ARTICLE: Morality & the Public Good

[STR Ambassador]

Morality & the Public Good by Gregory Koukl

Here's the question: How do we best effect change in our society according to our Christian values, especially on the issue of homosexuality? Mere preaching and moralizing are probably not going to be compelling, yet silence doesn't seem right either. How can we speak up in a way that's listened to, respected, and heeded?

My last caller was concerned how best to object to a homosexual theme being promoted in a comic strip in the local paper. Another caller once asked how to deal with the fact that some beaches in Southern California were being used—contrary to law, by the way—by homosexuals for nudity and sexual activity. Another was concerned about homosexuality being promoted in a library display in Pasadena.

I have a general rule I apply in responding to issues like this in the public square, a strategy that's been effective to make a difference.

The way you argue in a situation like this is not based on morality because, quite frankly, that isn't something that most of those people are going to listen to. It isn't that a moral argument can't be made in a compelling fashion, but it's much more difficult to do so because, in the minds of many people, morality is part of the twilight zone of individual, subjective beliefs that shouldn't be "forced" on others. This tactic usually doesn't work.

Instead, I suggest an approach that makes a different kind of moral point. Don't argue from the perspective of your morality. Argue, instead, from the perspective of the public good. Ask, "What is good for our community?"

Homosexuality, for example, is a practice that is dangerous. These dangers are inherent to its practice. Homosexuality entails activities that are not only dangerous to personal health, they cannot be made safe. Let me repeat that: Homosexuality cannot be made safe. Some of the unsafe elements can be minimized, or lessened somewhat. But the danger cannot be removed.

Further, the unhealthy element and its consequences influence people who are not involved in the behavior itself. This is important, because there's a minimalist ethic that says I can do what I want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. But you see, homosexual practices do hurt other people. They spread AIDS to non-homosexuals, for one.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we outlaw homosexuality because it presents a threat to the public good. But it seems to me that, minimally, if we have an activity that is dangerous and harmful to the public good—in this case, to the public health—then why should we go out of our way to encourage it? We may choose not to discourage it, because that might be a violation of tolerance in some people's minds, but do we have to go out of our way to encourage the behavior, for goodness sake?

Regarding the nude beach in Palos Verdes, there was a law that wasn't being enforced. I told the caller to encourage the city council to enforce the existing laws. I suggested he ask, "What kind of community do we want to have? Do we want to be known as the community that has a beach in which people are engaging in open sexual behavior, homosexual or otherwise? Do we want to be the kind of the community where people cannot take their children down to the beach for fear of what they'll see?"

This approach—based on an understanding of the public good and a concern for public health—can be used in a compelling way to deal with the de facto public encouragement of homosexuality we face in our schools and community.

This is fully legitimate. This approach doesn't emphasize any partisan morality. The morality card is being played, but it's being played very subtly. The moral view being expressed has to do with concern about the health of people in our community, or the kind of environment we want to foster for our citizens. We ought not act in a way that harms the health of others who are not involved in our activities. We ought to have a community that represents a certain standard of dignity. Those are all moral values.

Some people are really sensitive to moral arguments and don't want you to moralize about things like homosexuality. The fact is, all of our laws and public policy decisions relate to the question the common good, and that is a moral concern applied to the community at large. It's just much subtler. You capitalize on a broad-based moral view everyone seems to accept--concern for the common good. This kind of argument is very compelling and can make a real difference in the public square.

This is what I call using the "external approach" to persuade someone on a moral issue. You could take the internal approach and quote chapter and verse from the Bible. But many times, frankly, that's more like throwing scriptural rocks at peoples' heads than it is gracious and effective persuasion. It automatically gets their guard up.

Am I ashamed of the Word of God? Not at all. Am I uncomfortable about using the Bible? Not at all. But the Scripture itself says we should "season our words with salt" so that we know how to respond to each person. We should be tactical in our approach to people because they have different needs, different concerns, and different sensitivities.

Our goal is to get the job done. We don't have an obligation to quote chapter and verse every time we want to persuade somebody. The Bible isn't magic. We don't use verses like magical incantations, as if we just quote a verse out loud and it has a magical effect on people.

I think there are times to quote the Bible and there are times not to. When speaking in the public square regarding political, social and cultural issues, it seems wise to start with the common good argument and then work from there.


Stand to Reason - Training Christians in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org - http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/social_issues/pubgood.htm

[Barron]

Hey, me again. I'm coming to see Mr. (?) Koukl's articles as more internal "pep talks" for believers than apologetics aimed at the unbeliever (like me), so I'm not going to quibble too much. What people want to say to their fellows is pretty much fine by me, but there are a few things I'd like to note in this article.

The first point is that Mr. Koukl, like almost all conservative religious types equate homosexuality with gay men only. For example:


Homosexuality, for example, is a practice that is dangerous. These dangers are inherent to its practice. Homosexuality entails activities that are not only dangerous to personal health, they cannot be made safe. Let me repeat that: Homosexuality cannot be made safe. Some of the unsafe elements can be minimized, or lessened somewhat. But the danger cannot be removed.
Further, the unhealthy element and its consequences influence people who are not involved in the behavior itself. This is important, because there's a minimalist ethic that says I can do what I want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. But you see, homosexual practices do hurt other people. They spread AIDS to non-homosexuals, for one.

Here it's pretty clear (IMHO) that Koukl is referring to male homosexuality only. AIDS rates (and STDs in general) for female homosexuals are extremely low. Thus the argument fails badly when applied to "homosexuality" in general.

If he wishes to stick with a moral/community good argument I can counter that lesbians are very, very low in STDs/AIDS and tend to form very stable, long term relationships, thus adding to community stability. If Koukl argued with that I would then accuse him of hypocracy since he wanted to use community good as the basis of his argument. But the main thing I want to point out is the very, very common confusion of conservative religious folks between gay men and gays in general.

Barron

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Yesterday @ 12:32 AM
STR Ambassador:

Morality & the Public Good by Gregory Koukl

The way you argue in a situation like this is not based on morality because, quite frankly, that isn't something that most of those people are going to listen to. It isn't that a moral argument can't be made in a compelling fashion, but it's much more difficult to do so because, in the minds of many people, morality is part of the twilight zone of individual, subjective beliefs that shouldn't be "forced" on others. This tactic usually doesn't work.


In other words, there are conflicting "values" at stake and habits and taboos we hold to as Christians are not shared by others and this is reflected in their attitudes to the "rightness" of said behavior.


Instead, I suggest an approach that makes a different kind of moral point. Don't argue from the perspective of your morality. Argue, instead, from the perspective of the public good. Ask, "What is good for our community?"


Generally, there isn't a "public good". There may be a "public square", but this is an area of conflict where we work out what rules should govern us.


Homosexuality, for example, is a practice that is dangerous. These dangers are inherent to its practice. Homosexuality entails activities that are not only dangerous to personal health, they cannot be made safe. Let me repeat that: Homosexuality cannot be made safe. Some of the unsafe elements can be minimized, or lessened somewhat. But the danger cannot be removed.

Some homosexual acts are not safe, as evinced by how AIDS spreads more rapidly through homosexual communities as it also does through prostitutes/sex-workers and drug-users.

This is separate from constitutional homosexuality, which science has shown is based on endocrinology. Part of educating Christians to be able to voice their differences with gay-rights activists is educating them on the "science" of how our sexual orientation is determined.

Having said that, our sexual conduct is also based on conventions and taboos and the radical rejection of this by some within the homosexual community, who may rationalize their lifestyles through a biological determinism, as also can be done by heterosexuals(after all, I may have a biological propensity to want to sleep with as many females as possible. Who am I to deny my "natural" instincts?).


Now, I'm not suggesting that we outlaw homosexuality because it presents a threat to the public good. But it seems to me that, minimally, if we have an activity that is dangerous and harmful to the public good—in this case, to the public health—then why should we go out of our way to encourage it? We may choose not to discourage it, because that might be a violation of tolerance in some people's minds, but do we have to go out of our way to encourage the behavior, for goodness sake?


We need not bless all life-styles as equal, socially. There clearly are cases of bisexuality, as evidenced in the movie "Kissing Jessica Stein". Socially, I would not want us publicly blessing Jessica's decision to get sexually involved with another woman, as the loving thing to do.


Regarding the nude beach in Palos Verdes, there was a law that wasn't being enforced. I told the caller to encourage the city council to enforce the existing laws. I suggested he ask, "What kind of community do we want to have? Do we want to be known as the community that has a beach in which people are engaging in open sexual behavior, homosexual or otherwise? Do we want to be the kind of the community where people cannot take their children down to the beach for fear of what they'll see?"

We have social norms and this is not a bad thing. Hence, we should participate in seeing that they are enforced.


This approach—based on an understanding of the public good and a concern for public health—can be used in a compelling way to deal with the de facto public encouragement of homosexuality we face in our schools and community.

As with the previous poster, this doesn't cut the mustard intellectually-speaking. Homosexuality is more complicated than that and we need to understand it at a deeper level. For me, I spent years interacting with my high-school biology teacher on this issue, he is not a homosexual, but started out with a naturalistic view of homosexuality. I.e., it occurs naturally and so it must not be wrong. I learned from him a lot of the science/facts surrounding the issues, as I also have learned from interacting with others at this board, and in the end I argued based on Hume's dictum that you cannot derive an is from an ought without an intermediary normative premise.

As a Christian, I hold to natural evil. Evil occurring that is not attributable to human-wrong-doing. As such, sometimes while we are fetuses our hormonal balances develop other than they were supposed to and this comes to affect us for the rest of our lives. I discuss this in more detail, elsewhere.


This is fully legitimate. This approach doesn't emphasize any partisan morality. The morality card is being played, but it's being played very subtly. The moral view being expressed has to do with concern about the health of people in our community, or the kind of environment we want to foster for our citizens. We ought not act in a way that harms the health of others who are not involved in our activities. We ought to have a community that represents a certain standard of dignity. Those are all moral values.

Not subtly enough. How the question is posed is not done in as publicly neutral a manner as possible.

We have the right to participate in the norms that govern the sort of behavior accepted in "public" locations. Doing so doesn't mean we hate or fear homosexuals.


Some people are really sensitive to moral arguments and don't want you to moralize about things like homosexuality. The fact is, all of our laws and public policy decisions relate to the question the common good, and that is a moral concern applied to the community at large. It's just much subtler. You capitalize on a broad-based moral view everyone seems to accept--concern for the common good. This kind of argument is very compelling and can make a real difference in the public square.


Only some theories appeal to the common good. Most political theories accept the irreducible conflict between different interests. And yet, because we are called to love our enemies, we must work out our differences peacefully and accept and obey some rules we would rather not accept. If that is true for us, it is also true for the gay-community.


This is what I call using the "external approach" to persuade someone on a moral issue. You could take the internal approach and quote chapter and verse from the Bible. But many times, frankly, that's more like throwing scriptural rocks at peoples' heads than it is gracious and effective persuasion. It automatically gets their guard up.

Am I ashamed of the Word of God? Not at all. Am I uncomfortable about using the Bible? Not at all. But the Scripture itself says we should "season our words with salt" so that we know how to respond to each person. We should be tactical in our approach to people because they have different needs, different concerns, and different sensitivities.


I ultimately rest my "heterosexist" view of making a normative distinction between the different sexual orientations on the Bible. That is the only legitimate grounds for making such a judgement, In my view... . There are ways for homosexuals to seek to mitigate the transmission of diseases among them and so that doesn't stand as a reason why homosexuality is wrong.


Our goal is to get the job done. We don't have an obligation to quote chapter and verse every time we want to persuade somebody. The Bible isn't magic. We don't use verses like magical incantations, as if we just quote a verse out loud and it has a magical effect on people.

I think there are times to quote the Bible and there are times not to. When speaking in the public square regarding political, social and cultural issues, it seems wise to start with the common good argument and then work from there.


There are also hermeneutical issues surrounding the use of the Bible on homosexuality, since the concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation was not present during Biblical times. It developed as a concept since the late nineteenth century and scientific corroboration of it has been more recent.


As an Christian apologetician, although not a classical Christian apologetician, I believe apologetics consists of interacting with non-Christians, as I did with my high-school biology teacher. Who, like Greg Boyd's father after the series of letters found in "Letters From a Skeptic", came to a Christian relationship and a more Christian understanding of homosexuality.

dlw

[C. D. Ward]

Like Barron, I also see Mr. Koukl's articles as sort of "how to" for the believer, so they should be treated accordingly.

I would like to say that, all in all, I agree with the general tenor of what Mr. Koukl says here. Most modern democratic societies are generally humanistic in their overall approach (and I mean that in the sense of "human-focused", not in the sense of humanism as a philosophy or worldview) and "the public good" would most definitely seem to be a common value that can unite citizens of different cultural and religious backgrounds, including those without religion. Essentially, if one wants to be a member of a society, appeals to behave in a manner congruent to society's best interests should be compelling. Framing moral arguments in this context should therefore carry greater weight than attempting to frame them within what may be to some a foreign paradigm.

Still, I must take issue with the following:


08-26-2003 @ 05:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=195075#post195075)
STR Ambassador:

Homosexuality, for example, is a practice that is dangerous. These dangers are inherent to its practice. Homosexuality entails activities that are not only dangerous to personal health, they cannot be made safe. Let me repeat that: Homosexuality cannot be made safe. Some of the unsafe elements can be minimized, or lessened somewhat. But the danger cannot be removed.

This is factually inaccurate. Or, at least inaccurate in the sense that it implies that heterosexual behavior does not share these same dangers.

In fact, any activity that compromises the body's natural barriers against infection is inherently dangerous, including heterosexual sex. Genital-genital, oral-oral, genital-oral, and genital-anal sex all fall into this category and all are practised by both homosexual and heterosexual alike.

What Mr. Koukl most likely meant is that of these, the most risky is genital-anal contact and that is practiced with greater frequency by homosexual men. However, in equating this practice with "homosexuality", Mr. Koukl commits a genetic fallacy.

Female homosexuals obviously do not partake of this particular sexual practice. In addition, not all male homosexuals do either. The practice isn't limited to homosexuals either. At minimum, Mr. Koukl should revise his statement to substitute "anal sex" for "homosexuality".

However, even though genital-anal contact is riskier than genital-genital contact, the latter is not risk-free. So, if Mr. Koukl is concentrating on dangers that can only be minimized but not eliminated, he cannot eliminate genital-genital contact from that list.

If Mr. Koukl is really concerned about "the public good", he should reform his argument to attack promiscuity, rather than homosexuality. As is well documented, multiple sexual partners is the predominant risk factor in the transmission of HIV/AIDS as well as numerous other STDs.

The next paragraph is also somewhat troubling:


Further, the unhealthy element and its consequences influence people who are not involved in the behavior itself. This is important, because there's a minimalist ethic that says I can do what I want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. But you see, homosexual practices do hurt other people. They spread AIDS to non-homosexuals, for one.

This is a somewhat confusing statement. How do homosexuals spread AIDS through sexual practice to non-homosexuals? Wouldn't that necessitate a heterosexual having same-sex contact or vice-versa? Isn't Mr. Koukl really referring to bi-sexual individuals here?

Needless to say, Mr. Koukl here contradicts his statement of only the previous paragraph. If it is only homosexual activity that is truly dangerous, how can opposite sex activity transmit the virus? But if opposite sex activity can transmit the virus, how can it be only homosexual activity that is truly dangerous?

Obviously, Mr. Koukl tacitly realizes here that it is promiscuity, not homosexuality, that is the problem. If he really wants to stay true to the main thrust of his essay, with which I generally agree, he should revise it to change the example.

C. D. Ward

[Da Lone-Warrior]

C. D.,

you do at least have to grant me that in many cases the public good is not something ontologically given but worked out among competing interests...

dlw

[C. D. Ward]

Yesterday @ 08:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=197586#post197586)
dlw2003:

you do at least have to grant me that in many cases the public good is not something ontologically given but worked out among competing interests...

I think that might depend upon what one necessarily means by "ontologically given". If you mean that it's not a static something that is founded in a transcendent source, then I would certainly agree. However, I do believe that there is an ontological foundation for the "public good", or rather, for what should represent the "public good."

IOW, I would say that although it is true that the "public good" is worked out among competing interests (as you put it), it is also true that some of those interests are superior to others by virtue of how they relate to certain values that I believe do have a necessary relation to ontology.

But that's getting way beyond the scope of this article...

C. D. Ward

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Yesterday @ 08:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=198185#post198185)
C. D. Ward:



I think that might depend upon what one necessarily means by "ontologically given". If you mean that it's not a static something that is founded in a transcendent source, then I would certainly agree. However, I do believe that there is an ontological foundation for the "public good", or rather, for what should represent the "public good."

IOW, I would say that although it is true that the "public good" is worked out among competing interests (as you put it), it is also true that some of those interests are superior to others by virtue of how they relate to certain values that I believe do have a necessary relation to ontology.

But that's getting way beyond the scope of this article...

C. D. Ward

I will agree with you on the existence of moral realism, but typically there is conflict over how conflicting values get worked out. It is in the public good for us to do this nonviolently and with civility, but if some are not civil and deny voice to others then responses in kind or worse are more than likely.

As an evangelical Christian, I fear that being true to my religious beliefs and desiring voice on the reformation of some laws based on my religious beliefs will one day make me an enemy of the "public good" by the linguistic/ontological machinations of others.

dlw

[C. D. Ward]

08-29-2003 @ 08:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=198822#post198822)
dlw2003:

I will agree with you on the existence of moral realism, but typically there is conflict over how conflicting values get worked out. It is in the public good for us to do this nonviolently and with civility, but if some are not civil and deny voice to others then responses in kind or worse are more than likely.

Alas, I fear I may have gone too far!

Whether or not I qualify as a moral realist might depend upon how one defines the term. I see the values upon which moral systems are constructed as necessarily subjective, but I also believe that there exists a set of values superior to others by virtue of its relationship to Man's life and the goal of ethics, so I see a proper moral system as having a certain ontological basis.

I absolutely agree with the rest of your statement.


s an evangelical Christian, I fear that being true to my religious beliefs and desiring voice on the reformation of some laws based on my religious beliefs will one day make me an enemy of the "public good" by the linguistic/ontological machinations of others.

Hmmm. I'm not sure how to respond to that. In terms of a democratic society, any ideology that demands allegiance of all and leaves no room for dissent is certainly an enemy of the "public good." I'm not sure whether "Christianity" need necessarily fall within that category. As long as reasonable people are willing to disagree reasonably, I don't think so. I certainly hope not.

C. D. Ward

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Yesterday @ 11:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=200694#post200694)
C. D. Ward:

Whether or not I qualify as a moral realist might depend upon how one defines the term. I see the values upon which moral systems are constructed as necessarily subjective, but I also believe that there exists a set of values superior to others by virtue of its relationship to Man's life and the goal of ethics, so I see a proper moral system as having a certain ontological basis.


Huh? Okay so our existing moral systems are constructed but there exists an ideal set of values that would constitute a moral system superior to others by virtue of its usefulness in advancing some ethical goal to our existence...

Well, that might qualify you as a moral realist. From my experience, I think belief in theism or teologism are optional as to whether one qualifies...

The thing is that the moral ideals that may guide our behavior do preexist us. Often problems arise in ethical situations where different moral ideals are temporarily in conflict or one has to make judgements regarding what facets of behavior that fall short of some ideal should be taken as instrumentally-given in dealing with another problem.

dlw



Hmmm. I'm not sure how to respond to that. In terms of a democratic society, any ideology that demands allegiance of all and leaves no room for dissent is certainly an enemy of the "public good." I'm not sure whether "Christianity" need necessarily fall within that category. As long as reasonable people are willing to disagree reasonably, I don't think so. I certainly hope not.

C. D. Ward

Well, generally, part of the rub with "Christianity" has and always will be how we resolve what Yeshua meant when he prayed for his followers to be one as I and the father are one.

Chances are this wasn't oneness in terms of agreement on doctrine/ideology. There also is the problem of the problem of ecclesiastical order. Since we were not given a blue-print detailing what we should do in every possible ethical situation, for example how to relate to someone born a constitutional homosexual and not having the gift of celibacy, we have always had to interpret/exegete the Biblical teachings to deal with the problems of our times. The problem of order deals with how we do this, given our fallible judgements in this area.

Prior to the Protestant/Catholic Schism, it was generally held that Scripture and Tradition coexisted and that the latter was subject to change over time. The Northern-European Protestants, supported strongly as the means to a tax-revolt, established their own traditions, but in their desire to emulate the early church and True Christianity generally came to conflate their tradition with scripture. The RCChurch, in reaction to the Reformation, elevated its tradition to the same level as scripture and denied that they could change, since to admit they could change would be to acknowledge that the Protestant traditions were in fact another form of Christianity.

Anyways, to make a long-story short when it is already too late, since the Protestant-Catholic Schism, Christians have often adopted the convention of portraying their truths as Truth and been a somewhat contentious lot among themselves owing to the conflation and reification of the role fallible traditions play in how we determine the way we let our lights shine in this world.

The existence of heterogeneity in this area was well attested to by Reinold Niebuhr when he developed his categories for how Christianity and Culture could be related.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Dörner, Günter; Poppe, Ingrid; Stahl, F.; Kölzsch, J.; Uebelhack, Ralf
Gene- and environment-dependent neuroendocrine etiogenesis of homosexuality and transsexualism
Institute of Experimental Endocrinology, Humboldt University Medical School (Charite), Berlin, Germany.
Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology; 98(2):141-50
Sexual brain organization is dependent on sex hormone and neurotransmitter levels occurring during critical developmental periods. The higher the androgen levels during brain organization, caused by genetic and/or environmental factors, the higher is the biological predisposition to bi- and homosexuality or even transsexualism in females and the lower it is in males. Adrenal androgen excess, leading to heterotypical sexual orientation and/or gender role behavior in genetic females, can be caused by 21-hydroxylase deficiency, especially when associated with prenatal stress. The cortisol (F) precursor 21-deoxycortisol (21-DOF) was found to be significantly increased after ACTH stimulation in homosexual as compared to heterosexual females. 21-DOF was increased significantly before and even highly significantly after ACTH stimulation in female-to-male transsexuals. In view of these data, heterozygous and homozygous forms, respectively, of 21-hydroxylase deficiency represent a genetic predisposition to androgen-dependent development of homosexuality and transsexualism in females. Testicular androgen deficiency in prenatal life, giving rise to heterotypical sexual orientation and/or gender role behavior in genetic males, may be induced by prenatal stress and/or maternal or fetal genetic alterations. Most recently, in mothers of homosexual men--following ACTH stimulation--a significantly increased prevalence of high 21-DOF plasma values and 21-DOF/F ratios was found, which surpassed the mean + 1 SD level of heterosexual control women. In homosexual men as well--following ACTH stimulation--most of the 21-DOF plasma values and 21-DOF/F ratios also surpassed the mean + 1 SD level of heterosexual men. In only one out of 9 homosexual males, neither in his blood nor in that of his mother increased 21-DOF values and 21-DOF/F ratios were found after ACTH stimulation. In this homosexual man, however, the plasma dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S) values and the DHEA-S/1000 x A (A = androstenedione) ratio were increas

I'll post the rest when I get it.

The point is that homosexuality stems from the sexual brain organization and this seems to be triggered by for males "Testicular androgen deficiency in prenatal life, giving rise to heterotypical sexual orientation and/or gender role behavior in genetic males, may be induced by prenatal stress and/or maternal or fetal genetic alterations." and for females "higher androgen levels during brain organization increases the biological predisposition to bi- and homosexuality or even transsexualism in females. Adrenal androgen excess can be...associated with prenatal stress."

As I've mentioned before the dude behind the research is Günter Dörner and his findings were triggered by the higher incidence of homosexuality among Germans that were in gestation during the Allied bombing raids of WWII. That is one potential source of prenatal stress.


In 2001, there was a paper titled
Genetic and Epigenetic Effects on Sexual Brain Organization Mediated by Sex Hormones
Neuroendocrinology Letters; 22:403–409

I am trying to get this paper.

I know the above article isn't easy to read, but I think that if one is going
to debate about homosexuality, it is incumbent upon them to master the relevant facts
about homosexuality.

I'm also not saying that since one's sexual orientation is largely determined
prior to birth in a manner that can be scientifically determined that that implies
that all sexual orientations are equal. You cannot derive an ought from an is without
an intermediary normative premise. Hume's dictum regarding the naturalistic fallacy.
And the fact that we have sexual orientations that are not chosen doesn't mean that we
don't also make use of norms and social mores regarding how we experience our sexuality.


dlw

[Guardian]

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), human viral disease that ravages the immune system, undermining the body’s ability to defend itself from infection and disease. Caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), AIDS leaves an infected person vulnerable to opportunistic infections. Such infections are harmless in healthy people, but in those whose immune systems have been greatly weakened, they can prove fatal. Although there is no cure for AIDS, new drugs are available that can prolong the life spans and improve the quality of life of infected people.

Infection with HIV does not necessarily mean that a person has AIDS. Some people who have HIV infection may not develop any of the clinical illnesses that define the full-blown disease of AIDS for ten years or more. Physicians prefer to use the term AIDS for cases where a person has reached the final, life-threatening stage of HIV infection.

AIDS was first identified in 1981 among homosexual men and intravenous drug users in New York and California. Shortly after its detection in the United States, evidence of AIDS epidemics grew among heterosexual men, women, and children in sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS quickly developed into a worldwide epidemic, affecting virtually every nation. By 2002 an estimated 38.6 million adults and 3.2 million children worldwide were living with HIV infection or AIDS. The World Health Organization (WHO), a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN), estimates that from 1981 to the end of 2002 about 20 million people died as a result of AIDS. About 4.5 million of those who died were children under the age of 15

In the United States about 40,000 new HIV infections occur each year. More than 30 percent of these infections occur in women, and 60 percent occur in ethnic minorities. In 2001 more than 800,000 U.S. residents were infected with HIV, and more than 300,000 people were living with full-blown AIDS. In Canada about 4,200 new HIV infections occur each year. Nearly 25 percent of these infections occur in women. In 2002 about 55,000 Canadians were living with HIV infection and about 18,000 people were living with full-blown AIDS

The incidence of new cases of HIV infections and AIDS deaths has significantly decreased in Canada and the United States since 1995. This decrease is attributed to the availability of new drug treatments and public health programs that target people most at risk for infection. But while the overall rate of HIV infection seems to be on a downturn, certain populations appear to be at greater risk for the disease. In the United States in 1987, Caucasians accounted for 60 percent of AIDS cases and blacks and Hispanics only 39 percent. But by 2000 the trend had reversed: 26 percent of new cases were diagnosed in Caucasians and 73 percent in blacks and Hispanics. Likewise the number of female AIDS patients in the United States has increased significantly in recent years, from 7 percent of all AIDS cases in 1985 to 30 percent in 2000. In the United States, African American and Hispanic women accounted for 82 percent of AIDS cases among women in 2000.

AIDS is the final stage of a chronic infection with the human immunodeficiency virus. There are two types of this virus: HIV-1, which is the primary cause of AIDS worldwide, and HIV-2, found mostly in West Africa. On its surface, HIV carries a protein structure that recognizes and binds only with a specific structure found on the outer surface of certain cells. HIV attacks any cell that has this binding structure. However, white blood cells of the immune system known as T cells, which orchestrate a wide variety of disease-fighting mechanisms, are especially vulnerable to HIV attack. Particularly vulnerable are certain T cells known as CD4 cells. When HIV infects a CD4 cell, it commandeers the genetic tools within the cell to manufacture new HIV virus. The newly formed HIV virus then leaves the cell, destroying the CD4 cell in the process. No existing medical treatment can completely eradicate HIV from the body once it has integrated into human cells.

Scientists have identified three ways that HIV infections spread: sexual intercourse with an infected person, contact with contaminated blood, and transmission from an infected mother to her child before or during birth or through breastfeeding.

HIV transmission occurs most commonly during intimate sexual contact with an infected person. During sexual intercourse, the virus gains access to the bloodstream of the uninfected person by passing through openings in the mucous membrane. The incidence of HIV transmission between heterosexual men and women has rapidly increased. In most other parts of the world, HIV is most commonly transmitted through heterosexual sex.

HIV infection can occur when health professionals accidentally stick themselves with needles containing HIV-infected blood or expose an open cut to contaminated blood. Some cases of HIV transmission from transfusions of infected blood, blood components, and organ donations were reported in the 1980s. Since 1985 government regulations in the United States and Canada have required that all donated blood and body tissues be screened for the presence of HIV before being used in medical procedures. As a result of these regulations, HIV transmission caused by contaminated blood transfusion or organ donations is rare in North America. However, the problem continues to concern health officials in sub-Saharan Africa. Less than half of the 46 nations in this region have blood-screening policies. By some estimates only 25 percent of blood transfusions are screened for the presence of HIV. WHO hopes to establish blood safety programs in more than 80 percent of sub-Saharan countries by 2003.

HIV can be transmitted from an infected mother to her baby while the baby is still in the woman’s uterus or, more commonly, during childbirth. The virus can also be transmitted through the mother’s breast milk during breastfeeding. Mother-to-child transmission accounts for 90 percent of all cases of AIDS in children. Mother-to-child transmission is particularly prevalent in Africa, where the number of women infected with HIV is ten times the rate found in other regions. Studies conducted in several cities in southern Africa in 1998 indicate that up to 45 percent of pregnant women in these cities carry HIV.

The routes of HIV transmission are well documented by scientists, but health officials continually grapple with the public’s unfounded fears concerning the potential for HIV transmission by other means. HIV differs from other infectious viruses in that it dies quickly if exposed to the environment. No evidence has linked HIV transmission to casual contact with an infected person, such as a handshake, hugging, or kissing, or even sharing dishes or bathroom facilities. Studies have been unable to identify HIV transmission from modes common to other infectious diseases, such as an insect bite or inhaling virus-infected droplets from an infected person’s sneeze or cough.

If CD4 cell levels drop below 200 cells per microliter of blood, the late symptomatic phase develops. This phase is characterized by the appearance of any of 26 opportunistic infections and rare cancers. The onset of these illnesses, sometimes referred to as AIDS-defining complications, is one sign that an HIV-infected person has developed full-blown AIDS. Without medical treatment, this stage may last from several months to years. The cumulative effects of these illnesses usually cause death.

Often the first opportunistic infection to develop is pneumocystis pneumonia, a lung infection caused by the fungus Pneumocystis carinii. This fungus infects most people in childhood, settling harmlessly in the lungs where it is prevented from causing disease by the immune system. But once the immune system becomes weakened, the fungus can block the lungs from delivering sufficient oxygen to the blood. The lack of oxygen leads to severe shortness of breath accompanied by fever and a dry cough.

In addition to pneumocystis pneumonia, people with AIDS often develop other fungal infections. Up to 23 percent of people with AIDS become infected with fungi from the genus Cryptococcus, which cause meningitis inflammation of the membranes that surround the brain. Infection by the fungus Histoplasma capsulatum affects up to 10 percent of people with AIDS, causing general weight loss, fever, and respiratory complications.

Tuberculosis a severe lung infection caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium tuberculosis, typically becomes more severe in AIDS patients than in those with a healthy immune system. Between the 1950s and the late 1980s, tuberculosis was practically eradicated in North America. In the early 1990s, doctors became alarmed when incidence of the disease dramatically escalated. This resurgence has been attributed to the increased susceptibility to tuberculosis of people infected with HIV. Infection by the bacterium Mycobacterium avium can cause fever, anemia, and diarrhea. Other bacterial infections of the gastrointestinal tract contribute to wasting syndrome.

Opportunistic infections caused by viruses, especially members of the herpesvirus family, are common in people with AIDS. One of the herpesviruses, cytomegalovirus (CMV), infects the retina of the eye and can result in blindness. Another herpesvirus, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), may cause certain types of blood cancers. Infections with herpes simplex virus (HSV) types 1 or 2 may result in sores around the mouth, genital area, or anus.

Many people with AIDS develop cancers. The destruction of CD4 cells impairs the immune functions that halt the development of cancer. Kaposi‘s Sarcoma is a cancer of blood vessels caused by a herpesvirus. This cancer produces purple lesions on the skin, which can spread to internal organs and cause death. B cell lymphoma affects certain cells of the lymphatic system that fight infection and perform other vital functions. Cervical cancer is more common in HIV-infected women than in women free from infection.

A variety of neurological disorders are common in the later stage of AIDS. Collectively called HIV-associated dementia, they develop when HIV or another microbial organism infects the brain. The infection produces degeneration of intellectual processes such as memory and, sometimes, problems with movement and coordination.

A person diagnosed with HIV infection faces many challenges, including choosing the best course of treatment, paying for health care, and providing for the needs of children in the family while ill. In addition to these practical considerations, people with HIV infection must cope with the emotional toll associated with the diagnosis of a potentially fatal illness. The social stigma that continues to surround a diagnosis of AIDS because of the disease’s prevalence among gay men or drug users causes many people to avoid telling family or friends about their illness. People with AIDS often feel incredibly lonely as they try to cope with a devastating illness on their own. Loneliness, anxiety, fear, anger, and other emotions often require as much attention as the medical illnesses common to HIV infection.

Beginning in June 1981 the CDC published reports on clusters of gay men in New York and California who had been diagnosed with pneumocystic pneumonia or Kaposi’s sarcoma. These two rare illnesses had previously been observed only in people whose immune systems had been damaged by drugs or disease. These reports triggered concern that a disease of the immune system was spreading quickly in the homosexual community. Initially called gay-related immunodeficiency disease (GRID), the new illness soon was identified in population groups outside the gay community, including users of intravenous drugs, recipients of blood transfusions, and heterosexual partners of infected people. In 1982 the name for the new illness was changed to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or AIDS.

While the disease was making headlines for the speed with which it was spreading around the world, the cause of AIDS remained unidentified. Fear of AIDS and ignorance of its causes resulted in some outlandish theories. Some thought the disease was God’s punishment for behaviors that they considered immoral. These early theories created a social stigma surrounding the disease that still lingers.

Research leading to the development of the ELISA test was conducted simultaneously by teams led by Gallo in the United States and Montagnier in France. In 1985 the ELISA test to identify HIV in blood became available, followed by the development of the Western Blot test. These tests were first employed to screen blood for the presence of HIV before the blood was used in medical procedures. The tests were later used to identify HIV-infected people, many of whom did not know they were infected.

For the struggling economies of some developing nations, AIDS has brought yet another burden: AIDS tends to kill young adults in the prime of their lives—the primary breadwinners and caregivers in families. According to figures released by the United Nations in 1999, AIDS has shortened the life expectancy in some African nations by an average of seven years. In Zimbabwe, life expectancy has dropped from 61 years in 1993 to 49 in 1999. The next few decades may see it fall as low as 41 years. Upwards of 11 million children have been orphaned by the AIDS epidemic. Those children who survive face a lack of income, a higher risk of malnutrition and disease, and the breakdown of family structure.

My point being “Aids” is not exclusive to the Gay community. It is also not exclusive to the human species either. Other species (dogs, cats, monkeys) also have their own version of this virus.

For a site that says “Knowledge - an actively informed mind” I found your comments Mr Kouk rather un-informative. I suggest you do a little more research before preaching doctrine in future.

I also note the title of the thread says “Morality and the Public Good”. I found this humorous considering your words spoke only “prejudice“.

Whether a person is Heterosexual or Homosexual is irrelevant. We are all part of the human species, we all laugh when we are happy and cry when we are sad. Isn’t it professed that “we are all God’s creatures”. So isn’t it up to God to judge from a moral standpoint? Not you or I.

I have a question for you Mr Kouk Do you have a heart?

[Dee Dee Warren]

I also note the title of the thread says “Morality and the Public Good”. I found this humorous considering your words spoke only “prejudice“.

Let's see, you just made a moral judgment.


Whether a person is Heterosexual or Homosexual is irrelevant. We are all part of the human species, we all laugh when we are happy and cry when we are sad.

Now this comment is not meant to be inflammatory, but do you believe that persons engaged in incest laugh and cry? You made simply an empty emotional manipulation.



Isn’t it professed that “we are all God’s creatures”. So isn’t it up to God to judge from a moral standpoint? Not you or I.

Then why are you judging Greg from a moral standpoint? This is what is called trying to grasp a tar baby. Your point here is self-refuting. I know you are trying to express compassion as you see it, but don't realize you are refuting yourself and laying uneven ground rules.

[Guardian]

Yes I did *smile*

*looking rather puzzled* Incest? I thought we were talking about homosexuallity?

As to your question about whether persons committing incest laugh and cry.....of that I have no doubt they would. I was simply stating a fact of human nature. Or don't you laugh when you are happy or cry when you are sad?

Sweetie I always lay uneven ground rules *laughing* it is my nature.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 11:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=224794#post224794)
Guardian:

Yes I did *smile*

Then I guess it is God and you then who can? (tongue is planted firmly in my cheek) - you have just defeated your own point.



*looking rather puzzled* Incest? I thought we were talking about homosexuallity?

Yes, and I took your argument reductio ad absurdum.....


\As to your question about whether persons committing incest laugh and cry.....of that I have no doubt they would. I was simply stating a fact of human nature. Or don't you laugh when you are happy or cry when you are sad?

Then your point above was meaningless to the conversation. That really was my point.


Sweetie I always lay uneven ground rules *laughing* it is my nature.

I will let you slide on the sweetie.

[Queen]

Homosexuality, morally wrong? This is so silly......too silly for words. Too silly for God, I am sure of it. Well, as you might have guessedI have to disagree on that. First of all, I have a friend who is homosexual and HIV+. He is the sweetest person I know. He respects me, loves me and is very religious. He believes in God and reads the bible. I am bisexual. I love both men and women. Are we sinners, because we make love to the same sex?

