How Gay are you?

Are you joking? People have done that all throughout history. People have been burned at the stake, or tortured to death, for admitting that they believed something that the others around them reacted negatively towards. Go tell them you don't believe they would. Homosexuality is a choice, albeit with (for some), a predisposition, but it is not the way we are naturally built. It is a choice we all make, loosely speaking.

"Don't knock it 'til you've tried it" is a very flawed slogan. I don't even think I need to tell you why.

As for "nature:" I think I already replied to that opint several times over in another thread (I don't think you ever replied to it, but it could have been someone else I'm thinking of). If you want to believe that two male monkeys messing around with each other here or there makes homosexuality natural, then what's the difference between a dog trying to have sex with my leg? Animals are stupid. They try to have sex with inanimate objects. Thats one FAR cry from it existing in nature.

It harms them because it is sinful...it is again what is ideal for us. Sin is harmful. Fond of using? Uh, no, it's one point I make among several...it just seems like I'm fond of it because a lot of people here insist on failing to either read it, or understand it, and thus I end up repeating myself. That's certainly not my problem.

Well, first of all, the studies I've seen show that the average homosexual has more partners than the average heterosexual. Every report I see has homosexuals leading a more promiscuious lifestyle on average...which I think is quite harmful. And yes, The Bible say on the matter is one of the reasons I think it's harmful. And yeah, I'm sure that will cause a sneer, or snicker, or something of the like out of some of you, but I honestly don't care.

WHEWHH.

Holy Moly that was a lot of reading.

That gay test is funneh. Just the idea that they had a percentage at the end, when the entire test was rampantly un-scientific, was great. It was funneh, but cool because it incited this lovely debate. Both sides are presenting good arguments, but I just want to marginally stick my oar in and say:

There are three main types of love as classified by modern psychologists:

1) Eros. Romatic / sexual love. America is obsessed with this sort of love, to the exclusion of the other two...

2) Phillia. "Brotherly" love (should also be "Sisterly"). A close and intimate affection that can be shared between two people of any gender, cross-gender, whatever, WITHOUT a sexual or romantic component of any type. This love is based on the principles of mutual caring and a dedication to the maintenance and growth of the relationship. This is the love that occurs bewteen really good friends, of any gender.

3) Agape. Love for all. This is the diffuse, warm love and acceptance of all members of the human race regardless of who or what they are-- e.g. the recognition and acceptance of all facets of human behaviour as being innately part of each individual, and how those facets are represented to a greater or lesser extent in the people around us. If you truly love and accept yourself, you cannot help but truly love and accept other people, because all of them have some aspect of you (and vice versa). Aso does not include any sexual component.

I think what's screwing up the discussion is people are saying "well when two people love each other" without defining what LOVE means. Any relationship between two people that has a strong sexual component can be said to have an equally strong undercurrent of eros.

I strongly believe that two men or two women can have a relationship based on Phillia. This may lead them to believe that their relationship should be consummated with erotic love. I say "BAH" to that: eros, while it may apparently be the NATURAL conclusion to phillial relationships, has not only become outmoded as a means of expressing intense affection and intimacy, but is essentially pointless in a same-sex relationship.

I'll shut up now.

*dons asbestos*

__________________
Everything is destined to reappear as simulation.
Jean Baudrillard
America, 1988

You're right, that's a significant mistake I've made...we're just talking past each other at some points. Very insightful post, Sullivan.

I'd agree that a mutual exchange of physical love given between two people who care about one another and express their feelings in that manner - no matter how depraved, sinful, dirty, unnatural. etc, someone with different social, religious, ethical values might think it is - is NOT 1) unnatural, 2) harmful, or 3) crude.

the sex act in terms of procreation is indeed meant to result in pregnancy. offspring. etc. yet, if we were PURE ANIMAL we would not have our faculties and would spend our days rutting like rabbits, Chris. and i know you know we're beyond that because you yourself mentioned self control and reason.

if we were pure animal - if we were purely "technical" - we would not have the nuance of perception that has us arguing here.

hence, it is the variety to human experience, the depth of human complexity, the very difference among us - be it sexual preference or moral strictness - that makes human beings TRULY natural. my point before, and which Sullivan himself touches on in describing the different forms of love (which were themselves defined by men hundreds of years ago and are open to debate), is that love is not finite. it is as fluid as the people who feel it. to set in stone something mutable that is experienced by mutable creatures is one thing. that's fine to believe love is what you think it is, we all do. but to know it as one thing for yourself - as a heterosexual - which fits with YOUR moral upbringing and self, and to then apply it to ANOTHER form of love you do not know or accept ... of COURSE that form of love is negated for you. it cannot exist. you do not believe in it.

which is why no amount of argument will convince you otherwise and I respect that. life may or may not show you other things to shift that view. regardless, i respect your faithful views on love regarding respect, sincerity, trust, loyalty, genuine friendship. but I disagree that that can only exist between a heterosexual pair. yes a heterosexual pair are meant to procreate - and that is eros. true, in animal nature, a hetersexual pair is the norm. but beyond eros is a love that encompasses all that is NOT on SUllivan's list.

i believe in all 3 forms of the love he mentioned. i don't think all pairs who have true platonic/philial love move to eros. some do, that's simple immaturity and lack of growth, i believe. a person of true wisdom and understanding would never mistake such a relationship as one that must be destined for romance. then again, SOME romantic loves can and do develop from such friendships and that's because - as I agree with chris - true love must have that component or it does not last.

there were some other definitions love, i can vaguely remember my greek philosophy readings. there were three components - passion, friendship, and something else. you must have all 3 to have true love that will last - so long as you do not change from what you were when you began loving.

an irony is that the ultimate relationship - period - was seen to be philial. and between men. and it was COMPLETELY accepted and natural that men in such philial relationships would know one another physically - as friends. they had wives they loved, women they fell for but they ALSO engaged in erotic relations with younger men. this was to be both a mentor - to relay strength of character, their wisdom about the world, to be a friend and guide -to a younger man.

so, we must take these definitions of love with a grain of salt ... everyone will see love differently. i just believe that the act itself is not sin. at the very least, not crude. that's like saying a guffaw is cruder than a giggle. laughter is laughter. and i think laughter's good. but yes, there is the rule of hurting others. if you love another man's wife how are you to stop yourself from feeling that feeling? there is no way. if you continue to feel it, 20 years later, regardless of the fact she has grown old, wrinkled, had 3 kids, etc ... is that simply eros or is it truly love? and if it still has not been acted on, if she has no clue - is that a crime? has he hurt her? has he truly hurt himself?

what happens when he accepts that he cannot have her, should not have her, will not harm her or anyone else by telling, and is at peace? he still loves her, but I do not think, then, that he is committing a sin, and might not ever have.

and with that example comes yet another rule - rules just don't apply. yes we can strive to stick to them, like i've said, rules in many ways make the world a better place, make us truer, stronger of character, better. then again, we cannot undo the way god made us. he MADE sinful creatures, chris. he loves us because of what we are and what we are is how he made us - sinners. the very nature within flaws is like i said, what makes humans beautiful. free will, like sades mentioned. if we did not have that will, if we did not have sin - we would not be human.

we are. we must simply make the best of that. i'm not condoning sin. i'm just saying ... if you feel something that is normal for you, that hurts no one ... if you know what you are and what you are feels as legitimate, when you get technical with yourself, as the love you see between your parents, or an aunt an uncle, etc etc ... then you are. and so is anything you feel - i guess that's what it comes down to. the crime here is not just acting on a "lifestyle choice" - it is feeling. that's why i wonder about your gay friend - even if he doesn't act, even if he accepts that your church says it's wrong, even if he never pairs with another man again - if he knows what he is and that he loves men, is that alone still sin? is who and what he is negated, is he some technical aberration?

that's my problem, because he's not. he's as legitimate as a child who can't walk, as a man without limbs, as a wife and mother, as anyone else. you cannot separate what a homosexual is from what he does. when you say simply "sin" - sin is something that can be stopped. repented for. cease committing it. but you cannot stop a desire for the same sex. you cannot stop BEING what you are, even if you can stop the outward appearance of it for others.

This is not about acceptance. I do not reject homosexuals as humans. I do not fail to "accept" them for what they are. I just ask they they accept themselves as well, as sinners. I expect people to accept me, because, although I'm a sinner, they are as well, and there's not much we can do about it. We can only try to minimize it. My argument is that it's important to admit to it. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

We're talking about people who apparently cannot help the way they feel...but if some of these people also refuse to acknowledge that it's a problem in the first place, how do we really know? If they don't even take that first step, I don't know that they can't help things.

Yes, we are not just technical creatures...I'm trying to make two different arguments here. If you believe in The Bible, this issue is a no-brainer. If you believe in God, but not necessarily The Bible on issues like this, then you have to believe in intent, and how God made us to behave, and you're quite likely to come to the conclusion that men were simply not BUILT to have sex with other men.

