Sexual Orientation

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

As it is I support the legal right of consenting adults to roger each other if they wish, irrespective of gender or number of partners. I also support the right of people to eat bacon sandwiches if they wish. And I support the right of religions to abstain from pork or from certain sexual acts if that is their beliefs.

So no need for any fake outrage.

How dare you not be the required level of intolerant for this discussion :P

qrrgprgua

wolfsbane wrote: »

The governing elite seem determined to ban Christians and others from teaching that homosexuality is immoral. They seem set on indoctrinating our kids with the idea that it is moral.

I've no problem with them being told it is legal and that the homosexuals must have their liberty respected as much as the rest of us. But teaching homosexuality is moral and forbidding others to teach it is immoral is contrary to civil and religious liberty.

Same goes for fornication and adultery.

Its the clash with Faith and Secular society. People think because we have a faith which we follow that the result in regards of views on homosexuality is that we are homophobic.

Why are we focusing on less than 5% of population when 40% of population have sex outside marriage... ? Its also immoral?(in the eyes of faith)

wolfsbane

doctoremma wrote: »

I've never been taught in any context that homosexuality is either moral or immoral. Have you? I mean, have you been taught explicitly that homosexuality is moral?

No, but I'm 62. When kids are indoctrinated with the normality of homosexuality - using a same-sex home in a reader without comment, for example - that is equivalent to teaching homosexuality is moral. They would not have an incestuous home as a Janet & John type reader, I assume.

Unless you think schools do not promote any morality?

**********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

PickledLime

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. So believing there is nothing wrong with stealing or rape would mean you are not a thief or a rapist?

Refusing to recognise the court does not mean you are innocent of the crime.

You're diminishing any credibility to your arguments by making completely illogical comments like that. In Western society, rape is considered depraved, amoral and against all religious and civil laws. This is the normal, accepted point of view. Your view of sex outside of marriage is far from the norm.

In terms of religious/spiritual beliefs, if i don't recognise 'the court' i am innocent, because according to my own moral compass (which is one built on love, compassion, logical and rational thought i.e. a thought process that is accepted by the vast majority of society, unlike that of a rapist and to a lesser extent, a thief) have not committed any 'crime'. You and your book may define it as a crime, but i can guarantee you that for every person who considers it so, i can find an exponentially greater number who views your stance as irrational and zealous.

wolfsbane

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Its the clash with Faith and Secular society. People think because we have a faith which we follow that the result in regards of views on homosexuality is that we are homophobic.

Why are we focusing on less than 5% of population when 40% of population have sex outside marriage... ? Its also immoral?(in the eyes of faith)

I don't focus on homosexuality. All sexual sin is to be condemned. But when we say that homosexuality is sinful, we are accused of being homophobes, haters, etc. Usually we do not get that response when we say sex outside marriage is sinful. We are not labelled forniphobes or adulterphobes.

***********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

qrrgprgua

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't focus on homosexuality. All sexual sin is to be condemned. But when we say that homosexuality is sinful, we are accused of being homophobes, haters, etc. Usually we do not get that response when we say sex outside marriage is sinful. We are not labelled forniphobes or adulterphobes.

Its faith. We can't change it. Its a real pity because once you open yourself to God.. its not about what I can't do,,, its becomes what more can I do for him.

Everything has a place in our life.. Our modern day excesses are literally killing us.. Too much drink.. too much food.. and our obsession with money. Sex becomes a pastime for some. How many people don't even know themselves..

wolfsbane

PickledLime wrote: »

You're diminishing any credibility to your arguments by making completely illogical comments like that. In Western society, rape is considered depraved, amoral and against all religious and civil laws. This is the normal, accepted point of view. Your view of sex outside of marriage is far from the norm.

In terms of religious/spiritual beliefs, if i don't recognise 'the court' i am innocent, because according to my own moral compass (which is one built on love, compassion, logical and rational thought i.e. a thought process that is accepted by the vast majority of society, unlike that of a rapist and to a lesser extent, a thief) have not committed any 'crime'. You and your book may define it as a crime, but i can guarantee you that for every person who considers it so, i can find an exponentially greater number who views your stance as irrational and zealous.

Let me remind you of what you said: Seeing as i am not willing to listen to listen to Christian gospel (more to the point, i was brought up in a Christian household, decided to investigate it further and chose to renounce it) and view the Bible as a work of fiction, myself and my girlfriend are not among any adulterers.

