I find that amusing....I surely do.

Last I checked, a couple had to be checked out before they could adopt a child.....



I like confuscious' words better. Allows for a lack of interferance. That "do" part bugs me.
However, it's relatively the same bloody thing, unless you really want to pluck straws at this one.

Quite different. It's easy to avoid wronging a neighbor in many cases. It goes above and beyond to act in a loving way towards them when you're not required to. The same message even tells us to love our enemies.




Why? Can you name me an instance of altruism that could be shown to fail to benefit you in some manner?

Even if it was to benefit me, why should I care? After all, by the atheistic worldview, it's only a temporary benefit and that benefit will only serve to help me forget that in the end I'm worm food and none of this will have mattered.





Now for the million dollar question:

*why* do you call the police?

Stealing is wrong. That simple.




The law is a set of rules that we as a society agree to live by. Laws being the collective understanding of "morality."
Things that are typically considered "moral" follow a pretty logical thought pattern, but remains flexible due to societal changes.

Then in Nazi Germany, killing Jews was moral. In Germany afterwards, it was immoral. What will happen in our nations if executing infidels ever becomes moral? Will there be agreement?

The missionary ventures that you speak of did not bring morality to the masses. They merely changed the modus operandi to one you agree with.

Must be a shock to all those revolutionized societies that were changed by the gospel....

It's not a matter of denial. Merely a matter of accepting that morality is a human institution. The cosmos could care very little about who's blood we spill, or what child goes hungry.

And if DNA neither knows nor cares and we dance to its music, why should I know or care?

Only humans care, and only humans will suffer the consequences.
As I do not like to suffer, I follow whatever code of "morality" best suites that desire.

The question is again, why? (Other than is this objectively true?) If the cosmos is amoral, how can it produce moral beings?

I don't refrain from stealing simply because the law says so. And I certaintly don't refrain from stealing because of the many dieties that have stated policies against it.

What would be wrong with the latter?

I refrain from stealing because ultimately it's in my own best interest.
I do not wish to go to jail, and I do not wish to be hunted down by some vengeful store keeper.

Cause...and effect.

Conversely, I support the laws that say stealing is illegal, because I do not wish *my* things to be stolen.

Again, cause and effect. Morality is merely a title we apply to this institution of thought.

Makes us feel noble and whatnot.

Why should I feel noble? I could smother a girl who's drowning or save her life. Why should I feel any different either way?




And I would again, ask why you fail to see that homosexuals are also an exception to a group that can normaly reproduce. *chuckle*

Um. Could it be because the birth rate of men with men and women with women is at 0%?

Are you perhaps, under the assumption that if we allow homosexual marriages, that humanity will simply die out? Will we all suddenly lapse into a large collective of roaming sodomites?
Will homosexual marriages harm your ability to conceive children?

No. We will simply redefine the family and in doing so will break down the main unit of society. It's a strong monogamous marriage between a man and a woman as a foundation for a society that produces a strong one.




*chuckle*
Let me ask you this then:
Why do you beleive sex with children is "bad"?

I think sex with anyone you're not married to is bad. Marriage is a sacred covenant and sex is a part of that covenant.




If your walking down the street, it's not ok to shoot you.
If you're stealing my T.V. your life is forfeit.

It's a matter of cause and effect, and who/how that action effects.

Is it O.K. to be a religious peson? Absolutely! Is it ok to beat your wife, regardless of the size of the stick?
Nope.

Something must be wrong. These seem like objective statements about morality.








I would help me greatly in understanding your position, if you could provide me some material to support this assertion.

I would suggest the start of C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity."



Do we not allready make our own rules? Been to the voting booths lately?

I would say this is because we are a society created in the image of the Triune God making us relational and community-oriented by nature. If individuals are gods unto themselves, we have problems.






As you made the assertion, it's up to you to prove it. Otherwise, if you wish to play that game, I can turn it quickly around and state that my beleif in the pink bunnies of OZ are intrinsicly basic, and leave it to you to disprove.

However, in the interest of conversation, I'll oblige you this once.

You can beleive whatever you will. All opinions however, are not equal.
I can state with reasonable faith, that if I throw a ball into the air, it will return to the earth according to the laws of gravity.

I cannot say however, with 100% confidence that it will function as such, each and every time. However, the numerous counts of past experiences will provide a reasonable amount of support for my assertion that the ball will indeed, return to the earth just like it's predacessors.

Evidence in this model, is ultimately the key to reaching a reasonable conclusion.

This gives my opinion that the ball will indeed return to earth, a certain amount of weight. Far more, than a person who denies that the ball will fall.

If one is to claim that a function is basic, or intrinsic of our condition, then one must be capable of making a reasonable case for such assertions, based on whatever evidence supports it.
Without that evidence, any claim is immediately handicapped in the face of potentialy overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


If I wanted to be a real wise-gal, I could also claim that my support for homosexual marriages is "properly basic" and therefore, no evidence on my part is needed to defend it. :wink:

The reason is that I do not accept the presumption of atheism. I could give every argument I wanted for the existence of God and have it be refuted and that would not show atheism.

I would also say I believe in God like I believe in other minds. I cannot prove that you have a mind or that my friends have minds or that my enemies have minds. I do see people though acting in ways that indicate they have minds. (Well, sometimes)

What a shock that I look at the universe and see the result of a mind.

Belief in God is properly basic. Alvin Plantinga is probably the best writer on this topic. I'm under no obligation to accept the presumption of atheism.

[Goth_S]

Let us put a disclaimer up here. Nothing Goth_S says is objectively true first off. If we see anything that is a statement on morality such as something being wrong, we are obviously misunderstanding as she has no objective morality. Let's go into the message now

*chuckle*

I sense tension.
If I've offended, I certaintly hope you will allow me to apologise. I mean you no ill will. We merely exist on the other side of the fence so to speak.

But as my neighbor has a habbit of saying, "Good fences, make good neighbors."

I certaintly hope he's right.


As irrelevant as this is to the truth of my claim, no. I am quite attracted to the ladies.

So by your own admission, homosexual relationships do not apply to you, in the sense that you would not pursue one?

Yes or no please.



I disagree entirely. There are some traits a mother passes on and some a father passes on due to their own personalities. A son and a daughter need both.

Oh?

See, that's interesting because I could point to a number of studies that a child would be better off raised in a communal environment, rather than a single household with two parental figures.


The last statement must be in error as there is no objective morality.

No. No error.

I'm speaking in terms of causality. We'll get to that later down below.



Surely there's no wrong in infringing on the life of another now is there Goth? I'd hate to see you giving an objective moral rule you think I ought to follow.


Surely not. Merely my own modus operandi I thought I'd share with you.



The best way to do that is to live in a cave all our lives and interact with no one. When I go to work everyday, my life is being infringed by people.

Of course, there's nothing objectively wrong with that....

I really don't think it's too hard to keep one's nose to one's own affairs. Suites me well at least. Interaction, and interferance are slightly different affairs. Your religion seeks to interfere by default. My own philos resists it.
So obviously, there is a conflict now isn't there?



Essential? Nonsense. This action is immoral and I have no qualms saying such.

Oh is it? A child mows down half your squad because you felt it would be immoral to shoot the child?


Also, the pointing of gray areas is a nonsense attempt to deny objective morality. Because I do not know what twilight is does not mean I don't know what darkness and daylight are.

Do you admit there are "gray areas" of this so-called "objective morality" or do you not?

Yes or no please.


If you read Romans 2, you'd know we agree. Every man has the moral code built into them. We will say though that Christ is the greatest teacher of morality and pushes us to a new level of morality unheard of in those times.

*chuckle*

Plato, socrates, aristotle, Laozi, Confuscious, Kierkegaard, Hippocrates....

I suppose none of them had anything to do with it eh?
Jesus Christ had nothing "original" to say. Perhaps he phrased his words in a unique manner, but the underlying premise of his teachings were hardly new nor unique.


Last I checked, a couple had to be checked out before they could adopt a child.....

Yes....that was my point. Glad to see we're still on the same page.
Question being, will you have to pass said checks before you can procreate?

I simply find it amusing that a homosexual and even a heterosexual couple, has to meet some requirements to become a parental unit, whilst couples with natural conceived children do not.