However, if you don't believe in any real God, then apart from being saddened by it, I present a purely technical argument: the way we've evolved (if you believe in evolution) has us built for hetereosexual relationships. From a scientific standpoint, that's completely undebateable. I only bring it up at all because not everyone's going to subscribe to my other arguments, especailly if they don't believe in God.

Is it possible for a homosexual to feel REAL love with another man, the way a man can with a woman? I don't know. Do I think it's possible? I'm hestitant to say yes. I lean towards saying that it's a combination of a simply flawed nature (as all humans are cursed with), and a brotherly/friendly affection, misconstrued as romanticism. Now, before someone cries bloody murder, this is a very tough issue, and I can't take any stance on it with any REAL confidence. I don't think any of us can.

I needed to say, however, that I don't think we can just assume that they can indeed fall in love romantically (genuinely, that is). Although, if you don't believe in God, the word "love" doesn't have as much of a specific meaning. If you don't believe in any Deity like that, there's no concrete reason to believe such a thing as love necessarily exists.

Now, as Miriam has said, love is pretty dang subjective. I agree completely...and as such, I think we ought to not even bother talking about love in that respect. It's pretty pointless to say "But TWT, if two people love each other, what's wrong with them expressing it through sex?" It's really a waste of all our time -- yours, and mine, simply because we don't agree on what love is, for one.

However, even assuming that they are in love, and that we agree on what love is, it doesn't necessarily make the argument a valid one. As I've said before, being in love with a married woman is not always something that you should follow through on. I'm sure exceptions exist, but the norm has it as a forbidden love, and rightfully so. And yes, Miriam: you cannot stop the love of another man's wife...but that's irrelevant. You still feel it, and the man would have every right in the world for being upset by it...even angered. It's a SIN. It's a flaw.

You seem to (correct me if I'm wrong, it's just an observation I've made) think that if you can't help it at all (well, you can help anything, but you know what I mean), it must not be a sin...which I don't agree with at all. I think it's a sin regardless of whether or not we're so flawed as to find it inevitable. Lying is wrong...even though you'll never find anyone who's gone their whole life without having lied at some point. Just because it's something that people can't resist, or can't stop themselves from doing, it doesn't mean it's okay.

Has he truly hurt himself? We can't measure that. I think he has...for one, he's spent an awful lot of time pining after someone involved with someone else, when he could have, potentially, found someone else. I hate to say it, but I think many people end up with someone who is not the best person in the world for them, in terms of compatibility, and overall joy produced in the marriage. We just have to do the best we can to try to find peace, happiness, and someone to share it all with.

So yeah, I think it's pretty obvious that he has hurt himself. I hurt myself EVERY day...many times a day, I'd imagine. I'm sure you all do as well. It's not a very nice thought, but it's the truth. We're flawed creatures, no matter what kind of theological views you hold.

And yes, God made us sinful, in a way. He cannot create creatures as perfect as he is...however, we were going pretty good there for awhile. It's all been dowhill since the "Applegate" incidient, as "The Simpsons" so hilariously dubbed it. I don't agree that our sin is somehow beautiful and appealing. I think our asking forgiveness for our sin is what is beautiful and appealing.

The sin gives us a chance to repent, and choose the right path out of our own free well, despite the temptations of sin. The beauty comes from rejecting that sin as best we can, and wanting to strive for more...not from giving into it as inevitable, and failing to recognize it for what it is.

No, my friend is not negated...he's just another sinner. Is it a crime to feel that love and not act on it? Well, that's hard to say...for one, it depends on what consitutes acting on it in some way. If he thinks about men in a fantasizing/homosexual way, well, as far as I'm concerned, that's lust...a sin. If he looks at another man in the same manner, it's the same deal. It's not really possible for him to avoid homosexual relationships, repent, accept it as a sin, and never, ever truly DESIRE it, or go without thinking about it. So in that sense, he's not really just sitting around feeling love and not acting on it.

Is the act of WANTING to sin actually sin? That's an impossible question to answer...we have very little to go on. I think it depends. We know that wanting to have sex with a woman other than your wife is a sin...so that specific act of WANTING to sin is a sin. Now, seeing as how The Bible makes it clear that men were not made for such relationships together, I'd say that wanting to do that anyway would also be a sin. It's not a supersin, most likely (we really have no idea), but it is a sin, nonetheless, IMO.

Sin is something that can be stopped? I dunno. In the same post, you talk about it's inevitiability. Technically, it can be...but realistically, it cannot. I would not liken a sinful person (in this discussion, a man who does not act on homosexual emotions, but does desires men) to someone born with some kind of handicap, necessarily. With a physical disability such as that, it happens before you're even capable of any real, clear though, or any decision making. If the person is homosexual because of some kind of abuse as a young child, though, then the two become more akin, for obvious reasons (beyond the control of the child, who's likely too young to understand what's going on).

And yes, you cannot stop being what you are: which is a sinner. Naturally, I revert to my paragraph earlier, stating that sin is sin, regardless of whether or not we can do anything about it, or are born with that weakness to sin.

PT 1 - heehee, the debate goes on! here we go ...

This is not about acceptance. I do not reject homosexuals as humans. I do not fail to "accept" them for what they are.

I thought you might take my discussion on humanity in this vein. I am not accusing you of not accepting these people as human, because you established in past posts you do. My problem though is your logic is iffy there. I think that to some degree you discount the existence of human nature in someone that commits a sin that is natural to who and what they are. Which alone is not cool with me but like i said, where it most matters is not the concept (in general, gays would get along fine if people didn't like what they did but didn't act on that dislike) but how that translates to real life. your friend - and the hypothetical idea of whether you'd treat someone differently.

so when i talk about legitimacy ... i guess another thing would be, if it is human to love, and humans are flawed and love is mutable, and love, like humans and their flaws, comes in many forms, is it unnatural to love? no matter how rare, uncommon, or undesirable by religious or moral standards, feeling cannot be prevented. so there is no point in morally judging it.

ACTION can be prevented. but that's what i meant about acting on something. you cannot prevent a feeling. if the feeling is a sin, but that type of sin - feeling - cannot be prevented then it sort of defeats the purpose. you have broken a rule without MEANING to. the point of sin is to repent because you did something bad and KNEW it was bad - a law of morals. and if you didn't know it was bad, you'd know you weren't supposed to DO it again. but you can't make that change when your crime was a feeling!

but for me to say this would question God's effort and established rules for us to live by, as interpreted through the bible over the years, which is my personal beef and which I don't expect you to defend him or the bible for cuz we both agree to disagree there.

my argument raises the question of whether to FEEL something can really be construed as sin when you are whoever you are and have experienced whatever you experienced and the result, at a certain point in time and place - is to look at someone of the same sex or someone else's marriage, and feel love.

My argument is that it's important to admit to it. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

right. the crux of your argument is that this is a sin. the proof for that is in the bible. the proof if you don't believe in god or the bible is physical technicality.

now, to that - my argument argues it isn't a sin, i guess, or basically, i don't know for sure but don't think so. it's like legal system. it was built from a spirit that IS correct, that IS valid. however, it's practices, it's rules, how it is read, enacted on, and followed, ISN'T always. now, take this idea: god created flawed creatures. he wanted them to learn to become perfect and HAVE no flaws. he created humans but wanted them to become more. so he gave them rules to teach them how and get them there. he wasn't thorough. he used a format that wasn't exactly perfect. word of mouth, other people with opinions, and one set of 10 rules in stone. and this to be applied to the whole concept of human life.

some may see this as blasphemy. but i agree in god's power and wisdom. i simply say that while the system he created was well intentioned, that HIS knowledge is entirely correct and all good and well that he has NOT conveyed unequivocally and without any way to doubt what his exact rules are. you can point to the bible all you want but i'm saying that those 10 commandments and that book are not enough. they never were. not for me, anyway. we are too flawed and too confused. so, from that book, from its translations, mankind - quite flawed - went about interpreting it how HE thought it was meant.

not being god, how could various men know how it was supposed to read or teach? the only one who could was Jesus. only an UNFLAWED person could know and understand and convey these things properly.

while i recognize why god could say that homosexuality was sin ... i can't be entirely sure for various reasons. and my resulting feeling is that you cannot help EMOTION. so perhaps it's a sin to lie down with another man ... but to love him romantically? perhaps not. dunno.

Is it possible for a homosexual to feel REAL love with another man, the way a man can with a woman? I don't know. Do I think it's possible? I'm hestitant to say yes.... and I can't take any stance on it with any REAL confidence. I don't think any of us can.

why not? we are human and know exactly how both pure and errant human emotion can be. anything is possible, because it's out there. humans have been known to do and FEEL anything. from the most beautiful to the most awful. therefore i think it's perfectly plausible, being human, to recognize that people of the same sex can love each other just as legitimately as those of the opposite. that people of different races can, that people of vastly different ages can. one might argue a 9 yr old can't know what romantic love is but 9 yr olds have been married off and loved their spouse in ages gone. etc.

and if you want to ponder a comparison - there are full blown homosexual relationships that have spanned longer and truer and been just as if not more full of love and care and respect and all those things you mentioned as being necessary to love - between two men or women and they were certainly purer and sweeter and truer than what may happen between any random heterosexual romance you may pick.

