Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

wolfsbane

Nodin wrote: »

So the story goes. Thats a presumption on your part.



A series of presumptions and biased samples, none of which stand up to scrutiny.

The 'story' is the Bible. I believe it, as you should expect of a Christian. No presumption need.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

I've already said that the harmful aspects of homosexual behaviour is not the basis of my objection. My objection is that it is immoral - opposed to God's law.

You haven't really addressed our points regarding the harm/benefit balance of homosexuality though. We're trying to set aside the scripture element here. You haven't attempted to justify your labelling of homosexual acts as immoral in terms that exclude scripture.

Are you honestly saying you'd suppress all and any reason in favour of God's law? If that law demanded murder or rape of you, would you suppress your own reason-based (or emotion-based) objections in favour of God's Word?

What do the rest of you think?

wolfsbane

DeVore said:

I really dont think you want to ask me questions like that hahaha, you'll end up with a book!

I'm not going to put my God in a neat box for you, I barely know enough about him myself and I certainly lack the talent to tell you about it, I'm still very much working it out.

But you have things backwards. *whatever* created everything, thats my God. I dont believe in a meddlesome, mischievous God would interacts with us on a daily basis.

So this god you have is not actually revealed anywhere, but someone you assemble bit by bit according to your interpretation of what a god should look like?

As a source of "morality" the bible is a joke. A bad joke played on us by people who intended well and were simply abused and manipulated by people with their own agendas.

Your opinion of God's word is not uncommon. But the issue is whether it is your morality or the Bible's that is true. If your's, then the Bible is a joke. If the Bible's, then you are heading for eternity in hell. You should give the matter some deeper thought, as the consequences of being wrong are so awful.

I am much more likely to look to my moral compass for my morality and temper that with humanity and read books by the likes of Carl Yung and Russell.

Have you found out if the spirits you speak to are a part of your psyche or actual entities? You think Jung is a safe guide?

I have also read the bible and took quite a bit from it too. Unfortunately I took the bits that rarely get promoted by the hardline right, you know the "love your neighbour as yourself" and "do onto others" etc.

That's the danger of being your own god - you pick and choose what you approve. I seek to embrace all God's truth - the commandments are summed up in this:
Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Though it occurs to me that those two quotes are somewhat dodgy in a topic about homosexuality.

Why so? We are to love sinners and seek to turn them from their evil ways. If we did not love them we would keep silent and let them go to hell without a warning.

I find it breathtaking that people are capable of the arrogance of saying ... "I'm so much more awesome at understanding God then you are, let me explain it to you". Those people need to get a good hard grip on themselves and the rest of us need to walk away from Mac-Religion and work it out for ourselves.
Most of the people who want to "explain" the bible to us, want to do so to further their specific agendas. As in this thread.

That would apply to all here the, as we seek to enlighten others to what we believe to be true. You are doing it right now, you did not leave us to work it out for ourselves.

But maybe you mean that it is only those who believe the Bible who are in error? They are twisting the truth, but you are being honest?

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:


God did not make gay frogs, just as he did not make gay humans. Homosexuality came as a consequence of mans' Fall. The animal world too became subject to corruption - nature red in tooth and claw.



I was quoting it for the references to the scientific facts about animal sexual behaviour. If you can give the references to material that shows animals form homosexual relationships in preference to heterosexual ones, I'd be glad to read them.

I'm glad I could help:D

Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them

Regarding Elephants...

African, as well as Asiatic males will engage in same-sex bonding and mounting. Such encounters are often associated with affectionate interactions, such as kissing, trunk intertwining, and placing trunks in each other's mouths. The encounters are analogous to heterosexual bouts, one male often extending his trunk along the other's back and pushing forward with his tusks to signify his intention to mount. Unlike heterosexual relations, which are always of a fleeting nature, those between males result in a "companionship", consisting of an older individual and one or two younger, attendant males. Same-sex relations are common and frequent in both sexes, with Asiatic elephants in captivity devoting roughly 45% of sexual encounters to same-sex activity

wolfsbane

Nodin said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The Christian objection is based on God's moral system, which you reject.
'Some christians object based on their reading of what they suppose to be Gods moral system' would be closer to the truth. Given the notorious lack of agreement on what that is amongst believers, let alone everyone else, I wouldn't be getting too het up on it as a basis for a system.

There are matters in the Bible that are not as clear as others, and Christians differ on them. But homosexuality is not one. No honest exegete can come to a different conclusion on this matter. They may not like or agree with it, but they will acknowledge that is what the Bible says.

AtomicHorror

Put scripture aside and answer the question. In a world without God, would you consider homosexual acts to be immoral?

elekid

wolfsbane wrote: »

Anal sex is very unsanitary, as is the foreplay involved, and exposes them to faeces-borne disease and loosing/rupture of the anal passage; homosexuality often involves multiple partners and the associated STD risk that goes with that.

But as I said, my objection is not based on it being 'harmful', but on it being immoral.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christians do not hate homosexuals, rather they seek ot save them from their sin. Many homosexuals however do seem to be violently opposed to Christians.

I normally give threads like this a wide berth but I had to comment:

Are you really surprised that so many homosexuals are violently opposed to Christians given how utterly ignorant and offensive your above post is? Do most Christians really agree with the extreme views being expressed in this thread? I sincerely hope not..

Either way reading this thread has made me feel very proud to be an "immoral sinner"

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The consequences of that state were decided by God.

So God did physically make gay frogs, gay sheep and gay humans.

I'm not asking why he did it Wolfsbane (yet at least). It is enough to accept that it was him who did it. God change the state of the universe from one state to another state. And in the second state he physically created animals who were physically homosexually.

wolfsbane wrote: »

He created a perfect universe - that's what He wanted to exist. You might mean why did He create that perfect universe knowing it would fall - the answer is He doesn't say.