You were claiming that one is not an adulterer if one does not accept the concept of adultery. I assume you say that applies even where the great majority of society regards it as adultery. So I'm pointing out that must also then be the case for thief or rape.

Or are you saying your relationship would be immoral if the majority held it to be so?

********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Ciaran0

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't see any reason why the word 'marriage' belongs to Christianity?

And you're advocating a 'separate but equal' policy?

It doesn't belong to them, but seeing as the main opposition to gay marriage is religious(Sanctity of marriage, all that!), maybe we could just sidestep religion altogether and go ahead with getting equal rights. That seems more important in my opinion anyway.

Ciaran0

PDN wrote: »

No, it would not be wrong at all. According to biblical teaching that is a sin, just as much as if two loving, consenting adults of opposite sexes (if not married to each other) have sexual intercourse.

Christians also believe it is a sin for people to pray to idols.

Jews and Muslims also think it is a sin to eat a bacon sandwich.

We may or may not agree with each religion's opinion of what constitutes a sin. However, I have the good manners to respect the beliefs of the Jew and Muslim and not to pick pointless arguments by trolling about bacon sandwiches in the Islam Forum.

If I want to become a Muslim or a Jew then that would involve adopting their rules. Since I have no desire to convert to either of those religions, it isn't really any of my business whether they have a bit of a thing against bacon.

Just so long as they don't interefere with my right to eat a bacon sandwich if i choose.

There we go. You hit the nail on the head. The same should apply to gay people and their rights. Gay people should be granted the same rights as Straight in all aspects. A gay couple should have the right to adopt a child for example. They should be able to have a civil partnership which grants them the same human, civil, legal and every other kind of right that a marriage does. Yet, because of the influence Christianity and other faiths have had, they are being denied those particular bacon sandwiches.

PickledLime

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me remind you of what you said: Seeing as i am not willing to listen to listen to Christian gospel (more to the point, i was brought up in a Christian household, decided to investigate it further and chose to renounce it) and view the Bible as a work of fiction, myself and my girlfriend are not among any adulterers.

You were claiming that one is not an adulterer if one does not accept the concept of adultery. I assume you say that applies even where the great majority of society regards it as adultery. So I'm pointing out that must also then be the case for thief or rape.

Or are you saying your relationship would be immoral if the majority held it to be so?

Granted, i fit the dictionary definition of 'adulterer' in that myself and my girlfriend are unmarried and have sex. I probably should have said that i reject the notion of it being sinful.

Because i'm an atheist i don't acknowledge the existence of religious sin. I do however, acknowledge the existence of moral sin. The 3 types of sexual sin are paedophilia, rape and (to a lesser extent because at least two consenting adults are involved), cheating on one's partner. You are classing all sex outside of marriage as 'sin'. So am i to be lumped in with the rapists and paedophiles?

I'm not saying your point of views are immoral, i'm saying that the majority would find them to be somewhat bizarre and rooted in religious zealotry. Myself and my girlfriend's relationship is the accepted norm, your views are not.

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

There we go. You hit the nail on the head. The same should apply to gay people and their rights. Gay people should be granted the same rights as Straight in all aspects. A gay couple should have the right to adopt a child for example. They should be able to have a civil partnership which grants them the same human, civil, legal and every other kind of right that a marriage does. Yet, because of the influence Christianity and other faiths have had, they are being denied those particular bacon sandwiches.

Sorry? Why you addressing this to me?

twinQuins

wolfsbane wrote: »

The governing elite seem determined to ban Christians and others from teaching that homosexuality is immoral. They seem set on indoctrinating our kids with the idea that it is moral.

I've no problem with them being told it is legal and that the homosexuals must have their liberty respected as much as the rest of us. But teaching homosexuality is moral and forbidding others to teach it is immoral is contrary to civil and religious liberty.

Should the state allow teaching that certain races are inferior? That women are the weaker sex?

You're damn right the state doesn't allow bigotry to be taught.

Nodin

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Its faith. We can't change it. Its a real pity because once you open yourself to God.. its not about what I can't do,,, its becomes what more can I do for him.

Everything has a place in our life.. Our modern day excesses are literally killing us.. Too much drink.. too much food.. and our obsession with money. Sex becomes a pastime for some. How many people don't even know themselves..