...and you're quite likely to come to the conclusion that men were simply not BUILT to have sex with other men.

you might want to rephrase this. not built to procrate - make babies. having sex is something else and can be tied to both lust and love. if a gay man lusts and that's a sin, fine. i'm sure he can agree with that. if a gay man loves and he loves another man ... like i said, don't think that feeling is a sin. and in the bible the words are "covet another man's wife." covet = want. you can term it loosely as "desire." you can jump to "lust." that does not necessarily mean love.

Although, if you don't believe in God, the word "love" doesn't have as much of a specific meaning. ... If you don't believe in any Deity like that, there's no concrete reason to believe such a thing as love necessarily exists.

wow. umm, why not? muslims, hindis, catholics believe in entirely different gods and i do believe would be quite offended if it was assumed that not believing in the christian god meant they didn't know what "love" was or that it's meaning wasn't entirely the same as yours. in fact someone of both another country and religion could have the EXACT same perception (minus religion) of what love is, as you do. i'm sure several hundred thousand people out there do. so you might not depend on religion for such definitions. religion is added to your human condition and for me at least, does not define it until you make that the case. before we worship, before we even know what worship is, we are human. you may have been born into this realm of god but for others that' snot the same. that does not mean, however, that their human experience of the same things you experience isn't relatable.

being human, you feel. and you will feel love - romantic or not - no matter what deity you believe in. though this does not mean there aren't some who have never felt it, are incapable, or have ceased to believe. but i'd argue the majority of the world does indeed practice this universal emotion.

You seem to (correct me if I'm wrong, it's just an observation I've made) think that if you can't help it at all (well, you can help anything, but you know what I mean), it must not be a sin...which I don't agree with at all. I think it's a sin regardless of whether or not we're so flawed as to find it inevitable. Lying is wrong...even though you'll never find anyone who's gone their whole life without having lied at some point. Just because it's something that people can't resist, or can't stop themselves from doing, it doesn't mean it's okay.

i think this is what you want to see of my logic because you don't understand/agree. i have repeatedly said i believe sin exists, i believe in god's rules, etc etc. that the rules are there for a reason. so obviously, i know it's wrong to kill somebody and the desire to kill someone may arrive but i don't say - that feeling is just inevitable, being human, so go ahead, do it!

i also did not say to ACT on any feeling, or that that action is ok. my logic did not say, oh if you feel it and can't stop it it must be ok! that's silly and i tried to say something else entirely.

my point is that 1) a feeling cannot be helped 2) you can stop the action, but not the feeling. you can try, but it won't really get you anywhere. 3) and yes, you can also know it's wrong. great if it's wrong and you know it!

where you and i disagree is that #3 would apply to homosexuality and I am leaning toward it NOT being wrong so for me it's ok to say you've committed no crime and for you it's not and I must be trying to forgive something that shouldn't be forgiven.

perhaps life lessons will teach a person NOT have that feeling but i do believe that's unlikely. that's why truly rehabilitated criminals are rare....

PT 2

Has he truly hurt himself? We can't measure that. I think he has...for one, he's spent an awful lot of time pining after someone involved with someone else, when he could have, potentially, found someone else.

pining is not a sin. but regardless, thats true of anyone who wants someone they cannot have. i meant - what if he goes on living his life but knows he loves that woman? that doesn't mean he can't go on, meet someone else, get married, and have kids and deeply love his family and new partner. and he can still love both women till he day he dies and be content with the life he built though wish that he might have had something with the forbidden woman. i don't see any real hurt there. unless of course he mistreats his new wife or neglects he and his family because he always regrets and remains bitter about the first woman, etc etc.

I hate to say it, but I think many people end up with someone who is not the best person in the world for them, in terms of compatibility, and overall joy produced in the marriage. We just have to do the best we can to try to find peace, happiness, and someone to share it all with.

totally agree. a lot of people do that, and there's nothing wrong with that. love, like you have said, can grow over time. i also believe that we can find someone who is pretty close or IS the best person in the world for them. it's rare, but possible.

And yes, God made us sinful, in a way. He cannot create creatures as perfect as he is...

this totally cracked me up and made me wonder if you read back over what you wrote. if god's omnipotent he could most definitely have done this, esp according to your own beliefs.

...The beauty comes from rejecting that sin as best we can, and wanting to strive for more...not from giving into it as inevitable, and failing to recognize it for what it is.

i addressed this above. that's not at all what i'm saying (inevitable=ok)

It's not really possible for him to avoid homosexual relationships, repent, accept it as a sin, and never, ever truly DESIRE it, or go without thinking about it. So in that sense, he's not really just sitting around feeling love and not acting on it.

hmm, questioning your logic here. if he never touches another man in that manner again, he is not ACTING on a homosexual relationship. it takes TWO to have one. if he desires but the other is not aware of his desire - he is not acting. if he lusts in his mind - yes, lust, to your definition, is a sin. if he loves ... and the other is unaware, and he never acts on this love - if he never declares it or expresses it - it is not a homosexual relationship. the basic rule of a relationship is both must be aware and consenting. therefore, to my logic, i'd argue there's no sin. of course, if simply loving another man is a sin, well, then, for you it is.

your logic implies to DESIRE is to act. and once again - you cannot STOP feeling. feeling is not an action.what you do because of your feeligns IS.

Sin is something that can be stopped? I dunno. In the same post, you talk about it's inevitiability.

and i didn't contradict myself. you and i both know sin is inevitable. but i have also agreed with you that the point to there being rules and our following them is to ATTEMPT to cease sinning - however impossible that is or inevitable it is that we'll continue to commit them. i think the only change here in life we can gain is LESS sin. but not complete annihilation of it. so, we CAN stop using curse words and we CAN respect our elders and we can stop lying on sundays or stop lying to our best friend or stop stealing candy from the corner store. which is what i meant by "stopping." i meant in the sense of an individual sin we choose to stop committing.

Is the act of WANTING to sin actually sin? That's an impossible question to answer...we have very little to go on.
Is it a crime to feel that love and not act on it? Well, that's hard to say...
Has he truly hurt himself? We can't measure that.
Is it possible for a homosexual to feel REAL love with another man, the way a man can with a woman? I don't know.

It is interesting that with all these "unknowns" and "impossibles" and "unsure" and "hard to says" - which appear in all your other posts as well, how your arguments work so hard to support the answer you've already come to.

your post - well, our arguments, since that's what we're doing - we're going through a matter of formulas, logic, deduction, reaching ... i forgot the mathematical terms but you know how you have to prove 3 things before you can reach the correct conclusion? theories, laws, etc.

it seems you have the conclusion - Homosexuality is sin - and that you are trying to go backward and find your proofs in order to support that conclusion. yes, because we have challenged you on it, and i'm glad to hear your answers and see how you get there.

But the whole point of a conclusion is to have begun with nothing - not with the answer - but with your own tests, experience, knowledge, and to come to your own proofs. This procedure VALIDATES the conclusion. The conclusion has no meaning without that process. It simply is, but that does not mean it is right. In fact, one might say it is only an assumption, that it's correct.

I knew the answer my own parents have taught me, that people insist the bible has made clear. But I will not believe that conclusion because someone else or a book told me so. There is no point to believing anything in that vein. It is not belief, for belief is a result of understanding from learned truths. I do not believe in God because I was raised to do so. I believe in him because I began from scratch and came to that conclusion, which is why i have a different vision of him than you do.

Perhaps I'm incorrect and you believe in him because you found your own proofs and recognized that is why he exists, not because others said so and that's how you were raised. I don't mean to offend you, my question, also.

Regardless, I have come to my conclusions regarding the nature of sin in homosexuality not from the answer others insist upon but from the proofs I have encountered. Drawing from that evidence and what I've seen ... despite what (i say) is a questionable conclusion presented by a book centuries old influenced by interpretations ... my conclusion is that the nature of homosexuality - to love another man - is not a sin.

however, my proof (for i've discounted for the most part the 100% faultlessness of the bible) cannot tell me for certain. my personal conclusion would be that it isn't - cause i'd ilke to believe that. however, there's no proof to say it's ok, and a book that leans toward it not being ok, so yeah, it's pretty likely it is a sin to have sex with another man, and I accept that. i wish it weren't so. but having very little proof to satisfy me either way, that conclusion is up in the air and i hope for the sakes of all those who don't believe their same sex relations aren't sinful don't have too much suffering in store and wish them the best. for those who do believe it's sinful but do it anyway ... i also wish them the best.

either way, i wish it weren't a sin because I don't think that same sex LOVE is a sin. to love and not be able to act on it is horrible. it's mighty tough, sin or not , to be homosexual in this world as it is.