First I have to point out that people who engage in incest also have emotions. But to compare homosexuality with sexual criminals is insulting. I am not someone who forces sex upon children. I am not a rapist because I have homosexual lovers and friends. Acts like incest and rape are not about sexuality. They are about power and humiliation. I know this because I was a victim of rape....more than once (all white heterosexual males.....but not all white heterosexual males are criminals!!) That is no comparison that is an insult.

There is a quote from the bible that I love: "Those who are without sin cast the first stone."

How can we, who are just mere mortal human beings, decide what is morally wrong or right? We can not even live in a peaceful world filled with respect and compassion. Hate, violence, anger, war, murder....it happens on a daily basis. And yet we do discuss the fact that the bible (OT) condemns homosexuality. People in those days where killed with stones if they committed a crime or infidelity. People are still murdered for their faith in the name a God (no matter what faith). People raise the bible and hate people because it is said so in the bible. Well, one of the 10 commandments is "thou shall not kill" and yet the OT is filled with murder and punishment by death......even by humans. Isn't that a double standard? Killing still happens in the name of God. His name is abused by many, but not by the gay men and women I know. They are good human beings, and everybody needs the comfort of physical contact. We all want that warm loving partner. Not only for the physical pleasures of life, but for so many things in life.

Yea, Leviticus 18:22 says it all.....

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Well, you can't touch a woman during her period either. But there are so many ways to make love. Sodomy is a sexual act that is also performed by heterosexual couples. Are they sinners as well? And who are we to judge by these old words of God. In the bible it says that they must die.

I respect life. I have compassion and respect for every living creature. I live by the Ten Commandments. I live a full life and no I am not without sin. Sometimes I lie. Yes, I have been unfaithful and yes, I have done things in my life I am not proud of. But because I have homosexual feelings for a person doesn't mean that I live a sinful life. How can love be sinful? If I love a woman, am I a sinner because I show her physically how much I love her? Is my friend a sinner because he loves a man and shows that not only mental but physically as well? Is he a sinner because he had HIV? Is he without a conscience? Do I have no conscience?

Homosexuality is a natural way of life......450 different species have homosexual relationships, birds, primates, other mammals....Why not humans. We are as much a part of nature as animals.

It makes me sad that people act like that. People who take the words of the lord literal, words that are thousands of years old.....words that were written down many many years after they were heard. How do we know that this is what the lord really said? If homosexuality is such an immoral act, why does it occur in nature? The nature God had 'created'?

I live a full life. I try to be a good person, but I am only human. I am not a criminal. I was a victim of crime and how horrible is it for parents who bury their child who died of AIDS have to read signs like "God punishes sodomites and sinners". How is that morally correct. I know that , even if I live a life in so-called sin that Jesus loves e for who I am.........and he doesn't care what I do.....as long as I live a life filled with compassion and respect for all living creatures on this planet and beyond.

Is life not just about love and compassion?....is that not the basis of all religions?

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[STR Ambassador]

Queen,

In answer to your last question, which was probably rhetorical: No, life is not just about love and compassion. Those are important virtues, but they aren't the only virtues. Life is about fulfilling our purpose that God has designed for us, and the Bible speaks about much, much more than simply love and compassion.

It's true that homosexuals can be kind, "good" people. So can adulterers, liars, gossipers, etc. To be moral in many areas doesn't balance out being immoral in another. To point that out doesn't respond to the issues raised in the article. To have a discussion about what is and is not moral is not unloving or discompassionate. We consistently affirm that all people need to be treated with dignity and respect; being unloving and cruel is immoral, as well. There are two things being mixed here: a discussion about morality and being moral people.

The Bible has plenty to say about homosexuality, beyond what is in the Levitical law. And one has to question anyone's commitment to God as a Christian when they consistently and consiously disobey God's direction and even justify it as morally good. No Christian is perfect; but Christians are aware of that and continually seek God's forgiveness and help to do better. But if a Christian purposely offends God's law and even celebrates it, others are perfectly justified in contrasting that behavior with what the Bible says.

Your dismissal of the Levitical law by citing laws regarding sex during a menstrual cycle is simplistic. It's true that the Levitical law was meant to apply to the political nation of Israel; but it also contains many universal laws that are reiterated in other places in the Bible. Murder is in the Levitical law; do you dismiss that as anachronistic? Of course not. It's reiterated elsewhere in the Bible, and is affirmed, I think, by our intuitions. One has to sort through the Levitical law carefully. Homosexuality is proscribed elsehere and several times in the Bible. For the sake of brevity and time, I'd like to refer you to a carefully laid out case for this in one of our tapes "The Bible & Homosexuality."

Your citation of the supposed admonition against judging is also simplistic. This isn't the only relevant passage. The context of this passage indicates that the admonition is to point out that we are not the final judges of one's salvation - that belongs to God. There are other passages in the New Testament that encourage us to "judge" others by correcting them in love and by the standards God has revealed in the Bible. Since you raised the issue, you may be interested in doing a thorough study of judging in the New Testament. In fact, Queen, you are judgmental also - but I'm not offended by it because we all do it. You accuse us of being unloving and uncompassionate. That's fine; I disagree and I've given my reasons. But moral judgment actually can't be avoided because we are moral being as God made us.

Finally, Queen, the point of making a comparison between homosexuality and other more hideous immoral behavior is to point out that the arguments used to justify homosexuality have no principled limitation to not also justify these other kinds of behavior. Let's take one that you offer. If love and consent are the standards, then incest can be justified. As long as adults are involved, why not? Some rejoin that there is a good biological reason to prohibit incest because of genetic problems. Well, that doesn't prohibit incest where pregnancy is not a risk. There is no principle that can be offered for homosexuality that also doesn't justify other offensive behavior.

You may be offended by the comparison. Good, you should be. Some of your moral intuitions are still intact. But many of us are offended in the exact same way by attempts to justify homosexuality - especially by using the Bible. That is actually our point in bringing up these counterexamples to the justifications for homosexuality. We're trying to give a good argument and also jolt intuitions into work. And you must be aware of and admit that much more than homosexual behavior is being justified. The homosexual advocates seem to almost always also pick up the case for other sexual behavior that is aberrant and, in our view, immoral. Much, much more than homosexuality is already being justified using the same arguments you use.

STR Ambassador

[Dee Dee Warren]

:thumb: Thank you STR.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 01:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=226952#post226952)
STR Ambassador:

Life is about fulfilling our purpose that God has designed for us...
Any God, or no God, in this pluralistic republic, thank you. There is no one way which has a copyright on character and morality.


There is no principle that can be offered for homosexuality that also doesn't justify other offensive behavior.
Doesn't this thinking compel you to agree that "...under God..." and "In God We Trust" are indeed proselytizng endorsements under government auspices?


We're trying to give a good argument and also jolt intuitions into work.
Much as skeptics often do.

Putative acceptance of homosexuality is nearly fait accompli. Acceptance of legally-recognized homosexual unions is a bit farther off. Most would agree, though, it is better for the public good if homosexuals were committed to monogamy than to promiscuity.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Lazy Agnostic:

Any God, or no God, in this pluralistic republic, thank you. There is no one way which has a copyright on character and morality.


No you don't have to be a theist to care about character and morality and there certainly are theists who have sinned greatly.

But, the belief that morality is beyond just our herd survival instinct and truly provides a measure from which our actions can be judged begs the question of from where those moral ideals come from. For us, historically the God of the Hebrews is the correct answer...


Doesn't this thinking compel you to agree that "...under God..." and "In God We Trust" are indeed proselytizng endorsements under government auspices?

I think the above statement conveniently abstracts from the endocrinological nature of much constitutional homosexuality, as opposed to Queen's bisexual orientation. However, inasmuch as STR dismisses evolution they also dismiss the role experience plays in informing what is right conduct by the Christian Church. Our discovery of the non-chosen nature of how sexual-orientation is formed is one of those experiences we must learn from and take into account.

"In God We Trust" points to the US's religious history since that did affect us. Freedom of religion and separation of Church and State doesn't mean we get rid of all religious symbolism from our nation's gov't.


Putative acceptance of homosexuality is nearly fait accompli. Acceptance of legally-recognized homosexual unions is a bit farther off. Most would agree, though, it is better for the public good if homosexuals were committed to monogamy than to promiscuity.

true, our failure to come to terms with the science behind the determination of sexual orientation will have serious consequences just as the censorship of Galileo had serious consequences and the rejection of Evolution/Science/The Life of the Mind(aka Mark Noll) had serious consequences....

dlw

[Queen]

It's true that homosexuals can be kind, "good" people. So can adulterers, liars, gossipers, etc.

"Good"? :no: Well, thank you. :thumbd: That is one way to put it. What about the fact that we are just all human beings........every human being has good in them, even those men who raped me....those Christian men (I know that because I dated them! I trusted and loved them.....) that went to church every Sunday...that went to church the next day after they were so "good" to rape me. How is that comparison? How does it feel to be compared to a criminal? Of course not every man that is a good Christian is a rapist....so is not every homosexual or bisexual person a bad person because he/she has feelings of love for someone of the same gender.

[qoute]If love and consent are the standards, then incest can be justified. As long as adults are involved, why not? Some rejoin that there is a good biological reason to prohibit incest because of genetic problems. Well, that doesn't prohibit incest where pregnancy is not a risk. There is no principle that can be offered for homosexuality that also doesn't justify other offensive behavior. [/quote]

Okay, two adults fall in love with each other, but darn it they are related. They know the biological risk so they decide they should not have children. Their love is too important to them.......morally wrong? Because they have sex? Who are we to judge that people should not love each other. Incest becomes a crime when a father rapes his son or daughter.....when there is no consent. To me that is the worst crime in the world, hurting a child, breaking the child, destroying it for the rest of it's life.

But two adults (21+ I mean...let me be clear on that), who are aware of the consequences, the risks and the hate of the community? Difficult to judge, because I am just human as well and why should I judge two people for their "sin"? I am not perfect either....


Much, much more than homosexuality is already being justified using the same arguments you use.

Yeah, the crusades, convert tribes to Christianity in ie Africa because they were pagans......I can name a few where the bible is used to justify violence and discrimination even racism.....

The Bible is a beautiful book, but it was not written by God Him (or her) self. It was written much later by men. How do we know for sure that these words are all correct and not just put in there by a person who hated homosexuals? Can you proof to me that these are the exact words of God? I know I sound like Thomas, I know I am someone that needs to put the hands in the wound to believe it is true. But how can you justify spreading hate because someone is not living the exact way the bible says. Must we all deny our own true feelings? Must we act like we are somebody else, because it is written in the bible?

You say that life is not all about love, respect and compassion. You say that life is about fulfilling our purpose that God has designed for us. That this is in the bible. I love Jesus. He was a great cool guy. He never judge anybody. He respected loved and felt compassion for whores, sinners and even murderers. THAT is what life is about. Not slamming someone on the head with a bible (And that hurts, because it is a huge book... :ahem: :grin:)

I read the bible, I am not Christian. I read the Dhamma pada (holy book of Buddhists) I am not a Buddhist, I read all kinds of quotes from all kinds of holy books. I am all and none. Why, because they indeed preach all the same, love, respect and compassion for all living creatures. Yes, the question was rhetorical and I do not hate people who live by the bible and live by the word of God. I have the highest respect for them (you and all). I am just scared that people listen to you and take it all too literal and try to murder gay people because they are just that......gay. And my friend can tell you all about the death threats he had in his life, just because he is gay.

I am merely try to make you understand that spreading "hate" is wrong and that it isn't God's and Jesus' intention to do that. Only one moment in life we have to justify all our sins to only one person...and that is not here on earth. We can not live in denial for feelings we have. That is all.......and yes I use quotes from the bible, I know levitical laws are not the only passages that say that homosexuality is a "sin". I also never said that you are all without love and compassion. I would not dare to judge you as human beings, because I only know your writings. I judge the wrong assumptions about gay people, about sexual acts for love....(Let me be clear on this one.....if two people consent, are not clouded by drugs and alcohol and are 21+).....sexual behavior isn't wrong even if it just in the moment of lust. I try to (and I say try, because I am not perfect) respect all human beings. You can say the homosexuality is a sin. I can say that it is stupid to spread words like this because it creates hate. We hate what we fear....But, Hon...don't worry. It is not contagious!!! :grin:

I probably can't reach you or any of the people who live by the bible and fear "sinners" (God knows I hate that word, especially used for people who just live a happy life, because they accepted who they really are).

I don't hate you, I don't believe you are trying to spread hate on purpose, I believe you are filled with love and compassion as well. I am offended, but that is because it is personal. I am not a sinner because I love! My friend is not a sinner because he loves!!! Simple. If people just would respect each other and reach out to each other whatever color faith or creed, this world would be so much more beautiful......stupid apple which wasn't an apple..... :argh:

A question, if someone came up to you. Someone you love and respect. Someone you shared so many aspects with in your life and would tell you that he/she is gay, what would you do?

Lots of love and sunshine (from all of my heart with all my respect.... :love: ),
Queen

[Queen]

About AIDS

50% of all the HIV+/ AIDS infected people in the world are female.
:poke:

It is true that many of them are infected by sexual acts.....not only by sodomy, because it also can enter the body on other ways like through the vagina.

Safe sex can safe your life...all true.

But if sex is a deadly sin because of HIV so is breathing (SARS, TB, Flue, Hanta and so one, people die of many virusses that infect people). Or what about getting the wrong blood transfusion, or if you are a doctor or nurse and stick yourself with a needle....(AIDS Hepatitis)....you can get sick in many ways.......

Stop using AIDS as an excuse that homosexuality is a sin. AIDS is a disease that end in a painful and horrible death. People with HIV live for years in uncertainty .....when will they get sick? 10 years from now? Earlier? Later? And how long before they will die? How will they die? Suffocate? With horrific pain? Cancer caused by virusses through their whole body?

AIDS doesn't discriminate......everybody can get it. You just have to make love to ONE person that is HIV+...just ONE!!!

You just have to sweep your garage to inhale Hanta and drown in your own fluids. You just have to talk to someone who has SARS and a horrifc death will follow. You just have to catch the flue and the virus plants itself on your heart muscle........Yep, we are all in risk in this world. People with weaker bodies more than people who are strong.....and we can get terribly sick and die a horrific death......too bad that this is possible.

None of the diseases in this world are fair....none of them and people who had suffered and died should be remembered, whatever the cause is.....They have suffered enough and deserve to be remembered. This way we will be fighting hard to find a cure!

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Queen:

That is one way to put it. What about the fact that we are just all human beings........

Yes, but human beings do have desires, like a lust for more and more power that may be natural, but are not good. The predominant view in line with the Bible is that the fact people have sexual orientations whereby they attracted to the people of the same sex, sometimes excusively or just some of the time as is your case, is not a good thing.

It is one of those destructive tendencies we may have to deal with.



every human being has good in them, even those men who raped me....those Christian men (I know that because I dated them! I trusted and loved them.....) that went to church every Sunday...that went to church the next day after they were so "good" to rape me. How is that comparison? How does it feel to be compared to a criminal? Of course not every man that is a good Christian is a rapist....so is not every homosexual or bisexual person a bad person because he/she has feelings of love for someone of the same gender.

Those men sinned. They made bad choices. You did not sin in developing some attraction to people of the same sex. However, choosing to have sexual relations with multiple people of both the male and female sex is a sin you committed.


[qoute]If love and consent are the standards, then incest can be justified. As long as adults are involved, why not? Some rejoin that there is a good biological reason to prohibit incest because of genetic problems. Well, that doesn't prohibit incest where pregnancy is not a risk. There is no principle that can be offered for homosexuality that also doesn't justify other offensive behavior.

Okay, two adults fall in love with each other, but darn it they are related. They know the biological risk so they decide they should not have children. Their love is too important to them.......morally wrong? Because they have sex? Who are we to judge that people should not love each other. Incest becomes a crime when a father rapes his son or daughter.....when there is no consent. To me that is the worst crime in the world, hurting a child, breaking the child, destroying it for the rest of it's life.[/quote]

You can love someone without having sex with them. Having a sexual relationship is a two-edged sword, it can forge a powerful union or it can cause obsession, hate. It manipulates the most powerful emotions for good and evil. In the former soviet union and the areas where it came into power, initially they tried having free-love and it resulted in chaos. Then, the gov't began imposing strong norms on everyone in the name of order, which, of course, those in power were capable of violating at will. But the point is that social mores about our sexuality are needed, willy-nilly. Otherwise, who am I to condemn those men that you say raped you. Perhaps, you were being to coy or asking for it?(Now the last sentence I did not mean, but I wrote it to illustrate how norms are important.)

So social norms/mores that keep us from hurting ourselves are very important. Families should never have that sort of potentially highly destabilizing relations take place within them.

To love someone is more than to want to have sex with them or infactuation with them, it is a willingness to suffer on their behalf and to renounce the option of having sexual relations with anyone else. Waiting until marriage is important, cuz' if the relation is meant to last you still have a lot of gettin' to know each other to do while you are engaged and one can still call off the wedding during the engagement period. Sex before marriage permits much opportunism, particularly on the behalf of males. I had an italian female friend who shared with me that when she first came to the US, she was seduced by a US guy who promised to marry her only so he could get a free-ticket to Italy and back... .
Likewise, recent studies have shown that the willingness of females to sleep with guys before marriage was an important factor in guys postponing marriage(consider the movie the 25th Hour).


But two adults (21+ I mean...let me be clear on that), who are aware of the consequences, the risks and the hate of the community? Difficult to judge, because I am just human as well and why should I judge two people for their "sin"? I am not perfect either....

From a Christian perspective, this evinces an excessive faith in individuals. Sure the two parties may be consenting, but what about all the other impacted parties and there are always other impacted parties. Having norms on sexuality prevent us from hurting ourselves and hurting others. If we followed the norms better, it would be easier to prevent rape since rape-charges are hard to settle since it usually comes down to his word vs. her word(as I'm sure you know.), but where consensual, libertine sex is the norm, setting a precedent that the female wins would mean that any female that has sex with a guy can then threaten him with a rape-lawsuit and, in a world where guys got most of the power, that ain't going to happen.


Yeah, the crusades, convert tribes to Christianity in ie Africa because they were pagans......I can name a few where the bible is used to justify violence and discrimination even racism.....

The Bible is a beautiful book, but it was not written by God Him (or her) self. It was written much later by men. How do we know for sure that these words are all correct and not just put in there by a person who hated homosexuals? Can you proof to me that these are the exact words of God? I know I sound like Thomas, I know I am someone that needs to put the hands in the wound to believe it is true. But how can you justify spreading hate because someone is not living the exact way the bible says. Must we all deny our own true feelings? Must we act like we are somebody else, because it is written in the bible?

We have considerable evidence that the Bibles we have are accurate. I recommend for you to check out "Letters from a Skeptic" by Greg Boyd for some high-quality apologetics-work in this area...

Our true feelings are usually quite confused, they are not a sure basis for how we must act. The true feelings of those guys that raped you may have been, I want to have sex with her, here is my chance.

When I view the Kennedies or watch french films, I am astounded by how sexual libertinism has crippled so many emotionally and kept them from doing better work in other important areas.

It is, in part, because of that negative testimony that I see and affirm the wisdom of us having social norms/mores over how we exercise our sexuality.


You say that life is not all about love, respect and compassion. You say that life is about fulfilling our purpose that God has designed for us. That this is in the bible. I love Jesus. He was a great cool guy. He never judge anybody. He respected loved and felt compassion for whores, sinners and even murderers. THAT is what life is about. Not slamming someone on the head with a bible (And that hurts, because it is a huge book... :ahem: :grin:)

He also told the prostitute to go and sin no more. He told the woman at the well that she had need to repent and change for her life of sin. He also treated the OT scriptures as sacred and not to be dismissed.


I read the bible, I am not Christian. I read the Dhamma pada (holy book of Buddhists) I am not a Buddhist, I read all kinds of quotes from all kinds of holy books. I am all and none. Why, because they indeed preach all the same, love, respect and compassion for all living creatures. Yes, the question was rhetorical and I do not hate people who live by the bible and live by the word of God. I have the highest respect for them (you and all). I am just scared that people listen to you and take it all too literal and try to murder gay people because they are just that......gay. And my friend can tell you all about the death threats he had in his life, just because he is gay.

Threatening or being violent to a gay person is wrong. But STR's views by no means supports/encourages or legitimates such behavior. If anything it fails to share with other Christians about the scientific facts behind how our sexual orientations develop...


I am merely try to make you understand that spreading "hate" is wrong and that it isn't God's and Jesus' intention to do that. Only one moment in life we have to justify all our sins to only one person...and that is not here on earth. We can not live in denial for feelings we have. That is all.......and yes I use quotes from the bible, I know levitical laws are not the only passages that say that homosexuality is a "sin". I also never said that you are all without love and compassion. I would not dare to judge you as human beings, because I only know your writings. I judge the wrong assumptions about gay people, about sexual acts for love....(Let me be clear on this one.....if two people consent, are not clouded by drugs and alcohol and are 21+).....sexual behavior isn't wrong even if it just in the moment of lust. I try to (and I say try, because I am not perfect) respect all human beings. You can say the homosexuality is a sin. I can say that it is stupid to spread words like this because it creates hate. We hate what we fear....But, Hon...don't worry. It is not contagious!!! :grin:

Please understand that us strongly disagreeing with your views about consensual sex is not based on us hating you or others. Love the sinner, hate the sin. This behavior is not endocrinologically-determined like one's sexual orientation is. We do make choices about this, we just believe that some of these choices are wrong.


I probably can't reach you or any of the people who live by the bible and fear "sinners" (God knows I hate that word, especially used for people who just live a happy life, because they accepted who they really are).

I don't think just living a happy life is by any means straight-forward and our sexual orientations are not who we really are. Consider Jesus' response to the sadducees when they posed the question about the woman who was widowed seven-times over regarding whose wife she would be in the next life, Mark 12:18-27. He told them, "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." I.e. in heaven we will be perfect and not have sexualities. At a fundamental level that is not a key aspect of who we are!


I don't hate you, I don't believe you are trying to spread hate on purpose, I believe you are filled with love and compassion as well. I am offended, but that is because it is personal. I am not a sinner because I love! My friend is not a sinner because he loves!!! Simple. If people just would respect each other and reach out to each other whatever color faith or creed, this world would be so much more beautiful......stupid apple which wasn't an apple..... :argh:

Romans 3
22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

John 15
12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command.

I have no doubt you and your friend do care for others, but that doesn't make you free from sin and all of our loves fall short.


A question, if someone came up to you. Someone you love and respect. Someone you shared so many aspects with in your life and would tell you that he/she is gay, what would you do?

Lots of love and sunshine (from all of my heart with all my respect.... :love: ),
Queen

I have had gay friends and I did not let the fact that they were gay affect how I treated them. Did I affirm their sexuality as equally valid with heterosexuality, No. But that doesn't affect how we treat each other as humans.


Queen:

About AIDS

50% of all the HIV+/ AIDS infected people in the world are female.
:poke:

It is true that many of them are infected by sexual acts.....not only by sodomy, because it also can enter the body on other ways like through the vagina.

Safe sex can safe your life...all true.

But if sex is a deadly sin because of HIV so is breathing (SARS, TB, Flue, Hanta and so one, people die of many virusses that infect people). Or what about getting the wrong blood transfusion, or if you are a doctor or nurse and stick yourself with a needle....(AIDS Hepatitis)....you can get sick in many ways.......

Stop using AIDS as an excuse that homosexuality is a sin. AIDS is a disease that end in a painful and horrible death. People with HIV live for years in uncertainty .....when will they get sick? 10 years from now? Earlier? Later? And how long before they will die? How will they die? Suffocate? With horrific pain? Cancer caused by virusses through their whole body?

AIDS doesn't discriminate......everybody can get it. You just have to make love to ONE person that is HIV+...just ONE!!!

You just have to sweep your garage to inhale Hanta and drown in your own fluids. You just have to talk to someone who has SARS and a horrifc death will follow. You just have to catch the flue and the virus plants itself on your heart muscle........Yep, we are all in risk in this world. People with weaker bodies more than people who are strong.....and we can get terribly sick and die a horrific death......too bad that this is possible.

None of the diseases in this world are fair....none of them and people who had suffered and died should be remembered, whatever the cause is.....They have suffered enough and deserve to be remembered. This way we will be fighting hard to find a cure!

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

It is a confirmed fact that AIDS does initially affect male homosexual communities, intraveneous drug-users and prostitutes and their patrons. Typically, when these groups intermix sexually, that is when an AIDS epidemic blossoms.

In many countries in Africa and Asia, it is the absence of sexual mores against using prostitutes and having many sex-partners that played a huge role in helping the crisis get so serious. Here in Mexico there is no AIDS epidemic, though they are concerned about its potential...

Much of your reasoning is spurious, yes there are many dangers we face without engaging in sexual intercourse with multiple partners, but doing so does increase the risk of AIDS and other diseases, to say nothing of the psychological harm that so often accompanies it...

peace,
dlw

[Queen]

Dear DLW,

Thanks for your reply. I must say that I am glad that you are so honest about your feelings. I also know that I can not make you understand that we are not living in sin. But I have to try and make you see that we are not living in sin or committing sins, or even are sinners. Of course I am not perfect, I sin and that is a normal thing. But I am not a sinner because I love and make love. That is not a sin, that is beautiful! A sin is something I hurt other living creatures (men, animals, plants etc.) with (IMHO). I just trying to be a good human, like you. But I have to react.....it is my nature to react.....I love fair discussions, without insulting people. You don't insult me. You just expressing your opinion (i just wish it came from your heart instead of a book). So, I hope I don't insult you. Here I go again... :smug:

I live in sin? woo....wait a minute. I sin because I have had sex with both male and female? Hmm.....let me think about that just one second......nope, you over react. It felt good, I consented and I choose that life, because I just have sexual feelings for both sexes. I can't remember reading anything in the bible about woman sleeping with woman but I could be mistaken. I don't know the whole bible. I read passages......like the Sermon of the Mount.....I love that part of the bible.....but that is another story.

Did I fight my feelings towards the same sex. Yes, it confused me a lot. I was troubled by it. How was it possible. I sort of ran away from it. But I could not live with the denial, repressing the longing. It is totally my free will. I am married now, with a man. And I am faithful. He knows I am bisexual, he is fine with it now. It confused him of course, Why did I choose to be married? I don't know, fear of being alone maybe. I love him a lot. We both look at beautiful women and I can not promise that we will never invited another woman with us. It is just who I am....still he married me.

I feel sorry for you, thinking homosexuality is a sin. Why? Not because I want you to try it.....heterosexuality is your choice....nothing wrong with that. But why such blind look at the world, why condemn a life style (not a person...i understood that the first time... :teeth: ). Because it is said in the bible? Think for yourself a minute. I know you don't want to hurt people or spread hate, but nobody is as compassionate as you. They read the words and they take it literally. That is a problem. They see "us" as sinners and they see us as a threat to their religious life. I know people who had death threats. I know people who had been beaten to a bloody pulp, because they love the same sex........People were killed because of their choice of free will. Realize that there are people out there that fear gay people and they hate them so much they hurt them with all the violence they think can be used against them.

[quote]I have had gay friends and I did not let the fact that they were gay affect how I treated them. Did I affirm their sexuality as equally valid with heterosexuality, No. But that doesn't affect how we treat each other as humans.[/unquote]

And that is how it should be. You don't have to "like" it. You are trying to live your life like you think is best. I only wish that you still had these friends. What wonderful discussions you could have on a lonely Saturday night.....j/k.... :thumb: . But friendships sometimes end, because people are too different.

We only know if God really meant these words when we stand before him and be judged by him. I am sure he doesn't mind me living my life like I do, because I am not a bad person.

About AIDS...true, you have more risk of getting AIDS when you have sex with more partners, when you swap your needle or when you have unsafe sex with clients that refuse to use a condom. But that is statistics. The reality is that many people who are HIV+ had it through having sex with someone who wasn't aware he or she was HIV+.....You just need one!!! Some girls are infected by their first lover, or women infected by their unfaithful partner...these things happen, it is a fact of life. How terrible is that. Sex should be fun, now it is a deadly "sin". I hate that virus. It has taken away so many lovely people from this world, and it will take many more. And I am going to loose a wonderful friend one day.....like he lost some wonderful friends. They have to find a cure, like they have to find a cure for cancer and other horrible diseases. Dying of a disease that destroys your body is something nobody wants......and something that nobody wants for another human being (living creature).....How cruel are you when you think that they choose to get sick? Someone who smokes, gets lung cancer....someone who is overweighted dies of a heart attack....nobody wants it. Everybody knows the risks, but we never think it will happen to us, because we fear these diseases so much we are blind for the risks....it is just human. And when we fall ill, we are shocked, confused and in pain. It is never, never something we thought about. We knew it, but we buried our fears. So, people who have AIDS, or any other disease, no matter how they have got it should be loved, respected and remembered. Because that is the only way to show our respect, even if it are drug addicts or prostitutes. We have no right to judge their way of life, because we will never know the whole story!

Just one remark about something that really hurt me. Never ever say to a rape victim it is her/his own fault, even if you don't mean it and use it as an example. Nobody wants to be raped, even if I was wearing a slinky dress (which I wasn't by the way) you never ever ask for this kind of pain and humiliation. I understand how you meant it, but it still hurts..... a lot. Just wanted to say that. Not a personal attack, I know what you meant, but I just want to tell you how much I was hurt by it....

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

PS. Did you ever read books of the Dalai Lama. You should, if you haven't. I am not trying to convert you into a Buddhist. Your faith is yours....but he says some profound things. I am sure you will like what he says. It is great stuff to read. And you will understand how I try to live my life....respect. love and compassion.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Queen:

Dear DLW,

Thanks for your reply. I must say that I am glad that you are so honest about your feelings. I also know that I can not make you understand that we are not living in sin. But I have to try and make you see that we are not living in sin or committing sins, or even are sinners.

Well, it may help if we are upfront about what we mean by the word sin.


Of course I am not perfect, I sin and that is a normal thing. But I am not a sinner because I love and make love. That is not a sin, that is beautiful!

I'm sorry. Have you watched very many french films? I recommend to you, The Story of Adele H and The Dreamlifes of Angels. I also highly recommend "The Decline of the American Empire" a french-candian film.

Another persistent theme that has arisen from th "Sex in the City" show is the futility of the modern sexually-libertine lifestyle.

As a 27-year-old version, I have no doubt that sex is beautiful and if I wanted to I could have, but all of the reasons I gave before still hold true. If sex is a "beautiful", "spiritual" bond then having sex with many people makes that bond trivial and leads to much hurt.

It is the dualism principle. Something that can be very good can also be very evil if abused. And abuse can take place even among consenting adults. There is still plenty of room for deception and psychological damage.


A sin is something I hurt other living creatures (men, animals, plants etc.) with (IMHO). I just trying to be a good human, like you. But I have to react.....it is my nature to react.....I love fair discussions, without insulting people. You don't insult me. You just expressing your opinion (i just wish it came from your heart instead of a book). So, I hope I don't insult you. Here I go again... :smug:

Came from a book, instead of my heart? Well, experience isn't everything. I had a friend who had been sexually-active and burned a lot and he rationalized his experience all the time. I think we've learned quite a bit in this regard and need discover it personally for ourselves...


I live in sin? woo....wait a minute. I sin because I have had sex with both male and female? Hmm.....let me think about that just one second......nope, you over react. It felt good, I consented and I choose that life, because I just have sexual feelings for both sexes. I can't remember reading anything in the bible about woman sleeping with woman but I could be mistaken. I don't know the whole bible. I read passages......like the Sermon of the Mount.....I love that part of the bible.....but that is another story.

Paul mentions women with women in one of his letters, I don't remember the passage right now... Homosexual acts were quite common and accepted in the Roman Empire and so the early Christians made a quite deliberate choice to include prescriptions against them as among the relatively few Jewish traditions that gentile converts would be held to.

Just because something feels good and we desire to do it doesn't meant that it is a good thing to do. I may feel good posting non-stop here on this board, but I have other responsibilities as well...


Did I fight my feelings towards the same sex. Yes, it confused me a lot. I was troubled by it. How was it possible. I sort of ran away from it. But I could not live with the denial, repressing the longing. It is totally my free will. I am married now, with a man. And I am faithful. He knows I am bisexual, he is fine with it now. It confused him of course, Why did I choose to be married? I don't know, fear of being alone maybe. I love him a lot. We both look at beautiful women and I can not promise that we will never invited another woman with us. It is just who I am....still he married me.

Well, I would advise for you to try not to put yourself in situations where you will be tempted to be with another woman. I would also tell you and your husband that menage-a-troises are also wrong. Sex is not just mutually-pleasing exercise, or evolutionary mechanisms for our procreation. Sex is a sacramental act, that ideally should be between a husband and wife. Threesomes are wrong.


I feel sorry for you, thinking homosexuality is a sin. Why?


I have studied this issue. I had a long exchange with my high-school biology teacher on it and he introduced me to a lot of the scientific research on the issue. However, he had initially committed the naturalistic fallacy and I came to the conclusion that just because people sometimes develop attractions to people of the same sex doesn't mean that this is a good/desirable trait in people.
However, my heterosexist belief is ultimately rooted in my Christianity. I don't think one can rightly find anyother basis for clearly saying it is wrong(although, it would be odd if developments that are more likely when the pregnant mother is highly stressed while pregnant tended to be socially-desirable...).


Not because I want you to try it.....heterosexuality is your choice....nothing wrong with that. But why such blind look at the world, why condemn a life style (not a person...i understood that the first time... :teeth: ). Because it is said in the bible? Think for yourself a minute. I know you don't want to hurt people or spread hate, but nobody is as compassionate as you. They read the words and they take it literally. That is a problem. They see "us" as sinners and they see us as a threat to their religious life. I know people who had death threats. I know people who had been beaten to a bloody pulp, because they love the same sex........

That is based on ignorance and hypocripsy. I do not brook any misinterpretation of the Bible in that regard. (But hey, I'm still a wimp for jesus!)

[quote]People were killed because of their choice of free will. Realize that there are people out there that fear gay people and they hate them so much they hurt them with all the violence they think can be used against them.

Not all of them did choose to be constitutional homosexuals, though one can choose one's lifestyle. The use of violence by Christians to prevent wrong conduct constitutes a large portion of its most sordid history.


[quote]I have had gay friends and I did not let the fact that they were gay affect how I treated them. Did I affirm their sexuality as equally valid with heterosexuality, No. But that doesn't affect how we treat each other as humans.[/unquote]

And that is how it should be. You don't have to "like" it. You are trying to live your life like you think is best. I only wish that you still had these friends. What wonderful discussions you could have on a lonely Saturday night.....j/k.... :thumb: . But friendships sometimes end, because people are too different.

And people do graduate from graduate school and move to different countries...


We only know if God really meant these words when we stand before him and be judged by him. I am sure he doesn't mind me living my life like I do, because I am not a bad person.

We are all fallen and it is wrong to deny that fact. Trying to not be a bad person will never be enough. There still is plenty of room for hypocripsy.


About AIDS...true, you have more risk of getting AIDS when you have sex with more partners, when you swap your needle or when you have unsafe sex with clients that refuse to use a condom. But that is statistics. The reality is that many people who are HIV+ had it through having sex with someone who wasn't aware he or she was HIV+.....You just need one!!!


true, but that is why social mores matter.



Some girls are infected by their first lover, or women infected by their unfaithful partner...these things happen, it is a fact of life. How terrible is that. Sex should be fun, now it is a deadly "sin". I hate that virus. It has taken away so many lovely people from this world, and it will take many more. And I am going to loose a wonderful friend one day.....like he lost some wonderful friends. They have to find a cure, like they have to find a cure for cancer and other horrible diseases. Dying of a disease that destroys your body is something nobody wants......and something that nobody wants for another human being (living creature).....

true. Noone deserves to get aids.


How cruel are you when you think that they choose to get sick? Someone who smokes, gets lung cancer....someone who is overweighted dies of a heart attack....nobody wants it. Everybody knows the risks, but we never think it will happen to us, because we fear these diseases so much we are blind for the risks....it is just human. And when we fall ill, we are shocked, confused and in pain. It is never, never something we thought about. We knew it, but we buried our fears. So, people who have AIDS, or any other disease, no matter how they have got it should be loved, respected and remembered. Because that is the only way to show our respect, even if it are drug addicts or prostitutes. We have no right to judge their way of life, because we will never know the whole story!

Yes, they need to be loved, respected and remembered. We are all born into sh-t-filled circumstances, that is why we need a savior who was also born literally is such circumstances.


Just one remark about something that really hurt me. Never ever say to a rape victim it is her/his own fault, even if you don't mean it and use it as an example. Nobody wants to be raped, even if I was wearing a slinky dress (which I wasn't by the way) you never ever ask for this kind of pain and humiliation. I understand how you meant it, but it still hurts..... a lot. Just wanted to say that. Not a personal attack, I know what you meant, but I just want to tell you how much I was hurt by it....


I'm so sorry, please forgive me... I have three younger sisters and if anyone ever hurt them...I don't know...


PS. Did you ever read books of the Dalai Lama. You should, if you haven't. I am not trying to convert you into a Buddhist. Your faith is yours....but he says some profound things. I am sure you will like what he says. It is great stuff to read. And you will understand how I try to live my life....respect. love and compassion.

Haven't had time, but there was a good article in the NYTIMES a while back that described how so many of us westerners white-wash the Daila-Lama, who does condemn homosexuality, even though that part was removed from his latest book...

dlw

[sdthomas]

Hi, Queen --

I wanted to respond because I think this topic is important and because I think there are some ideas that need to be corrected and/or clarified. One of these is love. You recently wrote:


Yesterday @ 02:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=229459#post229459)
Queen:

I am not a sinner because I love and make love. That is not a sin, that is beautiful!


and



I live in sin? woo....wait a minute. I sin because I have had sex with both male and female? Hmm.....let me think about that just one second......nope, you over react. It felt good, I consented and I choose that life, because I just have sexual feelings for both sexes.


