View Full Version : Homosexuals...?!
r3port3r66
07-10-04, 08:20 PM
Once upon a time, my father hated gay people. I think most of the world did! Calling gay people sick, or mentally disturbed was the norm. But today everyone knows someone who's gay! In fact people with gay friends often stick up for their homosexual counterparts. A few gay clients at work have both of their names on the medical chart as being partners--and they don't care--it's like totally normal!
Why has the generation changed? When did it become acceptable to be gay? Of course California has always been accepting of diversity, but the whole country has recently become aware that gay people do exist and we must now think twice about gay marriage.
As a species, does the human population now recognize that homosexuals should be treated with the same respect as straight people? Why?
Do you have a gay friend/ family member? How do you feel about them?
my nephew is gay and everyone accepts him...personally, i don't hate anyone...everyone should have the same rights
The Taxi Driver
07-10-04, 09:15 PM
my cousin is gay and nobody treats him differently
I personally do not know anyone who is a homosexual, but I do recognize them with respect and courtesy as I would with heterosexuals. A human being is a human being and if that's his/her's sexual preference....so let it be.
Ash_Lee
07-11-04, 09:59 AM
I think people should be allowed to be who they want to be and the rest of us should live with it. The only people I truly hate are the knuckle grazing, "******" bashing neanderthals that roam the streets at night. This might not go down very well with some of you, but I think that if a person is homophobic or racist then that's fine and we have to live with it (it's wrong to judge people on their beliefs), but only if they keep their feelings to themselves and not make life a misery for everyone else.
Equilibrium
07-11-04, 05:15 PM
I think being gay is WRONG. But I respect those who chose to go down that path. (I respect them, not their decision). I would never insult a gay person based on that, ever.
I don't know when it became acceptable to be gay. To some, it's always been acceptable. To others, it still isn't. But I imagine your question, at heart, is about why homosexuality is so much more accepted on average today than it was, say, in the 1950s.
If so, I don't think I have a particularly insightful answer: we're more accepting of homosexuals today because we should be. I believe that people tend to get more things right if given enough time, and treating homosexuals like the human beings they are, even if some form of disappreement is present, is just the right thing to do. And, being a free society, we've eventually come to realize this.
Sidewinder
07-11-04, 10:14 PM
I have nothing against Homosexuals. I don't know any immediate friends who are gay but those people who are gay that I know of are treated with the same respect that anyone else recieves. The only time that Gay people will annoy me is when they go all 'Camp' (I think the expression is) and feel the need to flaunt it infront of everyone, that can start to get on my nerves. The same applies for hetrosexuals I spose though, like when a couple are all over each other in public. I can find that awkward and uncomfortable as well.
SamsoniteDelilah
07-12-04, 04:11 AM
I have some sort of natural affinity for gay people. My first boyfriend in kindergarden was gay by the time he hit high school, and it's been the story of my life ever since, expecially during my theater years.
I think the change started in the cities during the 70's, when gays became more vocal - Harvey Fierstein's Torch Song Trilogy and Billie Jean King broke ground... and then more recently, Will and Grace pushed the envelope a little more, in the living rooms of middle-america. And the press has given a lot more attention to gay-bashing hate crimes, which has opened a lot of people's eyes about the need to be vocally supportive, rather than whispering about it.
Having spent some time in the Trance scene, I have many gay friends, both female and male. All these peeps are extremely cool and intelligent. I think traits like that are what I look for in a friend, not who they sleep with.
angelwingsdevil
07-12-04, 12:04 PM
People should be judged by their personality not their sexual preference. I really don't care what any of my friends do in the bedroom, whether they be hetrosexual or homosexual. That's really none of my business. And hey, as long as their happy.
Caitlyn
07-12-04, 10:20 PM
I think being gay is WRONG. But I respect those who chose to go down that path. (I respect them, not their decision). I would never insult a gay person based on that, ever.
I think I know what you are trying to say… but I don’t think you realize that by saying you think being gay is wrong, is an insult in itself… and from what the gay people I know have told me, the majority went through a living hell before they came to terms with the fact they are gay… to the point that several of them tried to commit suicide… and one of them I know is completely cut off from his family because they refused to believe he couldn’t change his sexual preference… even though he had tried.
Anyway, I was basically raised to believe THIS (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=102789&postcount=128) ... and have several very close friends and a couple of cousins who are gay… One of my cousins has been with his partner for about 5 years now and as far as I am concerned, I have another cousin.
Equilibrium
07-13-04, 12:58 AM
I think being gay is WRONG. But I respect those who chose to go down that path. (I respect them, not their decision). I would never insult a gay person based on that, ever.
I don't understand why I am getting such bad rep for this, I really didn't intend to insult anyone. I don't like being called moronic, foolish, cowardly, and everything else I was called. Giving someone bad reputation points even when they went out of their way to say they ACCEPT gay people, they just don't agree with it.
I won't back down from what I said earlier. But, I will rephrase so that everyone who bad reped me will see that I am in fact an accepting person, going to a college in which 55% of the students are either gay or bi. So if anything, I'll be around more gay people the next 4 years than most of my life.
Although I ACCEPT gay people, I personally would never do anything like it because I don't think its right. I don't think fighting is right either, but I don't reject someone or anything just because they were in a fight. See wwhat I am saying?
I ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT get it???
I mean what more do I need to say, except CHANGE my opinion, which I will not.
Equilibrium
07-13-04, 01:00 AM
Cait, thanks for the response. And I respect your opinion and agree in some areas. I know that homosexuals often struggle because of hatred towards them, but I am NOT that person. I just don't think its right (read post above). But thanks for clarifying :).
Garrett
07-13-04, 01:13 AM
The people that give Equilibrium bad rep for stating his opinion are being foolish, and any everyday joe can tell that he intended no malice in what he said. When you ask a question like this a personal opinion is expected, right? If everyone were to give the same answer and not say what they feel the world would be a pretty damn boring place. If you disagree with what was said, liven things up, bring it to the discussion.
SamsoniteDelilah
07-13-04, 02:44 AM
...Although I ACCEPT gay people, I personally would never do anything like it because I don't think its right. I don't think fighting is right either, but I don't reject someone or anything just because they were in a fight. See wwhat I am saying?
I ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT get it???
I mean what more do I need to say, except CHANGE my opinion, which I will not.
Your opinions about what you personally prefer are totally fine, and I doubt anyone would get upset with you for stating what you youself prefer. When you state that something is "WRONG", without saying it's your personal preference, the inference is that you think it's wrong for anyone... and you have to see that that would be offensive to people who see it as the right choice for them, no? To suggest that something is "wrong", if you mean "immoral" or whatever.... when that is a natural choice for others and hurts no one... is going to offend some. I'm not sure if that's what you meant, or if you're just saying you're not attracted to your own gender. Do you see the difference, anyway?
Equilibrium
07-13-04, 03:22 AM
the inference is that you think it's wrong for anyone...
Sam, read my post again clearly
I think being
...
Keywords= I and Think
Sidewinder
07-13-04, 04:58 AM
The people that give Equilibrium bad rep for stating his opinion are being foolish, and any everyday joe can tell that he intended no malice in what he said. When you ask a question like this a personal opinion is expected, right? If everyone were to give the same answer and not say what they feel the world would be a pretty damn boring place. If you disagree with what was said, liven things up, bring it to the discussion.
Right On.
Tea Barking
07-13-04, 12:41 PM
Equilibrium did you mean being gay is wrong for yourself, Meaning you wouldnt like to be gay yourself personally? But you accept gay people?
Or have i got it totally wrong lol
Gay people for me isnt an issue, if a man or a woman wants to be with the same sex then who i am i to say they cant?
Equilibrium
07-13-04, 01:25 PM
Equilibrium did you mean being gay is wrong for yourself, Meaning you wouldnt like to be gay yourself personally? But you accept gay people?
Yes, although just because I accept gay people, doesn't mean I accept homosexuality as ok. If you want to be gay thats fine..its ur right..and I will respect that..but it doesn't mean I have to agree with homosexuality. And I've always been normal with gay people, i don't be extra nice to them or mean..they are just like any other people.
SamsoniteDelilah
07-13-04, 03:52 PM
Yes, although just because I accept gay people, doesn't mean I accept homosexuality as ok. If you want to be gay thats fine..its ur right..and I will respect that..but it doesn't mean I have to agree with homosexuality. And I've always been normal with gay people, i don't be extra nice to them or mean..they are just like any other people.
This is exactly why I asked you for clarification.
blibblobblib
07-19-04, 04:24 PM
Equilibrium, when i read your first post, i was ready to give you bad rep, it was just the way you said it, "WRONG" is a pretty strong word to describe someones lifestyle, even if it is as mundane as homosexual. But now youve made your point a bit more clearer it makes more sense. Maybe just try a bit more 'tact' in the future.
As for homosexuality, i know several gay poeple, including my brother and one of my best friends sisboombah, and i love them to pieces no matter what their sexual preference is. Whats the difference between most gay poeple and most straight people? Sex. That is it. They have sex differently. i know this is a pretty black and white way of looking at it, as gay poeple sometimes do have certain mannerisms, but so do straight people. Different folks different strokes.
Equilibrium
07-19-04, 05:38 PM
I'll try and word things better in the future.
CrazyforMovies
07-19-04, 08:33 PM
There will be a film about Cary Grant; A touch of Pink, I can't believe he was gay! and I have been told that James Dean was..?!
Interesting isn't it.
I don't hate anyone except their behaviour. I hate homosexual behaviour. It is immoral and unnatural.Two men or two women can never reproduce naturally no-matter what circumstances. Hence the term unnatural. I had to say this and I know I'm going to get bashed with alot of you free thinking liberals.
SamsoniteDelilah
07-20-04, 02:49 AM
So..... people who don't want to, or can't have children are "immoral and unnatural", as well? And while you're answering, please explain how my question is liberal.
Thanks in advance.
So..... people who don't want to, or can't have children are "immoral and unnatural", as well? And while you're answering, please explain how my question is liberal.
Thanks in advance.
So you say that a man's body and another man's body or two women's bodies are specifically designed to have sexual intercourse?
And while you're answering, show me where I said that everyone who responds are liberal minded?
So you say that a man's body and another man's body or two women's bodies are specifically designed to have sexual intercourse?
What do you say to the fact that anal stimulation provides the same pleasure-reward as intercourse that can produce children? Why would God design humans like that then?
Couldn't it be that God designed things this way - that homosexuality is perfectly 'natural'? From population control, to providing alternative perspectives (as in Caitlyn's Native Indian example), homosexuality could be performing all kinds of useful services for humankind.
Where is your evidence that this isn't 'natural'?
Knoxville
07-20-04, 06:36 AM
My uncle is Gay and I adore him, as I do all of my family. I lived with a Gay guy for a while, we're still friends to this day and my best friend is also Gay. Whilst people are entitled to their opinions, I cannot accept that someones sexual preference, should be the sole purpose for hating someone, anymore than I can accept, someone's color or gender should be a basis for hating them.
Equilibrium
07-20-04, 07:15 AM
What do you say to the fact that anal stimulation provides the same pleasure-reward as intercourse that can produce children? Why would God design humans like that then?
Couldn't it be that God designed things this way - that homosexuality is perfectly 'natural'? From population control, to providing alternative perspectives (as in Caitlyn's Native Indian example), homosexuality could be performing all kinds of useful services for humankind.
Where is your evidence that this isn't 'natural'?
How is being homosexual useful..i'm just curious. I was under the impression that even gay people fight for their rights based on the fact that they have freedom of choice, and not because they think they are doing humanity any good. I mean how are two men having intercourse doing humanity any good? It might be doing THOSE two persons some good in terms of pleasure, but I highly doubt they are contributing anything to the global community by being gay.
How is being homosexual useful..i'm just curious. I was under the impression that even gay people fight for their rights based on the fact that they have freedom of choice, and not because they think they are doing humanity any good. I mean how are two men having intercourse doing humanity any good? It might be doing THOSE two persons some good in terms of pleasure, but I highly doubt they are contributing anything to the global community by being gay.
Well, historically, there are several reasons why homosexuality performs a very useful role in a stable society (and these still pretty much apply today):
-population size: if everyone was heterosexual populations would be even more likely to become inundated/overly large.
-social roles: men with no families to support and women who aren't pregnant (all the time, in many social set-ups) are free to perform other activities that benefit society with their time.
These two aspects make societies much more 'energy-efficient', as it were.
Darwinistically, this could certainly explain the natural existance of homosexuality. These actions sustain societies, so also contribute towards the creation of the next generation.
Caitlyn's point about homosexuals possibly having different mental set-ups could also contribute to this dynamic. Men and women seem to have distinct tendancies, and humans as a whole have a whole range of different mental skills and preferences. It's not at all far-fetched to assume that, if homosexuality is biologically determined, there may be corresponding distinctions in 'thinking-styles' (and that these could contribute to a complex yet adaptive and balanced society.)
Caitlyn
07-20-04, 10:52 AM
I mean how are two men having intercourse doing humanity any good?
In the future, please be a little more tactful with your descriptive examples.
How is being homosexual useful..i'm just curious. I was under the impression that even gay people fight for their rights based on the fact that they have freedom of choice, and not because they think they are doing humanity any good. I mean how are two men having intercourse doing humanity any good? It might be doing THOSE two persons some good in terms of pleasure, but I highly doubt they are contributing anything to the global community by being gay.
Well, you have to remember...it's not like they have decided to be gay, as if it was a business decision. I mean, if someone decided to become a mechanic after passing the BAR exam, you might say that he/she wasn't contributing as much as he/she can to society (even if being a mechanic made he/she happier than being a lawyer ever would). But you can't say the same thing about homosexuals. Thanks to genetic imposition, gay people are born gay. There is nothing they can do about it, and as a result, most of them accept themselves for who they are (because that's way better than listening to a society that labels them as inferior). They want to feel accepted, and as human beings, they have a right to be. No one should judge them for being gay, because if you've ever known any gay people, you'd know that being gay is only a part of who they are, and that there is more there than most people are willing to look.
How is being homosexual useful..i'm just curious. I was under the impression that even gay people fight for their rights based on the fact that they have freedom of choice, and not because they think they are doing humanity any good. I mean how are two men having intercourse doing humanity any good? It might be doing THOSE two persons some good in terms of pleasure, but I highly doubt they are contributing anything to the global community by being gay.
How are a man and a woman having sex doing humanity any good? Adding to the population can actually be bad, especially if the parents can't take care of the child properly, adding another dreg to society.
I'm sorry, you seem to be hung up on the sex aspect here. Do you actually believe gay people are all sorts of sex obsessed or something? I think they may be sharing some other aspects of their life as well. It's just like any other relationship, with activities like vacations, movies, dinners etc. If a gay couple are working, paying taxes, and going about life as normal, I believe that constitutes a contribution to society.
I don't know, you don't seem like you are going to budge, so these arguments are probably useless. Please all the contributions you have made to society. From what I can see, you are basing "contribution to society" solely on reproducing offspring. I would remind you of the scene in the Matrix where Smith talks about viruses, and what they do to "Contribute" to their society.... Life isn't black and white, and you can't quantify humanity into something like birth rate analysis....
So..... people who don't want to, or can't have children are "immoral and unnatural", as well? The issue of morality is very debatable, but as for unnatural; what's there to even argue about? The human body was either designed for, or has evolved, for certain biological purposes. Heterosexual sex is among them, as anyone who has any familiarity with the human anatomy can tell you.
This doesn't necessarily make homosexuality wrong, harmful, or anything of the sort, but it does put it at odds with the natural (either through a creator's intent, or through natural selection) use of the body. The real argument is over what conclusions we draw from that.
What do you say to the fact that anal stimulation provides the same pleasure-reward as intercourse that can produce children? Why would God design humans like that then? The human pysche is a bit more complex than that. Would you say that choking someone during intercourse is natural because there are a few masochists out there who get off on it? If there's one thing we know about the human mind, it's that it doesn't always desire natural or healthy things. This includes heterosexuals, I'll readily admit. The singular fact that people want to do it, in other words, doesn't necessarily render it "natural," be it in regards to homosexuality, or anything else.
Couldn't it be that God designed things this way - that homosexuality is perfectly 'natural'? From population control, to providing alternative perspectives (as in Caitlyn's Native Indian example), homosexuality could be performing all kinds of useful services for humankind. Technically, that's possible, but I think it's a stretch. You could use this argument in all sorts of absurd ways to defend or explain all sorts of sexual deviancy; not that I'm equating consensual homosexuality with them.
I know this is a rather controversial subject, so my apologies if I've offended any of our homosexual members. A few have been courageous enough to "out" themselves on these boards, and they've shown themselves to be intelligent, compassionate people. I imagine it's difficult to seperate the political from the personal here, but I hope we can.
gee nothings changed, Chris still can debate the ears off of a chicken
Chickens do have ears, but they are more like ear holes. They do not
possess an outer ear, or pinna, as most mammals possess, but they do have
actual ear lobes. The color of the lobe does somehow indicate the color of
their eggs. It is believed that the same gene that determines the color
of the ear lobe also determines egg color.
An all white chicken has white ear lobes therefore, white hens will lay
white eggs. A non-specific breed of broiler hen can be one of many colors
or multi-colored. Their ear lobes also can be colored from near white to
near black. These birds will lay eggs that are nearly white to a deep,
soft brown. The shade of brown of the egg will be indicated by the degree
of color of the ear lobe. In other words, a chicken with blackish lobes
will not lay a black egg, but it may be a deep brown.
so there
*Warning *This gets fairly biological - don't read on if you don't like reading about excitable glands
... but as for unnatural; what's there to even argue about? The human body was either designed for, or has evolved, for certain biological purposes....
Our bodies fulfill certain functions, and they also encourage and guide certain actions, sure.
'Specific' erogenous zones suggest a form of biological encouragement, a reward-system, for certain actions (and those intended actions, like heterosexual sex, can be called 'natural' then, yes?). It's intriguing then that the male body has a 'specific' erogenous area by the anus i.e. the perineum?
I guess it could be that the male perineum is sensitised because it may get stimulated to an extent during heterosexual sex too, and that it's just a coincidence that it's also triggered by anal penetration. Makes me wonder whether the missionary position was our ancestor's staple stance tho ;)
There's certainly debate in this area concerning claims about 'G-spots' - like the idea that the prostate also acts as an erogenous zone. Certainly, some experts in the field, like the marvellously named Dr Winklemann, don't consider them to be true 'specific' erogenous zones.
If the biological debate was clear cut tho, and the prostate was considered a 'specific' erogenous zone, then i think it would be a massive argument in favour of the biological and survivalist 'naturalness' of male homosexuality (and would equally strengthen a socio-darwinistic argument for the 'naturalness' of female homosexuality). It would suggest that there might be either species or individual survival-value in the actions it encourages.
It would also be God's will, if that's your belief system :)
The human pysche is a bit more complex than that. Would you say that choking someone during intercourse is natural because there are a few masochists out there who get off on it? If there's one thing we know about the human mind, it's that it doesn't always desire natural or healthy things. This includes heterosexuals, I'll readily admit. The singular fact that people want to do it, in other words, doesn't necessarily render it "natural," be it in regards to homosexuality, or anything else.
Strange that you use the word psyche here. Sexual strangulation has a biological reward (increased orgasm sensation due to oxygen deficiency etc), so it's not just a whim.
Never-the-less, you seem to be classing homosexuality as a psychological whim - one without any core biological processes driving it. (the debate is very much open here. I don't think there's any conclusive neurological/biological information concerning sexual preference).
How would you feel if it was demonstrated scientifically that homosexuals are only aroused by their own sex. (it regularly seems to be the case, after all). Within the our-bodies-are-designed-for-certain-things argument, wouldn't that make homosexuality immediately 'natural'?
To complicate things further (:)), i think you're right to say that just because we have a natural impulse it doesn't immediately follow that acting on it is the best thing to do. But that's coz we've got the evolved/God-given faculty of consciousness that gives us some level of control over how we respond to our urges and reward systems, and allows us to judge best practice etc.
But that's a whole nother kettle of chickens ;)
Technically, that's possible, but I think it's a stretch. You could use this argument in all sorts of absurd ways to defend or explain all sorts of sexual deviancy; not that I'm equating consensual homosexuality with them.
Well, i think i've given a few fairly valid reasons why homosexuality could be 'natural' in the sense of being socially-beneficial. I'd love to hear what you think the social benefits of sexual strangulation are ;) :p
SamsoniteDelilah
07-20-04, 04:55 PM
The issue of morality is very debatable, but as for unnatural; what's there to even argue about?
I agreed with your bafflement, until I realised you think sex is to be used only for procreation, as evidenced by your further posts. There is more to heaven and earth, Horatio... :) A whole lot more.
The human body was either designed for, or has evolved, for certain biological purposes. Heterosexual sex is among them, as anyone who has any familiarity with the human anatomy can tell you.
I can't imagine why you think they'd need to tell me that most obvious of points... Rest assured, I'm familiar with human anatomy.
This doesn't necessarily make homosexuality wrong, harmful, or anything of the sort, but it does put it at odds with the natural (either through a creator's intent, or through natural selection) use of the body. The real argument is over what conclusions we draw from that.
Maslow would disagree. I believe the lowest level on his little pyramid thingy was: food, shelter, sex. (Not food, shelter, babies.) Many animals masturbate, not just humans by any stretch (pun not intended). So... how can you call it "natural" to limit sexual pleasure to the purpose of furthering the race?
I don't have long; just wanted to address these two bits, for now...
I agreed with your bafflement, until I realised you think sex is to be used only for procreation, as evidenced by your further posts. There is more to heaven and earth, Horatio... :) A whole lot more.Maslow would disagree. I believe the lowest level on his little pyramid thingy was: food, shelter, sex. (Not food, shelter, babies.) Many animals masturbate, not just humans by any stretch (pun not intended). So... how can you call it "natural" to limit sexual pleasure to the purpose of furthering the race? When did I say that sex was only for procreation? Escape, I think, said as much, but I didn't voice any agreement...because I don't agree.
Oh, also...
I can't imagine why you think they'd need to tell me that most obvious of points... Rest assured, I'm familiar with human anatomy. I should have clarified; when I say we were designed for heterosexual sex, I mean we were designed for it as opposed to homosexual sex. I'm not sure why I phrased that the way I did.
Equilibrium
07-20-04, 10:13 PM
Well, you have to remember...it's not like they have decided to be gay, as if it was a business decision. I mean, if someone decided to become a mechanic after passing the BAR exam, you might say that he/she wasn't contributing as much as he/she can to society (even if being a mechanic made he/she happier than being a lawyer ever would). But you can't say the same thing about homosexuals. Thanks to genetic imposition, gay people are born gay. There is nothing they can do about it, and as a result, most of them accept themselves for who they are (because that's way better than listening to a society that labels them as inferior). They want to feel accepted, and as human beings, they have a right to be. No one should judge them for being gay, because if you've ever known any gay people, you'd know that being gay is only a part of who they are, and that there is more there than most people are willing to look.
No I understand that. I understand that they are born this way, and that its not in their hands. But I really do think its stretching it a bit to say that we NEED homosexual in order to have a balance. I do agree that we need uniqueness in our society, and being homosexual is uniique, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that homesexual people specifically, contribute to society. Another thing is this whole idea that homosexuals prevent over population. But I think this countered by the fact that the use of condoms is used commonly nowadays, by both heteros and homos. Therefore, I don't see how that constitues as a plus. Finally, if the only way to NOT overpopulate the planet is by becoming gay, then what have we come to.
Black Mamba
07-20-04, 10:27 PM
It has became more acceptable in society by people, however, there are the same number of homophobics as there were years ago, its only that today, its more of a closed thing, its not expressed as it used to be.
People tend hate everything thats differnet.
In some countries with the strong religious influence, mostly Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and such, homosexualty is till punishable by death.
I think people should be educated, because ignorance leads to prejudice and ultimatly discrimination IMHO.
Couldn't it be that God designed things this way - that homosexuality is perfectly 'natural'?
If you're going to bring God into this, then I can in turn say the Christian God disaggrees as through succession of Apostolic teachings.
What do you say to the fact that anal stimulation provides the same pleasure-reward as intercourse that can produce children? Why would God design humans like that then?
Anyways, by what you say about pleasure of the same feeling being in that area I wouldn't know. However if it is true, then by your logic one would likewise say that a 10 year old boy who's body can recieve the same kind of pleasure is meant to have sexual relations. Just because a feeling is there, doesn't mean it is put there for sexual purpose. It reminds me of a sex therapist who once said, if we weren't meant to masurbate then our arms shouldn't be long enough to reach there.
In the future, please be a little more tactful with your descriptive examples
Caitlyn, you seem to show some prejuduce towards Equilibrium for others have used the same or even harsher descriptions.
Thanks to genetic imposition, gay people are born gay. This has never been proven. Nobody really knows the genesis of homosexuality. I believe some say it is a chemical imbalance that has been produced on the baby in it's early development.
How are a man and a woman having sex doing humanity any good? Adding to the population can actually be bad, especially if the parents can't take care of the child properly, adding another dreg to society.
Without a man or a woman having sex there wouldn't be a humanity. And I would have to say that if you want to control population, we have to have better control of our sexual desires.
How would you feel if it was demonstrated scientifically that homosexuals are only aroused by their own sex. (it regularly seems to be the case, after all). Within the our-bodies-are-designed-for-certain-things argument, wouldn't that make homosexuality immediately 'natural'?
This is hypothetical so it really is irrevelant. I could apply the same question to a man who is attracted to animals or a pedifile attracted to little boys or girls.
I agreed with your bafflement, until I realised you think sex is to be used only for procreation, as evidenced by your further postsThat depends on the individual. I believe sex is to be between one man and one woman open to the possibility of creating a new life.
It has became more acceptable in society by people, however, there are the same number of homophobics as there were years ago, its only that today, its more of a closed thing, its not expressed as it used to be.Just because one dissaggrees with the homosexual lifstyle doesn't make them homophobic. I don't think that children should be brought up in an unbalanced family with two women or two men. The foundation and structure of the family is very important to me. Remember, once homosexual marriages become the norm, you better be willing to allow incestual marriages as well. Ah yes, what a society we will eventually become.
Caitlyn
07-21-04, 01:48 AM
Caitlyn, you seem to show some prejuduce towards Equilibrium for others have used the same or even harsher descriptions.
Equilibrium knew exactly what I was referring to… Next time, you might what to check out the bottom of someone’s original post - the part that says: Edited by Caitlyn ...before you pass judgment.
Equilibrium
07-21-04, 01:53 AM
Equilibrium knew exactly what I was referring to… Next time, you might what to check out the bottom of someone’s original post - the part that says: Edited by Caitlyn ...before you pass judgment.
Hey, I didn't say anything regrading that. I think you made a good decision changing it to what you changed it to. I just got out of hand and wanted to stop the whole going around dooors and felt like saying something bluntly for once. Sorry.
Caitlyn
07-21-04, 01:57 AM
Hey, I didn't say anything regrading that. I think you made a good decision changing it to what you changed it to. I just got out of hand and wanted to stop the whole going around dooors and felt like saying something bluntly for once. Sorry.
Don't worry about it... you're cool... just remember we do have a few kids on here... :)
Equilibrium
07-21-04, 02:27 AM
Don't worry about it... you're cool... just remember we do have a few kids on here... :)
Yes indeed. :) Thanks cait, you're the best.
Equilibrium knew exactly what I was referring to… Next time, you might what to check out the bottom of someone’s original post - the part that says: Edited by Caitlyn ...before you pass judgment.
A simple mistake as with the post to which you backed up your comment and my not realizing you were a moderator of some sort with the ability to edit someone else's thread.
I appologize. :D
No I understand that. I understand that they are born this way, and that its not in their hands. But I really do think its stretching it a bit to say that we NEED homosexual in order to have a balance. I do agree that we need uniqueness in our society, and being homosexual is uniique, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that homesexual people specifically, contribute to society. Another thing is this whole idea that homosexuals prevent over population. But I think this countered by the fact that the use of condoms is used commonly nowadays, by both heteros and homos. Therefore, I don't see how that constitues as a plus. Finally, if the only way to NOT overpopulate the planet is by becoming gay, then what have we come to.
Alright, I'll admit that there really is no conventional use for homosexuality in the terms you are describing (save that homosexuality keeps the world a richly diverse place to live). But there really is no conventional use for television, either, yet we still concede to watching it. There is no conventional use for McDonald's, yet we still dine there. But if you suddenly told these examples you didn't need them, there would be no ramifications. Homosexuals are people, and being homosexual is the natural tendency they were born with, and they have every right to live with that tendency. Would you really want to tell them you'd prefer they weren't homosexual, because you didn't think the world needed homosexuality?
This has never been proven. Nobody really knows the genesis of homosexuality. I believe some say it is a chemical imbalance that has been produced on the baby in it's early development.
Quite true, although the idea that royal and religious inbreeding in Europe and elsewhere has led to genetic deformity remains a sound one (considering that America, in particular, was cultivated largely by these nations).
If you're going to bring God into this, then I can in turn say the Christian God disaggrees as through succession of Apostolic teachings.
On one level, i brought God into it out of respect for varying belief-systems. (although incidently, i think some believers would disagree with you concerning Biblical condemnation of homosexuality)
On another, i was trying to address the idea of what is 'natural'. There seem to be two main themes here concerning justifying the 'naturalism' of homosexuality.
1) Is it biologically 'natural'? (i.e. is it a Darwinistically/God-determined phenomenon)
2) Is it socially 'natural'? (i.e. is it something that has always existed in human society, and hence is almost certainly useful in socio-Darwinistic terms, or at the very least doesn't do it any meaningful damage).