Well Damn!

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

Who and what they are is a sinner. Yep, they cannot help their sin...but that doesn't excuse it...it only means that we should be understanding of the sin. It doesn't lessen the actual sin, however. I can't help but sing like crap...but I admit it, and I know I can't, and I won't claim otherwise.

Sure there is: I judge it as sin. I don't go out into the screams making a fuss of it, but when it comes up, and someone says it's perfectly okay, I tell them that it's not. Defining sin, and defending it AS sin, is perfectly reasonable, even if the sin is something the person can't do much about.

Breaking a rule without meaning to is a mistake. When you make a mistake, you apologize, and acknowledge it as a mistake. Yes, we are crippled by sin...we cannot hide from it...but it doesn't matter. Technically, we can avoid it...but we're so remarkably dirty with sin that there's just no plausible way for us to get past it on our own. That doesn't make the sin less sinful.

You could say "Is it wrong to look at someone being unjustly killed when you are whoever you are and have experienced whatever you experienced and, as a result, feel happiness?" I'd say, yeah, taking happiness in some form of unfair killing is probably a sin...it's cruel, in a way. I think the problem here may be that when people hear the world "love," all of a sudden normal rules don't apply...it's this incredibly magical thing that cannot be "messed" with in any way. Love can do no wrong, basically, is the attitude I run into so often.

Hmmm, I'd say that perhaps it's we that are not perfect here. The way Christianty is taught seems pretty consistent with things to me...assuming we don't have "followers" ramming it down people's throats, it's usually taught quite well.

Well, if we're all reasonable about this, The Bible is quite clear on homosexual sex. Like, really clear. We're talkin' one step down from being a commandment.

An interracial love is quite different. God created us to go together a certain way...and being of a different race does not conflict with that. And yeah, perhaps some 9 year olds can feel love. It's hard to say. I'd imagine that their love is a completely different kind, however. If you want to get really technical, isn't it possible for a human to romantically love an animal, genuinely? Can't a 98 year old man fall in love with a 6 year old girl romantically? It's probably happened before.

It's all about the definition of love. If love is defined only by the person who claims they are feeling it, than those relationships that cross age/species/gender barriers can be seen as about real love, but I'd be skeptical to say so. Like I said, we just don't know, and as such, I don't think we're gonna get anywhere with it.

These are all things you cannot measure. Homosexual love, for all we know, could be a perverted form (and no, perverted does not mean I'm calling them perverts in the way most people use the word...the word has a broader meaning than that) of brotherly/friendly affection. That would not surprise me in the least.

Ummm, I said "God," not "Jesus" or "the Christian God." Just "God," meaning any Higher Power that created this universe with purpose, basically.

1) Sinning cannot be helped either...still sin. A feeling can be a sin regardless of whether or not it can be reasonably helped (technically, I imagine it can all be helped).

2) Ditto.

3) Indeed.

I don't think it's reasonably possible to love another woman away from your wife without sinning. That's LOVE going to another woman other than your wife...that hurts her, without a doubt. There's just no way around that...she's hurt by it, even if she doesn't know about it (and if she doesn't, that's pretty dishonest). If she does know about it...well, good luck finding a woman that doesn't mind being married to a man who loves someone else.

And no, pining is not a sin, but seeing as how it can easily lead to idleness and a lack of dilligence, it can be. People have indeed wasted away significant parts of their lives on such things. Wanting to be with someone by itself is not a bad thing...but it can lead to other bad things as quick as a whip.

Uh, no. God cannot do absolutely anything. He cannot do evil things, for one. It's like that whole "can he make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" question. He cannot do absolutely anything. One thing He cannot do is create other beings as perfect as He is. If he could create perfect beings, they'd be God as well, basically.

Anyway, even aside from that, creating us as imperfect was the only logical way to go anyway. We have to be sinful to achieve our true beauty, and see God's love and mercy. If you're born into a perfect place, like Eden, you're essentially a spoiled brat...the child of some rich parents, who, despite having so much, knows no gratitude.

I don't think action is at all limited to physical movement. Love isn't all about buying flowers, either. You can act with your mind.

Agreed, it is not a relationship...it's a desire.

You cannot stop sinning. I cannot stop myself from, perhaps, laughing when someone falls down and hurts themselves, even if they become offended by it.

Hmmm, perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but are you saying that it's not sin because we can't help it, and we can't correct it? We have to be able to fix it for it to be sin?

That's not quite far...you've had your shares of "I guess"s and "dunno"s.

I was raised as a Christian. For awhile, I was interested in it. After my parents got divorced, I didn't think about God at all, at least not that I can remember. I went through a very bad period. I was "reminded" of Him at a youth retreat, and had a renewed faith in Him. From that point forward, I took more interest in my religion. I read Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian," and over the last couple of years, I've spent dozens of hours on discussions like this. I do not shy away from challenges to my ideals, and I am not hesitant to read things I don't agree with.

I believe in God. I have no doubt of it. I have some doubts about the SPECIFIC God I believe in sometimes, but apart from finding the existence of some God to be completely inevitable (I cannot find any way around it), I also find this God, the Christian God, to be the one that, far and away, makes the most sense to me.

Granted, our conversation is a valid one: is just feeling the urge to act actually sin? However, we are ignoring the fact that it's almost never that simple...there's almost always lust, and fairly often, action, involved with this feeling. So, technically, we're arguing the bare basics of it all...but realistically, feeling those feelings leads to sin quite directly anyway.

What if I get angry all the time? What if I just can't help it? Sure, I don't go on a rampage and actually become physically violent because of it, but I still get angry. Wouldn't you call that a problem of mine? A flaw? A flaw that people should have some sympathy for, granted, but still a flaw.

And yes, it is tough. Homosexuality has been far too singled out (at times, by myself as well...which I regret) as somehow a sin that deserves special attention. This is likely because it is a perversion (again, I mean the word in a technical sense here...not the typical sense) of something that is built so rawly into us: sex. Sex is something we all take seriously. It's sacred, really. It's the ultimate expression of Love between us...and Love is what God is all about. I think that has something to do with it...I think it's also one of the reasons people are more sensitive about sex on TV and such, than they are about violence.

Intwesting, intwesting, intwesting. I'm glad we're having this conversation. As you may have noticed (or not), I've learned a few things here, and feel that I've corrected a few flaws here or there in my thinking. For that, I'm glad.

Sticking my oar in again.

This is really going to the essence of my argument: I'm not heterosexual. I don't know a certain moral perspective (e.g. "heterosexual = good, homosexual = bad") because I do not percieve or make decisions from the solid base of either of those sexualities.

I don't know if this was directed at me.....but in any case, if it was, it's a statement that is based on your previous point, the idea that I'm acting from a heterosexual standpoint. Also, I'm not so totally set in my ways that no amount of argument would convince me otherwise. I'm thinking, too. Always thinking

I appreciate your willingness to show respect for the narrow-mindedness I might have come across as portraying, though.

This is a key point. From a modern perspective, the homosexual relationships the ancient Greeks engaged in seem quite strange. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around this idea, full as I am of the concept that sex is a sacred gift that is the physical expression of the blessed union of souls. Times have changed quite a bit from the age of Socrates and Plato.

In an aside, I'll say that the three types of love I mentioned are not those strictly handed down from Greek thinkers. Quite the opposite, they are the three main types of love I have heard taught in college Developmental Psychology class, which in turn would seem to have borrowed the concept of 'agape' from Orthodox Christian thinking (Commish, can you speak to this?) while grabbing "eros" and "philia" from Greek culture and modifying them somewhat to remove the sexual subtext from phillia-- if it was indeed there in the first place. But I digress.

This I disagree with. Limbs are needed to walk and manipulate the environment. Wives and mothers are needed to continue the species (well, not any more, but that's an entirely different subject). A child who can't walk just needs to learn to walk.

But nobody needs to engage in a sexual relationship. It is not an essential part of a healthy lifestyle. True, it can be a very positive and worthwhile growth experience for some-- and the pontetial for long term intimacy, enjoyment, and even scientifically proven health benefits seem to have convinced most people that it will be a major components of their lives. This does not mean it will be a positive and worthwhile growth experience for everyone; nor does it mean that it is mandatory for everyone.

What I'm driving at is just this: if I can be convinced that the desire and drive for sexual activity in a majority of people is motivated by something other than pleasure, I will concede the point that homosexuals have just as much natural "right" to their relationships as do the rest of us. However, as long as I remain convinced that the modern-day understanding of sexual activity by the vast majority of the population is simply "getting some"-- e.g., recieving pleasure, I will advocate sexual abstinence in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships that do not feature as their central component an authentic and honest union of souls, an understanding and acceptance of fidelity in emotionality, and an everlasting and multifaceted (not just sexual) commitment to the improvement of both parties.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but, how do you know this for a fact? If the answer is word of mouth, then we really are at an impasse, because (begin hypothetical situation) then I've heard through word of mouth that all homosexual relationships are based entirely on pleasure and have absolutely no emotional component or measure of fidelity. Impasse, as both our "word of mouth" experiences are equally valid (or invalid). It's subjective: we can't be sure whether homosexual or heterosexual relationships, on the whole, are more loving / caring / pure / true. Is the potential there? Yes, hypothetically, on both sides.