Regarding your remarks about love in relation to homosexual acts, I think you have the cart before the horse. To call an act (in this case, acts involving sexual organs) "loving" is already to assume a certain perspective on human nature. In other words, you need a framework by which to make the assessment (loving or not loving), but that framework is exactly what is at issue. This may become clearer if I give an example. By way of illustration, then, consider the following scenario:

The door is pushed open and morning light streams into Jim's bedroom. He hears the sounds of panting and a light chain being pulled across the floor, and a minute later, Cindy pounces upon the bed, licking his face and whimpering, obviously wanting him to take her out for a walk. "Hey, girl -- Good morning," he laughs, embracing her and rubbing her tummy. She responds by bounding off the bed and heading towards the front door, full of excitement, the leash trailing behind. Jim dons his robe and slippers, and a minute later he and Cindy head out the door for their morning ritual.

This is a brief snapshot of an apparently genuine, affectionate relationship between a man and his pet. Our assessment would change rapidly, however, if we saw Jim emerge from his home with an adult woman on a leash (!), naked, collared, and bounding about on all fours like an animal -- even if the woman consented to this sort of treatment and owner/pet relationship. Jim's affections for her, "genuine" as they were or seemed to be, fall short of what they ought to be because of the nature of their object: a woman, a human being, rather than a dog. The dignity of the woman is trampled upon because of her treatment/role, despite whatever feelings of satisfaction and fulfillment the participants seem to have.

Don't read too much into the scenario above. The point is that the question of nature is prior to considerations of love. Otherwise we have no framework, no standard, by which to make the assessment of whether or not a particular act is loving. Injecting "love" into the conversation only begs the question and further confuses the dialogue. Instead, we ought to be asking a couple of questions (closely related, from my point of view) such as: What is the nature of human sexuality?, or Are homosexual acts moral or immoral?

I argue against homosexuality on grounds that you've already mentioned, at least indirectly. But more on that next time.

Until then, take care.

Steve

[Da Lone-Warrior]

sdthomas,

interesting post!

Although, you also do beg the question of how we determine what is "natural".

What may be natural is for us to walk around with no clothes and copulate as frequently as we can. As a heterosexual guy, I think it is quite natural for me to want to have as much nonrelational sex with as many females as possible, but as a Christian, I believe that that would be wrong and that the Christian ideal of sexuality is far greater than the liberal, secular ideals... and by far more loving, especially, for females since it grants them protections against male opportunism.

dlw

[sdthomas]

Hi, dlw --

You wrote:


Today @ 12:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=232341#post232341)
dlw2003:

Although, you also do beg the question of how we determine what is "natural".

What may be natural is for us to walk around with no clothes and copulate as frequently as we can. As a heterosexual guy, I think it is quite natural for me to want to have as much nonrelational sex with as many females as possible, but as a Christian, I believe that that would be wrong and that the Christian ideal of sexuality is far greater than the liberal, secular ideals... and by far more loving, especially, for females since it grants them protections against male opportunism.

I'm well aware of the confusion with and/or obfuscation of the term "nature" (and related terms). I do not mean "what one typically does" or "what one desires"; I mean something in a more fundamental, moral sense, and something that we can find common ground in, hopefully, apart from appeals to the authority of Scripture. I'll attempt to make this clear in a subsequent post (or posts), preferably after Queen has responded.

Thanks, and take care.

Steve

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Hey,

please do, but I will tell you up-straight that my biases are against there being a strong-basis for such a claim apart from scriptures...

I hope you have had time to check out some of my posts on the role of fetal-endocrinology in the determination of sexual orientation. I would expect any "natural" approach would have to take that into account...

dlw

[Queen]

:eh: If we talk about natural, you will find that I (a biologist) find that an argument to say that homosexuality is totally natural and that there is nothing wrong with that. Like I said before they discovered that homosexual relationship is found in 450 species (human included of course.....in Biology humans belong to the animal kingdom). Birds have a life time gay relationship (two males or two females) and they even build a nest and raise an adoptive off spring (eggs that roll in their nest ie)

So, yep, it is all natural and nothing wrong with being gay.....by the way, every human being is bisexual, but some more homosexual and some more heterosexual. It is in our nature.

I once saw a show where a man was telling that he was gay but after he had found God he was now a good heterosexual human being.....I was shocked by that fact, because this man was denying his true being and that is sad. I hope he found happiness, because he has to struggle every single day against his natural feelings.....THAT is unnatural. You have to be loyal to yourself. Do what you feel is right in your heart, but you can't change from gay into straight.....That is such an unhealthy way to lead your life....

You have no idea how much it hurts a religious gay man or woman to hear these things, especially when they found peace with God. God is as important to them as to you. Gay people have to struggle so hard to be accepted in the community and bump into all kinds of awful bias opinions. I hope you all realize that. And isn't religion about respect as well?

Of course many of you will disagree with this. But that is no prob.. If we would not disagree we would not have a discussion...that would be boring.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Warcraft3]

Hey there Queen whats up?

Sorry for the short responses but Im on my way out the door....




:eh: If we talk about natural, you will find that I (a biologist) find that an argument to say that homosexuality is totally natural and that there is nothing wrong with that. Like I said before they discovered that homosexual relationship is found in 450 species (human included of course.....in Biology humans belong to the animal kingdom). Birds have a life time gay relationship (two males or two females) and they even build a nest and raise an adoptive off spring (eggs that roll in their nest ie)
Using the "natural" argument by referring to animals is not a good argument. This argument could be stretched to justify any behaviour seen in the animal kingdom, including insects since they also have "societies" on a certain level. If we are talking about what is natural to human beings, we should limit the discussion to human beings.


So, yep, it is all natural and nothing wrong with being gay.....by the way, every human being is bisexual, but some more homosexual and some more heterosexual. It is in our nature.
You make it sound like being homo is no different than being hetero. I assume you believe both environments are equally good at rasisng children. I would like to know what you think of my view on this topic...found here.http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=203869#post203869


I once saw a show where a man was telling that he was gay but after he had found God he was now a good heterosexual human being.....I was shocked by that fact, because this man was denying his true being and that is sad. I hope he found happiness, because he has to struggle every single day against his natural feelings.....THAT is unnatural. You have to be loyal to yourself. Do what you feel is right in your heart, but you can't change from gay into straight.....That is such an unhealthy way to lead your life....
Scripture says homosexual ACTS should be avoided much like other sexual ACTS. Ones personal preference is orthogonal to that point.



I would comment more, but I have Reserve duty this weekend and I must leave soon.

But I will look for your response.


Russ

[Dee Dee Warren]

/ot Queen the closing tag for quotes is [/quote] not [unquote]

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Queen my dear,

you are committing the naturalistic fallacy as well.

Conflating what occurs "naturally" with what is good.

As one born with a hole in his heart, I can assure that I did not have just another heart-formation that was normatively the equal of how most hearts are formed...

peace,
dlw

[Dee Dee Warren]

<gasp> DLW actually said something I agree with. I think it is time to shut down the forum. :poke:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Dee Dee Warren:

<gasp> DLW actually said something I agree with. I think it is time to shut down the forum. :poke:

Miracles can happen and people do sometimes change on their views...

We see but through a glass darkly...

dlw:bonk:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Wow, there's hope for you to get reasonable? :joy::cheers:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Dee Dee Warren:

Wow, there's hope for you to get reasonable? :joy::cheers:

Only when STR or someone else shows me how my second tier beliefs contradict the true first tier truths of Christianity. If p then q then if ~q then ~p....

dlw

[sdthomas]

Hello again, Queen. Thanks for your response and your willingness to dialogue on such a controversial issue. You wrote:


Today @ 06:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=232702#post232702)
Queen:

If we talk about natural, you will find that I (a biologist) find that an argument to say that homosexuality is totally natural and that there is nothing wrong with that. Like I said before they discovered that homosexual relationship is found in 450 species (human included of course.....in Biology humans belong to the animal kingdom). Birds have a life time gay relationship (two males or two females) and they even build a nest and raise an adoptive off spring (eggs that roll in their nest ie)

So, yep, it is all natural and nothing wrong with being gay.....by the way, every human being is bisexual, but some more homosexual and some more heterosexual. It is in our nature.


I think you have seriously misassessed the animal kingdom, even as a biologist, but I'll leave that subject aside for the moment because it is irrelevant to my argument.

There are several senses of the word natural, and I'm afraid that you've adopted a definition (or probably some mixture of two or three) that I am not interested in defending. I am speaking of nature in the distinctly moral sense. The best way that I can explain it is through example.

Let me begin with something you have already mentioned, and I'm sorry to broach the subject again, because I know it must be painful for you. I read your earlier post about being a victim of rape. I hope you can forgive me, because I want to start there, with the wrong of rape. My guess is that the wrongfulness, the evil, of rape is common ground for us -- we share that assessment.

If you want to stop reading, that's perfectly understandable. No one could fault you. (I'll continue a little distance below.)















Continuing from above, the Supreme Court once said that rape was, next to homicide, "the ultimate violation of self." Any sane person would consider it to be one of the most heinous and debilitating acts that can be committed. The sadness, rage, and outrage that I would feel as a man, if my wife or daughters were raped, is hard to imagine. The sense of injustice is immense. Again, I'm so sorry that you had to endure that.

Rape, then, is a particularly nefarious act. It is done without the consent of the victim, and this is how we identify it, but that is not the end of the story. There are a great many offenses -- assaults, even -- and most if not all of them also occur without the consent of the victim. Rape is (rightly) recognized as a felony. Other nonconsensual offenses are mere misdemeanors. While the lack of consent is a common denominator across these categories, there is still a remarkable moral difference between them, isn't there? Rape is far more grievous than being punched in the nose, or locked in a room, or a variety of other things. So the violation cannot in large part be reduced to the lack of consent.

There is a great moral gulf between rape and other nonconsensual offenses for this reason: sex -- that dimension of rape lacking in other nonconsensual offenses -- is undeniably, and profoundly, morally significant. Moreover, the significance of human sexuality is not dependent on individual opinion or what one "feels" while engaging in it.

This is what I am speaking of when I use the term nature in relation to sexuality -- the distinctly moral quality (in a philosophical, not existential, sense) it has to it.

This is the first premise of my argument, or the starting point for my concerns with homosexuality. If we are in agreement with this much, I will try to go a little farther next time around.

I hope I have not been too insensitive, Queen. I'm afraid that I am working with limited resources -- my own shortcomings, and the shortcomings of our time and culture -- to explain adequately in some other way and to capture the magnitude of the subject matter.

Until next time, take care.

Steve

[Queen]

Dee Dee, why stop this discussion? Isn't that head-in-the-sands politics. Nobody is rude here. We have diffident opinions, but sharing different opinions in a peaceful way is not a bad thing. I understand the reasoning of many here. I do not see any of them getting furious or even spreading hate towards me. So what is wrong with keeping this topic alive? Understand that I know that I can't change opinions, but I can make them see my POV, trying to defend my opinion like everybody else is entitled to. We live in a free world (last time I looked)......

DLW:

I was born with a congenitally heart disorder. I now have a pacemaker, I am pacemaker dependent, I use meds, I've had heart surgery and so on. I suffer from arrhythmia, my heart is not build in the correct way (I have a large right ventricle)....So, I know what you mean. But that is one of the reasons I find more peace in science then religion. My genes suck, :teeth: and that is no problem at all. I have other disabilities as well, so I know how it feels to be not build like most human beings......That is why I see no problem with other ways of life, because I have to live my life according to my disabilities and I would hate it when I would be discriminated on that account. See, we are all different, physically, mentally and even sexual.....I see us still as equals. I suffered enough discrimination in my life.........I guess you used a "bad" example. But I understand you....I understand why you used that example. To me my disability is a slip of nature....it isn't perfect and I would be the last one to claim it.....how wondrous that so many children are born healthy, instead of with disabilities, because if you look at the development of the embryo you understand how beautiful it is. You just have to admire natures wonders.

All:

This will be a sensitive topic, always. I am just glad that not everybody thinks that homosexuality is a sin. I also believe that crimes are never a good example and yes, the concept of of good and evil is known in nature as well. Altruistic behavior is found among many animals.....mothers who die to safe their offspring. Instinct? well, humans have that same instinct then.

Read the book "Good natured" and "peacemaking among primates" by Frans de Waal. He is a primatologist and if you read these books, you will understand that good and evil is also a concept among animals.

Lions kill, but only to eat and survive and to feed their off spring. I never saw a lion turn into a veggie overnight. He is build to eat meat. His whole life depends on eating meat. If that is evil why are humans, who know the difference between good and evil kill animals for meat? And don't use the Genesis story here, because if we are such a moral society, there would be no hate, no violence no fear in this world. :bonk:

Homosexuality is not a crime, so please don't compare it with crime (thank you, sdthomas for respecting me this way. It is wonderful that you understand my personal feelings....that is really sweet of you..... :bow: :yes: ).

Rape murder and incest happens among primates and believe me, an alpha male of a group will punish those who commit these crimes...if he knows about it and disagrees with it. We can compare animal behavior with our own. But of course human beings have more evolved brains (although I doubt that sometimes.....not a personal attack on any of you here.....I hope you understand what I mean....some people act really stupid... :whack:)

I am doing nothing wrong, I am not a sinner in a sexual way. That is all I want to say. If I was, my conscience would warn me and believe me, my conscience is a pain in the........I live by those ten commandments like I was a Christian...... :smile:......Just not that one......number one......ya know what I am talking about...... :lol:

Thanks for all your input, it is much appreciated and I really respect all your honesty. That is how it should be, with respect and love......and compassion.... :cheers:

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[sdthomas]

Hi, Queen --

I appreciate that you're willing to continue the discussion. I'm trying to distill what I can from your last post. You wrote:


Today @ 06:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=233163#post233163)
Queen:

This will be a sensitive topic, always. I am just glad that not everybody thinks that homosexuality is a sin. I also believe that crimes are never a good example...

Never a good example of what? For what purpose? What was I attempting to show? Certainly crimes are not good examples of manners or civil society in action, but I see no a priori reason to believe that they are not good examples of other things.

Particular instances of crime can be good examples of planning (http://oceans11.warnerbros.com/cmp/main.html), or of using available technology (http://www.nhtcu.org/). They can be good examples of blatantly stupid behavior (http://www.courttv.com/people/scm/). They can be good examples of the sorts of things the human race is capable of (http://www.ushmm.org/). And, it seems to me, they can be good examples of moral significance, even if only negatively. Ethicists who specialize in arguing for moral realism (the view that objective right and wrong exists, apart from what particular individuals may believe) seem to think so; they will often cite clear cases of wrongful acts (e.g. murder, rape, child abuse) to make their point.



Homosexuality is not a crime, so please don't compare it with crime...

Who has compared homosexuality to a crime (i.e. rape)? What I have attempted to show thus far is the sort of understanding of human nature I have in mind, particularly as applies to sexuality. There is a profound moral significance to sex, apart from consent, and irregardless of whether particular individuals agree to that view of sexuality or not.

Now, this may have implications for homosexuality and other sexual practices, I will give you that; in fact, that's exactly what I want to argue. But that is far from comparing rape to homosexuality.



I am doing nothing wrong, I am not a sinner in a sexual way. That is all I want to say. If I was, my conscience would warn me and believe me, my conscience is a pain in the...

A couple of things can be said here:

First, I'm not trying to convince you, Queen, that you are a sinner in a sexual way. I am trying to show, once we get through the argument in full, that homosexuality is wrong. Adultery and promiscuity are wrong, too, so I'm not singling out homosexual acts. In any case, in an earlier post you seemed to indicate that you are already living in monogamous marriage -- that you were faithful to your husband -- so this need not apply to your current situation anyway.

Second, the conscience can be suppressed, although when that happens, it shows up in different ways. It can't be killed altogether, but it sure can be dulled, or buried under a thousand rationalizations. I know I find that to be true in my case, when I reflect on immoral things I have done.

I would recommend J. Budziszewski's The Revenge of Conscience, which is a great introductory exploration of this topic. You can find a sample of the author's work here (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9806/articles/budziszewski.html), which preceeded the book. You might also check out the September issue of Glamour magazine, for an example of the ways conscience shows up through confession and rituals when we suppress it. Click here (http://www.pfm.org/BPtemplate.cfm?Section=BreakPoint_Commentaries1&CONTENTID=10510&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm) for a recap.

Looking forward to your thoughts, Queen. Take care,

Steve

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Queen:

Dee Dee, why stop this discussion? Isn't that head-in-the-sands politics. Nobody is rude here. We have diffident opinions, but sharing different opinions in a peaceful way is not a bad thing. I understand the reasoning of many here. I do not see any of them getting furious or even spreading hate towards me. So what is wrong with keeping this topic alive? Understand that I know that I can't change opinions, but I can make them see my POV, trying to defend my opinion like everybody else is entitled to. We live in a free world (last time I looked)......

I've never been diffident over my opinions! :teeth:
I'm sure DD has no intention to shut the thread down, but was just in shock over how we agreed on something despite our rather systematic differences on most other things.

Using the categories from "The Remaking of Evangelical Theology" by Gary Dorrien, I would fall in the category "neoorthodox" evangelicalism and she would fall in either the category "fundamentalist" evangelicalism or "infallible teaching" neo-evangelicalism (I'm not sure which and so I am hedging my bets.). Fundamentalist evangelicalism is defined by its commitment to a list of literally interpreted "fundamental" doctrines that are founded on a doctrine of precise biblical inerrancy. NeoEvangelicalism(defined as those who were part of the Fundamentalist side of the historical fundamentalist-modernist schism in the US but chose to interact more with the mainstream of the US.) has historically maintained fundamentalist theological foundationalism but often had better manners. In the context of modern evangelicalism, the neo-evangelical model stands as a mediating position between the neoorthodox and regnant fundamental models. NeoOrthodoxy is a theological perspective in which scripture is regarded not as revelation itself but as a witness to revelation that can become the Word of God through the movement of God's spirit.

Gary Dorrien distinguishes between fundamentalist evangelicalism, infallible-teaching neoevangelicalism and neo-orthodox evangelicalism primarily by the ways in which these models differently address the question of the nature of scriptural inspiration and authority. Though, these are ideal types and people don't neatly fit into the three categories, for example, since I come from a neo-evangelical background I am far less "liberal" in some of my views than other neo-orthodox evangelicals(Most of this was taken from p10 of "The Remaking of Evangelical Theology".).


DLW:
I was born with a congenitally heart disorder. I now have a pacemaker, I am pacemaker dependent, I use meds, I've had heart surgery and so on. I suffer from arrhythmia, my heart is not build in the correct way (I have a large right ventricle)....So, I know what you mean. But that is one of the reasons I find more peace in science then religion. My genes suck, :teeth: and that is no problem at all. I have other disabilities as well, so I know how it feels to be not build like most human beings......That is why I see no problem with other ways of life, because I have to live my life according to my disabilities and I would hate it when I would be discriminated on that account. See, we are all different, physically, mentally and even sexual.....I see us still as equals. I suffered enough discrimination in my life.........I guess you used a "bad" example. But I understand you....I understand why you used that example. To me my disability is a slip of nature....it isn't perfect and I would be the last one to claim it.....how wondrous that so many children are born healthy, instead of with disabilities, because if you look at the development of the embryo you understand how beautiful it is. You just have to admire natures wonders.

I admire the God that made all life possible, most of all.
I hold that not all heart-forms are not equal, though that doesn't mean that we are less loved by God because of physical flaws. If anything Jesus showed extra-compassion for those that suffered.

So, un autre vez, the heterosexist position is a normative belief that is supported by Christian Scriptures. Yet, I believe research has shown that it is possible to prevent someone from developing into a homosexual through intervention while they are in the womb. In another thread elsewhere I posited that we could confidentially survey homosexuals over whether they would have liked to have such an operation done while they were in the womb and use the results to find out objectively whether or not testing for the hormonal balances that lead to homosexuality and then altering the balance is something we should try to do.

You don't have to answer, but, if it were possible, wouldn't you have preferred to be heterosexual? Lets presume that we all came to accept homosexuality and there was no homophobic verbal and physical violence towards homosexuals and that homosexual couples committed to long-term relationships had the same benefits/rights as are given to heterosexual married couples, would one be willing to have an operation done while you are a human fetus/life to prevent you from developing into a homosexual(lets presume that the operation is riskless...)?

[Queen]

You don't have to answer, but, if it were possible, wouldn't you have preferred to be heterosexual? Lets presume that we all came to accept homosexuality and there was no homophobic verbal and physical violence towards homosexuals and that homosexual couples committed to long-term relationships had the same benefits/rights as are given to heterosexual married couples, would one be willing to have an operation done while you are a human fetus/life to prevent you from developing into a homosexual(lets presume that the operation is riskless...)?

Good question. I am bisexual....so I have had homosexual and heterosexual relationships...I know a bit of both sides.... :teeth:

No, I would not want such an operation. I don't see homosexuality/bisexuality as a disability/illness...but if it was it was possible to make me heterosexual.....and I would be able to make a choice, I would not want to be heterosexual. I am happy the way I am. Of course you doubt yourself, even run away from it, because you want to be "normal"...but I am happy and I have had some really wonderful experiences with women.

No, I would want to stay bisexual....even with the way things are now....

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Queen:

Good question. I am bisexual....so I have had homosexual and heterosexual relationships...I know a bit of both sides.... :teeth:

No, I would not want such an operation. I don't see homosexuality/bisexuality as a disability/illness...but if it was it was possible to make me heterosexual.....and I would be able to make a choice, I would not want to be heterosexual. I am happy the way I am. Of course you doubt yourself, even run away from it, because you want to be "normal"...but I am happy and I have had some really wonderful experiences with women.

No, I would want to stay bisexual....even with the way things are now....

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

I'm sure that most people that know me know that I am not "normal" and do not preoccupy myself with such things...

Thankyou for responding,

I guess my response is that we all tend to be pretty good at rationalizing things the way they are...

dlw

[Queen]

With you I meant me.......or anyone struglling with their sexuality.....it was meant generally.....sort of...

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Queen:

With you I meant me.......or anyone struglling with their sexuality.....it was meant generally.....sort of...

Thankyou, I do not struggle with my sexuality.

I have other demons to deal with...
dlw

[Queen]

Yeah, I am past that period as well and I am happy the way I am.......about those other demons......yep....still struggling with those little bastards as well.

Somehow I believe we all have struggles...big or small....That makes it worth living because you can overcome and win from those demons!

Queen :sher:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Were you a cheer-leader once upon a time?

Yaaay, Go Teeeeam! :bonk:

(just joking) :juggle:

Here is the link to the now-archived article on the Dalai Lama and how we idealize him here in the US. You have to pay to get it...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30C14F9395E0C7A8DDDA00894DB404482

dlw

[Queen]

:teeth: :lmbo:

Nope....No cheerleader here....just nuts :dufus:

The Dalai Lama has some profound things to say. I admire him. I guess the fact that he has such an impact on people is because he has this calm serene nature. He sort of calms me down. And yes, I read his 'stuff'. I guess he thinks people are sort of overreacting by idealizing him so much. He is very humble....

I go to bed!

Nighters!!!

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I do recommend that you check out the NYTIMES article on him...

The Dalai Lama does share with me a heterosexist position...

dlw

[Socrates]

10-01-2003 @ 10:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=227526#post227526)
dlw2003:

true, our failure to come to terms with the science behind the determination of sexual orientation will have serious consequences just as the censorship of Galileo had serious consequences and the rejection of Evolution/Science/The Life of the Mind(aka Mark Noll) had serious consequences....

Quite so. The modern church is making the same mistake as the medieval church did in Galileo's time -- marrying their biblical interpretation to the science of its day. They allowed themselves to be duped by the Aristotelians of the universities that Ptolemaic cosmology was taught by Scripture, and thus opposed Galileo's challenges. We have gone through all this in the thread Was it the Church or secular scientists that condemned Galileo? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=78056#post78056).

The modern church, epitomized by Noll, have made the same mistake in kowtowing to evolution and twisting Scripture to match. See these independently written reviews of his pathetic book, Missing the Mark: The Tragedy of the New Evangelical ‘Intellectualism’ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v10n1_br.asp) and Mark Noll’s scandalous criticisms of creation science (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/nollrev.htm).

Now DLW wants to church to kowtow to incredibly contentious ideas that homosexual behaviour is genetically determined and again twist Scripture to fit. This ignores the fact that people are still responsible for their choices. Indeed, even many in the homosexual lobby resent the idea that their choice is determined because it still, in their view, imputes an aberrance to their lifestyle, and that they would not choose it if they were not born that way.

[Socrates]

10-01-2003 @ 06:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=227952#post227952)
Queen:

"Good"? :no: Well, thank you. :thumbd: That is one way to put it. What about the fact that we are just all human beings........every human being has good in them, even those men who raped me....those Christian men (I know that because I dated them! I trusted and loved them.....) that went to church every Sunday...that went to church the next day after they were so "good" to rape me.

Going to a church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you a car. The fact that they raped you would call their professed faith into question to say the least, since they acted grossly contrary to it.


Okay, two adults fall in love with each other, but darn it they are related. They know the biological risk so they decide they should not have children. Their love is too important to them.......morally wrong? Because they have sex? Who are we to judge that people should not love each other. Incest becomes a crime when a father rapes his son or daughter.....when there is no consent.

Why, under an evolutionary perspective, is consent a big deal? Animals rape and kill each other without consent, and evolutionists try to convince us that man is just an animal.

That is a major problem with trying to derive morality from what animals do.


To me that is the worst crime in the world, hurting a child, breaking the child, destroying it for the rest of it's life.

Abortion is worse, because that destroys the child's life outright.


Yeah, the crusades,

Please tell us more. E.g. why you think it was wrong to stop the Muslim's aggressive wars of conquest and their forbidding of Christians to make pilgrimages to their holy sites. See my post Crusades: putting them into perspective.


convert tribes to Christianity in ie Africa because they were pagans......

Biblically speaking, conversion is a free choice. And even on an earthly perspective, the Africans are much better off under Christianity than paganism. That's one reason Christianity is growing in Africa more than anywhere else.


I can name a few where the bible is used to justify violence and discrimination even racism.....

Go ahead. But in reality, the Bible has been a corrective against such things, by teaching that all people come from "one man/blood" (Acts 17:26).


The Bible is a beautiful book, but it was not written by God Him (or her) self. It was written much later by men.

A lovely ipse dixit, but of course ignoring the voluminous evidence for inspiration.


I know I sound like Thomas, I know I am someone that needs to put the hands in the wound to believe it is true.

I'm not too different.


I love Jesus. He was a great cool guy.

Do you really think so? Then why do you deny his claims like "Scripture cannot be broken", his condemnation of sexual immorality, teaching that marriage was for one man and one woman for life.

Even more important, what was so cool about someone who claimed to be God Himself, and having all power to judge the world, and sending all the prophets and Holy Spirit? If He was not telling the truth, He is either full of unspeakable delusions of grandeur or He was lying through His teeth. In fact, He went out of His way to avoid any reasonable possibility that He was just a cool guy or great moral teacher.


He never judge anybody.

Oh yes He did! He spoke more about condemnation and Hell than anyone else in Scripture. Furthermore, He even commanded us to judge:

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

He respected loved and felt compassion for whores, sinners and even murderers.

Only for REPENTANT ones. E.g. he told the adulteress "Go and sin no more".


Why, because they indeed preach all the same, love, respect and compassion for all living creatures.

What's so great about that, if we are rearranged pond scum, the result of survival of the fittest.


I am merely try to make you understand that spreading "hate" is wrong and that it isn't God's and Jesus' intention to do that.

I am merely try to make you understand that saying that a lifestyle is sinful is not spreading "hate". It is God's and Jesus' intention to judge sin. One must also wonder how Queen can assert that something is "wrong" if we are just accidents of nature.

[Queen]

Going to a church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you a car. The fact that they raped you would call their professed faith into question to say the least, since they acted grossly contrary to it.

True, I agree with you on that. i should have pointed out more clearly that I don't believe that all Christians are rapists because my rapist were (We discussed religion during our dates and they called them self Christians).....nor are all homosexuals sinners.....I hope you understand what I mean. But I agree with you, going to church doesn't make you Christian.



Why, under an evolutionary perspective, is consent a big deal? Animals rape and kill each other without consent, and evolutionists try to convince us that man is just an animal

See my posts here: http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10929&perpage=16&pagenumber=5

I hope you see my point of view better on this matter.


Please tell us more. E.g. why you think it was wrong to stop the Muslim's aggressive wars of conquest and their forbidding of Christians to make pilgrimages to their holy sites.

Hmm......many religious people used their religion and their believe in their God(s) as an excuse to go to war. The Muslims did and do that, so do the Christians. I believe that it it horrible to abuse religion for these violent purposes. I also believe that many people use their holy books to confiscate land, because they tell that this land belongs to them...holy places and so on. The strange thing is that many atheists have more respect for other people and for nature (Read the book "reason for hope" by Jane Goodall, by the way, she is a very religious person!).


Even more important, what was so cool about someone who claimed to be God Himself, and having all power to judge the world, and sending all the prophets and Holy Spirit? If He was not telling the truth, He is either full of unspeakable delusions of grandeur or He was lying through His teeth. In fact, He went out of His way to avoid any reasonable possibility that He was just a cool guy or great moral teacher

Okay, I have to explain myself here. First of all: Jesus is not God himself. He claimed that he was the son of God.....

To me Jesus is a human like Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Jane Goodall and many more people who preach peace and love. I don't know the whole bible by heart, but the Sermon of the mount is one of my fav.. Jesus said indeed to many 'sinners' according to the Scripture "Go and sin no more". But he treated them with respect and love and listened to them. He also said (and forgive me if I don't quote this literally: "Those who are without sin cast the first stone". He didn't judge 'sinners' the way we mortal humans do. We talk about sinners and how bad their sins are, yet we sin by judging them without looking at our own sin. Such a man is a cool guy.....I might not believe in God, but I do believe that Jesus existed and that he was a peaceful freedom fighter during the occupation of the Romans in his land. And the peaceful aspect/ way of life I love about him. The things he preached about the Scripture and the word of God....well, those are not for me.... So I don't see him as a cool guy because he is Jesus. I try to understand the way he approached human beings....with love and respect and compassion and that are characteristics that many humans lack, and that is a bad thing.


I am merely try to make you understand that saying that a lifestyle is sinful is not spreading "hate". It is God's and Jesus' intention to judge sin. One must also wonder how Queen can assert that something is "wrong" if we are just accidents of nature.

Okay, I never said that in nature there is no sense of morality or even righteousness. We humans think we are so special because of creation....we are merely a species that is evolved out of primitive ancestors. We are part of nature. We might live in a unnatural way, but we are just part of greater whole.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Socrates:

Quite so. The modern church is making the same mistake as the medieval church did in Galileo's time -- marrying their biblical interpretation to the science of its day. They allowed themselves to be duped by the Aristotelians of the universities that Ptolemaic cosmology was taught by Scripture, and thus opposed Galileo's challenges. We have gone through all this in the thread Was it the Church or secular scientists that condemned Galileo? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=78056#post78056).

The problem with Ptolemaic Science was that it was out-of-date and the Church had turned it into a theory that was co-eternal with scripture, instead of the best theory around during the time of Augustine.

Historically, Creationism was prior to Evolutionism. In the 19th Century there emerged some facts that led many scientist to reject the former and theism in favor of the latter, but since then Evolutionism has mutated and taken on different casts, not all of which are anti-theistic.

So to summarize:problem of Church w. Galileo was that it took its received scientific models as eternal truths, interpreted scripture in their light, and then viewed their disproving as implying a rejection of the authority of Scripture/Church.

problem of Church(es) wrt Evolution/Creationism was that Church had taken Newtonian Physics as eternal truths, developed its theology and interpreted scripture in its light, and then viewed the development of the vastly different world-view associated with Evolution as implying a rejection of the authority of Scripture/Church.

Your point presupposes the Truth of YEC and your method of apriorism begs the question of what sort of evidence would make you change your mind and accept evolution.


The modern church, epitomized by Noll, have made the same mistake in kowtowing to evolution and twisting Scripture to match. See these independently written reviews of his pathetic book, Missing the Mark: The Tragedy of the New Evangelical ‘Intellectualism’ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v10n1_br.asp) and Mark Noll’s scandalous criticisms of creation science (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/nollrev.htm).

Now DLW wants to church to kowtow to incredibly contentious ideas that homosexual behaviour is genetically determined and again twist Scripture to fit. This ignores the fact that people are still responsible for their choices. Indeed, even many in the homosexual lobby resent the idea that their choice is determined because it still, in their view, imputes an aberrance to their lifestyle, and that they would not choose it if they were not born that way.

My friend, please do not twist my words. I did not say that homosexual behavior/acts are genetically determined and have been consistently opposed to biological determinism. I have given evidence that fetal endocrinology plays a very important role in the determination of our sexual orientation.

Behavior is quite different from orientation.

An evolutionary perspective is open about how we see but through a glass darkly and must learn from both revealed truths and natural truths(with a persistent need to dig deeper in both areas) and are dependent on both sources in order to make wise choices about how we let our light shine in this world.

As such, it matters that we understand more about the process of fetal development, the determination of sexual orientation and our history of incredible differentiation of species across time and place, as well as the system of carbon-dating than was the case when the Bible was written. Accepting the judgments of the best scientists in these areas as to what is the best explanation of all the available evidence is a different thing that accepting the scientism view that the "scientific method" makes it so we should have no more need for the revealed wisdom of the past, packaged as it is in "non-scientific" texts.

The Creation account has just as much power and truth today as it did when it was first recorded so many years ago, but to understand it we need to understand the issues/concerns of the ancient Hebrew people and what was distinctive about their Creation Account relative to the competing creation stories of their times.

dlw

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay a preemptive caution is in order... we are entering passionate territory... please let's keep our passions on short tether.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dee Dee, why stop this discussion?

Queen, I was joking. DLW and I never agree on anything, and I think my joke was to shut the whole site down, not the thread.

[Queen]

:smile: Sorry Dee Dee , I misunderstood that joke.......I thought you were serious..... :argh:stupid me.... :wink:

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Actually, we both do disagree with pre-millenialism, so that might be a start...

dlw

[sdthomas]

(Trying to stay on topic here: "Morality & The Public Good", remember? :wink:)

Hi, Queen --


Today @ 08:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=234061#post234061)
Queen:

...nor are all homosexuals sinners...


This can be taken a few different ways, but I'm assuming that you are at least saying that homosexual behavior is not a sin. (To my understanding, it is immoral, although that alone does not render those who are merely tempted in that direction sinful.) But this looks like yet another assertion without much argument behind it. What are your reasons for holding this position? As I started to explain earlier, I believe there are good reasons to think otherwise...



Okay, I never said that in nature there is no sense of morality or even righteousness. We humans think we are so special because of creation....we are merely a species that is evolved out of primitive ancestors. We are part of nature. We might live in a unnatural way, but we are just part of greater whole.


This looks a lot like naturalism to me, Queen. Statements like the above make me wonder if you really believe that there is an objective right and wrong. If "we are merely a species that is evolved out of primitive ancestors", as an accidental byproduct of purposeless mechanical processes, then we aren't special and neither is the animal kingdom as a whole. There is no reason to think -- at least, none that seems compelling to me -- that human beings are valuable, deserve respect and protection (rights, police protection, etc.), and so on. Why think murder, rape, and child abuse are really wrong on this view, rather than just something some of us react to (at this particular moment of evolutionary history) with dislike? Does the wrongness of these acts depend upon what is in the minds of the individuals in question?

Take care,

Steve

[Queen]

SDTHOMAS:
This can be taken a few different ways, but I'm assuming that you are at least saying that homosexual behavior is not a sin. (To my understanding, it is immoral, although that alone does not render those who are merely tempted in that direction sinful.) But this looks like yet another assertion without much argument behind it. What are your reasons for holding this position? As I started to explain earlier, I believe there are good reasons to think otherwise...

QUEEN:
My reason? As long as nobody get's hurt or humiliated, like in those criminal examples you give again, and people enjoy their lives and love, respect and feel compassion for other life, I see that there is nothing wrong with the way they live. I mean, who am I to judge homosexuals and their sexual behaviors? What is so wrong about making love? Even if it is for one beautiful night of sharing lust? I don't understand why you feel that way. I don't understand it, because to me it is as normal as heterosexual intercourse. It is just a physical way to express feelings, love, lust and joy...like making love between two consenting heterosexual lovers, mates, friends or whatever you want to call them. To me it is beautiful.

Let me be clear on something. I am talking about consent here. Rape is without consent and NOT about sex, child abuse is a crime, murder is a crime....plain and simple. These things are not comparable with normal healthy sexual acts (homo-, bi, or heterosexual).


SDTHOMAS:
If "we are merely a species that is evolved out of primitive ancestors", as an accidental byproduct of purposeless mechanical processes, then we aren't special and neither is the animal kingdom as a whole.

QUEEN:
Purposeless mechanical processes? Wow, evolution of life is so much more......Descartes again? Life is defined in Archaea, Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes.....and those primitive organisms developed further. I mean, evolution of life is wondrous, beautiful and not some mathematical accident. We are part of nature, we are part of one big beautiful whole. We are not products. Human life isn't the highest you can achieve in evolution. It is not a ladder we climb from one primitive ancestor to the highest form of life (Human).....Evolution is partly adaption to the environment, gene mutation, development, survival of the 'fittest' (doesn't mean the healthiest organism, but the one that is best adapt to the environment). Certain organisms haven't changed over a period of many millions of years, humans have developed into the modern men in a 'short' period of time (about 6 million years....considering the earth is 4,5 - 5 billion years old, that is a short time.....modern human (homo sapiens sapiens has evolved very quickly......about 100.000 years. Don't pin me down on the numbers...I am just using estimates)....Evolution is such a beautiful process. It can't be caught in one simple explanation. Darwin was such a smart scientist..... :teeth:

Okay, we are not talking about evolution here, but morality and a sense of justice is not just a human trade. We discover more and more that these characteristics are also found in the rest of the animal kingdom...