To me the two themes are linked, but i was pushing the biological side to counter-act the idea that homosexuality is automatically 'unnatural' just because no children will be generated through it.
Outside this argument of whether or not it's 'natural', there's also the main it-doesn't-hurt-anyone argument too (i understand you disagree concerning adoption, but that's worth debating too).
Anyways, by what you say about pleasure of the same feeling being in that area I wouldn't know. However if it is true, then by your logic one would likewise say that a 10 year old boy who's body can recieve the same kind of pleasure is meant to have sexual relations. Just because a feeling is there, doesn't mean it is put there for sexual purpose.
This just highlights how complex the idea of something being 'natural' really is.
We can agree then that just because we have an urge or ability, it doesn't mean that following/using it is automatically right. (i.e. we could say: Human bodies slowly evolved/God designed humans, and slowly human societies evolved/God passed down laws to govern how we 'use' our bodies etc).
The boy's sensation of pleasure is a sign that he's capable of procreation, or close to it. We can agree that he's not mentally ready, but he's physically able. The question still remains then, what does the pleasurable sensation in the anal region signify? (i.e. Why did it evolve?/Why did God design it?)
You haven't tackled that question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This has never been proven. Nobody really knows the genesis of homosexuality. I believe some say it is a chemical imbalance that has been produced on the baby in it's early development.
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but i did some research and found some interesting stuff. There seems to be a gathering body of evidence that suggest homosexuality is biologically predetermined. This validates the idea that homosexuality is not really a choice, but a biologically-determined preference. By some arguments, it's 'natural' ;).
Sexual orientation ‘hard-wired’ before birth
http://www.uel.ac.uk/news/press_releases/releases/s_or.htm
An estimated 4% of men and 3% of women are homosexual, but the hypothesis of a 'gay gene' remains controversial. Recent studies report links between foetal development, testosterone levels and adult sexuality, but this study offers the first independent evidence of a non-learned neurological basis for sexual orientation.
Prozac Highlights Brain Differences in Homosexual Men
http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2003-11-14-2
The antidepressant Prozac has helped scientists locate differences in the brain of homosexual and heterosexual men, strengthening the link between neurobiology and sexual orientation.
Genes Organize Male, Female Brain Differently http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2003-10-20-7
"It's quite possible that sexual identity and physical attraction is 'hardwired' by the brain," he says. "If we accept this concept, we must dismiss the myth that homosexuality is a 'choice' and examine our civil legal system accordingly."
This physical varience from the 'norm' (whether caused by hormonal or genetic factors) isn't 'wrong' or 'worse' per se. Just thought i'd point that out in case anyone thinks that way. You'd have to count all left-handers as 'wrong' as well then, for a start ;).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is hypothetical so it really is irrevelant. I could apply the same question to a man who is attracted to animals or a pedifile attracted to little boys or girls.
Yeah, it wasn't the best example. I was just trying to establish how you felt as someone who believes God designed humans. Seeing as homosexuality does seem to be 'hard-wired', why do you think God designed humans that way?
That depends on the individual. I believe sex is to be between one man and one woman open to the possibility of creating a new life.
Remember, once homosexual marriages become the norm, you better be willing to allow incestual marriages as well. Ah yes, what a society we will eventually become.
Would you care to explain that?
Incestual marriages carry a clear risk of unsustainable and dehabilitating genetic disorder which magnifies over generations. On the principle of individual rights alone that shouldn't be permitted in a democracy because of the child's lack of choice.
Quite true, although the idea that royal and religious inbreeding in Europe and elsewhere has led to genetic deformity remains a sound one (considering that America, in particular, was cultivated largely by these nations).
That is the most bizarre (not to mention sleezy) thing i've read in a long while.
I think, in the first place, you should be careful of the word 'deformity'. Genetic varience is already the 'norm' as it is, but genetic differences that have a markedly distinct/profound outcome don't always impair the individual by any means (which is what the word 'deformity' implies).
And in the second place.... yeah right, 'blame' major-mutability on us immoral europeans :rolleyes: ;). [erm, intriguing theory. Not sure that inbreeding is the sole cause of genetic diversity tho by any means, or that europe would have been alone in encouraging cousins to marry etc ;)]
The boy's sensation of pleasure is a sign that he's capable of procreation, or close to it. We can agree that he's not mentally ready, but he's physically able. The question still remains then, what does the pleasurable sensation in the anal region signify? (i.e. Why did it evolve?/Why did God design it?)
You haven't tackled that question.
But then one can say why did God allow little boys to feel the sensation if he is not mentally ready? Why did He not allow our bodies to develop that part later on around our adult age? Or why can a 10 year old girl get pregnant?
As in why we have sensation down there perhaps it is connected with bowel movements. Perhaps their is a better answer out there somewhere but still I feel just because the feeling is there, it doesn't mean it is too be used in that way as to the example above.
Yeah, it wasn't the best example. I was just trying to establish how you felt as someone who believes God designed humans. Seeing as homosexuality does seem to be 'hard-wired', why do you think God designed humans that way?
I believe that since the fall of man, it created a ripple effect not only through our spirits but also through our bodies. We became physically imperfect. That is why we have so many diseases, or mentally and physically handicapped individuals.
Incestual marriages carry a clear risk of unsustainable and dehabilitating genetic disorder which magnifies over generations. On the principle of individual rights alone that shouldn't be permitted in a democracy because of the child's lack of choice.
But you see, there is always a way around things to make them suit the needs of apparent rights for an individual. What if a law was made so that the father and daughter were to get fixed as to never be able to create a child of their own. Only adopt. Problem solved. Or the way abortion is going, it is manditory for them to get an ultra sound in case there is a genitic disorder in the child thereby making them abort only those fetuses.
I just think that in today's world, moral views are consantly changing and sin is no longer recognized. I'm not trying to preach but those are my feelings.
I also want to add that certain chemical imbalances in peoples brain's causes them to commit some pretty serious violent acts. Should this also be deemed as natural or an imperfection?
But then one can say why did God allow little boys to feel the sensation if he is not mentally ready? Why did He not allow our bodies to develop that part later on around our adult age? Or why can a 10 year old girl get pregnant?
Yes, we can. Any answers?
I suspect you will play the we-are-'flawed' card that you play below. I say there why i think these natural phenomenons need to be examined/'answered'.
As in why we have sensation down there perhaps it is connected with bowel movements. Perhaps their is a better answer out there somewhere but still I feel just because the feeling is there, it doesn't mean it is too be used in that way as to the example above.
Why would the body reward us for getting rid of our feces? We'd die if we didn't do it. I think we can discount that idea.
You seem to have nothing other than a hunch then to justify calling homosexual activity 'unnatural' on biological/scientific grounds.
I believe that since the fall of man, it created a ripple effect not only through our spirits but also through our bodies. We became physically imperfect. That is why we have so many diseases, or mentally and physically handicapped individuals.
Ok, so first off, you see homosexuality as a deformity of sorts. Yet you seem to have nothing more than your hunch to justify this definition within a scientific context.
I dare say you might try and define them as deformed within a religious context. You seem to be saying they're deformed compared to Adam and Eve, for example.
But the Fall is where we enter the conundrum concerning the extent of God's will (and, therefore, what is natural)
Is everything pre-ordained, part of the ineffable scheme, or has God given us our heads, as it were, since the Fall, and allowed us to live out both the Good and Evil potentials within us? (not much of a choice for us, but there you go ;) - but it must have been His choice to make it so - because at that point both the individuals and situations were Pure Good, designed by him. He orchestrated everything).
Now that's all fine, as such, when it comes to human choices. You can use the bible etc to makes your decisions as close to Goodness/God's will as possible. But what about when there's no choice? What about an irreversible deformity for example? What about biologically-determined sexual preferences?
Even if you care to define these things as Evil, they are still things that God allowed to happen. They must be God's will, surely. These things must be natural.
But you see, there is always a way around things to make them suit the needs of apparent rights for an individual. What if a law was made so that the father and daughter were to get fixed as to never be able to create a child of their own. Only adopt. Problem solved. Or the way abortion is going, it is manditory for them to get an ultra sound in case there is a genitic disorder in the child thereby making them abort only those fetuses.
Modern democracies are still run on the dual principles of social responsability and individual rights. I really can't see eugenics being (re)introduced just to pander to those extremists. One of the social mechanisms that would prevent such a change is medical ethics. The majority of the medical profession would welcome neither eugenics nor abortions necessitated by an action like inbreeding.
Eugenics is certainly going to become a bigger and bigger issue as genetics reveals more and more (although still less than most of its practictioners think :rolleyes: ). But i really don't think that inbreeding would be the trigger for its acceptability.
I just think that in today's world, moral views are consantly changing and sin is no longer recognized. I'm not trying to preach but those are my feelings.
Right and wrong are still recognised. We just have to come to a consensus on what they are, on some social issues. I think you underestimate the morals/ethics that exist in secular societies.
Personally i believe they are more able to learn from past and present sources of human knowledge, and as such can reach better ethical/moral conclusions than pre-determined religious definitions of Good and Evil. (I am trying to preach, coz those are my thoughts-and-feelings ;). But i'm preaching discussion. :))
I also want to add that certain chemical imbalances in peoples brain's causes them to commit some pretty serious violent acts. Should this also be deemed as natural or an imperfection?
I said a variation from the norm isn't automatically wrong/evil/worse by default. I didn't say that it couldn't be.
Equilibrium
07-22-04, 11:30 PM
You know, some of you..who shall remain nameless..instead of given me negative rep points every time I post here on this thread..should at least say something...I mean for crying out loud u left your name in the negative rep point comment..but you didnt make a single post in this entire thread.......it doesn't add up.
Garrett
07-23-04, 01:02 AM
Golgot, I was looking through the articles you posted about sexuality being "hard-wired," do you know of any that suggest the opposite?
Yes, we can. Any answers?
I suspect you will play the we-are-'flawed' card that you play below. I say there why i think these natural phenomenons need to be examined/'answered'.
You're missing my point. This just simply shows that we cannot back up homosexual acts merely because of sensations in certain bodily areas.
Why would the body reward us for getting rid of our feces? We'd die if we didn't do it. I think we can discount that idea.
I was meaning that certain nerve endings could have more than one job to do within the body. Many people also say that they get aroused by getting whipped. Does getting aroused by punishing the flesh automatically give it reason for taking such actions?
You seem to have nothing other than a hunch then to justify calling homosexual activity 'unnatural' on biological/scientific grounds.
I can say the same thing towards you about it being natural.
If 2-3 percent of the population has an attraction towards each other, to me it is very abnormal compared to the rest of the population.
Homosexual unions again cannot reproduce and would quickly die out if they were the only ones around. This to me goes against natures designs. And I have already heard the argument that it could be a population control mechanism by nature itself. Not likely or we would have a larger number of homosexuals in our human race. That small percentage just would'nt do.
Ok, so first off, you see homosexuality as a deformity of sorts. Yet you seem to have nothing more than your hunch to justify this definition within a scientific context.
Your question to my response was why did God etc. This was a philosophical question and I gave a philosophical answer.
You seem to be saying they're deformed compared to Adam and Eve, for example.
I said they were flawed.
But the Fall is where we enter the conundrum concerning the extent of God's will (and, therefore, what is natural)
For you it may be but not for me as I believe the Holy Spirit Guides the Church and does not leave it up for man to know the moral truths with his feeble mind. There are just too many religions with different right and wrongs. Without God's aid, we will never truly know what they are.
but it must have been His choice to make it so - because at that point both the individuals and situations were Pure Good, designed by him. He orchestrated everything).
Humans were created without sin but still with free will. And with the tempting of the devil whispering sweet nothings into our first parent's ears they were capable of falling. They wanted to be equal to God with all His knowledge and this is not acceptable to Him.
Now that's all fine, as such, when it comes to human choices. You can use the bible etc to makes your decisions as close to Goodness/God's will as possible. But what about when there's no choice? What about an irreversible deformity for example? What about biologically-determined sexual preferences?
What about biologically-determined sexual preferences for little boys or girls? What about biological theories that say men cannot be monogumous and must have more than one partner? Some things can be tougher to resist than others but with our minds and the Graces of God, we can overcome them.
Even if you care to define these things as Evil, they are still things that God allowed to happen. They must be God's will, surely. These things must be natural.
It was God's will to allow it to happen, but God did not will it to happen. God cannot sin.
The majority of the medical profession would welcome neither eugenics nor abortions necessitated by an action like inbreeding.
Medical ethics. That's a good one. You mean the same medical professionals that gladly participate in abortion for any reasons? I could say that they would have never allowed this to become legal and dominant among these so-called medical professionals 50 years ago and look at what happened. It doesn't take much to change one's ethics. How about Cloning? That's another thing that will most likely become the norm.
Right and wrong are still recognised. Moral right and wrong or ethical right and wrong? Big difference. The islamic terrorists believe they are right and everone else is wrong so who has the authority to recognize right or wrong?
I think you underestimate the morals/ethics that exist in secular societies.
I think you put too much faith in the morals/ethics that exist in secular societies.
Personally i believe they are more able to learn from past and present sources of human knowledge, and as such can reach better ethical/moral conclusions than pre-determined religious definitions of Good and Evil. (I am trying to preach, coz those are my thoughts-and-feelings . But i'm preaching discussion. )
And my beliefs tell me that there is a right and wrong according to God's laws and they can never be changed. Truth is truth. Unchangeable. Homosexual unions are one of them. Against the will of God.
Golgot, I was looking through the articles you posted about sexuality being "hard-wired," do you know of any that suggest the opposite?
Well, it's hard to prove an absence, so i haven't found any literature that 'proves' there is an absence of genetic/biological causality.
My understanding is that opposition to the idea of genetically-determined sexuality has mainly gone along the lines that there is (or at least was) no evidence.
I just checked on some medical/scientific search pages (Entrez Pub-Med and Scirus), and there's a wealth of stuff relating to psychology and sexual preferences, but mainly concerning dealing with feelings rather than the cause of them.
So, at the moment, no :).
You're missing my point. This just simply shows that we cannot back up homosexual acts merely because of sensations in certain bodily areas.
It's not enough on its own, but its a sign that warrents further investigation.
You say here that early-pubescent children and biologically-determined homosexuals are the same. I say a little investigation says otherwise...
A child who reaches puberty at an early age isn't fit to deal maturely with sex or to bring up any resulting children, and so is clearly going to negatively affect themselves, the baby, and society.
So the main argument is this: do homosexuals negatively affect themselves, society, or the continuation of the human race.
I say no, and i base my argument on evidence. The details are in the following responses (along with more stuff on 'naturalness')...
I was meaning that certain nerve endings could have more than one job to do within the body. Many people also say that they get aroused by getting whipped. Does getting aroused by punishing the flesh automatically give it reason for taking such actions?
A 'specific' erogenous zone is recognised as an intense collection of nerve endings which are nearer the skin surface and provoke a pleasure response with ease and encourage the repetition of consciously-controlled activities. (The 'nonspecific' erogenous zone is... the rest of your skin.)
They could indeed have more than one job, as you say, but sh*tting is a vital activity, an unconscious process, and is therefore unlikely to need encouragement.
Whipping is distinct because it is an intense stimulation of normal sensation, and the pleasure is probably derived from a mixture of the intense 'input' and (increasingly associated) psychological/social factors.
So the easily-stimulated-anus is still an intriguing point. Especially in the context of what follows...
I can say the same thing towards you about it being natural.
If 2-3 percent of the population has an attraction towards each other, to me it is very abnormal compared to the rest of the population.
We've covered this to an extent. Just because a phenomenon is rare/'abnormal' doesn't automatically make it detrimental to individual or society.
Between 5 to 10% of the world's population are left handed (depending on the country). Would you say this is detrimental? Are they evil/'wrong'?
Homosexual unions again cannot reproduce and would quickly die out if they were the only ones around. This to me goes against natures designs.
And I have already heard the argument that it could be a population control mechanism by nature itself. Not likely or we would have a larger number of homosexuals in our human race. That small percentage just would'nt do.
Ok, first off, you've just acknowledged that homosexuals are a small percentage of society, and given the choice they wouldn't reproduce with members of the opposite sex, so there's no point in speculating on a humanity populated entirely by homosexuals, is there.
There is a genetics-theory that says that any genetic abnormality that is at a disadvantage when it comes to reproduction, yet never-the-less remains at a constant percentage, probably serves some darwinistic purpose to maintain this situation (this could be either a communally benefitting service, or soley a self-serving advantage. There is also the possibilty that it could just be a consistant mutation which crops up exclusive of mating habits).
Homosexuals fit into this pattern. Your argument that 'if homosexuals were useful/natural, there'd be more of them', is unfounded.
If this small social percentage is effective at producing benefit, and yet hasn't grown over time, it's reasonable to assume that it's already at it's most efficient ratio in its environment.
Even if this way-of-being is created by a regular mutation, the absence of a decline in numbers suggests that this phenomon has not been damaging to society over time.
-----------MAJOR 'PHILOSOPHICAL' DEBATE - MAIN THEME CONTINUES BELOW ;)------------
Your question to my response was why did God etc. This was a philosophical question and I gave a philosophical answer.
My original question was actually both scientific and philosophical. I asked you... if homosexuality was 'hard-wired', why would god have designed it that way.
Your answer was purely religious-based, therefore i addressed it in kind for the most part. But i also reminded you that this is a debate about right-and-wrong, which we both can benefit from, and unless you engage with the apparent facts, be they religious or scientific, there's no point in talking.
I said they were flawed.
You said these flaws took the form of diseases and mental and physical impairment. You included homosexuality in this category of flaws. You as-good-as termed homosexuality as a deformity. A peversion of what is correct. Isn't that how you see homosexuals?
For you it may be but not for me as I believe the Holy Spirit Guides the Church and does not leave it up for man to know the moral truths with his feeble mind. There are just too many religions with different right and wrongs. Without God's aid, we will never truly know what they are.
Listen, i agree that there is a huge amount that is both unknown and unknowable to the human mind. I agree that we are 'flawed' in this sense.
But you seem to take a strangely contradictory point of view when it comes to the Church. Although you acknowledge that the humans who represent the Church must also be flawed, you also occasionally imbue them with the perfection of God/The Holy Spirit. (when giving sacrament, when issuing amendments to the bible etc)
I'm afraid, to someone like myself, that's an unsatisfactory way to approach the world we have to live in. (and indeed, a major reason i persist in discussing issues with you is coz i would like you to admit that the Church can be wrong. Basically, i want you to admit that the Church and the flawed men that form it, are the same thing. For your own good :)).
I'm not saying there aren't moral truths, i'm just saying the Church isn't automatically the home of them, and that such truths must be constantly searched for with reference to all that has been and all that is now.
I know this won't convince you, and that this is the fundamental clash of beliefs is what makes our discussion more of an argument. My fear is that, with reference to homosexuality and other issues, you may do more harm than good in this world, while always thinking what you do can only be right if it follows the Church's teachings. (Incidently, and ironically, i think the Church does a lot of good ;)).
Humans were created without sin but still with free will. And with the tempting of the devil whispering sweet nothings into our first parent's ears they were capable of falling. They wanted to be equal to God with all His knowledge and this is not acceptable to Him.
So let me get this straight...
He made Perfect humans who could choose between Good and Evil.
They chose a fundamental Evil at the offset.
The result is a fall from Perfection.
So you're saying our Perfect 'parents', designed by God, chose the Evil which brought about them becoming imperfect.
So either God wanted that to happen (they were Perfect remember), or God is partially imPerfect/Evil.
Those are the choices, i'm afraid. Within the logical constructs of Christianity, you have to accept that God must have some flaws/Evil within him, or that Evil (both socially tempting Evil and biologically unavoidable Evil) is part of his plan.
Therefore, biological 'Evils'/imperfections of the world are either God's design, or God is flawed.
Let's say they are God's design (i doubt you like the other option).
You would say then, i dare say, that physical imperfections are God-permitted Evils, but through looking to the God's Church we can overcome them. That might make sense to you in terms of homosexuality, but how does it work in terms of a child born with no brain who is destined to die and kill his mother (to use a real-life example from another thread)? The only free will option is to terminate the child. Yet this contradicts Church law.
Are you spotting the flaw in Church law yet? Are you spotting how it can be wrong. If they adapt their ruling, i'd welcome it, but what does that say about what has gone on until then?
I suggest you consider the idea that there is Good and Bad in everything. Basically, that God/The Church has both Good and Bad within it. There is no seperate God and Devil, there is only the world, people (and, if you wish, Spirit) which can be both more creative or destructive as a whole. In many ways, neither can exist without the other. In many ways, this 'explains' the world in all its cruelty and beauty.
Which leaves us in the situation, with our flawed knowledge (and 'knowability'), of having to try and decide what is right by looking at what has gone before and what is now.
All your attempts to do otherwise are just running away from the world to an extent. I could mention child-molesting priests, and you'd say the Holy Spirit wasn't in them at that time. I've mentioned moral flaws in Church law, and you'll probably try and ascribe them to human error.
I go into this all, because you're still relying on such constructs to justify your belief that homosexuality is 'wrong'.
Consider the idea, that like everything else, homosexuality has goodness and badness in it, because it's a phenomonen in this good-n-bad world of ours. But consider most of all, the idea that it might have more good than bad - that overall, it is good, for the individuals involved, and for society.
It's a possibility. And it has both past and present evidence to back it up.
--------------------------------BACK TO THE MAIN DEBATE-----------------------------------
What about biologically-determined sexual preferences for little boys or girls? What about biological theories that say men cannot be monogumous and must have more than one partner? Some things can be tougher to resist than others but with our minds and the Graces of God, we can overcome them.
Most evidence certainly suggests that most species aren't set up to be monogamous. However, this is where social structures and biological structures go into 'competition' as it were. Where it's better for both individuals and societies for couples to stay together, you'll find the biological desires being overcome.
Paedophilic desires haven't been demonstrated to have a biological cause, to my knowledge, but i accept that could be the case. Again, the idea of best-social-and-individual-outcome-possible immediately makes such a biological desire unacceptable. This is the harsh end of judging what is 'best', but considering the child is damaged, the Paedophile must be condemned by society to forego their biological preference. It's not comparable to homosexuality in terms of damage to both individuals and society.
It was God's will to allow it to happen, but God did not will it to happen. God cannot sin.
See the 'philosophical' section for why i disagree with this concept.
Medical ethics. That's a good one. You mean the same medical professionals that gladly participate in abortion for any reasons? I could say that they would have never allowed this to become legal and dominant among these so-called medical professionals 50 years ago and look at what happened. It doesn't take much to change one's ethics. How about Cloning? That's another thing that will most likely become the norm.
I think you'll find that medical institutions don't participate in abortions for 'any reason', unless they're run purely for profit. Many medical practictioners operate on 'compassionate' principles, which leads to all sorts of outcomes.
Things can change. Eugenics was once practiced in the US, now it isn't. I don't trust medical ethics in all situations, but in the case of incest i trust them to stand fairly firm.
Moral right and wrong or ethical right and wrong? Big difference. The islamic terrorists believe they are right and everone else is wrong so who has the authority to recognize right or wrong?
Well exactly. They believe they are 'morally' right, coz they believe their God tells them so. Believing 'your' right is Morally right purely coz your God's representatives tell you so is a dangerous line to walk.
I think you put too much faith in the morals/ethics that exist in secular societies.
It's got its flaws. Hasn't everything? ;) :p
And my beliefs tell me that there is a right and wrong according to God's laws and they can never be changed. Truth is truth. Unchangeable. Homosexual unions are one of them. Against the will of God.
Truth may be Truth. The question is: how close to it are you? Believing you know the Truth, so therefore what you know is True, is a self-fulfilling prophecy that almost immediately disqualifies you ;).
It's not enough on its own, but its a sign that warrents further investigation.
I don't think it warrents any investigation. The prostate gland is right there. Right at the end of the tunnel. A little bit of pressure on this and BINGO! instant orgasm. There are no nerve endings in the rectum to provide this sensation as you call it. The anus is not flexible like the vagina. There is no natural lubricant that is produced down there. The rectum has one job and we know what that is. You have yet to prove that that anus is meant for such disgusting acts. Only a strawmans argument that if there is feeling there it can be possible.
So the main argument is this: do homosexuals negatively affect themselves, society, or the continuation of the human race.
These three so-called rules about what makes something immoral can also be challenged. How about a man who participates in beastiality? One can also argue that nothing negative that affects himself, society, or the continuation of the human race comes about from this.
Whipping is distinct because it is an intense stimulation of normal sensation, and the pleasure is probably derived from a mixture of the intense 'input' and (increasingly associated) psychological/social factors.
Nevertheless, the ends of the action still produces erotic sensations. And psycological/social factors also contribute to a male-female relationship.
So the easily-stimulated-anus is still an intriguing point. Especially in the context of what follows...As I already pointed out, it is not the anus that is being stimulated but pressure on the prostate gland.
Ok, first off, you've just acknowledged that homosexuals are a small percentage of society, and given the choice they wouldn't reproduce with members of the opposite sex, so there's no point in speculating on a humanity populated entirely by homosexuals, is there.
My point was to say that any living thing that only has an attraction for the same sex whereas they cannot reproduce is very illogical. They cannot sustain themselves on their own if indeed given that choice.
There is a genetics-theory that says that any genetic abnormality that is at a disadvantage when it comes to reproduction, yet never-the-less remains at a constant percentage, probably serves some darwinistic purpose to maintain this situation (this could be either a communally benefitting service, or soley a self-serving advantage. There is also the possibilty that it could just be a consistant mutation which crops up exclusive of mating habits).
You are assuming there is some kind of genetic mutation going on here when you have no proof. If genetics were the answer then when it comes to identical twins, both would be gay or both would be straight. They both carry the exact identical DNA which of course is the exact same genetics.
Homosexuals fit into this pattern. Your argument that 'if homosexuals were useful/natural, there'd be more of them', is unfounded.
No, I said that if one goes by this population control theory then there should be more of them.
If this small social percentage is effective at producing benefit, and yet hasn't grown over time, it's reasonable to assume that it's already at it's most efficient ratio in its environment.
Again you're assuming this act must be efficient in some way. I could likewise say that the very natural anger and pride that bring upon wars are efficient in population control but it doesn't make it morally right.
Even if this way-of-being is created by a regular mutation, the absence of a decline in numbers suggests that this phenomon has not been damaging to society over time.
Homosexual unions can be damaging to the identity of the Family Unit between the balance of a mother and a father.
My original question was actually both scientific and philosophical. I asked you... if homosexuality was 'hard-wired', why would god have designed it that way.
If you're going to bring God into this, don't always expect a scientific answer to contribute to why God did this and why God did that. All things about the reasons of God cannot be found in science. That would be foolish to think so.
You said these flaws took the form of diseases and mental and physical impairment. You included homosexuality in this category of flaws. You as-good-as termed homosexuality as a deformity. A peversion of what is correct. Isn't that how you see homosexuals? I term homosexuality as a disorder. Not what God intended. The acting upon this attraction is what is sinful and not the homosexual attraction itself.
But you seem to take a strangely contradictory point of view when it comes to the Church. Although you acknowledge that the humans who represent the Church must also be flawed, you also occasionally imbue them with the perfection of God/The Holy Spirit. (when giving sacrament, when issuing amendments to the bible etc)
I say that when it comes to truths to be shown to the faithful, God will intervene in the intellect of men and reveal moral rights and moral wrongs. He will never allow His Church to commit error when teaching of Faith and Morals in a binding way. How else is one to find out what is morally evil and what isn't. Just depending on ourselves just will not suffice.
I'm afraid, to someone like myself, that's an unsatisfactory way to approach the world we have to live in. (and indeed, a major reason i persist in discussing issues with you is coz i would like you to admit that the Church can be wrong. Basically, i want you to admit that the Church and the flawed men that form it, are the same thing. For your own good ).
That's not likely going to happen. God would never leave us with ourselves to teach each other.
I'm not saying there aren't moral truths, i'm just saying the Church isn't automatically the home of them, and that such truths must be constantly searched for with reference to all that has been and all that is now.
And how can we be sure without directly hearing it from God, if one is to know if these moral truths are indeed true? Do you know up untill the 1930's every christian denomination thought of birth control as intrinsically evil? Now pretty much all except the Catholic Church views it as ok. As I said before, the Church cannot change or reverse doctrine, only develop it. The Holy Spirit cannot teach against or contradict Himself.
My fear is that, with reference to homosexuality and other issues, you may do more harm than good in this world, while always thinking what you do can only be right if it follows the Church's teachings.And my fear is that with reference to homosexuality and other issues, you may do more harm than good in this world, while putting too much faith in the moral knowledge of man.
So let me get this straight...
He made Perfect humans who could choose between Good and Evil.He made humans without original sin. Only God is Perfect in the complete sense. To create them so they cant sin would be contradicting to Himself. God cannot create another God.
They chose a fundamental Evil at the offset.
The result is a fall from Perfection.
So you're saying our Perfect 'parents', designed by God, chose the Evil which brought about them becoming imperfect.I'm saying parents without biological flaws, or a spirit smeared with sin were Created by God and disobeyed Him with the Sin of Pride(wanting to become like God).
As for the consquense of this.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
So either God wanted that to happen (they were Perfect remember), or God is partially imPerfect/Evil.
These are your words and not mine.
You would say then, i dare say, that physical imperfections are God-permitted Evils, but through looking to the God's Church we can overcome them. physical imperfections are not evil. It is what we do with certain imperfections that can be evil. For example. An attraction to women is natural for a man. An attraction for women that leads to lustful desires, thoughts and actions is very sinful and rooted in evil.