I've surprised myself by being mainly agreed with you on all this. If feelings of homosexuality are a sin equal to but no less than the actual act of engaging in a homosexual relationship, then the very act of lust (in either homosexual or heterosexual individuals) is essentially the same as committing the act itself. I believe there's a passage in the Bible that says essentially this, maybe in Proverbs? T would know better than I....

So, assuming for a moment the above paragraph is true, then there really IS nothing we can do about a feeling. We are what we are, and if the sin is equal to the act, most people will decide to go ahead with the act because the entire karmic balance will not be further tipped by this further "infraction".

Or, if we take what I believe to be thmillins definition: that the desire or lust is not a sin(because we can't control it), but the act is, then people should definitely refrain from the act itself, as they will 'get in less trouble', so to speak.

Ooh, we're into cosmology now. Quick question: can a human produce a being as complex as a human? Or, let's take it down a level. Can a simple machine-- say, a Furby --produce another Furby? Okay, now let's take it back up: if God could create another being that was his equal, this raises two questions: A) Who created him? B) Why didn't he (create other beings as perfect as him)?

Oh yes. Spot on. Here here, and other comments: I'm 100% behind this statement. When you look at the scientific research done into the actual physiological changes that take place in two people who are madly in love, you start seeing some highly deterministic things that can be established as the causes of a lot of the 'mysterious' and 'powerful' behaviour that love engenders.

I'm not saying "Science proves that love is all about hormones". But by even bringing up the term 'science', I'm bringing into the debate one of the most timeless quandaries in modern thought: the problem of Rationality vs Emotionality. Let's not expect to solve that one in this thread. In my personal experience (the only place I can speak from), I have to say I've seen things that would lead me to believe Love can be explained by science, and also seen things that would lead me to believe Love, as a higher concept, has a few secrets from us yet.

You know what I love about these forums, TWT? The fact that I can basically argue with you on one thread, and against you on another.

TWT, how do you know homosexuality is a lifestyle choice? Do you really believe that when you're born you "learn" to be attracted to men or women? If you don't believe that then how could you suggest that only homosexuals "learn" or "choose" to like the same sex? If homosexuals learn or choose their sexuality then certainly you learn or choose your heterosexuality. Nature doesn't pick and choose what people learn and are born with, so either all sex is learned or it isn't.

Seeing that you're a religious person and have been taught that homosexuality is wrong, you are not looking at the subject from a rational viewpoint but rather one based on faith. If science proves that homosexuality is gene oriented, how will you reconcile your faith based beliefs with hard cold science?

I'll repond to Timing first.

Not true. We are intended to be heterosexual. Our very build makes that amazingly obvious. We are, by default, IMO, heterosexual. How do I know? I don't KNOW. I do not have incontravertible evidence...nor do I claim to. You don't KNOW either.

Well, first off, regardless of whether or not you are religious, you have to take things on Faith...every single day. I'd argue that it requires that you take more things on Faith to NOT believe in God than it does to believe in Him. I feel the same way about homosexuality: you have to make more little jumps in logic to assume that homosexuality is perfectly normal.

If you don't believe in God, then there is no right and wrong answer. Heck, if you don't believe in God, there is no right and wrong, period. If you don't believe in God, talking about this is all a waste of our time, because every word we use is subjective...there are no absolutes.

Well, for one, it would not conflict. Some people have a genetic tendency towards obesity (gluttony), or towards alcohol (drunkenness). For people like that, they're going to have a harder time resisting those sins...homosexuality is no different in that respect.

Aside from that, despite the research that's taken place, no "gay gene" has ever been found...yet people still drone on and on about being "born that way," when they really have nothing solid to base it on at this point.

Now, on to Sullivan.

No, I'm afraid not..."agape" is foreign to me.

Hmmm, well, while I agree with your basic point (a limb is needed to walk, but sex is not needed to live), I do think that a sexual relationship, for almost everyone on the planet, is part of a full, healthy lifestyle. I really do. There are exceptions, of course. But, it's really not terribly relevant or worth going over.

I think it's something along the lines of "If a man looks at a woman with lust in his mind (might have been eyes), he has already committed adultery with her in his heart." That's rough, but it gives you the basic idea. If I had to choose one, I'd pick lust as a lesser sin as acting on it, but both are wrong...the latter simply has the potential to hurt people more directly and bluntly, though.

Yeah, that's an interesting point, but if God is how I believe He is, he knows full well our thoughts. Someone who loves God, or at least tries their best too, won't try the extra sin just because they can get away with it. I don't think that the sin is necessarily equal to the act (though I do not know for sure)...I just think that sin is sin, and we don't KNOW for sure what order it goes in.

Yeah, that's the basic definition that seems to be used...though I think, quite surely, that Miriam will disagree with that. It feel sort of like a compromise is being offered to God: I'm not going to act, so don't blame me for wanting to!

Yeah, it's a tough one. I think it's a merger of both, just as I think our bodies are partly physical, and partly spiritual, in a way. Then again, maybe the truth is that love is either mostly or all physical/chemical, and we won't experience it in it's true, unfiltered form until after we die. We shall see.

I agree completely...it's almost funny in a way. That happens (well, happened) to me a lot on SitePointForums.com -- I'd get into heated debates on religion, politics, or some other social issue like that, in one forum, and then, in another forum, I'd have the pleasure of helping that same person solve some error in their code, or something like that. I just think it's funny that people still call me TWT.

PT 1 - my god, this is huge!! i bet that they could publish these debates and when centuries have gone by we 3 will be philosophers taught in college. ok ok, umm, dang. chris first, then sully, then chris. here we go!!
_____

CHRIS

Who and what they are is a sinner. Yep, they cannot help their sin...but that doesn't excuse it...it only means that we should be understanding of the sin. It doesn't lessen the actual sin, however...

I guess you think I don't think sin is wrong or that it exists or that we are sinners, despite my openly saying so in my post. I AGREE. sin is sin, and we sin. i am questioning your claim on where the sin is drawn in the question of homosexuality - that doesn't mean I don't have the same or similar concept of it in general. which is why i broke down the 1,2,3 about it further on.

Sure there is: I judge it as sin. I don't go out into the screams making a fuss of it, but when it comes up, and someone says it's perfectly okay, I tell them that it's not. Defining sin, and defending it AS sin, is perfectly reasonable, even if the sin is something the person can't do much about.

When I say there's no point in morally judging something, I'm talking IN THIS CASE. and in general, FEELING. i'm not talking about all sin, now. I didn't say that. that's not where my argument touches, because like I said i agree with sin existing. so yes, to define something as sin - if you know for sure it is and that's predetermined by, in your case, the bible, fine. but for ME, i am singling out THIS form of "sin" and debating whether it really is that and whether it can be morally judged because it is a feeling, not an action.

Breaking a rule without meaning to is a mistake. When you make a mistake, you apologize, and acknowledge it as a mistake. Yes, we are crippled by sin...we cannot hide from it...That doesn't make the sin less sinful.

aaaaand once again, I agree with that. Hence ... my 1,2,3.

I'd say, yeah, taking happiness in some form of unfair killing is probably a sin...Love can do no wrong, basically, is the attitude I run into so often.

Sully agrees with you and guess what - so do I. love does have magical powers over our faculties (hormones, predisposition to get foolish with emotion, etc) but love is like any other emotion- entirely fallible. i do personally believe, however, that it is one of the emotions that gets us closer to god and perfection. however, being flawed, when we feel love that doesn't mean it's beyond exception. yes others act that way and I admit to being idealistic and romantic but I am not blind. love CAN do wrong. Hence a man who kills for love. But imagine this. An eye for an eye ... You (a hypoethetical man) kill a man who attacked you (and who had a right to be angry at you) in self defense. The man you killed was the husband of the woman you covet. You shouldn't have been coveting the wife but darn well had a right to kill the husband. The husband darn well had a right to be angry but it was sinful to attack you. And killing, and coveting, are both sins.