I find it somewhat hard to beleive that a homosexual union would make that poor a set of parents, especially given that they would have to follow the same guidelines as any heterosexual couple in adopting a child. (since, as you've so eloquently put it, they cannot do so naturally.)



Quite different. It's easy to avoid wronging a neighbor in many cases. It goes above and beyond to act in a loving way towards them when you're not required to. The same message even tells us to love our enemies.

Your version of "love" might not meet my own. Indeed, it would seem that that's the crux of this little dilemma IMO.




Even if it was to benefit me, why should I care? After all, by the atheistic worldview, it's only a temporary benefit and that benefit will only serve to help me forget that in the end I'm worm food and none of this will have mattered.

Oh, now that's not positive!
If your entire existance really does end here, as I contend it does, would that truly galvanise you into acting like a "bad person?" Or not caring? Altruism is hardwired into your brain as a survival mechanism. Humans as social creatures are forced to interact. A measure of this adaptive method ensures a certain amount of stability in society.

But can you truly state that you would honestly throw yourself to the wolves simply because there is no objective morality? No end profit of your worldly existance?

I realise that it must be hard to accept coming from a background such as you do, but I can honestly assure you that it's not all that bad.

What do I have to look forward to? Well, cryonics is a good start. Living for every momentary fleeting pleasure. Enjoying this life to it's fullest. That sort of thing. The philos of "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" certaintly applies. But again, that's causality and we'll get to that below...



Stealing is wrong. That simple.

Fair enough. Now, remove your concept of "objective morality."

I steal your car.

*Now* what do you do?






Then in Nazi Germany, killing Jews was moral. In Germany afterwards, it was immoral.

Of course it was!
You don't think they all went to war, because they wanted to play Two-Face, to our Batman, do you? Millions of lives lost, for a quick game of make-beleive?

Chimpanzees will travel in small packs, and kill other small monkies they come in contact with, if their numbers are greater. A sort of, territorial thing.
Humans on the other hand, tend to do the same, but with some slight differences. Humans operate under assumed superiority. We delude ourselves that we will inevitably triumph, in order to galvanise ourselves into action. It goes against most biological programming to go up against a superior opponent. Yet we do it all the time.

The trick, is that all important "Us, vs. THEM" mentality. Inevitably, we will always be the good guys, and "they" will always be the bad guys.
Had Germany won that war, I can say with reasonable amount of confidence that we probably wouldn't think twice in this day and age. As it happens, we won. A fact I'm quite happy about.

I'm sure you could name any number of misguided actions that were perpetrated by "evil" men. Of course, you'd then have to explain why said "evil" men did what they did in the first place, if they genuinely considered themselves to be of such moral polarity.

What will happen in our nations if executing infidels ever becomes moral? Will there be agreement?

I'm sure there will be parties that agree. I'm also sure that there will be parties that dissagree. As a "heretic" I would obviously side with the infidels.
Of course, I allready see this coming, but that's neither here nor there.



Must be a shock to all those revolutionized societies that were changed by the gospel....

Change is inevitable when introducing a foreign concept. My point however, that perhaps I did not make clear, is that these societies are no more "moral" now than they ever were. They merely coincide with your personal beleifs which gives them a certain boost when you determine the "morality" of said societies.


And if DNA neither knows nor cares and we dance to its music, why should I know or care?

Why should you? Questions that deserve some consideration I think.



The question is again, why? (Other than is this objectively true?) If the cosmos is amoral, how can it produce moral beings?

Morality is a concept *you* created. The cosmos certaintly didn't give rise to "moral" beings. It gave rise to *you.* Weather or not you are indeed, a moral person, is entirely up to you.

You merely exist. What comes after is your call.



What would be wrong with the latter?

And here we touch again on that causality thing.

I don't refrain from stealing by pure virtue of the laws I would break, nor the harm I would do to others. Although those are fine reasons.
I refrain from stealing, primarily because it's in my own best interest not to.
Why create a turbulent society? Why create a life for myself in which I would have to run from angry mobs? Why would I pigeon hole myself into a life I could not escape from?

If I stole from my neighbors, (all of them gun owners like myself) I can say with reasonable assurance that I would pay dearly for it. Maybe not today, possibly not tommorrow, but they would get me. And I like my little life as it is really. I've no interest in taking to the trail of running from angry people.

Cost vs Gain in this scenario doesn't quite equal out.

Morality need not apply.

Why should I feel noble? I could smother a girl who's drowning or save her life. Why should I feel any different either way?

Why should you? Certaintly there are many that don't feel a thing.
Could you explain to me why you *should* or *shouldn't* one way or the other?


Um. Could it be because the birth rate of men with men and women with women is at 0%?

I see we have a thing for circles. Let me try to rephrase:

Homosexuals have a marvelous thing in common with sterile couples, and that being that both groups are part of the minority that cannot have children.

So you have yet to differentiate the two groups, and explain why homosexuals are somehow unique in their lack of ability to have children.


No. We will simply redefine the family and in doing so will break down the main unit of society. It's a strong monogamous marriage between a man and a woman as a foundation for a society that produces a strong one.

Oh is it? What about Japan, or Mexico, both of which have very strong social structures and rely cheifly on the principal of it takes a village to raise a child.
Many from both these countries, abhore the concept of "me-ism" that our nation engenders. (I assume you're american as I am.)
And a number of people point to that very secluded family living as our primary problem.


I think sex with anyone you're not married to is bad. Marriage is a sacred covenant and sex is a part of that covenant.

Sacred? How so? Could you define this concept of "sacred" as I'm not very familiar with it's use.


Something must be wrong. These seem like objective statements about morality.

No. Merely *my* statements of morality. The principals I happen to adhere to. You of course, are free to deviate.


I would suggest the start of C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity."

A good book, but I fail to see how this book written by a noted author of fiction, provides proof that some intangible being gave us morality.

Perhaps you could elaborate for my benefit?



I would say this is because we are a society created in the image of the Triune God making us relational and community-oriented by nature. If individuals are gods unto themselves, we have problems.

We are indeed community oriented by nature.
So, by your own admission, we create our own laws, to function as a cohesive society, yes?

Hmm....

Could you perhaps tell me any other manner in which a communal society such as ours, could possibly function?
I dare say, there aren't many options available.

Pragmatism prevails, no?


The reason is that I do not accept the presumption of atheism. I could give every argument I wanted for the existence of God and have it be refuted and that would not show atheism.

You're absolutely right. I could trounce everything you have in defence of theism, and it would not prove athiesm. Let's continue:


I would also say I believe in God like I believe in other minds. I cannot prove that you have a mind or that my friends have minds or that my enemies have minds. I do see people though acting in ways that indicate they have minds. (Well, sometimes)

Pop quiz:

What could you provide as evidence for your assertion that others have minds of their own?


What a shock that I look at the universe and see the result of a mind.

No. Not a shock. At one time, I saw a face of Kermit the Frog in the clouds.
In all truth, I really mean no offence by that comment.

I do however, wish to impress upon you, that one can imprint whatever one wishes onto a thing, and see as they choose. The question, is weather or not it is in direct conflict with what follows suite with supporting evidence.


Belief in God is properly basic. Alvin Plantinga is probably the best writer on this topic. I'm under no obligation to accept the presumption of atheism.

Properly basic...properly basic...

I'm new to this concept, so forgive me. I hope to hear more of this "basic" theology, and perhaps how it ties into the multiple gods that have come long before the christian monotheistic God.

[Sparko]

Goth, you continue to argue that you are right and others are wrong, and also saying there is no such thing as objective morality.

Don't you even see the contradiction inherent in such a view? Even you can't follow it.

[Goth_S]

Goth, you continue to argue that you are right and others are wrong, and also saying there is no such thing as objective morality.

Don't you even see the contradiction inherent in such a view? Even you can't follow it.



I never claimed that my code of morality was objective. If I did, perhaps you could quote me, so that I can make the neccessary retractions. I am human, and thusly prone to mistakes after all.

However, my ultimate intent was never to state that my code of morals was dictated by anything more than the criteria that I myself have chosen to follow.
My system is my own. Nothing more, nothing less. My morality is in direct contradiction with the moral code of Christianity, the NSM, communist russia, our own government, etc. etc.