That might make sense to you in terms of homosexuality, but how does it work in terms of a child born with no brain who is destined to die and kill his mother (to use a real-life example from another thread)? The only free will option is to terminate the child. Yet this contradicts Church law.
We've already been over this topic of Abortion.
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.
There are degrees of sin. Some direct abortions are more sinfull than others. However, every direct abortion is still sinful in itself.
Are you spotting the flaw in Church law yet? Are you spotting how it can be wrong. If they adapt their ruling, i'd welcome it, but what does that say about what has gone on until then?
Actually no, I don't see a flaw in Church law yet?
I suggest you consider the idea that there is Good and Bad in everything. Basically, that God/The Church has both Good and Bad within it. There is no seperate God and Devil, there is only the world, people (and, if you wish, Spirit) which can be both more creative or destructive as a whole. In many ways, neither can exist without the other. In many ways, this 'explains' the world in all its cruelty and beauty.
Sorry, I couldn't do that. I would be wandering away from Revealed Truths by the Holy Spirit for the erroneous knowledge by man. As I said befor, I will never put my faith in man alone.
I think you'll find that medical institutions don't participate in abortions for 'any reason', unless they're run purely for profit. Many medical practictioners operate on 'compassionate' principles, which leads to all sorts of outcomes.
You are only fooling yourself if you believe this. Here where I live, whatever the law is regarding to abortion, most hospitals and doctor, if they are not Catholic participate in such murderous immoral acts.
Well exactly. They believe they are 'morally' right, coz they believe their God tells them so. Believing 'your' right is Morally right purely coz your God's representatives tell you so is a dangerous line to walk.
So, would you believe incestual marriages are immoral even if there couldn't be a genetically mutated baby? How about legal prostitution rings? Immoral or not? How about a woman having sexual relations with a horse? There is a moral code to everything that should never change even if certain societies deems it so.
It's got its flaws. Hasn't everything? Which goes to show that by your logic moral truths are never assured. That doesnt sound right now does it?
D'yer Mak'er
07-24-04, 09:11 AM
we should stop all the negative vibes and play soccer
ps. give Escape and Equillibrium a break. they have some balls to speak openly about how they actually feel. But other than that keep up the debate. very stimulating conversation :)
Equilibrium
07-25-04, 01:06 AM
we should stop all the negative vibes and play soccer
ps. give Escape and Equillibrium a break. they have some balls to speak openly about how they actually feel. But other than that keep up the debate. very stimulating conversation :)
Thank you. :)
r3port3r66
07-25-04, 12:17 PM
With all this talk about sin, desires and such, makes you wonder why God created masterbation. I mean if your male and you touch male genitalia, even your own, ain't that gay? Same goes for women.
I don't think it warrents any investigation. The prostate gland is right there... You have yet to prove that that anus is meant for such disgusting acts. Only a strawmans argument that if there is feeling there it can be possible.
1) i was talking about the perineum, which is stimulated by anal penetration and is categorically a 'specific' erogenous zone.
2) i merely said this was intriguing, and that coupled with other facts about biologically determined sexual-preferences, it points to homosexuality being a biologically 'natural' and long-running phenomenon.
3) I notice you haven't put up any feasible arguments to the contrary.
If you want to talk about 'strawman' arguments, how about your line of argument, which claims it's right because it's right? The tautological nature of your belief system makes your conclusions unfounded and your analysis of data about as un-objective as can be.
These three so-called rules about what makes something immoral can also be challenged. How about a man who participates in beastiality? One can also argue that nothing negative that affects himself, society, or the continuation of the human race comes about from this.
This is a very good point.
I saw a program on 'beastialists' recently, and it seemed clear that many of them were running away from human society, and as such could be said to be doing themselves harm (i suspect there are also some unique added health risks). I'd say these people should be encouraged to re-engage with humanity for their own good, but ultimately it's their choice.
So ultimately, i think it should be 'frowned on', but i don't think it should be prohibited.
I dare say you find this sinful. I say it's dealing with reality. Humans have built up symbiotic relationships with various animals, from horse and dogs to farmyard animals, its no surprise that such dubious unions have sprung up. But i still think they should be viewed as that - dubious - not to be encouraged.
Nevertheless, the ends of the action still produces erotic sensations. And psycological/social factors also contribute to a male-female relationship.
Yes, but the point we were discussing was: Is there a specific biological precedant for this action (anal penetration: apparently yes. Whipping: no)
[QUOTE=Escape]As I already pointed out, it is not the anus that is being stimulated but pressure on the prostate gland.
Yes, you've pointed it out, but you're wrong. The penetration of the anus IS causing 'specific-erogenous' stimulation. Pressure on the prostate gland is also considered a possible cause of orgasm, but the experts are divided (though it would only be more evidence that the body has adapted to allow the encouragment of anal stimulation, so i don't know why you think it's such a winning point).
My point was to say that any living thing that only has an attraction for the same sex whereas they cannot reproduce is very illogical. They cannot sustain themselves on their own if indeed given that choice.
Illogical? Go tell it to God/The World. Because the phenomenon exists, whether it makes sense to you or not. Homosexuals are still here, we know they've existed historically, and biological precedents suggests the phenomenon extends beyond historical record.
Therefore, the only one being illogical is you by ignoring the facts and creating imaginary ones that you deem logical. The facts may not make sense to you, but that doesn't change them.
You are assuming there is some kind of genetic mutation going on here when you have no proof. If genetics were the answer then when it comes to identical twins, both would be gay or both would be straight. They both carry the exact identical DNA which of course is the exact same genetics.
I'm suggesting that it could explain the homosexual phenomenon from a biologically-determined perspective.
And you're wrong about the identical twins. Most identical twins are actually not identical, they often have subtle differences. This is because DNA does not work as simplistically as most people assume. Some genes come in two 'forms', where one type determines a specific outcome, while the other allows any of the physical possiblities to occur (if there were such genes for eye colour, it would mean the prescriptive type would code for a specific colour, while the non-prescriptive type would program for any of the possible eye colours.)
Twins inevitably have some genes which are of this non-prescriptive type, and so although their genetics are identical, the outcome is not.
No, I said that if one goes by this population control theory then there should be more of them.
Yes, and i was trying to demonstrate that that's nonsense. Why should there be more of them? If they are performing that function at the rate of 4% it's most likely it's because that is the optimum ratio. More, and there would be too much of an effect on population, less, and there would be not enough.
Again you're assuming this act must be efficient in some way. I could likewise say that the very natural anger and pride that bring upon wars are efficient in population control but it doesn't make it morally right.
I was addressing the possibility that, prior to social intervention, there might be a darwinistic/natural benefit, yes.
We're also addressing to what extent human societies should respect-or-control natural impulses. So, i agree that the undesirably violent nature of humantiy needs to be kept in check. The same doesn't hold true for homosexuality though. It's not causing violent death and suffering.
Homosexual unions can be damaging to the identity of the Family Unit between the balance of a mother and a father.
I assume you're talking about homosexuals adopting children. I think the native-indian idea that homosexuals could represent a 'mixed' biology and mentality suggest they could provide much of what a traditional family would. That said, i'm not entirely comfortable with the idea either. My preference would be for the law to allow heterosexual couples to have precedence in adoption cases (but if there's no one else to care for the child, hey, it's better than abortion yeah?)
If you're going to bring God into this, don't always expect a scientific answer to contribute to why God did this and why God did that. All things about the reasons of God cannot be found in science. That would be foolish to think so.
Good thing i don't think that then. I was asking for your perspective on biological naturalness/God's design. That is all.
I term homosexuality as a disorder. Not what God intended. The acting upon this attraction is what is sinful and not the homosexual attraction itself.
Ok, so i'll get to the bit about the contradictions of God permitting this biological situation and yet condemning it below...
I say that when it comes to truths to be shown to the faithful, God will intervene in the intellect of men and reveal moral rights and moral wrongs. He will never allow His Church to commit error when teaching of Faith and Morals in a binding way. How else is one to find out what is morally evil and what isn't.
So you're saying the Church has never made a mistake.... interesting...
Just depending on ourselves just will not suffice.
That's not likely going to happen. God would never leave us with ourselves to teach each other.[/QUOTE
Ahhh, yes, and here's where we massively differ. I, and many others, believe there is only us and the world. And we best learn from those things, learn of the 'flaws' inherent within them, and the best ways for us to live.
[QUOTE=Escape]And how can we be sure without directly hearing it from God, if one is to know if these moral truths are indeed true?
You can't know anything is a 100% true. That's just the nature of our 'less-than-perfect' selves. Learn to live with it my friend.
Do you know up untill the 1930's every christian denomination thought of birth control as intrinsically evil? Now pretty much all except the Catholic Church views it as ok. As I said before, the Church cannot change or reverse doctrine, only develop it. The Holy Spirit cannot teach against or contradict Himself.
Even Catholicism has always been flexible to changing realities, otherwise it wouldn't have survived. I only 'pray' that you recognise that in certain complex situations, a dogmatic stance doesn't reflect reality and becomes damaging.
See the baby-and-mother death situation below...
He made humans without original sin. Only God is Perfect in the complete sense. To create them so they cant sin would be contradicting to Himself. God cannot create another God.
I'm saying parents without biological flaws, or a spirit smeared with sin were Created by God and disobeyed Him with the Sin of Pride(wanting to become like God).
As for the consquense of this.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
Never-the-less, by making a less-than-perfect creature who was inevitably going to 'sin' as a result, He must take the responsability for our flaws. To argue that 'he can't cause imperfection coz he's perfect' is a tautological nonsense considering the 'evidence' that he made us.
Therefore...
physical imperfections are not evil. It is what we do with certain imperfections that can be evil. For example. An attraction to women is natural for a man. An attraction for women that leads to lustful desires, thoughts and actions is very sinful and rooted in evil.
God made it so that homosexuals exist, but are not allowed to practice homosexuality. Pretty cruel God you've got yourself there.
Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.
Well, the Holy Spirit took its time on that one. There were surely abortions before then. Seems slightly imperfect to me.
There are degrees of sin. Some direct abortions are more sinfull than others. However, every direct abortion is still sinful in itself.
Actually no, I don't see a flaw in Church law yet?
Church law says all abortions are wrong, yes? And yet in the case of a the severly-disabled-child who would die and kill his mother at birth, following that dictate involves two deaths rather than one. It's as good as murder.
You still haven't given a straight answer to this. What is worse in this case? Abortion, or two deaths? Surely the Church is wrong to insist on two deaths over one.
Sorry, I couldn't do that. I would be wandering away from Revealed Truths by the Holy Spirit for the erroneous knowledge by man. As I said befor, I will never put my faith in man alone.
I know, you put your faith in a system of men which you claim is not a system of men, despite lacking any evidence to the contrary.
You are only fooling yourself if you believe this. Here where I live, whatever the law is regarding to abortion, most hospitals and doctor, if they are not Catholic participate in such murderous immoral acts.
I didn't say they didn't use abortion, i said they might consider application. i.e. they won't necessarily use it unthinkingly and offer it to all-comers.
So, would you believe incestual marriages are immoral even if there couldn't be a genetically mutated baby?
Fine by me if that were possible, but it isn't, so why bother discussing it?
And yet that moral code was almost certainly established as a way of protecting society and individuals. If such a code fails to adapt to key aspects of reality then it threatens society and the individual where once it protected them, and indeed, it may have been damaging them all along.
When it comes to the sex trade, i'd say a regulated sex trade with lessened abuse is better than an underground one.
You can command people to do things all you like, but it seems likely that people will try to survive any way they can. If prostitution is economically inevitable, then better have it being as positive an institution as possible.
[QUOTE=Escape]Which goes to show that by your logic moral truths are never assured. That doesnt sound right now does it?
It sounds absolutely right (;)) because that is the nature of human's perceptions of reality. We can never be completely assured of our assessments of the world, nor of our predictions, nor of our guesses about the past.
To say that you have access to 100% Truth is to fool yourself. You may be right in your belief, but you can never be sure of that. That's reality.
Your desire for absolute certainty is understandable, but it is still a potentially damaging desire.
how would you feel if i belonged to a religion that said bestiality was categorically right, and that the agent of my God had told us all so?
You'd just argue your right is more right than mine. And neither of us would have any evidence to back up our claims.
Without people who are prepared to question the core veracity of claims, you would have next to no discussion, and a reduced chance of getting closer to the truth using the only tools we have.
With all this talk about sin, desires and such, makes you wonder why God created masterbation. I mean if your male and you touch male genitalia, even your own, ain't that gay? Same goes for women.
:rotfl:
I dare say that's 'evil' too :rolleyes:. Coz after all, 'every sperm is sacred'. Apparently, we're supposed to abstain from that, and abstain from sex to avoid overpopulation too. We just produce all that sperm because....um...because...um....because God likes setting us up to do things and then not letting us do them ;).
led_zeppelin
07-25-04, 04:24 PM
With all this talk about sin, desires and such, makes you wonder why God created masterbation. I mean if your male and you touch male genitalia, even your own, ain't that gay? Same goes for women.
In the Bible it says "homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God." If I understand the term "homosexual offenders" right, I think it means acting upon the desires that are sinful. Just thinking about it isn't the sinful part, it's acting upon it that is. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is where I got that. So, being the practicing Christian that I am, I do believe very much so that homosexuality is wrong. Now I'm not trying to make you all believe everything my way, this is where I stand on this subject matter.
In the Bible it says "homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God." If I understand the term "homosexual offenders" right, I think it means acting upon the desires that are sinful. Just thinking about it isn't the sinful part, it's acting upon it that is. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is where I got that. So, being the practicing Christian that I am, I do believe very much so that homosexuality is wrong. Now I'm not trying to make you all believe everything my way, this is where I stand on this subject matter.
As with all bible interpretation, there seems to be a big problem with the translation. This site has some interesting things to say on that particular line from Paul...(although i do wish they'd been a bit more careful with their grammar :rolleyes: ;))...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee,") and "arsenokoitai." Although these is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.
"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship."
...
"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 4 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai."
When taking the bible 'literally' as the Word of God etc, care should be taken over assessing the possible errors of definition that can come with multiple translations.
The term 'homosexual offenders' seems to be a fairly inaccurate translation, and as far as i can tell only appears in one of the main english translations, the New International Version.
It's interesting that in an attempt to assure their readers that they do condemn homosexuality, they admit that sodomite and homosexual are not the correct translations of the original Hebrew word qādēsh.
http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/accuracy/NIV_AccuracyDefined.pdf
This is simply a problem of arriving at the correct meaning of the Hebrew word qādēsh... Apparently the KJV/AV translators thought it meant “sodomites(=homosexuals)", so they rendered it that way. Today, as modern commentaries and Hebrew lexicons indicate, we know that it means “male shrine prostitutes.” There is also a feminine form of the same Hebrew word that means “female shrine prostitutes.” Such religious prostitution was a prominant feature of the pagan immoral “worship” of the Canaanite fertility gods and goddesses.
It's seems safe to say, that as far as this bible quote is concerned, the bible is not condemning homosexuality.
1) i was talking about the perineum, which is stimulated by anal penetration and is categorically a 'specific' erogenous zone.
The function of the perineum aids in actively supporting the abdominal and pelvic viscera, and play active roles in sexual functioning, micturation, defecation, and in childbirth. Relaxation of the perineum, in conjunction with the levator ani m., permits evacuation of the bladder and rectal contents. I came across this definition on the net. So it seem that without these very delicate sensations in that area, we would never know when have to go so to speak and most likely crap ourselves if it weren’t there.
2) i merely said this was intriguing, and that coupled with other facts about biologically determined sexual-preferences, it points to homosexuality being a biologically 'natural' and long-running phenomenon.
3) I notice you haven't put up any feasible arguments to the contrary.Really, then you must have missed the part where I said the anus has no natural lubrication down there for such an act. Without this lubrication, the anus muscles will go into spasms. It also tears quite easily and is not elastic like the vagina. So it is clear that mother nature never intended that area to be used in such a disgusting manner.
If you want to talk about 'strawman' arguments, how about your line of argument, which claims it's right because it's right?No, I can dig a little deeper than that. Allowing homosexual unions will have a greater impact on the structure of family which is the backbone of a good society. Since it is against the nature of man it forces children to grow up in an unnatural union. That to me seem like child abuse. Kind of what divorce is doing to our society.
I saw a program on 'beastialists' recently, and it seemed clear that many of them were running away from human society, and as such could be said to be doing themselves harm (i suspect there are also some unique added health risks). I'd say these people should be encouraged to re-engage with humanity for their own good, but ultimately it's their choice. There you go. “It is their choice.” Those words alone have done too much damage on our culture already. But then again, you make the morals up with your 3 silly moral code rules.
So ultimately, i think it should be 'frowned on', but i don't think it should be prohibited.
What a sad world to look forward to if it is not prohibited and accepted as a majority by people with your morals. I pray I’m long gone if it should happen. How people of your views seem to want to lower the identity of humanity. Turn us into animals simply because it is our choice to do so. Soddom and Gomorrah all over again.
I dare say you find this sinful.You know I’m going to say it is sinful. You didn’t have to dare me.
But i still think they should be viewed as that - dubious - not to be encouraged.
You actually question if this is wrong or not? WOW!
Illogical? Go tell it to God/The World. Because the phenomenon exists, whether it makes sense to you or not. Well your opinion of a God that purposely created this is just that. Your opinion.
Homosexuals are still here, we know they've existed historically, and biological precedents suggests the phenomenon extends beyond historical record.
.
And biological precedents? All theory. I could also say that these desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.
Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans then I can say that there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating .So it may be that homosexual desires are subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.
Yes, and i was trying to demonstrate that that's nonsense. Why should there be more of them? If they are performing that function at the rate of 4% it's most likely it's because that is the optimum ratio. More, and there would be too much of an effect on population, less, and there would be not enough.
I believe it’s more like 1-2 percent . You say too much of an effect on the population.? Considering that we are 6 billion and still growing, it doesn’t seem to be doing it’s job now does it. If you want population control try self control.
I was addressing the possibility that, prior to social intervention, there might be a darwinistic/natural benefit, yes.
You keep insisting that I say it is wrong because it is just wrong. You however feel it is right because of Inconclusive evidence to your theories. That won’t do in my book either.
I assume you're talking about homosexuals adopting children. I think the native-indian idea that homosexuals could represent a 'mixed' biology and mentality suggest they could provide much of what a traditional family would. Just an idea and another theory. As far as one could go back, the identity of the natural family between a man and women has gotten us this far. Why mix it up because some people feel it should? Again, if homosexuals were meant to have families, then they would have been biologically designed to do so wouln’t they.
Good thing i don't think that then. I was asking for your perspective on biological naturalness/God's design. That is all.
And I gave you an answer on my perspective on why our biology is not perfect. I said flawed with mutations and such because of original sin. Then you freaked out expecting a scientific answer as to why God would do this.
So you're saying the Church has never made a mistake.... interesting...
I said that when it comes to faith and morals the Church cannot error when done so in a binding way on the faithful such as through the Magistrium or the Infallible declarations of the Pope.
You can't know anything is a 100% true. That's just the nature of our 'less-than-perfect' selves. Learn to live with it my friend.
When it comes to sinful acts that can cut off oneself from God’s Graces or is contradictive to God’s natural laws, then I would think He would make sure we knew what they were.
Even Catholicism has always been flexible to changing realities, otherwise it wouldn't have survived. I only 'pray' that you recognise that in certain complex situations, a dogmatic stance doesn't reflect reality and becomes damaging.
Catholic Church has never been flexible to Her Dogmatic Teachings. Only a better understanding of them through time. She has never once reversed one. Never. Such examples would be of abortion, birth control, Euthanasia, the Eucharist, Confession to a Priest, Sacrament of Marriage, Purgatory, Original Sin, Authority of the Pope, etc. You will find in other Church’s they do reverse teachings such as birth control, abortion, homosexual marriages, and any other they deem fit to change through their own feeble minded fallible minds.
Never-the-less, by making a less-than-perfect creature who was inevitably going to 'sin' as a result, He must take the responsability for our flaws. To argue that 'he can't cause imperfection coz he's perfect' is a tautological nonsense considering the 'evidence' that he made us.
Why was this creature inevitably going to “sin”. He also created the Angels without sin and 2/3 of them seem to have remained sinless. It was the other’s choice. They made it. God cannot create creatures in the Perfect sense such as He is. Then He wouldn’t be God. He made them perfectly Good, without sin, without flaws that were lawfully unnatural. They made a Choice whether to listen to Him, or not. He is not so unfair as to Create a being that will sin. But He created beings that could sin through their own free will. If He created us to not sin then we would be like robots now wouldn’t we. Without a free will.
God made it so that homosexuals exist, but are not allowed to practice homosexuality. Pretty cruel God you've got yourself there.
Then by your logic, He also made it so mentally disordered men could murder yet cannot practice it. And don’t bother with saying that this is different because it hurts another person or does something against your 3 rules because it just won’t do. He still made them like this in your theory. You seem to want to put all of these things in your own little category of What God is to you, yet you don’t realize how you can contradict yourself.
Well, the Holy Spirit took its time on that one. There were surely abortions before then. Seems slightly imperfect to me.
Sure there were abortion. They were done against the will of the Church which is the will of God. Just like today. What’s your point?
Church law says all abortions are wrong, yes? And yet in the case of a the severly-disabled-child who would die and kill his mother at birth, following that dictate involves two deaths rather than one. It's as good as murder.
You still haven't given a straight answer to this. What is worse in this case? Abortion, or two deaths? Surely the Church is wrong to insist on two deaths over one.
All direct killing of an innocent life is murder whether you want to believe this or not. What you can’t comprehend is the reward the mother will have in Heaven because of this sacrifice. There is more to it than you think. You only know what you see on a material level and not on the spiritual level. God’s Truth applies to both. The mother will die of natural causes like her child. This is not evil but natural. Still, the even though the Church deems this as wrong, She still can’t ask the mother to sacrifice her own life. It is up to her own conscience. The Church can also see the dangers of allowing the direct killing of an innocent life just because it has no brain. I mean, if it isn't wrong to kill a little girl or boy because he or she has no brain, then why would it be wrong to kill a child with half a brain? If it isn't wrong to kill a baby with half a brain, who could say it is wrong to kill a baby with 75% normal brain function? If it's acceptable to kill a baby with 75% brain function, why would it be wrong to kill an adult with the same problem? This is the mentality spawned by legalized abortion. If a person doesn't measure up to some arbitrary standard of perfection, just execute them. If they would be a burden on society, just treat them as non-human and get rid of them. In a society that doesn't protect everyone, no-one is safe. The elderly and infirm may be the next group to be classified as dispensable. You open the window a little and all hell will break loose.
I know, you put your faith in a system of men which you claim is not a system of men, despite lacking any evidence to the contrary.
And you put your faith in a system where the legalization of abortion has murdered millions of innocent lives. Where the widespread of contraception has increased risky sexual behaviour, especially among teens and young adults. Where you can’t turn on the television unless it shows some half naked person having sex and enjoying every lustful minute. Where MTV videos shows nothing but extremely close to reality sex-acts during one of their catchy songs. Do you remember that ripple effect I was talking about. Well our present times are proof of this.
I didn't say they didn't use abortion, i said they might consider application. i.e. they won't necessarily use it unthinkingly and offer it to all-comers.
Wrong again. Most professional doctors would perform this act as long as the patient is in no harm. Not much thought given to the fetus though. If it can’t feel the pain, then it’ll be fine. Of course there are some who actually have a conscience when it comes to this but much less than their counterparts. This shows how morality of doctors who treated both patients respectively now only treat one patient respectively.
To say that you have access to 100% Truth is to fool yourself. You may be right in your belief, but you can never be sure of that. That's reality.
I will always defend truth as I know it to be. You likewise can do the same with your own twisted logic. As for what would I do if your religion said beastiality was ok and mine doesn’t. Well I don’t think I have to worry about that at the moment as all of todays’ prominent religions and their citizens are against such disgusting behaviour.
Anyways, I don’t just say my belief is right and yours is wrong just because it is. I also give answers as to how things could destroy societies in the long run. Your answers are mabe this and mabe that. Or if is doesn’t harm themselves, society, or whatever you come up with then it is their choice. You don’t really have insight as to what the effects to such descisions could be. When I say something is morally wrong, some things are said with faith and some things are said that can be argued with real facts. I try to argue without bringing religion into it. You then start with the religious questions and then I start answering them. Anyways, I can see this discussion going on forever without end. I don’t think anyone is going to change each others minds here.
Wow, finally someone whose posts are as long as Gol's. And he believes in all the opposite things. Sweet, sweet irony.
Equilibrium
07-26-04, 01:16 AM
Wow, finally someone whose posts are as long as Gol's. And he believes in all the opposite things. Sweet, sweet irony.
:D :D :D ;) :D :D :D
Garrett
07-26-04, 01:41 AM
Explain this: as Golgot previously mentioned, there are extensive studies that show that a human's sexuality is hardwired gentically and such. Meaning that if you're gay, you're gay; if you're not, you're not. So, really, Escape, if this whole "hardwired" theory is right, this kind of behavior can't be "stopped", only supressed. And, in the long run, that could cause psychological damage, which I happen to think is more immoral than homosexuality.
Mainly, Escape, what you refuse to see is that most countries in this world aren't run on Christian values alone. Influenced, yes, but society has come a long way. Homosexual behavior will likely never be prohibited just because the Bible says so. You can't stop human nature without causing worse damage than there has already been.
When people ask "Why is homosexuality in existance?" in relation to God, You more than likely will reply, "Because mankind is imperfect." And I think that is just pussyfooting around the real question. Why does God allow for homosexual behavior? The Bible is not very concise when it comes to these things, I believe it is open to interpretation by each person. You can't say your way is right, because if that was so then it would be that way. There isn't any right, there are only individual opinions.
I'd like to add something to what Golgot had to say: Believing 'your' right is Morally right purely coz your God's representatives tell you so is a dangerous line to walk and you're bound to be shoved off. ;)
So, really, Escape, if this whole "hardwired" theory is right, this kind of behavior can't be "stopped", only supressed. And, in the long run, that could cause psychological damage, which I happen to think is more immoral than homosexuality.Well, I happen to think it will have a two-fold effect. Allowing homosexual unions simply because they may be hard wired will be inevitably allowing the adoptions of children in these un natural couplings. This could be devastating to society that only time will tell. That to me is very dangerous. Just messing around with the identity of family of which I already stated.
Why does God allow for homosexual behavior? The Bible is not very concise when it comes to these things, I believe it is open to interpretation by each person. And you're right about the Bible not being very percise when it comes to things. That's why I believe God gave us a Church and not the Bible only which to me is very illogical.
Anyways,much of whay you ask or say is what goglot asks or says and I feel I have already answered them.
Wow, finally someone whose posts are as long as Gol's. And he believes in all the opposite things. Sweet, sweet irony.
:rotfl:
Ahh, seeing as your not around for me to test my beliefs on, this rock of ages will have to do ;). He's getting better at presenting actual arguments :). I still prefer your pumice-like ability to absorb some dissent and scrub away at inconsistancies tho ;). Set aside a month or too 'dram' you, and then... i'll probably be too tied up with work again instead :rolleyes:
The function of the perineum aids in actively supporting the abdominal and pelvic viscera, and play active roles in sexual functioning, micturation, defecation, and in childbirth. Relaxation of the perineum, in conjunction with the levator ani m., permits evacuation of the bladder and rectal contents. I came across this definition on the net. So it seem that without these very delicate sensations in that area, we would never know when have to go so to speak and most likely crap ourselves if it weren’t there.
Ok, that's interesting, i didn't know all of that. Presuming it's valid (for men as well as women), it would certainly relegate anal-pleasure to a secondary 'happen-stance' phenomenon.
Really, then you must have missed the part where I said the anus has no natural lubrication down there for such an act. Without this lubrication, the anus muscles will go into spasms. It also tears quite easily and is not elastic like the vagina. So it is clear that mother nature never intended that area to be used in such a disgusting manner.
Yes, i believe you're right. On this point. So it brings us to the potential biological-determination of preference (which makes homosexual men then lubricate with saliva, or whatever else they have to hand)....
No, I can dig a little deeper than that. Allowing homosexual unions will have a greater impact on the structure of family which is the backbone of a good society. Since it is against the nature of man it forces children to grow up in an unnatural union. That to me seem like child abuse. Kind of what divorce is doing to our society.
Considering you think that homosexuality makes up only 1-to-2% of the population, i've no idea how you think that level of adoption will have the effect you're talking about. You seem to prefer to see homosexuality as a psychological weakness-towards-sin, and as such one that would grow with increased acceptance, but the evidence suggests that consistantly-homosexual couples are biologically determined. Even if more people were persuaded to dabble in cross-gender sex due to social acceptance (and yes, i know, you wouldn't like this), it's unlikely that they would establish a settled homosexual lifestyle to the extent that they would be considered for adoption. And remember that most of society would probably be against homosexual couples adopting children if heterosexual parents were available. And i'd agree with that.
“It is their choice.” Those words alone have done too much damage on our culture already. But then again, you make the morals up with your 3 silly moral code rules.
I understand your anger at the 'me me me' generation. One thing you fail to give credit to is that my personal definition of 'it's their choice' only applies when they're not damaging society/others etc. I understand that you don't think this is enough.
Another thing you fail to give credit to is that these three criteria can be seen as the basis on which human societies have survived and grown. Balancing the competition and cooperation which have driven our success and survival in a harsh but occasionally 'fair' world.
We are both interested in the same things at the end of the day. Survival of the human race, and the 'quality' of that life. We just have some vastly different criteria concerning 'better' and 'worse'.