That isn't the question.

The question is why did God decide that the state of the universe he would create after the Fall would contain gay animals, including humans?

I'm not talking about behavior, that we can control, I'm talking about physical, material, reality. There are animals that are physically identifiable as homosexual based on their physically genetic make up.

Why? Why decide that the universe after the Fall would contain these things?

Is it a punishment for us? To see two gay elephants getting it on?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I was quoting it for the references to the scientific facts about animal sexual behaviour.

There were no scientific facts in that fluff piece.

For example

"Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts"

Not only is that wrong, it is biologically nonsense, displaying a complete lack of understanding of what "instincts" actually are in biology. Instincts are a genetic disposition to a certain behavior, in laymans terms inherited behavior. In a number of animals where homosexuality has been observed it has been demonstrated that the behavior is genetic (you can turn it on and off by manipulating genes). It is therefore the very definition of instinct

You HAVE to stop quoting from these nonsense websites Wolfsbane, it just is beyond ridiculous at this stage.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If you can give the references to material that shows animals form homosexual relationships in preference to heterosexual ones, I'd be glad to read them.

I seriously doubt that, but anyway

http://www.livescience.com/animals/071209-fly-genes.html

Interesting mention of a study that found that homosexual men and heterosexual men have different physically reactions to smell. Bit funny if homosexuality in humans is just a sinful behavior, would it not?

Why would God, if he despises homosexuality so much, physically create homosexuals after the Fall?

wolfsbane

studiorat said:

I'm glad I could help


Quote:
Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them

Regarding Elephants...

Quote:
African, as well as Asiatic males will engage in same-sex bonding and mounting. Such encounters are often associated with affectionate interactions, such as kissing, trunk intertwining, and placing trunks in each other's mouths. The encounters are analogous to heterosexual bouts, one male often extending his trunk along the other's back and pushing forward with his tusks to signify his intention to mount. Unlike heterosexual relations, which are always of a fleeting nature, those between males result in a "companionship", consisting of an older individual and one or two younger, attendant males. Same-sex relations are common and frequent in both sexes, with Asiatic elephants in captivity devoting roughly 45% of sexual encounters to same-sex activity

Thanks for that. Do you have any quotes from non-homosexual authors?

And did you read the article I referenced that dealt with animal sexual behaviour?
The Animal Homosexuality Mythhttp://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

wolfsbane

You haven't really addressed our points regarding the harm/benefit balance of homosexuality though. We're trying to set aside the scripture element here. You haven't attempted to justify your labelling of homosexual acts as immoral in terms that exclude scripture.

Put scripture aside and answer the question. In a world without God, would you consider homosexual acts to be immoral?

You must have missed my post in response to Wicknight - #30:

An interesting question here for the Christians is how many of you object to homosexual relationships independently on your position that God says it is wrong. If God had never said anything about homosexuality would you think it is immoral anyway?

Hmm. Interesting question. I haven't thought about it before. Off the top of my head I would say, No. But that would apply to unmarried sex, polygamy, incest, bestiality and paedophilia too, where consent was involved.

Are you honestly saying you'd suppress all and any reason in favour of God's law? If that law demanded murder or rape of you, would you suppress your own reason-based (or emotion-based) objections in favour of God's Word?

That's another matter. A bit like God telling me He is not holy.

If I can leave God out of it and ask if I find murder and rape naturally abhorrent, then I think No. Or no more than killing a cow for food. That would strike one as being in some way significant and fearful, as one sees the animal die - yet we accept it is moral.

Without God's law telling us that murder of our neighbour is wicked, would we really make any difference between satisfying our need in the cow's death and satisfying our need (revenge/cover-up/whatever) in our neighbour's death?

Man naturally recognises murder and rape as evil, not because it is self-evident, but because our conscience is informed by God.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The consequences of that state were decided by God.

So God did physically make gay frogs, gay sheep and gay humans.

I'm not asking why he did it Wolfsbane (yet at least). It is enough to accept that it was him who did it. God change the state of the universe from one state to another state. And in the second state he physically created animals who were physically homosexually.

You mistake natural procreation for direct creation. God created man and animal during the 6 days of Genesis 1; they have procreated since.

The question is why did God decide that the state of the universe he would create after the Fall would contain gay animals, including humans?

No creation, as above.

I'm not talking about behavior, that we can control, I'm talking about physical, material, reality. There are animals that are physically identifiable as homosexual based on their physically genetic make up.

I can't comment on the genetics, other than say the debate about this is still on.

Why? Why decide that the universe after the Fall would contain these things?

Is it a punishment for us? To see two gay elephants getting it on?

God did not create physical homosexuals - but it is certainly true that He gave men and women over to homosexuality as a consequence of their other sin:
Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I was quoting it for the references to the scientific facts about animal sexual behaviour.
There were no scientific facts in that fluff piece.

For example

"Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts"

Not only is that wrong, it is biologically nonsense, displaying a complete lack of understanding of what "instincts" actually are in biology. Instincts are a genetic disposition to a certain behavior, in laymans terms inherited behavior. In a number of animals where homosexuality has been observed it has been demonstrated that the behavior is genetic (you can turn it on and off by manipulating genes). It is therefore the very definition of instinct

You HAVE to stop quoting from these nonsense websites Wolfsbane, it just is beyond ridiculous at this stage.

As I said above, the debate is on - you cannot claim victory while the otherside is still playing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If you can give the references to material that shows animals form homosexual relationships in preference to heterosexual ones, I'd be glad to read them.
I seriously doubt that, but anyway

http://www.livescience.com/animals/0...fly-genes.html

Very interesting. I notice they conclude that homosexuality is not 'hard-wired'.