I'll go wild here and say that Greed, Gluttony and Lust are not modern day phenomena.

dvae

as Ive said in previous treads being homosexual is not a sin, but the act
of homosexuality is.
personally i think everybody has the right to a civil partnership if they
wish, but to get married in any christen church is wrong.

PickledLime

dvae wrote: »

as Ive said in previous treads being homosexual is not a sin, but the act
of homosexuality is.
personally i think everybody has the right to a civil partnership if they
wish, but to get married in any christen church is wrong.

Yep, love thy neighbour*

*but if that neighbour wishes to be joined in matrimony with a member of the same sex, forget it.

Nodin

PickledLime wrote: »

Granted, i fit the dictionary definition of 'adulterer' in that myself and my girlfriend are unmarried and have sex. I probably should have said that i reject the notion of it being sinful.

............

I regret to inform you that you are not, in fact, an adulterer.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adultery

You are in fact a fornicator.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fornication

An update to your status will be in the post.

3rdDegree

On a side note my understanding was that it wasn't a sin to be gay or even a pedophile, it was a sin to practice these things. So as far as God is concerned, the point "I was born that way" doesn't cut it.

Nodin

dvae wrote: »

as Ive said in previous treads being homosexual is not a sin, but the act
of homosexuality is.
personally i think everybody has the right to a civil partnership if they
wish, but to get married in any christen church is wrong.

But shouldn't that be up to the christian church in question? There are quite a few.

PickledLime

Nodin wrote: »

I regret to inform you that you are not, in fact, an adulterer.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adultery

You are in fact a fornicator.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fornication

An update to your status will be in the post.

Well hot dog, this changes everything!

Nodin

PickledLime wrote: »

Well hot dog, this changes everything!

Indeed. Those customised t-shirts will have to be re-ordered for starters.

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, but I'm 62. When kids are indoctrinated with the normality of homosexuality - using a same-sex home in a reader without comment, for example - that is equivalent to teaching homosexuality is moral.

I don't think it is. I think it's teaching kids that there are a multitude of different peoples out there in the big world and that not everyone is the same. Isn't this part of how you instil respect for others? I don't see how you can instil respect for homosexual people by saying 'Here's Peter and Dave, they live together and kiss each other, that's deviant, you know'.

wolfsbane wrote: »

They would not have an incestuous home as a Janet & John type reader, I assume.

Incest is illegal. So no, I've never seen a book that presents this as an acceptable family situation (at least, not as a school book).

wolfsbane wrote: »

Unless you think schools do not promote any morality?

Difficult to say. I'm not sure it's a school's job to promote morality in any way other than what is defined in law. I certainly don't think a school should be teaching that homosexuality is immoral or moral, more that it simply IS.

Snappy Smurf

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't think it is. I think it's teaching kids that there are a multitude of different peoples out there in the big world and that not everyone is the same. Isn't this part of how you instil respect for others? I don't see how you can instil respect for homosexual people by saying 'Here's Peter and Dave, they live together and kiss each other, that's deviant, you know'.


Incest is illegal. So no, I've never seen a book that presents this as an acceptable family situation (at least, not as a school book).


Difficult to say. I'm not sure it's a school's job to promote morality in any way other than what is defined in law. I certainly don't think a school should be teaching that homosexuality is immoral or moral, more that it simply IS.

The UN Convention acknowledges the right of parents to choose the type of education for their kids, which may include sending them to RCC school where they should learn Catholic doctrine.

Secular schools teach that homosexual acts are good and normal; in a pluralist society, the contrary must be acknowledged - the right to dissent from the new moral fashions.

Corkfeen

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

The UN Convention acknowledges the right of parents to choose the type of education for their kids, which may include sending them to RCC school where they should learn Catholic doctrine.

Secular schools teach that homosexual acts are good and normal; in a pluralist society, the contrary must be acknowledged - the right to dissent from the new moral fashions.

Well actually, I never had a teacher condemn homosexuality as immoral when I was in Primary School (Catholic like all at the time). I also doubt the vast majority of parents would have approved if they had done so, understandably so. Most of the teachers in the current system wouldn't agree with this teaching and you'd see an even more massive decline in support for Catholic schools if it was being taught.

doctoremma

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

The UN Convention acknowledges the right of parents to choose the type of education for their kids, which may include sending them to RCC school where they should learn Catholic doctrine.

I went to a Catholic school. We never learned that homosexuality was immoral. Nor that creationism was a real thing.