What a sad world to look forward to if it is not prohibited and accepted as a majority by people with your morals. I pray I’m long gone if it should happen. How people of your views seem to want to lower the identity of humanity. Turn us into animals simply because it is our choice to do so. Soddom and Gomorrah all over again.
Again, the fact that people like myself would still frown on this behaviour and try and re-integrate such people into human society means that it wouldn't proliferate necessarily, or at least that such people would have to form ostracised communities. If so, so be it.
You have a terrible slippery-slope attituted which is regularly without foundation. I recognise the difference between firm prohibition and 'friendly' intolerance, and indeed the importance of not repeating past mistakes, but really, to suggest that such a social structure would be 'turning' human societies back to beasts is nonsense.
You actually question if this is wrong or not? WOW!
In case you haven't noticed, young Flee-from-doubt, i'm happy to question just about anything, unlike you. But i do so with the aim of establishing the best certainties possible. Spiritual science if you like ;) :p
Well your opinion of a God that purposely created this is just that. Your opinion.
Well baby, your opinion that God exists is just your opinion, coz there 'sure as hell' ain't any proof ;). (Got any proof of hell while you're about it?). [NB i point out at the end of this post the things i respect about your religion. Here i'm going to point out some of its failings]
I don't want to suggest by this that i think something must be known to the human mind for its possiblity to be accepted. But i do think you shouldn't base your entire belief system around such a thing, and insist all things be interpreted through it.
That's one reason for me insulting aspects of your religious beliefs. Another is because you insult mine - the 'religion' of seeking the best truths and social practices from the known and the 'known unknowns/unknowables'. Which to me is the only approach available to us. the world's got some beautiful lessons to teach.
And biological precedents? All theory. I could also say that these desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.
You could indeed, and i'm sure there is a re-inforcement aspect of this nature. But the studies i gave links to before suggest fundamental neurological difference. An alchoholic does not undergo fundamental neurological change, to my knowledge, in a way which could be attributed to genetic alteration. They undergo chemical tolerance alteration, sure.
The evidence certainly isn't all in yet, not the extent that neurologists can claim genetic difference, but it will be interesting to see where it goes.
You're right it's just a theory.
Oh, but God's only a theory too baby, just one with less facts to back it up ;) :p
I believe it’s more like 1-2 percent . You say too much of an effect on the population.? Considering that we are 6 billion and still growing, it doesn’t seem to be doing it’s job now does it. If you want population control try self control.
Now see, couldn't you just politely admit that you were a bit off in your assessment of the necessity of homosexual population growth in the given situation?
You keep insisting that I say it is wrong because it is just wrong. You however feel it is right because of Inconclusive evidence to your theories. That won’t do in my book either.
Well that's hardly fair. Where have i done that concerning our scientific discussions? I've said you were wrong when you defined things too narrowly and ignored other lines of argument without addressing them. I've given you some reasons to examine your factual standpoint, i haven't insisted you were wrong in general or asserted my own rightness per se. I've merely asked you to justify yourself.
On the God front, i've been more forceful, coz i know you have no proof that he definitively exists and your arguments for his ultimate 'rightness' are tautological. Yet i suspect he is the driving force for all your other reasoning.
Just an idea and another theory. As far as one could go back, the identity of the natural family between a man and women has gotten us this far. Why mix it up because some people feel it should? Again, if homosexuals were meant to have families, then they would have been biologically designed to do so wouln’t they.
Again, you're assuming several things:
1) that homosexuality hasn't played a role in social development and stability.
2) that homosexual adoption would automatically become predominant enough to threaten the role of the family.
And I gave you an answer on my perspective on why our biology is not perfect. I said flawed with mutations and such because of original sin. Then you freaked out expecting a scientific answer as to why God would do this.
I was in no way expecting a scientific answer for why God would do that (although i was criticising your scientific justifications-so-far at a slightly inappropriate juncture). I was asking you why God would allow physical suffering (and ultimately your answer is still: he allowed it but it's nothing to do with him - he can't be involved in failings coz he's failure proof. Which is pretty much unjustifiable, no matter how many 'God is good coz God is good' tautologies you care to throw around).
I was trying to get you to engage with reality, but trying to do so through your belief system.
I said that when it comes to faith and morals the Church cannot error when done so in a binding way on the faithful such as through the Magistrium or the Infallible declarations of the Pope.
When it comes to sinful acts that can cut off oneself from God’s Graces or is contradictive to God’s natural laws, then I would think He would make sure we knew what they were.
Know 'Him' well do you?
Catholic Church has never been flexible to Her Dogmatic Teachings. Only a better understanding of them through time. She has never once reversed one. Never. Such examples would be of abortion, birth control, Euthanasia, the Eucharist, Confession to a Priest, Sacrament of Marriage, Purgatory, Original Sin, Authority of the Pope, etc. You will find in other Church’s they do reverse teachings such as birth control, abortion, homosexual marriages, and any other they deem fit to change through their own feeble minded fallible minds.
Yes yes, more lovely lovely insults to everyone who doesn't think like you. Very gracious of you.
I understand why you respect the stability of this system... what i doubt is the justification... the idea that the Holy Spirit pops in make sure everything's ticking over.
Why was this creature inevitably going to “sin”. He also created the Angels without sin and 2/3 of them seem to have remained sinless.
Oh i would love to see the evidence for this! Got some proof of Angels have you? Got some proof that 2/3 of them haven'tt fallen eh? I do so love that little statistic.
It was the other’s choice. They made it. God cannot create creatures in the Perfect sense such as He is. Then He wouldn’t be God. He made them perfectly Good, without sin, without flaws that were lawfully unnatural. They made a Choice whether to listen to Him, or not. He is not so unfair as to Create a being that will sin. But He created beings that could sin through their own free will. If He created us to not sin then we would be like robots now wouldn’t we. Without a free will.
Well, when free will is only the choice between what God wants you to do and what he knows you could otherwise do, it's more like being a robot who unplugs his plug if he strays off the path, but there you go.
I i think the cruel choice between better-n-worse choices exists too. (i just doubt that a being consciously designed it that way). And i think the definition of a human as you describe it isn't bad.
However, your designer-God explanation of this situation relies on get-out clauses. Here are the two core reasons why God bears some responsability for the Fall (and corresponding physical deformaties etc):
1) An omnipotent God would know that Adam-n-Eve would eat the apple.
or
2) His creations are flawed becaue they took the choice, and his attempt at earthly perfection is flawed.
Either way, God must take responsability for the world that He made. Evil (physical and social) is part of his equation, or its a mistake.
Either way, the only way you can say he's not involved in the eventual outcome is to say 'he-set-it-all-up, but it's our fault that it turned out less than perfect - ie it can't be his fault coz he's perfect.'
It undermines your right to asign perfection to your God and all Evils to the Devil/human-failing.
But like i said, the core idea that we have choices, and they can lead us to good or bad ends, i agree with.
Then by your logic, He also made it so mentally disordered men could murder yet cannot practice it. And don’t bother with saying that this is different because it hurts another person or does something against your 3 rules because it just won’t do.
Well, by my logic, there is no God as you define 'Him', there is only the World, and those rules are reasonable facimilies of best-practice in the world.
And by those criteria it's less cruel, socially speaking, to prevent a mentally-disturbed murder wanting to murder.
I say things are how they are, and we should try to understand the best way for us to exist in the world. When to interfere, when to let it do its thing. You dig? :)
He still made them like this in your theory. You seem to want to put all of these things in your own little category of What God is to you, yet you don’t realize how you can contradict yourself.
What i really want you to do is to move all of your love for God into a slightly more fact-responsive approach to the world. But i don't expect it to happen.
I'm only contradicting myself in your eyes , in this situation, coz i'm criticising your God, who you think is perfect.
Sure there were abortion. They were done against the will of the Church which is the will of God. Just like today. What’s your point?
My point is: Why didn't the Holy Spirit get the Church to forbid it earlier?
All direct killing of an innocent life is murder whether you want to believe this or not. What you can’t comprehend is the reward the mother will have in Heaven because of this sacrifice. There is more to it than you think. You only know what you see on a material level and not on the spiritual level. God’s Truth applies to both. The mother will die of natural causes like her child. This is not evil but natural. Still, the even though the Church deems this as wrong, She still can’t ask the mother to sacrifice her own life. It is up to her own conscience. The Church can also see the dangers of allowing the direct killing of an innocent life just because it has no brain. I mean, if it isn't wrong to kill a little girl or boy because he or she has no brain, then why would it be wrong to kill a child with half a brain? If it isn't wrong to kill a baby with half a brain, who could say it is wrong to kill a baby with 75% normal brain function? If it's acceptable to kill a baby with 75% brain function, why would it be wrong to kill an adult with the same problem? This is the mentality spawned by legalized abortion. If a person doesn't measure up to some arbitrary standard of perfection, just execute them. If they would be a burden on society, just treat them as non-human and get rid of them. In a society that doesn't protect everyone, no-one is safe. The elderly and infirm may be the next group to be classified as dispensable. You open the window a little and all hell will break loose.
Man, your slippery-slope argument is way out of control.
a) Science is actually moving back towards an earlier line after which abortion is unwarrented - not 'onwards' towards a world of euthanasia; eugenics and killing babies with half a brain but all the chance of cognition and reciprical-love. Yet, as you point out, abortion has now been around for decades.
b) your belief in heaven is very sweet, but when it necesitates preventable death and suffering on earth, it becomes less so. It's a nice way of avoiding the negative outcomes of the Church's teachings (can you confirm, incidently, that Church sanctions abortion in this case?)
And you put your faith in a system where the legalization of abortion has murdered millions of innocent lives. Where the widespread of contraception has increased risky sexual behaviour, especially among teens and young adults. Where you can’t turn on the television unless it shows some half naked person having sex and enjoying every lustful minute. Where MTV videos shows nothing but extremely close to reality sex-acts during one of their catchy songs. Do you remember that ripple effect I was talking about. Well our present times are proof of this.
Well, you've shown yourself to be slightly hysterical on this point. There is an over-emphasis on the individual and gratification in our societies, and this is connected to abortion-abuse too. (it's also been the situation many times before. It seems to be a regular outcome of large, stable societies).
However, your abstinance system doesn't seem to work either as far as the rocketting-population-problem goes. Catholic societies are not known for their small families you know.
Wrong again. Most professional doctors would perform this act as long as the patient is in no harm. Not much thought given to the fetus though. If it can’t feel the pain, then it’ll be fine. Of course there are some who actually have a conscience when it comes to this but much less than their counterparts. This shows how morality of doctors who treated both patients respectively now only treat one patient respectively.
Well, as we discussed on the other thread, i'm opposed to many damagingly/unjustifiably gratification-lead abuses of new technologies, but in this case i have no mechansim for interveening.
All i can say, and all i was trying to say, is that doctors of my aquaintance are very sensitive to these issues, and those that work in that area will consider the baby's needs as well.
I will always defend truth as I know it to be. You likewise can do the same with your own twisted logic. As for what would I do if your religion said beastiality was ok and mine doesn’t. Well I don’t think I have to worry about that at the moment as all of todays’ prominent religions and their citizens are against such disgusting behaviour.
Anyways, I don’t just say my belief is right and yours is wrong just because it is. I also give answers as to how things could destroy societies in the long run. Your answers are mabe this and mabe that. Or if is doesn’t harm themselves, society, or whatever you come up with then it is their choice. You don’t really have insight as to what the effects to such descisions could be. When I say something is morally wrong, some things are said with faith and some things are said that can be argued with real facts. I try to argue without bringing religion into it. You then start with the religious questions and then I start answering them. Anyways, I can see this discussion going on forever without end. I don’t think anyone is going to change each others minds here.
Your moral outrage, with its source in religious certainty, is what makes me have stabs at your religion. Because to me your religion is a system built up over generations, consciously and unconsciously, to get the best outcome for both individuals and societies - i.e. it's not that different from the systems that i and others use. The difference is that, while ours is drawn from multiple sources (including religious bodies of knowledge) it doesn't need to re-interpret data through an unproveable God-construct and is is forced to look for a different type of certainty: what works.
I respect religions because they are a huge body of social knowledge. What i don't respect is dogma that causes social and individual damage where there is no need.
There are social risks in both our views. Yours because of its inflexibility, mine coz of it's experimental flexibility. That's why i think it's good that both exist.
After all, as you say, we will never change each-other's views on this.
I dare say we won't be able to avoid having a pop at each-other's belief systems tho.
Tell you what - i'm happy to continue with some (shorter :rolleyes: ) posts, specifically talking about the facts concerning homosexuality.
If you can avoid bringing religion into it, so can i ;)
LordSlaytan
07-26-04, 07:55 PM
That's friggin' un-friggin'-believable. So unbelievable, I had to say friggin' twice, er, three times now. You know what I mean.
Equilibrium
07-26-04, 07:58 PM
That's friggin' un-friggin'-believable. So unbelievable, I had to say friggin' twice, er, three times now. You know what I mean.
Whats unbelievable? How sexy I am?
Yea thats tough for most individuals to comprehend.
That's friggin' un-friggin'-believable. So unbelievable, I had to say friggin' twice, er, three times now. You know what I mean.
If you're talking about me, i had an hour or two free :rolleyes:
And fundamentalists bug me.
And i still learn stuff from these arguments.
And i ain't got anyone to frig ;).
Equilibrium
07-26-04, 08:15 PM
If you're talking about me, i had an hour or two free :rolleyes:
And fundamentalists bug me.
And i still learn stuff from these arguments.
And i ain't got anyone to frig ;).
Ah, I still think he was referring to my sexiness though.
SamsoniteDelilah
07-26-04, 08:57 PM
Pages: 10
Lines: 390
Words: 3749
Characters: 17,765
Logic aside, I say Golgot wins, on tenacity. :D
(Based on logic alone, I say he wins anyway.)
I thought I would respond here because normally I avoid issues of such nature; because no matter what I say someone will be offended. Let me give you a brief history of my experiences: My personal homosexual accounts are not many, but indeed are life changing. Without going into detail, when I was eleven my best friend made a physical pass at me. I rejected it and I felt violated, not because he was homosexual, but because I was not. I asked him why he did not want to be with a girl. Granted, at eleven I did not know much , but I felt that his pass was wrong because it was uninvited. He said that he tried being with a girl (he was 14 at the time) and that it was not what he wanted. I told him that I never wanted to see him again, and well, I never did. I remember feeling sick, I try to think that if my best friend had been a girl I would have felt just as bad, but Hell No! I would have loved it if a girl had touched me that way at that time in my life. I had just figured out that girls were cool and well, I wanted to know what it was like to be with one. I knew then that I was not gay and laugh if you will , but it felt enlightening to know who I was. I struggled with my beliefs, I was raised to believe that people of the same sex did not touch each other in that way. Since then I have come to realize that although that is how I feel, it is not an all ecompassing law. People are people, and by God some of those people are gay. I truly do not think less or more of anyone who is gay. I personally cringe when I think of myself with another guy. I cannot help it thats how I am wired. I love women, and although I sometimes think that is a curse (j/k) it is who I am. Be who you are, and if who you are is something others cannot accept, then that is their problem, not yours. I am sorry I abandoned my friend and if I could talk to him now I would say..."Keep you hand of my weewee!", but I would also tell him that I was sorry for being so unforgiving at the time.
Equilibrium
07-27-04, 12:07 AM
A new avatar. Cool.
Yes, I believe you're right. On this point. So it brings us to the potential biological-determination of preference (which makes homosexual men then lubricate with saliva, or whatever else they have to hand)....But you see my point was to prove that we didn’t evolve for the anus to be used in such a way. That to me is abuse of the human body in an unnatural way. That’s how that initial argument started. By you stating that pleasure down there should warrent some kind of investigation. I see you can pretty much argue that because we have hands then they should also use these hands to stimulate each other anyway they like as long as the ends justify the means. This won’t do for me and does not prove that this is a natural procession assisting in man’s evolving.
Considering you think that homosexuality makes up only 1-to-2% of the population, i've no idea how you think that level of adoption will have the effect you're talking about. That’s because you can’t see the entire picture. Same-sex marriage would continue marriage on its present search for the bottom. That would further set the notions that sex doesn’t need to have a necessary connection to procreation, or marriage would have to be connected to children. Marriage would be further solidified as a meaningless institution in which society has no interest, unless one makes the leap of saying that society's real interest is in making us all feel good by making every conceivable choice legit. Allowing homosexual marriage would further harm the uniqueness of marriage by opening it to all who want it, regardless of their potential to fulfill an essential social function. Marriage is a privilege, and if this is open to all, then it no longer becomes a privilege.
You seem to prefer to see homosexuality as a psychological weakness-towards-sin, and as such one that would grow with increased acceptance, but the evidence suggests that consistantly-homosexual couples are biologically determined.Again, I will say just because one is hard wired as you say to feel something, this still doesn’t confirm the morality of the issue.
And remember that most of society would probably be against homosexual couples adopting children if heterosexual parents were available. And i'd agree with that.
Are you kidding me. I hear more and more of why can’t homosexual’s adopt, of course then immediately given a number of reasons why they believe their comment stands correct.
I understand your anger at the 'me me me' generation. One thing you fail to give credit to is that my personal definition of 'it's their choice' only applies when they're not damaging society/others etc. I understand that you don't think this is enough.
That’s because your definitions such as harming oneself can diluted down to physical harm. As you said with your beastiality argument. You said that you would prefer that one who participates in this to get back to his/her own race etc. then ending it with “I wouldn’t prohibit this” after all, it’s his choice. By not prohibiting it then it becomes accepted. Kind of like when parents don’t prohibit the use of birth control with their kid, “In case they do it”. This is the wrong message plain and simple. It sets up the message that human beings can be like the animals thereby making us into creatures of a lower statis than I would like to think.
You have a terrible slippery-slope attituted which is regularly without foundation. I recognise the difference between firm prohibition and 'friendly' intolerance, and indeed the importance of not repeating past mistakes, but really, to suggest that such a social structure would be 'turning' human societies back to beasts is nonsense.
You underestimate human nature in becoming “lazy” and the gradual effect it could have on future generations. You see it in the world today, and yes I’m gonna bring up abortions again. From one side of the world to the other, abortions have become the norm, once frowned upon to now being accepted at every level. You place your value much to high on the human being in making their own morals and keeping with them. Very naïve but I guess it’s all you have now isn’t it. No God just humans. To me that is a shame. Of course you will give a like but opposite response to me. That I’m sure of.
I don't want to suggest by this that i think something must be known to the human mind for its possiblity to be accepted. But i do think you shouldn't base your entire belief system around such a thing, and insist all things be interpreted through it.
That’s why it’s called faith. I don’t just believe in anything without question. I have come to believe with my own reasoning and I am quite happy with the Catholic logic even if you don’t see it. It is something of which you can’t understand at the moment. As for pressing my beliefs on everyone. No way, but I do push on preventing somthing that I believe will destroy a foundation to be of value.
Oh, but God's only a theory too baby, just one with less facts to backWhat’s up with all this “baby” talk? I sure hope you’re a woman. :D
Now see, couldn't you just politely admit that you were a bit off in your assessment of the necessity of homosexual population growth in the given situation?
Population control of the natural kind would be something to consistently keep a population in check. With our present growth and climbing I don’t see this. War is a better argument for population control and we know how immoral that can be.
I've said you were wrong when you defined things too narrowly and ignored other lines of argument without addressing them. I've given you some reasons to examine your factual standpoint, i haven't insisted you were wrong in general or asserted my own rightness per se. I've merely asked you to justify yourself. You have given me theories that just don’t seem to add up to me. You first tried to tell me it is natural. I replied no it isn’t and tried to back it up with medical and biological evidence. You then would then would say statements like population control and I again would have an undogma response. I would only bring religion into it when God’s name was mentioned.
On the God front, i've been more forceful, coz i know you have no proof that he definitively exists and your arguments for his ultimate 'rightness' are tautological. Yet i suspect he is the driving force for all your other reasoning.
I’ll admit, I do take Dogmas on homosexuality, birth control, masturbation, etc. as truth and go from there. But I don’t press you in believing my arguments simply because it’s true cause the Church told me.
Again, you're assuming several things:
1) that homosexuality hasn't played a role in social development and stability.
Show me some evidence where it has played a role in social in development and stability considering it has always been shunned.
2) that homosexual adoption would automatically become predominant enough to threaten the role of the family.
Why even mess with such an institution because it “May” help. No way my compadre.
I was in no way expecting a scientific answer for why God would do that (although i was criticising your scientific justifications-so-far at a slightly inappropriate juncture). I was asking you why God would allow physical suffering (and ultimately your answer is still: he allowed it but it's nothing to do with him - he can't be involved in failings coz he's failure proof. Which is pretty much unjustifiable, no matter how many 'God is good coz God is good' tautologies you care to throw around).
It is only unjustifiable because of you cannot comprehend a Perfect, Infinite, Omnipresent God without sin who always was and always will be. You’re knowledge is finite and you can never understand the mind of God.
I was trying to get you to engage with reality, but trying to do so through your belief system.
Again, when it comes to theological or philosophical questions concerning God, your reality as you perceive it will not come to terms with this.
Yes yes, more lovely lovely insults to everyone who doesn't think like you. Very gracious of you.
So I can in turn say that you insult every religious person who visits this thread when you say that your perception of God doesn’t equate with theirs. And these people of whom you say I am insulting must be of another religion who obviously believe their faith is the right one will understand when I say this. I am not insulting anyone. It’s pretty much a universal agreement amongst different faiths. Now if I were to call them morons or some other derogatory names then that would be an insult.
Oh i would love to see the evidence for this! Got some proof of Angels have you? Got some proof that 2/3 of them haven'tt fallen eh? I do so love that little statistic.You said that this creature was inevitably going to sin. I again answered with our beliefs of how it was not inevitable considering 2/3 of the angels had not. You see, by you implying it was inevitable stated that this was your opinion of the matter. I in turn gave you mine while trying to assist you to understand how we came to such conclusions and of a religious standpoint of course.
Well, when free will is only the choice between what God wants you to do and what he knows you could otherwise do, it's more like being a robot who unplugs his plug if he strays off the path, but there you go.
You can if you can walk in a store an steal an item of theirs. But you don’t using your own free will. Are you a robot?
Here are the two core reasons why God bears some responsability for the Fall (and corresponding physical deformaties etc):
1) An omnipotent God would know that Adam-n-Eve would eat the apple.
He did but so what? By His knowing the future events still doesn’t negate the fact that it wasn’t His responsibility.
Catachism
412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ's inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon's envy had taken away."307 and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature's being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, 'Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more'; and the Exsultet sings, 'O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!'"308
2) His creations are flawed becaue they took the choice, and his attempt at earthly perfection is flawed.
You still can’t get by this part can you? God withheld the Beatific Vision (Seeing God Face to Face. The immediate knowledge of God which the angelic spirits and the souls of the just enjoy in Heaven. It is called "vision" to distinguish it from the mediate knowledge of God which the human mind may attain in the present life. And since in beholding God face to face the created intelligence finds perfect happiness, the vision is termed "beatific".) as a test. Without this man was capable of sinning. For man not to be tempted he either has to be God or be in the presence of the Beatific Vision where sin is no longer enticing to him.
Well, by my logic, there is no God as you define 'Him', there is only the World, and those rules are reasonable facimilies of best-practice in the world.
Well, I also find it interesting that you fail to realize how you try to push you non beliefs on me because of your lack of evidence. Just because you can’t physically prove something exists doesn’t mean is does not exist. You want me to turn away from things I believe to be immoral simply because I cannot prove the originator of this. I can say I see the Creator in the beauty of the world’s design and you can say you see evolution. I can see miracles of the Church as a sign of God’s work and you will say it need’s further investigating. I can ask you to prove to me there is no God and I doubt you can. You may say that you are flexible in areas whereas I’m not, but you’re only flexible to a certain extent as long as it doesn’t interfere with you own logic. So I guess we are at a standstill and I’m not budging.
What i really want you to do is to move all of your love for God into a slightly more fact-responsive approach to the world. But i don't expect it to happen.And what I’d like you to do is to open your heart to the possibility that there is a God who wishes to communicate with His creation.
My point is: Why didn't the Holy Spirit get the Church to forbid it earlier?
74 AD The Letter of Barnabas "The way of light, then, is as follows. If any one desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19).
150 AD Didache "The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1)
177 AD Athenagoras "What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? . . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35, Embassy chap. 5).
177 AD Athenagoras, "What reason would we have to commit murder when we say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God? For the same person would not regard the fetus in the womb as a living thing and therefore an object of God's care, and at the same time slay it, once it had come to life." (Athenagoras Plea, ch.35)
210 AD Tertullian "Among surgeons' tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery. "There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive. . . ." [The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25).
210 AD Tertullian "In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8).
210 AD Tertullian "Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (Apology 27).
210 AD Tertullian "The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22]
226 AD Minucius Felix "There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30).
228 AD Hippolytus "Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies).
250 AD Diognetus (a likely reference to both exposure of infants to die and abortion): "(Christians) marry, like everyone else, and they beget children, but they do not cast out their offspring." (Letter of Diognetus (late 2nd or 3rd century; ch.5, vs.6)
307 AD Lactantius "When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but he warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men.. Therefore, let no one imagine that even this is allowed, to strangle newly-born children, which is the greatest impiety; for God breathes into their souls for life, and not for death. But men, that there may be no crime with which they may not pollute their hands, deprive [unborn] souls as yet innocent and simple of the light which they themselves have not given. "Can anyone, indeed, expect that they would abstain from the blood of others who do not abstain even from their own? But these are, without any controversy, wicked and unjust" (Divine Institutes 6:20).
314 AD Council of Ancyra "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21).
374 AD Basil the Great "He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it die upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" ((First Canonical Letter, canon 8).
374 AD Basil the Great "Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years' penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2).
391 AD John Chrysostom "Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?--where there are many efforts at abortion?--where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24).
396 AD Jerome "I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13).
This seems to me that the early Christians and the Church did not look to well upon abortions.
) Science is actually moving back towards an earlier line after which abortion is unwarrented - not 'onwards' towards a world of euthanasia; eugenics and killing babies with half a brain but all the chance of cognition and reciprical-love. Yet, as you point out, abortion has now been around for decades.
And how about stem cell research, and the cloning debate. It still sounds to me like they don’t give much thought to the unborn. As for abortion being around for hundred of years, that mabe true, but it was still as you say “frowned upon” and never universally accepted.
b) your belief in heaven is very sweet, but when it necesitates preventable death and suffering on earth, it becomes less so. It's a nice way of avoiding the negative outcomes of the Church's teachings (can you confirm, incidently, that Church sanctions abortion in this case?)
Quote:
The Church never sanctions direct abortion. That would be going against Her teachings of which I said She cannot do. She does permit indirect abortions as I have already stated on the other thread.
Well, you've shown yourself to be slightly hysterical on this point. There is an over-emphasis on the individual and gratification in our societies, and this is connected to abortion-abuse too. (it's also been the situation many times before. It seems to be a regular outcome of large, stable societies).Really? And can you back up this with evidence? Can you show me that the rates of teen pregnancies always remained steadily? I don’t remember 8 to 10 year olds dressing like 25 year olds either yet I see this every day.
However, your abstinance system doesn't seem to work either as far as the rocketting-population-problem goes. Catholic societies are not known for their small families you know.
I was referring to abstinence for unmarried teens who are fathered to numerous kids of different mothers. A burden on the economy don’t you think? This is what sexual liberation has done whether you want to believe it or not. But then again, it’s man’s system right and we all make the best choices.
Your moral outrage, with its source in religious certainty, is what makes me have stabs at your religion.And your moral outrage with it’s source in uncertainty is what makes me very uneasy.
Tell you what - i'm happy to continue with some (shorter ) posts, specifically talking about the facts concerning homosexuality.
If you can avoid bringing religion into it, so can i
Basically, it comes down to this for me. Homosexual Unions, even though (to me it is immoral) will never convince me of it’s goodness because of what I believe it will do to the identity regarding the family in society. I don’t believe it should be worthy because A: They were never biologically meant to have families as nature will give evidence to and B; Allowing this will further dilute the identity and meaning of a natural marriage and of course family. Mother nature should not be tampered with in this situation period and I don’t think something which is sacred from one end to the earth to the other should have a few loud minority voices creeping and insisting we should give them a chance and see if in time it works out well.
And one more thing. You keep insisting that you feel uneasy about people with religion telling the world how it should be. But look around you. It seems to me that the world listens to very little religious Dogma if any at all these days. Everything is gradually being accepted. Do you see this great change for humanity of which you insist will happen taking place at all? Show me some statistics so that I can see them also.
r3port3r66
07-27-04, 12:57 AM
Are there any creatures in the world, that aren't human--have no knowledege of The Bible--that fall in love with their same sex?
I am amazed, all I can say.
LordSlaytan
07-27-04, 01:33 AM
I know that there are such things as bi-sexual animals, if that means anything.
Garrett
07-27-04, 01:59 AM
Are there any creatures in the world, that aren't human--have no knowledege of The Bible--that fall in love with their same sex?
Now, I think you're straying a little bit away from the topic. Are animals even capable of "love" in that sense?
Monkeypunch
07-27-04, 02:05 AM
Are there any creatures in the world, that aren't human--have no knowledege of The Bible--that fall in love with their same sex?
A friend of mine had a gay cat....he was always chasing after the other male cats. LOL. I don't condemn him, cause if he's happy being a gay, cat, it isn't hurting me any. Same goes with the people. Let gay folks get married if they want to, I mean, i hardly see how that degrades marriage any more than say, drive thru wedding chapels in vegas where you can get wed by a bad elvis impersonator, or "The Bachelor," or "Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire?"
LordSlaytan
07-27-04, 02:52 AM
I had a male rabbit that used to screw my fat male cats head. Does that count as love???