Interesting mention of a study that found that homosexual men and heterosexual men have different physically reactions to smell. Bit funny if homosexuality in humans is just a sinful behavior, would it not?

Are these learned reactions or natural reactions? I once detested yoghut, and an offer of it would no doubt have generated an adverse chemical reaction in my body. But I persevered, and now love the stuff. An offer now would make me lick my lips, and have a quite different chemical reaction than before.

Why would God, if he despises homosexuality so much, physically create homosexuals after the Fall?

He didn't - He just gave sinners over to degrading acts as punishment for their idolatry. There may be several reasons why a person becomes homosexual, but I have often observed that pride is one of them.

wolfsbane

elekid said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Anal sex is very unsanitary, as is the foreplay involved, and exposes them to faeces-borne disease and loosing/rupture of the anal passage; homosexuality often involves multiple partners and the associated STD risk that goes with that.

But as I said, my objection is not based on it being 'harmful', but on it being immoral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Christians do not hate homosexuals, rather they seek ot save them from their sin. Many homosexuals however do seem to be violently opposed to Christians.
I normally give threads like this a wide berth but I had to comment:

Are you really surprised that so many homosexuals are violently opposed to Christians given how utterly ignorant and offensive your above post is?

Should I be violently opposed to atheists because they think God is a myth and I'm deluded in believing in Him? Or their condemnation of my belief about wives being in submission to their husbands?

No, I respect the atheist's right to believe what he wants. I respect the fornicator's right to sleep around. I respect the homosexual's right to practice it. It is only when anyone impinges on other's rights that I ask for punitive action by the State.

Do most Christians really agree with the extreme views being expressed in this thread? I sincerely hope not..

My views on homosexuality are the historic Christian ones. But I too will be glad to hear what any who call themselves Christian say, preferably defending it from Scripture.

Either way reading this thread has made me feel very proud to be an "immoral sinner"

'Pride goes before a fall'.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

studiorat said:

Thanks for that. Do you have any quotes from non-homosexual authors?

And did you read the article I referenced that dealt with animal sexual behaviour?
The Animal Homosexuality Mythhttp://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

I don't know the sexual orientation of the author.
The Wiki-article goes back to a study done by the university of Oslo in 1996. You're telling me the zoology dept of the university is queer?

Or is this just out-pourings from off the top of your head eh? So if you are going to state the authors are gay, why don't you let us all know how you come by this information.

And then you link to Charles Socarides site! Who's obituary in the New York Times was so flattering?

"Socarides outlived his time. He became a kind of anachronism, and a tragic one in the sense that he continued to inflict suffering on the lives of some gay and lesbian individuals and the L.G.B.T. community in general."

A man who read Freud at the age of 13 and decided to become a shrink? He graduated in 1952 and would seem he didn't open another book since...
Interestingly enough he didn't believe homo-sexuality was immoral.

And just one more quote from the NY Times...

Dr. Charles W. Socarides, a well-known psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who maintained publicly, long after it was considered scientifically acceptable to do so...

Nodin

wolfsbane wrote: »

The 'story' is the Bible. I believe it, as you should expect of a Christian. No presumption need.
.

Reality begs to differ. If you want to discuss it, start a thread entitled "Did God Give the Bible to Israel as so described?".

wolfsbane wrote: »

There are matters in the Bible that are not as clear as others, and Christians differ on them. But homosexuality is not one. No honest exegete can come to a different conclusion on this matter. They may not like or agree with it, but they will acknowledge that is what the Bible says.

Well, theres a number of Protestant churches that would disagree with that and your assesment of their honesty. The whole book is open to a number of readings.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for that. Do you have any quotes from non-homosexual authors?
.

Dear o dear.....'Gay' activity in the animal world is well catalogued. A quick websearch on the subject could show you that. If you're going to dismiss the source, you also have to dismiss the data.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Man naturally recognises murder and rape as evil, not because it is self-evident, but because our conscience is informed by God..

Theres is no comparison between murder, rape, and homosexuality. Other invalid comparisons included paedophillia, bestiality and incest with the family.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

You must have missed my post in response to Wicknight - #30:
Hmm. Interesting question. I haven't thought about it before. Off the top of my head I would say, No. But that would apply to unmarried sex, polygamy, incest, bestiality and paedophilia too, where consent was involved.

Putting aside unmarried sex and informed polygamy, how does homosexuality compare to incest, bestiality or paedophilia? All of these things result in significant harm which outweighs benefits. Bestiality and child abuse both involve a non-morally responsible party, further compounding the significance of that harm.

There is no harm done with homosexuality. All you've been able to point to are some "risks" that don't apply in most cases, or in the case of female homosexuals, at all.

The only difference between married sex and monogamous unmarried sex is a ceremony and some promises that are broken in a significant percentage of cases. You would block attempts to create an analogous institution for homosexuals so it's not as if they even have that avenue open to them.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Without God's law telling us that murder of our neighbour is wicked, would we really make any difference between satisfying our need in the cow's death and satisfying our need (revenge/cover-up/whatever) in our neighbour's death?

You've said stuff like this before and it scares the crap out of me I have to say. Wolfie, if your own morals alone are insufficient to prevent you from killing another human then what's the point? Are you really being held in check by text in a book? Aren't you supposed to feel the truth of God's word? Can you honestly say that you are "saved" if you merely follow the teachings of Christ so you can go to heaven? I sincerely hope you never lose your faith, because it sounds like you might actually be dangerous.

I'll answer your question from my point of view. I think the word of God was made up by some people I've never met. But never in my life have I felt the desire to commit murder and never will I. We can point to all sorts of reasons for that. Maybe society, law, guilt, fear or countless other things, but salvation and damnation don't come into it. Neither do the authority of God.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Man naturally recognises murder and rape as evil, not because it is self-evident, but because our conscience is informed by God.