Since I do not beleive I have ever stated that my code of morality is anything more than *sub*jective, I do not beleive I have contradicted myself.
I am free to say that you are wrong, b/c in my eyes, you might very well be.
If I have at any point in time alluded to the concept that you are wrong on any other larger scale of measurement, then I cry your pardon, that was certaintly not my intent.


Many people tend to cling to similar trains of thought in terms of morality, but with distinct variations in theory and practice. This is not to say that morality is objective, merely that there are patterns that are functional, and patterns that are not.

If you wiped out the entire human race, that would be no more "moral" objectively, than saving it. I as an individual however, would herald world peace as a very moral action, and I'm sure that others would agree.
Objective? I think not.

[Sparko]

thats the contradiction. You claim your views are subjective and yet you have spent pages arguing that you are right and we are wrong. To do that is to claim that YOU are right objectively.

Otherwise the best you can say is that we are just as right as you are and not bother discussing it at all.

Your walk doesn't match your talk.

[Goth_S]

thats the contradiction. You claim your views are subjective and yet you have spent pages arguing that you are right and we are wrong. To do that is to claim that YOU are right objectively.

Otherwise the best you can say is that we are just as right as you are and not bother discussing it at all.

Your walk doesn't match your talk.

Negatory batman. Allow me to explain my position.

This is under the presumption that I do not acknowlege your beleifs. I do indeed. You're free to state that my own beleifs are 'wrong.' Simply because there is no "objective morality" is not to say that I cannot hold my own.

I tend to be something of a nihilist. Does this mean that simply because nothing has any ultimate *point* removed from our own priorities, that I cannot fashion my own? Hardly.

I can easily state that you are "wrong" in the sense that you conflict with *my* beleifs. I cannot, nor have I ever stated that you are wrong, because of some objective morality. Merely that you are in conflict with *my* morality.


You're stuck in this concept of "objective morality" in the sense that one has to adhere to it, in order to be 'right' in their own mind. Surely you've been misled before? Have you at all times, had the answer to all questions? Surely not! I know I havn't.

But in your head, untill your P.O.V. changes, or new evidence changes your view, you will remain with the conclusion that you are indeed "right."

Hence, subjective morality comes into play, rather than objective as people's philos tend to sway with new information being processed and either deleted from memory, or assimilated into common practice.


I can assert that you are in contradiction with my beleifs all I want. Doesn't mean I hold some higher sway.

[Sparko]

Then you do believe in objective morality. You think your "right" is better than my "right" obviously that makes me "wrong" to you. If I am wrong and you are right then there must be some basis for that. Otherwise why should we even care what you think or you should care what I think? we are both equally right in our own way.

Either homosexuality (for instance) is really right or wrong. If you claim there is no objective morality then your opinion means nothing and you have no right to tell me what I believe is wrong.

If there really is no objective morality then you have no business telling me that me saying homosexuality is a sin is wrong.


Stop trying to impose YOUR morality on me.

[Sevivon1913]

Then you do believe in objective morality. You think your "right" is better than my "right" obviously that makes me "wrong" to you. If I am wrong and you are right then there must be some basis for that. Otherwise why should we even care what you think or you should care what I think? we are both equally right in our own way.

Either homosexuality (for instance) is really right or wrong. If you claim there is no objective morality then your opinion means nothing and you have no right to tell me what I believe is wrong.

If there really is no objective morality then you have no business telling me that me saying homosexuality is a sin is wrong.


Stop trying to impose YOUR morality on me.
I think she was saying there is no such thing as morality as a universal physical force, but that it derives from human conscious awareness (which is, by its nature, relative) ?

[Goth_S]

Then you do believe in objective morality. You think your "right" is better than my "right" obviously that makes me "wrong" to you. If I am wrong and you are right then there must be some basis for that. Otherwise why should we even care what you think or you should care what I think? we are both equally right in our own way.

Precicely what I propose, hence this discussion. What other possibility could you propose? Or turn it around, what if *my* morality were objectively true, how would I go about proving it if you did not agree?

You shouldn't *have* to care what I think. If you choose to do so, then I appreciate it. I personally think that a person's beleifs, when put to the test, are more justified than a person who does not seek out alternatives or test the flaws of one's own philos.

Again, that's that "personal" method that I'm using, not to be confused with some exterior force that dicatates right and wrong. ;)


You see, I can indeed beleive you to be in the wrong, if your actions/beleifs conflict with my own. Simple cause and effect.

To wit:
You like the color red, I the color black.
Which one is better?

Egads! Subjectivity strikes!

What I have said, in no way violates my stand that there is no objective morality, as I have never stated that my beleifs were somehow all-consuming. Merely the product of my own interpretation, based on the factors I'm aware of, and the evidence I have observed.

It's quite the same for all I assure you. I'm really not sure what the problem is here.


Either homosexuality (for instance) is really right or wrong. If you claim there is no objective morality then your opinion means nothing and you have no right to tell me what I believe is wrong.

Why don't I have that right? Is this what you beleive?
Is it not equally possible?

*chuckle*

If there really is no objective morality then you have no business telling me that me saying homosexuality is a sin is wrong.

And conversely, you have no right to tell me that homosexuality is a sin.
Yet, I do, and you do.

Funny little thing, that.

The task we're put to, is coming to terms with our dissagreements, and finding middle ground. A common consensus can indeed, exist without any form of "objective morality" imposed by an intagible third party.



Stop trying to impose YOUR morality on me.

I'm afraid I can't do that dave. hehe

[Goth_S]

I think she was saying there is no such thing as morality as a universal physical force, but that it derives from human conscious awareness (which is, by its nature, relative) ?


How very aptly put. Thank you Sevivon.

[Sparko]

I believe in objective morality. There is an objective right and wrong, so I have every 'right' to argue that I am right and you are wrong.

You don't believe in that so you have no basis to tell me I am wrong.

[Goth_S]

I believe in objective morality. There is an objective right and wrong, so I have every 'right' to argue that I am right and you are wrong.

You don't believe in that so you have no basis to tell me I am wrong.


Why?

If you can justify your actions based on your beleif, why can I not do the same?
It makes little sense truly.

Why must something be "objectively moral" for me to object?

You pose that the rules of the game were made long before, and not by humans.
I propose that the rules were made entirely by humans, for humans. Therefore, I am well within my right to object, according to my own philos.

I think you're grasping at straws here, or perhaps I've not properly illustrated the concept of subjetivism appropriately.

EDIT:

Perhaps I can explain another way:

Upon some reflection, I'm ultimately, forced to assume that your speaking out of appeal to authority. Namely, that this "objective morality" cannot be infringed, and is therefore *the* basis by which all actions are judged.

My P.O.V., is that humans are that very authority, and by the change of common consensus, are the codes of ethics created and changed. As a human, I feel it's well within my right, to cast my view inside the pot, and hope to churn that consensus into a flavor that appeals to me.

So...I'm not entirely sure where you get this notion that I'm not allowed to voice my dissent to your particular flavor of morality or justification, as I'm well within the bounds of my philos.


However, this little tangent has cost a great amount of space, and I don't think it's quite applicable to the topic at hand. If you'd like to engage this issue further, if you still do not understand/agree with my reasoning, perhaps we could create another thread on the subject of morality and it's validation.

Do PM me with a linky if you do, as I have a terrible time navigating around here.

[Sparko]

Goth if you don't understand the inherent contradiction in claiming that there are no objective morals and then going on to argue that you are right and I am wrong, then no amount of discussion will probably explain it to you. Just think about it when you have time, I am sure it will click eventually.

[Goth_S]

Goth if you don't understand the inherent contradiction in claiming that there are no objective morals and then going on to argue that you are right and I am wrong, then no amount of discussion will probably explain it to you. Just think about it when you have time, I am sure it will click eventually.


And I would advise a reading up on the nature of subjectivism, as your statemets do not coincide with the matter at hand.

I have not stated that you are wrong on the issue of weather or not something is "moral" or not. I *have* stated, that my beleifs do not click with yours. And there is a sincere difference here. I would also like to point out, that I have never stated that your view of morality is "wrong" by any other measure than my own. So my argument is most certaintly not contradictory, as I have not argued out of any objective values, rather subjective.

As there is no objective morality, we cannot come to a firm conclusion. This is the contradiction you speak of. Perhaps that's not what you *meant* but that is indeed what I got out of your work.