Hmmm, I'd say that perhaps it's we that are not perfect here. The way Christianty is taught seems pretty consistent with things to me...assuming we don't have "followers" ramming it down people's throats, it's usually taught quite well.

sigh. once again ... all teaching is subjective. you and I will always disagree on this point. this goes to why I don't think it's always so well taught or that interpretation may have affected what we can take for "fact." think of it this way. you will have kids and raise them one day. you will not teach them EXACTLY as you were taught. similarly perhaps. you may in fact feed your children oatmeal and train them to eat healthy food in the exact same way your parents may have taught you. but you won't necessarily teach them that TV after 9 pm is bad or that you must floss once a day and cover your mouth when you belch. each teacher takes the subject taught and ALTERS it. the spirit may be there but children are sensitive to nuance and one thing different will make a child turn out differently, and imagine SEVERAL - behavior, beliefs, and what THEY teach THEIR children. hence my father telling me that homosexuals were disgusting when I was nine years old. at the time i absorbed what he said but didn't like it. when I turned 12 i chose to scratch all he'd taught me in the moral ethics department and build my own knowledge base.

Well, if we're all reasonable about this, The Bible is quite clear on homosexual sex. Like, really clear. We're talkin' one step down from being a commandment.

back up. perhaps this is a pet peeve of mine but the ONE THING i never say to people and hate to be told to me is that I am not "being reasonable." i have my reason and you have yours. i disagree with your reason but will never for a moment believe that you don't have any foundation to come to the conclusion that you have. as for how clear the bible is ... once again ... even if you showed me the book you have in your hand that makes it really clear, my argument regarding the bible's reliability centuries later after translation will not make me accept it as so very crystal clear. and in the past I have said, if it does for you - good for YOU and YOUR logic. not good for mine. and it is not unreasonable of me to not accept this point (because you assume that if I did i'd agree with you and come to your conclusion anyway, which isn't even a guarantee, though possible).

...If you want to get really technical, isn't it possible for a human to romantically love an animal, genuinely? Can't a 98 year old man fall in love with a 6 year old girl romantically? It's probably happened before.

Exactly. Anything and everything is possible. Hence serial killers, pedophiles, saints, and geniuses.

It's all about the definition of love. If love is defined only by the person who claims they are feeling it, than those relationships that cross age/species/gender barriers can be seen as about real love, but I'd be skeptical to say so. Like I said, we just don't know, and as such, I don't think we're gonna get anywhere with it.

as subjective as love is and whatever it means to anyone, I do believe there is a universal constant and most people can agree on at least SOME of the facets. ie, happiness. what's happiness? yes we could all define it a certain way but that's how we choose to interpret our feeling. but the feeling is pretty much universal, regardless of how subjective the definition, you, I, a gay man, a child, or a interracial couple might define it.

These are all things you cannot measure. Homosexual love, for all we know, could be a perverted form

and, for all we know, could be UNperverted. I do not remove this possibility, though you have, and are free to.

Ummm, I said "God," not "Jesus" or "the Christian God." Just "God," meaning any Higher Power that created this universe with purpose, basically.

well you didn't define that and you are speaking from a Christian standpoint, so I don't think I jumped to a wrong conclusion there. Miscommunication. But, regardless, hindus believe in multiple gods and atheists feel love and know no God, despite your law of "God is Love."

1) Sinning cannot be helped either...still sin. A feeling can be a sin regardless of whether or not it can be reasonably helped (technically, I imagine it can all be helped).

I disagree that a feeling's a sin. But I don't disagree that a sin is still sin. I do say it can be helped because you can cease to do certain things, which was one point you didn't touch on. Cursing, overeating, etc.

I don't think it's reasonably possible to love another woman away from your wife without sinning. That's LOVE going to another woman other than your wife...that hurts her, without a doubt. There's just no way around that...she's hurt by it, even if she doesn't know about it (and if she doesn't, that's pretty dishonest). If she does know about it...well, good luck finding a woman that doesn't mind being married to a man who loves someone else.

umm. I disagree: Loving one sibling does not take the love you feel from another sibling. The love for one parent does not take away the love you feel from the other parent. The love you have for your ex-partners need not at all detract from any following partners and it is highly likely you will not be able to properly love or develop a relationship later in life if you have not loved and known others prior to that relationship. And I argue that once you love someone - truly love them - you don't just "stop" loving them. Which is why i say the feeling can't be helped. If such a feeling evaporates and quickly, it wasn't love - it was lust, etc. It is of course best that others are aware of your past loves and recognize that you still love these other people but that love need not detract from who you are with. If it DOES - then yes, you are committing a wrong against the following person and you should not have gotten involved with them if you weren't ready to. That's YOUR mistake - but it can be avoided/prevented.

And no, pining is not a sin, but seeing as how it can easily lead to idleness and a lack of dilligence, it can be.

You keep equating things to one another. By saying x leads to y, that does not make x a sin. Pining can LEAD to sin. So pining is NOT a sin. Yes we should avoid pining but the reason is not that IT'S a sin. It can lead to it and it alone does no good for anyone, least of all one's self.

Uh, no. God cannot do absolutely anything. He cannot do evil things, for one. It's like that whole "can he make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" question. He cannot do absolutely anything. One thing He cannot do is create other beings as perfect as He is. If he could create perfect beings, they'd be God as well, basically.

Once again, I disagree. Who said god can't do evil things? Did he? Or you? Some might argue some of the things he did were entirely evil and unnecessary. Others might say they were just (turning Lot's wife into salt.) The point is there is no good/evil judgement UPON God, cuz he made the rules and that's his business. I believe he could make perfect beings if he wanted but chose not to. Perfect does not mean God. God IS perfect but that doesn't conclude that all perfect beings ARE God(s). He could have made us perfect humans without his powers, or 10 feet taller or without the need for food or procreation or the ability to live forever. Whatever he felt like - or not. If you want to get down to it, "perfect" (like love) is subjective. And even knowing god is "perfect" - who's to say what that is, considering the mysterious entity that he is?

Anyway, even aside from that, creating us as imperfect was the only logical way to go anyway. We have to be sinful to achieve our true beauty, and see God's love and mercy. If you're born into a perfect place, like Eden, you're essentially a spoiled brat...the child of some rich parents, who, despite having so much, knows no gratitude.

Well he DID make us imperfect. As for logic, we have no clue what that logic is because we don't know his thoughts or intentions completely, if at all. He made two beings like him and they got it on in a garden. He might have hoped that was the way it was gonna be for all time to come. Let them be spoiled, they're his kids and he loves them, so long as they behave all's cool. So obviously he was disappointed in Eve when she broke the rules so the question remains - if he knew she was going to break them, why bother? He made her with that capability and at the same time his actions suggest he HOPED that she would not and advised her not to. So you're right, the point is to learn what we were given and appreciate what we have and make up for the crime committed with our existence and earn our way back to perfection. But that was AFTER the crime. And we'll never know if he put them in Eden setting them up to break the rules so they could go learn the lesson or if he put them in there hoping they wouldn't and was disappointed and had to do some damage control.

I don't think action is at all limited to physical movement. Love isn't all about buying flowers, either. You can act with your mind.

well what about my points regarding love/lust? LUST for someone is a sin, i agree with that. but is LOVE for someone a sin? because some love need not require physical desire. so what if it often DOES that doesn't mean it always does and doesn' t make IT sinful just because it can lead to sinful behavior.

i guess another argument would be that once love exists there IS no lust and therefore, no sin, which may be why most people find love infallible even if it can lead to sinful acts (for some, divorce is sin, but if you fall in love and stay in love with someone other than your husband and leave him - adultery, divorce, yet you LOVE the other person...) So yes, you can feel big grand things - if it's lust, it's a sin. But if it's LOVE, and you aren't lusting, only loving, I say you can act with your mind all you want, that doesn't mean you're sinning. If you lust or, jump on a married woman cuz you love her - there's the sin.

thmmie, where's your imput in other threads? miss ya.

hey kid - i'm here, don't worry, i'll post elsewhere soon, time is just limited and if I don't get THESE responses out i never will!

i want to apologize right now for all i've written ... but i couldn't help it, it was 3 big posts by you two!! i had to respond to all the new info ...

PT 2 -

Hmmm, perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but are you saying that it's not sin because we can't help it, and we can't correct it? We have to be able to fix it for it to be sin?

No. I'm saying homosexual LOVE (not all things) is not a sin because it cannot be helped, on it's own does not hold lust, and on it's own is not an act of harm to anyone else. That because it is a feeling, not an action, in that sense, homosexual love cannot be fixed, cannot be a trespass. A sin is something you commit knowingly, and even with the "mistake" bit - it has to be a rule you actually BREAK. Something must be committed. The rule does not say "You cannot feel love." It says you can't lie with another man. You can refrain from lying with another man but you cannot refrain from loving him. You can't refrain from lusting for him either but that's still a sin, I agree, and only because lust is delineated as a sin.

That's not quite far...you've had your shares of "I guess"s and "dunno"s.

Maybe not. I threw out "unknowns" for possible discussion, but don't use them for my conclusions. I just type aloud and it may be fodder to help you for all I know or fodder to help me, or an interesting digression. But it seems that you keep saying there's no evidence to support things but regardless you know for sure what the answer is. Which is confusing. So I just go with you being certain and ignore the "I'm not so sure" cuz the "I'm not so sure" really just seems to mean, "No, this is not the case and so I go with THIS answer."