Knoxville
07-27-04, 08:34 AM
My cat always puts her head on my chest when she sleeps-does that mean she's a lesbeian?
I had a male rabbit that used to screw my fat male cats head. Does that count as love???
Bad eyesight maybe.
sisboombah
07-27-04, 04:17 PM
As for homosexuality, i know several gay poeple, including my brother and one of my best friends sisboombah
thanks for outing me lol. i dont really care, just thought it was funny. ;)
blibblobblib
07-27-04, 04:34 PM
thanks for outing me lol. i dont really care, just thought it was funny. ;)
Your welcome ;) I spose, You could say i am your Matt Dillon to your Kevin Kline!!!! HAW HAW HAW HAW :laugh:
:indifferent:
sisboombah
07-27-04, 05:57 PM
oh boy i love that film. i wanna buy it. chris...you have loads of money now. buy me it and ill give you something in return. ;)
(x-45 1/2) g+89.098 -54r t ^=/ 45% (99*890.0)
John McClane
07-27-04, 06:22 PM
Are there any creatures in the world, that aren't human--have no knowledege of The Bible--that fall in love with their same sex?
I don't know that but, when a female dog gets fixed they try and do you thrusting. If you catch my drift. Oh, funny story. My aunt has a little dog, which is female. Anyways, she has this turtle and she takes the head and sticks it in between her hind legs, puts her face to the floor, tucks her front paws under her belly, and humps the turtle. It's hilarious. :laugh: :rotfl: If I can get it on tape, I'll some how get it to you'll.
that70sguy10
07-27-04, 06:29 PM
i dont necessarily have a problem w/ homosexuals... i think i may have a case of homophobia... so as long as their not around me they can do whatever they want... not my business. But if one of my good freinds came out of the closet im not sure how id handle it. i am sure i wouldnt abandon them, but i think question alot of things.
SamsoniteDelilah
07-27-04, 07:56 PM
...But if one of my good freinds came out of the closet im not sure how id handle it. i am sure i wouldnt abandon them, but i think question alot of things.
I've had that experience... several times. The first time, I was 19 and I was astounded. I had no idea. She dated men, so when she said that the girl getting into the back seat of the car was her girlfriend and that she was gay, I was floored. (Looking back, she could only have been more butch if she'd driven an 18-wheeler, so I don't know why I was so suprised.) The next time someone told me they were gay, I was a little smoother about it, and any more, I'm rarely ever suprised by that announcement.
Not too long ago, I was suprised though, when an online friend who's still in highschool came out to me. He talked about being scared to tell his parents, and how they'd probably be really disappointed when their dreams for him had to change. And being afraid he'd be abandoned by his friends. I'd honestly never thought about how much pressure a person would be under, knowing how they feel and anticipating trouble on all sides for it. I do know that people don't get to choose who they're attracted to. It just happens, and sometimes you can't even explain it. I can't imagine there are many who decide that being gay will be fun or cool.
That's why it's upsetting to me to see someone launch into judgement of someone else and condemn them for something that is just a basic part of them. There's just no need to condemn people for doing something that hurts no one. There's room enough for everybody, and no two people are exactly alike, so dismissing someone because they're different does not add up.
blibblobblib
07-27-04, 08:25 PM
oh boy i love that film. i wanna buy it. chris...you have loads of money now. buy me it and ill give you something in return. ;)
Something in return ay?......Does it involve the words ON and STRAP but not in that order? If so im intrigued......and shaken to my very core...
John McClane
07-27-04, 08:27 PM
B-Bob, can I call you that? You're sick. Can I join? ;)
But you see my point was to prove that we didn’t evolve for the anus to be used in such a way.
Yes i understand your objective, and i welcome the fact-based debate (even if you're pursuing one aim, while i'm just interested in establishing a more accurate picture of reality :p).
What's irritating is when you tackle one point, and make some reasonable observations, but take that as conclusive proof of the fallacy of not only that point, but all the others (as you did again with this response :rolleyes: ). Try to keep your eyes on the balls (if you'll forgive the expression ;)).
That’s because you can’t see the entire picture. Same-sex marriage would continue marriage on its present search for the bottom.
Now that was an unfortunate turn of phrase ;)
Fine, how about if gay marriage was legal in nature only?
I understand your fears for the institution of marriage, but it's interesting to point out that governments still encourage long-term partnerships through financial incentives etc, and society as a whole still recognises the importance of a stable family environment.
Have you considered the role of pre-marriage promiscuity in establishing relationships based on both a solid sexual and personal footage incidently? I only ask in case you believe in the old no-sex-before-marriage idea. It's just one point in its favour.
Again, I will say just because one is hard wired as you say to feel something, this still doesn’t confirm the morality of the issue.
Well, within my belief-system (that of learning lessons from the World, as the only source of knowledge we have) it can be used in an argument concerning both 'naturalness' of the phenomenon and the corresponding social response we should have to it. As such it allows us to guage 'best practice'. As such it helps us make moral/ethical social decisions.
So basically, i disagree ;).
Are you kidding me. I hear more and more of why can’t homosexual’s adopt, of course then immediately given a number of reasons why they believe their comment stands correct.
Yes, but you're predisposed to thinking that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. ;)
This is, admittadly, one of the weaknesses of 'liberal' acceptance of varience, that it's difficult to come to social consensus of what the laws of the land should be. You know my preference in this situation, and i suspect adoption agencies and law-makers would agree with me, considering the importance given to traditional family-life.
That’s because your definitions such as harming oneself can diluted down to physical harm.
Well, physchological harm gets a look in too. You can hurt the 'psyche' of society too - i agree with you on that (just not on the best messages and restrictive techniques that society should employ).
As you said with your beastiality argument. You said that you would prefer that one who participates in this to get back to his/her own race etc. then ending it with “I wouldn’t prohibit this” after all, it’s his choice. By not prohibiting it then it becomes accepted. Kind of like when parents don’t prohibit the use of birth control with their kid, “In case they do it”. This is the wrong message plain and simple. It sets up the message that human beings can be like the animals thereby making us into creatures of a lower statis than I would like to think.
A social construct is slightly different from parental disaproval.
Incidently, if my suspicion is correct that bestiality implies health risks, such as the contraction/"creation" and spread of novel diseases, then my stance would be much stronger. Basically prohibition, but augmented by rehabilitation.
But even in my prior, lighter, example, it wouldn't promote the message that bestiality was acceptable. My suspicion is that the hard-core would voluntarily ostracise themselves, and as such would truly learn whether their animal lover really gives them as much as human society.
You underestimate human nature in becoming “lazy” and the gradual effect it could have on future generations. You see it in the world today, and yes I’m gonna bring up abortions again. From one side of the world to the other, abortions have become the norm, once frowned upon to now being accepted at every level.
Well, actually, they've been accepted in multiple forms and in multiple area over human history, as far as i'm aware. The difference is technology has allowed greater 'efficiency' and accesibility.
That’s why it’s called faith. I don’t just believe in anything without question. I have come to believe with my own reasoning and I am quite happy with the Catholic logic even if you don’t see it. It is something of which you can’t understand at the moment. As for pressing my beliefs on everyone. No way, but I do push on preventing somthing that I believe will destroy a foundation to be of value.
I'm afraid i think i understand your reasoning only too well. I recognise that you question aspects of your faith, but the fact remains that you are unlikely to question the facets you consider sacrosanct/certain.
The problem comes when you are convinced that a foundation is being destroyed, but you will not allow yourself to check/question if it's a solid foundation.
What’s up with all this “baby” talk? I sure hope you’re a woman. :D
Sorry to disappoint ;).
Population control of the natural kind would be something to consistently keep a population in check. With our present growth and climbing I don’t see this. War is a better argument for population control and we know how immoral that can be.
Firstly, this is where the balance between 'natural phenomenon' and social-control-mechanisms come in. In other words: we've evolved ways of controlling our environment that have allowed the population explosion, but many natural-phenomenon predate such changes and still follow previous patterns. Suffice to say, just because genetic biological processes may have become swamped by social alterations, it doesn't mean they aren't still having some influence, or that we shouldn't re-think our social behaviour in various ways which include accomodating still-functioning-if-'lessened-in-influence' systems.
We've already established that war, though equally a natural response mediated by social factors, causes far more suffering, and as such can't be morally put forward as a deliberate 'solution' to be facilitated.
You have given me theories that just don’t seem to add up to me. You first tried to tell me it is natural. I replied no it isn’t and tried to back it up with medical and biological evidence. You then would then would say statements like population control and I again would have an undogma response.
You would have a response, but all to often you would treat it as conclusive, and would ignore contextual information.
However, i'm pleased that you are engaging with all the aspects of each argument to one degree or another.
I’ll admit, I do take Dogmas on homosexuality, birth control, masturbation, etc. as truth and go from there. But I don’t press you in believing my arguments simply because it’s true cause the Church told me.
Yeah, well, i guess we've established that i've got a problem with that on the 'simple because it's true' front ;). But i respect you for trying to engage with facts never-the-less.
Show me some evidence where it has played a role in social in development and stability considering it has always been shunned.
Firstly, i'm just postulating a theory to get us closer to the truth by examining that theory. I'm not asserting truth like yourself.
Secondly, here is the evidence that i know of that suggests homosexuality could play a role in social stability:
1) it has existed historically (contrary to what you say), at times of stability in successful societies. Look at ancient Greece and Rome for example.
2) the apparent neurological basis for homosexuality, although not conclusive, suggests it has Darwinistic properties which suggest a mixture of social and selfish benefit (although it could be much more slanted in either direction, as is the way with natural-survival-'strategies')
Why even mess with such an institution because it “May” help. No way my compadre.
We don't have to mess with marriage per se.
It is only unjustifiable because of you cannot comprehend a Perfect, Infinite, Omnipresent God without sin who always was and always will be. You’re knowledge is finite and you can never understand the mind of God.
Your knowledge is also finite.
But i can 'comprehend' of what you speak. I just think the God concept regularly jumbles to many human desires together: The desire to know everything. The desire for guidance. The desire for something that is purely good. etc
All these things are totally understandable. It's when you treat these concepts as unified, and attach loads of other criteria to them that you have no evidence for, and then assess everything you see and know through that concept, that you can be desiring a world that cannot exist, or failing to see the world as 'clearly' as you might, and as such lessen social attempts to continue learning about our failings and potential for positiveness.
Again, when it comes to theological or philosophical questions concerning God, your reality as you perceive it will not come to terms with this.
It does to the extent that i recognise people like yourself and your Church exists. And i believe i understand what drives you on many levels. Unfortunately, you are unlikely to enquire to far into other terms of reference for understanding the world, as you already carry the 'right world' around in your head.
So I can in turn say that you insult every religious person who visits this thread when you say that your perception of God doesn’t equate with theirs. And these people of whom you say I am insulting must be of another religion who obviously believe their faith is the right one will understand when I say this. I am not insulting anyone. It’s pretty much a universal agreement amongst different faiths. Now if I were to call them morons or some other derogatory names then that would be an insult.
Allow me to quote you from this thread:
"You will find in other Church’s they do reverse teachings such as birth control, abortion, homosexual marriages, and any other they deem fit to change through their own feeble minded fallible minds"
This statement is insulting because it suggests that your moral system is not made by 'feeble minded fallible minds'. Although i recognise you apply this statement to all human minds, you've basically just said that only the Catholic Church belief-system isn't feeble-minded in nature.
Whether you like it or not, that's insulting. And, factually, unjustifiable :p ;)
You said that this creature was inevitably going to sin. I again answered with our beliefs of how it was not inevitable considering 2/3 of the angels had not. You see, by you implying it was inevitable stated that this was your opinion of the matter. I in turn gave you mine while trying to assist you to understand how we came to such conclusions and of a religious standpoint of course.
Ok, let's put it like this: God's plans include Evil.
i.e. considering that He's omipotent and made everything, if some of the Angels fell, then he planned it that way.
Same applies for Adam and Eve.
You've already basically said that sin is part of his plan. He may not chose our actions, but in theory he knows them, and the consequences of them.
As such you should accept God's responsability for physical deformities etc.
He made both the agents of evil and those who suffer it. He made everything. To say 'Ah, but he let it happen rather than wanting it to happen' is self-deceptive. It's his plan that things get played out like this. He is the ultimate agent of all the resulting actions.
You can't absolve him of this 'guilt' by saying 'Ah, but he's perfect'. The evidence (and even some of the angels ;)) are very much against you.
Oh, what the hey, it's your religion. Say what you like :).
Funny all this disagreement really, considering we both believe life is an ongoing experiment :).
You can if you can walk in a store an steal an item of theirs. But you don’t using your own free will. Are you a robot?
Your not someone with any real choice ;). You can choose a good life with long-term rewards or a bad life with long-term punishments.
He did but so what? By His knowing the future events still doesn’t negate the fact that it wasn’t His responsibility.
*sigh* Yes, he's "perfect" :rolleyes: (perfectly cruel sometimes tho)
Catachism
God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good.
I hope any biologically-determined homosexuals are feeling that goodness. Mmm, the scourge of persecution. How delightful.
You still can’t get by this part can you? God withheld the Beatific Vision
I get it man. I just don't agree with a principle that says best-goodness can only really be found elsewhere.
Well, I also find it interesting that you fail to realize how you try to push you non beliefs on me because of your lack of evidence. Just because you can’t physically prove something exists doesn’t mean is does not exist.
I totally recognise i push my beliefs forwards. I've just done so again. It is fairly pointless tho. We should let this cycle go and stick to the facts.
(love the 'non-beliefs' bit :rolleyes:. Classic stuff. And i'd be insulted if i hadn't heard that fairly 'feeble-minded' slur so many times before :p)
And i agreed previously that many things certainly exist that we cannot physically prove. (And i think the unknown should play a role in categorical social-laws too).
I just don't think you should claim to know them categorically :p.
I can say I see the Creator in the beauty of the world’s design and you can say you see evolution.
Ah, now here indeed is a fertile area for debate. Possibly the only decent one we can have concerning a science-Religion cross-over debate. But i believe we have several Creationist threads that are better places for all that.
I can see miracles of the Church as a sign of God’s work and you will say it need’s further investigating.
Absolutely.
I can ask you to prove to me there is no God and I doubt you can.
It's hard to disprove an unproveable, certainly. And in many ways i wouldn't want to. I think you and yor God have done many good things. I don't even discount the possibility of a Creator.
You may say that you are flexible in areas whereas I’m not, but you’re only flexible to a certain extent as long as it doesn’t interfere with you own logic.
Well, i recognise that failing, and therefore address it to a certain extent. You use a get-out clause to say it doesn't apply to you. Who's the more realistic?
And what I’d like you to do is to open your heart to the possibility that there is a God who wishes to communicate with His creation.
I'm open to that possibility. But to be honest, until he raps me on the head, i'm going to base my social priniciples on lessons learned from the World.
74 AD The Letter of Barnabas "The way of light, then, is as follows.....
This seems to me that the early Christians and the Church did not look to well upon abortions.
Fascinating as that was, it didn't answer my question. Why didn't the Holy Spirit 'officially' forbid abortion through the Catholic Church before then if it was so obviously counter to God's Law?
And how about stem cell research, and the cloning debate. It still sounds to me like they don’t give much thought to the unborn. As for abortion being around for hundred of years, that mabe true, but it was still as you say “frowned upon” and never universally accepted.
Well, there are researchers working specifically to find alternatives to foetal-stem-cells (bone marrow etc).
And incidently, i believe abortion has been frequently accepted, as mentioned above.
Again, the difference now is technology. And i'm very 'big' on novel technologies being strictly examined for their moral outcomes, whether they're making a previously achievable aim easier to achieve, or generating entirely new abilities. (don't get me started on GM. And boy have i learnt a lot since my last rant on that subject ;))
The Church never sanctions direct abortion. That would be going against Her teachings of which I said She cannot do. She does permit indirect abortions as I have already stated on the other thread.
You never distinguished what this was? Letting the baby go full term and hope it dies before it kills the mother seemed to be your stance. But you seem to opt out of these difficult decisions like that. (No offence, it just seems to be the case - you'd prefer a situation where the nasty stuff just happened, and so no one could be blamed and/or be guiding it).
Really? And can you back up this with evidence? Can you show me that the rates of teen pregnancies always remained steadily? I don’t remember 8 to 10 year olds dressing like 25 year olds either yet I see this every day.
No, but i can tell you successful Empires have regularly got more debauched and obsessed with self-satiation towards their end. The Roman Empire being a particularly good example.
I was referring to abstinence for unmarried teens who are fathered to numerous kids of different mothers. A burden on the economy don’t you think? This is what sexual liberation has done whether you want to believe it or not. But then again, it’s man’s system right and we all make the best choices.
We don't make best-choices by default. We have to work at them.
And your moral outrage with it’s source in uncertainty is what makes me very uneasy.
It's not sourced in uncertainty, although i understand why you think that. It's sourced in a recognition that the world can be an uncertain place, in part because of the limitations of the human mind.
[QUOTE=Escape]And one more thing. You keep insisting that you feel uneasy about people with religion telling the world how it should be. But look around you. It seems to me that the world listens to very little religious Dogma if any at all these days. Everything is gradually being accepted. Do you see this great change for humanity of which you insist will happen taking place at all?
Every days a fight to see and do what's right baby. We all barely know we're born ;).
John McClane
07-27-04, 08:48 PM
Damn, Golgot. You've been busy.
Equilibrium
07-27-04, 10:30 PM
Something in return ay?......Does it involve the words ON and STRAP but not in that order? If so im intrigued......and shaken to my very core...
Sometimes I wonder about you..
Piddzilla
07-28-04, 05:50 AM
I knew a homosexual once. He seemed slightly gay...
sisboombah
07-28-04, 11:00 AM
Something in return ay?......Does it involve the words ON and STRAP but not in that order? If so im intrigued......and shaken to my very core...
actually i was thinking of sqeezing your nose and making a squeaking sound. :rolleyes:
When I was younger (like 10-13) I "hated" gay people because, well, it was the normal thing to do. Although at that age I thought normal sex was gross, I thought gay sex was absolutely disgusting. But I really can't explain why I hated gay people, it was just like a symbol for gross, as the color black is the symbol for evil. Also, I was an immature and stupid pre-teen.
Then, I grew up, went to high school and met lots of gay people. Since I was in the drama club at school, there were plenty of gay guys in there. One in particular became a good friend of mine and taught me several things about life. I actually ended up, as a whole, liking gay guys better than straight guys personality wise. Then there was that time where I fell in love with a gay guy....
From my experience I think that with just a little education, we can become more accepting. I know I went from hating them to falling in love with them... Why can't everyone else?
John McClane
07-28-04, 02:18 PM
When I was younger (like 10-13) I "hated" gay people because, well, it was the normal thing to do. Although at that age I thought normal sex was gross, I thought gay sex was absolutely disgusting. But I really can't explain why I hated gay people, it was just like a symbol for gross, as the color black is the symbol for evil. Also, I was an immature and stupid pre-teen.
Then, I grew up, went to high school and met lots of gay people. Since I was in the drama club at school, there were plenty of gay guys in there. One in particular became a good friend of mine and taught me several things about life. I actually ended up, as a whole, liking gay guys better than straight guys personality wise. Then there was that time where I fell in love with a gay guy....
From my experience I think that with just a little education, we can become more accepting. I know I went from hating them to falling in love with them... Why can't everyone else?To stubborn to change. And maybe because their church drills it in that it's wrong from the day they start to remember things.
To stubborn to change. And maybe because their church drills it in that it's wrong from the day they start to remember things.
Yes, I know. The churches are starting to change, though. At least I know it is in the Protestant religion. My church actually has a few gay members. But even before then, I don't remember being taught that it was wrong. My first experience coming across it, I thought it was weird, then when I asked about it, I was told it was wrong... I don't know. But I definitly think the youth is starting to change things, perhaps it's because we were taught about how wrong racisim is, and we just became against all predjudices. This generation has started the "questioning" process instead of just accepting everything we hear.
blibblobblib
07-28-04, 08:31 PM
actually i was thinking of sqeezing your nose and making a squeaking sound. :rolleyes:
Thats *****....and dont roll your eyes at me you wobbly headed woman!
What's irritating is when you tackle one point, and make some reasonable observations, but take that as conclusive proof of the fallacy of not only that point, but all the others (as you did again with this response No, that whole issue came about as maybe it is used by entering the anus because of the sensation there. I tried to show with evidence it wasn’t used for entry because of the way the anus has developed naturally. I never said this proves homosexuality as unnatural, I said it proves sodomy is unnatural. And enough about the anus talk anyways.
Fine, how about if gay marriage was legal in nature only? I don’t know what you mean here.
Have you considered the role of pre-marriage promiscuity in establishing relationships based on both a solid sexual and personal footage incidently? I only ask in case you believe in the old no-sex-before-marriage idea. It's just one point in its favour.
C’mon now what do you think?
Well, within my belief-system (that of learning lessons from the World, as the only source of knowledge we have) it can be used in an argument concerning both 'naturalness' of the phenomenon and the corresponding social response we should have to it. As such it allows us to guage 'best practice'. As such it helps us make moral/ethical social decisions.
That is your belief system and not mine. I believe and feel there is more to the source of knowledge than just the world as you see. You say because we can’t prove in a higher source of knowledge means it doesn’t exist, and if it does then we still have to go by our own trials and errors to and hope we finally get it right. Not I friend.
Yes, but you're predisposed to thinking that the world is going to hell in a handbasket.Predisposed? I see it with my own eyes and hear it with my own ears. Even in the last 30 years we have seen a tremendous increase in abortions, teen pregnancies, porn, divorce, drug addicts, etc. and I can say the wide use of contraception, and along with the sexual revolution and the diminishing of family are a couple of very large reasons for this.
A social construct is slightly different from parental disaproval.Not really.
If you don’t outright prohibit something then there still is the hidden message of a certain approval and others who have this inclination to also participate without help from their fellow man to bring them back to reality.
My suspicion is that the hard-core would voluntarily ostracise themselves, and as such would truly learn whether their animal lover really gives them as much as human society.
So then what you are saying is that you would not prohibit it from him but allow it to be his choice to participate in beastiality and maybe he will learn his lesson and come back to humans all by his self. Sorry, but I know it to be wrong because it is unnatural and a man can gain nothing with this kind of a realationship no matter what argument you try to back yourself up with such as well maybe there is a reason for this or some other uncertainty you try to throw in there as your defence. It is proven that people who are married live longer than the unmarried. If we are to become one with another, it must be a human being. There is nothing an animal can offer except some sex perversed lust filled fantasy.
I'm afraid i think i understand your reasoning only too well. I recognise that you question aspects of your faith, but the fact remains that you are unlikely to question the facets you consider sacrosanct/certain.
And I recognize that you questions your possible answers to such a situation but the fact remains you are unlikely to question facets or even acknowledge of a possible divine guidance by God.
The problem comes when you are convinced that a foundation is being destroyed, but you will not allow yourself to check/question if it's a solid foundation.
No, I don’t want to mess with a foundation I am convinced is good for society.
Firstly, this is where the balance between 'natural phenomenon' and social-control-mechanisms come in. In other words: we've evolved ways of controlling our environment that have allowed the population explosion, but many natural-phenomenon predate such changes and still follow previous patterns. Suffice to say, just because genetic biological processes may have become swamped by social alterations, it doesn't mean they aren't still having some influence, or that we shouldn't re-think our social behaviour in various ways which include accomodating still-functioning-if-'lessened-in-influence' systems.
Population control as we usually see in nature when not messed with humans remains steady. No more or no less. Even say 5000 years ago the human population continued to grow. Homosexual lifestyle being used as one of the many population control theories of that time is basically a very minute argument therefore cannot be one.
We've already established that war, though equally a natural response mediated by social factors, causes far more suffering, and as such can't be morally put forward as a deliberate 'solution' to be facilitated.
Nevertheless, it is still a population control mechanism even if comes from an evil origin. Just showing one of the many attributes to population control.
You would have a response, but all to often you would treat it as conclusive, and would ignore contextual information.
[quote=golgot]No, what I hear are possible reasons for this or that of which I don’t buy because of lack of evidence. I still remain to with what I find good as in the foundation of marriage. No experimental bull.
[quote=golgot] Firstly, i'm just postulating a theory to get us closer to the truth by examining that theory. I'm not asserting truth like yourself.
Once again, I am asserting truth as I know it to be in the foundation of marriage based on facts and history. That is where this argument lies. You question this like you question everything. This is your belief system which doesn’t make it the right system and which can make a good system crumble. I have come to believe it as truth and even realize how right I was by my perspective. Even atheists acknowledge the goodness per se that comes from marriage.
We don't have to mess with marriage
Marriage is already being messed with by the homosexual unions and here in Canada the definition of marriage Is changing to “between 2 persons” or something of that nature. Give me a break.
It does to the extent that i recognise people like yourself and your Church exists. And i believe i understand what drives you on many levels. Unfortunately, you are unlikely to enquire to far into other terms of reference for understanding the world, as you already carry the 'right world' around in your head.
And I can in tern say that you already carry the “right world” as it should be in your head. It’s all a matter of belief whether you like to hear that or not. For your system to be correct you have to prove that I’m wrong or that God doesn’t exist. I doubt you can. Maybe I cannot prove to you that I’m right either or for that matter that you are wrong but I admit to my belief system. You hide behind your belief system and perhaps would call it a default system because of lack of evidence in God. But because there is no physical evidence that you would like doesn’t mean that He does not exist. You believe we will come to all moral knowledge through our mistakes and chances, I believe it is already here in my Church. Once again, I can see a beauty in marriage of which I see should not be messed with.
Allow me to quote you from this thread:
"You will find in other Church’s they do reverse teachings such as birth control, abortion, homosexual marriages, and any other they deem fit to change through their own feeble minded fallible minds"
This statement is insulting because it suggests that your moral system is not made by 'feeble minded fallible minds'. Although i recognise you apply this statement to all human minds, you've basically just said that only the Catholic Church belief-system isn't feeble-minded in nature.
Whether you like it or not, that's insulting. And, factually, unjustifiable
And you say the Church or every person who feels directed by God are all following some kind of delusional vision by insisting that your system is the right way and ours is the wrong way. That can also be viewed as insulting.
considering that He's omipotent and made everything, if some of the Angels fell, then he planned it that way.
First of all you must understand the meaning of evil. They are things that are not of God. Think of God as light. The absence of light is darkness. The absence of the nature of God is evil. Because some angels fell, He planned it as in He allowed it to happen (through their own fault with 100 percent being their responsibility) for a greater Good. He decided to create us knowing we would sin through our own faults and knowing we would receive an abundance more of His Graces rather than not creating us at all thereby receiving nothing and not a single human or Angel would be able to share in His Eternal Glory. Or if He intervened and stopped us He would have taken away our Free Will to choose between right and wrong. Even after the Fall we are still held accountable to do the best with our consciences move by God’s Graces. We all have a chance so the souls that go to Hell are there because of their sins on their souls by the decisions they made on earth.
So, you would rather have not been created, than be created and have a chance to share in God’s kingdom? Keep pushing “it’s God’s fault cause He allowed it” cause it isn’t as logical as you think.
Absolutely.
Let me say that again. I can see miracles in the Church where science cannot explain and no matter how many you see that science can’t explain ,you will always question even if you never come to the truth.
It's hard to disprove an unproveable, certainly. And in many ways i wouldn't want to. I think you and yor God have done many good things. I don't even discount the possibility of a Creator.
Which tells me that my faith based on my own reason can lead me without you telling me not to go through life this way as I won’t tell you not to go through life your way.
Well, i recognise that failing, and therefore address it to a certain extent. You use a get-out clause to say it doesn't apply to you. Who's the more realistic?
You recognize failing as the only way to succeed without a Chance of Divine intervention. You still have your own stop signs and barriers by not even considerig the other.
I'm open to that possibility. But to be honest, until he raps me on the head, i'm going to base my social priniciples on lessons learned from the World.
Even if He raps you on the head or turned you into frosty the snowman for that matter, you would question and doubt and never realized what just happened. Don’t fool yourself. No amount of evidence is sufficient in your books.
Fascinating as that was, it didn't answer my question. Why didn't the Holy Spirit 'officially' forbid abortion through the Catholic Church before then if it was so obviously counter to God's Law?
There was no Catholic Church before 33 ad. So I don’t know what you’re talking about here. And even my jewish friend acknowledged that abortion was forbidden before that since we kind of came from them.
Well, there are researchers working specifically to find alternatives to foetal-stem-cells (bone marrow etc).
Bone marrow is fine with me. Fetal stem cells are not. You know, someone deciding how an innocent human life should die for some greater cause. Yeah right. That right to life clause applies to all. Nobody should decide how any of us should die and be sacrificed for others by direct murder.
. (don't get me started on GM. And boy have i learnt a lot since my last rant on that subject )
Don’t know what this GM is you’re talking about but if it has to do with fetal stem cell research you already know my stance on abortion so it’s no reason to debate on this issue. I don’t have the time either as this debating of this thread alone is taking up much more than I would like. And I’m probably going to end it soon as we have a good idea how we both view things and we both are not likely going to change.
The Roman Empire being a particularly good example.
What’s your point. I kind of see their morals of like yours. Willing to try new things, you know, with the acceptance of homosexuality, abortions, gluttony, origies, and anything else their carnal lust desires.
We don't make best-choices by default. We have to work at them.
Nevertheless, it’s you’re system and not mine.
Every days a fight to see and do what's right baby. We all barely know we're born . Again with the baby. Do you live a gay lifestyle? Are you a man who likes other men?
