Why do we respect religious beliefs?

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Jakkass wrote:

this really warrants a different topic. I can see this thread being locked if it goes further off the point.

Apologies. My post didn't make an awful lot of sense... I misworded a little fatally...

Also, if the eight or so pages regarding the semantics of one of Dawkins' statements wasn't off topic; then I don't know what is.

Actually, I'd say both are on-topic, in a sense. The general agreement is that we respect other peoples' rights to hold beliefs we don't share...

..except for some. TR doesn't believe that Dawkins is right to consider religious indoctrination as child abuse, and many of our posters don't really accept the right to hold unchallenged the belief that homosexuality is sinful, which suggests that they don't respect that belief.

So, for my money, the thread is still on track (and has been all along, even the very long circular bit), as we determine the limits within which we respect others' beliefs (and challenge those we don't respect).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sangre

Jakkass wrote:

No to both. I just genuinely can't see that they're born that way.

So you think people choose a life of persecution, discrimination and hardship just because there sexuality? Why do people commit suicide rather than face the reality of their sexuality? Or do you think its due to social factors? If its the latter than its just as uncontrollable (by the person) as genetic influences so its equally as absurd to condemn them for it.

Fallen Seraph

Scofflaw wrote:

So, for my money, the thread is still on track (and has been all along, even the very long circular bit), as we determine the limits within which we respect others' beliefs (and challenge those we don't respect).

cordially,
Scofflaw

True enough. I'd have thought it a rather holistic approach to the original topic; but indeed, still relevant. (And i'm sure there's some pun or joke to be made about a thread starting to discuss whether it is and/or was relevant to the original topic, but I'm too tired to think of it...)

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I just genuinely can't see that they're born that way.

Really?

I personally see it the other way, I'm not sure how anyone could think someone decides one day to like the same sex.

Sexual attraction seems to be instinctive. I remember getting an erection when I was about 7, well before I entered puberty, after looking at my friends mom's collection of porn magazines. None of us understood what we were looking at, or why our penises were getting large and hard. We just knew that looking at naked women was naughty. It would be years later that I actually understood sex in any meaningful way.

What was happening to myself and my friend was an instinctive reaction to stimulus. It was in our genes (no pun intended), programmed to happen.

Likewise I seem to have an instinctive repulsion to the idea of kissing another man. To me I can see no rational explanation for that. I am not choosing to be disgusted by the idea of kissing another man. I never thought to myself, yes that is disgusting, I won't do it. In fact I have no rational problem with the idea at all. But I still wouldn't do it, because some primal subconscious instinct tells me not to.

I find it far more plausible that a homosexual person is simply wired differently to me, that for what ever genetic or biological reason, their instincts are the flip side of mine.

Of course I could be wrong. There is still a lot science does not understand about the imprinting of sexual attraction during puberty. But again this is something that is largely out of the decision making process of the person effected. We don't choose our genetics and we don't choose how our brain imprints ideas during fundamental changes, such as puberty, any more than we choose to be left handed or choose to be a boobs or butt person.

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote:

No I believe you have not been impartial in this debate and you have been unfair to me, Which is unusual because you are usually an excellant moderator.

Then I would have to say in my defense that I was certainly not aware of this. If you feel that this is so, then please accept my sincerest apologies. It was not intentional and shows that I too am only human.

That said, I didn't see you warn anyone else in this debate and my offenses were less than those committed against me.

I would not usually even try to address this type of thing given the amount of hassle I have had to swallow dealing with as volatile a category as I do. The only reason I am, is because this forum has built up a fine collection of regulars, of which you are one. Experience has shown me that often in a heated debate one is blinded by passion and fails to see things from the other side, or even see the possible impact that can be inflicted on the forum as a side effect.

You have hurt my feelings. I am banning myself for a week from A&A.

Well, for that I am truly sorry, it was unintentional, and you have already received other apologies. If you really feel the need to ban yourself that is your prerogative. I will await with pleasure your return.

Zillah

Way to get graphic Wicknight

Jakkass wrote:

No to both. I just genuinely can't see that they're born that way.

Not neccessarily born, but as predisposed to it as straight people are.

Like, you can accept that men are born attracted to women, and that women are born attracted to men. Theres no rational reason for you to insist that its not possible for a man to be born attracted to men. Especially considering that virtually all gay people and scientists will relevant expertise believe that homosexuals do not choose their orientation any more than heterosexuals.

robindch

Jakkass wrote:

No to both. I just genuinely can't see that they're born that way.

So, why don't you try to find some and ask them? Perhaps there might be something interesting to learn?