My argument, is that morality is not a matter of sticking to the letter of some unwritten (or written, depending on your flavor) law, but rather conflicting tastes.

I say that X tastes good. You state that X tastes bad. No conclusion can be made from this argument, save perhaps each side gaining an insight as to what the other bases their assertions on. And it is in this instance, that we see how our own argument has been created. Your flavor tastes good to you, and my flavor tastes good to me. As I have not stated that my flavor is the "best" by any other standard than my own, my argument is most certaintly not contradictory, as I have not argued out of any objective values, rather subjective, as I said before. This is the key to this discussion.

In the realm of morality, the very same is evident. As objective morality would be inherrantly programed into humanity, rather than taught, we have no yardstick, as this is obviously not the case, as the argument does indeed come up from time to time. You could indeed use the bible as said yardstick, but even that gives rise to argument within it's texts. I'm sure that you could cite quite a number of biblical arguments concerning the ethics of this or that from a scriptural view. I know I could.

Ultimately, if morality were programed into humanity, it would be in god's own best interests, and a fulfillment of biblical desires. As it happens, we are not, otherwise such discussions such as this would not take place.

As it stands, from my perspective, there is no god, and no objective morality. However, it should also be noted that some considerations of objective morality do indeed, coincide with athiesm, so it's not purely a theistic concept per-se, by it's own virtue.

We cannot argue about many basic functions of math, as they function purely by their own rules. 2 + 2 will equal 4, every time, untill we interfere. No interpretation required.

Morality, on the other hand, is purely a human construction, designed to guide, limit, or promote certain actions by ourselves or others. We have seen many instances in which this concept has been changed purely by popular opinion, and in each case, no external source put a stop to it. Only humans interfere when someone else's decision of what constitutes morality differs from our own.


EDIT:

Tacked on a few extra sentances.

[Sparko]

no we have argued the x tastes bad and you came in and said NO you are wrong and here is why X really tastes good.

If it were merely a matter of taste there would not have been an argument here at all. you would have simply said "Sparko and Nick, I understand your tastes on the matter. Mine do not coincide. See ya around"

[Goth_S]

no we have argued the x tastes bad and you came in and said NO you are wrong and here is why X really tastes good.

If it were merely a matter of taste there would not have been an argument here at all. you would have simply said "Sparko and Nick, I understand your tastes on the matter. Mine do not coincide. See ya around"


Then allow me to do you the pleasure of giving my entire comprised works the pre-face, "I beleive as such."

Would that satisfy you?

Also there is the issue of action behind said concepts, which changes things a wee bit. X tasting bad to you and nick is fine. X tasting bad, and creating a law out of it, is entirely different, as my tastes do not coincide. That brings it's own special merits to this discussion, now doesn't it my dear?

[Sparko]

I ain't your "dear," honey.

[Goth_S]

I ain't your "dear," honey.


Tranquillo, amigo, it wasn't a jab, geez.


Take care when crackin' them smiles, ya might make yer'self faint.

In the meantime, I found the guy I was looking for. Check out Dr. Niclas Berggren. He wrote an essay awhile back on the nature of subjective morality.

I highly recommend it, as it explains things in a manner that apparently I cannot.

[Abigail]

Then allow me to do you the pleasure of giving my entire comprised works the pre-face, "I beleive as such."

Would that satisfy you?

Though I do believe there is such a thing as moral objectivity, I realise that when up against people as yourself who do not accept the authority of the Only True and Wise God then we are going to run into problems like this since we are looking at the issue from differing angles...some worhipping the Creator and some worshipping the creature (Romans 1:25).

From my angle as a Christian I think that our(the Christian) battle should be fought for purity within the Church (since the Church is the Bride of Christ and not the world). Now here is an area where even you as a non Christian can surely accept objectively that the Church is defined by the Bible and its persciption for life. So:

Marriage in the Judaeo-Christian context is a creation by God. It was designed by God to be the state in which a man and a woman come together as one (Matthew 19:4-6).

There can be no blessing or sanctioning of same-sex couples in the Christian Church as this is clearly at odds with the original purpose God had for marriage.

If people of the same sex wish to come together in a union then it is my opinion that they should be free to do so but their union should not be sanctioned or recognised by the Church in any ceremonial way and the church should have the right to say that they believe the union is not that which is called Marriage in the way God intended and is sinful. This should be a view that everyone everywhere should know...that homosexual unions are not Christian marriage and are not what God intended for us.

The Bible is pretty clearly cut on the issue of homosexuality and though some people have tried a few nifty manaeuvres with the exegesis they have fallen way short of showing that the Bible didnt intend with regards to homosexuality what it clearly intends. So within the Christian context the view on marriage is objective and we need to strive to achieve that objective. It is to be between a man and a woman.

The church should be the light on the hill showing the way in the darkness. In the world but not of the world.

So would you be content if Unions (not Marriages) between same sex couple were tolerated in the world, but with no sanction from the Church who would regard such a union as sinful ...or would you be like some of those I have heard of who are continuing to push for full recognition and blessing of these relationships in the Church.

[Sparko]

Tranquillo, amigo, it wasn't a jab, geez.


Take care when crackin' them smiles, ya might make yer'self faint.

In the meantime, I found the guy I was looking for. Check out Dr. Niclas Berggren. He wrote an essay awhile back on the nature of subjective morality.

I highly recommend it, as it explains things in a manner that apparently I cannot.

when you call people "dear" like that it sounds patronizing.

[Goth_S]

when you call people "dear" like that it sounds patronizing.

Sorry m8, text always fails when trying to express emotions, aye?

I'll try to be more careful in the future. I use dear alot, mostly when I'm exasperated, but rarely in condescending terms. I do understand what you're trying to say as far as objective morality vs. subjective morality, but when dealing with such definitions it helps to know what those definitions are rooted in, and I simply don't think you quite understand what I'm trying to explain.
It is a common argument, but one that hasn't gone unrefuted. Simply stacking the two side by side, it's quite easy to tell that they can indeed, hold their own merits. The only difference really, is where the emphasis is placed. You're "objective morality" comes from a singular god, mine comes from my own beleifs, stacked up against those of others. A mass consensus if you will. While I fully admit that due to my system, there can never be any "Ultimate evil" nor "ultimate good" there are good and evil things purely out of agreements and dissagreements in terms. Nazis are "evil" to me, and (hopefully) you as well, but the Nazis firmly hold that people like you and me are dragging the world down to ashes. The crux, is that you beleive you're right because of God, I beleive I'm right due to analysis of the factors, my own personal feelings, and the evidence posed. Which is not to say that you don't look at these things too, you merely stack them against scripture, whereas I stack them against common consensus.

I'm simply a bit put-out trying to re-word this in a fashion that might be more conducive to teaching it. I'm afraid hoewever, that thus far I've failed. But I don't blame you for that, but rather myself, so no condescention was intended I assure you.

As I said before, seek out those that could explain the concept better myself. It's widely held by a number of sociologists, athiests and yes, even theists on occasion. The only real "problem" here that can be exposed, is it's direct contradiction with your particular beleifs. Not any contradiction within the philos itself however.



Cheers :smile:




Though I do believe there is such a thing as moral objectivity, I realise that when up against people as yourself who do not accept the authority of the Only True and Wise God then we are going to run into problems like this since we are looking at the issue from differing angles...some worhipping the Creator and some worshipping the creature (Romans 1:25)

And you're well entitled to that beleif.

The crux of the matter, simply comes when that argument fails to keep up with the times. Particularly, when I see religions breaking apart purely due to political differences, or interpretive differences, which somewhat jades the concept of "objective morality" when I consider it.

Of course, that's one girl's opinion. :wink:


From my angle as a Christian I think that our(the Christian) battle should be fought for purity within the Church (since the Church is the Bride of Christ and not the world). Now here is an area where even you as a non Christian can surely accept objectively that the Church is defined by the Bible and its persciption for life. So:

Absolutely! Keep the government OUT of the church, and the church OUT of the government. That's all I ask.



SNIP

I cut out the biblical justifications as I'm well aware of them, and I have no argument.