Granted, our conversation is a valid one: is just feeling the urge to act actually sin? However, we are ignoring the fact that it's almost never that simple...there's almost always lust, and fairly often, action, involved with this feeling. So, technically, we're arguing the bare basics of it all...but realistically, feeling those feelings leads to sin quite directly anyway.

Well yes I argue the bare basics but mainly because yes, I think Love is something complicated and beyond and that it alone is not sin. To see it lumped with lust and automatically make someone a sinner does not compute because the nature of love ISN'T sin, most especially if GOD is love. Or so I believe. If he created feeling and sinning creatures in the hope that they would reach perfection and one of the major facets of humanity required to cross that bridge is emotion, among them love - we cannot CROSS that bridge if LOVE in and of itself is labelled in any way sinful within it's own nature - regardless of if it's felt between homosexuals or heterosexuals. Because to attain perfection we must LOSE SIN.

What if I get angry all the time? What if I just can't help it? Sure, I don't go on a rampage and actually become physically violent because of it, but I still get angry. Wouldn't you call that a problem of mine? A flaw? A flaw that people should have some sympathy for, granted, but still a flaw.

remember, divide the sin from the person. Wrath is a vengeful, righteous anger, reserved for God. It's rather rare in general for such a powerful emotion to manifest but when it does - can it be helped? there's an argument there but let's say - because you're using this to my argument - no, you feel something, you cannot help it. So, you feel terrible, righteous anger. However, wrath was deliberately stated to be a sin. One might argue that it's not really "wrath" until you do something about it. But if it's feeling, if it's just the sensation of wrath then yes, it's a flaw. If you get angry, yeah, that's a problem of yours. In the end, however - it matters only on that level - if you don't act on it or mistreat people because of it - it's just between God and the Sinner. Private conversation. IF love between two men was alone stated to be a "sin" in and of itself and the simple feeling of love were the sin - i suppose I couldn't argue with you but in the end, like i said before, i'd tell homosexuals to love all they wanted and just be aware of the consequences and just hope god forgives them because it was love - if it really were. and if it was all about lust for some - then, they're fault, and they'll get just due, like all the rest of us.

Intwesting, intwesting, intwesting. I'm glad we're having this conversation. As you may have noticed (or not), I've learned a few things here, and feel that I've corrected a few flaws here or there in my thinking. For that, I'm glad.

ditto, i'm certainly getting my brain tangled up and challenged by this, too.
___

SULLIVAN

i wanted to say that my responses were to the ideas raised by both you and Chris in general and i'm not offended or picking on you, just absorbing everything posted in general into my arguments, thoughts, etc. cuz they're good ideas and any new variables added invariably alter the final answer.

Also, I'm not so totally set in my ways that no amount of argument would convince me otherwise. I'm thinking, too. Always thinking

cool, me too, and chris, and all of us! sometimes i feel kinda sheepish though, all this blown up after a cute quiz.

I appreciate your willingness to show respect for the narrow-mindedness I might have come across as portraying, though.

well that wasn't necessarily directed at you, the "you"s I use are often general 2nd person references in hypothetical babbling. but narrow-minded or not people have valid opinions and a narrow minded person can be as right about the need for better schooling in america as the most open-minded person

s is a key point. From a modern perspective, the homosexual relationships the ancient Greeks engaged in seem quite strange. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around this idea, full as I am of the concept that sex is a sacred gift that is the physical expression of the blessed union of souls. Times have changed quite a bit from the age of Socrates and Plato.

times have indeed changed and the thing is ideas are all jumbled up and as we can see here, various people will have various ideas on things and we won't all agree on what love even is! which is why chris said not to argue it. but i say you can still argue about the consequences of love without agreeing on what it is. you can solve formulas with x in an equation and never know what it is, but determine it's relationship to y.

In an aside, I'll say that the three types of love I mentioned are not those strictly handed down from Greek thinkers.... agape ... Developmental Psychology ...

right, i've taken both philosophy and some courses in psychology and it's all jumbled up in my head too. like those three components of a love relationship that determine if it's really love, that one's psychlogy (I think) but I can't remember from who. we learned about agape, too. as for philia, the erotic component was deliberately removed because that component was a sin in the Christian/catholic doctrine. agape was deliberately defined and I can't remember but ... St. Augustine? he discusses it, i do believe, and behaved nothing like a saint and traversed all sorts of philosophical courses in order to come to ideas that have been absorbed into both catholicism and christianity. agape is more closely tied, however, to catholic doctrine. the spirit behind agape is however universal and you can see it in most religions - ie, nirvana, enlightenment, and the pearly gates which all Christians strive for which you could argue Jesus practices and IS.

But nobody needs to engage in a sexual relationship. It is not an essential part of a healthy lifestyle.

I think i agree more with Chris on this. See, some philosophers argue for a state of pure knowledge that will bring peace and good to all. Like the Vulcans. However, human nature is a feeling AND rational nature and to remove the feeling (sexual, emotional, love, sex, birth, childrearing, couplehood) is to deny humanity. Hence monks who deny themselves the outside world for a pure relationship with God. They are welcome to it but I do not agree that THIS is the ideal state for all humanity.

This does not mean it will be a positive and worthwhile growth experience for everyone; nor does it mean that it is mandatory for everyone.

That's very true. But by *nature* it is. ie, no, a serial killer should not be raising children. a wife beater should have wives. an alcholic shouldn't ... etc. Yet the GOAL is that a well rounded human experience will combine the BEST of both the feeling and rationale and this will result in positive relationships. and those who are not capable of whatever TYPES of relationships ( i say it's practically impossible for any one person to be completely incapable of at least one positive relationship with anyone) would not seek them out and are perfectly entitled to NOT have them (ie, monks). but i don't think that's at all unnatural, just what's best for them and who they are, since there is a limit to the universality of people, with everyone and environments, etc., being so individual and different.

What I'm driving at is just this: if I can be convinced that the desire and drive for sexual activity in a majority of people is motivated by something other than pleasure, I will concede the point that homosexuals have just as much natural "right" to their relationships as do the rest of us. However, as long as I remain convinced that the modern-day understanding of sexual activity by the vast majority of the population is simply "getting some"-- e.g., recieving pleasure, I will advocate sexual abstinence in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships that do not feature as their central component an authentic and honest union of souls, an understanding and acceptance of fidelity in emotionality, and an everlasting and multifaceted (not just sexual) commitment to the improvement of both parties.

ok, a step at a time. yes, the modern day understanding of sex is to "get some." that does not mean that modern day understanding is correct, or that all people or most people agree with this. yes the 90s show 30 something women on HBO indulging in all their wildest fantasies and that makes it fun, chic, and the thing to do. Teenagers see this element to modern day life and assume that's the way to go an want to do it cuz it feels good - the pleasure principle. But that's not right. That's not the reason to have sex at all, i think we all 3 agree.

But chris and i both believe in an ideal where a healthy person who is flawed but living their lives the best they can gets involved and loves someone else and (preferably) gets married, has kids, etc. now, I don't prefer sex out of marriage but recognize that people are childish, hardheaded, and don't want to wait and want to "test waters" where they should not be "testing" at all. LOVE is the element we're looking for, the fairy tale. modern day people say, pshaw to love, you'll never find it; or, pshaw to love, it doesn't exist. or, pshaw to IDEAL love, you'll never find that perfect someone so settle down with someone who's good enough and respect will grow and that's love enough. regardless, so long as there's a pact of some sort, recognized by a court of law, wedding ring, family members or not, i personally think it's ok to engage in sex so long as the reason is not pleasure alone, but love. which of course has a subjective definition but whatever that definition is, we recognize that it's beyond and above and morally more meaningful and positive than lust.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but, how do you know this for a fact? If the answer is word of mouth,

not necessarily that, sades spoke up and i've seen documentaries but no, i haven't had the pleasure of meeting such a couple personally. as for impasse - i have seen documentation on such couples existing while word of mouth "opinion" doesn't make somethign true, in your example. if mine were only word of mouth, no, that doesn't make my concept true.

So, assuming for a moment the above paragraph is true, then there really IS nothing we can do about a feeling. ...the entire karmic balance will not be further tipped by this further "infraction". ...Or, if we take what I believe to be thmillins definition: that the desire or lust is not a sin(because we can't control it), but the act is, then people should definitely refrain from the act itself, as they will 'get in less trouble', so to speak.

No, the point is not to "get into less trouble" but to try to avoid sin because it is sin. Ideally, my defnition is that we aren't looking for less punishment; we are looking to acknowledge that we deserve it either way and try to avoid it when and where we can and if we CAN'T - we should hope not to be punished for it (though we probably will anyway) and if we CAN that if we DO anyway it's our fault and a knowing trespass and we get to deal with the consequences.