We don't need God to explain why people disagree with murder and rape. There are no gaps in that theory that need to be plugged with supernatural influence, no mysteries.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

You mistake natural procreation for direct creation. God created man and animal during the 6 days of Genesis 1; they have procreated since.


No creation, as above.

Yes but god also created the method with which we procreated, the impulses to do so and everything else to do with our nature and every creatures nature. Once the fall came, god then had to decide our punishment, and he even created the ways for our punishment to hurt us, you quote below, Romans 1:24, is a direct reference to this. Thus god created homosexuality.

wolfsbane wrote:

I can't comment on the genetics, other than say the debate about this is still on.

People disagreeing with things they don't like with no actual evidence is not a debate. Is it still a debate if the person you are talking to suddenly puts his fingers in his ears and says "La la la la la, I'm not listening"

wolfsbane wrote:

God did not create physical homosexuals - but it is certainly true that He gave men and women over to homosexuality as a consequence of their other sin:
Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

wolfsbane wrote:

He didn't - He just gave sinners over to degrading acts as punishment for their idolatry. There may be several reasons why a person becomes homosexual, but I have often observed that pride is one of them.

Odd that god punishes a select people with acts that they enjoy.

wolfsbane wrote:

Are these learned reactions or natural reactions? I once detested yoghut, and an offer of it would no doubt have generated an adverse chemical reaction in my body. But I persevered, and now love the stuff. An offer now would make me lick my lips, and have a quite different chemical reaction than before.

Are you any more or less moral for liking now what you detested before?

wolfsbane wrote:

Without God's law telling us that murder of our neighbour is wicked, would we really make any difference between satisfying our need in the cow's death and satisfying our need (revenge/cover-up/whatever) in our neighbour's death?

Just a thought on this bit: do you think you can fool God? You are admitting that you are only refraining from murder to get into heaven, not because you actually agree with the sentiment, but because there is a reward you get from doing it. Do you not think god will see straight through this poorly veiled deception?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

You mistake natural procreation for direct creation. God created man and animal during the 6 days of Genesis 1; they have procreated since.

Yes but at the moment of The Fall someone must have changed the physical nature of reality (and I think we have established that this someone must have been God) so that before The Fall we didn't physically have homosexuality as a possible physical state of an animal and after The Fall we did (and death, cancer, small pox etc etc)

So you have a heterosexual frog a moment before the Fall, The Fall happens, someone (God) supernaturally changed the heterosexual frog into a homosexual frog (or into a frog that will could birth to a homosexual frog).

That is creating homosexual frogs (and sheep, and dolphins and humans)

wolfsbane wrote: »

God did not create physical homosexuals

Who did then? Satan? Adam? Someone must have.

wolfsbane wrote: »

- but it is certainly true that He gave men and women over to homosexuality as a consequence of their other sin:

Ok so doesn't that mean God decided to physically create homosexuality (as I said). It did not physically exist before hand, correct? Then it did.

I'm having a bit of a Spinal Tap moment here Wolfsbane (these go all the way to 11!) because you keep skirting around what sentences you posted above actually mean in a tangible sense.

He decided that at The Fall he would rearrange the genetic patterns of life to create animals of various different species who are wired different, who have either a homosexual instinct or a predisposition to homosexuality. Correct? Isn't that "giving over humans to homosexuality" They weren't and couldn't be, homosexual before correct (if they could then that raises the question of why God created homosexuality in the first place even before The Fall)

Homosexuality is after all simply the swapping of sexual attraction. Heterosexuals have instincts to the opposite sex, in a homosexual this instinct gets swapped over. A homosexual man develops the sexual instincts of a heterosexual woman (bit more complicated than that, but that is basically it). Most sexual species after all share common DNA, DNA that produces different phenotypes in different gender based on a master switch.

So again God created homosexuality.

There is no other way based on Biblical history of life on Earth to explain where it came from is there?

It didn't physically exist before the Fall, it did physically exist after the Fall, so where did it come from if God didn't create it?

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I said above, the debate is on - you cannot claim victory while the otherside is still playing.

"The debate" .... please point out to me where there is a serious debate about what instinct is?

It isn't that is piece has picked a side. They are just idiots. They said something that was not only incorrect but simply stupid. It isn't a matter of debate. Instinct is not "normal behavior". Instinct is a genetic predisposition to certain behavior. There is no debate over that, that is just what instinct is.

Its like someone claiming Christians believe Jesus was a Japanise space man who lived 4 million years ago. There is no debate over that, its just wrong. Just because someone said that doesn't mean there is a debate taking place. The internet if full of idiots after all.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Very interesting. I notice they conclude that homosexuality is not 'hard-wired'.

Yes, though possibly you don't understand what they mean by that.

You can physically flip homosexuality in fruit flies. Which means it is not a mental process. The fruit fly isn't choosing to be gay because his mother was too over bearing. He is physically gay, and through physical manipulation you can make him physically straight.

Homosexuality (at least in fruit flies) is a physical manifestation, a physically thing, in the same way large eyes or hair is.

So again, at the moment of the Fall someone (God) decided to physically create homosexuality in animals.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Are these learned reactions or natural reactions?

Well learned reactions are natural reactions, but I presume you mean are these reactions that a person could have taught themselves to have based on forcing themselves to be gay until they got used to it, then highly unlikely (one of the differences concerned the physical structure of the inside of your nose and how it response to smell)

wolfsbane wrote: »

He didn't - He just gave sinners over to degrading acts as punishment for their idolatry.

You really do think like someone living 2000 years ago don't you (I'm sure you will take that as a complement )

If God just gave sinners over to degrading acts then that means that homosexuality physically existed before the Fall, and God just let people go off and be gay.