Anyways golgot, I enjoyed our debate on this subject but unlike the way I ended on the other thread with Caitlyn :mad: , I will end this one with good will toward you. :D Out of all of our debating we never once really insulted each other and gave each other respect. I really appreaciate this from you. I came to this move forum to discuss movies and “Escape” from the real world. I guess I forget how dragged out a debate can get in the general discussion forum. I think I will avoid this part of the forum for now on as I really don’t always have the time to keep responding to these long threads of yours and as some of these issues really get my blood boiling.
God Bless.
;)
sisboombah
07-29-04, 06:29 AM
Thats *****....and dont roll your eyes at me you wobbly headed woman!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
sorry!
lol
do you like my new avatar then?
John McClane
07-29-04, 02:50 PM
Damn, the only people sticking to the view of this thread is Escape and golgot.
Out of all of our debating we never once really insulted each other and gave each other respect. I really appreaciate this from you. I came to this move forum to discuss movies and “Escape” from the real world. I guess I forget how dragged out a debate can get in the general discussion forum. I think I will avoid this part of the forum for now on as I really don’t always have the time to keep responding to these long threads of yours and as some of these issues really get my blood boiling.
God Bless.
;)
Fair enough mate, and thank you for at least engaging in details where you felt the overall picture was already clear. :)
(ps GM = Genetically Modified i.e. GM plants with altered-gene-expressions, which have passed their man-altered abilities to weeds/'volunteer' plants which now cover your native Canada, thus rendering the abilities next to useless, and spreading whatever flaws lie within the original technique)
Damn, the only people sticking to the view of this thread is Escape and golgot.
Hehehe, and we've called it quits too ;). And i've gone off on a tangent there :)
Ah well, we covered some good ground. I'm sticking with my perception that homosexuality is biologically-determined/natural, and does no real harm, so needs no 'conscious control', as such, by individuals or societies.
EDIT: Oh, and don't mind Sissy-n-Blib. She's just whipping him into shape. Maybe she's annoyed that he's not a lesbian? ;)
John McClane
07-29-04, 05:38 PM
Ah well, we covered some good ground. I'm sticking with my perception that homosexuality is biologically-determined/natural, and does no real harm, so needs no 'conscious control', as such, by individuals or societies.
I'm there with you bub.
sisboombah
07-30-04, 06:51 AM
Oh, and don't mind Sissy-n-Blib. She's just whipping him into shape. Maybe she's annoyed that he's not a lesbian? ;)
i had a dream about that once....it was bloody horrible! lol
Equilibrium
07-30-04, 04:46 PM
i had a dream about that once....it was bloody horrible! lol
But it still made you wet, and thats all that counts. :D
But it still made you wet, and thats all that counts. :D
Erm. Right. Good Lord. Go spank yourself to within an inch of your life this instant. And award yourself some negative rep at the same time :rolleyes:
Damn, the only people sticking to the view of this thread is Escape and golgot.
Dangerous, the waters are, mmmmm.
blibblobblib
07-30-04, 09:57 PM
Ah well, we covered some good ground. I'm sticking with my perception that homosexuality is biologically-determined/natural, and does no real harm, so needs no 'conscious control', as such, by individuals or societies.
Golgot, you may have made my eyes bleed many-a-time, and ill be honest, i slipped into a coma or two reading your expansive arguments, but i think your arguments are always carried out in the best possible way and i 100% agree with them. Huzzah! Hurrah! Here Here! etc etc ;)
EDIT: Oh, and don't mind Sissy-n-Blib. She's just whipping him into shape. Maybe she's annoyed that he's not a lesbian? ;)She has tried to make me into a lesbian many a time. I dont let her near the kitchen knives anymore...or any garden vedgtables for that matter.
i had a dream about that once....it was bloody horrible!I told you to never EVER mention that again...I will not turn into your obese, inflating food bitch!
Equilibrium
07-30-04, 10:11 PM
Erm. Right. Good Lord. Go spank yourself to within an inch of your life this instant. And award yourself some negative rep at the same time :rolleyes:
I did. My butt is all red now :(.
Homosexual unions can be damaging to the identity of the Family Unit between the balance of a mother and a father.
What rubbish :rolleyes:
What rubbish :rolleyes:
I agree, nebbit. There are plently of single moms and single dads trying to raise their children due to various reasons. Are people saying that the children should be taken away from them? Plenty of children grow up "without" a mother or father figure in their life, it's nothing new. At least children of gay parents have two parents for support.
John McClane
08-01-04, 03:01 PM
I agree, nebbit. There are plently of single moms and single dads trying to raise their children due to various reasons. Are people saying that the children should be taken away from them? Plenty of children grow up "without" a mother or father figure in their life, it's nothing new. At least children of gay parents have two parents for support.
Correct. Every kid deserves a chance to have love from two parents. And gay parents can also be much better then straight parents because they teach their kids that everybody is the same and they are also more patient when it comes to learning.
Caitlyn
08-01-04, 03:08 PM
What rubbish :rolleyes:
:yup:
Krackalackin
08-03-04, 05:33 PM
Then there was that time where I fell in love with a gay guy....
:shivers:
:shivers:
You've excited him Jabot ;)
Krackalackin
08-03-04, 06:45 PM
This is a very sensitive subject and is very controversial. However, I'm going to give my opinion anyway because thats what I'm know for on this forum and my reputation shows it. :laugh: I'll tell you right off the bat here that I'm not gay nor wish it on anyone else. There's nothing wrong with admiting your guy, nor is there anything wrong with wanting to be treated equally. I have nothing against that and it's protected under the constitution in this great country we live in.
While you're reading this right now, you're probably still thinking about what I said that I wouldn't "wish it on anyone else". This is not a line of disgust. Disgust is a feeling and has no in-depth intellectual value. My take on homo-sexuals is they have to put up with a lot through their life from the rest of the public that effects almost everything and can ultimately in some cases dictate the course of their life. How I feel about homo-sexuality is based on fact more than bigotry feelings.
As you know or may not know (it doesn't matter), homo-sexuality is a default in nature, an imperfection that is genetically unavoidable. There is homo-sexuality in practically every walk of life from dogs to pigeons to aligators and mice. It's just like there are geniuses, retards, diabetics, boxers and championship-winning break-dancers. You see? It is one side of an equation that can never balance itself because the essense of life is diversity complete with strengths and faults.
Homosexuality is something that can't be avoided (even though Hitler thought so becaue he was a narrowminded, ignorant, bigot) and so is a part of natures natural occurences. This however, unfortunately, and reluctantly to admit does not make Homo-sexuality normal. Just like genuises are as much abnormal as retards and schizos. In actuality, 85% of a species are born with-in the bracket of normality. This causes much domestic social-turmoil. In most other species, most of the abnormal categories die and don't survive to live the life expectancy because of the natural law of the survival of the fittest. The circumstance of this, being a human, however, is much better because of a human's ability for compassion which itself spawns uncountable programs to help sustain the lesser genetically-fortunate individuals to taste life for all its worth. Homo sexuals in this bracket are also unique because homo-sexuals (although there are probably a few naturally) are not intellectually stupid, nor suffer from any serious disease in most cases. They are just born with genetic difference that is unavoidable. I personally believe there are two types of homosexuals. There's the regular, every-day, average-Joe homosexual that was born with the genetic makeup of the sensitivity to the attraction of the same sex. Then there's the more complicated homo-sexual who's anatomy and genetics was tragically not configured to fully express or accomodate the chromosomic sexuality that life was given at conception. Moreover, the person's adolescent years (especially) are filled with confusion and the frustration stemming from the desire to fit in. The person may ultimately feel more like the opposite sex which is where the person inherits the label of being a homo-sexual.
Ofcourse all human beings want to be normal. It's what all (clear-thinking-issue-free) humans strive to be because its more satifying in self-reflection and creates less social friction. This is why there is now a movement for same-sex marriage.
I don't condone relativism or appeasement in myself so I'm going to be frank where I stand and why. I am not a supporter of same- sex marriage, nor will I ever be. I have already looked at both sides and the facts, asked myself how I feel about it inside and there was my conclusion. I had only recently of course came to this conclusion when all these controversial happenings started to sweep the media. The reason why I'm against it is very clear and does not rely at all on bigotry, I can assure you now, before I go into it. And I want to add before I go into this that I mean nothing by it atall. This is not for any purpose of attacking an individual or anything like that. I'm not saying this to hurt anyone. It's just that nature is what it is and it can be very very very hard for some people to look at the damn thing and say, "This is where I am, no more, no less." I myself had to come to grips with the fact that I will never be good at sports! :laugh: That's life though and here goes.
My deepest feeling about this from the marrow of my bones to the expression on my face is that we as a society, no matter how complex and different we are will function better and be more productive if all of us honer those average individuals no matter what advantages or disadvantages we have and understand that we are who we are. But more importantly we are what we do and are responsible for our own actions. This is why I can't in my heart give the greenlight to same-sex marriage. It is the idealism that everyone wants and marriage is the name we have chosen in the English language to label the ideal of the naturally normal and productive form of sexual behavior. This is also why I don't believe in permisceous sex. I think it's degrading to our society. Continuing, you see in my view it is naturally normal to have abnormal people in our society but that does not change who they are no matter if you're the best or the worst of our society. So abnormal people may be naturally normal but that does not however make them so no matter how much people will feel for those people that got the wrong card out of the-luck-of-the-hat draw. Homo-sexuals will be homo-sexuals and they have no right to emphasize to heterosexuals that marriage doesn't mean anything and is just a word that can be used for any sexual partnership. It is also irrelevant to suggest that marriage is a dying institution because I don't believe that has anything to do with today's sexual preference which is always the same.
I think this has gone far enough and once again, I did not mean to offend anyone. For this topic is bigger than you or me, but on a scale that's as big as life itself. There are more issues that ecompass this like what does a gay couple mean and should there be a legal recognition for it but I've stuck myself out far enough because like we all know "No matter what side you take, no matter if its what you feel, they'll always be someone against ya."
My thoughts...
As you know or may not know (it doesn't matter), homo-sexuality is a default in nature...
That seems to be the case, yup, do go on...
...an imperfection that is genetically unavoidable.
Oh dear, now you've spoilt it. Why 'imperfection' pray tell?
We've been debating this a bit on this thread, and i can't see how you can conclusively say homosexuals are at a genetic disadvantage/don't perform a role in society. i.e. That they are a 'deformity' rather than an example of useful variety.
In actuality, 85% of a species are born with-in the bracket of normality.
Sources please :)
...human's ability for compassion... itself spawns uncountable programs to help sustain the lesser genetically-fortunate individuals to taste life for all its worth.
Fair point. Do go on...(;))...
I personally believe there are two types of homosexuals. There's the regular, every-day, average-Joe homosexual that was born with the genetic makeup of the sensitivity to the attraction of the same sex. Then there's the more complicated homo-sexual who's anatomy and genetics was tragically not configured to fully express or accomodate the chromosomic sexuality that life was given at conception. Moreover, the person's adolescent years (especially) are filled with confusion and the frustration stemming from the desire to fit in. The person may ultimately feel more like the opposite sex which is where the person inherits the label of being a homo-sexual.
All reasonable points, and indeed i believe there have been recent discoveries backing up the theories of chromosatic-confusion/variability.
I don't condone relativism...
Never? Shame.
It's just that nature is what it is and it can be very very very hard for some people to look at the damn thing and say, "This is where I am, no more, no less."
Fine. Just gotta know the 'natural' situation to make the conclusive judgement then ;).
...no matter how complex and different we are will function better and be more productive if all of us honer those average individuals no matter what advantages or disadvantages we have and understand that we are who we are.
By 'average' i take it you mean the norm. Certainly society's stability relies on the consistancy brought by regularity etc, and the majority 'norm' provide this. On that level i agree. But i think you may be taking it too far by saying that all 'honour' should go to the 'norm'...
Firstly, you seem to accept that abnormal people may have advantages over the 'norm', as much as they are inhibited by their differences and/or other disadvantages.
For example...
Mild forms of schizophrenia have recently been demonstrated to coincide with more ample and bi-hemispherical use of the brain, which is connected to increased creativity in such people (yes, that old creativity chestnut ;)).
Schizotypal personality disorder is known to be linked with a thicker connection between the two sides of the brain. The creative abilities of people with the condition could also explain the enduring incidence of schizophrenia, which remains at around 1 per cent worldwide, despite people with the disorder having fewer children.
Creativity demonstrably brings benefits to society that help with its sustainability and long-term stability (inventions etc). These people have only minor disadvantages and can function socially. Their 'variation' seems to play a role in stability.
Yet you go on to say that the rules designed to govern normal tendancies should hold for all. What's wrong with allowing for variety where it is beneficial, or indeed, where it causes no harm?
I agree that laws should reflect the tendancies of the majority, but i also feel they shouldn't prohibit the tendancies or input of the useful or harmless minority/abnormal.
This is 'mild' relativism if you like ;). Laws should reflect beneficial and non-detrimental variety in society where it exists, without distracting from governance of majority practice.
So in terms of the marriage, i really can't see the harm in allowing homosexuals to legally, socially (and even spiritually) recognise their long-term relationships.
All it requires is a slight variation of the concept of marriage in those examples. It's not belittling the term marriage. It's just redefining it for exceptional circumstances.
This is why I can't in my heart give the greenlight to same-sex marriage. It is the idealism that everyone wants and marriage is the name we have chosen in the English language to label the ideal of the naturally normal and productive form of sexual behavior.
Would it make you feel better if it was called Homo-age in the case of homosexual partnerships? :) (and I'm actually serious you know. Would it make you feel better if a different term was used, and its definition would just exclude the presumption and obligation of child-rearing?)
Homo-sexuals will be homo-sexuals and they have no right to emphasize to heterosexuals that marriage doesn't mean anything.
I'm not sure that they are. I think they're trying to assert that their relationships do mean something.
r3port3r66
08-04-04, 12:45 AM
Every human being has a flaw genetic(for arguments sake) or devine. How easy is it to define your own? And how willing are you to care wether or not people accept it? Don't religious people get plastic surgery?
Krackalackin
08-04-04, 03:15 AM
Oh dear, now you've spoilt it. Why 'imperfection' pray tell?
We've been debating this a bit on this thread, and i can't see how you can conclusively say homosexuals are at a genetic disadvantage/don't perform a role in society. i.e. That they are a 'deformity' rather than an example of useful variety.
This particular statement has many things wrong with it. I don't know where to begin. First off, I never said they're at a genetic disadvantage. Yes, they do have a disadvantage in many situations in life but it's not a genetic disadvantage. It's a genetic imperfection. Also, I never said being gay is a "deformity" which you quoted me and I never said they don't perform a role in society. To say a working man does not perform a role in society is ludicrous and has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
Sources please :)
Can't find one, I looked but it's a hard statistic to search for. My guess is 85%
Fine. Just gotta know the 'natural' situation to make the conclusive judgement then ;).
There is no situtation. There isn't one needed. I'm sure you're familiar with the nature vs. nurture theory. It's that theory that makes the backbone of my believe that 'you are what you do'
Creativity demonstrably brings benefits to society that help with its sustainability and long-term stability (inventions etc). These people have only minor disadvantages and can function socially. Their 'variation' seems to play a role in stability.
You bring up a point that is not needed in this discussion because my actual debate is about same sex marriage. There is nothing wrong with irregular people expressing their creativity or gravitating towards their personal interests.
Yet you go on to say that the rules designed to govern normal tendancies should hold for all. What's wrong with allowing for variety where it is beneficial, or indeed, where it causes no harm?
Alas, you jumped the ship on this argument. This was really your moment to shine and debate your own reasons why there is no harm in variety. You didn't back it up however which I'm sure you can. And you're right, there's nothing wrong with variety. But legally giving the title of marriage to homo-sexuals also is not giving the word marriage variety. That just ain't the truth and frankly doesn't make any sense.
I agree that laws should reflect the tendancies of the majority, but i also feel they shouldn't prohibit the tendancies or input of the useful or harmless minority/abnormal.
I agree whole-heartedly but the fact is, this is too general a statement as was the last. We're not talking philosphy here. I'm being very specific about same-sex marriage. Once again, I agree that abnormals should not be prohibited from expressing themselves for who they are or from contributing to society. That however has nothing to do with marriage. Yes, I understand like I mentioned in my little essay that they want to be equal with the norm but in that case, who doesn't? And they have all the right in the world to say they want to be married but I really don't think they would want to be married if it wasn't the majority of people who practiced it.
This is 'mild' relativism if you like ;). Laws should reflect beneficial and non-detrimental variety in society where it exists, without distracting from governance of majority practice.
This is basically exclaiming (I believe it's what you're saying) that marriage is only a law and therefore just a piece of paper created by the state. I disagree with this however if I understood what you were trying to say because marriage is only the institutional word of life-long sex partners and parents. As we know ofcourse, humans run everything by institution. Marriage is not however anything only applying to humans. I don't mean to suggest that animal parents are married (because marriage ofcourse is much more intricate) but its the humans institutional way of creating the more advanced and unique form of reproduction for itself. Concluding what I'm trying to say is, it's not just a law but the human version of a basic neccesity in nature.
So in terms of the marriage, i really can't see the harm in allowing homosexuals to legally, socially (and even spiritually) recognise their long-term relationships.
I really have no problem with that either.
Would it make you feel better if it was called Homo-age in the case of homosexual partnerships? :) (and I'm actually serious you know. Would it make you feel better if a different term was used, and its definition would just exclude the presumption and obligation of child-rearing?)
I have thought about this and it does make sense to me. Many people don't want to recognize gay couples as anything which I denounce as absurd. I think they should have their own title which the definition would fit the practices of a homo-sexual relationship.
I'm not sure that they are. I think they're trying to assert that their relationships do mean something.
Once again, you might be right to a degree but I don't think any individual said they didn't. I think they feel they want to be recognized by the state. At the same time however, I feel that much more than the last example just want to be recognized as equals sexually with heterosexuals. Judging from your responses, you seem like a pretty intelligent guy and I do appreciate you explaining your own opinion.
In your first post it seemed that you had a problem with homosexuals legally (and/or spiritually) announcing their long-term commitments to each other, so i'm happy to see that you don't feel that way, and that on that core point, we agree :)
i.e...
Many people don't want to recognize gay couples as anything which I denounce as absurd. I think they should have their own title which the definition would fit the practices of a homo-sexual relationship.
However, you made a few assertion that i found provocative, and potentially unwarrented. Just thought i'd check the details with you...
First off, I never said they're at a genetic disadvantage... It's a genetic imperfection.... Also, I never said being gay is a "deformity" which you quoted me and I never said they don't perform a role in society.
Yeah, what i was picking you up on was that the term 'imperfection' implies several things:
a) that there's a genetically perfect human being (there seems to be a 'norm' certainly, but even that norm involves significant diversity within it.)
b) that those that differ from the norm are ultimately 'lesser'. (hence my use of the word 'deformity' - i was implying that in this context it's equivilent to 'imperfect').
The question then is: Why do you think the 'norm' is perfect?
Modern Darwinistic principles suggest that variety holds enough benefits for the species (if not always the individual) to outweigh its drawbacks. As such, variations from the norm are not necessarily 'imperfect'. They could be perfectly 'fitting' for the world we live in and the societies we have evolved.
That was the point i was trying to make. By automatically terming abnormal genetic make-ups as 'imperfect'/inferior-to-the-norm you are making a large assumption.
Basically, i was saying we should respect the norm where it is 'superior', but also respect the superiorities and benign aspects of the 'abnormal' when they occur.
As it is, we don't seem to disagree over the importance of diversity. :)
Can't find one, I looked but it's a hard statistic to search for. My guess is 85%
Ok, well perhaps you might want to tone down the old 'this-is-how-it-is' statements then :) ;)
I agree that abnormals should not be prohibited from expressing themselves for who they are or from contributing to society. That however has nothing to do with marriage....I really don't think they would want to be married if it wasn't the majority of people who practiced it.
I think the desire to recognise partnerships is as natural to homosexuals as it is to heterosexuals. What distinguishes the situations is that 'normal' society has been able to establish, and dictate, the manner of recognising that union.
As such the homosexual partners have very little choice but to apply for the socially-accepted standard.
The most realistic amongst them, and amongst society, would accept a comparable ceremony that is adapted to key points of varience -i.e.- one that doesn't include a right to childcare etc.
I think they feel they want to be recognized by the state. At the same time however, I feel that much more than the last example just want to be recognized as equals sexually with heterosexuals.
I'm totally against people insisting on 'equality' where there cannot be any, and in this i suspect we're very much in agreement (suprising attitude for a 'liberal' eh ;) - i refer to our slightly more spiteful meeting on the Moore thread of course :)).
As such, i think heterosexual couples should have absolute predominance over situations like adoption etc.
And as far as i can see that's the only thing that would distinguish a homosexual 'Homage' (;)) from a traditional heterosexual Marriage.
Krackalackin
08-04-04, 11:42 PM
[/QUOTE]Yeah, what i was picking you up on was that the term 'imperfection' implies several things:
a) that there's a genetically perfect human being (there seems to be a 'norm' certainly, but even that norm involves significant diversity within it.)
b) that those that differ from the norm are ultimately 'lesser'. (hence my use of the word 'deformity' - i was implying that in this context it's equivilent to 'imperfect').[/QUOTE]
a) I understand your reason to question my response. Correct, there no genetically perfect human. There is no perfect human naturally. But what I was trying to do was to point out the unfortunate that are born not being within the norm. I believe that all people want to be within the norm genetically. I don't think it's right to say they are lesser, because they have no control over the makeup of their genetics but it cannot be argued that they do not have genetic deficiencies no matter if it is natural that a species would unavoidably have them.
[/QUOTE]The question then is: Why do you think the 'norm' is perfect?[/QUOTE]
The norm is not perfect. But the norm is the closest to a model of the way the human is supposed to theoretically exist in nature. This is shown by the fact that its the majority just like in all species. So if your question is "Why do I think the norm is ideal?" That's very obvious and practically answers itself. What other answer could I give you but to say because it's the balance of genetics. For example, what would the question be implying if its purpose, hypothetically, was to be discouraging me from believing so? It's pretty obvious that that the norm is what people want to be for many reasons.
[/QUOTE]Modern Darwinistic principles suggest that variety holds enough benefits for the species (if not always the individual) to outweigh its drawbacks. As such, variations from the norm are not necessarily 'imperfect'. They could be perfectly 'fitting' for the world we live in and the societies we have evolved.[/QUOTE]
This one has stumped me because in nature, this argument makes even less sense. Tell me, how does a homo-sexual rabbit support and/or benefit its species? How does being a born-brain-dead-alligator benefit itself, let alone its neighboring community?
[/QUOTE]That was the point i was trying to make. By automatically terming abnormal genetic make-ups as 'imperfect'/inferior-to-the-norm you are making a large assumption.[/QUOTE]
This is a valid point but I'll give you my opinion why I disagree. When I say they are imperfect, it has nothing to do with what they do and how that contends with the "norm". I'm talking about genetics. Genetically, they are imperfect. An imperfection meaning a genetic sub-division that is radically dissimilar from a normal-genetically born human being. You cannot say however that they are inferior because in this circumstance, it is much more appropriate and effective to judge them by their integrity like any person because they are human. In animals, I would say they are inferior because animal-life is much more simple and genetic-drawbacks show their disadvantages much more dramatically. For example, the most brilliant person who ever lived, (in my opinion) Leonardo Davinci was gay. Leonardo did not have to worry about survival naturally like animals because he is human so he ofcourse was able to develop his extraordinary talents. It's true that their are worse deficiencies than homo-sexuality but the point I'm trying to make is that no matter if it is natural to have a percentage of a species born with genetic deficiencies does not mean they are not. They are still imperfections no matter if its unavoidable. I hope I helped you to understand my own perspective.
[/QUOTE]Basically, i was saying we should respect the norm where it is 'superior', but also respect the superiorities and benign aspects of the 'abnormal' when they occur.[/QUOTE]
This is what the human race is about. I think it is wrong and preposterous to condescend and degrade those that are not within the norm. It is totally out of their control and there's nothing they can do about it except live life to the fullest in their view just like everyone else. Fortunately, we have many organization like I mentioned earlier to make this easier for people that are born with any genetic abstraction.
[/QUOTE]As it is, we don't seem to disagree over the importance of diversity. :)[/QUOTE]
Oh, I think we do on the contrary. But where we differ simply is this. I believe that two genetic differences are not equal, mathematically even, if you will. It's not a question of superioority or inferiority because that is in my view or for my example, based on performance. But that doesn't mean that homo-sexual sex is not unnatural. Even though nature dictates it to be unavoidable, doesn't make it natural. I think this is where we differ. I'm not dismissing the unavoidable diversity or I'd be someone to have prejudice against more unfortunate individuals. As for importance, I think it has really nothing to do with importance if these words are exactly what you're trying to describe. I dont think it would make a difference in the survival of man if we didn't have any deficiencies and everyone was born with normal, predictive genetics to an extant. But that ain't the truth as we know. I think you do have a valid opinion, however, and there's no reason to say you're wrong. What we're basically talking about is the treatment of different genetics. We both agree on the treament of people, fortunately. Our opinions are not that dissimilar. There are much larger differences of opinion out there. Good forum discussion. :)
[/QUOTE]Ok, well perhaps you might want to tone down the old 'this-is-how-it-is' statements then :) ;)[/QUOTE]
It's only a guess and doesn';t really matter because the majority is of course born in the norm. So please pardon me without a source.
[/QUOTE]I think the desire to recognise partnerships is as natural to homosexuals as it is to heterosexuals. What distinguishes the situations is that 'normal' society has been able to establish, and dictate, the manner of recognising that union.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree and I believe they left out heterosexuals as if to imply to them that they are freaks of nature and not worth a damn. That's a very lewed way to judge homo-sexuals of course. I don't find it mature, appropriate and understadable to call all people with genetic dificiencies as freaks of nature. It's tough but who knows if there will ever be a same-sex version of marriage because the norm seems to want to shut-out unnatural feelings as if their any less important or authentic.
[/QUOTE]As such the homosexual partners have very little choice but to apply for the socially-accepted standard.[/QUOTE]
This is a good point and many probably argue this personally, if I were gay, I would not (I think at least) want to be recognized as being married to my lover because as we know, homo-sexuals feel very strong about their sexual "preference" as we do. I would not want to be labeled as being married because I feel homo-sexuality is what I want to practice and I don't want to be confused with being married because it's not to my own practice, nor does it represent me for who I am and how I want to be represented.
[/QUOTE]The most realistic amongst them, and amongst society, would accept a comparable ceremony that is adapted to key points of varience -i.e.- one that doesn't include a right to childcare etc. [/QUOTE]
I agree. I don't feel it's right to imply to homo-sexuals that their relationship doesn't mean anything the same that these homo-sexuals now are implying that marriage doesn't mean anything. I would love to see a statistic right now that shows what percentage of homo-sexuals would be in favor of this. That might change some of my standpoints if it were unexpectedly unpopular.
[/QUOTE]I'm totally against people insisting on 'equality' where there cannot be any, and in this i suspect we're very much in agreement (suprising attitude for a 'liberal' eh ;) - i refer to our slightly more spiteful meeting on the Moore thread of course :)).[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]As such, i think heterosexual couples should have absolute predominance over situations like adoption etc.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]And as far as i can see that's the only thing that would distinguish a homosexual 'Homage' (;)) from a traditional heterosexual Marriage. [/QUOTE]
Nice debate Gollygosh and kracky :D
Godsend
08-05-04, 08:14 AM
Homophobia is a social disease. That, and including any other various bashings/hating/and awful remarks through out to homosexuals through out the world. When it leads to social remarks, then it leads to pscyhological problems. Yes, problems...not indifferences, but problems. The unability to accept something different is just as must racism as it to not accept homosexuality.
Me? I'm not homosexual...I doubt I know any gay persons. There could be some closet hidden people I know, but I really wouldn't give a hoot. ****, if my best friend told me I was gay, I'd be happy I know a gay person. It'd be a different experience, and I don't have to watch Will and Grace to feel it :p
I always hear the remark that it's wrong and that marriage is meant for a man and woman. Heh, surprisngly we all start as a woman. A small gene is "triggered" and outcome the sexual organs of a male. So, don't truly isolate yourself from the other sex. I usually hear these remarks that "its wrong" "marriage is man and woman, not man and man and woman and woman" from bible huggers. I'll put it as simple as that. If you're offended, click out.
Ever hear the term that men think of sex every 10 seconds? Or is it 5 seconds? Maybe 3? Aww hell, who gives a ****? Men think of sex every "insert your favorite number here" seconds because we were made like that. Evolving from a species such as the primate, you truly have to suggest that survival was first the top game for us at that time.
If you look through out the world, you'll notice that animals are "programmed" for this sort of dealing. It's survival, and survival will stay. It's been passed down as that, and as we hold the similar genetic DNA as of primeates, survival will always be the top key.
Now when it comes to homosexuality regarding "survival"? I honestly think that this is...umm...a "glitch" or something to that extent, in the DNA coding. How? I have no idea, but I'm sure someone who's had some experience with DNA can take this information in. Honestly, there is a small amount of DNA that scientists/doctor's can't "read" They've started hinting and suggesting that its the map of our emotions; attitude; personality and so on.
Maybe it is, maybe not? So, if homosexuality is caused by a genetic mess up, so? That's lowering yourself to the standards of bashing handicapped children and what not. Now, I am not trying to issue a comment saying that homosexuals are "helpless" because they aren't, I am just trying to say that you are hating them because nature took its course and pop...there you go.
Honestly, if you can't accept the fact that someone doesn't follow the "traditional" way, it doesn't mean you must hate them. If you can't accept this FACT you can just keep your perfect mouth shut.