Ooh, we're into cosmology now. Quick question: can a human produce a being as complex as a human? Or, let's take it down a level. Can a simple machine-- say, a Furby --produce another Furby?

well no, because we're not all powerful. if we had what our creator had then yes, we could. we were deliberately made without that power. if god had allowed us that power, then we could making beings of the same complexity, as we speak, depending on the power he gave us.

Okay, now let's take it back up: if God could create another being that was his equal, this raises two questions: A) Who created him? B) Why didn't he (create other beings as perfect as him)?

I discussed this above. But, add to that: We will never know who created him or even IF someone created him. Not for us to know, just like ants on the ground have no clue and microbes don't give a d@mn. it is simply not in our power to know, even if we wondered.

love and hormones ... i know we argued a long time ago on this site about science and god. i don't believe they're mutually exclusive. you can indeed measure many human things by science ... and also by other means. so the fact you can measure being inlove by a rise in levels of x doesn't mean that's ALL love is, is hormones.

I'm bringing into the debate one of the most timeless quandaries in modern thought: the problem of Rationality vs Emotionality. Let's not expect to solve that one in this thread.

heh, looks like i touched on it ...

PT 3 - THE END! hehe.

CHRIS

Yeah, that's the basic definition that seems to be used...though I think, quite surely, that Miriam will disagree with that. It feel sort of like a compromise is being offered to God: I'm not going to act, so don't blame me for wanting to!

yeah, i disagreed. buuut ... that's the only choice we have is a compromise, if we've got the feeling (which you say is a sin) but don't act. in my terms, that feeling (in this case of homosexuality) is not a sin, but if you LUST you've committed a sin. if that lust makes you want to commit MORE sins ... you can indeed be blamed for wanting to and will also be blamed if you DO act.

I just think it's funny that people still call me TWT.

you have so many names i like to call you by all of them and it's also about what mood my fingers are in and what they feel like typing. whew!

Not true. We are intended to be heterosexual. Our very build makes that amazingly obvious. We are, by default, IMO, heterosexual. How do I know? I don't KNOW. I do not have incontravertible evidence...nor do I claim to. You don't KNOW either.

I don't have to KNOW. You're the one claiming that homosexuality is learned and then saying that heterosexuals are that because it's amazingly obvious to be that. Children at very young ages have attractions to men or women and they have little concept of physical build or reproduction.

Well, first off, regardless of whether or not you are religious, you have to take things on Faith...every single day. I'd argue that it requires that you take more things on Faith to NOT believe in God than it does to believe in Him. I feel the same way about homosexuality: you have to make more little jumps in logic to assume that homosexuality is perfectly normal.

You can't be serious. Science is based on observation and evidence, not little jumps in faith based logic. You are branding a sexuality based on nothing but religious faith and that's hardly a way to deal with the world. Also, I'm not saying that homosexuality is perfectly normal anymore than dwarfism or blindness is perfectly normal. Homosexuality is not the norm but that still doesn't mean it's learned.

If you don't believe in God, then there is no right and wrong answer. Heck, if you don't believe in God, there is no right and wrong, period. If you don't believe in God, talking about this is all a waste of our time, because every word we use is subjective...there are no absolutes.

There are both right and wrong answers and neither of them have a thing to do with God. 5x5=25 no matter what God you pray to. Science and math are as absolute as it gets. Your religious elitism is disturbing. I don't believe in God and I'm pretty sure about what's right and wrong. Do I get a prize or somethin?

BTW, if we were to judge the religious for all the crimes they have committed against the innocents of this world it would be a hell of a long list of crimes.

Well, for one, it would not conflict. Some people have a genetic tendency towards obesity (gluttony), or towards alcohol (drunkenness). For people like that, they're going to have a harder time resisting those sins...homosexuality is no different in that respect.

There is a difference between genetic dispositions and actually having THE gene that causes homosexuality, or eye color, or hair color. The difference between your examples is that a homosexual doesn't have to engage in sex to know he's attracted to the same sex while obesity/alcoholism require a great deal of "learned" behavior. If someone never takes a drink they're not an alcoholic.

Aside from that, despite the research that's taken place, no "gay gene" has ever been found...yet people still drone on and on about being "born that way," when they really have nothing solid to base it on at this point.


In 1993, a scientist named Dean Hamer claimed to have isolated DNA markers in males that they suspected could cause homosexuality. Unfortunately, funding seems to be disappearing quickly because of pressure from political and religious groups. I wonder what they're scared of?

Have you ever asked yourself why they "drone on and on about being born that way"? Maybe cause they were? It's funny that you would say they have nothing solid to base their opinions on, other than they being gay and talking from the experience of being gay. You don't even have that to base your opinions on.

Ok, I'm going to reply to Timing's first and foremost, but it's the most blatantly incorrect.

Yeah, and you'll notice that I do think some people are born with a predisposition. It's still a choice, however. I'm born with a predisposition to stuff my face with food...I'm not going to blame anyone but myself when I do, though. Stuffing my face is still something I CHOOSE to do.

Science is based on that, but science is not, forgive the pun, an exact science. Every 100 years we can look back, and think "Boy, I can't believe we used to believe that! How absurd." Every single one of us will die believing something false that is widely accepted because of scientific experiments.

Can't be serious? Are YOU? Are you somehow implying that there's a lifestyle of guide to life that does not require faith? Balderdash, my friend. If you place all of your trust in modern science, you're putting a lot of FAITH into it, because odds alone say some of it is going to flat out wrong, and still more is going to be flawed, and thus, improved some time after your death, and therefore will lead to different conclusions.

You obviously didn't stop to think about what you were saying for very long. If there is NO God, what is right and wrong? They're opinions. There is no absolute right and wrong. Rape isn't wrong...you just probably think it is. There's no TRUE right and wrong. That's a fact...and that's what I said.

5 x 5 = 25? Prove it. You can't. Without some God, or some Being that gives things absolute truths, and absolute meanings and purposes, everything is chaos...everything is subjective, and nothing has any true meaning...we only have popular definitions, and popular opinion...nothing more. This is the most basic of logical conclusions.

Ha. The religious? What, you mean people who say they're doing God's work? If you're going to hold me accountable for a bunch of misguided Christians, then I'm going to hold you accountable for a bunch of misguided atheists. That list would be a hell of a long list of crimes, as well. The validity of a belief should not be measured mostly by whether or not some of it's followers have done horrible things...if you handled things that way, no belief would be appropriate...no belief of any kind. When you have millions (or billions, in the case of Christianity) who believe something, some of them are going to be nutbags.

It amazes me how people will just blurt something without substance out because it sounds good.

And if someone never has sex with a man, they can still be called a homosexual? Where's your line drawn? What if they hug one? Kiss one? How far does it have to go? The fact of the matter is that you, like everyone else, is clueless when it comes to genetic dispositions and what constitutes what. Yet another reason not to put all your faith in science: because we're not as smart as some people think we are. We've got a hell of a lot to learn.

Maybe they're scared that he'd find the gene. There's no need to dance around it. I'm not going to let you try and hold me accountable for other screwjobs...not unless you're willing to let me do the same to you (I don't think you'd like that).

Are you kidding me? So, when I say that there's no evidence either way, and I don't think they're born that way, I'm putting all my faith in my religion...but when they come to the opposite conclusion under the same circumstances, you have no ill words? Very consistent. Other than being gay and talking from the being gay doesn't tell you jack about what role your genes play in it. Humans can't perceive things like that about themselves so easily. Most people do not know whether they have a hot temper because of genes or upbringing for sure. That's not a notable advantage at all.

Never forget this much: you put faith in external things as much, if not more, than I do. Your faith is in man...or in science, or in yourself alone. Mine, while in many places, lies mostly in The Bible, and Jesus Christ. This world came about one way or another...and science has not been able to explain it. We simply cannot explain how something came from nothing.

Let me ask you two questions (please, just Timing here):

1) Do you believe in evolution? Macro evolution, specifically.
2) What would you think if we sent a team to Jupiter tomorrow, and found a red block made of stone, smooth and square, just sitting there? Honestly.

When I ask people who don't believe in God, what DO they believe in, they usually give me something they've created for themselves. Such as, " Oh, I believe there's a higher power, not really sure what. I think if we all live our lives as decently as possible, and try to love one another...after we die, we will be rewarded. I'm relatively a good person. Never stole, hurt anyone...Blah, blah, blah." Seems to me, it takes a whole hell of a lot more faith to believe in something that YOU are the author of, then something God himself wrote. Even if you don't believe He wrote it, it is written, no one just pulled it out of their @ss or off the top of their head. Ya know?!

Yes, exactly. I have friends who are atheists, but offline and on (Peter doesn't believe in God, but I've got no problem with him)...I get truly ticked, though, when someone like that acts as if religion is all about faith and emotion, and atheism, or some other such thing, is all about logic and science. Anyone not blinded by their own biases will see that virtually every even somewhat widespread viewpoint out there today, whether it adheres to a belief in some kind of God or not, requires faith.