Which means homosexuality was created by God when he created humans. Which doesn't make sense if homosexuality is detested by God and humans were supposed to be created "perfect"

So, I think we both agree, that isn't an option. So God didn't just give sinners (Adam and Eve) over to degrading acts they already wanted to do.

So at the moment of the Fall God must have created homosexuality, must have created the physical structures that produce homosexuality in frogs, sheep, humans etc, and then gave them over to it.

Either way you have God introducing the physical aspects of homosexuality into a world that didn't have them before hand.

You can keep saying that this isn't what happened, but you are providing no explanation for where the physical aspects of homosexuality actually came from.

wolfsbane wrote: »

There may be several reasons why a person becomes homosexual, but I have often observed that pride is one of them.

And gay fruit flies? Is that "pride" as well?

wolfsbane

studiorat said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

Thanks for that. Do you have any quotes from non-homosexual authors?

And did you read the article I referenced that dealt with animal sexual behaviour?
The Animal Homosexuality Mythhttp://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html
I don't know the sexual orientation of the author.
The Wiki-article goes back to a study done by the university of Oslo in 1996. You're telling me the zoology dept of the university is queer?

Or is this just out-pourings from off the top of your head eh? So if you are going to state the authors are gay, why don't you let us all know how you come by this information.

I'm telling you the author of the article you posted, Bruce Bagemihl, was gay:
Bruce Bagemihlhttp://www.nndb.com/people/033/000044898/

And then you link to Charles Socarides site! Who's obituary in the New York Times was so flattering?


Quote:
"Socarides outlived his time. He became a kind of anachronism, and a tragic one in the sense that he continued to inflict suffering on the lives of some gay and lesbian individuals and the L.G.B.T. community in general."

So any opinion of the obit writer of the NY Times is ipso facto impartial and truthful?

A man who read Freud at the age of 13 and decided to become a shrink? He graduated in 1952 and would seem he didn't open another book since...
Interestingly enough he didn't believe homo-sexuality was immoral.

I'm happy to use non-Christian sources to support my arguments. It's the facts that count.

And just one more quote from the NY Times...


Quote:
Dr. Charles W. Socarides, a well-known psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who maintained publicly, long after it was considered scientifically acceptable to do so...

The heretic! Imagine, challenging the Magisterium. He should have been burnt at the stake - or at least struck off the register. :pac:

--amadeus--

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight There may be several reasons why a person becomes homosexual, but I have often observed that pride is one of them.

How many homosexuals did you survey to come up with this little nugget?

Being openly gay is still to place yourself at the risk of discrimination (both legal and social) and marks you out as a potential victim of hate crimes. How on earth could pride (of all things) make you want to do that? The mind really boggles.

And I note you ignored the post about biblical approval of gays, so I'l give one specific example you might ponder.

Ruth 1:14, in modern translations the word dabaq is translated as clung or cleaved. Interestingly the same word is used in Genesis 2:24 where it refers specifically to teh sexual union of Adam and Eve.

UU

Oh please not this topic again!!! I always end up repeating myself but anyway...

Well as a homosexual man I think that I can rightfully offer a better opinion on my sexuality than anyone else can and no I'm not being superioristic but people end up making silly outlandish statements about something they really have no clue about! Firstly, it is not a choice! Why on earth would you choose to be gay? (considering the absolute crap you have to put up with!!!) You cannot choose who you are sexually attracted to. You can only choose who you have sex with.

As religion, in this case Christianity, is concerned, the issue of homosexuality is not the most clear because what was said about it is mainly featured in the Old Testament where the most clear statement said against it is in Leviticus but who on earth who follow Leviticus? It also says in that very same book that you can kill disobedient children, it is an abomination to wear fabric made from two different material,s to eat shellfish and to plant two on the same crops in the same field! Besides it actually only mentions gay man or more accurately sodomites. That means gay men who are anal virgins and lesbians are excluded!

In the New Testament, Jesus doesn't even say a word on the issue! He mentions prostitutes but homosexuals and prostitutes are not synonymous nouns! Besides, if homosexuality is so wrong then how come it occurs in hundreds of different species not just humans? Also what about bisexuals are they half sinning considering they're only half gay? Also nobody knows what God thinks! Even though I'm an atheist if still poses a question.

As a gay person I think discrimination is wrong as is any form of it. What is also wrong is how certain people seem to think gay relationships are their business. If two contending adults choose to be with each that is their choice and not your place to judge. Gay, lesbian and bisexuals will get our rights in this country and we will continue to fight against the discrimination and unequal laws that face us.

AtomicHorror

UU wrote: »

Oh please not this topic again!!! I always end up repeating myself but anyway...

Well as a homosexual man I think that I can rightfully offer a better opinion on my sexuality than anyone else can and no I'm not being superioristic but people end up making silly outlandish statements about something they really have no clue about! Firstly, it is not a choice! Why on earth would you choose to be gay? (considering the absolute crap you have to put up with!!!) You cannot choose who you are sexually attracted to. You can only choose who you have sex with.

As religion, in this case Christianity, is concerned, the issue of homosexuality is not the most clear because what was said about it is mainly featured in the Old Testament where the most clear statement said against it is in Leviticus but who on earth who follow Leviticus? It also says in that very same book that you can kill disobedient children, it is an abomination to wear fabric made from two different material,s to eat shellfish and to plant two on the same crops in the same field! Besides it actually only mentions gay man or more accurately sodomites. That means gay men who are anal virgins and lesbians are excluded!

In the New Testament, Jesus doesn't even say a word on the issue! He mentions prostitutes but homosexuals and prostitutes are not synonymous nouns! Besides, if homosexuality is so wrong then how come it occurs in hundreds of different species not just humans? Also what about bisexuals are they half sinning considering they're only half gay? Also nobody knows what God thinks! Even though I'm an atheist if still poses a question.