So would you be content if Unions (not Marriages) between same sex couple were tolerated in the world, but with no sanction from the Church who would regard such a union as sinful ...or would you be like some of those I have heard of who are continuing to push for full recognition and blessing of these relationships in the Church.

Hmm....well, recognition/blessing within the church is a no-go as far as I'm concerned. A common complaint I hear from Mr. Apologia Nick and others, is that they don't want to condone or accept behavior that contradicts scripture. However, they fail to see that when removed from the church, that argument becomes null and void from a legal perspective at least. I don't ask anybody to accept my behavior. Merely that they allow me to pursue it. Likewise for homosexuals/lesbians.

I'm forced to tolerate the christian church, and indeed, other religions that I find immoral and destructive. However, I do not condone their existance, nor do I support it. (of course, I do with my tax dollars, but that's another story.)


The problem with marriage however, is that marriage is not a religious institution by default. That trips alot of people up. It's origens were for territory, or wealth, rather than religion.
Similarily, the Law is not a religious institution, yet the law has to recognise a marriage before it's legal. The church has no say in such matters. The church can *marry* a person, but that does not make them married by law.
A common misconception.

To wit:

I do not condone, nor support the challenges made by homosexuals or others, to get gay marriage into the church, or even condoned by the church. The church's affairs are their own, just like the KKK has a legal right to exclude blacks from their ranks.

But under the law, gays should be allowed to marry in a court, with all the legal protections available. Church need not be a party to it at all.


That's the way I see it.

[Abigail]

And you're well entitled to that beleif.

The crux of the matter, simply comes when that argument fails to keep up with the times. Particularly, when I see religions breaking apart purely due to political differences, or interpretive differences, which somewhat jades the concept of "objective morality" when I consider it.

Of course, that's one girl's opinion. :wink: If you look at the creature rather than the Creator then you are going to get a jaded view

Absolutely! Keep the government OUT of the church, and the church OUT of the government. That's all I ask. You'd have to tell me what you mean by government here, but in the main, yes I agree that the Church and the government are not the same.



Hmm....well, recognition/blessing within the church is a no-go as far as I'm concerned. A common complaint I hear from Mr. Apologia Nick and others, is that they don't want to condone or accept behavior that contradicts scripture. However, they fail to see that when removed from the church, that argument becomes null and void from a legal perspective at least. I don't ask anybody to accept my behavior. Merely that they allow me to pursue it. Likewise for homosexuals/lesbians. I understand the views held by some Christians and if they feel I am wrong in mine I am willing to have my error pointed out to me. Personally I will never condone homosexuality as I understand it to be a sin and will always state that to be my understanding. How much clearer can one state one's point than saying this behaviour should not be condoned in the Church. To me a pure Church will send out a stronger message that homosexuality is wrong than would forcing unwilling people in the world to making a surface show of keeping laws.

I'm forced to tolerate the christian church, and indeed, other religions that I find immoral and destructive. However, I do not condone their existance, nor do I support it. (of course, I do with my tax dollars, but that's another story.) Hhmmm, I d be interested to know just what about the Christian Church you find so immoral and destructive...and I am not looking for examples of corrupt Christian behaviour etc.


The problem with marriage however, is that marriage is not a religious institution by default. That trips alot of people up. It's origens were for territory, or wealth, rather than religion. Within the Christian Church it is a religious institution, you cannot fail to appreciate this point...read the Matthew 19 verse again. Similarily, the Law is not a religious institution, yet the law has to recognise a marriage before it's legal. The church has no say in such matters. The church can *marry* a person, but that does not make them married by law.
A common misconception. But this has nothing to do with whether God views a marriage as a marriage or not. This is the issue. Is a homosexual union acceptable to God.

To wit:

I do not condone, nor support the challenges made by homosexuals or others, to get gay marriage into the church, or even condoned by the church. I am glad to hear this The church's affairs are their own, just like the KKK has a legal right to exclude blacks from their ranks. Nice attempt at poisoning the well

But under the law, gays should be allowed to marry in a court, with all the legal protections available. Church need not be a party to it at all.


That's the way I see it.Well, big people must be accountable for their actions and if this is what people want then that is up to them, only lets not pretend that this is marriage as God intended it.

[Goth_S]

If you look at the creature rather than the Creator then you are going to get a jaded view

Next time you see the creator, do tell him to give me a ring, as I would like to get a clearer view. I'd love to talk politics over a game of chess with god, but sadly, the opportunity has never presented itself.


You'd have to tell me what you mean by government here, but in the main, yes I agree that the Church and the government are not the same.

As long as the church isn't making law, and laws are not being made out of purely religious intent, I'm happy.



I understand the views held by some Christians and if they feel I am wrong in mine I am willing to have my error pointed out to me. Personally I will never condone homosexuality as I understand it to be a sin and will always state that to be my understanding. How much clearer can one state one's point than saying this behaviour should not be condoned in the Church. To me a pure Church will send out a stronger message that homosexuality is wrong than would forcing unwilling people in the world to making a surface show of keeping laws.

I'm a big beleiver in the concept of leading by example.
It would be an excellent PR move, to actually demonstrate some of that love and kindness I hear so much about, yet rarely see.

Cheers!

Hhmmm, I d be interested to know just what about the Christian Church you find so immoral and destructive...and I am not looking for examples of corrupt Christian behaviour etc.

Somehow, I doubt that. Such conversations never go well, but if you insist, make a thread, and do PM me with the linky, and I'll be happy to engage the topic.

Just with the pre-face that my hands are somewhat tied behind my back, due to the nature of this forum. (not being allowed to blaspheme etc.)
Not that I'm complaining, simply stating that my arguments might be inherrantly handicapped.



Within the Christian Church it is a religious institution, you cannot fail to appreciate this point...read the Matthew 19 verse again. But this has nothing to do with whether God views a marriage as a marriage or not. This is the issue. Is a homosexual union acceptable to God.

The key word here is "within."

I would completely agree that *within* the church (or most churches anyways) homosexuality is outright nixed as a viable path of living. And that's fine.

Problem is, I rather don't care much for what your diety said any more than I care what Zeus said. They are all equally mute points with an unbeleiver, no?

The question, is weather or not the institution *itself* has religious origins. (which it does not.)

As it is purely a legal institution by default, with religious overtones in religious settings, I figure the title of "married" (purely the title) ought to be allowed, as well as equal legal protections given to heterosexuals.

Weather or not it's sanctioned by a church, or allowed/supported within it's walls, is a matter out of my hands, and only those individuals within said church, can come to any decision. It is not my domain, and I've no wish to encroach.

I simply ask that outside that domain, you allow for differences.
We all have to live together, and I'm afraid we're running out of places for dissenters to evacuate, ala-the colonisation of America. :wink:




I am glad to hear this Nice attempt at poisoning the well

Merely picking two extremes in thought, in order to battle the inevitable "word lawyering" that happens. Not nearly an attempt at poisoning the well.
Perhaps to suite you, I could make a comparison between....oh...the boy scouts excluding girls, and the church excluding homosexuals.
As an afterthought, it really doesn't matter what example I use, as I was merely comparing actions, rather than the philos that governs them, and exclusion is still exclusion no matter what context it's used, or who uses it.


In any case, regardless of the example used, you do get my point, yes?



Well, big people must be accountable for their actions and if this is what people want then that is up to them, only lets not pretend that this is marriage as God intended it.

Not marriage as *you* perceive your god intended.

I lay no claim to such dieties, therefore what god did or did not intend means little to one such as I, just as Vishnu's intentions probably means little to you.

[Shadow Phoenix]

*chuckle*

I sense tension.
If I've offended, I certaintly hope you will allow me to apologise. I mean you no ill will. We merely exist on the other side of the fence so to speak.

But as my neighbor has a habbit of saying, "Good fences, make good neighbors."

I certaintly hope he's right.

First off, I've been quiet because it's been a busy week, and I wanted to be here when I could devote some time.

Secondly, no offense. Your sense is off. (Whatever that means though since there's supposedly no objective truth.)




So by your own admission, homosexual relationships do not apply to you, in the sense that you would not pursue one?

Yes or no please.

Nope. I'm definitely looking for Mrs. Right.





Oh?

See, that's interesting because I could point to a number of studies that a child would be better off raised in a communal environment, rather than a single household with two parental figures.