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[sdthomas]

Hi Queen --

Thanks for your response. I believe that these topics are really important, and that it is crucial that we arrive at the right answers, or I wouldn't press you. When I asked what your reasons were for asserting that homosexual behavior was legitimate, you responded with:


Today @ 03:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=234733#post234733)
Queen:

My reason? As long as nobody get's hurt or humiliated, like in those criminal examples you give again, and people enjoy their lives and love, respect and feel compassion for other life, I see that there is nothing wrong with the way they live.


You've identified a couple of elements to consider, so let me take them in reverse order.

Love, respect, and compassion for other life: like in the example I gave earlier where the woman consents to being treated like a dog?

Or do you have another standard for love, respect, and compassion? You are presupposing a certain view of human nature to ground those terms, Queen. It seems to me that consent-alone is grossly inadequate, given counterexamples like the one I just mentioned. Same thing for throwing around terms like "making love".

You've got to wrestle with the arguments being presented before you can justifiably use those terms; otherwise they can end up doing a lot of rhetorical work for you. You risk papering over gaps in your position.

Nobody get's hurt or humiliated: Say a woman goes to her dentist, and he puts her under for some surgery. While she is unconscious, he engages in genital intercourse with her. When she wakes up, she knows nothing about it. As far as she's concerned, her tooth problem is addressed, she's happy about that, and she can go on with her life.

The scenario above is taken from actual cases. In what way was the victim hurt or humiliated? She doesn't even know what happened.

To be clear, I think this would be an egregious wrong, but if -- on your view -- what is in the mind of the victim is all there is to the evaluation, positively (enjoyment, etc.) or negatively (humiliation, etc.), then what grounds do you have for condemning such an act? There is no reaction to deal with.



Let me be clear on something. I am talking about consent here. Rape is without consent and NOT about sex, child abuse is a crime, murder is a crime....plain and simple. These things are not comparable with normal healthy sexual acts (homo-, bi, or heterosexual).


For the record, rape may or may not be about sex with regard to the desires or objective of the perpetrator. That it is "about sex" with regard to the bodily contact between the individuals cannot be questioned.

The problem is that with consent-alone as your standard, you have no way of arbitrating between competing views of the significance of such acts. Neither rape nor a punch in the arm come with the consent of the victim. What grounds do you have for saying that rape is a more serious offense? (Keep the other counterexample above in mind when you answer...)



Purposeless mechanical processes? Wow, evolution of life is so much more......Descartes again? Life is defined in Archaea, Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes.....and those primitive organisms developed further. I mean, evolution of life is wondrous, beautiful and not some mathematical accident. We are part of nature, we are part of one big beautiful whole. We are not products. Human life isn't the highest you can achieve in evolution. It is not a ladder we climb from one primitive ancestor to the highest form of life (Human).....Evolution is partly adaption to the environment, gene mutation, development, survival of the 'fittest' (doesn't mean the healthiest organism, but the one that is best adapt to the environment). Certain organisms haven't changed over a period of many millions of years, humans have developed into the modern men in a 'short' period of time (about 6 million years....considering the earth is 4,5 - 5 billion years old, that is a short time.....modern human (homo sapiens sapiens has evolved very quickly......about 100.000 years. Don't pin me down on the numbers...I am just using estimates)....Evolution is such a beautiful process. It can't be caught in one simple explanation. Darwin was such a smart scientist..... :teeth:

Okay, we are not talking about evolution here, but morality and a sense of justice is not just a human trade. We discover more and more that these characteristics are also found in the rest of the animal kingdom...


I don't think you've answered the question regarding the basis of morality. If all of us had evolved to think that child abuse was okay, would it still be wrong? On what grounds?

(I believe there are good reasons for thinking evolution did not happen as you seem to believe, but perhaps that discussion is better addressed in a different thread, at another time.)

Thanks and take care,

Steve

[Queen]

Hi Steve,

Hmm....evolution, yep that is another discussion....so we leave that to some other time...looking forward to that discussion though :wink:


Say a woman goes to her dentist, and he puts her under for some surgery. While she is unconscious, he engages in genital intercourse with her. When she wakes up, she knows nothing about it. As far as she's concerned, her tooth problem is addressed, she's happy about that, and she can go on with her life

QUEEN:
There was no consent, because she was unconscious and this qualifies as rape. Yes, she might not know about it, but that doesn't mean the dentist didn't abuse her, humiliated her body and even hurt her. I know many examples of young girls that drank too much and woke up why a man was raping them.....imagine the humiliation the girl feels. There is a law that protects those who are not able to give consent and if it is abused it is considered rape and there for wrong.

About that woman (or man) treated as a dog. Some people engage in SM games, it happens but the submissive person has the power to stop the game when he/she wants to. There is always a safety word or gesture. SM is about dominance and submission, but when there is no consent of both involved it is wrong. In that case the submissive has no power to stop it and that is considered rape, abuse or torture (depends on the act).

None of this happens in consenting homosexual sex/making love........It is like heterosexual sex, but with the same gender....belief me, I know this and being a victim of rape as well I know the difference and there is a big difference!!!


For the record, rape may or may not be about sex with regard to the desires or objective of the perpetrator. That it is "about sex" with regard to the bodily contact between the individuals cannot be questioned.

The problem is that with consent-alone as your standard, you have no way of arbitrating between competing views of the significance of such acts. Neither rape nor a punch in the arm come with the consent of the victim. What grounds do you have for saying that rape is a more serious offense? (Keep the other counterexample above in mind when you answer...)

QUEEN
Let me answer this with emotion and a very personal reacting. Too be honest it is hard to rationalize this so forgive me......I wish they had punched me in the arm, :bawl: I would not suffer from depression, guilt, low self-esteem and I would not need psychotherapy to give these happenings a place in my life. I was humiliated, hurt and a punch in my arm would have gave me a bruise that would have been healed after a few weeks.......

Thanks for your response and honesty. Good examples, I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction.

LOLAS,
Queen

[Da Lone-Warrior]

For the record, rape may or may not be about sex with regard to the desires or objective of the perpetrator. That it is "about sex" with regard to the bodily contact between the individuals cannot be questioned.

The problem is that with consent-alone as your standard, you have no way of arbitrating between competing views of the significance of such acts. Neither rape nor a punch in the arm come with the consent of the victim. What grounds do you have for saying that rape is a more serious offense? (Keep the other counterexample above in mind when you answer...)

I think we all have very good grounds for saying that rape is a very serious offense and this was a rather stupid question.

But you are right in that where social mores on sexuality have gone the "Sex in the City" direction, it does make rape easier since it ultimately comes down to one person's word against anothers...

dlw

[Queen]

But you are right in that where social mores on sexuality have gone the "Sex in the City" direction, it does make rape easier since it ultimately comes down to one person's word against anothers...

I belive this is not true. Rape is still a taboo and people do blame the victim often to put her or him self in a dangerous position. Nowadays the survivors of rape have a voice and they are heard more often. But talking about being raped is very difficult. It took me 20 years to tell anyone that I was raped.......because I was so ashamed of myself. I thought "how could I let this happen to me" But there is nothing I did that gave anyone consent and the right to rape me. Even if I was wearing a slinky red dress (I was wearing jeans and t-shirt by the way :smile: ).......but this is way of topic.... :offtopic::wink: :smile:

Homosexuality is not comparable with rape.....how much some of you use it as an argument, being raped is a crime and homosexuality is just who someone is. period.

LOLAS,
Queen

[sdthomas]

Today @ 09:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=234925#post234925)
Love-Warrior:


sdthomas:

The problem is that with consent-alone as your standard, you have no way of arbitrating between competing views of the significance of such acts. Neither rape nor a punch in the arm come with the consent of the victim. What grounds do you have for saying that rape is a more serious offense?

I think we all have very good grounds for saying that rape is a very serious offense and this was a rather stupid question.



Sometimes the questions which seem the most unnecessary to ask can unlock answers that others do not.

The point is, dlw, that the wrong of rape is not reducible to a violation of consent, as many offenses can occur without consent, but we still recognize vast differences in magnitude (morally) between them. Are you tracking with me?

(I am not clear that Queen is following the argument here, as she continues to say that I am equating homosexuality to rape. Perhaps an analogy would help?

Suppose I was baking a chocolate cake and so were you. Mine turns out awfully, but yours is good. We both used the same amount of baking soda; therefore, it must be some other ingredient that is the culprit.

Similarly, there is a lack of consent in many offenses, but there are serious moral differences (e.g. a punch in the arm vs. rape). Therefore, "it must be some other ingredient" -- it must be something other than consent -- that explains these differences.

There are limits to analogies, of course, but hopefully this will help to clear up misunderstandings about my argument, rather than exacerbating the problem.)

Once the issue of consent is put aside, the question becomes this: How to explain those differences? Is it one's emotional response, or is it something in the acts themselves? I am suggesting that it is the latter that makes the most sense of our moral intuitions.

More later...

Steve

[Da Lone-Warrior]

sdthomas:

Sometimes the questions which seem the most unnecessary to ask can unlock answers that others do not.

It wasn't a matter of unnecessary, but its appropriateness.


The point is, dlw, that the wrong of rape is not reducible to a violation of consent, as many offenses can occur without consent, but we still recognize vast differences in magnitude (morally) between them. Are you tracking with me?

Suppose I was baking a chocolate cake and so were you. Mine turns out awfully, but yours is good. We both used the same amount of baking soda; therefore, it must be some other ingredient that is the culprit.

Similarly, there is a lack of consent in many offenses, but there are serious moral differences (e.g. a punch in the arm vs. rape). Therefore, "it must be some other ingredient" -- it must be something other than consent -- that explains these differences.

There are limits to analogies, of course, but hopefully this will help to clear up misunderstandings about my argument, rather than exacerbating the problem.)

Once the issue of consent is put aside, the question becomes this: How to explain those differences? Is it one's emotional response, or is it something in the acts themselves? I am suggesting that it is the latter that makes the most sense of our moral intuitions.

More later...

Steve

I think we do need to stay on topic, for Queen's sake, but I think a more condensed way to say what you are saying that to say it's okay as long as its based on consent is to abstract from several contextualities and the question of whether our desires are themselves right in some ultimate sense.

The Christian perspective holds that God is the third party who is always harmed when we sin, even by consent, but that gets away from the "naturalness" stuff steve is trying to bring in to the picture...

dlw

[sdthomas]

Today @ 01:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=235288#post235288)
Love-Warrior:



It wasn't a matter of unnecessary, but its appropriateness.



I think we do need to stay on topic, for Queen's sake, but I think a more condensed way to say what you are saying that to say it's okay as long as its based on consent is to abstract from several contextualities and the question of whether our desires are themselves right in some ultimate sense.


Yes, I agree with your 'condensed way' of putting it. However, I'm not just attempting to 'put it'; I'm also attempting to show it -- which is a very different sort of task.

Regarding its appropriateness, I assume you mean that the subject is a painful one for Queen, and that I could have chosen a different way to say what I did. Perhaps you are right. My apologies, Queen. In the end, I am arguing that your feelings and your sense of violation in reaction to what you went through are entirely valid. At the same time, I am very concerned that your defense/advocation of homosexuality is going to undermine that validity. I don't think you can coherently hold on to both. But that is going farther than what I have explained to this point...



The Christian perspective holds that God is the third party who is always harmed when we sin, even by consent, but that gets away from the &quot;naturalness&quot; stuff steve is trying to bring in to the picture...


That's a long way off, argument-wise, though it is related to what I was saying about moral realism and evolution.

More later...

Take care,

Steve

[Queen]

Steve,

Thanks, you're sweet. The strange thing is....and I hope you don't misunderstand me, is when I say that homosexuality is a natural thing you say (and not you alone of course) that rape happens in nature as well.....but we don't accept that. I understood your point. You didn't say rape and homosexuality are the same thing.....you wanted to let me see that when things happen in nature we don't have to accept them in our human way of life....am I correct here?

But the thing is, and I tried to point that out....that in nature rape happens to reproduce. It is about sex. But rape isn't about sex...it is about power. Women (and men....we must not forget them) are raped in human social societies to overpower. It happens during torture, to shut some one up, to show the victim that her No is not valid, to submit a wife, to use it as a weapon....and so on. All reason to overpower. During the course of evolution we developed bigger brains and we also went through a cultural evolution, that has taken us away from nature in some sense. Homosexuality/bisexuality is just who you are.....rape is used to show that you are stronger, that you can do it, ie. men are mostly raped by heterosexual men that only want one thing, humiliate their victim.......

The closer we are related to the animal (we differ only 1.2% from chimps) the more their behavior is equal to ours. Through studying their behavior we learn a lot by human behavior. But we not only study chimps. We study many animals, and we discovered (or better the scientists) that homosexuality is found in 450 different species. And I am not talking about one time events, but life long lasting relationships.....(If I knew in how many species rape is observed, I would give you numbers, but I can't and I am not guessing here)

Yes, the subject is hard, but through my personal experiences on both I can show you that homosexuality is quite normal and not bad and whatever, and rape is horror. Consent.....it is all about consent from both partners

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[sdthomas]

Hi, Queen --

Waking up early to respond to your recent posts. Thanks for the leeway you've given me (1) to discuss a controversial subject that we disagree on, and (2) to approach the subject in a way that is difficult for you. I think, even if we do not agree in the end, that we can make some progress in understanding one another. Let me turn now to address some recent things you've said.

First, to defend homosexual behavior, you had written:


As long as nobody get's hurt or humiliated, like in those criminal examples you give again, and people enjoy their lives and love, respect and feel compassion for other life, I see that there is nothing wrong with the way they live. (emphasis mine)

In response to this I presented the 'dentist scenario'. You responded with:


Yesterday @ 09:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=234906#post234906)
Queen:There was no consent, because she was unconscious and this qualifies as rape. Yes, she might not know about it, but that doesn't mean the dentist didn't abuse her, humiliated her body and even hurt her. I know many examples of young girls that drank too much and woke up why a man was raping them.....imagine the humiliation the girl feels. There is a law that protects those who are not able to give consent and if it is abused it is considered rape and there for wrong.
My point was that people can be significantly harmed without being physically hurt and without suffering mental anguish. One need not be conscious of the wrong done to him or her. And this shows up most clearly in your conclusion that the dentist still abused the woman, and "humiliated her body". I agree completely, and here, I think, you are pretty close to my view. This opens up the possibility, though, that something similar is occurring during homosexual acts: that the body of the individual is being "humiliated" even when the individual thinks/feels otherwise.


About that woman (or man) treated as a dog. Some people engage in SM games, it happens but the submissive person has the power to stop the game when he/she wants to. There is always a safety word or gesture. SM is about dominance and submission, but when there is no consent of both involved it is wrong. In that case the submissive has no power to stop it and that is considered rape, abuse or torture (depends on the act).
It is crystal clear to me that the woman is being degraded whether or not she agrees to or enjoys being treated as a dog. If that scenario didn't strike you as humiliating, then you've given up way too much ground to support your commitment to "consent-alone" as a standard for ethical behavior.

Would you feel the same way if you saw a white man and black man playing similar parts, with the black man on the leash? Would the black community accept that sort of display if they knew it was done with the consent of the parties involved?

Turning to the next point, I had contrasted rape and other assaults. You responded with:


Let me answer this with emotion and a very personal reacting. Too be honest it is hard to rationalize this so forgive me......I wish they had punched me in the arm, :bawl: I would not suffer from depression, guilt, low self-esteem and I would not need psychotherapy to give these happenings a place in my life. I was humiliated, hurt and a punch in my arm would have gave me a bruise that would have been healed after a few weeks.......
Again, sorry for having said something that obviously went right to the heart of your nightmarish experiences, Queen. While I was reading your response, I was thinking "No...I didn't want this..." I really didn't expect to trouble you in that way and that was, as dlw implied, stupid of me.

Having said that, I think you have come to the conclusion that I have been arguing for, and perhaps I just took the long way around, given your personal history. I completely concur that rape is a far worse kind of assault than others -- like the Supreme Court said, "the ultimate violation of self" next to murder.

Now, the difference between rape and other assaults is not the lack of consent -- it is that rape involves and abuses the sexuality of the victim. So human sexuality has a strong relationship to the magnitude of the wrong done in rape vs. other offenses. This is very straightforward. Nothing tricky here.

The emotions and related difficulties (depression, low self-esteem needing psychotherapy) you described are, as I said before, entirely appropriate to what you have suffered. Not that you need me to tell you that. But I do also want to say that they are not the end of the story. What I mean is that rape is not serious because it makes you feel bad or suffer some psychological trauma. Rather, your emotional/psychological response is reflective of the moral harm done to you in violation of your sexuality, and is entirely appropriate on that basis. Does that make sense to you?

To recap,

Human sexuality is morally significant. That significance shows up when we consider the wrong of rape in contrast to the wrong of other assaults or offenses that also occur without consent. (It is the magnitude of difference that I am speaking of when I use the term 'significance'.)
The psychological trauma of the victims of rape, while not the explanation for the seriousness of rape, is also reflective of the significance of sexual acts.Conclusion: Sex just is morally significant, on its own terms, apart from issues of consent and apart from one's emotional/psychological state regarding it. If you've followed the arguments, this is the meaning of nature I am employing. It is not dependent on contingent factors, like consent or emotional/psychological response. Instead, it should inform us on matters of withholding or giving consent, and it should inform one's emotional state in various circumstances in which sex is involved. In other words, the significance of sex is a reality which demands a response from us -- volitionally, emotionally, and otherwise. The question is, what form should that response take?

I've said a lot. Some of it was a little abstract, but I hope you are tracking with me. Let me know what, if anything, you differ with or found confusing, and I'll try to clarify.

Once we have agreement on this much, then I think I can go on to show that we all have, in the sense articulated above, a heterosexual nature, and as such, homosexual acts are a serious moral wrong. They are wrong despite people consenting to them and despite whatever feelings of affection or satisfaction accompany them. I will argue that homosexual acts cannot provide a basis for the significance of sex, and engaging in them deprives those involved of the objective meaningfulness they ought to have in their sexual relations. Also, they have the potential to trivialize the wrongfulness of sexual assault.

Thanks for your patience, Queen, if you made it through all of that. Love and sunshine right back at you.

Steve

[Queen]

I know what you mean when you say that rape is a sexual assault and therefor results in all kind of phychological and physical problems. People (other people, not the victims) find rape something that should not be talked about because it is so personal. What makes it so personal? The fact that sex is involved. But through research they have established that rape is not a sexual act. That sounds weird....


[RAPE is forced sexual intercourse, including both psychological coercion and physical force. (I left out the sexual disscription because these can be horrific to read) This definition includes attempted rapes, male and female victims, and heterosexual and homosexual rape.
SEXUAL ASSAULT includes a wide range of victimizations, distinct from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include completed or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between the victim and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal threats. (RAINN)


http://www.paralumun.com/issuesprofile.htmThey are:
The power-assertive rapist
The anger-retaliation rapist
The power-reassurance rapist
The anger-excitation rapist

Such rapist behaviour profiles provide information that may be helpful in determining how best to respond to a specific kind of attacker.

These are the characteristics of each of the four rapist profiles:

Power-assertive rapist: Athletic, has a "macho" image of himself. More often than not, this is the type who commits date rapes. He typically meets his victim in a bar or nightclub. Instead of targeting a specific victim, he looks for an opportunity to get a woman alone with him, perhaps with an offer of a ride home or an invitation back to his place. Or he may con his victim into trusting him or letting him into her home, perhaps by posing as a policeman or repairman. Approximately 44 percent of rapes are committed by power-assertive rapists. He is physically aggressive, and will use the amount of force needed to control you -- degrading or obscene language, [brandishing] a weapon, slapping or punching -- but he does not intend to kill you.

Generally, begging and crying doesn't work with this guy. If you're going to resist, you've got to be serious. You've got to scream and fight him as hard as you can to get away.

Anger-retaliatory rapist: He feels animosity towards women and wants to punish and degrade them. Often he is a substance abuser. He is impulsive and has an explosive temper. He looks for an opportunity to commit the rape rather than for a specific victim. He attacks spontaneously and brutalizes the woman into submission. Thirty percent of rapists fall into the anger-retaliation category. He will grab you from behind and drag you into the bushes. He will often beat you to near-unconsciousness before committing the rape. Any level of resistance may well enrage him and cause him to beat the hell out of you until he gets what he wants. He's not looking to kill you, but the beating could be fatal. You do not want to challenge or enrage this type of rapist. You could try to escape. If you cannot get away or incapacitate the assailant, it's best to submit and try to limit the level of violence of the assault to the extent that you can.

Power-reassurance rapist: He lacks the self-confidence and interpersonal skills to develop relationships with women. He is passive and nonathletic. He lives or works near his victim, and "preselects" her by peeping or stalking. He typically breaks into her home in the early hours of the morning and awakens her. He uses minimal force and will threaten her with a weapon, but usually does not have one. He fantasizes that he is his victim's lover so he may ask her to disrobe or to wear a negligee and he will kiss her and engage in foreplay. The power-reassurance type accounts for 21 percent of rapists. He is the least violent type of rapist, and does not intend to hurt or kill you, Among the different types of rapists, he is most likely to be dissuaded if you scream, cry, plead or fight." In general it is more probable that you can discourage a rapist who uses this [power reassurance] approach. But you could instead be dealing with a power assertive rapist who is starting off with a softer approach. Try nonviolent tactics, crying, pleading, praying aloud while you're sizing up the assailant. If it works you may be able to escape the situation. But if he responds by becoming verbally abusive or degrading, he is likely a power assertive rapist and you will have to evaluate whether you are capable of fighting him off.

"Women need to rely on their instincts. When confronted with a rapist they will try various techniques. In this situation, take full advantage of your instincts in trying to figure out which type of rapist you are dealing with".


Anger-excitation rapist: A sadist, who derives sexual gratification from inflicting pain. He is typically charming and intelligent. The crime is premeditated and rehearsed methodically in his mind before it is attempted. His victims may or may not be strangers. He will tie, gag and blindfold them and torture them over a period of days, even recording his crimes in a diary, taking photographs or videotaping them. Just five percent of rapists fit this description.

Of the four types he is the most criminally sophisticated and it's difficult to catch him. He's got absolute control over you so there's no question of any type of resistance or of escaping. Oftentimes he kills his victims, either to get rid of a witness or to gratify a psychosexual need." This is probably the most dangerous situation a woman can be in. If you're tied up, you're going to have to match wits with this guy and trick him or talk him into untying you so you have at least some chance of escape.

Most rapists are not murderers. It is less likely that a woman - even one who has taken a women's self-defense course -- can overcome the intensity of the violence that an anger rapist will inflict. But power rapists commit nearly two-thirds of all rapes, and you have a fighting chance to fend them off. If you assess the situation and feel confident of your ability to fight or talk your way out of [being raped], go ahead and do it.

There are women who have yelled or fought back, whether they've taken self-defense classes or not, and have not gotten raped. To tell a woman 'don't do anything, be the passive female' is absolute (nonsense)."

Given that the goal of all women who are in imminent danger of being raped is to avoid it, they should rely on their instincts rather than assume that they have to submit. But whatever her instincts tell her to do, If a woman survives, she made the right choice.

Rape facts:
In the United States, a rape is reported about once every five minutes.
FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1997

Rape is called "the most underreported violent crime in America." In a large national survey of American women, only 16% of the rapes (approximately one out of every six) had ever been reported to the police.

Rape in America: A Report to the Nation,
National Victim Center, 1992

In a study conducted by the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers interviewed 8,000 women and 8,000 men. Using a definition of rape that includes forced vaginal, oral, and anal intercourse, the survey found that 1 in 6 women had experienced an attempted rape or a completed rape.

At the time they were raped:

22% were under the age of twelve
54% were under the age of eighteen
83% were under the age of twenty-five

Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women,
Department of Justice, 1998


In the Rape in America study, 60% of the women who reported being raped were under 18 years old:

29.3% were less than 11 years old
32.3% were between 11 and 17
22.2% were between 18 and 24
7.1% were between 25 and 29
6.1% were older than 29
3.0% age was not available

Rape in America: A Report to the Nation,
National Victim Center, 1992

Acquaintance rape is much more prevalent than stranger rape. In a study published by the Department of Justice, 82% of the victims were raped by someone they knew (acquaintance/friend, intimate, relative) and 18% were raped by a stranger.

From a report on Violence Against Women based on data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995

In the Rape in America study, 80% of the girls and women who were raped were victimized by someone they knew.

Rape in America: A Report to the Nation
National Victim Center, 1992

Rape statistics

Many surveys have been conducted to determine the prevalence and incidence of rape and sexual assault. The differences in findings across these various surveys are related to how rape and sexual assault are defined, characteristics of the sample selected for study, screening questions, interviewer training and techniques, and other methodological and procedural issues. However, in virtually every victimization survey conducted, the number of unreported rapes and sexual assaults far exceeds those that are reported to authorities.


Steve, you understand that these facts show that homosexual sex, acted out by two people who are madly in love is quite differnt from these crimes.........As a woman I have loved women and I have gay male friends who are in love and this is not different from heterosexual lovers/ married couples. Of course rape occurs in marriage as well, and therefor there is also such a thing as homosexual rape.......but believe me if I say that the people I know do consent and even enjoy their sexual acts...

Thanks for being so honest. We will always disagree on some level, but hey, what would be the use of forums on the Net if we agreed all on everything? Would the world be a better place....I dunno, to be honest...the world would be pretty boring.... :teeth:

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[sdthomas]

Hi, Queen --

Again, your response and the effort you are obviously willing to put into the dialogue are very much appreciated. In your last response, you wrote:


Today @ 10:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=236331#post236331)
Queen:

I know what you mean when you say that rape is a sexual assault and therefor results in all kind of phychological and physical problems. People (other people, not the victims) find rape something that should not be talked about because it is so personal. What makes it so personal? The fact that sex is involved. But through research they have established that rape is not a sexual act. That sounds weird....

I am aware that rapists have various motivations for rape that do not necessarily have sexual desire at the forefront (I think in some cases it may still be involved). But the problem is that you are conflating the motivations of the perpetrators with what is involved in the acts themselves. This is obvious from the first line of the RRAIN quote:


[RAPE is forced sexual intercourse, including both psychological coercion and physical force. (I left out the sexual disscription because these can be horrific to read) This definition includes attempted rapes, male and female victims, and heterosexual and homosexual rape... (RAINN)

What sort of intercourse is it? sexual

What sort of description did you leave out, above, due to its graphic nature? sexual

What sort of assault, generally, is being discussed? sexual

The motivations of the perpetrators are irrelevant in the sense of the word that I have employed, and as such, what you have quoted on the mindset of the miscreants does not address the argument I have presented, as far as I can see.



Steve, you understand that these facts show that homosexual sex, acted out by two people who are madly in love is quite differnt from these crimes.........As a woman I have loved women and I have gay male friends who are in love and this is not different from heterosexual lovers/ married couples. Of course rape occurs in marriage as well, and therefor there is also such a thing as homosexual rape.......but believe me if I say that the people I know do consent and even enjoy their sexual acts...


I do understand that the motivations are different, Queen, and that consent is involved in homosexual acts. But you are still not considering the nature of the act itself. Maybe another analogy will help.

Suppose you have a beautiful gold ring -- a very costly one worth a lot of money. Someone steals the ring. And suppose that other people are freely giving their rings to one another.

Your objection is like saying that stealing your ring is not like those other people giving their rings to one another. Yes, that's true. However, that is not what I am concerned with. Put that aside for a minute. So far, in what I have argued, I am talking only about the worth of the ring. That is quite a different matter than whether or not someone took it.

The same is true of sexuality. Rape is like the taking of the ring. Other people give their sexuality away freely. But what is the significance of the thing being taken or given? What is the significance of sex? That is the question I have been attempting to address.

The analogy is limited, of course, but if this makes sense, all that I am saying at this point is that human sexuality is immensely morally significant. It grounds our deeply held intuitions about the gravity of sexual assault, for one thing, and it makes institutions like marriage meaningful as well. (If sex is not immensely significant, you'll have a lot of explaining to do about why rape is so harmful.)

Hopefully that helps somewhat.



Thanks for being so honest. We will always disagree on some level, but hey, what would be the use of forums on the Net if we agreed all on everything? Would the world be a better place....I dunno, to be honest...the world would be pretty boring.... :teeth:


Why think we will "always disagree on some level"? Perhaps we will agree in time... I'm not ready to give up, yet, Queen. I think you are a reasonable person, and hopefully you think the same of me. If we're willing to work at it, perhaps you or I will change our views.

Thanks again and take care,

Steve

[Queen]

Steve, don't ask so many questions......I just have to answer all the time.... :teeth: Nah, I like this fair discussion.....


Why think we will "always disagree on some level"? Perhaps we will agree in time... I'm not ready to give up, yet, Queen. I think you are a reasonable person, and hopefully you think the same of me. If we're willing to work at it, perhaps you or I will change our views.

Or we meet half way.... :wink: I meant that we can like each other without agreeing on all levels..... :thumb:.

I am quite liberal and as a person who has searched answers in the bible for a long time, I have choosen for the science and my own moral feelings about many matters......Because there I found the answers I needed and I didn't found them in the bible. I admit, sometimes there is doubt and I say things like "If you really exist, God, don't ..........." mostly a sort of silly prayer for a friend, country, nature.......so there is doubt, but I was raised Catholic and with the believe that there is a God. But my God would not be so....'cruel'. Sorry for saying that, just experessing my feelings about God here......I don't plan to insult you or any other Christian.

I once told somebody (a friend of mine who is very religious) that if God really existed and I would meet him after I die, in front of the gate on the last judgement, I would slap Him/Her. Because I am so angry that there is so much misery in the world......She was insulted by that remark and I felt horrible. I didn't mean to insult her God or even her. But I meant it in a respectful way...so forgive me if I say something stupid......

(Hey Queen!!!! :offtopic: )

Okay, homosexuality.....sodomy...I don't understand why it is a sin. I mean the act itself.......sensitive subject here
What is so wrong about it? You use beautiful analogies but I still don't understand. Could you be more specific (if possible, because we have to respect the fact that sex is sort of hard to talk about on this site...out of respect for those who don't want to read it or ...you know what I mean). In the bible it is God's law that it is wrong, but it doesn't say why. I need a why. As a biology teacher I talk very open about sex. A student of mine once asked that she had no idea how homosexual men had sex. I explained it to her and that was hard enough. First of all it has to be respectful towards the homosexual community and it has also be respectful towards Christians or others with a strong faith....so I understand how difficult it is.....to me giving the ring away is sex with consent and stealing it is rape......But than we have a problem.....stealing it is not consenual homosexual sex in my book.....

You don't have to answer, but if I knew why you think it is a sin (and not only because it is in the bible) I would understand it better

you can of course always PM me about this, if this makes things easier to answer.....

Lots of love and sunshine,
And take care

Queen

[sdthomas]

Hi, Queen --

You wrote:


Today @ 03:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=237186#post237186)
Queen:
Okay, homosexuality.....sodomy...I don't understand why it is a sin. I mean the act itself.......sensitive subject here
What is so wrong about it? You use beautiful analogies but I still don't understand. Could you be more specific (if possible, because we have to respect the fact that sex is sort of hard to talk about on this site...out of respect for those who don't want to read it or ...you know what I mean).


and



You don't have to answer, but if I knew why you think it is a sin (and not only because it is in the bible) I would understand it better


What I have been attempting to do is lay some groundwork for why I believe homosexual behavior is wrong. So the first step in my argument -- which may seem somewhat unrelated to homosexuality at this point -- is this:


Yesterday @ 01:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=236539#post236539)
sdthomas:
...all I am saying at this point is that human sexuality is immensely morally significant. It grounds our deeply held intuitions about the gravity of sexual assault, for one thing, and it makes institutions like marriage meaningful as well. (If sex is not immensely significant, you'll have a lot of explaining to do about why rape is so harmful.)


Really I can't go any further unless you get this point.



I need a why...to me giving the ring away is sex with consent and stealing it is rape......But than we have a problem.....stealing it is not consenual homosexual sex in my book.....


Just bear with me, Queen. You can't take in all of the argument until all of the argument has been presented. I have only given the first step.

Just to be clear, think about the ring analogy for a minute. It matters not whether or not someone took the ring -- the ring's worth is independent of that. The ring's worth determines the extent of the gift or the magnitude of the wrong in stealing it. Sex is the same way. It's worth determines the extent of the gift in giving it or the magnitude of the wrong in taking it. I was only trying to get to the worth or significance of sex in a negative fashion, illustrating its magnitude through rape vs. other nonconsensual offenses.

In answer to your other question, the Bible does address the wrong of homosexuality, but you have to have an understanding of what the terms are. I'll try to address this in more detail next time if we can come to an agreement on what I've given to date.

Thanks and take care,

Steve

[Queen]

Hi Steve.....

Good arguments and of course you say some true things but let me give my thoughts with the ring analogy for a while so
bear with me as well. I hope you understand my chaotic way of thinking on this one.... :smile:


The ring's worth determines the extent of the gift or the magnitude of the wrong in stealing it.

Is that true I wonder. I have a very cheap necklace. It belonged to my grandmother and she gave it to me. After she died it became even more priceless. If it was stolen by someone, no money in the world would be able to re-pay the loss. I have a little book with wise sensible quotes. A very religious friend of me gave it for my birthday. It is not worth much and it talks of God and so on, but I read it and I miss her so much. She died this year. The priest of her church made her funeral a beautiful ceremony and very personal. I would not want to have missed that. I lost a very expensive bracelet once. It irritated me, because it had cost so much, but I don't miss it terribly. It was not nice to loose it, but I knew I would not lay awake at night for it.

Some things have emotional value, which is more important than the price tag. I believe that you are talking about the emotional price as well. When I was raped the second time, I wasn't a virgin anymore. Yet it felt as if I lost something very valuable, although I knew exactly what sexual intercourse was. After the rape *he* comforted me and told me nice things about. It didn't made me feel less ashamed or less raped. When made love to a woman she was sweet and gentle and that made me feel good about myself. It was just in the heat of the moment, she left, never saw her again and yet I didn't feel violated by her. Her love was a gift the other 'love' as he called it afterwards was terror.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say here. I understand your POV. I understand that you have trouble with these kind of love, because you believes differ from my believe. I also understand that you will treat them with the respect they deserve like every human being. Like you said we all sin.....so why throw stones when we are sinners as well/ (And I am as much guilty of it as anyone else here. I am only human and yes I sin according to biblical laws. I am not that shallow. I still believe that there is more than the eye meets. Why condemn something that is the choice of people or better, that is what makes these people complete......I would not want to change my life, not one thing, because it made me into who I am and I am not a bad girl at all... :wink: although I scare so people a lot with my liberal opinions... :eek: like that :lol:.

I asked these questions because I want to know more of the motivation and thought behind the 'sin'....so I can understand better your way of thinking. :ponder:
Understanding people's thoughts and reasons leads to more respect.......and more respect leads to a peaceful existence even if we are not quite the same in our thinking about how we should live our lives...... :kiss: ...

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

(PS: I don't know about you, but I like the way we discuss this, because we don't throw mud, and I hope that if I say something that is totally wrong you will tell me. I might have been angry at some of the Christians here, but this is probably because it is sort of personal......and they told me that I should behave...and they are right of course. I have also a strange sense of humor that not every body understands....so I really need help sometimes....Thank you)

[sdthomas]

Hi again, Queen --

Thanks for your patience. I had given you an analogy to try to help you see what I was communicating. I talked about a ring and how the ring's value was a separate issue from whether or not the ring was stolen. In response, you wrote:


Yesterday @ 09:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=237340#post237340)
Queen:

Is that true I wonder. I have a very cheap necklace. It belonged to my grandmother and she gave it to me. After she died it became even more priceless. If it was stolen by someone, no money in the world would be able to re-pay the loss. I have a little book with wise sensible quotes. A very religious friend of me gave it for my birthday. It is not worth much and it talks of God and so on, but I read it and I miss her so much. She died this year. The priest of her church made her funeral a beautiful ceremony and very personal. I would not want to have missed that. I lost a very expensive bracelet once. It irritated me, because it had cost so much, but I don't miss it terribly. It was not nice to loose it, but I knew I would not lay awake at night for it.

Some things have emotional value, which is more important than the price tag. I believe that you are talking about the emotional price as well. When I was raped the second time, I wasn't a virgin anymore. Yet it felt as if I lost something very valuable, although I knew exactly what sexual intercourse was. After the rape *he* comforted me and told me nice things about. It didn't made me feel less ashamed or less raped. When made love to a woman she was sweet and gentle and that made me feel good about myself. It was just in the heat of the moment, she left, never saw her again and yet I didn't feel violated by her. Her love was a gift the other 'love' as he called it afterwards was terror.


To be honest, I'm not sure why you would think that what you've said above would argue against what I was saying. You gave examples of things being valuable to you. And when you say, "When I was raped the second time, I wasn't a virgin anymore. Yet it felt as if I lost something very valuable, although I knew exactly what sexual intercourse was," that fits with my view very well. Your sexuality, that part of you, is hugely, morally significant. Thus it is very natural and right to feel that you had lost something valuable under those circumstances.

Perhaps you are suggesting that the value of the ring is subjective (emotional), rather than objective. That is true, and that is, unfortunately, the limit of the analogy. Not true of your sexuality, though, no matter what you think of it. Suppose two women were the victims of sexual assault, and one thinks it is no big deal -- she's not much affected by it. The other suffers all the emotional effects that you have. Was only the second significantly violated? Or are the emotions of the second more appropriate to what happened to her? Or, to put it another way, should we punish the rapist of the former in a less severe way than that of the latter, because of the individual emotional reactions of the victims?

And consider the dentist scenario in this light: the victim felt nothing in response to the rape. Didn't even know what happened. If we catch the rapist, maybe we should just let him go, or give him a ticket...?