As a gay person I think discrimination is wrong as is any form of it. What is also wrong is how certain people seem to think gay relationships are their business. If two contending adults choose to be with each that is their choice and not your place to judge. Gay, lesbian and bisexuals will get our rights in this country and we will continue to fight against the discrimination and unequal laws that face us.

Firstly, let me say good on you for having the courage to be yourself despite the vile crap that I'm sure must be intermittently directed at you. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone that your desires could never be a choice. Your open stand on this is though, and a commendable one too.

The thing that always gets me is the blanket anti-gay thing. As you say, only "sodomites" are specifically mentioned. So are we to assume that lesbianism is okay? Should there be lesbian marriage under God? Their lifestyle certainly doesn't include any of the "harm" cited by Wolfsbane. I suspect the gaps between the definite parts of scripture are being rather conveniently filled with whatever people wanted to believe in the first place.

UU

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Firstly, let me say good on you for having the courage to be yourself despite the vile crap that I'm sure must be intermittently directed at you. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone that your desires could never be a choice. Your open stand on this is though, and a commendable one too.

The thing that always gets me is the blanket anti-gay thing. As you say, only "sodomites" are specifically mentioned. So are we to assume that lesbianism is okay? Should there be lesbian marriage under God? Their lifestyle certainly doesn't include any of the "harm" cited by Wolfsbane. I suspect the gaps between the definite parts of scripture are being rather conveniently filled with whatever people wanted to believe in the first place.

Heya thanks a million for your support! Well I think it's a sad thing that some are homophobic. I mean my grandmother is an observant Catholic and she has no problem with me being gay because she believes in a loving God not a vindictive one (that is the sort of religion I respect by the way). To be honest I could stay here and have a big theological war with a Christian here who is anti-gay but there's no point because people know deep down what is right and what is wrong and if discrimination in certain cases is considered right then I really wouldn't want to associate myself with that person. But in Dublin anyway homosexuality isn't a stigma as much and I know many young people who are totally cool with it.

AtomicHorror

UU wrote: »

But in Dublin anyway homosexuality isn't a stigma as much and I know many young people who are totally cool with it.

I think that's more or less the case across the country, at least in urban areas and wherever there are universities! NUI Maynooth is, as far as I can tell, largely controlled by a shadowy yet fabulous LGB cabal.

UU

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think that's more or less the case across the country, at least in urban areas and wherever there are universities! NUI Maynooth is, as far as I can tell, largely controlled by a shadowy yet fabulous LGB cabal.

Haha that would be an understatement to say the least! :P

Spyral

33 year old unmarried jewish man 2000 years ago... "seems pretty gay to me"..[bart simpson]

The Bible specifically condemns homosexual acts, but commends heterosexual acts carried out within marriage.

bible also condems shellfish... but since when do the fundies care about that ?

UU

Spyral wrote: »

33 year old unmarried jewish man 2000 years ago... "seems pretty gay to me"..[bart simpson]


bible also condems shellfish... but since when do the fundies care about that ?

I have a great idea! Lets protest outside seafood restaurants for their abomination!!! haha lol

AtomicHorror

Spyral wrote: »

33 year old unmarried jewish man 2000 years ago... "seems pretty gay to me"..[bart simpson]


bible also condems shellfish... but since when do the fundies care about that ?

I think they don't pay much heed to the old testament stuff. They have a new testament basis for the homosexuality=sin thing.

Fanny Cradock

UU wrote: »

I have a great idea! Lets protest outside seafood restaurants for their abomination!!! haha lol

Perhaps you should actually read up on what it says in the bible and Christians believe before launching into the comedy routine.

UU

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps you should actually read up on what it says in the bible and Christians believe before launching into the comedy routine.

Oh quit being so serious and have a laugh for once! Geesh! :mad:

Fanny Cradock

Your 'joke' wasn't funny. Rather, through ignorance or otherwise, it was a misrepresentation of what Christians believe. Let's also try and avoid making me out to be a humourless sod because I'm a Christian - that happened independently of my beliefs.

You're banned for a week, btw.





Just kidding

:pac:

Or am I?

UU

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Your 'joke' wasn't funny. Rather, through ignorance or otherwise, it was a misrepresentation of what Christians believe. Let's also try and avoid making me out to be a humourless sod because I'm a Christian - that happened independently of my beliefs.

You're banned for a week, btw.





Just kidding

:pac:

Or am I?

Well AtomicHorror never said it was Christians that happened to believe in it I just said it was what is said in the Bible, Old Testament in Leviticus. Even if Christians don't happen to follow the shellfish restraint, Jews certainly still do to this day. To them it is not considered Kosher and they have evidence from the same book you use to back up their view. I never said you're humorless because of your beliefs. I know many boring atheists so don't worry. :P

Nodin

wolfsbane wrote: »

studiorat said:

I'm telling you the author of the article you posted, Bruce Bagemihl, was gay:

Unless you can prove his data is incorrect, and is consistently so, that doesn't dismiss him as a source.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So any opinion of the obit writer of the NY Times is ipso facto impartial and truthful?:

No, but the governing bodies of the psychological and psychiatric proffessions in the US regard therapy to "cure" homosexuality as actively 'harmful'. As these are large, fairly conservative organisations you'd have to explain why they take that stance and why your bucko is out in the cold.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The heretic! Imagine, challenging the Magisterium. He should have been burnt at the stake - or at least struck off the register. :pac:

No, thats another guy, who tried the same thing, but less successfully. His name escapes me for the moment.

The Mad Hatter

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Let's also try and avoid making me out to be a humourless sod because I'm a Christian - that happened independently of my beliefs.

Hang on - now you're a sod too?