(Said at 6:13 am, mistakes or what not=meh)
blibblobblib
08-05-04, 03:34 PM
I really wouldn't give a hoot. ****, if my best friend told me I was gay, I'd be happy I know a gay person. I wish my friends would be able to tell me my sexual orientation, it would make things so much more interesting.
Unfortunatly i am a homaphobic....
i get really scared of coming home!
Boom BOOM! :laugh:...............
:blush:
*lowers head in shame*
r3port3r66
08-05-04, 03:36 PM
Coming out, or coming home?! Bah-dum-bum!!
blibblobblib
08-05-04, 03:49 PM
Coming out, or coming home?! Bah-dum-bum!!
Now that would be Coming out of the closetaphobia!! Bah-Dum-B....hang on wait...That isnt funny. :confused:
r3port3r66
08-05-04, 03:52 PM
Why can't your friends tell you your orientation? Are you from the Orient?
blibblobblib
08-05-04, 04:04 PM
If only i was...if only i was. Im actually from Europe so they just constantly inform me on my Sexual Europentation, which is TOTALLY different to ones sexual orientation.
Krackalackin
08-05-04, 04:15 PM
Homophobia is a social disease. That, and including any other various bashings/hating/and awful remarks through out to homosexuals through out the world. When it leads to social remarks, then it leads to pscyhological problems. Yes, problems...not indifferences, but problems. The unability to accept something different is just as must racism as it to not accept homosexuality.
Me? I'm not homosexual...I doubt I know any gay persons. There could be some closet hidden people I know, but I really wouldn't give a hoot. ****, if my best friend told me I was gay, I'd be happy I know a gay person. It'd be a different experience, and I don't have to watch Will and Grace to feel it :p
I always hear the remark that it's wrong and that marriage is meant for a man and woman. Heh, surprisngly we all start as a woman. A small gene is "triggered" and outcome the sexual organs of a male. So, don't truly isolate yourself from the other sex. I usually hear these remarks that "its wrong" "marriage is man and woman, not man and man and woman and woman" from bible huggers. I'll put it as simple as that. If you're offended, click out.
Ever hear the term that men think of sex every 10 seconds? Or is it 5 seconds? Maybe 3? Aww hell, who gives a ****? Men think of sex every "insert your favorite number here" seconds because we were made like that. Evolving from a species such as the primate, you truly have to suggest that survival was first the top game for us at that time.
If you look through out the world, you'll notice that animals are "programmed" for this sort of dealing. It's survival, and survival will stay. It's been passed down as that, and as we hold the similar genetic DNA as of primeates, survival will always be the top key.
Now when it comes to homosexuality regarding "survival"? I honestly think that this is...umm...a "glitch" or something to that extent, in the DNA coding. How? I have no idea, but I'm sure someone who's had some experience with DNA can take this information in. Honestly, there is a small amount of DNA that scientists/doctor's can't "read" They've started hinting and suggesting that its the map of our emotions; attitude; personality and so on.
Maybe it is, maybe not? So, if homosexuality is caused by a genetic mess up, so? That's lowering yourself to the standards of bashing handicapped children and what not. Now, I am not trying to issue a comment saying that homosexuals are "helpless" because they aren't, I am just trying to say that you are hating them because nature took its course and pop...there you go.
Honestly, if you can't accept the fact that someone doesn't follow the "traditional" way, it doesn't mean you must hate them. If you can't accept this FACT you can just keep your perfect mouth shut.
(Said at 6:13 am, mistakes or what not=meh)
I just want to make sure that your posting this for a broad purpose and not criticizing my comments because my own opinion does not reflect the ignorant standpoints you detest. And once again, my own opinion is not posted to hurt anyone.
Equilibrium
08-05-04, 04:21 PM
Why can't your friends tell you your orientation? Are you from the Orient?
lmao.
Godsend
08-05-04, 04:32 PM
I just want to make sure that your posting this for a broad purpose and not criticizing my comments because my own opinion does not reflect the ignorant standpoints you detest. And once again, my own opinion is not posted to hurt anyone.
What if I tested your so called opinions. If I did, then you're in for an arguement. If you felt as if it didn',t you can carry on with your arrogance. Comply yourself with knowledge instead of assumpstions
Assumpstions aren't theories; you need an educated guess.
Urban Cowboy
08-05-04, 04:33 PM
Godsend, at this point in time it is still a leap to assume that homosexuality is biological. But you are right there should be no place in soicity for hate. That's not to say that people shouldn't be able to express the fact that they are against homosexuality.
One final thought; I think people should be careful with lables such as homophobic. It has become quiet overused. I'm not saying that there aren't homophobic people out there, but being against homosexuality doesn't make one homophobic. The term is extremely incendiary, and the only use of such a lable is to try to discredit without hearing a person out.
Krackalackin
08-05-04, 04:40 PM
I had just changed my mind today on a platform I disclosed earlier and I would like to clear this up since my older posts do not entirely reflect my opinion anymore.
I was originally for the creation of a title for homo-sexuals that represented their own sexual relationship but I unfortunately to some do not support that anymore for very good reasons. After thinking about the consequence of having such a title and what it would ultimately do, after getting past the idealism of it, I began to notice faults in it that is no fault of gays. Human nature, as we know, or the tendency of human nature is to take advantage of opportunities and loopholes created by the state or just in general. A creation of such a title, although I see it fitting to recognize a homo-sexual relationship legally (although still not considered normal, ofcourse), would lead to many people, especially young people, to take advantage of such a financial benefit and would use it dishonestly for their own benefit and pleasure. Also, and I don't know if this is true or not, I have just recently engaged in a debate about the same subject and my protagonist argued a statement that would also influence my standpoint. He argued that homo-sexuals, although born genetically different (making them in need of different, more effective and applicable rules to be governed by) are not just genetically prone to the opposite sex. Their relationships do not for the most part resemble that of a married couple in behavior and (in theory, today, anyways) in sexual discipline. He argued that most homo-sexual relationships don't last long and are not taken as seriously as straight relationships tend to be, and permisceuity is a standard practice. If this is so (and I would like someone on the board to truthfully fill me in) my next thought would be: if this is a consequence of the negativity and oppression from society which influences this radical behavior as a sort of remark that a person has every right to act on how they feel. And truthfully, I don't think I will ever know the answer to that, nor would I have the faintest idea how to measure results, or determine if results are accurate.
Also, Apparently, homosexuals can be given the same financial breaks that married couples do through a signed partnership contract, which forms a "union" . This contract would be more specific, explicit, and determinate than a title which I feel is necessary to keep people from taking advantage of my support of a proposed, "Homo-sexual bounding title" which does not exist anywhere in the world, I don't think.
So, therefore, even though I feel that homo-sexuals should have their own recognition of their abnormal relationship, I feel there's too many problems for it to be effective and carried out anywhere near ideally. This is probably why it hasn't hapened yet in Europe.
This has eally been a great discussion/debate and I really enjoyed it. I think this is all I have to say so this concludes my part in this thread. I coincidentally have another debate going on right now with my colleague Golgot about politics. Check out the Fahrenheit/911 if you'd like for an interesting read. Chow. :cool:
A creation of such a title, although I see it fitting to recognize a homo-sexual relationship legally (although still not considered normal, ofcourse), would lead to many people, especially young people, to take advantage of such a financial benefit and would use it dishonestly for their own benefit and pleasure.
Well, by the same token, people can get married for the financial/legal benefits alone, and they do. (citizenship scams etc etc).
Also, and I don't know if this is true or not.... Their relationships do not for the most part resemble that of a married couple in behavior and (in theory, today, anyways) in sexual discipline. He argued that most homo-sexual relationships don't last long and are not taken as seriously as straight relationships tend to be, and permisceuity is a standard practice... (and I would like someone on the board to truthfully fill me in)...
I've known and know a lot of gay people, and i'd agree that their community (for it is often just that, a 'seperate' community that has learnt to thrive on its own semi-ostracism) is often very proactive when it comes to tracking down a partner, and promiscuity can follow from this.
That said tho, i've come across many long-term gay couples, who of course met and established their relationship through the hectic-dating approach that i've observed, but who have chosen to dedicate themselves to each other just as a heterosexual couple would, and for similar reasons (excluding making a kid ;)).
For example: There are five gay guys at my work. Of those, three are in long-term relationships (two being apparently very loving and stable, the other i'm not quite so sure about, but it's still long-term). The other aren't even dating (successfully ;)) that i know of. There was a sixth guy who left recently who was definitely of the 'promiscuous' variety, but even he was making a go of it with a new partner (he was just a very volatile character was all - but he still longed for the advantages of a loving relationship).
If this is a consequence of the negativity and oppression from society which influences this radical behavior as a sort of remark that a person has every right to act on how they feel. And truthfully, I don't think I will ever know the answer to that, nor would I have the faintest idea how to measure results, or determine if results are accurate.
I think the exclusion and oppression of the recent past, and even present, have had a definite affect on the gay psyche. This exclusion seems to drive certain self-assertiveness ('my right' etc) and 'rebellious' aspects in the gay community.
Increasing acceptance would lessen the 'I'm gonna do what i want coz society has rejected me' line of thought that some gay people adopt.
Also, Apparently, homosexuals can be given the same financial breaks that married couples do through a signed partnership contract, which forms a "union" . This contract would be more specific, explicit, and determinate than a title which I feel is necessary to keep people from taking advantage of my support of a proposed, "Homo-sexual bounding title" which does not exist anywhere in the world, I don't think.
Well, as you've basically said, the only difference from the existing situation is that a recognised title would bring a more visible social acceptance (which could have beneficial effects on the gay communities feelings about itself and its normality/similarity to 'normal' society)
Chow. :cool:
Are you off to get some food? ;)
r3port3r66
08-05-04, 05:49 PM
So many questions about logic in this discussion. But let me preface them with a statement: Sometimes a bad encounter with someone "different"--especially at a young age--can influence how you percieve that sect throughout most of your life. Likewise with a positive encounter. If your not ready to deal with diversity, say at the age of 5 (perhaps sheltered [protected]) from the world at large, strong mental barriers can strengthen with time, and by the age of 21, your mind has become less pliant to ideas, therefore skewing your ability to catagorize everything you believe to be wrong, to be wrong, and everything you percieve to be right, right--with limited sway. Here's a formula; Every homosexual is a genetic flaw. Some homosexuals are men. Therefore, every male homosexual is a genetic flaw: Not a true statement. Here's a truer statement: Every human is different. Some humans are bad. Some humans, who are different, are bad.
Now for questions:
Are Jewish people genetically different, or are they an abomination of Heaven (Hitler thought the latter)?
Are Black people( insert race of your choice here) less human because their population is less than those of whites?
On which personal, unique creed do you base the answers to the above questions?
How willing are you to accept that dinosaurs did exist, and man is in the process of evolution, both mentally and physically?
undercoverlover
08-05-04, 06:06 PM
i couldn't care less if someone was gay or not, i'm not sleeping with them so why should i care who they're doing?
r3port3r66
08-05-04, 06:11 PM
Are you not a caring person? I think you are.
This one has stumped me because in nature, this argument makes even less sense. Tell me, how does a homo-sexual rabbit support and/or benefit its species? How does being a born-brain-dead-alligator benefit itself, let alone its neighboring community?
Now see, by lumping all 'abnormalities' together you're going too far.
This is why i gave you the mild-schizophrenia example.
We both agreed that these paticular genetically-abnormal people benefit the species. (Or at least, that's probably why schizophrenia persists at a level of around 1%, despite the fact that full-on schizophrenics are at a huge disadvantage, and that schizophrenics as a whole have fewer children)
What i'm suggesting is that genetic varience may serve Darwinistic purposes. Abnormalities that are persistant, despite their disadvantages, are either filling niches to their own advantage, are benign and can survive, or actually provide a service.
Beyond that, variety seems to protect a species against sudden climatic change i.e. if the norm is too static it doesn't have elements that can survive cataclysms etc.
None of these things are conclusive. But their is increasing evidence in their favour.
On homosexuality, i've suggested waaaaay back in the thread that the continued existence of homosexuality could have been aided by socially beneficial traits - ie. they might act as a stop-valve for over-population, and possibly might have more time/energy to put back into society because of the lack of child raising (but them being motivated towards doing so would probably rely on them being respected - as in Native Indian tradition / pre-Church-oppression in European societies etc)
I'm talking about genetics. Genetically, they are imperfect. An imperfection meaning a genetic sub-division that is radically dissimilar from a normal-genetically born human being. You cannot say however that they are inferior because in this circumstance, it is much more appropriate and effective to judge them by their integrity like any person because they are human.
Ok, socially cool. But genetically i still say you're overstating the case when you say genetic varience = genetic imperfection.
Mutation, whether 'random', or potentially 'reactive', can't really be seen as imperfection in itself, considering that it seems to be a mainstay of survival.
undercoverlover
08-05-04, 06:16 PM
oh i am a caring person but i don't care if they're sleeping with a man, a woman or a pink and purple striped dragon, it's their choice.
And i see the point of some people saying it's not natural and blah blah blah [i couldnt be bothered to quote and stuff] but if you haven't got to sleep with them yourself and you're comfortable with your sexuality, what has it got to do with you?---dont take it offensively i mean as a whole what has it got ot do with anyone else.
---dont take it offensively i mean as a whole what has it got ot do with anyone else.
It really has nothing to do with anyone I agree, but certain people make it there business, and sometimes make it there business to try and eradicate them from the world, a few years ago a friend of mine was walking down the street, just going to the corner store, 4 guys were walking towards him, as they were about to pass they started to call him names relating to his sexuality and proceeded to bash him, he spent a year in hospital recovering from that beating, so some nasty evil people make it there business, not that I feel anyone here is the sort of person who would do such a thing to any gay person. :(
blibblobblib
08-06-04, 09:58 AM
Thats harsh Nebbs, sorry to hear about that.
Jeez Sex is Sex! Thats all it is!
Plus its fun...and addictive....Like Push Pops
The unability to accept something different is just as must racism as it to not accept homosexuality. I don't think so. A black person cannot choose the color of their skin, and there is still debate as to whether or not homosexuality involves any choice (and if so, how much). In addition, you cannot choose to stop or fight your race. It simply is. Homosexuality, technically, can either be indulged or denied.
For these reasons, disappproval of homosexuality simply doesn't equate to racism.
Maybe it is, maybe not? So, if homosexuality is caused by a genetic mess up, so? That's lowering yourself to the standards of bashing handicapped children and what not. Now, I am not trying to issue a comment saying that homosexuals are "helpless" because they aren't, I am just trying to say that you are hating them because nature took its course and pop...there you go. This is a good argument against hating homosexuals, but not a good argument for accepting them. While none of us would threaten a wheelchair-bound child with hellfire, we'd also all agree that the handicap was not natural or good. So I think a different analogy would be better.
The whole "it's not your business" idea kind of misses the point, in my opinion. Very few actually favor laws against homosexuality, and those that do are increasingly shunned (and rightly so). But when a minority steps forward and wishes to alter law, and perhaps benefit from it, then it certainly is the public's business, and that's what's happening here.
Unfortunately what a lot of people cannot get past when it comes to accepting homosexuality is the physical act of sex that comes along with it. Although sex is a very small part of what makes one homosexual, it is in deed an important one, if for nothing else the fact that to a lot of people it is a sin, unatural, disgusting, etc... To me it would be disgusting for myself to engauge in a homosexual act, but that is just how I am. There also tends to be more of a "disgust" when it is gay men and not gay women that have sex with each other. At least in my experience. Lesbians are somewhat exotic, while gay men are just gay men. Now before I get smacked over the head, I am just relating what others have told me and not my own thoughts, I have already posted those thoughts earlier. I actually do find the thought of two women together to be erotic and exciting, but I do not think I would ever want my girlfriend to do something of that nature. So all in all I am still confused about it, but it does not make any difference to me what your preference is.
The whole "it's not your business" idea kind of misses the point, in my opinion. Very few actually favor laws against homosexuality, and those that do are increasingly shunned (and rightly so). But when a minority steps forward and wishes to alter law, and perhaps benefit from it, then it certainly is the public's business, and that's what's happening here.
What are the actual distinctions between the existing legal recognition of homosexual partnerships and the desired changes to the marital laws? Anyone know?
Is this current movement just a push for recognition by the Church? Is it a religious thing? A legal thing? Or a bit of both?
Feed the foreigner details please :)
(If there are no legal distinctions then i'm not sure there's much validity to the scam/undue-benefit objection. Any scams etc would be going on already. Other objections... well, it depends on the details ;))
What are the actual distinctions between the existing legal recognition of homosexual partnerships and the desired changes to the marital laws? Anyone know?
Is this current movement just a push for recognition by the Church? Is it a religious thing? A legal thing? Or a bit of both?
Feed the foreigner details please :) There's no one specific bill, as far as I know. It's more of a general push. Some want legal marriage, with all the trappings of heterosexual marriage. Some push for civil unions, with varying levels of recognition and benefits. Most polls show people receptive to the idea of granting some legal status to homosexual couples, but without the word "marriage" to describe it, which a fair number still deem as religious institution not created with such unions in mind.
To answer your questions as best I can, I think it's more a societal thing than it is religious or legal. That is, I think this is less about any actual benefits themselves, and more about a way of seeking tangible approval of some kind from the rest of American society.
Dinsesh D'Souza says that minorities of one kind or another tend to go from demanding tolerance (just leave us alone), to demanding acceptance (we're no different than you), to demanding reparations (compensate us for past oppression). This is certalnly the way the Civil Rights movement has gone.
SamsoniteDelilah
08-06-04, 05:05 PM
What are the actual distinctions between the existing legal recognition of homosexual partnerships and the desired changes to the marital laws? Anyone know?
Is this current movement just a push for recognition by the Church? Is it a religious thing? A legal thing? Or a bit of both?
Feed the foreigner details please :)
(If there are no legal distinctions then i'm not sure there's much validity to the scam/undue-benefit objection. Any scams etc would be going on already. Other objections... well, it depends on the details ;))
In the US, married couples get tax breaks if they file jointly, which is a break not available to gay couples, no matter how long they've been together.
A person in a homosexual couple would also not be eligible (in all but a few states/cases) for 'dependant' status on their partner's employee health benefits. I'm sure you've heard of the horror that is the American healthcare system. Typically, a person's employer pays the bulk of their health insurance. This means that if a gay couple has one partner who is self-employed, that person will have to buy their own private insurance, which is astronomically expensive... or simply do without.
Add to that the societal prejudices, in which gay bashing is still appallingly common in much of middle America, and you start to see that it is both a legal and societal thing.
For the main objectors, it is a religious issue. Under the law here, religions are free to define "marriage" as they see fit, and subject their own followers to whatever rites and considerations they see fit. The movement for gay marriage does not seek to change that. If Joe's House of Prayer wants to refuse to perform ceremonies for gay couples, Joe is within his rights to refuse. Sadly, Joe has long used his vote to make sure no one else can make the other choice.
Unfortunately, with the trend in US politics to pander increasingly to the "family values" set - the married-with-children folks, there has been an erosion of the separation of church and state, which is outlined in the Constitution. The trend in US politics has been to pander to the majority... and of course there are still more straight people than gay ones, and leave the singletons to fend for themselves.
The risk of scam is rising, regardless of gender, because it's very expensive to be single. There is no indication that gay marriages would be any more or less permanent than those of most of Hollywood, and yet there's the legal disparity, based solely on gender. Personally, the healthiest and longest-running union I know of is between two men.
SamsoniteDelilah
08-06-04, 08:12 PM
jeez... I forgot one of the most important things:
Legally, if a person has no legal spouse or children and they can't give their own consent for medical treatment (like, they're in a coma or something), it goes to their parents to make the decisions as to what happens to the person. A common scenario: a person reaches maturity, tells his parents he's gay, is disowned or distanced.... 20 years later, he's been out of touch with his family, or they barely know him, and he's in a car accident or falls ill... The parents end up making healthcare decisions, despite the fact that that person's partner of many years is right there, able to relate the sick person's wishes. A living will would alleviate that, sure, but many people don't have that paperwork in place and their spouse is entrusted to protect the patient's wishes. Not so, if the person who has lived with the patient, loved them, gone through the trials and joys of life with them, cannot legally be recognised as their "spouse".
Homosexuality, technically, can either be indulged or denied..
I am not convinced that it is an indulgence, especially considering the neg. social attention some have to endure. Most of my friends say they felt different from a very young age, I have a friend who as a young boy always liked to play with us girls, was very feminine and the boys in our street would call him names, us girls would try and protect him against the boys, I didn't know about homosexuality then, I just thought he was a nice kind boy. :)
Boy Wonder
08-07-04, 12:46 PM
I Hate Gays!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
undercoverlover
08-07-04, 02:27 PM
^^^^might be in for some bad rep, brace yourself
Tea Barking
08-07-04, 03:05 PM
Oh dear lol
Boy wonder i think you should edit your post and explain what you dont like in more detail before you get flamed.
But keep it civil please :)
In the US, married couples get tax breaks if they file jointly, which is a break not available to gay couples, no matter how long they've been together....
Cheers for all the details SD. I guess things are bit less friendly on the legal front than i thought they were.
It seems that the UK has just taken the step towards legal recognition recently...
Gay couples to get joint rights
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3584285.stm
At-a-glance: Gay partnerships
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3585819.stm
Here are the key points of the Civil Partnerships Bill, which allows same-sex couples to get legal recognition for their relationships.
Tying the knot
-Couples would enter civil partnerships in local registration services
-Each partner would have to sign the register in the presence of the registration officer and two witnesses
-There would also be a formal, court-based process for dissolving the partnership
Main partnership rights
-The same tax treatment as married couples, including exemption from inheritance tax on homes
-Social security and pension benefits, including right to benefit from a dead partner's pension
-Full recognition for life assurance schemes
-Ability to succeed to tenancy rights
-Next-of-kin visiting rights in hospitals
Responsibilities
-Providing reasonable maintenance for civil partners and children of the family
-Ability to gain parental responsibility for a partner's children
To answer your questions as best I can, I think it's more a societal thing than it is religious or legal. That is, I think this is less about any actual benefits themselves, and more about a way of seeking tangible approval of some kind from the rest of American society.
Dinsesh D'Souza says that minorities of one kind or another tend to go from demanding tolerance (just leave us alone), to demanding acceptance (we're no different than you), to demanding reparations (compensate us for past oppression). This is certalnly the way the Civil Rights movement has gone.
Cheers for your thoughts Yods.
So there seems to be a desire for acceptance at least then? (It'll be interesting to see if it becomes more than that)
What are your opinions on this UK legislation summarised above?
It seems a pretty fair solution to me. People seem to be fairly satisfied, on the whole. (Well, those involved. This slipped under my radar at the time). It encourages socially responsible, long-term couples, so that should be a good thing. The child-care thing seems reasonable enough if one of them is the actual parent.
Godsend
08-07-04, 04:03 PM
I don't think so. A black person cannot choose the color of their skin, and there is still debate as to whether or not homosexuality involves any choice (and if so, how much). In addition, you cannot choose to stop or fight your race. It simply is. Homosexuality, technically, can either be indulged or denied.
For these reasons, disappproval of homosexuality simply doesn't equate to racism.
Honestly, when I think of racism...I think of ignorance, arrogance, and the un-ability to adapt yourself to something else. You can put the word "homosexual" and "gay" in for racism, and it would make perfect sense. When a person judges someone, it's usually cause 1.) they can't face the facts that another person sticks out 2.) that someone is different from them and everything doesn't work like a jig saw puzzle...one piece belongs there and this one there and 3.) the person just doesn't give a **** and shows that he/she is 'utterly emotionless'
Racism and homosexuality are far from one another. Racism is something you can't help, due to you existing and what not. While on the other hand, if homosexuality has a choice, then would that be a true reason to hate them?
I believe the above paragraph agrees with what you have to say about racism and homosexuality being in the same field. Yet, at the same time you have to look at it this way. If homosexuality is or isn't a choice, why must it be degraded down upon? Can a person truly help if it he chooses the same gender as his/her interest? Does a hetrosexual feel the same way that a homosexual feels? What about bi-sexuals? If they continue to say, "they can't help it" that means they can't help it but be homosexuals.
Degrading them and putting them down is useless, stupid, and a waste of mine, yours, and just about every human being on Earth's time. Honestly, if you can't feel them...don't do anything to them.
The world is full of self-expression, but we'll truly never know how a person, besides ourselves, feel...not through words, actions, or what not.We might get a slight idea, but the mind works in mysterious ways.
Caitlyn
08-07-04, 04:17 PM
I Hate Gays!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know, I've run into a lot of people who expressed a hatred for people they didn't even know based entirely on their race or sexual preferences… and I used to get mad at them… but not anymore. Now I just think it's pretty sad that anyone in this day and age is still ignorant enough to feel that way…
AboveTheClouds
08-07-04, 06:08 PM
I Hate Gays!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I havent heard such an ignorant comment on any board.. If this was my board i'd ban him.
I havent heard such an ignorant comment on any board.. If this was my board i'd ban him. I gave him bad rep. If he devolves into harsher, more insulting language, he'll be warned, banned, or both.
r3port3r66
08-07-04, 07:17 PM
Thanks Chris. Some people on this board have to live in a world of unexplained hatred. Some people here are smart enough to explain themselves, while others simply state what is obvious. I'm not concerned with the critisizm; I'm more concerned with the execution.
John McClane
08-07-04, 07:38 PM
You know, I've run into a lot of people who expressed a hatred for people they didn't even know based entirely on their race or sexual preferences… and I used to get mad at them… but not anymore. Now I just think it's pretty sad that anyone in this day and age is still ignorant enough to feel that way…
It is sad. :yup:
I Hate Gays!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't believe you said that :eek: considering the kind of relationship you have with Batman. :p
I hate no one :yup:
undercoverlover
08-08-04, 08:59 AM
I can't believe you said that :eek: considering the kind of relationship you have with Batman. :p
I hate no one :yup:
hehe lol
Thanks Chris. Some people on this board have to live in a world of unexplained hatred. I know someone who was in a position like that once; who, after a turn of events, was judged upon entering the room, and treated less like a person, and more like the embodiment of immorality.
It occurred to this person that that's how many people treat homosexuals; not as a person, but as the act itself. No benefit of the doubt. Since then, both of us have tried to be more sympathetic and open-minded.
Some people here are smart enough to explain themselves, while others simply state what is obvious. I'm not concerned with the critisizm; I'm more concerned with the execution. That's pretty much my policy, too. If you phrase it right, you can say almost anything here. But when it's said in a way designed to stir up trouble, it's liable to get tossed. Not a perfect principle, but it's worked decently so far.
AboveTheClouds
08-08-04, 02:56 PM
I gave him bad rep. If he devolves into harsher, more insulting language, he'll be warned, banned, or both.
Beautiful.
Krackalackin
08-14-04, 08:12 PM
What if I tested your so called opinions. If I did, then you're in for an arguement. If you felt as if it didn',t you can carry on with your arrogance. Comply yourself with knowledge instead of assumpstions
Assumpstions aren't theories; you need an educated guess.
What exactly are you basing this on? I'm confused because I don't think you actually read my opinion. It's apparent to me that you're the arrogant one who needs some educating, and some forum civility couldn't hurt either.
AboveTheClouds
08-14-04, 09:58 PM
Jerry Jerry Jerry.!
Anonymous Last
08-16-04, 06:07 PM
I tried to be homosexual in school, so that I can hang around with the cool homosexual crowd. They saw right through me knowing that I was not in fact homosexual. I was hurt by this rejection and tried really hard to be something that I just couldn't be. My friends were understanding but the people I was trying to impress would not accept me as one in the crowd. They just told me that I was cute and funny and shoved me on my way. They told me to go find a nice girl to be with and to quit the lies I was telling myself.
They missed me after awhile and hired me to do some maintenance jobs in their dorm. I did have to wear a french maid's uniform and wash some backs but the pay was good. I just did not like when they had company they would call me pet. Oh well I did convince a girl at their party that I was a lesbian and she took me home.
But that's another story.
Garrett
08-16-04, 06:49 PM
:rotfl:
There's nothing wrong with being gay. It's a personal choice and it doesn't affect others. so I don't get why anyone can be closed-minded about it today.
Anonymous Last
08-18-04, 04:22 PM
There's nothing wrong with being gay. It's a personal choice and it doesn't affect others. so I don't get why anyone can be closed-minded about it today.
Each little guppy in life is different in it's own form. If you know someone that has a difficult time understanding & comprehending little twisted confusions that the GODS like to throw at us... give it time, they will blossom into their own bottle of rum 151. No need to deal with the thoughts of others. Their secrets are a swing set when they smile.
We are humans and it is in our nature not to understand and to be a bi' curious of the needs & wants of other's sexual preference. When the whole world is ready for the huge lovefest of understanding, it will happen. Then you can find a new love, "a new love baby, a new love, yeah yeah yeah."
Sorry, 'bit curious'...my Freudian slip is showing.
Krackalackin
08-18-04, 05:53 PM
Each little guppy in life is different in it's own form. If you know someone that has a difficult time understanding & comprehending little twisted confusions that the GODS like to throw at us... give it time, they will blossom into their own bottle of rum 151. No need to deal with the thoughts of others. Their secrets are a swing set when they smile.
We are humans and it is in our nature not to understand and to be a bi' curious of the needs & wants of other's sexual preference. When the whole world is ready for the huge lovefest of understanding, it will happen. Then you can find a new love, "a new love baby, a new love, yeah yeah yeah."
Sorry, 'bit curious'...my Freudian slip is showing.