I don't think so. More than that: I say emphatically "NO!" These kinds of questions show us that the meaning of sexuality is not easily reduced to the subjective.


I hope you understand what I am trying to say here. I understand your POV. I understand that you have trouble with these kind of love, because you believes differ from my believe. I also understand that you will treat them with the respect they deserve like every human being. Like you said we all sin.....so why throw stones when we are sinners as well/ (And I am as much guilty of it as anyone else here. I am only human and yes I sin according to biblical laws. I am not that shallow. I still believe that there is more than the eye meets.

On that last point, I also think there is "more to this than meets the eye" (I assume that's what you meant). That is why I am arguing in the fashion I am. Despite superficial similarities (consent, pleasure, emotional satisfaction), there are serious moral differences between heterosexual and homosexual conduct. I hope to show why in the posts ahead.



Why condemn something that is the choice of people or better, that is what makes these people complete...?

Queen, you keep asking me questions like this, but you are presupposing so much in doing so, and I've only just started to explain my line of thinking. We've gone back and forth a lot, but I'm still not sure that you have understood what I am saying. Are you getting it? It is a crucial point, and you really haven't given me a straight answer. Let me put it simply: If sex is not morally significant, then sexual relationships are no more meaningful than any others, and sexual assault no worse than other types of assault. Agree or disagree?


(PS: I don't know about you, but I like the way we discuss this, because we don't throw mud, and I hope that if I say something that is totally wrong you will tell me. I might have been angry at some of the Christians here, but this is probably because it is sort of personal......and they told me that I should behave...and they are right of course. I have also a strange sense of humor that not every body understands....so I really need help sometimes....Thank you)

Thanks to you, too. The dialogue has been very civil, and you've been very kind to stay with me through it for so long. I'm hopeful that we can make some progress in the next few posts.

Take care,

Steve

[Queen]

Hi Steve,

I am frustrating you, I think....I am sorry.....My mind doesn't seem to understand...Let me try to explain what I mean and why it is hard for me to grasp your POV (That doesn't mean that I don't respect it...)

I do understand the fact that you feel that homosexuality (well, the sexual act of course) is morally wrong. The bible tells you this and your guts. You don't feel right about it, it is something you can't understand. Especially because promiscuity is something that happens a lot in the gay community (well, it also happens a lot in the hetero sexual community, but it is more accepted these days.....mind: I am not saying you condone that behavior...I was speaking in general terms).

But I am not talking about promiscuity here. Let me give you an example from my point of view:
I love my husband and I am faithful (well, not always in my fantasy, but that is another discussion. I want to be honest). Imagine that our marriage fails (I hope not!!!) and we are going our separate ways. I am an adult and I don't want to spend the rest of my life alone. I go out, meet people and so on. Now I bump into a woman and she is lovely, sweet warm and gentle. We fall deeply in love and we spend the rest of our lives together. We are so into each other that we also express out deep love physically. We even get married (In Holland that is possible). So, here is my question....why is that morally wrong? We don't harm anyone else , we are not forcing anyone to be gay as well, we just live our lives like normal human beings........

That is what I miss here. Why is that morally wrong? I just can't grasp that. I know you explained it to me and I understand all your examples, but something in me misses the point. What is so morally wrong about love between two people? I am sorry, but I just.....aaarrrggg. I don't no how else I should express my confusion about it. I frustrate myself here :teeth: ...This is hard to explain in words..... :metro:

No analogies, just tell me why it is wrong...I am not talking about the mental love people feel, but the pure physical expression.

I am sorry, I don't know how else to ask. You say profound things about sex that I also find morally wrong...I just can't see the link between the criminal act and the love making.....

I meant with the necklace that you find it cheap and not worth to be saved, but that I think that it is from an individual point of view. I find the necklace too important to throw away, it would hurt me too much!

Sorry

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[sdthomas]

Yesterday @ 02:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=239632#post239632)
Queen:

Hi Steve,

I am frustrating you, I think....I am sorry.....My mind doesn't seem to understand...Let me try to explain what I mean and why it is hard for me to grasp your POV (That doesn't mean that I don't respect it...)

I do understand the fact that you feel that homosexuality (well, the sexual act of course) is morally wrong. The bible tells you this and your guts.

Actually, its more for philosophical reasons, though the Bible does argue against it as well.



You don't feel right about it, it is something you can't understand. Especially because promiscuity is something that happens a lot in the gay community (well, it also happens a lot in the hetero sexual community, but it is more accepted these days.....mind: I am not saying you condone that behavior...I was speaking in general terms).

But I am not talking about promiscuity here. Let me give you an example from my point of view:
I love my husband and I am faithful (well, not always in my fantasy, but that is another discussion. I want to be honest). Imagine that our marriage fails (I hope not!!!) and we are going our separate ways. I am an adult and I don't want to spend the rest of my life alone. I go out, meet people and so on. Now I bump into a woman and she is lovely, sweet warm and gentle. We fall deeply in love and we spend the rest of our lives together. We are so into each other that we also express out deep love physically. We even get married (In Holland that is possible). So, here is my question....why is that morally wrong? We don't harm anyone else , we are not forcing anyone to be gay as well, we just live our lives like normal human beings........

Okay, good. That's the best possible scenario which looks roughly equivalent to a normal heterosexual relationship in some respects. This is just the sort of scenario I think my argument can address. More below...



That is what I miss here. Why is that morally wrong? I just can't grasp that. I know you explained it to me and I understand all your examples, but something in me misses the point.
Actually, no, I haven't explained it, Queen. :shocked: What I am (trying desperately :wink:) to communicate is an argument -- something like this: Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.Our conversation has gone something like this: You keep saying, "I don't get it, Steve. Socrates just doesn't seem like a mortal to me." I keep saying, "Hold on, do we agree that Socrates is a man?" I have only been trying to get the first point across, Queen, because everything else hangs on that premise -- logically and morally. I've never been sure that we were on the same page, so I haven't moved on from there.

The first point is that human sexuality is (not that you haven't heard this from me before) immensely morally significant. One way -- I think one of the better ways -- to illustrate that is to contrast rape with other offenses that also lack consent. Then one can get a grip on the moral difference there, and we can see that the difference is strongly connected to sex.

Okay. You with me? That's just step #1. I will outline the rest below.



No analogies, just tell me why it is wrong...I am not talking about the mental love people feel, but the pure physical expression.

I am sorry, I don't know how else to ask. You say profound things about sex that I also find morally wrong...I just can't see the link between the criminal act and the love making.....

Okay. Here is what I am going to argue, perhaps in various ways:
Human sex/sexuality is profoundly morally significant (e.g. it is enough to make rape a felony over and against misdemanor offenses). Heterosexuality is unavoidably connected with the significance in (1), above.
The practice of homosexuality denies (2). It essentially says that the distinctive features of heterosexuality are morally irrelevant.
Therefore, the practice of homosexuality denies the moral significance of sex in (1).
Therefore, the practice of homosexuality is immoral.Or I could go this way Human sex/sexuality is profoundly morally significant (e.g. it is enough to make rape a felony over and against misdemanor offenses). Heterosexuality is unavoidably connected with the significance in (1), above.
Therefore, human beings have a heterosexual (moral) nature.
Therefore, homosexuality is against our moral nature.
Therefore, the practice of homosexuality is immoral.Really, (1) and (2) in each of the above syllogisms are really the most important parts. Everything else falls out once those are in place.

This is just the "map" of where I am going. My next task is to show that (2) is true. I'll save that for next time.



Sorry

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen No problem, Queen. Perhaps I have been the one dragging this out. :bonk: Hopefully we can build on this and you will come to understand my position more fully. In the meantime, let me know your thoughts as you have time.

Thanks and take care,

Steve

[Queen]

Hi Steve,

Good way of thinking.....


1. Human sex/sexuality is profoundly morally significant (e.g. it is enough to make rape a felony over and against misdemeanor offenses).
2. Heterosexuality is unavoidably connected with the significance in (1), above.
3. Therefore, human beings have a heterosexual (moral) nature.
4. Therefore, homosexuality is against our moral nature.
5. Therefore, the practice of homosexuality is immoral.

Sounds logical. If you look at it this way it is even true. But why do moral standards change with time? Why do we adapt our morals? Because some morals are not of this day and age because science has proven so many things as normal behavior.
(Of course I am talking about moral standards that benefit everybody and don't discriminate and so on....so, healthy 'normal' moral standards.....you know what I mean). I am so glad that by researching animal life we learn so much about human behavior and are able to accept other lifestyles because of ethology....

So here is my view:

1. Human sex/sexuality is profoundly morally significant (e.g. it is enough to make rape a felony over and against misdemeanor offenses).
2. Heterosexuality and homosexuality is unavoidably connected with the significance in (1), above.
3. Therefore, human beings have a heterosexual and homosexual (moral) nature.
4. Therefore, the practice of homosexuality is moral.

But I understand why you are thinking the way you are thinking. It sound unhygienic, weird to even think that people enjoy sodomy and it is "unnatural" because two creatures of the same gender can not procreated.....Homosexuality is known as a promiscuous way of life.......AIDS has given it even a worser image. It is that homosexuality needs a more positive look at....and it will be general accepted......we fear what we do not understand......and we 'hate' what we fear....

I know you don't hate homsexuals, you find the act a sin. It is what your faith and your feelings are telling you. I respect that. I even admire strong faith. I am just afraid that some people don't respect homosexuals at all......the fact that those people get death threats because of their 'lifestyle' frightens me......

My little theory: :wink: We are all bisexual, some are like me, some are more attracted to the same gender and some are more attracted to the opposite gender. Why is homosexuality immoral? Because it is not natural? So why does it occurs in nature as well (and I mean the long life relationships between two animals of the same gender)?

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[sdthomas]

Yesterday @ 10:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=241966#post241966)
Queen:

So here is my view:

1. Human sex/sexuality is profoundly morally significant (e.g. it is enough to make rape a felony over and against misdemeanor offenses).
2. Heterosexuality and homosexuality is unavoidably connected with the significance in (1), above.
3. Therefore, human beings have a heterosexual and homosexual (moral) nature.
4. Therefore, the practice of homosexuality is moral.


Okay, now let's test our respective theories. I'm going to get just slightly explicit here, due to the nature of the subject, but hopefully it won't rise to a censorable level.

Suppose two women face one another. One reaches out and touches the other. What between them explains the moral differences in touching the shoulder vs. touching the breast vs. touching the genital region?

(Again, if you need to get some perspective on the moral differences here, you can think of it in terms of sexual assault -- there are significant differences in touching those areas. And this works with either homosexual or heterosexual contact, so I'm not comparing homosexual contact to the assault-nature of it.)


I know you don't hate homsexuals, you find the act a sin. It is what your faith and your feelings are telling you. I respect that. I even admire strong faith. I am just afraid that some people don't respect homosexuals at all......the fact that those people get death threats because of their 'lifestyle' frightens me......
You are right: I don't have any hatred toward homosexuals at all. I have friends and family members who are homosexual. I do get annoyed with the over-the-top gay rights organizations, though, because I think they are more propaganda machines than people interested in the truth.

BTW, "faith and feelings" are nice, but I have reasons for believing what I do that I think are perfectly available to those who do not share my faith and feelings. I recommend concentrating on the arguments.


My little theory: :wink: We are all bisexual, some are like me, some are more attracted to the same gender and some are more attracted to the opposite gender. Why is homosexuality immoral? Because it is not natural? So why does it occurs in nature as well (and I mean the long life relationships between two animals of the same gender)?
Desires have little or nothing to do with determining morality. They should, if properly formed, take their cues from moral principles, and not the other way around. Otherwise, any desire could be the basis of morality.

Looking forward to your response. Take care,

Steve

[Queen]

Hi Steve,

First of all, I am a biology teacher and have given sex education, so I am not shocked by using explicite terms. I fact I really do my best to avoid it...I can be really staright foreward whenit comes to sexuality and the human body. There aren't a lot of things that shock me... :wink:


(Again, if you need to get some perspective on the moral differences here, you can think of it in terms of sexual assault -- there are significant differences in touching those areas. And this works with either homosexual or heterosexual contact, so I'm not comparing homosexual contact to the assault-nature of it.)

I understand....we got beyond that sort of discussion.....but thanks for clarifying


Suppose two women face one another. One reaches out and touches the other. What between them explains the moral differences in touching the shoulder vs. touching the breast vs. touching the genital region?

I know what you are trying to say. If both women enjoy their touches and both have sexual pleasure from it, expressing their love for each other in this physical way (touching their breasts and genital region) I don't see what is morally wrong with it. If one of the women doesn't want to be touched in this fashion, and the other woman is still touching her that way, then you have crossed the line in morally right and wrong.

I know that the first time this happens can make you feel nervous and scared, but that is in heterosexual contacts as well. The first time is exciting for both participants....

I guess it is an individual view on what is morally wrong or right. And it is hard to set straight boundries on this....especially on healthy sexual contact. The thing is that what I find completely normal, may shock others. Individual view on sexuality, I guess.


I do get annoyed with the over-the-top gay rights organizations, though, because I think they are more propaganda machines than people interested in the truth.

I understand why the gay movement is so "annoying" because they have been discriminated for so long and still suffer from discrimination and so on. I do agree that you can exaggerate, but I do understand it can be annoying.

What scares me is someone that is standing outside a graveyard with the text : "God punishes Sodomites and sinners" when you just have buried a friend or a family member who was homosexual and died of AIDS, because this happens as well. It is horrible when you lost a loved one and someone is saying that it is a good thing that he/she died such a horrible death.....That is very disturbing to me.

I guess we have to find a way to accept each other POV's without hating one another...and I believe we are setting a good example here. We respects each other's view, do not insult each other, but share the way we feel about this topic....so yes, it is possible to respect each other and still have your own point of view. I like that and I don't feel discriminated or insulted by your views, because you do respect mine...respect doesn't have to mean we agree.......just wanted to thank you for that.... :flowers:

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[sdthomas]

Hi, Queen --

Thanks for "tuning in" again and for your latest response. Regarding the scenario I presented last time,


Steve:

Suppose two women face one another. One reaches out and touches the other. What between them explains the moral differences in touching the shoulder vs. touching the breast vs. touching the genital region?
You wrote,


Today @ 08:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=242709#post242709)
Queen:

I know what you are trying to say. If both women enjoy their touches and both have sexual pleasure from it, expressing their love for each other in this physical way (touching their breasts and genital region) I don't see what is morally wrong with it. If one of the women doesn't want to be touched in this fashion, and the other woman is still touching her that way, then you have crossed the line in morally right and wrong.
and


I guess it is an individual view on what is morally wrong or right. And it is hard to set straight boundries on this....especially on healthy sexual contact. The thing is that what I find completely normal, may shock others. Individual view on sexuality, I guess.
I'm trying to make sure I understand you, Queen. Is that last paragraph (immediately above) what you are saying with regard to the moral differences between those touches? That it is up to the individual involved?


What scares me is someone that is standing outside a graveyard with the text : &quot;God punishes Sodomites and sinners&quot; when you just have buried a friend or a family member who was homosexual and died of AIDS, because this happens as well. It is horrible when you lost a loved one and someone is saying that it is a good thing that he/she died such a horrible death.....That is very disturbing to me.
I agree with what you have said completely, and the vast majority of Christians are reasonable people -- even when objecting against homosexual behavior -- and are horrified to see someone (Fred Phelps is the paradigm offender) doing that in the name of Christ. Sadly, he also gets far more press than people who attempt to take a principled and respectful approach to the subject.


I guess we have to find a way to accept each other POV's without hating one another...and I believe we are setting a good example here. We respects each other's view, do not insult each other, but share the way we feel about this topic....so yes, it is possible to respect each other and still have your own point of view. I like that and I don't feel discriminated or insulted by your views, because you do respect mine...respect doesn't have to mean we agree.......just wanted to thank you for that.... :flowers:
Thanks, Queen. It is a rare thing to have a civil dialogue like ours, on such a controversial topic, coming from very different points of view. I have attempted conversations like this in the past and have not been treated as well (sounds like you've had a similar experience) as you have treated me. You have been very kind, patient, and tolerant all around, and I thank you for that. And it is clear that you are putting in a genuine effort to understand me.

Take care,

Steve

[Queen]

Hi Steve,
I understand this question.....good one. Yes, I do need to explain this further


I'm trying to make sure I understand you, Queen. Is that last paragraph (immediately above) what you are saying with regard to the moral differences between those touches? That it is up to the individual involved?

We have rules and laws and so on.....we have certain moral standards about how to behave towards other human beings/living creatures. Yet we have also our own moral standards in our homes. Not every kid is allowed to go on a date at 14 yo. Parents who do so are considered morally wrong by parents who allow their kids to go out on the age of 17 yo. Every house has it's own values and as long as they are within normal behavior, there is nothing wrong with it. I am not talking about moral standards that fade away and is considered criminal behavior.

So, within the moral standards of a homosexual couple, they are allowed to express their love (or even lust) for each other in their own way. I mean we don't have sex in public, but in the comfort of a home or hotel room or....whatever. I do not like to watch heterosexuals going at it LIVE as well. :eww: ......

So, if these women like it and feel what they do is as normal and morally allowed as heterosexual sex....they are not doing anything wrong. When one of both women coerces the other woman to have sex and she does not want it....that is when moral boundaries are overstepped....

I hope you understand what I am trying to say. I know that in the USA in certain States sodomy is against the law. Which is ridiculous if two people consent...I think that law is out of date....I think it is a law from the dark ages..... :eww:

I believe most human beings are able to have healthy and wise moral standards, even if they are different from the next door neighbors moral standards, most people behave fairly normal. I know the world is filled with "insane" people with no moral standards, but most of the human beings are quite normal.

Respect, compassion and a sense of justice combined with your own moral standards as well....makes a good human being.

Steve I hope you understand what I am saying here. Like eg. I am not even killing flies in my home. Most people think that it is insane, because they are just flies. But I believe that all living creatures have the right to live. So, I catch them and place them outside, back in 'nature' where they belong. If people visit my home, I hope they respect this moral standard. Like I would never make love to a woman, when people don't think it is appropriate in their house. I would never touch another woman when she doesn't want to have sex with me. I respect their view and moral standards....it should go both ways.....

I want to understand, because this sin thingy is rather confusing, but I understand your view better now. I don't agree with it, but I understand and respect it....and I feel that you respect my view as well......

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[sdthomas]

Hi, Queen --

You wrote:


Today @ 02:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=243559#post243559)
Queen:

We have rules and laws and so on.....we have certain moral standards about how to behave towards other human beings/living creatures. Yet we have also our own moral standards in our homes. Not every kid is allowed to go on a date at 14 yo. Parents who do so are considered morally wrong by parents who allow their kids to go out on the age of 17 yo. Every house has it's own values and as long as they are within normal behavior, there is nothing wrong with it. I am not talking about moral standards that fade away and is considered criminal behavior.

So, within the moral standards of a homosexual couple, they are allowed to express their love (or even lust) for each other in their own way. I mean we don't have sex in public, but in the comfort of a home or hotel room or....whatever. I do not like to watch heterosexuals going at it LIVE as well. :eww: ......

So, if these women like it and feel what they do is as normal and morally allowed as heterosexual sex....they are not doing anything wrong. When one of both women coerces the other woman to have sex and she does not want it....that is when moral boundaries are overstepped....
I think I sense some reluctance on your part to give me a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the question I asked last time. Should I read you as saying that the moral differences between those touches (in the scenario I described) are reducible to opinion, but only once consent is in place?

Thanks again and take care,

Steve

[Queen]

Hi Steve,

I think it is up to those who are both involved in touching. I mean, between man and woman touching like this depends also on the consent of the individuals and their own moral sense.

If two people are attracted to each other, they do not immediately run home and have sex. Sometimes it is just a matter of lust and a one time event, but let us put that aside....

In such a scenario, two human beings are involved and two human beings decide what they want and don't want. I have a beautiful lovely friend and we are friends for a long long time, Yes, I have physical feelings for her as well, but I would never cross that line, because she is heterosexual and doesn't want the physical part of our relationship. I sometimes sleep next to her in her bed, when I visit. I just respect her and behave....I am at a point that the physical attraction is gone, although I feel not ashamed about the fact that I find her very attractive....I would be so wrong if I would cross her boundaries, her moral and mental feelings. I would destroy a very precious friendship and I would be the same as my rapists....if I would not listen to her. I never even tried to touch her.......she knows who I am and I know who she is. We respect each other too much........

So, it is up to BOTH individuals, not one of them decides...

Gosh, is it even possible to answer this question with yes and no.....Maybe the person that is going to be touched decides if she wants it or not......not the one who wants to touch......she knows already what she wants. They both decide....

Does this make any sense to you, because I sound even confusing to myself..... :huh:

Moral standards are hard to outline sharply.....it is like the waves of the sea. They are not solid, they are influenced by your lifestyle. I know a few very religious homosexual people, who live by the bible and believe in God, yet not that little part that says their way of life is a sin (they have sex)......their moral standards are based upon the bible, yet adapted to their own lifestyle...

Is that the answer you are looking for?

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[sdthomas]

Hi, Queen --

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! :smile: You ended your last post with


Today @ 07:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=243621#post243621)
Queen:

Is that the answer you are looking for?

Yes and no. It is an answer that I think is consistent with adopting homosexuality (or bisexuality) as a legitimate option. So I was "looking for" it in the sense that I was expecting it. However, it is also very problematic in light of where we have come from in this discussion.

You wrote


I think it is up to those who are both involved in touching. I mean, between man and woman touching like this depends also on the consent of the individuals and their own moral sense.
and


In such a scenario, two human beings are involved and two human beings decide what they want and don't want.
I think there is a lot of tension in your view, if I understand you correctly. You want to say that the moral significance of the contact described earlier is up to the individual, but this immediately suggests some problems, doesn't it? One person may consider the contact to be trivial. The other may consider it to be immensely significant. They can't both be right in any objective sense. And that would reduce the magnitude of sexual contact to something utterly subjective.

In previous posts, we've already driven a stake into the ground by saying that rape is a very serious evil, and that it's magnitude is not due to consent. Now, though, you appear to be reversing your position -- pulling out that stake -- and saying that the magnitude is entirely subjective. Which is it?

Now, you can respond to that with something like...


So, it is up to BOTH individuals, not one of them decides...

Gosh, is it even possible to answer this question with yes and no.....Maybe the person that is going to be touched decides if she wants it or not......not the one who wants to touch......she knows already what she wants. They both decide....
...but what about the fact that, when a rape is prosecuted, the convicted man is sentenced in a particular way? His crime is treated as a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, by the court. But he may not hold the same view of sexual significance that the court does. The victim might not either. How do we arbitrate between these conflicting views if sexual significance is left to a subjective standard?

Furthermore, what prevents someone holding such a subjective view of sexual contact from extending that same view to consent itself? Some, like yourself, may think it is important and others do not. Who decides? Why think this is any different than the question about sexual significance?


Moral standards are hard to outline sharply.....it is like the waves of the sea. They are not solid, they are influenced by your lifestyle. I know a few very religious homosexual people, who live by the bible and believe in God, yet not that little part that says their way of life is a sin (they have sex)......their moral standards are based upon the bible, yet adapted to their own lifestyle...

Sometimes moral principles can be difficult to discern at times. But often they are clear, if we have the right starting point. I can tell you that my view does not have the sorts of tension that yours seems to exhibit above (again, assuming that I've understood you correctly). Those questions are fairly easy to resolve:
Sexual significance is objective, not subjective (though we are still exploring the why question...).
That rape is treated as a felony rather than a misdemeanor is reflective of the objective significance of sexuality. It is not arrived at arbitrarily by the court or the individuals involved.
Consent is similar -- there is an objective level of respect due to it by nature (not 'nature' in the biological sense).Queen, I hope you can see the magnitude of the problem. There is a lot at risk here.

Take care,

Steve

[Queen]

Okay :huh: Thinking about a reply....

Hmm.....thin ice....very thin ice.

This is going to be very personal and could be hard to read. I try to avoid graphics here...........I hope you don't feel insulted, because I want to make you understand my thoughts about moral differences.....MY thoughts are probably different from others.....like the ocean, changing. I also hope you will understand that I tell you this to make you see how the mind of a victim/survivor of rape works. This could be the difference in our perception of morality. Bear with me, this is going to be hard.....


WATCH OUT READING









Rape is not about consent and NOT about sex. The act in itself is sexual and that makes it hard to understand, but the reason for the sexual act is to humiliate the victim, to show your power to the victim. A rapist has the power to use you as he pleases (I use he, because my rapists are male....female rapists do also exist). He uses his body, certain body parts as a weapon, not as a biological 'device' to reproduce nor as a way to 'melt' together as one. The rapist doesn't see his victim as a human being, he sees his victim as an object. He uses his voice as well, telling the victim that she is to blame, how ugly she is, that her behavior made him do it and that she has to shut up....

Okay, deep breath here.

The rapist is well aware of the crime, but scares the victim by treathening her that he would kill her, her loved ones, even her pets. He knows somehow exactly how to make the victim his in that short moment. To the victim such events feel like hours......

The first thing you want to do is scrub his filth of you and you want to be somewhere safe. To me it was the arms of the rapist, who comforted me after wards (second time I was raped). It is really weird, but I needed his comfort, his admittance that it was hard for me and he even accepted that I was shaking and crying.

But he knew exactly what he did. By comforting me, he knew that I would be confused and I would see it as making love instead of a crime. I felt stupid after wards, crying during the rape, asking, no pleating him to stop.....because he was such a good man.......His moral sense told him what he did was wrong, but his conscience found a way to make it up to me and the result was that I never reported it......Today I feel horrible about it, but if I had gone to court, he would have also used my embrace against me. He had that much power in that night.....He won, he had humiliated me and scarred me for life......

During the attempted rape, these men insulted me the whole time. After wards they told my boyfriend what I did and that I made them do it...I asked for it. Three men laughing, screaming and cheering each other on is not about sex. They just could do it and would have gone all the way, if I didn't saw a change to get out of their grip........they stopped, not because they wanted to, but they were disturbed.

So, that is rape....that is how it feels and it is just the harsh reality.

Sex is subjective, because you don't want to have sex with just anybody. It is not objective. Morals differ in cultures, sub-cultures and even in the home of your neighbors. So yes, it is subjective. But having a healthy moral look at life and sex makes sure that you don't cross those boundaries and by accepting other peoples morals you are not crossing that thin line.........

If I would meet a woman who reads the bible, who has feelings for me, but believes they are a sin and does not want to follow her feelings but accept them and hide them, I will respect those morals of her. It is not that I don't accept and respect the fact that homosexual sex is a sin. I just want to make people realize that it sin't a sin according to their morals.......

So yes, moral views are subjective, sex is subjective. You only make love to someone you find attractive and has the same feelings for you (could be lust, could be love....I will keep that open)

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Da Lone-Warrior]

The extent you love someone is the extent you are willing to give up "stuff" for them.

The example we hold out in Xty is Christ's death on the cross. However, while being will to die for someone or for others certainly is the a good example, it is rather rare today.

A much more common example of how you love someone is by giving up your "right" to have sex with others and to commit to a lifelong relationship with the other.

Most other "loves" fall short of this and pale relative to its glory.

Sex is more than mutually enjoyable exercise or a biological propensity for our self-propagation.

It is sacramental.

dlw

[Queen]

It is sacramental.

I will never deny that. It is true. I agree to a certain extent. it is also the need of the body and soul.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[sdthomas]

Hmm.....thin ice....very thin ice.

Dear Queen,

I'm wondering if we should continue. I'm worried about you. This is obviously very difficult for you and the process of clarifying my position and pointing out where I think you are mistaken will undoubtedly require more contemplation of ideas and situations that are quite painful.

I am at a loss to say where my responsibility is in this, given your terrible past experiences on the one hand, and given, on the other, your obvious interests in discussing the topic and arguing for a position contrary to my own. The responsible thing to do may be for me to call it off...I'm not sure.

We could back off of the sexual topic entirely and take up the issue of moral realism vs. relativism instead, as you seem to be saying that morality is subjective, rather than objective. That might be less trying for you, putting a little distance between your past and the ideas we discuss here. And we could still make some good progress on the other topic, indirectly, as our differences there are, I can see, impacting the argument I wish to make.

What do you think?

Steve

.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Queen:

I will never deny that. It is true. I agree to a certain extent. it is also the need of the body and soul.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

The need of the body and soul is to be loved, having sexual intercourse is not the same thing as to be loved.

dlw

[Queen]

Hi Steve,

The fact that you are concerned and worried about my well being is a moral standard for you. You care and that is sweet. I have the same moral standards. But you use the bible as a guideline as well, I don't. Here our moral standards change. What you consider a sin, I consider as love and something beautiful.

Let me explain. The words of God in the bible are important to you and you believe in them with your whole heart. I experienced the side of humans that is dark and painful. The side of sexuality where I saw a human being change into a weapon of hate. I looked in their eyes while I was dating them, and I looked in their eyes where I was being violated by them. They had changed. So whenever I see two people, in love, longing each other into the eyes with respect, gentle love and even just the fact that they need to touch just healthy lust, I think that it is wonderful. I have experienced sexuality in the most dark way possible.....my moral standards were adapted in that moment. I changed them.....I learned in that moment that love between two human beings is precious, and that was what I wanted. Someone who loved me, instead of overpowering me. I have seen a body change into a weapon....my moral standards changed at that same moment.

We have a lot of basic moral standards. e.g. we don't murder a human being. We know it is wrong and our moral antennae are telling us that it is wrong to take a life.

But I don't kill any living creature. My neighbor kills a bee without an blink of the eyes. When I witnessing it, I just can cry. I feel cold and nauseous. I would never be able to do something like that.

See, our moral standards are the same, yet they are different by the experiences we had in our lives. It is subjective, because we adapt them and even change them during the course of our lives.

Thank you for your concern. I am honestly moved by it.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Queen]

DLW


The need of the body and soul is to be loved, having sexual intercourse is not the same thing as to be loved.

Well, I don't know about you, but my body tells me when I have the need for sexual intercourse and my soul enjoys that feeling. It is a matter of hormones........caused to work when you see, hear and smell the one you love. Biology....it is biology.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[sdthomas]

Hi, Queen --


Today @ 01:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=244690#post244690)
Queen:

Hi Steve,

The fact that you are concerned and worried about my well being is a moral standard for you. You care and that is sweet. I have the same moral standards. But you use the bible as a guideline as well, I don't. Here our moral standards change. What you consider a sin, I consider as love and something beautiful.

Let me explain. The words of God in the bible are important to you and you believe in them with your whole heart.

Put the Bible aside. The particular moral standard we have been discussing -- that homosexual behavior is immoral -- is available to everyone apart from knowledge of the Bible. You don't need the scriptures to know that it is wrong. That is why I don't offer verses to back my position. I don't need to.


I experienced the side of humans that is dark and painful. The side of sexuality where I saw a human being change into a weapon of hate. I looked in their eyes while I was dating them, and I looked in their eyes where I was being violated by them. They had changed. So whenever I see two people, in love, longing each other into the eyes with respect, gentle love and even just the fact that they need to touch just healthy lust, I think that it is wonderful. I have experienced sexuality in the most dark way possible.....my moral standards were adapted in that moment. I changed them.....I learned in that moment that love between two human beings is precious, and that was what I wanted. Someone who loved me, instead of overpowering me. I have seen a body change into a weapon....my moral standards changed at that same moment.

We have a lot of basic moral standards. e.g. we don't murder a human being. We know it is wrong and our moral antennae are telling us that it is wrong to take a life.
Would it be wrong if we all had a different view about it? Say Hitler had won, and we were all adherents to Naziesque philosophy now. Say each of us believed that those of Jewish descent were not persons like we are, and that they were undeserving of protection, among other things. In your view, would it still be wrong to kill them? If so, why?


But I don't kill any living creature. My neighbor kills a bee without an blink of the eyes. When I witnessing it, I just can cry. I feel cold and nauseous. I would never be able to do something like that.

See, our moral standards are the same, yet they are different by the experiences we had in our lives. It is subjective, because we adapt them and even change them during the course of our lives.
That does not make them subjective. Subjective means that they are only within the minds of those who hold them, and that there is no reality to back them up -- in this case, subjective means no moral law. But there is an objective moral law, and individuals stand in various degrees of relationships to it. People can be right about various moral principles, and they can be wrong as well (or right about some and wrong about others -- we probably all fit into that one). Some people are right about the shape of the earth (an objective reality). Others believe that the earth is flat. Morality is no different.


Thank you for your concern. I am honestly moved by it.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen
Since you indicated that you'd like to continue, I'll try to answer your other post next time around.

Take care,

Steve
.

[Queen]

Hi Steve

I think our moral standards differ.........so subjective? I guess so or we would not have this discussion. :flowers:

Okay, you believe that Homosexuality is immoral.....the making love we are talking about, not the human. So, that is your view, a view that is of course shared by many, as are my views shared by many. I know that in certain states of the USA (don't know how many and which states) sodomy is forbidden by law. So if you practice it actively and you get caught, you are punished according to the law. That is honest because you know it is forbidden (at this point it does not matter if you agree with this law or not...these are just facts).

The human being that commits sodomy (hard for me to imagine that it is a crime) may have many of the same moral standards, (maybe all but one) about the way we live and how we should treat people and so on as you.....except this one standard. He wants to physically express and share his feelings with his lover (or both are women)

Sodomy is a way to express unnatural sex. If it happens in nature as well (here I go again) why is it unnatural? (I am talking about adult human on human sex with consent of course)

See, I don't see it....I am sorry, but I have studied animal behavior and a lot of things that might seem unnatural and even immoral are suddenly just normal....

Again my moral standards adapted during that course about a lot of things.

We learn the moral standards from our parents. If children are raised by people that are member of the Ku Klux Klan, they hate other people for their i.e. skin color. Little children of 4 years old learn that from their parents. Are they immoral? Not according to their parents and the society they grow up in....but I believe it is very immoral behavior.

So, moral standards are the same, but differ on certain levels. It is subjective.....

That Nazi world we live in....I can't answer that. Although I am Dutch my Dad was during the WW2 a USA soldier (don't ask how that is possible...long story :wink: ). I was raised to respect all human beings and my father never expressed hate against anyone. My brother has a German girlfriend and my father really loves her. He had good reasons to hate the German people (A nurse he loved was killed, he helped saving people from those horrible inhuman camps...but he does not hate them. He was raised as a hairdresser by his Dad, a lifestyle where you bump into many gay men (and at that time Holland was intolerant toward gay people).....he treated them with love and respect.....If I grew up in a Nazi world, my Dad would probably have learned me the same values and I would join the resistence......but kill human beings because they are different?....No, not if I am the same person I am now.

All these facts, all this I learned from my Dad, the many things that happened in my life, my study, my social contacts and my own feelings have given me my moral standards. Many of those standards we share, because it is 'normal' human behavior toward an other human being....but still we are subjective. Because we adapted, added and deleted certain morals from our moral standards.......and they differ, like every living creature. No one is exactly the same.....(or we would not have this discussion board :teeth: )

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[sdthomas]

Today @ 06:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=244787#post244787)
Queen:I think our moral standards differ.........so subjective? I guess so or we would not have this discussion. :flowers:

Are you suggesting that there is no objective right or wrong because there is some disagreement on the matter?



So, moral standards are the same, but differ on certain levels. It is subjective.....

That Nazi world we live in....I can't answer that.

For some folks, like myself, its not a difficult question to answer, Queen. It would still be wrong, even in a Nazi-dominated world. Now, if you and I cannot agree that killing innocent Jewish people is objectively wrong, how am I to reason with you to the conclusion that homosexuality is objectively wrong? Even if you, personally, agree with my arguments in the end, the conclusion still ends up being little more than personal opinion. Who cares?

Let me say something else. Whatever it is that is holding you back from concluding that it (murdering Jews) would be objectively, and not just subjectively, wrong -- you should seriously question those beliefs, if not discard them outright. You should always and forever be on the lookout for evidence to the contrary, because something of great importance hangs in the balance.



All these facts, all this I learned from my Dad, the many things that happened in my life, my study, my social contacts and my own feelings have given me my moral standards. Many of those standards we share, because it is 'normal' human behavior toward an other human being....but still we are subjective. Because we adapted, added and deleted certain morals from our moral standards.......and they differ, like every living creature. No one is exactly the same.....(or we would not have this discussion board :teeth: )
The same is true of scientific beliefs. I have learned what little I know from a variety of sources. My experiences have brought about changes in my views over time; i.e. I adapted, added and deleted certain beliefs from the body of scientific knowledge that I hold to...and exactly what I believe differs from a great many people in this world. Therefore...what? Our knowledge about the natural world is subjective, also?

Take care,

Steve

[Queen]

Hi Steve,


For some folks, like myself, its not a difficult question to answer, Queen. It would still be wrong, even in a Nazi-dominated world. Now, if you and I cannot agree that killing innocent Jewish people is objectively wrong, how am I to reason with you to the conclusion that homosexuality is objectively wrong? Even if you, personally, agree with my arguments in the end, the conclusion still ends up being little more than personal opinion. Who cares?

:huh: :egad: Oops....



I SAID: That Nazi world we live in....I can't answer that. Although I am Dutch my Dad was during the WW2 a USA soldier (don't ask how that is possible...long story ). I was raised to respect all human beings and my father never expressed hate against anyone. My brother has a German girlfriend and my father really loves her. He had good reasons to hate the German people (A nurse he loved was killed, he helped saving people from those horrible inhuman camps...but he does not hate them. He was raised as a hairdresser by his Dad, a lifestyle where you bump into many gay men (and at that time Holland was intolerant toward gay people).....he treated them with love and respect.....If I grew up in a Nazi world, my Dad would probably have learned me the same values and I would join the resistence......but kill human beings because they are different?....No, not if I am the same person I am now.