A community is good, but a home base is also good with a mother and a father both. The child needs a positive role model in each and a family is best to offer unconditional love if functioning properly.










I really don't think it's too hard to keep one's nose to one's own affairs. Suites me well at least. Interaction, and interferance are slightly different affairs. Your religion seeks to interfere by default. My own philos resists it.
So obviously, there is a conflict now isn't there?

Yes. We do interfere, and such interference is important. If I'm on the scene of someone having a heart attack and I can do CPR, should I not interfere? The question is not, do we interfere? The question is, "Is that immoral?"

Of course, you can't say it is since you don't believe in objective morality so I'm glad to know you can't condemn my interfering constantly in your life or any other Christian doing so.





Oh is it? A child mows down half your squad because you felt it would be immoral to shoot the child?

I was speaking of the use of children as weapons. I would say in such a scenario, I would do anything I could to avoid harming a child. Eliminating a child would be a last resort.




Do you admit there are "gray areas" of this so-called "objective morality" or do you not?

Yes or no please.

From our perspective, yes.




*chuckle*

Plato, socrates, aristotle, Laozi, Confuscious, Kierkegaard, Hippocrates....

I suppose none of them had anything to do with it eh?
Jesus Christ had nothing "original" to say. Perhaps he phrased his words in a unique manner, but the underlying premise of his teachings were hardly new nor unique.

You know that Kierkegaard was a Christian. Right?

And yes, Jesus did say original things. He gave us the golden rule and the command to love enemies. Our view of marriage is largely effected by the Christian worldview today. The other philosophers were groping in the dark compared to Jesus. No doubt, they said many great things as I'm reading Plato now and find him fascinating. (Well, Socrates, but you know what I mean.) There is a strong difference though as these not only taught me that I ought to be good, but Jesus did so and enabled me to be good.

Of course, by your standards, the teachings of Jesus can't be said to be any more or less moral than that of Hitler's....



Yes....that was my point. Glad to see we're still on the same page.
Question being, will you have to pass said checks before you can procreate?

I simply find it amusing that a homosexual and even a heterosexual couple, has to meet some requirements to become a parental unit, whilst couples with natural conceived children do not.

I find it somewhat hard to beleive that a homosexual union would make that poor a set of parents, especially given that they would have to follow the same guidelines as any heterosexual couple in adopting a child. (since, as you've so eloquently put it, they cannot do so naturally.)

Ever heard of social services? If a child is not being cared for properly, the government can step in. This also happened in collectivist societies where good teachers were sought out for the children.





Your version of "love" might not meet my own. Indeed, it would seem that that's the crux of this little dilemma IMO.

Love is best described in 1 Cor. 13. It involves seeking the best of all those around you and not just in the short-term but in the long-term. (My own doctor showed great love by doing surgery on me which while providing long-term benefits, definitely gave a lot of short-term pain.)






Oh, now that's not positive!
If your entire existance really does end here, as I contend it does, would that truly galvanise you into acting like a "bad person?" Or not caring? Altruism is hardwired into your brain as a survival mechanism. Humans as social creatures are forced to interact. A measure of this adaptive method ensures a certain amount of stability in society.

But can you truly state that you would honestly throw yourself to the wolves simply because there is no objective morality? No end profit of your worldly existance?

I realise that it must be hard to accept coming from a background such as you do, but I can honestly assure you that it's not all that bad.

What do I have to look forward to? Well, cryonics is a good start. Living for every momentary fleeting pleasure. Enjoying this life to it's fullest. That sort of thing. The philos of "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" certaintly applies. But again, that's causality and we'll get to that below...

I believe this view of pleasure was already refuted in Philebus.

You speak of this as not all bad. Yet you have given no meaning to bad. With no objectivity, there is no reference point. Pleasure is no longer a pointer to life but a placebo meant to deny reality.

I assure you from here, life is already great realizing how wondrous and magnificent this world is and it's the joy of the creator that we enjoy him and his creation.

You speak though of us being hard-wired even. That kind of language practically screams design. Where did altruism come from if the doctrine is survival of the fittest?





Fair enough. Now, remove your concept of "objective morality."

I steal your car.

*Now* what do you do?

I do what I want. THis time I could track you down and deal with ya personally.








Of course it was!
You don't think they all went to war, because they wanted to play Two-Face, to our Batman, do you? Millions of lives lost, for a quick game of make-beleive?

Chimpanzees will travel in small packs, and kill other small monkies they come in contact with, if their numbers are greater. A sort of, territorial thing.
Humans on the other hand, tend to do the same, but with some slight differences. Humans operate under assumed superiority. We delude ourselves that we will inevitably triumph, in order to galvanise ourselves into action. It goes against most biological programming to go up against a superior opponent. Yet we do it all the time.

The trick, is that all important "Us, vs. THEM" mentality. Inevitably, we will always be the good guys, and "they" will always be the bad guys.
Had Germany won that war, I can say with reasonable amount of confidence that we probably wouldn't think twice in this day and age. As it happens, we won. A fact I'm quite happy about.

I'm sure you could name any number of misguided actions that were perpetrated by "evil" men. Of course, you'd then have to explain why said "evil" men did what they did in the first place, if they genuinely considered themselves to be of such moral polarity.

Evil men did this because they lost sight of objective morality and made themselves God. That you have a view that speaks of killing Jews as moral in that circumstance screams volumes to me. You say you're happy that we won. Why? Why should any outcome be "better" than another?



I'm sure there will be parties that agree. I'm also sure that there will be parties that dissagree. As a "heretic" I would obviously side with the infidels.
Of course, I allready see this coming, but that's neither here nor there.

You won't have a basis to complain and say it's wrong if it happens though.





Change is inevitable when introducing a foreign concept. My point however, that perhaps I did not make clear, is that these societies are no more "moral" now than they ever were. They merely coincide with your personal beleifs which gives them a certain boost when you determine the "morality" of said societies.

Then a society that can go from sacrificing its young on altars and then treasuring them as wonderful human beings is no more moral?




Why should you? Questions that deserve some consideration I think.

Because I'm a lot more than DNA. What's your answer?





Morality is a concept *you* created. The cosmos certaintly didn't give rise to "moral" beings. It gave rise to *you.* Weather or not you are indeed, a moral person, is entirely up to you.

You merely exist. What comes after is your call.

Why would the cosmos give rise to beings who even care about morality at all? If there is no objective morality and we act like there is, then we are living in contradiction. Should we all live where we all do what we want irregardless of anyone else?





And here we touch again on that causality thing.

I don't refrain from stealing by pure virtue of the laws I would break, nor the harm I would do to others. Although those are fine reasons.
I refrain from stealing, primarily because it's in my own best interest not to.
Why create a turbulent society? Why create a life for myself in which I would have to run from angry mobs? Why would I pigeon hole myself into a life I could not escape from?

If I stole from my neighbors, (all of them gun owners like myself) I can say with reasonable assurance that I would pay dearly for it. Maybe not today, possibly not tommorrow, but they would get me. And I like my little life as it is really. I've no interest in taking to the trail of running from angry people.

Cost vs Gain in this scenario doesn't quite equal out.

Morality need not apply.

I would say, "Why not?" Why not go for the moment of pleasure of hot-rodding a car? Why pay dearly for it? Just take out anyone who tries to interfere. Why not?



Why should you? Certaintly there are many that don't feel a thing.
Could you explain to me why you *should* or *shouldn't* one way or the other?

I should because one action is right and the other is wrong. Do you see no moral difference between taking a life and saving it? If I were to cut up a baby for fun right here before you, would you say I'd done anything wrong?




I see we have a thing for circles. Let me try to rephrase:

Homosexuals have a marvelous thing in common with sterile couples, and that being that both groups are part of the minority that cannot have children.

So you have yet to differentiate the two groups, and explain why homosexuals are somehow unique in their lack of ability to have children.

I've said it several times.

Homosexuals having homosexual sex with fully functioning reproductive systems cannot have any chance of having a child.

Heterosexuals having heterosexual sex with fully functioning reproductive systems can.




Oh is it? What about Japan, or Mexico, both of which have very strong social structures and rely cheifly on the principal of it takes a village to raise a child.
Many from both these countries, abhore the concept of "me-ism" that our nation engenders. (I assume you're american as I am.)
And a number of people point to that very secluded family living as our primary problem.