I'm sure you're aware that Sigmund Freud's work has already ultimately been discredited by modern psychologists in its practical nature. Tell you the truth, People today would call him a dim-witted hack with little observative evidence for his conclusions. Oh, he also wanted to bang his sister.
And sorry to disagree with you about letting things be, it is in human nature to learn about everything to try to futily make a written documentary explaining the two words, "What is"
Anonymous Last
08-18-04, 06:06 PM
I'm sure you're aware that Sigmund Freud's work has already ultimately been discredited by modern psychologists in its practical nature. Tell you the truth, People today would call him a dim-witted hack with little observative evidence for his conclusions. Oh, he also wanted to bang his sister.
And sorry to disagree with you about letting things be, it is in human nature to learn about everything to try to futily make a written documentary explaining the two words, "What is"
"Coo coo cachew little dude."
Thank you! It felt cumbersome when I wrote it (I had just been painfully dragged from the sinewy arms of my loving bower) and it seems painful to my eyes now...but I think I was able to communicate the gist of what I wanted.
Next time you bring your car into the garage because it won't start, tell them it doesn’t make any sense that it won't turn over, since the doors open properly.
Criminy, am I the only person who reads Cosmo?
If someone is gay then leave 'em alone. It's their own preference and personal choice and decision in life. End of thread.
Anonymous Last
08-18-04, 06:15 PM
I keed, I keed.
undercoverlover
08-18-04, 06:48 PM
If someone is gay then leave 'em alone. It's their own preference and personal choice and decision in life. End of thread.
agreement
Krackalackin
08-19-04, 02:19 AM
If someone is gay then leave 'em alone. It's their own preference and personal choice and decision in life. End of thread.
agreed
Godsend
08-19-04, 06:41 AM
What exactly are you basing this on? I'm confused because I don't think you actually read my opinion. It's apparent to me that you're the arrogant one who needs some educating, and some forum civility couldn't hurt either.
I'm basing it on you saying that it's a default in nature, especially when it's not entirely true...a FEELING someone holds for another is...well, a feeling. An emotion. Emotions and feelings are made; no one is born with them. Ever.
It's so wrong to say that there is a gay gene with in a person. That's going as far as saying that there's a criminal gene lodged in the brains of all the people locked behind bars.
To say there is a gay gene is horrible. To say there is a gene that could change a person's sexual identity is some what acceptable, but still at the same time not...especially if you look towards the facts of fetishes and what not.
I remember reading somewhere that they actually took finger prints and matched them with homosexuals and hetrosexuals...
Heh, and it came down to the size of the ridges.
Anonymous Last
08-19-04, 10:22 AM
If someone is gay then leave 'em alone. It's their own preference and personal choice and decision in life. End of thread.
I respect what you are saying here. I do, really I do.
I did not stir any pots or start this thread.
Ok. Maybe I stirred a pot or two, but that was my reply.
I did not mean for anyone to take my handsome response so seriously.
agreed
Hey chum! Don't be hard on yourself. You are the little engine that could and I am the guy who lays the tracks and says, "think you can."
For the record I was mocking Freud. Read the post again and again...
you'll see that I was talking out of my rear. Thanks for the emasculated bitchslap, though. If my post is still painfilled for ya, please seek a physician.
agreed
undercoverlover? Is this equivalent to private dancer?
Pity I don't have a web cam, if you saw me dance, there would be no question about it…but you can't have everything, where would you put it all?
Krackalackin
08-19-04, 04:05 PM
I'm basing it on you saying that it's a default in nature, especially when it's not entirely true...a FEELING someone holds for another is...well, a feeling. An emotion. Emotions and feelings are made; no one is born with them. Ever.
It's so wrong to say that there is a gay gene with in a person. That's going as far as saying that there's a criminal gene lodged in the brains of all the people locked behind bars.
To say there is a gay gene is horrible. To say there is a gene that could change a person's sexual identity is some what acceptable, but still at the same time not...especially if you look towards the facts of fetishes and what not.
I remember reading somewhere that they actually took finger prints and matched them with homosexuals and hetrosexuals...
Heh, and it came down to the size of the ridges.
I totally disagree with you but I'm finished here
blibblobblib
08-19-04, 04:39 PM
I'm sure you're aware that Sigmund Freud's work has already ultimately been discredited by modern psychologists in its practical nature. Tell you the truth, People today would call him a dim-witted hack with little observative evidence for his conclusions.
:rolleyes:
Sources to back this up?
Anonymous Last
08-19-04, 05:03 PM
I totally disagree with you but I'm finished here
That's awful sweet of ya, slim. By removing yourself from the mix, you’ve given us a level playing field, and for that I am eternally grateful.
Wanna make out under the bleachers?
No, then I want my letter jacket back.
I just want to give a shout out to “Quintin Burdick”… my only true Gay friend… I just find it odd. He had girl’s swarm all over him in early elementary and high school and we (us guys) were almost envious as hell... But, he turned out to be a Homosexual, and then we didn’t know what to think. I actually wasn’t as surprised as the rest of the people were. We actually did make fun of him for being Gay; this was before he actually “came out”. You know, “good ol’ schoolyard ribbing”. I thought maybe it was just a phase he was going through. Then it got a little awkward with the ‘boy friends’ an all… and him becoming the ‘women’ of the relation ships. The point is, I don’t agree with either side. Is it right, or is it wrong? I’m really not concerned with the whole matter. All I can say is that Quint is an alright guy... I've got nothing against him.
FYI: As far as I know, I’m straight and planning to be so for a ‘very’ long time…
Piddzilla
08-19-04, 06:02 PM
I just want to give a shout out to “Quintin Burdick”… my only true Gay friend… I just find it odd. He had girl’s swarm all over him in early elementary and high school and we (us guys) were almost envious as hell... But, he turned out to be a Homosexual, and then we didn’t know what to think. I actually wasn’t as surprised as the rest of the people were. We actually did make fun of him for being Gay; this was before he actually “came out”. You know, “good ol’ schoolyard ribbing”. I thought maybe it was just a phase he was going through. Then it got a little awkward with the ‘boy friends’ an all… and him becoming the ‘women’ of the relation ships. The point is, I don’t agree with either side. Is it right, or is it wrong? I’m really not concerned with the whole matter. All I can say is that Quint is an alright guy... I've got nothing against him.
FYI: As far as I know, I’m straight and planning to be so for a ‘very’ long time…
Can you give us an exact date for when that time is up?
No, then I want my letter jacket back.
Is that like a french-letter jacket? And if so, where do your arms go?
I'm basing it on you saying that it's a default in nature, especially when it's not entirely true...a FEELING someone holds for another is...well, a feeling. An emotion. Emotions and feelings are made; no one is born with them. Ever.
It's so wrong to say that there is a gay gene with in a person. That's going as far as saying that there's a criminal gene lodged in the brains of all the people locked behind bars.
To say there is a gay gene is horrible. To say there is a gene that could change a person's sexual identity is some what acceptable, but still at the same time not...especially if you look towards the facts of fetishes and what not.
I know all this genetic-determinism stuff is pretty freaky, but there is some very good evidence that some preferences can be biologically determined, for a start.
That's not the same as saying they're caused by single 'genes' necessarily. Most things in biology work in combination, not isolation, and therefore don't stem from single sources.
If you check one of my posts further up the thread there are some links to a couple of investigations that suggest homosexuals might have some regular biological differences from heterosexuals.
How we respond to that is what's all important (if it is indeed the case). My personal suspicion is that homosexuality isn't a harmful 'condition' either biologically or socially. Otherwise, it wouldn't persist/survive as a preference (cold language i know, but that's science for you ;))
blibblobblib
08-19-04, 06:51 PM
You know, “good ol’ schoolyard ribbing”
Oh we know... :randy:
undercoverlover
08-19-04, 07:54 PM
undercoverlover? Is this equivalent to private dancer?
No
Pity I don't have a web cam, if you saw me dance, there would be no question about it…
I'll put this as nicely as i can...no chance
but you can't have everything, where would you put it all?
Storage
I'll put this as nicely as i can...no chance I love this place.
Anonymous Last
08-20-04, 09:46 AM
I love this place.
I sloppy second that.
Ulysses Everett McGill
08-20-04, 11:24 AM
I agree with Escape, but I think I'd have tried to be a bit more mature and tactical about how I expressed it. Like him/her I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I believe it's unnatural and immoral. I believe that because in my life I adhere to a moral code that advocates something that many many people do not believe in - absolute truth.
You see, the whole homosexuality debate is all about the a persons belief in absolute truth. I read everyones comments in this forum to see where you all stood, and most of your comments can be summarized as follows - "to each their own. If you think it's right, it is right- for you. If you think it's wrong, it's wrong - for you. Whatever is inately 'right' or 'wrong' in your moral code, may be totally the opposite in mine and that's okay."
Nobody thinks they have the right to tell anyone that what they're doing is "wrong". If I say homosexuality is wrong, you say 'what are you basing that on? Wrong according to what? What rule? What code of ethics?
There is only one thing that every person who advocates and promotes this 'tolerance' can equally agree on as being wrong - the idea of an absolute truth. That there is a definite distinction between good and evil. And that there is a good that is universal and a bad.
If you choose to reply, I make one request. Try to reply WITHOUT using the words "homophobe, hatemonger, right wing, fanatic, religion, or Christianity" Those who advocate homosexuality, I want you to defend it, intellectually, biologically. Don't just defend it by bashing all those who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. I think that's fair.
I don't hate anyone except their behaviour. I hate homosexual behaviour. It is immoral and unnatural.Two men or two women can never reproduce naturally no-matter what circumstances. Hence the term unnatural. I had to say this and I know I'm going to get bashed with alot of you free thinking liberals.
Urban Cowboy
08-20-04, 11:56 AM
Ulysses, I agree with you that homosexuality is a moral wrong. I do, however, take issue with the idea of absolute truth, or at least your use of it. The main problem with this idea is that there is no absolute arbiter. Who is to decide what is universally right or wrong? By simply saying you would know it wouldn't work. By definition if it is universal everybody would agree that it was right or wrong. This is clearly not the case with homosexuality, or there would be no room for debate. Because morality is by nature subjective, there can be no absolute moral wrong. Next, simply being "unnatural" doesn't automaticly make it wrong either. In this age of technology, how much of what the average American does in the course of a lifetime is "natural"? How are we to establish that homosexuality is absolutely wrong? If you can do it then the debate on this issue is over for the rest of time.
Godsend
08-20-04, 12:03 PM
After doing some tremendous research, I've laid myself across on the fence of being born gay and normally wanting to be gay towards feelings/emotions.
Other then that, if it is said like some research shows would you really hate someone if they came out of their mother like that? It's not like I hate people born with blonde hair or blue eyes.
To say homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't work with the course of nature is really bland. Especially when people use birth control pills/shots to keep from getting pregnant. Or when we actuallly replace a limb with a mechanical arm or anything to that length.
We do it because we want to do it. Not socializing with other people is very crude. You can't tell me you didn't go through life with out a single friend, that would be heinous.
There is no code of ethics or morals. Religion tries to replace that, but quickly gets shot down once again. It's tries to pry people into believing something that is right and wrong is horrible.
Can someone agree with me here. Look at this moral of good: never hurting someone emotionally or phsyically, in ANY aspect. Say such as stealing, I'd be really sadden and P.O.d and what not. Can someone clairfy this?
Other then that, meh.
Anonymous Last
08-20-04, 12:04 PM
If you choose to reply, I make one request. Try to reply WITHOUT using the words "homophobe, hatemonger, right wing, fanatic, religion, or Christianity" Those who advocate homosexuality, I want you to defend it, intellectually, biologically. Don't just defend it by bashing all those who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. I think that's fair.
Do you live in a particularly feminine area, that you feel the need to be defiantly masculine? Are there repercussions for not being one of the girls? Should I assume roving taffeta clad youth gangs are charged with enforcing the region's strict famille values? I’d like to take this opportunity to publicly state that I applaud your natural testosterone-fueled civil disobedience, and that I plan to adequately pleasure my wife tonight to both further your cause and to celebrate your fight for being natural...
Though if you are a Klingon trying to convert your ways onto me...
that's just wrong. I'll start cutting off fingers. No need for the foreplay, Edgar.
"Doctor Jones! No more parachutes!"
I must add that this was no bash on anyone, I just like to talk $h1t3.
Anonymous Last
08-20-04, 12:44 PM
I'll put this as nicely as i can...no chance
Great Scott! Does this mean we are not going to the, Enchantment Under the Sea Dance?
*jigowatt overload *
undercoverlover
08-20-04, 01:04 PM
you bring flowers and chocolates and i'll see ;)
I must add that this was no bash on anyone, I just like to talk $h1t3.
No shyt Shylock ;)
Like him/her I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I believe it's unnatural and immoral. I believe that because in my life I adhere to a moral code that advocates something that many many people do not believe in - absolute truth.
...Those who advocate homosexuality, I want you to defend it, intellectually, biologically. Don't just defend it by bashing all those who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. I think that's fair.
There's an interesting contradiction in your terms of debate. You introduce yourself as a believer in a known absolute truth, but you then ask us to debate in biological and and intellectual terms.
So did you arrive at your belief that homosexuality is absolutely wrong through investigation, or did you establish a logical argument to that effect that tallies with your pre-held belief?
What i'm saying is: I'm glad that you want to debate in terms of facts, but why bother if you believe you already know the truth?
I agree with you that absolute relativity is silly i.e. saying that all opinions are equal. But that doesn't mean there can't be a 'spread' of good behaviours rather than one ideal good behaviour in many cases.
As for biological and intellectual justifications for the potential naturalness, harmlessness and 'rightness' of homosexuality, see some of my previous posts ;) (you claim you've read all the posts. Don't you want to argue with some of my assertions? I'm always up for a debate, so long as we're trying to find out what the truth is, rather than prove our preconceptions ;))
undercoverlover
08-20-04, 08:43 PM
^^good point
r3port3r66
08-20-04, 09:51 PM
Let's get down to basics:
1) There are people who think homosexuality is an abomination, and they are religiously against it.
2) There are people who think homosexuality is an abomination, yet they tolerate it--perhaps in pity.
3) There are people who think that homosexuality is a genetic occurance and therefore believe it is natural.
4) There are people who don't have an opinion and accept homosexuals as just fellow human beings.
5) Then there are homosexuals who could believe in any of the above catagories.
See, I always thought that the first catagory of people believe that God (or whatever deity) is an entity that wants to punish, kill all homosexuals--sending them straight to Hell (or whichever place) to writhe in everlasting torture. Yet Heaven; a wonderful, peaceful place, where family members reunite and bask in the Glory of God, is reserved for individuals that have sinned, but asked for His forgiveness. Couldn't a homosexual, on his death bed, just ask for forgiveness and be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven? Or are some sins worse that others? Even the most devout Christian admits that he or she is a sinner. Which sins are more severe than others? And why do some people think that their sins are less severe than that of homosexuality?
Krackalackin
08-20-04, 10:06 PM
Ulysses, I agree with you that homosexuality is a moral wrong. I do, however, take issue with the idea of absolute truth, or at least your use of it. The main problem with this idea is that there is no absolute arbiter. Who is to decide what is universally right or wrong? By simply saying you would know it wouldn't work. By definition if it is universal everybody would agree that it was right or wrong. This is clearly not the case with homosexuality, or there would be no room for debate. Because morality is by nature subjective, there can be no absolute moral wrong. Next, simply being "unnatural" doesn't automaticly make it wrong either. In this age of technology, how much of what the average American does in the course of a lifetime is "natural"? How are we to establish that homosexuality is absolutely wrong? If you can do it then the debate on this issue is over for the rest of time.
Perhaps there is a clean-cut answer but even if there was or is, would we all agree anyway? I think not. :o
The "7" Deadly Sins actually are MORE severe than anything else!. ( I believe).
1.Pride/Vanity : excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise.
2.Envy: desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.
3.Gluttony: inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.
4.Lust: inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.
5.Anger/Wrath: manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury.
6.Greed: desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.
7.Sloth: avoidance of physical or spiritual work.
undercoverlover
08-20-04, 10:23 PM
i thought wrath and anger were the same?
It is, i placed wrath in the wrong spot
Krackalackin
08-21-04, 02:34 AM
The "7" Deadly Sins actually are MORE severe than anything else!. ( I believe).
1.Pride/Vanity : excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise.
2.Envy: desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.
3.Gluttony: inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.
4.Lust: inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.
5.Anger/Wrath: manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury.
6.Greed: desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.
7.Sloth: avoidance of physical or spiritual work.
I think of these more as human traits than sins.
I think of these more as human traits than sins.
Why?
Equilibrium
08-21-04, 05:39 PM
I think of these more as human traits than sins.
Not entirely true. We are taught to avoid these things. How is it then, that something we are taught to avoid is part of our traits? YOU find those sins...they don't find you...
undercoverlover
08-22-04, 11:35 AM
well i don't believe in sinning, i'm not a Christian. I prefer to find my own way to be and how to behave. Everything in the universe establishes it's own version of what is right and wrong and we're all pretty much on the same level in those decisions. So what is 'right' for one person is their own choice. Then again to a mass murderer, killing people could be the 'right' thing. We must make our own decisions and be true to those.
Anonymous Last
08-23-04, 03:18 PM
Every place of employment should practice, Gay Tuesday. To bring out the homosexual in all of us.
In case something goes very wrong with this suggestion, I am so sorry.
We can't just go around raping each other with branches when we see something wrong. Though please quit starin' at my helmet like that...it's starting to impede upon my marital vows. Before your hanky/panky session let me buy you a drink. Do this the right way, God's way!
Please do not mess up this thread with too many facts. Sheesh!
If you are interested in more facts about homosexuality, please visit your local library. They have special librarians in the "library's play room" that will please all your closet case fantasies. Tell em' Webster Popadopalous
sent you and receive my group discount. I am their on Thursdays and Saturdays bringing out the woman in me.
Every place of employment should practice, Gay Tuesday. To bring out the homosexual in all of us.
As it is Tuesday in Australia, I am in. :D
Anonymous Last
08-24-04, 09:31 AM
Gay is the new black; when describing this nomenclature, please use the term "Giggers."
Gay is the new black;"
Oh goody, goody, I have always wanted to be black :cool:
Anonymous Last
08-25-04, 09:46 AM
It's not easy being green.
http://www.nefarious-240z.com/Pub/kermit.gif
It's not easy being green.
http://www.nefarious-240z.com/Pub/kermit.gif
Looks to me that the hard part is being the teddy. :D
Piddzilla
08-26-04, 07:24 AM
Last night I went to a concert to see an old reggae band called Culture from Jamaica. Culture was really supposed to be the opening act for Buju Banton, a jamaican ragga superstar who actually broke Marley's record for most number one singles in one year in 1992. He is also known as a homophobic with songs like "Boom Bye Bye" which encourages violence against gays. Rumors also say that he is being searched for by the jamaican police for his supected involvement in a brutal assault on one or several homosexual men, which he denies.
Anyway.... Buju Banton has been followed by protests from the gay movement and the civil rights movement wherever he's been touring and also in Malmö, Sweden where last night's show was supposed to have taken place. And they succeeded. Buju's concert was cancelled, the ticket went down to much less than half the price and we got to see Culture anyway. I think that's pretty cool....
Krackalackin
08-27-04, 12:07 AM
Why?
Well, to get a little of topic here, as religion argues, sinning is humanly unavoidable. Therefore, I call it a human trait because as the Bible says, humans are sinners. So it is a human trait. But then again, if we were to really classify doing something wrong or bad as a sin, what about animals that that voluntarily sin? I'm not trying to get liberal here or sound like an animal rights activist but when it comes to religion, I'm an agnostic. It's easy to believe in something when you hear it every week through a preacher but when you really start to research the background and history of a religion, it seems less and less believable. Especially since there are are SO many religions with so many followers willing to fight and die for them. And religion itself underwent metmorphical changes in the course of history, becoming different, more complex and intricate. A lot of the things or practices or religions were really first started for practical purposes, hidden behind a certain cloth. For example, the more stringent, Orthodox Jews have two hundred and seventy something rules they have to abide by. Like, for instance, they can't eat meat and drink milk at the same time. My argument is, it's a sanitation code I believe the Jewish higher-ups proclaimed was from God. You have to admit, you would take it more seriously if you believed God decreed it and not a human Rabhi.
This isn't to exclaim that I have something against the Jews. There's stuff like that in every religion. Especially Catholicism. That's on one hand. But on the other hand, as interesting, astounding and baffling as modern physics and other sciences are, there is still no explanation for Life itself. We don't know where the first cell came from and I don't think we'll ever prove it is possible for a cell to form without any unnatural help. So it's a mixed bag ladies and gentlemen, and I'm afraid I don't have the answers. :o
Anonymous Last
08-27-04, 12:13 AM
Why?
I'll tell ya what it is, although you might not necessarily like the answer.
Damn fine eatin'...that's what it is...damn fine eatin'.
Krackalackin
08-27-04, 12:24 AM
well i don't believe in sinning, i'm not a Christian. I prefer to find my own way to be and how to behave. Everything in the universe establishes it's own version of what is right and wrong and we're all pretty much on the same level in those decisions. So what is 'right' for one person is their own choice. Then again to a mass murderer, killing people could be the 'right' thing. We must make our own decisions and be true to those.
This is why I believe religions, well most religions, have a great emphasis on behavior. I personally believe religion is one of man's tools (especially before modern times) to have people be civil by teaching them bad behavior also has spiritual consequences. I agree undercoverlover. A system of rules for behavior definitely disregards a person's personal acceptance of right and wrong because everyone has a dfferent take on right and wrong because of the different perspective and approach to life they themselves choose. So I can't agree with you 100% that we should live by the rules we ourselves believe in because unfortunately, our own approach to life can be influenced by changing our outlook which can be done enviromentally. But I understand your outlook and it's a good one on the level of all the good-ol' average Joes.
AboveTheClouds
08-27-04, 12:24 AM
Please please PLEASE. Don't bring religion into this.
Krackalackin
08-27-04, 12:25 AM
I'll tell ya what it is, although you might not necessarily like the answer.
Damn fine eatin'...that's what it is...damn fine eatin'.
I don't want to get into a debate here but that answer makes no sense.
AboveTheClouds
08-27-04, 12:32 AM
I don't think it was supposed to.
Anonymous Last
08-27-04, 12:39 AM
I don't want to get into a debate here but that answer makes no sense.
Trust me in this thread I have no intensions on making sense.
We are talking about muppets, right?
AboveTheClouds
08-27-04, 12:56 AM
Yep...
Gonzo>All
sisboombah
09-03-04, 02:44 PM
It's not easy being green.
http://www.nefarious-240z.com/Pub/kermit.gif
thats possibly the most disturbing thing i have ever seen. im going to sit in the corner a cry now.
Anonymous Last
09-03-04, 02:49 PM
thats possibly the most disturbing thing i have ever seen. im going to sit in the corner a cry now.
What's your take on this pic? Is it something colloquial we Yanks won't even have a chance with?
sisboombah
09-03-04, 02:56 PM
its just wrong...wrong...wrong. kermit is supposed to be with miss piggy not some tramp he picked up in a field.
Anonymous Last
09-03-04, 02:57 PM
its just wrong...wrong...wrong. kermit is supposed to be with miss piggy not some tramp he picked up in a field.
Maybe he had bacon for breakfast.
sisboombah
09-03-04, 03:02 PM
lol...ill never look at kermit in the same way again.
Anonymous Last
09-03-04, 03:58 PM
OH! Memories my sweet piggy.
...and this little piggy went to market- and this little piggy had frog tongue- and this little piggy stayed...
Trust me in this thread I have no intensions on making sense.
Well, that's comforting. :D
Anonymous Last
09-03-04, 06:18 PM
Well, that's comforting. :D
Merci!
Anything to make you feel comfy in your happy place.
Godsend
09-03-04, 06:57 PM
From Homosexuals all the way to Kermit
I guess all those times he carried that mic. was for practice.
:-(
HellboyUnleashed
09-04-04, 08:51 PM
i think that there is nuthin wrong with homosexuality. i mean the Bible has sumthin to say about it and it says that it is wrong but i tend to disagree. if people want to do what they want to do there aint gonna be a big chance of changing their minds about it. i know a few gay people and i know a few lesbains. they are all nice people the just have different sexual preferences then i do. i also tend to think that if gay people didnt speak up about this issue than other people wouldnt know that they are gay and wouldnt hate them for it. but i believe in tolerance for everyone. but u can also call me a hypocrit because my old orchestra teacher was gay and i hated him but not really becuase he was gay but he was just an a-hole.
but u can also call me a hypocrit because my old orchestra teacher was gay and i hated him but not really becuase he was gay but he was just an a-hole.
I think that is the whole issue, there will always be a-holes no matter there sexual preference or race. :D
HellboyUnleashed
09-04-04, 11:23 PM
amen to that nebbit. i dont think what the sexual preference is. i dont care if they are a fruity as a fruit cake, just as long as they aint agnorant a-holes. which i know a buncha straight people who are ignorant a-holes too. so i dont care what they do at home i just care if they are mean people.
Oh Black Betty.ram da lam!
HellboyUnleashed
09-06-04, 11:22 AM
what now? dont understand "Oh Black Betty.ram da lam" what does that mean? :confused:
LordSlaytan
09-06-04, 12:45 PM
It's a song that 7thson wanted to sing to us.
YOU GO GIRL!
Oh Black Betty.ram da lam...dumdedum.....lllllaaaalalalalalalala
It's a song that 7thson wanted to sing to us.
YOU GO GIRL!
Oh Black Betty.ram da lam...dumdedum.....lllllaaaalalalalalalala
That is great, why don't you 2 form a duo :rolleyes: ;)
HellboyUnleashed
09-06-04, 08:17 PM
well as long as they dont make an audio file with their "singing" im ok with it as long as it is written
sisboombah
09-07-04, 09:05 PM
if it has an appealing video id like to see that. i dont want to see people having sex with black beauty or a Lamb? though!
Anonymous Last
09-07-04, 10:42 PM
if it has an appealing video id like to see that. i dont want to see people having sex with black beauty or a Lamb? though!
Not drunk enough yet?
http://www.vermontcountrystore.com/images/us/local/products/detail/f06727_dt.jpg
PimpDaShizzle
09-08-04, 04:16 AM
Check it before I wreck it home slices. Yeah, it's DaShizzle, so, as usual I'll be expecting atleast two neg. reps for this comment I'm about to make. Although, I would like to point out, I in no way believe this, but I thinks it's interesting.
Homosexuality. Okay, what I've heard as being the cause of this life style goes something like; "I was born this way." - Which, if you were you'd be going against all laws of nature. Evolution wouldn't support passing on a gene (gene = "being born this way") that wouldn't support the survival of the gene itself. So with that said, anything that isn't beneficial to ones survival, not being able to reproduce, would be considered a type of virus or disease. If you wake up and find that you can no longer reproduce, you'd go to the doctor and they would say you have some type of virus or disease, not that you have a new life style, although your life style would change.
Now, if that made sense, since it would make sense to see homosexuality as a virus or disease, it would be considered a social disease.
Like I said before, I have nothing against homosexuality. Nor do I think I believe this little theory I've got goin here, but it kind of makes sense right? Evolution wouldn't support it, not being able to reproduce would fall into a disease/virus/handicap making homosexuality a social disease/virus/handicap.
Please, no hate mail. Disagree with me and let me know why I'm wrong.
"I was born this way." - Which, if you were you'd be going against all laws of nature. Evolution wouldn't support passing on a gene (gene = "being born this way")
Just because you think evolution wouldn't support homosexuality doesn't mean it can't happen, if we go by your theory of nature, no one would be born sterile, now that does happen, I wonder what evolution theory that fits into. :rolleyes:
Anonymous Last
09-08-04, 09:31 AM
Just because you think evolution wouldn't support homosexuality doesn't mean it can't happen, if we go by your theory of nature, no one would be born sterile, now that does happen, I wonder what evolution theory that fits into. :rolleyes:
Maybe in time nature will find a way to cope with reproduction towards homosexuality... and gay men and lesbian women will start laying eggs.
Beware of the Chicken Hawk.
http://www.clsb.com/img/wings/hawk.jpg
sisboombah
09-08-04, 10:16 AM
Maybe in time nature will find a way to cope with reproduction towards homosexuality... and gay men and lesbian women will start laying eggs.
Beware of the Chicken Hawk.
http://www.clsb.com/img/wings/hawk.jpg
urgh that would be horrible. id hate to lay an egg. unless it was a small egg the size of a very small unsatifying poo. then you wouldnt even notice it. you could put it in a little box till it grew a bit bigger and hatched or if you were running low on eggs that morning (im presuming the egg would fall out in the morning just for convenience sake) you could cook the egg for breakfast. another egg would probably come the next day anyway so everything would be fine.
Anonymous Last
09-08-04, 10:40 AM
urgh that would be horrible. id hate to lay an egg. unless it was a small egg the size of a very small unsatifying poo. then you wouldnt even notice it. you could put it in a little box till it grew a bit bigger and hatched or if you were running low on eggs that morning (im presuming the egg would fall out in the morning just for convenience sake) you could cook the egg for breakfast. another egg would probably come the next day anyway so everything would be fine.
Eggsellent!
PimpDaShizzle
09-08-04, 12:36 PM
Just because you think evolution wouldn't support homosexuality doesn't mean it can't happen, if we go by your theory of nature, no one would be born sterile, now that does happen, I wonder what evolution theory that fits into. :rolleyes:
If we went by my theory of evolution, people being born sterile would be those nature is selecting as unneccesary. If so, I would like to change my vote for the most evil of villians, from Captain Howdy [Devil from Exorcist] to Evolution - One cold hearted son'a'bitch.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.