Everyone on the gay bus!

sukikettle

Dear UU
You say you cannot help your sexuality but you can be delivered of homosexuality. Jesus was a deliverer as well as a healer. He loves you and wants you free

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Firstly, let me say good on you for having the courage to be yourself despite the vile crap that I'm sure must be intermittently directed at you. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone that your desires could never be a choice. Your open stand on this is though, and a commendable one too.

The thing that always gets me is the blanket anti-gay thing. As you say, only "sodomites" are specifically mentioned. So are we to assume that lesbianism is okay? Should there be lesbian marriage under God? Their lifestyle certainly doesn't include any of the "harm" cited by Wolfsbane. I suspect the gaps between the definite parts of scripture are being rather conveniently filled with whatever people wanted to believe in the first place.

Let me remind you once again that 'harm' is not the basis of my rejection of homosexuality as a valid sexuality. God's word is.

As to lesbianism, it too is covered in the Romans 1 text: 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

I'm short of time tonight - Xmas pressure! - but will come back to your other posts latter in the week, DV.

wolfsbane

UU wrote: »

Firstly, it is not a choice! Why on earth would you choose to be gay? (considering the absolute crap you have to put up with!!!) You cannot choose who you are sexually attracted to. You can only choose who you have sex with.

I'll just cover this point tonight. Hope to respond to the rest later.

Is paedophilia a choice? Why would anyone choose such a dangerous sexuality? They too say they are born that way.

No, there is choice for everyone. Enviromental factors work on our sinful dispositions, but the choice is ours. Perverted sex is a sinful response to our circumstances. We will have lesser or greater culpability depending on the pressures - but no excuses.

That applies to all sins - heterosexual, homosexual, theft, drunkenness, idolatry, murder.

We can't just pull one of those out and excuse it as natural. Rape and murder is natural, as evidenced in the chimpanzees.

Spyral

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Quite right. Putting one's life on the line for the safety of others is something that few people do. Statistically abnormal. Abhorrent? Rubbish.

Normality has no simple correlation with morality. Natural and unnatural are meaningless concepts. All we're left with is harm and benefit, which are based on the shared values of society.

So I'll ask again: in what way does the harm associated with homosexuality outweigh the benefit? Because it really looks like it does not at all. All you're left with is the authority of scripture.

what authority from scripture ? A scripture that's been translated back and forth by an orginisation with a severe bias against homosexuals..

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me remind you once again that 'harm' is not the basis of my rejection of homosexuality as a valid sexuality. God's word is.

Yes, but surely you cannot abandon your own assessment of these things entirely? What if God's word has been compromised by fallible people? By your estimation of things, you must surely risk much by accepting morality on authority. And also, has it not been said elsewhere here that the morality of God speaks to all of us? Does that not suggest that something subjective is valid here?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'll just cover this point tonight. Hope to respond to the rest later.

Is paedophilia a choice? Why would anyone choose such a dangerous sexuality? They too say they are born that way.

They most likely are. But there's a world of difference between desire and action. In action, the two are not comparable and it is insulting and bigoted to suggest otherwise. One cannot be expressed as action with consent, the other can. One is immoral in action, the other is not.

You see the difference, but you'd rather accept text than your own senses.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, there is choice for everyone. Enviromental factors work on our sinful dispositions, but the choice is ours. Perverted sex is a sinful response to our circumstances.

I'd say you're just homophobic and like to use the Word as a convenient excuse not to have to face up to your irrationality, your fear and immorality.

AtomicHorror

Spyral wrote: »

what authority from scripture ? A scripture that's been translated back and forth by an orginisation with a severe bias against homosexuals..

I agree of course. But since the infallibility of the bible is unquestionable, just as the authority of it is, we're at an impasse.

PDN recently wrote somewhere that all systems, all ideologies, must be questionable to their core. A shame that there are so many who disagree. I guess they're afraid of that complicated world in which we sometimes have to make some calls on our own.

AtomicHorror

sukikettle wrote: »

Dear UU
You say you cannot help your sexuality but you can be delivered of homosexuality. Jesus was a deliverer as well as a healer. He loves you and wants you free

There's nothing to heal. UU is healthy. UU is happy. He is honest about who he is and at peace with that. He holds no negative judgement against anyone who does not harm others. I'd go far as to suggest that this alone makes him healthier than some here.

sukikettle

Atomic I've met people healed of homosexuality. UU said he'd never have chosen to be born gay.

AtomicHorror

sukikettle wrote: »

Atomic I've met people healed of homosexuality.

Then you've met some people who are mentally repressed and probably very much mentally ill.

sukikettle wrote: »

UU said he'd never have chosen to be born gay.

No he didn't. He asked why anyone would make such a choice given the discrimination they would face- this was a statement intended to make a nonsense of the concept that homosexuality might be a choice. That's not the same thing as wishing to be something other.

rainbow kirby

sukikettle wrote: »

Atomic I've met people healed of homosexuality. UU said he'd never have chosen to be born gay.

It's not a disease, there's nothing to be healed of.

PDN

Spyral wrote: »

what authority from scripture ? A scripture that's been translated back and forth by an orginisation with a severe bias against homosexuals..

We have Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament and New Testament (ie the original languages in which they were written). Are you seriously suggesting that the passages which address homosexuality are mistranslated? If so, could you please provide some evidence for this extraordinary claim? I will be very interested to see how you will demonstrate that every reputable Hebrew and Greek scholar has somehow got it wrong.

Asiaprod

sukikettle wrote: »

Atomic I've met people healed of homosexuality. UU said he'd never have chosen to be born gay.

No he did not, what he said was

Firstly, it is not a choice! Why on earth would you choose to be gay? (considering the absolute crap you have to put up with!!!) You cannot choose who you are sexually attracted to. You can only choose who you have sex with.