I meant that I have no idea who I would be in another world. Of course I would never kill an innocent human being....not even a guilty human being. I am against killing a human life, any life. You misunderstood me. I don't want to be accused of thinking that I would be able to that. I am sorry if you think that I would be able to do that. I am just who I am because I am raised in this time and age. If I was raised by Nazi's I would have other moral value's.....they are wrong, but NOT to them. They think their morals standards are correct. It is awful, but it is just the way it is.....

Hope I set that record straight.... :blush:


Our knowledge about the natural world is subjective, also?

Science changes. They discover new fact every day. So in a way the knowledge we have about the natural world is subjective. If I would not keep track of all the new facts in the biology I would give my students outdated and false information, yes.....that is the beauty of science, we learn new things every day.

Of course many things are just the way they are. But some POV in science do change.

See, we are all individuals and the things we read and learn we interpertate in our own individual ways, with the experiences we have from the past. That makes it subjective, even moral standarsd. Our moral standards differ as well......about homosexuality. Who says I am right and your moral standard is wrong? To me it is wrong, you believe homosexuality is immoral.....so, yes, subjective based on indidvidual views and experiences

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Queen:

DLW



Well, I don't know about you, but my body tells me when I have the need for sexual intercourse and my soul enjoys that feeling. It is a matter of hormones........caused to work when you see, hear and smell the one you love. Biology....it is biology.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

It is more than Biology and this leaves unquestioned the issue of whether all that we biological tend to desire is right or wrong. I know that I have hormonally-driven desires that are not right.

dlw

[sdthomas]

Queen, you're killing me. :argh:

:smile:

Talk to you later. Take care,

Steve

[Queen]

Steve, You poor thing

:huh:

Never my intension..... :lmbo:

I know I am stubbern.:metro: ....but so are you :tongue: Watch that head of yours!!!

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen.

[Queen]

DLW....Man you analyze every word....
:argh:



It is more than Biology and this leaves unquestioned the issue of whether all that we biological tend to desire is right or wrong. I know that I have hormonally-driven desires that are not right.

Hon, I mean a healthy normal romantic hot moment in some romantic room with a fireplace and so on....when I look at my partner in that moment....if she is a female, I can't control me...

I am not sneaking in dark alleys grabbing every male and femal that turns me own... :doh:

Healthy sex drive DLW....Healthy sex drive!!!

You're killing me!! :lmbo:

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Well, the secret then is to avoid such situations if your self-control is so weak.

You're just serially committing the naturalistic fallacy of rationalizing your behavior and there are problems when that sort of thing gets out of control.

dlw

[Queen]

weak self control?.....Hmm......I don't know. I am not perfect, I am only human...so maybe in some moments I do loose control.....but I never hurt anybody, so does a weak moment turn me into a bad person? Maybe it does...... :nsm: .....but I consider myself very respectful toward other people's wishes....

:huh:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

well,

I think my sticking point on this regard is that there are always affected third parties and that just because both parties are willing at the time doesn't make the act right.

dlw

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 09:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=245031#post245031)
sdthomas:

It would still be wrong, even in a Nazi-dominated world. Now, if you and I cannot agree that killing innocent Jewish people is objectively wrong, how am I to reason with you...?
Is it always wrong for conquering soldiers to follow their leader's command to slay all the male children and non-virgin females and to keep the virgins alive "for themselves"? (Numbers31)

You may say that God can kill whomever he chooses----perhaps; if he'd done his own butchering--- but it wasn't he who gave those orders to the soldiers. So maybe the commandment should read:
Thou shalt not kill---unless told to do so by someone who claims to have spoken with God.


Whatever it is that is holding you back from concluding that it (murdering Jews) [and slaying innocent children; LA]---would be objectively, and not just subjectively, wrong -- you should seriously question those beliefs, if not discard them outright.
Quite.


You should always and forever be on the lookout for evidence to the contrary, because something of great importance hangs in the balance.
What's that "something"---believe-it-or-ELSE?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

LA,

moral realism is at stake.

As for the numbers example, I think that the answer would be that the Hebrew's witness to the world depended on their cultural solidarity. The notion of sin and its consequences is organic, not individualistic here and the view was that intermingling with the other cultures would break down their cultural solidarity and open them to being dominated by other nations.

Much ancient cultures were very, very depraved. The phillistines would tie a pregnant woman's legs together, right before she was about to give birth, and watch as the fetus tunnels itself out her stomache. This was about the most slow and painful way of killing someone and it was what they watched for sport.

Earth had fallen so much under the domination of evil that entire nations were thoroughly corrupted beyond salvation. I'm not saying that the ancient israelites were beyond reproof, just that some important things changed with the coming and death of Yeshua on the cross that reduced the grip of evil on the earth and changed how we would relate to others, discipleship was made more possible.

dlw

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 03:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=245644#post245644)
Love-Warrior:
LA,

moral realism is at stake.

As for the numbers [Numbers31] example, I think that the answer would be that the Hebrew's witness to the world depended on their cultural solidarity. The notion of sin and its consequences is organic, not individualistic here and the view was that intermingling with the other cultures would break down their cultural solidarity and open them to being dominated by other nations.
Then what was the reason for the soldiers to keep the female virgins "for themselves"?


Much of ancient cultures were very, very depraved. The phillistines would tie a pregnant woman's legs together, right before she was about to give birth, and watch as the fetus tunnels itself out her stomache. This was about the most slow and painful way of killing someone and it was what they watched for sport.
I've heard apologists declare that some pre-columbian tribes having engaged in human sacrifice was justification for wiping out American aboriginal cultures.


Earth had fallen so much under the domination of evil that entire nations were thoroughly corrupted beyond salvation.
Infants and male children were thoroughly corrupted? Beyond redemption---how is that possible? Why not the female virgins?

Even if that were an acceptable notion, it was the soldiers who did the butchering, not God---and it wasn't God from whom the soldiers heard the orders. So are we talking absolutes here or not? Is it always wrong for solidiers to obey their leader's order to slay the children (and presumedly fetuses) of the vanquished?


I'm not saying that the ancient israelites were beyond reproof, just that some important things changed with the coming and death of Yeshua
These goings-on took place long before the coming of Jesus.

I have never been able to reconcile that God sacrificied himself TO himself to pay a debt for which HE is owed---and yet powerless to handle it any other way.


... the cross that reduced the grip of evil on the earth and changed how we would relate to others, discipleship was made more possible.
There are disparate avenues which engender a sense of discipleship; averred with similar certitude.

[Queen]

Hmm.........

Of course there are many moral standards that are not interperted differently. Of course you do not murder another human being.

But I think that the law "Thou shalt not kill /murder" tells us that we shall not kill any living organism. No human, animal or plant. Of course I eat plants and eggs and so on, but I have to eat to live as well.

In India is a tribe that kills not even plants. They live of the fruits and nuts and so on nature provides. They wear a cap infront of their mouths to avoid swallowing an insect and the walk around with a big soft brush to avoid that they step on a little creature. They respect all life! This moral standard is totally different to them.

Moral standards are adapted to the way of life. That doesn't mean that they are worse. Of course I do not agree with hate, racism and so on.....so-called moral value's.....but still moral standards differ in different (sub)cultures.....

So, they are subjective, because we think what those people from india are doing is absurd.......

My moral standard about homosexuality and sodomy is different from your moral standard......it doesn't mean one of us is wrong, but that doesn't mean that we can not change our view and thus the moral standard.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[sdthomas]

Dear Queen,

Thanks for your further reflections on the nature of morality. You wrote


Today @ 03:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=246123#post246123)
Queen:

Hmm.........

Of course there are many moral standards that are not interperted differently. Of course you do not murder another human being.

But I think that the law &quot;Thou shalt not kill /murder&quot; tells us that we shall not kill any living organism. No human, animal or plant. Of course I eat plants and eggs and so on, but I have to eat to live as well.

In India is a tribe that kills not even plants. They live of the fruits and nuts and so on nature provides. They wear a cap infront of their mouths to avoid swallowing an insect and the walk around with a big soft brush to avoid that they step on a little creature. They respect all life! This moral standard is totally different to them.

Moral standards are adapted to the way of life. That doesn't mean that they are worse. Of course I do not agree with hate, racism and so on.....so-called moral value's.....but still moral standards differ in different (sub)cultures.....

So, they are subjective, because we think what those people from india are doing is absurd.......
This may be our problem: terminology. You are using subjective in fairly non-standard ways, and in ways contrary to what I had offered. When I said that objective means that there is a reality to something not dependent on what goes on in the minds of people, you responded by saying that morality was subjective because people believe different things. So of course I thought that you were denying that morality was objective! Yoy! (we need a Yoy! smilie) So I think, if I am understanding you correctly, that we both believe that there are some non-negotiables to morality -- a moral law -- despite differences among cultures. The question for all these beliefs is whether or not, or to what degree, they reflect the moral law.


My moral standard about homosexuality and sodomy is different from your moral standard......it doesn't mean one of us is wrong, but that doesn't mean that we can not change our view and thus the moral standard.
Okay...killing me again. :bonk:

If our moral standards are in conflict regarding homosexuality -- and they are; you can't hold both my beliefs and your beliefs at the same time in the same way -- and if there is a moral law regarding sexuality, then at least one of us is wrong. Or we are both wrong, but we cannot both be right. Here is what I would say, from what I believe: I think that your view is seriously mistaken, and that my beliefs are closer to the moral law, but that I still have things to learn about it as well. So I do not possess comprehensive knowledge about the moral law, but I think my views are more plausible than yours. And that's what I mean to show in our dialogue...

Yes, we can change what we believe regarding sexual morality, but that does not change the objective moral standard.

Take care,

Steve

[Queen]

Steve.....sorry..... I don't mean to shoot you everytime....not my plan, killing you :tongue:

But serious.

I never said we were both right, but I said and I quote "it doesn't mean one of us is wrong".

Your guts and believes tell you that you are right and I am wrong. Mine tell me something else; I try to understand your moral standard about homosexuality, but I disagree with it. And of course I could give my reasons again but one reson is to me from the heart and it might be an emotional response....I believe all humans are equal and should be treated and respected for the choices they make in life. I am of course not talking about criminal behavior and things like rape, incest with children and so on.....things we all agree on are crimes against humanity....Let there be no misunderstanding about that.

We think so differently about one aspect, yet feel that there is truth in the way people think. I mean, you think homosexual acts are immoral, but still you don't hate people that are gay and live their lives this way. You disapporve of the act, not the human being. I agree with that, because I don't think you can blame the human being for following his heart, even though you think it is wrong. Maybe because I am bisexual and have accepted that part of me after many years of struggle and avoiding my feelings I feel the need to express this with all openess......And I do oppose of your opinion about homosexuality, yet I admire the fact that you are so willing to share your thoughts and are open about it as well, without insulting me or others......So, we both are not wrong......we both feel one of us is right and the other one is wrong according to our own beliefs.....

Man, this is confusing.

What I am trying to say is that we think alike, yet based on different views, different moral believes about homesexuality....

Does this make any sense to you?...

(by the way: that objective subjective confusion is probably be a language problem.... :tongue: )

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

PS: I hope I did not kill you again...... :doh:

[sdthomas]

Yesterday @ 03:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=245616#post245616)
Lazy Agnostic:

Is it always wrong for conquering soldiers to follow their leader's command to slay all the male children and non-virgin females and to keep the virgins alive &quot;for themselves&quot;? (Numbers31)

You may say that God can kill whomever he chooses----perhaps; if he'd done his own butchering--- but it wasn't he who gave those orders to the soldiers. So maybe the commandment should read:
Thou shalt not kill---unless told to do so by someone who claims to have spoken with God.
LA,

You raise some questions which do merit an explanation (dlw has outlined a couple of considerations, briefly) from the Judeo/Christian believer. Can we tackle it in a different thread? If you want to start one, I'll attempt to address your concerns, which are going off in a variety of directions different than what we have been discussing here. Otherwise, I can recommend a good treatment of the subject in Paul Copan's That's Just Your Interpretation.

Take care,

Steve

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Lazy Agnostic:

Then what was the reason for the soldiers to keep the female virgins "for themselves"?

Adultery was defined back then as sleeping with another man's wife. As such, taking the femal virgins as wives, I believe polygamy was tolerated by the Hebrews until they were in exile in Babylon, was acceptable to them.

Do I agree with this def'n, no, it was a fallen, imperfect rule and illustrates how revelation is progressive.



I've heard apologists declare that some pre-columbian tribes having engaged in human sacrifice was justification for wiping out American aboriginal cultures.

It is true that the Aztecs glorified war and did engage in many human sacrifices. However, many of said cultures were wiped out because of the transmission of diseases. I.e., it was not intentional. The bigger question would be if it was of God. I don't know, not all of what happened was of God, even if ending Aztec rule was of God. Conflict was inevitable between Europeans and Native Americans but we could have found a better way to manage our conflicts.


Infants and male children were thoroughly corrupted? Beyond redemption---how is that possible? Why not the female virgins?

I believe it was all the male children. I don't know about this, it apparently was a command from Moses. Apparently, historically their people had caused the Israelites to turn from God and it was seen that, perhaps due to their sexist beliefs, permitting males to survive would turn the Hebrew people away from God.

I think it bears mentioning that the Hebrews were still struggling with breaking from the pagan beliefs of their surrounding nations at this point.


Even if that were an acceptable notion, it was the soldiers who did the butchering, not God---and it wasn't God from whom the soldiers heard the orders. So are we talking absolutes here or not? Is it always wrong for solidiers to obey their leader's order to slay the children (and presumedly fetuses) of the vanquished?

Yes, it was wrong, but the Hebrews thought at the time that such was required to ensure their own survival as a people. It was one thing to take on all the unmarried females into their group, but another to take on males who might then cause civil unrest later.



These goings-on took place long before the coming of Jesus.

I have never been able to reconcile that God sacrificied himself TO himself to pay a debt for which HE is owed---and yet powerless to handle it any other way.

Well we couldn't pay the debt and God, or G-d, always works with us from where we are, which is usually quite fallen and in the OT rather fallen.


There are disparate avenues which engender a sense of discipleship; averred with similar certitude.

I'm not following you. Sounds like you are avoiding a sense of discipleship with certitude.

dlw

[Lazy Agnostic]

Yesterday @ 07:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=246271#post246271)
sdthomas:LA,
You raise some questions which do merit an explanation (dlw has outlined a couple of considerations, briefly) from the Judeo/Christian believer. Can we tackle it in a different thread? If you want to start one, I'll attempt to address your concerns, which are going off in a variety of directions different than what we have been discussing here. Otherwise, I can recommend a good treatment of the subject in Paul Copan's That's Just Your Interpretation.
Thanks. If you know the best way to summarize and start a new thread, that'd be great.

Here is a critique of Copan's book:
That's Just Paul Copan's Untenable Interpretations (http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/copan.htm)

[bananafish]

Here's the question: How do we best effect change in our society according to our Christian values, especially on the issue of homosexuality?

Here's another question: is it the job of Christ's church to minimize sinful behavior among unbelievers? I would respond with a resounding, "No".

Then there are the three issues that were brought up:


My last caller was concerned how best to object to a homosexual theme being promoted in a comic strip in the local paper.

This is ridiculous. Some readers are gay, unbelieving, and living in sin. The same is likely true for some comic strip writers. The newspaper wasn't a "Christian" publication. So I don't see the problem. Is it the believer's job to eradicate homosexuality from all secular media?


Another caller once asked how to deal with the fact that some beaches in Southern California were being used—contrary to law, by the way—by homosexuals for nudity and sexual activity.

Unlike the comic strip example, this one is a legitimate concern. There are laws in place to restrict certain behaviors on this particular beach so that those not wishing to be exposed to graphic homosexual activity can enjoy their visit without such exposure. The laws are being broken. Case closed.


Another was concerned about homosexuality being promoted in a library display in Pasadena.

I question the level to which homoexuality was actually being "promoted", but if, for the sake of argument, it was genuinely being pushed then I agree with the caller that the display is inappropriate.


Homosexuality, for example, is a practice that is dangerous. These dangers are inherent to its practice. Homosexuality entails activities that are not only dangerous to personal health, they cannot be made safe. Let me repeat that: Homosexuality cannot be made safe.

Not correct. Suppose I'm a young person with homosexual tendencies. I abstain from sex until in a committed relationship with another homosexual who has similarly abstained. Voila.


Further, the unhealthy element and its consequences influence people who are not involved in the behavior itself. This is important, because there's a minimalist ethic that says I can do what I want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. But you see, homosexual practices do hurt other people. They spread AIDS to non-homosexuals, for one.

So does heterosexual sex.


Now, I'm not suggesting that we outlaw homosexuality because it presents a threat to the public good.

Though, if the believer's goal is to minimize sinful activity in society at large then I have to ask, "Why not?"

[Hoosier]

TheologyWeb Campus


I hope you have had time to check out some of my posts on the role of fetal-endocrinology in the determination of sexual orientation. I would expect any "natural" approach would have to take that into account...

dlw

Hi there,

I'm new here, and haven't familiarized myself with the way the board works. I'm finding this topic interesting, and plan to add to it myself when I have more time. Meanwhile though, I'm reluctant to give this fetal-endocrinological explanation for so called "sexual orientation" the open and shut status you seem to, dlw.

The body of research seems quite sparse, despite decades since publication of the German paper. Science is generally tentative in nature besides, but reasearchers have spared no effort in seeking a biologically determinate explanation for homosexuality. For political reasons, there are also those who would make any definative biological explanation well known. I have to at least reserve a suspicion that later research along that line hit a stone wall.

Endicronology also runs the risk of naturalistic bias any time it seeks to explain the macro. Endocrines are released in response to immediate stimuli. I think their study can shed light on immediate physical reactions, but to extrapolate this into a causitive predisposition in a fetus may well lie in a presupposition regarding physical determinism, or a particular a priori view regarding the mind/brain question. Do endocrines tell us what the mind was influenced to do by the body, or do they tell us what the activity of the mind does to the body?

Lastly, in this short "pre-response", I've heard of a mind science explanation for homosexual tendency (at least in males) which I've discovered quite a few anectodal confirmations of. It has to do with protective mothers and absent fathers (physically or emotionally). In the German paper you cited from the period immediately after Allied bombing, both of those conditions were arguably present in abundance. British bombing runs in particular were carried out at night against civilian targets for the sake of terror, hoping to break the will of German leadership. The fear that expectant mothers would have felt during these raids would have a high likelihood of manifesting in exagerated protectiveness in early childhood. Millions of German men were also dying on the Eastern front, and millions more returned home afterward demoralized and defeated. This would have set the stage for a large number of young German boys not experiencing the normative shift to "male society" or "male identity" at a critical time in development.

[penitentserf]

With reference to the post, "Morality and the Public Good" as well as Greg's Article "How to force your morality" at http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/social_issues/morality.htm

I write the following:

Greg K. has a lot of good points, but I disagree with him when he says that the sexual sins are considered "low morality." Child pornography and adultery are things that fully deserve being criminal offfenses. Just because something is less able to be enforced does not mean that it should not be a law. E.g.: Expressway speed laws are mostly not able to be enforced, but they are necessary to ensure the safety of other motorists.

In terms of explaining the wrongness of homosexuality to those who don't trust what the Bible says, we can also see it through science. Every change in a species can either help the species become stronger better hunters or it can hinder the species. Changes that help the species include(but aren't limited to) increased strength, increased speed, and intelligence. Changes that hinder a species are often considered mutations or, in some cases, even diseases. Regardless whether homosexuality is caused by environment or genetics, if every human being changes to become homosexual then the human race will quickly cease to exist. Desire to procreate will all but stop. Humans will become extinct. The change to homosexuality is thus a hinderance upon the human race, and possibly even a disease. Thus, homosexuality is not something society should embrace, condone, or practice. Rather, out of our desire to help the human race, we should strive to help those who have been inflicted with homosexuality to be freed from that state. Homosexuality is a bane to the human race that must be extirpated.

[C. D. Ward]

Today @ 04:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=339352#post339352)
penitentserf:

In terms of explaining the wrongness of homosexuality to those who don't trust what the Bible says, we can also see it through science. Every change in a species can either help the species become stronger better hunters or it can hinder the species. Changes that help the species include(but aren't limited to) increased strength, increased speed, and intelligence. Changes that hinder a species are often considered mutations or, in some cases, even diseases. Regardless whether homosexuality is caused by environment or genetics, if every human being changes to become homosexual then the human race will quickly cease to exist. Desire to procreate will all but stop. Humans will become extinct. The change to homosexuality is thus a hinderance upon the human race, and possibly even a disease. Thus, homosexuality is not something society should embrace, condone, or practice. Rather, out of our desire to help the human race, we should strive to help those who have been inflicted with homosexuality to be freed from that state. Homosexuality is a bane to the human race that must be extirpated.

Unfortunately, this is an example of fallacious reasoning (as is, actually, the original article as well as I've already noted (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=197415#post197415)). Consider the following parody of the argument:

If every human being were to become an artist, then society would crumble. Without society to support it, the human race would wither and die. Therefore, the profession of artist is something society should not embrace, condone, or practice.

If the line of reasoning followed in the quoted text is legitimate, then so is the reasoning in the parody (for they are the same). But the conclusion of the parody is both problematic and obviously false. Therefore, we must conclude that the reasoning is faulty. But if the reasoning in the parody is faulty, then so is the reasoning in the quoted text. Therefore, the reasoning in the quoted text is faulty. Q.E.D. :teeth:

[penitentserf]

In regards to the response given by C. D. Ward,
a bad analogy has been made.

C. D. Ward makes the following analogy:
"being homosexual": humanity --> "being an artist": humanity

If indeed this analogy were correct, then Ward's reasoning is correct. But, in fact, being homosexual does not relate to humanity in the same way that being an artist relates to humanity.

1. Although an artist is an occupation that one chooses to be in, homosexuality, i.e. the propensity to be attracted to people of the same gender, is not something that one chooses. Often, victims of child sexual abuse can become homosexual or bisexual. Many ppl claim that they were "just born" homosexual. In these cases, there is no choosing or not choosing.

2. The occupation of artists do not necessarily influence the birth rate and, in this regard, does not cause a negative effect on the human species. Homosexuality does influece the birth rate, since the birth rate among homosexuals, both gay men couples and gay women couples, is exponentially lower than that of heterosexuals(due to the fact that heterosexual sex produces offspring for the species while homosexual sex does not produce offspring for the species). If no offspring is created, then the species will cease to exist.

3. The percentage of artists in society is governed by the law of supply and demand. If there are too many artists in a society, they starve. If there are not enough, they become rich. Thus, art is a profession that provides a service for the good of society and economy. Homosexuality, i.e. the propensity to be attracted to people of the same gender, is not an occupation and thus is not governed by the law of supply and demand.

Thus we can see that "being an artist" does not relate to humanity in the same way that "being homosexual" relates to humanity. Ergo, the analogy is invalid.

Homosexuality exponentially decreases the species birth rate and is not a trait that helps the human species become "stronger, faster, smarter hunters." Thus, homosexuality is harmful for the human species.

In fact, homosexuality is harmful for humanity just as sicle-cell anemia is harmful for humanity.

Homosexuality, i.e. the propensity to be attracted to people of the same gender, is not something that one chooses.
Sicle-cell anemia is not something that one chooses.
Homosexuality is harmful to the human species.
Sicle-cell anemia is harmful to the human species.

[C. D. Ward]

Today @ 06:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=340678#post340678)
penitentserf:

In regards to the response given by C. D. Ward,
a bad analogy has been made.

C. D. Ward makes the following analogy:
&quot;being homosexual&quot;: humanity --&gt; &quot;being an artist&quot;: humanity

If indeed this analogy were correct, then Ward's reasoning is correct. But, in fact, being homosexual does not relate to humanity in the same way that being an artist relates to humanity.

If the parody were based on an analagous relationship, then that might be a point. However, it's not.

Perhaps this will help. As I see it, the claim being made is:

P1) Survival of the human race is of primary value
P2) Any behavior that could, if adopted by everyone, lead to the ruin of the human race is wrong
P3) Homosexuality, if adopted by everyone, would lead to the ruin of the human race
C1) Homosexuality is wrong

The fallacy is largely present in the boldfaced text. The morality or ethics of a particular behavior is not properly determined based on "if everyone did this" type of argument. To see why, substitute any other type of behavior and note the obviously false or bizarre result:

P1) Survival of the human race is of primary value
P2) Any behavior that could, if adopted by everyone, lead to the ruin of the human race is wrong
P3) "Being an artist", if adopted by everyone, would lead to the ruin of the human race
C1) "Being an artist" is wrong

The behaviors in question don't need to be even roughly analogous; it's the "if everyone did it" that's fallacious. It doesn't matter a whit what the behavior is.


1. Although an artist is an occupation that one chooses to be in, homosexuality, i.e. the propensity to be attracted to people of the same gender, is not something that one chooses. Often, victims of child sexual abuse can become homosexual or bisexual. Many ppl claim that they were &quot;just born&quot; homosexual. In these cases, there is no choosing or not choosing.

If you take choice out of the equation, you wind up with all sorts of bizarre non-sequiturs: it's morally "wrong" to have congenital heart defects, for example.

Besides, moral questions always involve the issue of choice; without choice, there isn't even the possibility of morality.


2. The occupation of artists do not necessarily influence the birth rate and, in this regard, does not cause a negative effect on the human species. Homosexuality does influece the birth rate, since the birth rate among homosexuals, both gay men couples and gay women couples, is exponentially lower than that of heterosexuals(due to the fact that heterosexual sex produces offspring for the species while homosexual sex does not produce offspring for the species). If no offspring is created, then the species will cease to exist.

But artists aren't doctors, farmers, bricklayers, garbage collectors, teachers, policemen, soldiers, etc., etc., all of which are essential to the survival of society. If everyone were an artist, society could not function and would collapse. Without society, Man's survival as a species would be distinctly in question. Without the ability to farm or produce food, Man could not even produce the physical requirements for survival; He would be doomed. Therefore, the condition "everyone becomes an artist" also has negative effects on the human species.


3. The percentage of artists in society is governed by the law of supply and demand. If there are too many artists in a society, they starve. If there are not enough, they become rich. Thus, art is a profession that provides a service for the good of society and economy. Homosexuality, i.e. the propensity to be attracted to people of the same gender, is not an occupation and thus is not governed by the law of supply and demand.

First, the argument presented assumes that everyone could choose to be homosexual. Obviously this is a hypothetical situation unencumbered by the fact that this could never obtain in reality. Therefore, the reality of "supply and demand" has no bearing on the parody.

Second, this objection also assumes that there are no "supply and demand"-type laws operating on the propensity to be homosexual. If, as alleged, there is no choice involved, there could well be environmental factors that "control" for homosexuality much the same way "supply and demand" operate in economics. Even were it to be acknowledged that choice is operative, "supply and demand" could still be in effect, especially as "supply and demand" is itself (in an economic sense) predicated upon choice.


Homosexuality exponentially decreases the species birth rate and is not a trait that helps the human species become &quot;stronger, faster, smarter hunters.&quot; Thus, homosexuality is harmful for the human species.

In fact, homosexuality is harmful for humanity just as sicle-cell anemia is harmful for humanity.

Homosexuality, i.e. the propensity to be attracted to people of the same gender, is not something that one chooses.
Sicle-cell anemia is not something that one chooses.
Homosexuality is harmful to the human species.
Sicle-cell anemia is harmful to the human species.

This appears to be exactly the same fallacy that Mr. Koukl commits in the original article.

Sickle-cell anemia is necessarily harmful to whoever has it; homosexuality is not. See the link to my response to Mr. Koukl as noted in my previous post. It is promiscious behavior, not homosexuality per se that is responsible for the detrimental health impacts that you both appear to be conflating with homosexuality.


Of course, all of the foregoing ignores the simplest possible retort to this line of argumentation. Simply put, homosexual orientation and behavior do not preclude the possibility of procreation by "natural" or "artificial" means. That is to say that a society of homosexuals could still reproduce, either through male-female couplings or through artificial insemination. Therefore, in reality, even were all human beings to be (or to choose to be) homosexual, the human race would be in no more necessary danger of demise due to lack of procreation than not.


But let's take another tack. Let's assume arguendo that the point about the analagous relationship between "homosexuality" and "being an artist" is a valid one. Further, let's assume that the above objection doesn't hold (for whatever reason). Therefore, let's see if we can deconstruct the argument to yield a further objection.

To restate the original argument:

P1) Survival of the human race is of primary value
P2) Any behavior that could, if adopted by everyone, lead to the ruin of the human race is wrong
P3) Homosexuality, if adopted by everyone, would lead to the ruin of the human race
C1) Homosexuality is wrong

It would seem obvious that P3 contains a hidden premise. To whit, "homosexuality" involves a lack of procreation. In actuality, it is this which drives the "ruin of the human race." Therefore, the argument can be restated thusly:

P1) Survival of the human race is of primary value
P2) Any behavior that could, if adopted by everyone, lead to the ruin of the human race is wrong
P3) "Not procreating", if adopted by everyone, would lead to the ruin of the human race
C1) "Not procreating" is wrong

This isn't a parody; it's actually the same argument. But yet it leads to all sorts of seemingly bizarre or obviously controversial conclusions:

C1a) To choose not to have children is morally wrong
C1b) To fail to have children is morally wrong
C1c) To be barren or sterile is morally wrong
C1d) To have children out of wedlock is morally acceptable

I simply can't see any reason to accept these conclusions a priori. The first three seems particularly at odds with our native moral intuition. The last would seem to be at odds with the arguments one might expect from proponents of argumentation against homosexuality!

I would say, therefore, that even if we engage the argument on its own terms, it still fails.

[OneFollowingHim]

Promiscuity leads to the breakdown of a society and is not in the best interests of the public in general. Therefore, any promiscuous behavior (yes, I believe homosexual people are in that category) ought to be shunned by society.

For those who disagree, would society be better off if homosexuality were expanded and accepted as a good lifestyle or would society be better off to place a high degree of shame on the behavior and thus limit it's growth?

[C. D. Ward]

Today @ 08:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=343118#post343118)
OneFollowingHim:

Promiscuity leads to the breakdown of a society and is not in the best interests of the public in general. Therefore, any promiscuous behavior (yes, I believe homosexual people are in that category) ought to be shunned by society.

I would agree that promiscuous behavior is, at best, morally questionable and at worst definitely wrong. I would note, however, that it is not limited to nor necessarily connected with homosexuality (there are promiscuous heterosexuals and monogamous homosexuals).


For those who disagree, would society be better off if homosexuality were expanded and accepted as a good lifestyle or would society be better off to place a high degree of shame on the behavior and thus limit it's growth?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "expanded and accepted". I see nothing necessarily wrong with homosexual orientation or acts. I think acceptance of homosexuality and the rights of homosexuals to live and love responsibly should be promoted and encouraged. Promiscuity, whether homo- or hetero-sexual is a separate issue and should certainly be discouraged.

[penitentserf]

In Regards to the post by C. D. Ward, a.k.a. John Christian Curwen, Esq:

You wrote:
"I see nothing necessarily wrong with homosexual orientation or acts. "


Why is that? What leads you to think this way?

[C. D. Ward]

Today @ 06:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344418#post344418)
penitentserf:

You wrote:
&quot;I see nothing necessarily wrong with homosexual orientation or acts. &quot;

Why is that? What leads you to think this way?

I should rather think the question ought to be the other way 'round, what reason does one have to think that it is wrong?

I don't have one, therefore... :smile:

As Jefferson would say, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

[OneFollowingHim]

C. D. Ward:

I would agree that promiscuous behavior is, at best, morally questionable and at worst definitely wrong. I would note, however, that it is not limited to nor necessarily connected with homosexuality (there are promiscuous heterosexuals and monogamous homosexuals).



I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "expanded and accepted". I see nothing necessarily wrong with homosexual orientation or acts. Promiscuity, whether homo- or hetero-sexual is a separate issue and should certainly be discouraged.

Do you see anything wrong with gay pride parades? As compared to lets say the Rose Parade or Macy's Parade?

What I see is gay sex flaunted. That's not something I see mainstream society doing. That kind of public exhibition is not good for society. It is certainly damaging to children to witness that kind of behavior from supposedly responsible adults.

I think you are wrong in your assessment:


I think acceptance of homosexuality and the rights of homosexuals to live and love responsibly should be promoted and encouraged.

If one thinks it stops there, he is mistaken. That is not what I see from the homosexual community at all. I don't see homosexuals promoting that kind of thing.

What I see is an in-your-face manner that says, "I don't care what is good, I'm going to do what ever I want." And the City of San Francisco endorses such activity. That kind of thing is certainly not good for society.

Where are the homosexual people who disagree with such activity? The ones who, as you say, want to "live and love responsibly?" I'm just wondering where they are?

Shouldn't they be out there fighting for what's right, if it is right? Shouldn't they be opposing the radical political force promoting exhibitionism and teaching kindergarteners about homosexuality? Wouldn't that be living and loving responsibly?

[C. D. Ward]

Today @ 07:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=345682#post345682)
OneFollowingHim:

Do you see anything wrong with gay pride parades? As compared to lets say the Rose Parade or Macy's Parade?

I don't see anything necessarily wrong with the idea of a "gay pride" parade much the same way that I don't see anything necessarily wrong with a St. Patrick's Day parade where Irish heritage is "flaunted". I do see questionable behavior exhibited at such parades, but that doesn't necessarily reflect on homosexuality per se.


What I see is gay sex flaunted. That's not something I see mainstream society doing. That kind of public exhibition is not good for society. It is certainly damaging to children to witness that kind of behavior from supposedly responsible adults.

I don't disagree, for the same reasons that I wouldn't disagree that "hetero pride" parades with the same type of behavior would not be good for society as well. However, I don't think the behavior has anything to do with homosexuality qua homosexuality. The same behavior is exhibited by heterosexual society as well, albeit not in parades. Visit your local strip club or "nudie bar" or "spring break" celebrations around the world for equivalent examples.


If one thinks it stops there, he is mistaken. That is not what I see from the homosexual community at all. I don't see homosexuals promoting that kind of thing.

Then we are obviously not acquainted with the same homosexuals. :wink:

I don't disagree that there certainly are individuals out there (even a great many of them) who behave as you characterize in your next statement...


What I see is an in-your-face manner that says, &quot;I don't care what is good, I'm going to do what ever I want.&quot; And the City of San Francisco endorses such activity. That kind of thing is certainly not good for society.

...but I think you are conflating several issues here and ignoring the impact of decades of repression on the social mores of homosexual culture.

I would agree that much of the behavior that you characterize isn't desirable. But there is no necessary connection between such behavior and homosexuality. These same behaviors are or have been exhibited by heterosexuals as well. Remember the '60s? Woodstock? Free love?


Where are the homosexual people who disagree with such activity? The ones who, as you say, want to &quot;live and love responsibly?&quot; I'm just wondering where they are?

Again, we obviously aren't acquainted with the same homosexuals. I know several monogamous couples, some that have been in committed relationships for over 10 years. I have one acquaintance who has been in such a relationship for over 40 years. In my experience, these people don't generally agree with such activity. They just want to be able to live and love as the rest of the population does. And there are more like them out there.

But remember, it's an incorrect characterization to assume that because some individuals, even if it were to be a majority, behave in a certain way that the full population must be that way as well. Most Christians certainly don't appreciate being characterized by the actions of loonies like Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, or Richard Butler/KKK or their hundreds/thousands of followers.


Shouldn't they be out there fighting for what's right, if it is right? Shouldn't they be opposing the radical political force promoting exhibitionism and teaching kindergarteners about homosexuality? Wouldn't that be living and loving responsibly?

I agree. I would certainly like to see more activism from homosexuals promoting responsibility and community values. Then again, I'd like to see the same from heterosexuals as well. But again, that doesn't really speak to whether or not homosexuality qua homosexuality is wrong. The truth of Christianity doesn't stand or fall on the behavior of its adherents, right?

[OneFollowingHim]

I don't see anything necessarily wrong with the idea of a "gay pride" parade much the same way that I don't see anything necessarily wrong with a St. Patrick's Day parade where Irish heritage is "flaunted". I do see questionable behavior exhibited at such parades, but that doesn't necessarily reflect on homosexuality per se.

That's interesting to me.

Putting rightness or wrongness aside for the moment, do you see any difference between persons who identify themselves with a group of Irish descendents and having a parade celebrating such a thing and persons identifying themselves with a group that has sex with members of the same sex and celebrating such a thing?

[C. D. Ward]

Yesterday @ 08:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348547#post348547)
OneFollowingHim:

Putting rightness or wrongness aside for the moment, do you see any difference between persons who identify themselves with a group of Irish descendents and having a parade celebrating such a thing and persons identifying themselves with a group that has sex with members of the same sex and celebrating such a thing?

Of course. In the sense that both are public displays of solidarity, they're also similar. There are many groups within our society who practice these rituals. Sexual orientation has become an identifying characteristic; one around which a community has formed. Frankly, I wish it weren't so. I think the way in which homosexuals have been treated in the past has been a major factor in why so many seem to feel such solidarity is necessary now. However, I do also feel that the manner in which such events occur is often counter-productive to the goal of acceptance to which the gay community aspires. They generally end up becoming celebrations of sex and sexual license, rather than community and I find that rather vacuous.

Still, I have to remember that there's no necessary connection between "gay pride" and being homosexual. Such behavior may reflect poorly on the community, but not against homosexuality qua homosexuality.

FYI: I'm on holiday for the next week or so and won't have access to a computer. Please don't think I'm ignoring any responses! I'll get back to them when I return. :smile:

[OneFollowingHim]

I find your post self-defeating.

The fact that gay pride parades occur is to celebrate the idea that people want to celebrate their "gay"ness. That is IMHO very different than persons celebrating their Irish heritage.

Trying to argue that they are similar in the sense that they both are trying to establish a unified community is evading the real issue of what the group is celebrating.

You say,


Still, I have to remember that there's no necessary connection between "gay pride" and being homosexual.

- and -


They generally end up becoming celebrations of sex and sexual license, rather than community and I find that rather vacuous.