There are a few gay men that post in this forum from time to time -- why don't you ask them? I'm sure they'll be happy to answer any questions you might have -- that's one of the purposes of this forum.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

Way to get graphic Wicknight

If a man cannot talk about a raging boner he got as a 7 year old, what can he talk about!

Acid_Violet

Wicknight wrote:

If a man cannot talk about a raging boner he got as a 7 year old, what can he talk about!

A raging boner he got as five year old?

robindch

robindch wrote:

So, why don't you try to find some and ask them? Perhaps there might be something interesting to learn?

There are a few gay men that post in this forum from time to time -- why don't you ask them? I'm sure they'll be happy to answer any questions you might have -- that's one of the purposes of this forum.

I think that if he thinks it's a choice, then he should go and choose it just to show us it can be a choice. When we hear that jakkass is in a happy relationship with another boy, then we'll see

philologos

bluewolf wrote:

I think that if he thinks it's a choice, then he should go and choose it just to show us it can be a choice. When we hear that jakkass is in a happy relationship with another boy, then we'll see

Very funny but no I'm not considering it. Hate to bring your hopes down bluewolf.
Although if this is the only issue you had with that whole post, I'm doing very very well infact

Fallen Seraph

Jakkass wrote:

Very funny but no I'm not considering it. Hate to bring your hopes down bluewolf.
Although if this is the only issue you had with that whole post, I'm doing very very well infact

Jakkass wrote:

Although I would say don't knock it before you've tried it.

You wish for people to lay off criticising your lifestyle until they've given it a shot, but aren't willing to extend either the same courtesy or, at the very least, open-mindedness to others?

I can understand your concern with willingly committing a sin, but why, then, not try to become sexually attracted to a random object? say a guitar? Surely if one can just will themselves attracted to men, then they can do with anything else?

Sangre

Acid_Violet wrote:

A raging boner he got as five year old?

A raging boner he got from a five year old.....

Asiaprod

Sangre wrote:

A raging boner he got from a five year old.....

Thats a secret, how did you know?

philologos

Fallen Seraph wrote:

I can understand your concern with willingly committing a sin, but why, then, not try to become sexually attracted to a random object? say a guitar? Surely if one can just will themselves attracted to men, then they can do with anything else?

Why not? Because it's totally impossible to become sexually attracted to a guitar. This is really reaching a new level if you are asking me to become sexually attracted to something that isn't even human.

Sangre

I think you're missing his point. If you can choose to become attracted to a man (which is unnatural and against God's law) then why can't I choose to become attracted to a tree or a monkey or a guitar? Why is it impossible if people can choose seuxal attraction that is unnatural?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Why not? Because it's totally impossible to become sexually attracted to a guitar.

Actually its not.

There are philia or fetishes that fall under the blanket term "Paraphilia", where a person is aroused by non-human objects, such as clothes.

If one assumes that non-standard philia such as homosexuality is a choice, then it stands to reason that these would also be considered a choice

Again would the fact that you cannot even imagine choosing this as a sexual philia not suggest to you that it isn't actually a choice in the first place?

Fallen Seraph

Jakkass wrote:

Why not? Because it's totally impossible to become sexually attracted to a guitar. This is really reaching a new level if you are asking me to become sexually attracted to something that isn't even human.

True enough; I did perhaps phrase it a little sillily.

But my point remains the same. I really don't understand the distinction you're making? If one can just choose to attracted to the opposite sex, why not choose to attracted to a guitar or a carrot? I mean, being attracted to a carrot would save no end of money on contraceptives and brothels...

What do you think people's motivations are for choosing to be gay? It certainly isn't being unable to get a sexual partner of the opposite sex; I can list off a bunch of well known homosexuals who would have women throwing themselves at them were they straight. Why would you choose a sexual preference that has had such a level of persecution throughout history if you can just be straight?

philologos

Sangre wrote:

I think you're missing his point. If you can choose to become attracted to a man (which is unnatural and against God's law) then why can't I choose to become attracted to a tree or a monkey or a guitar? Why is it impossible if people can choose seuxal attraction that is unnatural?

I've already emphasised that a man can choose to become attracted to another man. However God's law requires that men abstain from sexual relations with eachother. As long as they abstain from it, it is all grand. Being attracted to a monkey is also alright as long as you abstain from sexual relations with it. Beastality is also condemned under God's law. I don't think theres anything wrong with being attracted to a guitar, it's a bit wierd, but thats all it is.

bonkey

Jakkass wrote:

I've already emphasised that a man can choose to become attracted to another man.