As a general poster here
For my part, I very much doubt you have ever met anyone who has been healed of homosexuality. It is not a disease and there is nothing to be cured in that respect. It is a genetic or personal preference, and it is not unique to the human race. Show me medical proof please of someone who has been medically cured of homosexuality.

Moderators note
I would also like to see more dialogue from you in future posts, the last folk here who did nothing but spout articles or extracts from the bible and associated works came to a rather sticky end, I would hate to see that happen to you too. Read the posts and reply to their content, or ask further questions. This forum is not a soapbox for you to proselytize your beliefs. There is a right way and a wrong way to get your message across. I recommend you learn the right way as it will stand to you in the long run. As things currently stand, IMO your actions do in fact do your faith a great disservice.

Nodin

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'll just cover this point tonight. Hope to respond to the rest later.

Is paedophilia a choice? Why would anyone choose such a dangerous sexuality? They too say they are born that way.

No, there is choice for everyone. Enviromental factors work on our sinful dispositions, but the choice is ours. Perverted sex is a sinful response to our circumstances. We will have lesser or greater culpability depending on the pressures - but no excuses.

That applies to all sins - heterosexual, homosexual, theft, drunkenness, idolatry, murder.

We can't just pull one of those out and excuse it as natural. Rape and murder is natural, as evidenced in the chimpanzees.

Earlier you stated "'harm' is not the basis of my rejection of homosexuality as a valid sexuality. God's word is." Why then do you keep making invalid comparsions with clearly harmful practices to justify yourself?

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes, but surely you cannot abandon your own assessment of these things entirely?

Interesting point ... often the argument made on this forum for the actual existence of God in the first place is that it makes sense, that what is described in the Bible fits with what believers hold should be true, what makes sense to be true, that after rational assessment it was determined that God exists and is the god described in the Bible.

I always found these points rather unconvincing, and after a thread like this one, or say one on the genocide in the Old Testament, I find it even less convincing.

There seems to be an awful lot of cyclical reasoning taking place. God is good, therefore his decree on homosexuality must be correct and moral. We hold it true because God has said it and because God is always good. We know this because ????

The decree on homosexuality isn't correct and moral though. Would anyone hold homosexuality as immoral unless they had been told by God that it is?

So what reasoning lead to the conclusion that God decision is good in the first place? What is the logic to get around this?

When people were rationally deciding that God is the god described in the Bible did they just ignore these parts?

It is a bit of a cop out to say that this is just what God says, because at some level everyone here who believes that had to make a decision that this is God, that a god who describes homosexuality as being an abomination is a god that actually exists (and is supposed to be good)

Once again I find myself as a non-believer bewildered at which part of this I'm supposed to take as evidence the Christian God exists and loves me.

When ever we get into these discussions it is always the excuse that one has to first believe God exists to trust that his views on something like homosexuality are moral and right.

I'm at a loss though of why anyone reading this stuff would think "Yes, that is clearly the god that exists"

** POSSIBLY this discussion belongs in A&A, not sure, will leave it up to the mods if they feel it should be moved over there to no offend in this forum

Mark Hamill

sukikettle wrote: »

Dear UU
You say you cannot help your sexuality but you can be delivered of homosexuality. Jesus was a deliverer as well as a healer. He loves you and wants you free

I dont remember Jesus ever converting someone from homosexuality to heterosexuality. I dont even remember Jesus saying anything about homosexuality being a sin, in fact, I seem to remember Jesus saying something about how we should all love our fellow man...

wolfsbane wrote:

Let me remind you once again that 'harm' is not the basis of my rejection of homosexuality as a valid sexuality. God's word is.

As to lesbianism, it too is covered in the Romans 1 text: 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Funny how Ruth and Naomi seem to be commended for being lesbians in the book of Ruth. Its also odd how god punishes these people with an act they enjoy, how can that be a punishment? Also Romans 1:32 says "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them". So I'll ask again, why aren't you calling for their death? How do you console the fact that you are picking and choosing your interpretations of pieces of bible, some only a few lines apart? Do you not think your god will see through your deception, that all you have is your own homophobia and that the parts of the bible you hide behind are the just the bits you feel you can get away with?

wolfsbane wrote:

That applies to all sins - heterosexual, homosexual, theft, drunkenness, idolatry, murder.

Heterosexuality is a sin?

Mark Hamill

Wicknight wrote: »

There seems to be an awful lot of cyclical reasoning taking place. God is good, therefore his decree on homosexuality must be correct and moral. We hold it true because God has said it and because God is always good. We know this because ????

The decree on homosexuality isn't correct and moral though. Would anyone hold homosexuality as immoral unless they had been told by God that it is?

The way i see it, if god is the most good and moral being in existence, then all his decrees should be good and moral. And seeing as god is the most good and moral, then his decrees should be pretty much evidently good and moral. So unless humanity just doesn't understand anything much about being good and moral (and what that say about everything we do) it should be able to see a good and moral reason for homosexuality being wrong.
How many discussion in this forum have their been on homosexuality? On this website? On the internet? In the world? Now I may not have read/heard every argument against homosexuality, but I have yet to come across one self evident reason that even hints that homosexuality is bad and immoral.

Wicknight wrote: »

So what reasoning lead to the conclusion that God decision is good in the first place? What is the logic to get around this?

When people were rationally deciding that God is the god described in the Bible did they just ignore these parts?

I think its just a case that if you were to believe in the god of the bible, you'd almost have to believe he was good, because if he wasn't, you would have to admit that humanity is pretty much screwed and all this is for nothing. Its kinda like beaten wife syndrome, if you believe you love someone who hurts you, you have to believe that they are actually good, and that you deserve it because if they aren't really good, then you have made a monstrous mistake, and you are all alone.

The Mad Hatter

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Heterosexuality is a sin?

I think he means heterosexual sins, like sex outside marriage, masturbation, etc., etc.