I don't favor a secluded family. I believe as a Trinitarian that we are to be community oriented. (And yes, I am American.)




Sacred? How so? Could you define this concept of "sacred" as I'm not very familiar with it's use.

Sacred means that it's pure and set apart for a specific purpose. Within a marriage, it's for pleasure, intimacy, and producing children. I say sexuality is sacred because it reflects the nature of God. The human being is not something to be treated as commonplace in the giving of total trust and intimacy. There is a reason sexuality causes such a stir in society today and a husband and wife suffer greatly if cheated on or a lady feels violated if raped.



No. Merely *my* statements of morality. The principals I happen to adhere to. You of course, are free to deviate.

Then in that case, morality would be nothing different than ice cream flavors.




A good book, but I fail to see how this book written by a noted author of fiction, provides proof that some intangible being gave us morality.

Perhaps you could elaborate for my benefit?

He wrote fiction which shows that the argument is false in what way?





We are indeed community oriented by nature.
So, by your own admission, we create our own laws, to function as a cohesive society, yes?

Hmm....

Could you perhaps tell me any other manner in which a communal society such as ours, could possibly function?
I dare say, there aren't many options available.

Pragmatism prevails, no?

The assumption here is that it's true because it works. It's actually the reverse. It works because it's true. Also, we do not have a lawmaking branch. We have a legislative branch. The founders strongly believed that the basis of morality was in God. That's why they created so many checks and balances in the government. They knew that at heart, man is corrupt.








Pop quiz:

What could you provide as evidence for your assertion that others have minds of their own?

A response quiz: What basis do you have that every belief must be backed by evidence?




No. Not a shock. At one time, I saw a face of Kermit the Frog in the clouds.
In all truth, I really mean no offence by that comment.

I do however, wish to impress upon you, that one can imprint whatever one wishes onto a thing, and see as they choose. The question, is weather or not it is in direct conflict with what follows suite with supporting evidence.

Then we will have to look beyond our own views and experiences, though sadly it seems that everything you've given is based on subjectivity instead of objectivity.




Properly basic...properly basic...

I'm new to this concept, so forgive me. I hope to hear more of this "basic" theology, and perhaps how it ties into the multiple gods that have come long before the christian monotheistic God.

How odd. Looking for truth on a calendar? Because X belief is supposedly older, X belief is true? Why not look at the belief itself?

Properly basic states that there are some beliefs that you would be hard-pressed to find evidence for, but to deny them would be seen as crazy in society today. (If you went around saying other people don't have minds for instance.) These beliefs are hard-wired into us and thus, properly basic. It doesn't mean that the content of the beliefs is simple though.

[Goth_S]

First off, I've been quiet because it's been a busy week, and I wanted to be here when I could devote some time.

Secondly, no offense. Your sense is off. (Whatever that means though since there's supposedly no objective truth.)

By the power of greyskull, I swear to satan I shall explain to all, the meaning of "subjective."





Nope. I'm definitely looking for Mrs. Right.

Splendid to hear.
Now...

-You are not a homosexual
-homosexual marriage would therefore, not apply to you.
-You do not seek homosexual marriage.

-Homosexuals are not heterosexual
-Heterosexual marriage, therefore, does not apply to Homosexuals
-Homosexuals, do not seek heterosexual marriage


-Homosexual marriage is not the pursuance of "different" rights, as the laws would govern homosexual and heterosexual marriages under the same laws
-Homosexual marriages would be between two individuals of the same mind-set, and heterosexual marriages would be between two individuals of the same mind-set.



I fail to see, how homosexuals are not seeking equality.




A community is good, but a home base is also good with a mother and a father both. The child needs a positive role model in each and a family is best to offer unconditional love if functioning properly.

Functioning properly is great. Fine. Dandy.

Why can it not be done with a homosexual partnership? In a communal environment, are you truly going to say that a child would have no interaction with a woman? Or a man?

Or is this merely the attempt at maintaining stereotypical roles of gender?



Yes. We do interfere, and such interference is important. If I'm on the scene of someone having a heart attack and I can do CPR, should I not interfere? The question is not, do we interfere? The question is, "Is that immoral?"

Is it?

If so, could you justify it please? If not, please tell me why?


Of course, you can't say it is since you don't believe in objective morality so I'm glad to know you can't condemn my interfering constantly in your life or any other Christian doing so.

Balderdash! I certaintly can, and I do.
Constantly.

Subjective morality, is merely pinning you against my wall and measuring you against my ruler of said concept.
Objective morality, is a removed ruler that you can't touch.




I was speaking of the use of children as weapons. I would say in such a scenario, I would do anything I could to avoid harming a child. Eliminating a child would be a last resort.

Mmm...perhaps you were, but I asked you specifically if it was ok to shoot the child.

From our perspective, yes.

Then we agree on something. high-five!

You know that Kierkegaard was a Christian. Right?

I'm well aware. I thought you might like some consideration for your side.
I suppose that'll teach me to be honest, aye?



And yes, Jesus did say original things. He gave us the golden rule and the command to love enemies.

Mmmm....not original. Sorry m8.
Perhaps his particular phrasing was different, but the ultimate concept was the same.


Our view of marriage is largely effected by the Christian worldview today. The other philosophers were groping in the dark compared to Jesus. No doubt, they said many great things as I'm reading Plato now and find him fascinating. (Well, Socrates, but you know what I mean.) There is a strong difference though as these not only taught me that I ought to be good, but Jesus did so and enabled me to be good.

You can enable yourself to be good my friend. They did it long before Jesus.


Of course, by your standards, the teachings of Jesus can't be said to be any more or less moral than that of Hitler's....

Depending on your perspective. (that tricky little word, that apparently hasn't been defined properly around here.)
Ask the NSM what they think of the question why don't you?
I'm sure you'll get an answer neither of us, would be pleased with.


Ever heard of social services? If a child is not being cared for properly, the government can step in. This also happened in collectivist societies where good teachers were sought out for the children.

*chuckle*

My point, that you cleverly dodged, is that homosexuals have to prove themselves to be good parents, from the outset. You, by pure virtue of your sexual practices, and biological endowments, can do so without even knowing how to drive.

I find the argument that homosexuals would make for poor parents, laughable at the least.



Love is best described in 1 Cor. 13. It involves seeking the best of all those around you and not just in the short-term but in the long-term. (My own doctor showed great love by doing surgery on me which while providing long-term benefits, definitely gave a lot of short-term pain.)

Then I would dissagree with said definition.



I believe this view of pleasure was already refuted in Philebus.

You speak of this as not all bad. Yet you have given no meaning to bad. With no objectivity, there is no reference point. Pleasure is no longer a pointer to life but a placebo meant to deny reality.

Would you like my reference point? You never asked you know.
And you know what they say about assumptions. :wink:


I assure you from here, life is already great realizing how wondrous and magnificent this world is and it's the joy of the creator that we enjoy him and his creation.

And I would argue that I feel the same level of pleasure in the orgasm, or driving in my Charger.


You speak though of us being hard-wired even. That kind of language practically screams design. Where did altruism come from if the doctrine is survival of the fittest?


Yet you omit my qualifier, and that being causality. Not very fair on your part, I think, to simply handwave a very important peice of that function aside.

Can you imagine how long a species would survive by killing itself?

A great number of animals in the world remain solitary in life. They tend to be more agressive. Dangerous. Hostile to others, including their own kind.
Communal animals, such as the human animal, require interaction, and support. Our existance depends upon co-operation.

Altruism, is an essential part of our existance. Is it *moral*? No. Merely a process of the machine.
Morality, is the reasoning *we* give to our actions, to guide ourselves along that path of altruism.

Hitler, was very altruistic, a fact that many people ignore by labeling him a criminal psycho without regard to his intentions. And that's the trick you see.
Hitler, despite his failings, made German healthcare better than it had ever been. He improved the drinking water, paved roads, increased the educational system by leaps and bounds, etc. etc.

He was quite arguably, the best thing to happen to white christian germans, in centuries.

He was merely altruistic towards what he perceived as his own kind, just as you are being altruistic towards homosexuals in the sense that you beleive your way is the "right" way, and vice verse for me.

Hence, subjective morality.



I do what I want. THis time I could track you down and deal with ya personally.