I don't see how it can be anything else. Whatever it is that the community is celebrating can't be other than its' identity or the way it wants to identify itself. That's how homosexuals want to be identified, as men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women.

I will add one more thing. Every homosexual is already part of an established community, as is every heterosexual. The difference is as you've said, homosexuals are trying to establish a new community identity, one that has at its' core the idea of men having sex with men and women having sex with women. And that, to me at least, is enormously different than Irish people celebrating their heritage. Additionally, I don't see heterosexuals desiring to establish a community based on heterosexuality.

See you after your holiday.

[zzx375]

1.Regarding the idea/notion/claim that homosexual behavior is genetically based, can someone please point to the study that settles this question? I have yet to find it, is why I ask.

2.I would not cite apparent homosexual behavior in animals as a way to justify the same apparent behavior in people. After all, some animals do eat their off-spring, so just because it happens in nature doesn't make it necessarily a 'positive' from the human perspective.

3.I personally lump gay parades in with the parades that are characteristic of Mardi Gras in New Orleans and Carnivale (sp?) in Rio De Janero. The examples of behavior cataloged in these events bring to my mind what things must have been like in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Just my $.02. Of course, I could be wrong...

[chickenman]

Rather, out of our desire to help the human race, we should strive to help those who have been inflicted with homosexuality to be freed from that state. Homosexuality is a bane to the human race that must be extirpated.
the biggest problem with this argument is that if homosexuality is genetic, then by forcing heterosexuality on them, you're actually increasing the prevalence of homosexuality in the next generation

you're actually doing the opposite of what you're trying to achieve - not that I condone what you're trying to achieve

[C. D. Ward]

12-20-2003 @ 03:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349895#post349895)
OneFollowingHim:

I find your post self-defeating.

Your prerogative, of course... :wink:


The fact that gay pride parades occur is to celebrate the idea that people want to celebrate their &quot;gay&quot;ness. That is IMHO very different than persons celebrating their Irish heritage.

I don't see why. One must certainly choose to find something worth celebrating in one's heritage in the same manner in which one would choose to find something worth celebrating in any characteristic one might possess. Humans find myriad ways of coming together around shared similiarities, despite all the differences we exhibit. For some, it's around heritage, for others it might be a particular disability or age group (Handicapped groups, or AARP). For others, it's sexual preference. What's the big deal?

You only see it as problematic because you have an a priori reason to see it as such.


Trying to argue that they are similar in the sense that they both are trying to establish a unified community is evading the real issue of what the group is celebrating.

Actually, I'm not trying to argue that anyone is trying to establish a unified community. I suggested that might be a possible motive given the general hostility toward homosexuals in the past.


I don't see how it can be anything else. Whatever it is that the community is celebrating can't be other than its' identity or the way it wants to identify itself. That's how homosexuals want to be identified, as men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women.

Well, I don't agree with your characterization of the community. Sexual practice is one part of being homosexual, but being homosexual is more than the physical act itself. For example, men can have sex with other men without identifying as homosexual (see the numerous studies on homosexual behavior in prisons). Celebration of "gayness", as you put it, doesn't necessarily have to be limited to a celebration of the physical act, although admittedly you'd never know this by attending most "gay pride" parades (an occurrence that I have already agreed is unfortunate). Community is a sense of shared experience. Not necessarily the experience of physical relations, but the whole experience of being different, and sharing how that feels.


I will add one more thing. Every homosexual is already part of an established community, as is every heterosexual.

Well, yes, but that's also true of everyone else. We're all members of multiple communities, but that doesn't impugn our right to celebrate belonging to any particular one. My family background is roughly one-half Irish and one-quarter Scottish, but that doesn't mean that I can only choose one part of that heritage to celebrate.


The difference is as you've said, homosexuals are trying to establish a new community identity, one that has at its' core the idea of men having sex with men and women having sex with women. And that, to me at least, is enormously different than Irish people celebrating their heritage.

Well, as I've said, I don't think they're "trying", at least in a conscious sense, to establish a community identity. I think rather that it has been thrust upon them by society's general failure to accept gay people into the mainstream. Considering that such reactions have also been behind the formation of the modern NAACP, and the various women's, handicapped, and other "differently-abled" advocacy movements, I find it neither suprising nor "enormously different."


Additionally, I don't see heterosexuals desiring to establish a community based on heterosexuality.

But then, that's hardly surprising! In point of fact, it already exists; you and I both belong to it.

I hope you had a wonderful Christmas and look forward to a happy new year! :smile:

[OneFollowingHim]

Hi C.D.:

I'd hope you'd come back after the holidays. Hope yours was good.

The self-defeating claim is not just my prerogative; it's actually what you are saying. For example, you said...


C. D. Ward:

One must certainly choose to find something worth celebrating in one's heritage in the same manner in which one would choose to find something worth celebrating in any characteristic one might possess.

- and -


C. D. Ward:

Well, I don't agree with your characterization of the community. Sexual practice is one part of being homosexual, but being homosexual is more than the physical act itself.

One part? Perhaps. But, undeniably, the celebration is the thing the group represents, homosexuality in this case. The thing we’re discussing is whether or not “celebrating” homosexuality (men having sex with men and women having sex with women and all the things associated with those activities) is the same thing as celebrating Irish heritage.

It is wrong to move so quickly to the things that one group might also promote during such a celebration. One must first recognize the thing the group is using to identify itself. That identifying characteristic is the thing the group is promoting and endorsing first.

What is that thing? It is nothing less than men having sex with men and women having sex with women and all the things associated with those activities.


C. D. Ward:

Community is a sense of shared experience. Not necessarily the experience of physical relations, but the whole experience of being different, and sharing how that feels.

This is way off the mark of what is going on in the homosexual movement and the reason for homosexual gatherings. It is acceptance, legal marriage endorsement, and "educating" kindergartners about it. And to hell with anyone who might be offended by that, even if it is the majority of residents of this planet.


C. D. Ward:

Well, as I've said, I don't think they're "trying", at least in a conscious sense, to establish a community identity.

This is an absurd remark. Of course they are. Gay day at Disneyland, gay pride parades, same sex marriage, health benefits for homosexual partners, etc... One does not organize and fight for such things unless they are if fact making a conscience effort to create a new community identity.


C. D. Ward:

I think rather that it has been thrust upon them by society's general failure to accept gay people into the mainstream.

No one is forcing them to call themselves "gay". They proudly do that themselves. In fact, they promote that label.


C. D. Ward:

Actually, I'm not trying to argue that anyone is trying to establish a unified community.

Fair enough. But I think you hit the nail on the head. Establishing an accepted new identity is precisely what the homosexual community is trying to do.

I said...


OneFollowingHim:

The fact that gay pride parades occur is to celebrate the idea that people want to celebrate their "gay"ness. That is IMHO very different than persons celebrating their Irish heritage.

To which you responded...


C. D. Ward:

You only see it as problematic because you have an a priori reason to see it as such.

This is not true. I've outlined my reasons for my view and it is not an a priori opinion.

[Christine]

The more I think about the entire issue of homosexuality, the more I am convinced that what is really at stake is the choice between grace and pride. Pride of self leads to all sin. Grace requires giving up that pride of self and releasing one's life to God through Jesus Christ and what he did for mankind on the cross.

We are all like the two thieves who were crucified next to Christ. One didn't fear God or acknowledge his Son as Savior and the other one did. The thief who believed in Jesus was told that he would be with Christ in his kingdom that day. What did the thief do for this gift? He accepted it. He was repentant. How do I know? Mark 15:32 reveals that at first both who were crucified with Him reviled Him. Then in Luke 23:40-42 one thief rebuked the other criminal who stated, "If you are the Christ, save Yourself and us." That thief had a change of heart and realized that he was under condemnation for his sins. Verse 41 says, "And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." That criminal turned believer called Jesus "Lord." Jesus became his Savior and Lord in the 11th hour of his life...even though he probably lived most of his life in sin. What does this teach us? True repentance recognizes our sinfulness, that we cannot save ourselves, pride of self must end before grace can be asked, accepted and bestowed upon us by God through Christ. There is no other way.

We cannot hold on to any sin...no matter what society would say, believe or do to dictate to us that any particular sin is "no longer a sin." It will always be sin in God's eyes and any amount of human rationalization will never change it. The only way out is to change from within...through the Holy Spirit's indwelling and leading. It is the battle between grace and pride that we all face and only one can win out in the end.


When we try to rationalize away any sin or ask for dignified recognition of "pride of self" in this life, it is like we are saying, "If you are the Christ, save Yourself and us." Neither thief was saved from physical death that day, but one was saved from spiritual death. You could substitute any kind of person for the thieves on the two crosses surrounding Jesus. They could have been liars, adulterers, murderers, homosexual offenders, idolators etc. and the list goes on. In each case, the one who repents of their sin is saved...not the one who would condone their sin.

Christine
www.angels-helper.net

[OneFollowingHim]

Hi Christine:

You make good points. How would you convey your message to someone who doesn't see the issue of pride in their sin?

Many simply deny that they have a problem.

Welcome to TheologyWeb!

OneFollowingHim

[Dee Dee Warren]

Christine, your very first post made Post of the Day!

[Socrates]

08-28-2003 @ 11:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=196446#post196446)
Love-Warrior:

This is separate from constitutional homosexuality, which science has shown is based on endocrinology. Part of educating Christians to be able to voice their differences with gay-rights activists is educating them on the &quot;science&quot; of how our sexual orientation is determined.

Rather, part of educating Christians is to show that their world-view should be based on the Bible, and not to be bluffed by liberal economists like DLW spruiking forth on "science". This is all a rationalization, because once the norm was proclaiming homosexuality as a choice.


There are also hermeneutical issues surrounding the use of the Bible on homosexuality, since the concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation was not present during Biblical times. It developed as a concept since the late nineteenth century and scientific corroboration of it has been more recent.

And the Bible straightforwardly condemns all homosexual acts. There are no qualifications at all.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Christine:

The more I think about the entire issue of homosexuality, the more I am convinced that what is really at stake is the choice between grace and pride. Pride of self leads to all sin. Grace requires giving up that pride of self and releasing one's life to God through Jesus Christ and what he did for mankind on the cross.

We are all like the two thieves who were crucified next to Christ. One didn't fear God or acknowledge his Son as Savior and the other one did. The thief who believed in Jesus was told that he would be with Christ in his kingdom that day. What did the thief do for this gift? He accepted it. He was repentant. How do I know? Mark 15:32 reveals that at first both who were crucified with Him reviled Him. Then in Luke 23:40-42 one thief rebuked the other criminal who stated, "If you are the Christ, save Yourself and us." That thief had a change of heart and realized that he was under condemnation for his sins. Verse 41 says, "And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." That criminal turned believer called Jesus "Lord." Jesus became his Savior and Lord in the 11th hour of his life...even though he probably lived most of his life in sin. What does this teach us? True repentance recognizes our sinfulness, that we cannot save ourselves, pride of self must end before grace can be asked, accepted and bestowed upon us by God through Christ. There is no other way.

We cannot hold on to any sin...no matter what society would say, believe or do to dictate to us that any particular sin is "no longer a sin." It will always be sin in God's eyes and any amount of human rationalization will never change it. The only way out is to change from within...through the Holy Spirit's indwelling and leading. It is the battle between grace and pride that we all face and only one can win out in the end.


When we try to rationalize away any sin or ask for dignified recognition of "pride of self" in this life, it is like we are saying, "If you are the Christ, save Yourself and us." Neither thief was saved from physical death that day, but one was saved from spiritual death. You could substitute any kind of person for the thieves on the two crosses surrounding Jesus. They could have been liars, adulterers, murderers, homosexual offenders, idolators etc. and the list goes on. In each case, the one who repents of their sin is saved...not the one who would condone their sin.

Christine
www.angels-helper.net

Welcome to the board, Christine.

Congradulation on having your first post be on the dean's list.

I would like to suggest that your post doesn't really deal with the facts of homosexuality, stuff that can be verified as acceptable irregardless of one's position regarding whether homosexuality is ultimately right or wrong. As such, if I were a non-Christian who was a supporter of gay-rights activism then your post would pretty much go right over my head.

The reason "society" says homosexuality can't be viewed as wrong is because many Christians have not mastered the facts regarding the likely fetal endocrinological basis for one's sexual orientation and so gay-rights activists have succeeded in painting them as ignorant fundamentalist homophobes.

As it so happens, understanding what leads to one having a homosexual orientation does not mean that one need commit the naturalistic fallacy of saying that what occurs naturally can't be wrong. But it should inform how we deal with homosexuality in as loving of a manner as possible.

There are reasons to oppose the gay-rights movements. 1. They often promote biological determinism. 2. They often have a libertarian view of the social mores we have received from our Judeo-Christian heritage and, which are still needed for both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

As for rationalizing away sin, personal sins are chosen. The man born blind at birth did not sin as Jesus said. The same is also true for constitutional homosexuals. Likewise, I was born with a hole in my heart. I did not have an alternative heart-form, my heart was other than it should have been, but treating me and helping me did require as much knowledge as possible about the nature of my condition and so my beef with your and other Christians stance on homosexuality is that it doesn't give evidence or evoke the mandate upon us to understand homosexuality as well as possible so as to not yield the intellectual high ground to others...

dlw

[mossrose]

As for rationalizing away sin, personal sins are chosen. The man born blind at birth did not sin as Jesus said. The same is also true for constitutional homosexuals. Likewise, I was born with a hole in my heart. I did not have an alternative heart-form, my heart was other than it should have been, but treating me and helping me did require as much knowledge as possible about the nature of my condition and so my beef with your and other Christians stance on homosexuality is that it doesn't give evidence or evoke the mandate upon us to understand homosexuality as well as possible so as to not yield the intellectual high ground to others...

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that having a hole in your heart is a sinful condition. God does not condemn those born with birth defects, or genetic diseases, or anything of that nature. He does, however, condemn homosexuality. It is very clear in Scripture that those who practice and encourage others to practice homosexuality are NOT of the kingdom of heaven. (Of course, if they accept Jesus as Saviour and "go and sin no more", then they are forgiven their sin.)

To me, the very fact that homosexuality is condemned in Scripture is clear evidence that the behaviour CANNOT be genetic, nor can it be a condition that any person is born with. If it were, the very nature of God could not condemn that behaviour. A person CHOOSES to be homosexual, and any choice can be turned around and changed. You could not change your heart-hole without medical help. Your example is a poor one.

And, as you have suggested to me, your information about homosexuality comes from your study of homosexual propaganda films, etc., which no Christian should be viewing. It is like the pastor who suggested we should all go out and buy pornographic magazines so we could see what we are up against. I don't need to study that sort of thing to know it is wrong. I get my information from the Bible. If you know the truth, you will recognize error when you see it, without steeping your mind in erroneous "facts".

[chickenman]

To me, the very fact that homosexuality is condemned in Scripture is clear evidence that the behaviour CANNOT be genetic, nor can it be a condition that any person is born with. If it were, the very nature of God could not condemn that behaviour. A person CHOOSES to be homosexual, and any choice can be turned around and changed. You could not change your heart-hole without medical help. Your example is a poor one.

And, as you have suggested to me, your information about homosexuality comes from your study of homosexual propaganda films, etc., which no Christian should be viewing. It is like the pastor who suggested we should all go out and buy pornographic magazines so we could see what we are up against. I don't need to study that sort of thing to know it is wrong. I get my information from the Bible. If you know the truth, you will recognize error when you see it, without steeping your mind in erroneous "facts".

sexuality is a genetically encoded trait, make no mistake - you don't choose to be attracted to the slight differences in angles in skeletal structure or soft tissue of the opposite sex - thats hardwired, just like facial recognition

so its not so hard to believe that anomalies in the genetic code could produce homosexuality - in fact - this very thing happens in other organisms

[OneFollowingHim]

chickenman:

sexuality is a genetically encoded trait, make no mistake - you don't choose to be attracted to the slight differences in angles in skeletal structure or soft tissue of the opposite sex - thats hardwired, just like facial recognition

so its not so hard to believe that anomalies in the genetic code could produce homosexuality - in fact - this very thing happens in other organisms

This line of reasoning fails miserably with regards to justification for homosexual activity because the same argument can be made for any behavior. Take any behavior, such as stealing or violence, you can't jump to the conclusion that just because a person is prone to such behavior, that they ought to be allowed to do that behavior. This is just bad reasoning.

We don’t allow people to beat up others because it is natural for them to do it, nor do we allow thieves to steal just because it is “hard-wired” into their genetics. We forbid all kinds of behaviors that may be so-called "natural".

[Da Lone-Warrior]

mossrose:

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that having a hole in your heart is a sinful condition. God does not condemn those born with birth defects, or genetic diseases, or anything of that nature. He does, however, condemn homosexuality. It is very clear in Scripture that those who practice and encourage others to practice homosexuality are NOT of the kingdom of heaven. (Of course, if they accept Jesus as Saviour and "go and sin no more", then they are forgiven their sin.)

Yes, but here is the problem of language. The meanings of words do change over time. The current prevalent definition of homosexuality that I was using is as a sexual orientation. The notion that one could be oriented as such first emerged in the 19th Ctry. It was not present at the time the Bible was written and so that isn't what the Bible's author had in mind. What is condemned in the Bible are homosexual acts. One does not have to have a homosexual orientation to engage in homosexual acts. These take place with otherwise straight men in prison. They were often expressions of power.

And so, our knowledge has grown and we now know that the constitutional homosexual is more like the man born blind. How we deal with homosexuals in as loving manner as possible needs to take this fact into account.


To me, the very fact that homosexuality is condemned in Scripture is clear evidence that the behaviour CANNOT be genetic, nor can it be a condition that any person is born with. If it were, the very nature of God could not condemn that behaviour. A person CHOOSES to be homosexual, and any choice can be turned around and changed. You could not change your heart-hole without medical help. Your example is a poor one.

Yes, my heart-condition was treatable, unlike most cases of constitutional homosexuality, which I didn't say was genetic. Although, it is true that it is rather difficult to change.


And, as you have suggested to me, your information about homosexuality comes from your study of homosexual propaganda films, etc., which no Christian should be viewing. It is like the pastor who suggested we should all go out and buy pornographic magazines so we could see what we are up against. I don't need to study that sort of thing to know it is wrong. I get my information from the Bible. If you know the truth, you will recognize error when you see it, without steeping your mind in erroneous "facts".

You misinterpret the Bible. I get my information from a wide variety of sources:Scientific reports, personal interactions with homosexuals and gay-rights activists, and the study of their propaganda. I am not gay. The movies I have watched were not gay-porn and they have not made more likely to commit homosexual acts. If anything they have made me more knowledgeable about the gay-rights activists groups than otherwise would be the case.

My gay-rights-friends from grad-school didn't like my views, because they were so informed and non-vitriolic. They like their opponents as rabidly homophobic as possible and my opposing views would be more likely to be accepted by a wider audience.


chickenman:

sexuality is a genetically encoded trait, make no mistake - you don't choose to be attracted to the slight differences in angles in skeletal structure or soft tissue of the opposite sex - thats hardwired, just like facial recognition

so its not so hard to believe that anomalies in the genetic code could produce homosexuality - in fact - this very thing happens in other organisms

Not-so, Chickenman, genetics may play a role, but the evidence points more-so towards the importance of the hormonal balance formed in the brain as a fetus.

Gunter Dorner(double dots over both u and o) did some path-breaking work that was driven by how among germans that were in the womb during the allied bombings, a greater percentage of them generally became constitutional homosexuals. We all begin with a primarily estrogen hormonal balance in our brains and then at some point while we are in the wombs, most males brains switch over to a primarily testosterone hormonal balance in our brains. However, for some males, they don't switch over and, for some females, they do switch over. These are the individuals that become constitutional homosexuals.

That's not the whole story, but it is a good part of it. It explains why among identical twins, if one is a "I believe a constitutional" homosexual the other has only a 30-40 percent chance of being a homosexual. But it isn't chosen, though there is evidence that the hormonal balance can be altered at the fetal stage so as to prevent the development of constitutional homosexuality.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9827&highlight=scientific+homosexuality+endocrinology


OneFollowingHim:

This line of reasoning fails miserably with regards to justification for homosexual activity because the same argument can be made for any behavior. Take any behavior, such as stealing or violence, you can't jump to the conclusion that just because a person is prone to such behavior, that they ought to be allowed to do that behavior. This is just bad reasoning.

First of all, having a sexual orientation is a very different thing than one's lifestyle. Accepting that homosexual orientations exist, primarily on the basis of the scientific evidence for them, does not mean that homosexuals are not morally-responsible for their actions. Its just that they are unlikely to be able to stop being constitutional homosexuals.


We don’t allow people to beat up others because it is natural for them to do it, nor do we allow thieves to steal just because it is “hard-wired” into their genetics. We forbid all kinds of behaviors that may be so-called "natural".

1. Divvying up what is do to nurture and nature is very very difficult.
2. Allowing that being attracted to people of the same gender as oneself is due to factors that were out of one's own control, doesn't mean that this is a good development.

There is selective perception at stake regarding homosexuality, it can be seen as more analogous to left-handedness(as many gay-rights activists portray it) or it can be seen as analogous to having a genetic propensity to alcoholism or schizophrenia(which is close to my heterosexist position).

But the fact that it happens naturally doesn't mean that it can't be an undesirable development, but we are called to be loving to homosexuals and part of being loving to them is to understand their situation as well as possible.

dlw

[Christine]

Today @ 12:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=370676#post370676)
OneFollowingHim:

Hi Christine:

You make good points. How would you convey your message to someone who doesn't see the issue of pride in their sin?

Many simply deny that they have a problem.

Welcome to TheologyWeb!

OneFollowingHim

Hello OneFollowingHim,

I love your SN! Thanks for the warm welcome. You ask a very good question. I guess the first thing I might say is that, "I understand how you feel, I felt that way myself, however God's Word has taught me that 'God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble' (see James 4:6)." Since realizing that my own sin was the result of my own pride in self, I am now aware of the trap that Satan wants to keep us in.

The entire chapter of James 4 deals with the dangers of pride, judging and presumption. Unfortunately, verses such as "There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?" (James 4:12) can be lifted from Scripture, taken out of context and used against Christian evangelism. The "do not judge" mantra is often used to eliminate proclaiming the different between what is evil and what is good. We are to be humble, but that doesn't mean that we are not to point out the evil things of this world are not of God.

Let's examine James 4:3 - "When you ask, you do not recieve, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." There is nothing wrong with wanting a pleasurable life. God gives us good gifts that he wants us to enjoy (James 1:17; Ephesians 4:7; Timothy 4:4,5). But having friendship with the world involves seeking pleasures at others' expense or at the expense of obeying God. Pleasure that keeps us from pleasing God is sinful; pleasure from God's rich bounty is good.

Read James 4:4-6. The cure for evil desires is humility (see Proverbs 16:18,19; 1 Peter 5:5,6.) Pride makes us self-centered and leads us to conclude that we deserve all we can see, touch, or imagine. It creates greedy appetites for far more than we need (e.g. addictions of all kinds). We can be released from our self-centered desires by humbling ourselves before God, realizing that all we need is his approval. When the Holy Spirit fills us, we see that this world's seductive attractions are only cheap substitutes for what God has to offer. You may ask, how do I know this? Because it has happened to me! When I look back on the ugliness of sin in my life before I was born again it just sickens me and the last thing I would ever want to do is go back. Although I still struggle with some sins, I am not "given over to them" anymore. My greatest desire is to be pleasing to Jesus Christ my Lord because I love him and want to be obedient. Jesus told us if we love him we will obey his commandments. It is the Holy Spirit's indwelling that has lifted me up, personally, from my former desires to have the desire to please God.

A person cannot be prideful and humble at the same time. Humbling ourselves means recognizing that our worth comes from God alone. To be humble involves working with his power according to his guidance, not with our own independent effort. Although we do not deserve God's favor, he reaches out to us in love and gives us worth and dignity, despite our human shortcomings.

James 4:13-17 is key to understanding the entire concept of sin. We tend to think that DOING wrong is sin. But James tells us that sin is also NOT doing RIGHT. (sins of commission and omission). It is a sin to lie; it can also be a sin to know the truth and not tell it. It is a sin to speak evil of someone; it is also a sin to avoid him or her when you know he or she needs your friendship. We should be willing to help as the Holy Spirit guides us.

Loving others sometimes requires telling them things they would rather not hear; like the absolute truth about sin as recorded in the Bible. Just like verse 17 says, "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." Because I belong to the Lord and follow him, I would be committing a sin of omission if I did not stand on His Word, stand against earthly lusts and desires and warn others of God's coming judgment for such things. It is important to be sure our speech is motivated by God and his wisdom (Mercy, Love for others, Peace, Consideration for others, Submission, Sincerity, impartiality, Righteousness). and not by Satan's ways (Bitter envy, Selfish ambition, Earthly concerns and desires, Unspiritual thoughts and ideas, Disorder, Evil).

I'm running out of time right now, but please read James 5:7-20. James ends his epistle telling us to have patience in suffering and to offer prayers of faith. We need this now more than ever because of the immoral assault being waged against the Christian churches. James 4:7 tells us that Satan is trying to win us over to his evil cause. With the Holy Spirit's power, we can resist the devil, and he will flee from us.

Lastly, (sorry it took me so long to get to this part!) I would ask the person who doesn't see his pride as sin...do you want to come near to God? Then I would discuss James 4:7-10
1. Submit to God - yield to his authority and will, commit your life to him and his control, and be willing to follow him.
2. Resist the devil - don't allow Satan to entice and tempt you.
3. Wash your hands - purify your hearts
4. Grieve and mourn in sincere sorrow for your sins...don't be afraid to express deep heartfelt sorrow for what you have done
5. Humble yourself before the Lord and he will lift you up.

My daughter shared a great analogy with me. Imagine a group of non-believing people standing on the floor with one Christian standing on a chair in the middle. That one Christian tries to pull one of the people on the floor up to be with him...representing taking him/her out of condemnation up to receive God's grace. It is almost impossible. However, any one of the people on the floor can easily pull the Christian down to the floor...representing how we can be enticed and tempted by the "world and it's lusts and desires." It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who lifts us up and rescues us, not our human effort!

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." Colossians 2:8

Christine
www.angels-helper.net

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Pride:1 : the quality or state of being proud: as a : inordinate self-esteem : CONCEIT b : a reasonable or justifiable self-respect c : delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship <parental pride>
2 : proud or disdainful behavior or treatment : DISDAIN

I wanted to thankyou for your well done analysis of Romans.

If I can pose the question: Is it a matter of pride to be concerned with understanding the scientific basis for people having a homosexual orientation and insisting that we take that into account in how we collectively deliberate the best way we should show love to homosexuals? Is it a matter of pride to be concerned with how people read into the Bible the modern meaning of the word homosexuality when such a concept didn't exist back then?

My concern with such matters, I believe, reflects my concern for the Christian Church and the consequences for it if it continues to neglect the life of the mind, inter alia Mark Noll.

Is it prideful to say that in dealing with ethical issues such as homosexuality or abortion, we can not rely solely on scriptures? Historically, Christianity, more or less, always dealt with its problems through scripture and tradition, with the latter being more fallible and subject to change and differ across time and place. That is, up until the Protestant-Catholic Schism, whereupon many Protestant Churches came to mix scripture and tradition and the Catholic Church elevated its traditions to the same level as scripture. My point is that, in fact, we are still in the same situation as before the Protestant-Catholic Schism and that we deal with developments such as the notion of homosexuality with reference to both tradition and scripture.

In which case, so as to win the ear of constitutional homosexuals whereby we can call them to turn away from their destructive lifestyles or distrust of/anger towards males, we should be willing to come to terms with the constitutionality of their homosexuality in our traditions.

dlw

[Christine]

Today @ 10:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=371573#post371573)
Love-Warrior:

Pride:1 : the quality or state of being proud: as a : inordinate self-esteem : CONCEIT b : a reasonable or justifiable self-respect c : delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship &lt;parental pride&gt;
2 : proud or disdainful behavior or treatment : DISDAIN

I wanted to thankyou for your well done analysis of Romans.

*Christine: It was the epistle of James.*

If I can pose the question: Is it a matter of pride to be concerned with understanding the scientific basis for people having a homosexual orientation and insisting that we take that into account in how we collectively deliberate the best way we should show love to homosexuals?

*Christine: It depends on whether one is compromising their faith to do so. I have read many of the articles on the NARTH website that state several reasons why a person might develop homosexual desires. There is (currently) no evidence of genetic reasons for such a disposition. Most of the time, the reasons most obvious are behavorial. Many homosexual men were either abused by older male homosexuals at a young age or, others were abandoned (sometimes physically, emotionally or both) by their fathers and were not given what was needed to develop favorable masculine traits. For lesbians, it is often because of abandonment by the mother and/or childhood sexual abuse by older males. Two examples are the celebrities Rosie O'Donnell (mother died) and Ann Heche (abused by male relative...her father I think?) There are, and could be, many other reasons too. However, the overwhelming evidence exists for what was done/not done in the childhood. If you are interested, I can refer you to a ministry that is run by an ex-gay, now born-again Christian man who led a homosexual lifestyle with over 100 men (many, now dead from AIDS) who is now happily married to his wife of 9 years. They have two children. He is the type of person who could relate to homosexuals, their feelings, hurts, problems, concerns, struggles etc. because he has been there. The best ministries come about through God's grace bestowed upon a person who once struggled with the same sin. This man is now healed from same-sex attraction (yes...it is possible...don't let the gay activists convince you otherwise) and the Lord has put it upon his heart to reach out to those who struggle with this behavioral problem.*

Is it a matter of pride to be concerned with how people read into the Bible the modern meaning of the word homosexuality when such a concept didn't exist back then?

*Christine: The word "homosexual" may have been coined when you say it was, however, homosexual practice WAS very evident in Biblical times. Just because that particular word wasn't in existence is no reason to think that the activities were not in existence. You can't spin the fact that the Bible tells us, "a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman...it is an abomination." I know that Bishop Spong (and others) try to twist Scripture to fit his (their) own interpretation of it, but he (they) are just plain wrong.*

My concern with such matters, I believe, reflects my concern for the Christian Church and the consequences for it

*Christine: My concern is also for the Christian Church, however, I am 180 degrees in the opposite direction than where the "gay Christians" want to take it. My next post will deal with that in more detail.*


if it continues to neglect the life of the mind, inter alia Mark Noll.

*Christine: Speaking of the mind, Romans 12:2 tells us, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will." It is possible to avoid most worldly customs and still be proud, covetous, selfish, stubborn and arrogant. Only when the Holy Spirit renews, re-educates, and redirects our minds are we truly transformed. Romans 8:5-8 says, "Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God."

Is it prideful to say that in dealing with ethical issues such as homosexuality or abortion, we can not rely solely on scriptures?

*Christine: God's thoughts are not like our thoughts. Paul's words in Romans were inspired by the living God...Paul was a prophet who was 'carried along by the Holy Spirit' to write God's word for mankind. In the above verses, Paul divides people into two categories - those who let themselves be controlled by their sinful natures, and those who follow after the Holy Spirit. All of us would be in the first category if Jesus hadn't offered us a way out. Once we have said yes to Jesus, we will want to continue following him, because his way brings life and peace.

To answer your question directly, I would say that in the world of Biblical Christianity where absolute truth exists and is communicated to mankind via the Bible, then Scripture has the last word on such matters. *

Historically, Christianity, more or less, always dealt with its problems through scripture and tradition, with the latter being more fallible and subject to change and differ across time and place.

*Christine: This is why Sola Scriptura is so important. Church (denominational) tradition can change, but the Word of God never changes. It is absolute truth that is either accepted or rejected. There is no grey area in this fact. *


That is, up until the Protestant-Catholic Schism, whereupon many Protestant Churches came to mix scripture and tradition and the Catholic Church elevated its traditions to the same level as scripture. My point is that, in fact, we are still in the same situation as before the Protestant-Catholic Schism and that we deal with developments such as the notion of homosexuality with reference to both tradition and scripture.

In which case, so as to win the ear of constitutional homosexuals whereby we can call them to turn away from their destructive lifestyles or distrust of/anger towards males, we should be willing to come to terms with the constitutionality of their homosexuality in our traditions.

*Christine: It may take many different methods to "win the ear of homosexuals" just like every other sinner's conversion. No two born-again experiences are the same...because it is a personal relationship with the living God through Jesus Christ that bridges the gap between sinful man and Holy God. On the particular issue of homosexuals, only repentant homosexuals will see the kingdom of God. And once one repents of their sins, they are a new creation in Christ Jesus. They no longer self-identify by sexual orientation...they are now saved by the blood of Christ for all eternity and become a Christian; meaning, Christ in one.*

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I wanted to thankyou for your well done analysis of Romans.

*Christine: It was the epistle of James.*

Oops.



If I can pose the question: Is it a matter of pride to be concerned with understanding the scientific basis for people having a homosexual orientation and insisting that we take that into account in how we collectively deliberate the best way we should show love to homosexuals?

*Christine: It depends on whether one is compromising their faith to do so. I have read many of the articles on the NARTH website that state several reasons why a person might develop homosexual desires. There is (currently) no evidence of genetic reasons for such a disposition. Most of the time, the reasons most obvious are behavorial. Many homosexual men were either abused by older male homosexuals at a young age or, others were abandoned (sometimes physically, emotionally or both) by their fathers and were not given what was needed to develop favorable masculine traits. For lesbians, it is often because of abandonment by the mother and/or childhood sexual abuse by older males. Two examples are the celebrities Rosie O'Donnell (mother died) and Ann Heche (abused by male relative...her father I think?) There are, and could be, many other reasons too. However, the overwhelming evidence exists for what was done/not done in the childhood. If you are interested, I can refer you to a ministry that is run by an ex-gay, now born-again Christian man who led a homosexual lifestyle with over 100 men (many, now dead from AIDS) who is now happily married to his wife of 9 years. They have two children. He is the type of person who could relate to homosexuals, their feelings, hurts, problems, concerns, struggles etc. because he has been there. The best ministries come about through God's grace bestowed upon a person who once struggled with the same sin. This man is now healed from same-sex attraction (yes...it is possible...don't let the gay activists convince you otherwise) and the Lord has put it upon his heart to reach out to those who struggle with this behavioral problem.*

I'd like to see your sources on the material about the importance of childhood experiences. I am more likely to believe that would be true for females than males. I doubt any childhood trauma can make blood rush to one's penis when exposed to pictures of male flesh.

I am aware of the possibility of change. In fact the same psychologist who proved that it was so difficult for homosexuals to change also proved that it was possible, but that it required them to be very very highly motivated and with a supporting environment. This is consistent with the fetal endocrinological explanation of homosexual orientation.



Is it a matter of pride to be concerned with how people read into the Bible the modern meaning of the word homosexuality when such a concept didn't exist back then?

*Christine: The word "homosexual" may have been coined when you say it was, however, homosexual practice WAS very evident in Biblical times. Just because that particular word wasn't in existence is no reason to think that the activities were not in existence. You can't spin the fact that the Bible tells us, "a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman...it is an abomination." I know that Bishop Spong (and others) try to twist Scripture to fit his (their) own interpretation of it, but he (they) are just plain wrong.*

The question is whether or not the homosexual acts that were prevalent during Biblical times in almost all cultures besides the Hebrews are analogous to the issue Spong is trying to deal with, Constitutional homosexuality. The possibility of constitutional homosexuality clearly wasn't part of the world-view of the authors of scriptures.



My concern with such matters, I believe, reflects my concern for the Christian Church and the consequences for it

*Christine: My concern is also for the Christian Church, however, I am 180 degrees in the opposite direction than where the "gay Christians" want to take it. My next post will deal with that in more detail.*

I think we disagree on the facts then.




if it continues to neglect the life of the mind, inter alia Mark Noll.

*Christine: Speaking of the mind, Romans 12:2 tells us, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will." It is possible to avoid most worldly customs and still be proud, covetous, selfish, stubborn and arrogant. Only when the Holy Spirit renews, re-educates, and redirects our minds are we truly transformed. Romans 8:5-8 says, "Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God."

You didn't answer my question. It isn't about one's sinful nature, but about the authenticity of findings that support the view that one's sexual orientation isn't chosen, but determined by the hormonal balance formed in one's brain. Clearly, that still leaves room for early child experiences to affect the choices made by bisexuals.



Is it prideful to say that in dealing with ethical issues such as homosexuality or abortion, we can not rely solely on scriptures?

*Christine: God's thoughts are not like our thoughts. Paul's words in Romans were inspired by the living God...Paul was a prophet who was 'carried along by the Holy Spirit' to write God's word for mankind. In the above verses, Paul divides people into two categories - those who let themselves be controlled by their sinful natures, and those who follow after the Holy Spirit. All of us would be in the first category if Jesus hadn't offered us a way out. Once we have said yes to Jesus, we will want to continue following him, because his way brings life and peace.

To answer your question directly, I would say that in the world of Biblical Christianity where absolute truth exists and is communicated to mankind via the Bible, then Scripture has the last word on such matters. *

Yes, but do the absolute truths communicated to us through the Bible contain a blue-print for what should be ethical conduct in all situations? I would think not. Scripture can be manipulated to say things that it was never meant to say.


[quote]Historically, Christianity, more or less, always dealt with its problems through scripture and tradition, with the latter being more fallible and subject to change and differ across time and place.

*Christine: This is why Sola Scriptura is so important. Church (denominational) tradition can change, but the Word of God never changes. It is absolute truth that is either accepted or rejected. There is no grey area in this fact. *

Well, it is important but only if coupled with the fact that one cannot discern how best the Church should let its light shine on the basis of Scripture alone. It must exegete scriptures teachings to its own time and place and that includes taking into account some exigencies that may not have existed or the early Christians may not have been aware of.