Do you mean that a man can choose to become attracted to a specific male individual, or can choose males as the general "area" of attraction?

I ask because the way you phrase things makes it sound like the former, but I see a problem with that.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I've already emphasised that a man can choose to become attracted to another man. However God's law requires that men abstain from sexual relations with eachother. As long as they abstain from it, it is all grand.

But why would someone choose to become attracted to something and then choose to abstain from that attraction?

Surely they would just choose to be attracted to something Christianity does approve of (young virginal girls for example), rather than choosing to live your life attracted to something you also choose to deny yourself.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Acid_Violet

Asiaprod wrote:

Thats a secret, how did you know?

He was that five year old......

Zombrex

Acid_Violet wrote:

He was that five year old......

:eek:

Acid_Violet

^My my, how this has very much gone off topic! Change subject!

*topic zooms back to homophobia and reasons for it*

Zillah

Rather than type a new response, I'll just copy and paste the old one...

Jackass wrote:

No to both. I just genuinely can't see that they're born that way.

Not neccessarily born, but as predisposed to it as straight people are.

Like, you can accept that men are born attracted to women, and that women are born attracted to men. Theres no rational reason for you to insist that its not possible for a man to be born attracted to men. Especially considering that virtually all gay people and scientists will relevant expertise believe that homosexuals do not choose their orientation any more than heterosexuals.


Although I'll add a small realisation I had earlier. The reason you can't accept this is not because it is untrue, but because it would make your God either wicked or inconsistent, which is of course unacceptable to you, so you'll perform whatever improbable internal gymnastic you need to.

PDN

Zillah wrote:

Although I'll add a small realisation I had earlier. The reason you can't accept this is not because it is untrue, but because it would make your God either wicked or inconsistent, which is of course unacceptable to you, so you'll perform whatever improbable internal gymnastic you need to.

More of an illusion than a realisation. The fact that certain people may be predisposed to be attracted to the same sex does not, in my opinion, necessitate either wickedness or inconsistency on the part of God.

Zillah

You wouldn't consider it wicked to create a being to be attracted to the same sex, and then state that acting upon that attraction is "abomination" and will result in eternal suffering?

So they get Hell or an unfulfilling life full of frustration.

I'd consider that wicked. I'd consider that unforgivably torturous.

philologos

Who said God creates people with the intention of being attracted to the same sex? This is what I have an issue with. I don't think that He does, well thats obvious since I pointed out that. The point is, if you were willing to love God with the fullness of your heart "Love the Lord with all your heart, soul and might" you'd have very little issue with it.

I have to say though, I'm glad that this is the only part of the post that you all disagreed with or challenged

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

You wouldn't consider it wicked to create a being to be attracted to the same sex, and then state that acting upon that attraction is "abomination" and will result in eternal suffering?

So they get Hell or an unfulfilling life full of frustration.

I'd consider that wicked. I'd consider that unforgivably torturous.

You'd have to bear in mind that we all get a different life, so there's no way that we are all passing quite the same test. Assuming God is perfect, He would be able to directly compare the 'performance' of individuals, whatever the lives they lead.

Indeed, it's possible that homosexuals, far from being given a bigger burden to carry, are actually being given an easy, directly prohibited, sin to fight...

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Zillah wrote:

You wouldn't consider it wicked to create a being to be attracted to the same sex, and then state that acting upon that attraction is "abomination" and will result in eternal suffering?

So they get Hell or an unfulfilling life full of frustration.

I'd consider that wicked. I'd consider that unforgivably torturous.

Firstly, I had adopted your idea of some people being predisposed toward homosexuality rather than created as such. The old nature versus nurture argument can be replayed here if desired.

We all have attractions to things that are not attainable for one reason or another. I was an alcoholic for several years. I still get cravings for alcohol. I could complain about how that condemns me to an unfulfilling life of frustration, but instead I get on with life and find fulfillment elsewhere. If I chose to get drunk then that would my fault, not God's, even though I have been informed that my family history & my upbringing make me more predisposed than others to alcoholism.

A friend of mine is a woman with fairly severe facial deformities. She would love to find a boyfriend & get married but knows that this is unlikely. However, she does not see God as being wicked because of this.

Another friend of mine longs to have children, but is medically unable to do so. She sees adoption as a poor second-best. God created her with maternal desires, but for one reason or another those desires cannot be fulfilled.

Recently I counselled a paedophile who has intense sexual attraction towards children. He knows that part of being a Christian, indeed part of being a member of society, is to live without fulfilling those desires.

All of us live with desires and inclinations that we know will produce problems if we indulge them. We just don't all try to blame God when we give in to our impulses.