Why?
You've allready asserted that you *could* do whatever you wanted, now tell me why that in particular would be your choice.



Evil men did this because they lost sight of objective morality and made themselves God. That you have a view that speaks of killing Jews as moral in that circumstance screams volumes to me. You say you're happy that we won. Why? Why should any outcome be "better" than another?

Because it benefits me, and my interpretation of how the world should function, and in doing so, defeates a worldview that is in direct competition with my own, thus preserving the ever-sacred, "us" and elliminating the evil "them."



You won't have a basis to complain and say it's wrong if it happens though.

Oh no? Why?
Ah yes. The subjective morality thing.



Then a society that can go from sacrificing its young on altars and then treasuring them as wonderful human beings is no more moral?

Nope. Just more in line with what you perceive as "moral."

I would however, go so far as to say that it's much more conducive to a progressive society. But that's the best you're going to get out of me, in the context of objective morality.

I myself, would indeed say that it's "immoral" to sacrifice young. The life of a child is very dear in satanic philosophy, and I take the safety of youngsters quite seriously.



Because I'm a lot more than DNA. What's your answer?

Being alot more than DNA is not an answer, since DNA is exactly what you are. Without it, there is no "you."

Unless you want to shoot a hindenburg-sized large hole in your anti-abortionist logic.....

If you could perhaps elaborate on your statement, I would be most keen on reading it. If it follows suit, I'll happily reply in turn.

Quid pro quo and all that.


Why would the cosmos give rise to beings who even care about morality at all? If there is no objective morality and we act like there is, then we are living in contradiction. Should we all live where we all do what we want irregardless of anyone else?


Be my guest. Just don't expect it to last that long. Communal systems tend to run into the logistical problem, that everyone cannot do as they please, sans-consequences. Inevitably what I want to do, will interfere with what *you* want to do, and that's when people end up dying.

I don't honestly presume that even without a code of objective morality, you're *that* desperate to defend your argument, that you would tell me you would have no care about death or dying?



I would say, "Why not?" Why not go for the moment of pleasure of hot-rodding a car? Why pay dearly for it? Just take out anyone who tries to interfere. Why not?

Well, for starters I am a pretty good shot. Going into the police academy after I get done with college, matter-o-fact.

But...a single girl, out in a stolen car....gimme the odds. Really.
My only armaments are my Glock 17c pistol that I cherish dearly, a few other handguns, and a few spare mags for my glock.

That's about it. Good enough for a few people, but inevitably, not gonna save the day. And ultimately, it's still ignoring the cost vs. gain ratio.
Can you honestly state, that your code of "morality" is the only thing holding you back from such actions?

Or perhaps the fear of getting shot suddenly ceases to apply? :ahem:



I should because one action is right and the other is wrong. Do you see no moral difference between taking a life and saving it? If I were to cut up a baby for fun right here before you, would you say I'd done anything wrong?

I would yes. I see plenty of problems with that particular act.

Does it make it "objectively" bad? No. It simply means it's bad to me, and bad enough to alot of other people, that they decided to enact laws against it. Laws that I would uphold.




I've said it several times.

Homosexuals having homosexual sex with fully functioning reproductive systems cannot have any chance of having a child.

Heterosexuals having heterosexual sex with fully functioning reproductive systems can.

So they are duty bound, to procreate eh?


I don't favor a secluded family. I believe as a Trinitarian that we are to be community oriented. (And yes, I am American.)

Well, that's keen. So how exactly would the parents be the sole source of influence in such a system?


Sacred means that it's pure and set apart for a specific purpose. Within a marriage, it's for pleasure, intimacy, and producing children. I say sexuality is sacred because it reflects the nature of God. The human being is not something to be treated as commonplace in the giving of total trust and intimacy.

Why?

[quote]There is a reason sexuality causes such a stir in society today and a husband and wife suffer greatly if cheated on or a lady feels violated if raped.

Rape is a violation of someone else's body by force. The comparison on that one is mute.

Cheating is a socially programed excercise. If monogamy wasn't the "norm" it wouldn't be a big deal. Plenty of swingers out there can attest that cheating isn't much of an issue to them. :wink:


Then in that case, morality would be nothing different than ice cream flavors.

It isn't.
You have your flavor, I have mine.

He wrote fiction which shows that the argument is false in what way?

Well, I could go into detail about how he trivialised the differences in morality between cultures, then of course the amazing dissapearing god, in that we supposedly have morality ingrained, yet have vastly differing opinions and rarely actualy keep to them.

In any event, it was a rather nice book, but hardly justification for the concept of objective morality. It certaintly gave the concept context within christianity, but it's not a scientific document, with any rational basis.

Merely a set of opinions, based on a biased world view.
I'd rather not give a book report, but perhaps you could pick something and we could talk about it, in specific?

An entire book is a rather difficult chore of attacking when I've got other things to get to.



The assumption here is that it's true because it works. It's actually the reverse. It works because it's true. Also, we do not have a lawmaking branch. We have a legislative branch. The founders strongly believed that the basis of morality was in God. That's why they created so many checks and balances in the government. They knew that at heart, man is corrupt.

Oh is this now?

First off, I don't recall I ever stated we have a "law making branch". But we do make our own laws.
And no, they didn't beleive that the basis of morality was in god.
Hence the use of words like "creator" etc. etc.
It was quite a matter of compramise in wording, rather than intent.

The creation of our government was built upon history. A quick look around, shows that when a singular unit is in power, things don't go so well.

It's pragmatism. Not biblical mandate.


A response quiz: What basis do you have that every belief must be backed by evidence?

Sans evidence, no assertion can be given any more validity than any other.

Essentialy, lowering your beleifs to a child's beleif in the easter bunny.


Then we will have to look beyond our own views and experiences, though sadly it seems that everything you've given is based on subjectivity instead of objectivity.

History is the best teacher. All the hard evidence is there, all the documents are in order. Personal experience will give it it's particular shade, and personal views are the result of the whole mishmash.

Tell me, if not for these things, what do you use to "look beyond" ?


How odd. Looking for truth on a calendar? Because X belief is supposedly older, X belief is true? Why not look at the belief itself?

That's what's called an "appeal to antiquity" and I made no such fallacy. Remember, I do not beleive in any gods, so they are all equally invalid to me.


Properly basic states that there are some beliefs that you would be hard-pressed to find evidence for, but to deny them would be seen as crazy in society today. (If you went around saying other people don't have minds for instance.) These beliefs are hard-wired into us and thus, properly basic. It doesn't mean that the content of the beliefs is simple though.

I can pull your brain out, I can observe it under an MRI, I can compare and contrast your actions with my own, and others. I can read your electric pulses, and I can remove parts of brain.

All these things, are physical tests that I can do, to bring me to a reasonable conclusion, based on evidence.

Ergo, not properly basic. If you have another example, perhaps, I would love to hear it.

[sylvius]

I believe in objective morality. There is an objective right and wrong, so I have every 'right' to argue that I am right and you are wrong.

You don't believe in that so you have no basis to tell me I am wrong.

"There is an objective right and wrong,"

who told you that?

Genesis 3: 11,
Or did you maybe eat
from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"

now I know you are really kind of custodian.

"Law written on the heart" can never be objective.

The pharisees of NT were stressing on objective laws.
Never so Jesus.

[Sparko]

Lay off the crack Sylvius.

[sylvius]

Lay off the crack Sylvius.


we once did hold a monkey-family in cages in our home and garden, for more than fifteen years.

So I'm an expert custodian, cage-builder, cage with many rooms and even towers.

Monkeys do everything that you did forebid them behind your back.

monkeys also look always for a scapegoat, be it the lowest in the monkey-order, or somebody outside; a dog maybe, or a cat.


Genesis 3: 22

Now the Lord God said, "Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of knowing good and evil, and now, lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever."

Rashi:
has become like one of us, having the ability He is unique among the earthly beings, just as I am unique among the heavenly beings, and what is his uniqueness? To know good and evil, unlike the cattle and the beasts. — [from Targum Jonathan, Gen. Rabbah 21:5]

and now, lest he stretch forth his hand, etc. And if he were to live forever, he would be likely to mislead people to follow him and to say that he too is a deity (Gen. Rabbah 9:5). There are also Aggadic mi