That is, up until the Protestant-Catholic Schism, whereupon many Protestant Churches came to mix scripture and tradition and the Catholic Church elevated its traditions to the same level as scripture. My point is that, in fact, we are still in the same situation as before the Protestant-Catholic Schism and that we deal with developments such as the notion of homosexuality with reference to both tradition and scripture.

In which case, so as to win the ear of constitutional homosexuals whereby we can call them to turn away from their destructive lifestyles or distrust of/anger towards males, we should be willing to come to terms with the constitutionality of their homosexuality in our traditions.

*Christine: It may take many different methods to "win the ear of homosexuals" just like every other sinner's conversion. No two born-again experiences are the same...because it is a personal relationship with the living God through Jesus Christ that bridges the gap between sinful man and Holy God. On the particular issue of homosexuals, only repentant homosexuals will see the kingdom of God. And once one repents of their sins, they are a new creation in Christ Jesus. They no longer self-identify by sexual orientation...they are now saved by the blood of Christ for all eternity and become a Christian; meaning, Christ in one.*

I agree one's ultimate identity should not be based on sexual orientation, or gender.

dlw

[OneFollowingHim]

Christine:

Thanks for the response. I'm into another thread and little time to make my replies. I will reply here as I get the time.

OneFollowingHim

[chickenman]

Not-so, Chickenman, genetics may play a role, but the evidence points more-so towards the importance of the hormonal balance formed in the brain as a fetus.

Gunter Dorner(double dots over both u and o) did some path-breaking work that was driven by how among germans that were in the womb during the allied bombings, a greater percentage of them generally became constitutional homosexuals. We all begin with a primarily estrogen hormonal balance in our brains and then at some point while we are in the wombs, most males brains switch over to a primarily testosterone hormonal balance in our brains. However, for some males, they don't switch over and, for some females, they do switch over. These are the individuals that become constitutional homosexuals.

That's not the whole story, but it is a good part of it. It explains why among identical twins, if one is a "I believe a constitutional" homosexual the other has only a 30-40 percent chance of being a homosexual. But it isn't chosen, though there is evidence that the hormonal balance can be altered at the fetal stage so as to prevent the development of constitutional homosexuality.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...y+endocrinology

yes indeed so, love-warrior

the studies you refer to show a link between hormones and sexuality - but sexuality is governed also by genes:


1: Cell Mol Life Sci. 1999 Nov 15;56(7-8):634-46. Related Articles, Links

Sexual behavior mutants revisited: molecular and cellular basis of Drosophila mating.

Yamamoto D, Nakano Y.

ERATO Yamamoto Behavior Genes Project, Mitsubishi Kasei Institute of Life Sciences, Machida, Tokyo, Japan. daichan@mn.waseda.ac.jp

The study of Drosophila melanogaster by a combination of forward genetics with specific mutants, and reverse genetics, in which a given gene is expressed in an appropriate brain area to test its effect on behavior, provides a unique opportunity to explore the causal relationship between a particular gene, its function in the cell and the behavioral outcome at the organismic level. Enhanced male-to-male courtship has been shown to occur as a result of mutations in several different genes. For example, the Voila mutant exhibits intense GAL4 reporter expression in the tarsal gustatory sensilla, suggesting the importance of tapping by a male on the female abdomen with his forelegs. Feminization of parts of the antennal lobe and mushroom body by targeted expression of a female-determining gene transformer+ (tra+) drives the male to court other males. Mutations in the tra target gene fruitless (fru), which is expressed in the antennal lobe as well as the suboesophageal ganglion (the gustatory inputs are processed here), also induce homosexual courtship in males. These results suggest that sensory inputs mediated and/or processed by the tarsal receptors, suboesophageal ganglion, antennal lobe and mushroom body contribute to the regulation of male-female courtship. Mosaic analysis localized the neural center for male courtship behavior to the posterior dorsal brain, in which the sensory information processed by the aforementioned neural structures may be integrated. Another mosaic study mapped the neural center for female sexual behavior, as measured by her receptiveness to copulation, to the anterior dorsal brain. The issue as to how the mutations that reduce female sexual receptiveness, e.g. dissatisfaction (dsf), spinster (spin) and chaste (cht), affect the structure and/or function of this neural center deserves to be addressed urgently.

Publication Types:

* Review
* Review, Tutorial



so while in most cases it may be that homosexuality is the result of hormonal imbalance (hormones affect gene expression, and in many cases, are genes themselves, or are produced via the actions of genes)

it may also be that there are cases of homosexuality due to genetics - although its likely to be polygenic if that is the case

[Da Lone-Warrior]

chickenman:

yes indeed so, love-warrior

the studies you refer to show a link between hormones and sexuality - but sexuality is governed also by genes:

I think we really are saying similar things, but you initially are emphasizing genes as opposed to hormones.


so while in most cases it may be that homosexuality is the result of hormonal imbalance (hormones affect gene expression, and in many cases, are genes themselves, or are produced via the actions of genes)

But here you then seem to say that hormonal balance is the cause in most cases.

How are hormones genes? That makes no sense to me. I have no doubt genes play a role in the production of hormones, or the failure of the male fetus to start producing male hormones. But it can't be the only one, otherwise how would one account for the phenomena of identical twins with different sexual orientations?


it may also be that there are cases of homosexuality due to genetics - although its likely to be polygenic if that is the case

I have no doubt that genetics plays a role, but it hardly is deterministic as revealed by the studies that found that an intervention was able to prevent the development of constitutional homosexuality.

dlw

[chickenman]

But here you then seem to say that hormonal balance is the cause in most cases.

How are hormones genes? That makes no sense to me. I have no doubt genes play a role in the production of hormones, or the failure of the male fetus to start producing male hormones. But it can't be the only one, otherwise how would one account for the phenomena of identical twins with different sexual orientations?

not all hormones are, for instance steroids like testosterone are cholesterol metabolites -> but the conversion of cholesterol to testosterone requires enzymes encoded by a genes

as you can see, nearly every step requires an enzyme:
http://www.ceri.com/q_v7n2q3.htm

Hormones are basically signalling molecules, and in most cases they act to change gene expression in a target cell to produce their effects - thats how sexual differentiation occurs. In most cases it's not direct signalling either, in that several proteins are required as intermediaries in a signalling pathway

Thats why i'd hold off judgement about whether one can inherit a predisposition to homosexuality in a genetic manner - because a hormone on its own doesn't decide sexuality - it does it in concert with a lot of genes



I have no doubt that genetics plays a role, but it hardly is deterministic as revealed by the studies that found that an intervention was able to prevent the development of constitutional homosexuality.
it may be that hormonal imbalances are the most common cause, but i'm sure genetics must play a role

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Seems like we're chasing our tails here.

Would you agree with me that if a hormonal imbalance formed during the fetal stage were "correctable" and would definitively affect the sexual orientation developed later in life that that would be good evidence that hormones are predominant in the explanation for one's sexual orientation, even if genetics plays a role in determining the likelihood of one naturally developing a hormonal imbalance in the first place?

dlw

[Christine]

Yesterday @ 02:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=371832#post371832)
Love-Warrior:


I agree one's ultimate identity should not be based on sexual orientation, or gender. [/QUOTE]

Most homosexual activists often advocate the concept of sexual orientation as being their 'ultimate' identity. This is what the media portrays as well so the general public has bought into a lie regarding this issue. Thousands of homosexuals have successfully changed their orientation to heterosexuality. Some through reparative therapy (NARTH) and others through Christian conversion so the fact remains that it CAN be done...even if difficult for some gay people. The media often squelches any mention of such behavioral change because it would negate the need for special rights based on sexual orientation. Ex-gays are reviled by the former gay community that once was supposed to have 'loved' them. Where's the tolerance in that? The reason ex-gays cannot (or, more accurately, will not) be accepted and tolerated for their conversion is because it destroys the gay mantra that 'change is not possible.' Please visit Stephen Bennett's website for information about how homosexuality has to do with the childhood and that change is possible.
http://www.sbministries.org/

Hi again,

I received an email today from Stephen Bennett ministries (link above) this morning. It may give you a better idea of how his ministry is helping people struggling with homosexual issues, disease and death. I think it is a very powerful testimony to the fact that "With God, all things are possible."

Christine

Email:
January 12, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------

A Prodigal Child Returns Home
-----------------------------------
Saturday afternoon I came to the office to get some work accomplished and
the phone rang. As I picked it up, I heard a dead silence, then a hang up.
I began to pray, for I usually know these type of calls. Ten minutes later,
the phone rang again and it was a young 20 year old man from Texas who was
homosexual.

As we began to speak, he began to cry and said he was born again early on
his life and one time on fire for God. In his teen years, his struggle with
homosexuality became unbearable and he gave in to the temptations, leaving
God and his family behind. Now broken and crying out for help, he said he
couldn't take the homosexual lifestyle any longer. He has been with
countless men sexually and has hit his bottom.

He never knew his birth father - a drug addict - and his mother has been
married seven times. He also said he is very effeminate and doesn't want to
be. He said more than anything he knows God loves him, and wants to serve
the Lord with all of his heart and leave his homosexuality behind.

I was in tears and asked how he found out about the ministry of SBM. He
told me he was at a "gay" pride parade in Texas this summer and someone
handed him our "I Was Gay" tract. He kept it and held on to it as his only
source of hope, until he could get up the courage to call the ministry.
Well, that planted seed this summer paid off.

We prayed together and he rededicated his life on the phone. Today, we are
sending him out a gift pack of many of our resources and CDs to help him in
his new journey with Christ. We are also directing him to a local Bible
believing, preaching church in his area which has a heart for those
struggling with same-sex attractions. Please keep him in your prayers - "K"
in Texas. The road may be rocky, yet the Lord will be with Him every step of
the way.


Touched By An Angel - "Barbara"
-----------------------------------
Several months ago, I wrote about "Barbara" in Florida, a Christian woman
called by God to minister to homosexuals dying from AIDS. She lives in a
housing project and didn't have funds, yet wanted to obtain our resources
for reaching homosexual men and women. We sent her out a case of materials
including Bibles, CDs, tracts and much more.

Last year, Barbara called us and told us how she ministered to "Harry" who
was dying from AIDS. She spoke with him, shared the gospel and left him
SBM's Bible gift pack, containing an evangelistic CD for homosexuals to pray
and receive Christ. She also left him several of our tracts and a Bible.

Barbara never knew, but Harry's father was a pastor. He was praying for his
son for many years and asked God to send other Christians into Harry's life.
When the family arrived to see their dying son for the last time, the father
found the SBM gift pack. He put on the CD for Harry during his final hours
as the family listened. Harry was unable to respond and died a few hours
later, but the family prayed that Harry accepted the Lord during this time.

Barbara called me again last week, asked me to pray for her and told me
about Bill - a Christian who walked away from God and went into the
homosexual lifestyle and used intravenous drugs. Bill contracted HIV and
was in the final stages of AIDS. She prayed for an opportunity to talk to
Bill tomorrow (Tuesday.)

The Lord impressed on her to go over and see Bill instead this past
Saturday - and she found out he had only hours to live. The family left the
room and Barbara prayed with Bill to ask God for forgiveness and for him to
make things right with the Lord. As Barbara prayed, Bill nodded and
squeezed her hand twice - and in that moment, another child came back to the
Father. Bill died two hours later.

With SBM, reaching homosexual men and women is a joint effort - this is not
a one man show. One plants, another waters -- but God gives the increase.
Lives are being changed for eternity and a group of men and women that many
have ignored ARE being reached for Christ because of faithful men and women
of God. My sincerest thanks to everyone who is part of SBM - those who are
on the front lines, and those who provide the financial means for us to
minister full time to the homosexual. Together, we ARE making a difference
for Christ!

Lord bless you -

Stephen J. Bennett
Executive Director, SBM
www.SBMinistries.org
(203) 926-6960



SBM is on the front lines reaching out in love to the homosexual man and
woman with the life changing, soul saving gospel of Jesus Christ. Your
prayers and financial gifts make this possible. To support the ongoing work
of SBM, please call 1-800-832-3623 or give securely on-line at:
https://sbminist.christianshost.com/appieshop/index.cgi






dlw [/QUOTE]

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Christine:

Most homosexual activists often advocate the concept of sexual orientation as being their 'ultimate' identity. This is what the media portrays as well so the general public has bought into a lie regarding this issue. Thousands of homosexuals have successfully changed their orientation to heterosexuality. Some through reparative therapy (NARTH) and others through Christian conversion so the fact remains that it CAN be done...even if difficult for some gay people. The media often squelches any mention of such behavioral change because it would negate the need for special rights based on sexual orientation. Ex-gays are reviled by the former gay community that once was supposed to have 'loved' them. Where's the tolerance in that? The reason ex-gays cannot (or, more accurately, will not) be accepted and tolerated for their conversion is because it destroys the gay mantra that 'change is not possible.' Please visit Stephen Bennett's website for information about how homosexuality has to do with the childhood and that change is possible.
http://www.sbministries.org/

Yes, it is possible, but the information I posted on the importance hormones is correct and it isn't easy to change. I have also heard many stories about failures of such organizations or shams where healed homosexuals ultimately did not change.

But I will look into it.


Hi again,

I received an email today from Stephen Bennett ministries (link above) this morning. It may give you a better idea of how his ministry is helping people struggling with homosexual issues, disease and death. I think it is a very powerful testimony to the fact that "With God, all things are possible."

Christine

Email:
January 12, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------

A Prodigal Child Returns Home
-----------------------------------
Saturday afternoon I came to the office to get some work accomplished and the phone rang. As I picked it up, I heard a dead silence, then a hang up. I began to pray, for I usually know these type of calls. Ten minutes later, the phone rang again and it was a young 20 year old man from Texas who was homosexual.

As we began to speak, he began to cry and said he was born again early on his life and one time on fire for God. In his teen years, his struggle with homosexuality became unbearable and he gave in to the temptations, leaving God and his family behind. Now broken and crying out for help, he said he couldn't take the homosexual lifestyle any longer. He has been with countless men sexually and has hit his bottom.

He never knew his birth father - a drug addict - and his mother has been married seven times. He also said he is very effeminate and doesn't want to be. He said more than anything he knows God loves him, and wants to serve the Lord with all of his heart and leave his homosexuality behind.

I was in tears and asked how he found out about the ministry of SBM. He told me he was at a "gay" pride parade in Texas this summer and someone handed him our "I Was Gay" tract. He kept it and held on to it as his only source of hope, until he could get up the courage to call the ministry.

Well, that planted seed this summer paid off.

We prayed together and he rededicated his life on the phone. Today, we are sending him out a gift pack of many of our resources and CDs to help him in his new journey with Christ. We are also directing him to a local Bible believing, preaching church in his area which has a heart for those struggling with same-sex attractions. Please keep him in your prayers - "K"
in Texas. The road may be rocky, yet the Lord will be with Him every step of the way.


Note: Changing his lifestyle isn't the same as changing his homosexuality. The above letter conflates the two.


Touched By An Angel - "Barbara"
-----------------------------------
Several months ago, I wrote about "Barbara" in Florida, a Christian woman called by God to minister to homosexuals dying from AIDS. She lives in a housing project and didn't have funds, yet wanted to obtain our resources for reaching homosexual men and women. We sent her out a case of materials including Bibles, CDs, tracts and much more.

Last year, Barbara called us and told us how she ministered to "Harry" who was dying from AIDS. She spoke with him, shared the gospel and left him SBM's Bible gift pack, containing an evangelistic CD for homosexuals to pray and receive Christ. She also left him several of our tracts and a Bible.

Barbara never knew, but Harry's father was a pastor. He was praying for his son for many years and asked God to send other Christians into Harry's life. When the family arrived to see their dying son for the last time, the father found the SBM gift pack. He put on the CD for Harry during his final hours as the family listened. Harry was unable to respond and died a few hours
later, but the family prayed that Harry accepted the Lord during this time.

Barbara called me again last week, asked me to pray for her and told me about Bill - a Christian who walked away from God and went into the homosexual lifestyle and used intravenous drugs. Bill contracted HIV and was in the final stages of AIDS. She prayed for an opportunity to talk to Bill tomorrow (Tuesday.)

The Lord impressed on her to go over and see Bill instead this past Saturday - and she found out he had only hours to live. The family left the room and Barbara prayed with Bill to ask God for forgiveness and for him to make things right with the Lord. As Barbara prayed, Bill nodded and squeezed her hand twice - and in that moment, another child came back to the Father. Bill died two hours later.

With SBM, reaching homosexual men and women is a joint effort - this is not a one man show. One plants, another waters -- but God gives the increase. Lives are being changed for eternity and a group of men and women that many have ignored ARE being reached for Christ because of faithful men and women of God. My sincerest thanks to everyone who is part of SBM - those who are
on the front lines, and those who provide the financial means for us to minister full time to the homosexual. Together, we ARE making a difference for Christ!

Lord bless you -

Stephen J. Bennett
Executive Director, SBM
www.SBMinistries.org
(203) 926-6960


This is a wonderful ministry to help and reach homosexuals who are dying of aids. But homosexuality is not the same thing as having a profligate lifestyle. Us males have the evil desire to have as much non-relational sex as possible, making porn a very evil thing for us and a profligate lifestyle more likely for a homosexual male facing partners with the same desire for many multiple partners. But, we do have free-will. We can withstand our evil urges and it is with succumbing to such a lifestyle that the homosexuals sin, not with their homosexual orientation, which they did not choose to have.

If there are official statistics on the chances of someone with a homosexual orientation changing as an adult then do please share them on this thread. I don't particularly trust organizations whose purpose is to help homosexuals change in their self-reporting of statistics.

dlw

[Christine]

dlw: "Yes, it is possible, but the information I posted on the importance hormones is correct and it isn't easy to change. I have also heard many stories about failures of such organizations or shams where healed homosexuals ultimately did not change.

But I will look into it. "

I am glad that you agree that it is possible for homosexuals to change. That is a fact that the media regularly squelches because of pressure from gay activists who want to dupe the public into believing that change is not possible.

If hormones do have a part in homosexual attraction, then isn't it also possible that it could be due to a hormonal imbalance? Perhaps it is such an imbalance helps lead one to that particular behavior. NARTH has done a lot of research and has posted the many possibilities (and disorders that often accompany this lifestyle) that could lead to homosexual attraction. Even though psychologists decided to take homosexuality off the mental illness list, couldn't it still be considered a behaviorial disorder? If so, then that might explain why some "healed homosexuals" revert back to their former behaviors...similar to drug/alcohol/sexual addictions.

I am glad that you are willing and open to look into Stephen Bennett's ministry. Thousands have been helped to overcome their homosexuality through the spiritual re-birth of faith in Jesus Christ. Rather than trying to only 'physically' heal homosexuals through reparative therapy (which has been successful for some), Stephen's message is that there is hope for the homosexual first through spiritual re-birth which leads to the emotional and physical healing.

dlw:
"Note: Changing his lifestyle isn't the same as changing his homosexuality. The above letter conflates the two. "


In this case, the person described in the letter was already a Christian but experienced a falling away from the faith which led him back into the sin of homosexual behavior. The problems in his family life (drug-addicted father; mother married 7 times) must have been tumultuous for him which led him back into a sinful lifestyle. Here, we see evidence of the lack of a proper father figure in his life as a child which is a pattern seen in many boys who enter into homosexual behavior.

From the Christian viewpoint, this person KNOWS that what he has done (or is doing) is against God's law, feels guilty for succombing to his lustful desires, asks for forgiveness, repents and returns to the Lord.

Even as born-again Christians, the "old sinful self" can rear it's ugly head if we let it do so...rather than relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit indwelling our hearts.

dlw: "This is a wonderful ministry to help and reach homosexuals who are dying of aids. "

If you go back and read my initial post, you will understand the Biblical Christian viewpoint regarding homosexuality and it's spiritual cure. The man dying of aids could be likened to either of the "thieves on the crosses" on either side of Jesus...and I'm not saying this because he was dying of aids, but because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." That man could have been dying from any physical disease...however...the Christian message is that we are all dying spiritually when we die without God's only provision given to us...the belief in His Son, Jesus Christ and that he took the punishment for our sins on the cross in our behalf. This is the only remedy that bridges the gap between sinful man and Holy God. Every one of us dies physically because of sin. The death rate is 100%. Both of the thieves died physically, however, the repentant thief was told that he would be in paradise with Jesus after his death and will live eternally with God! God is Holy and sin is evil. Every person has the choice to either die with his own sin on himself, or, chose God's provision of placing that sin on His Son, the Savior at the cross. How? By acknowledging that sin, repenting, and asking Jesus Christ into the heart. There He resides in the form of the Holy Spirit to guide each person to live for God and to follow his will for our lives. This is Grace.




dlw: "But homosexuality is not the same thing as having a profligate lifestyle. Us males have the evil desire to have as much non-relational sex as possible, making porn a very evil thing for us and a profligate lifestyle more likely for a homosexual male facing partners with the same desire for many multiple partners. But, we do have free-will. We can withstand our evil urges and it is with succumbing to such a lifestyle that the homosexuals sin, not with their homosexual orientation, which they did not choose to have. "

dlw: "If there are official statistics on the chances of someone with a homosexual orientation changing as an adult then do please share them on this thread. I don't particularly trust organizations whose purpose is to help homosexuals change in their self-reporting of statistics."

Are you talking about organizations like NARTH? They do have such statistics. The Bennett ministry may or may not have such statistics. They measure success according to changed hearts through the person of Jesus Christ. Such a thing isn't held to statistics, but to the evidence of changed lives.

Here is a link to a website that discusses sexual orientation: fixed or changeable
http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/seven.php

Here is another really good article...from the scientific point of view that the innate-immutable argument finds no basis in science.
http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

[Christine]

Guess I must have made it onto dlw's ignore list!

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Sorry Christine,

My sister was visiting me and I didn't have time to post.

I'll get to your post this coming weekend.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

dlw: "Yes, it is possible, but the information I posted on the importance hormones is correct and it isn't easy to change. I have also heard many stories about failures of such organizations or shams where healed homosexuals ultimately did not change.

But I will look into it. "

I am glad that you agree that it is possible for homosexuals to change. That is a fact that the media regularly squelches because of pressure from gay activists who want to dupe the public into believing that change is not possible.

And of course, they also often conflate lifestyle with sexual orientation as well.


If hormones do have a part in homosexual attraction, then isn't it also possible that it could be due to a hormonal imbalance? Perhaps it is such an imbalance helps lead one to that particular behavior. NARTH has done a lot of research and has posted the many possibilities (and disorders that often accompany this lifestyle) that could lead to homosexual attraction. Even though psychologists decided to take homosexuality off the mental illness list, couldn't it still be considered a behaviorial disorder? If so, then that might explain why some "healed homosexuals" revert back to their former behaviors...similar to drug/alcohol/sexual addictions.

Well, the resilience of a homosexual orientation doesn't in and of itself make it like an alcohol addiction. Also, as with alcoholism, even the studies that show that it is possible to change emphasize the difficulty of changing. The constitutional homosexual has to be highly motivated and have a lot of support. No one can dictate that to others.

I believe in the link I posted above, there was a paper that showed how at the fetal stage when one's hormonal balance in the brain is being formed, an intervention can be made so as to make the fetus' hormonal balance be such that they are likely to develop as a heterosexual later in life.

I have posted elsewhere that one could have a confidential survey of constitutional homosexuals asking them whether or not they would have preferred if such an operation had been performed on them or not. The results of the survey could be kept private and be used to counsel parents whose fetus/baby is developing symptoms that they may develop into constitutional homosexuals.

As a heterosexist, who believes that constitutional homosexuality is more akin to being born with a genetic propensity to alcoholism than left-handedness, I have my priors and I do base those priors on my faith. Also, because of such, I also believe that bisexuals should resist their attraction to the same-sex and only engage in relationships with people of the opposite sex. I also emphasize that social mores do play an important role in the lifestyles that we develop and do reject the social libertarianism that often accompanies gay-rights activism.


I am glad that you are willing and open to look into Stephen Bennett's ministry. Thousands have been helped to overcome their homosexuality through the spiritual re-birth of faith in Jesus Christ. Rather than trying to only 'physically' heal homosexuals through reparative therapy (which has been successful for some), Stephen's message is that there is hope for the homosexual first through spiritual re-birth which leads to the emotional and physical healing.

Well, I affirm the right for such a ministry to exist, although, I counsel a careful interpretation of the results. "Christian" organizations, like any other organization, can cook the statistics to imply something other than what is really happening. I'm thinking of Colson's prison program that reported a high recidivism rate of its graduates, but excluded all those that didn't stick with the program until the end or who weren't saved. When all participants were counted, the recidivism rate was in fact slightly lower than most programs.

I have friends with whom I have debated this issue and they have come to accept the inherent difficulty of changing one's sexual orientation, but have insisted that the Church's position should then be an insistence on celibacy for the homosexual.


dlw:
"Note: Changing his lifestyle isn't the same as changing his homosexuality. The above letter conflates the two. "
In this case, the person described in the letter was already a Christian but experienced a falling away from the faith which led him back into the sin of homosexual behavior. The problems in his family life (drug-addicted father; mother married 7 times) must have been tumultuous for him which led him back into a sinful lifestyle. Here, we see evidence of the lack of a proper father figure in his life as a child which is a pattern seen in many boys who enter into homosexual behavior.
From the Christian viewpoint, this person KNOWS that what he has done (or is doing) is against God's law, feels guilty for succombing to his lustful desires, asks for forgiveness, repents and returns to the Lord.
Even as born-again Christians, the "old sinful self" can rear it's ugly head if we let it do so...rather than relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit indwelling our hearts.

You realize you didn't really deal with my point. Having a tough family-upbringing will affect one's lifestyle, but it doesn't make one attracted to people of the same sex as you.


dlw: "This is a wonderful ministry to help and reach homosexuals who are dying of aids. "
If you go back and read my initial post, you will understand the Biblical Christian viewpoint regarding homosexuality and it's spiritual cure. The man dying of aids could be likened to either of the "thieves on the crosses" on either side of Jesus...and I'm not saying this because he was dying of aids, but because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." That man could have been dying from any physical disease...however...the Christian message is that we are all dying spiritually when we die without God's only provision given to us...the belief in His Son, Jesus Christ and that he took the punishment for our sins on the cross in our behalf. This is the only remedy that bridges the gap between sinful man and Holy God. Every one of us dies physically because of sin. The death rate is 100%. Both of the thieves died physically, however, the repentant thief was told that he would be in paradise with Jesus after his death and will live eternally with God! God is Holy and sin is evil. Every person has the choice to either die with his own sin on himself, or, chose God's provision of placing that sin on His Son, the Savior at the cross. How? By acknowledging that sin, repenting, and asking Jesus Christ into the heart. There He resides in the form of the Holy Spirit to guide each person to live for God and to follow his will for our lives. This is Grace.

Amen, I am reminded of the movie, "Dead Man Walking". The impression I got at the end wasn't that we shouldn't have a death-penalty, but the importance of showing God's love even to the least of these, like someone on death-row.


dlw: "But homosexuality is not the same thing as having a profligate lifestyle. Us males have the evil desire to have as much non-relational sex as possible, making porn a very evil thing for us and a profligate lifestyle more likely for a homosexual male facing partners with the same desire for many multiple partners. But, we do have free-will. We can withstand our evil urges and it is with succumbing to such a lifestyle that the homosexuals sin, not with their homosexual orientation, which they did not choose to have. "

dlw: "If there are official statistics on the chances of someone with a homosexual orientation changing as an adult then do please share them on this thread. I don't particularly trust organizations whose purpose is to help homosexuals change in their self-reporting of statistics."

Are you talking about organizations like NARTH? They do have such statistics. The Bennett ministry may or may not have such statistics. They measure success according to changed hearts through the person of Jesus Christ. Such a thing isn't held to statistics, but to the evidence of changed lives.

Here is a link to a website that discusses sexual orientation: fixed or changeable
http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/seven.php

Here is another really good article...from the scientific point of view that the innate-immutable argument finds no basis in science.
http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

Changed lives are good.

The issue of controversy here is often whether or not constitutional homosexuals who lack the gift of celibacy and the ability to change, whether or not for them(and this should be a relatively small fraction of the population at large) a monogamous relationship that emulates the Christian ideal of marriage in all other respects should be acceptable or not.

I have come to think this should be acceptable. I do think that they should be asked to abstain from anal sex, since that falls clearly under the heading of the homosexual acts that are clearly prohibited in the Bible.

Anyways, I'll try and get to your links sometime in the near future.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

I looked this article up, and was surprised that it didn't list a bibliography or cite well the sources it was based on, despite the many statistics it gives.

It also didn't define well what was considered successful treatment for a gay person and its argument was mostly against that one's sexual orientation was determined by genetics, which isn't the same as proving that its picked up after birth.

Similar remarks can be made about the TVA website.

I will agree that there are things that Christians should disagree and oppose about the LBGT movement today, but, despite how homosexuals initially attributed their gayness to genetics, we now know better.

It is both not just genes and also difficult to change, though how it comes to manifest itself life-style wise is probably more nurture based. There is a continuum since the balance of hormones in one's brain can be mixed, but that doesn't mean that in-between is optimal for both males and females.

dlw

[Christine]

http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

You stated: "I looked this article up, and was surprised that it didn't list a bibliography or cite well the sources it was based on, despite the many statistics it gives."

Christine: Here is what it said at the top of the article:
"The following article was published in the Salt Lake City Tribune, in slightly abbreviated form, on May 27th, 2001. Lead author A. Dean Byrd, NARTH's Vice President, received many responses (mostly positive) to this intellectually provocative editorial.

The Salt Lake City Tribune has published several articles in recent months regarding homosexuality. While many of the articles are well-written, they do not reflect the scientific literature. In fact, the social advocacy of many of the articles seem to suggest a greater reliance on politics than on science."

Perhaps if you go to the Tribune's archives for May 27th, 2001 you will find the sources for the statistics it gives.



You stated: "It also didn't define well what was considered successful treatment for a gay person and its argument was mostly against that one's sexual orientation was determined by genetics, which isn't the same as proving that its picked up after birth."

Christine: There are many, many articles that you could read at the NARTH site and most list lots of references at the bottom of the articles. It is Stephen Bennett's website where you will read about how homosexuality can result because of what is done (and not done) in the childhood. I don't know if what he shares would satisfactorily "prove" anything to you, but there are a lot of examples of gay and lesbian people who were abused/neglected/sexually molested/abandoned etc. in their childhood years. Some examples are celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell, Anne Heche (who used to be in a lesbian relationship with Ellen Degenerus and is now married to a man), Stephen Bennett and his rejection by his father.

You stated: "Similar remarks can be made about the TVA website."

Christine: What is the 'TVA' website?

I will agree that there are things that Christians should disagree and oppose about the LBGT movement today, but, despite how homosexuals initially attributed their gayness to genetics, we now know better.

You stated: "It is both not just genes and also difficult to change, though how it comes to manifest itself life-style wise is probably more nurture based."

Christine: This is what Stephen Bennett bases his recovery from homosexuality on...the fact that it was nurture based for him and through being re-born spiritually through a personal relationship with the Living Lord, Jesus Christ, he was completely healed of same-sex attraction. He now ministers to others who are dealing with homosexual attraction issues and shares his life story, heartaches, pain, suffering etc. and then the transforming power of Jesus Christ when He entered into his life! This is how he gives hope to the hurting and can tell them without question that God CAN heal them too. It's a powerful thing when one has been through the same negative experiences but through faith in Christ has been healed!

There is a continuum since the balance of hormones in one's brain can be mixed, but that doesn't mean that in-between is optimal for both males and females.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

You stated: "I looked this article up, and was surprised that it didn't list a bibliography or cite well the sources it was based on, despite the many statistics it gives."

Christine: Here is what it said at the top of the article:
"The following article was published in the Salt Lake City Tribune, in slightly abbreviated form, on May 27th, 2001. Lead author A. Dean Byrd, NARTH's Vice President, received many responses (mostly positive) to this intellectually provocative editorial.

The Salt Lake City Tribune has published several articles in recent months regarding homosexuality. While many of the articles are well-written, they do not reflect the scientific literature. In fact, the social advocacy of many of the articles seem to suggest a greater reliance on politics than on science."

Perhaps if you go to the Tribune's archives for May 27th, 2001 you will find the sources for the statistics it gives.[/quote]
But the point is I shouldn't have to do that... Editorials that quote statistics must provide the sources for such.



You stated: "It also didn't define well what was considered successful treatment for a gay person and its argument was mostly against that one's sexual orientation was determined by genetics, which isn't the same as proving that its picked up after birth."

Christine: There are many, many articles that you could read at the NARTH site and most list lots of references at the bottom of the articles. It is Stephen Bennett's website where you will read about how homosexuality can result because of what is done (and not done) in the childhood. I don't know if what he shares would satisfactorily "prove" anything to you, but there are a lot of examples of gay and lesbian people who were abused/neglected/sexually molested/abandoned etc. in their childhood years. Some examples are celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell, Anne Heche (who used to be in a lesbian relationship with Ellen Degenerus and is now married to a man), Stephen Bennett and his rejection by his father.
Sure, anecdotes don't necessarily prove anything and reflections on our childhood are awfully subjective and easy to color based on our views from the present.
As for Rosie O'Donnell/lesbianism, lesbianism does seem more likely to be a choice affected by our life-experiences, as I already stated.



You stated: "Similar remarks can be made about the TVA website."

Christine: What is the 'TVA' website?
The Traditional Values Association website you linked to above...


I will agree that there are things that Christians should disagree and oppose about the LBGT movement today, but, despite how homosexuals initially attributed their gayness to genetics, we now know better.
sure, but that doesn't mean that homosexuality is behavioral or stemming largely from early-childhood experiences and easily changeable.


You stated: "It is both not just genes and also difficult to change, though how it comes to manifest itself life-style wise is probably more nurture based."

Christine: This is what Stephen Bennett bases his recovery from homosexuality on...the fact that it was nurture based for him and through being re-born spiritually through a personal relationship with the Living Lord, Jesus Christ, he was completely healed of same-sex attraction. He now ministers to others who are dealing with homosexual attraction issues and shares his life story, heartaches, pain, suffering etc. and then the transforming power of Jesus Christ when He entered into his life! This is how he gives hope to the hurting and can tell them without question that God CAN heal them too. It's a powerful thing when one has been through the same negative experiences but through faith in Christ has been healed!

He is no longer attracted to the same sex? Has he been tested officially for this? There are tests where males are exposed to pictures of male flesh and one can measure the blood-flow to the penis. They used such a test to compare homophobes with non-homophobes in MN a while back and found that self-described homo-phobes generally experienced a higher blood-flow to the penis than non-homophobe straight males. That would be evidence that would be more persuasive to skeptics than anecdotes.

dlw

[Christine]

It depends on how you define "homophobe." The definition originally meant "fear of homosexual tendencies" in one's own person. More recently, as you probably know, the word has been used to mean "hatred and bigotry towards" homosexuals. So, depending on how you define the word would determine what to make of the results that you state in your post.

Stephen claims that he is no longer attracted to men. It seems logical since he is in the ministry now of helping men (and women) to recover from unwanted homosexual attraction. It would be quite difficult being in the public eye claiming to be cured while still having homosexual feelings toward men, wouldn't it? I do know that this happens for some gays. I know that you don't like my alcohol addiction analogies, but if someone has cured themselves of alcohol addiction and doesn't touch a drop of liquor for years (similar to Pres. Bush) couldn't this also be applied to sexual addiction (homo or heterosexual)? It could mean that the craving is gone, couldn't it? A person may not have a second thought about it because they have discovered something better; of a better way to live and no longer see it as something desirable. It is the people who are still struggling with an addiction who should not be involved in therapy for others...I would think.

Stephen's claim of being cured may just be an anecdote in your opinion, but it is the life he is currently living right now. Science doesn't have the answers to EVERYTHING ya know!

[Da Lone-Warrior]

It depends on how you define "homophobe." The definition originally meant "fear of homosexual tendencies" in one's own person. More recently, as you probably know, the word has been used to mean "hatred and bigotry towards" homosexuals. So, depending on how you define the word would determine what to make of the results that you state in your post.

I know I was termled a homophobe by my gay-rights activists-friends from when I was a grad-student after I explained to them my own heterosexist views. I believe in the example I used above, the male "homophobes" were self-described as such. When I use the word homophobe, I mean having an irrational fear of homosexuals, but like many terms(racist/fascist/sexist), I prefer not to use that term, since over-use dampens their power.


Stephen claims that he is no longer attracted to men. It seems logical since he is in the ministry now of helping men (and women) to recover from unwanted homosexual attraction. It would be quite difficult being in the public eye claiming to be cured while still having homosexual feelings toward men, wouldn't it?

The public pressure would be difficult. I need to look up the study that was done a while back that showed homosexuals could change. It may have mentioned whether or not the attraction towards males goes away, after one develops an attraction towards females and, perhaps, a good deal of self-discipline.

As stated before, I do believe that bisexuals should only enter into relationships with people of the opposite sex.


I do know that this happens for some gays. I know that you don't like my alcohol addiction analogies, but if someone has cured themselves of alcohol addiction and doesn't touch a drop of liquor for years (similar to Pres. Bush) couldn't this also be applied to sexual addiction (homo or heterosexual)?

No, I don't dislike the analogy, but I'd emphasize that there is strong evidence that one's sexual orientation does stem from before birth.
However, I'd agree that one could be "cured" from homosexuality and still feel attracted to males from time to time.


It could mean that the craving is gone, couldn't it? A person may not have a second thought about it because they have discovered something better; of a better way to live and no longer see it as something desirable. It is the people who are still struggling with an addiction who should not be involved in therapy for others...I would think.

Alcoholism is never gone.


Stephen's claim of being cured may just be an anecdote in your opinion, but it is the life he is currently living right now. Science doesn't have the answers to EVERYTHING ya know!

I never dismissed his claim that he changed as impossible. Science did show that this can happen. I just think that it's been proven to be rather difficult in most cases and that we need to take this into account in how we minister to homosexuals.

dlw