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Secular schools teach that homosexual acts are good

I don't believe this to be true.

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

and normal

A normal part of society, yes.

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

in a pluralist society, the contrary must be acknowledged - the right to dissent from the new moral fashions.

You have the right to dissent from whatever 'moral fashion' you choose. I'd argue that you have less of a right to make that choice for your child. I'd argue that you NO right to make that choice for society as a whole.

Snappy Smurf

Corkfeen wrote: »

Well actually, I never had a teacher condemn homosexuality as immoral when I was in Primary School (Catholic like all at the time). I also doubt the vast majority of parents would have approved if they had done so, understandably so. Most of the teachers in the current system wouldn't agree with this teaching and you'd see an even more massive decline in support for Catholic schools if it was being taught.

At secondary school.

TBH I don't think sodomy was condemned at my Catholic secondary school.

doctoremma wrote: »

I went to a Catholic school. We never learned that homosexuality was immoral. Nor that creationism was a real thing.

I don't believe this to be true.

A normal part of society, yes.
You have the right to dissent from whatever 'moral fashion' you choose. I'd argue that you have less of a right to make that choice for your child. I'd argue that you NO right to make that choice for society as a whole.

Well creationism is more of a Protestant fixation. If by that you mean literal 7 day creationism.

Corkfeen

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

At secondary school.

TBH I don't think sodomy was condemned at my Catholic secondary school.

I doubt parent's attitudes will change by the time their children are in secondary school and teacher's would be equally unwilling to teach it as they would in Primary schools..... You will simply eliminate every Catholic school in the country if you teach something that 99% of Irish people do not agree with. You want teenagers to be taught that coming out is wrong and that it is evil to give into their desire to be in relationship with someone they care about if they are of the same sex, that's going to do wonders for the mental health of young people...

Endorsing such indoctrination in the school system is entirely wrong and far more immoral. You're just a condemning a minority, this is in no way different to teaching anti-semitism or racism in the education system. If you really want your children to believe this, do it yourself as it is not the duty of schools to teach intolerance of any variety.

georgieporgy

Catholic education ( i mean religious ed in catholic schools) took a bit of a nosedive in the seventies and eighties. That's why there is a whole generation of catholics aged 20-40 who have no real knowledge of the Faith.
Everything they think they know about religion is warped and twisted.

Yet they feel they have the right to pontificate on all things pertaining to the Church, and they speak with such an air of authority one could hardly be faulted for thinking they were the most learned theologians.

The OP, who is not catholic, but is an oldtimer like myself, has a much better grasp of reality. Give me a good protestant over a bad catholic anyday.

Fanny Cradock

PickledLime wrote: »

Yep, love thy neighbour*

*but if that neighbour wishes to be joined in matrimony with a member of the same sex, forget it.

One can love and disaprove at the same time.

PickledLime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One can love and disaprove at the same time.

But there's a difference between loving disapproval, and flat out not letting them do it (and branding them sinners while they're at it).

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One can love and disaprove at the same time.

Apparently some posters in this thread think you can only love people if you
a) Enthusiastically approve of every aspect of their lifestyle.

or

b) Engage in sexual relations with them.

I don't know what it is about the topic of homosexuality, but every time it comes up on this forum it seems to breed hysteria, bad logic, and an inability to read simple English.

PDN

PickledLime wrote: »

But there's a difference between loving disapproval, and flat out not letting them do it (and branding them sinners while they're at it).

So which posters here have advocated flat out not letting people engage in homosexual activities?

PickledLime

PDN wrote: »

So which posters here have advocated flat out not letting people engage in homosexual activities?

Not necessarily directed at anyone here, but it does happen.

I also said that they can be branded as 'sinners', which has been implied in this thread.

Benny_Cake

PDN wrote: »

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One can love and disaprove at the same time.

Apparently some posters in this thread think you can only love people if you
a) Enthusiastically approve of every aspect of their lifestyle.

or

b) Engage in sexual relations with them.

I don't know what it is about the topic of homosexuality, but every time it comes up on this forum it seems to breed hysteria, bad logic, and an inability to read simple English.

There is a plenty of hysteria and bad logic on both sides of this debate.

For what it's worth, I'd distinguish between some one who feels that all homosexuality activity is morally wrong, but leaves that up to the conscience of the person concerned, and those who feel that all homosexuality activity is wrong and that the State should effectively intervene to discourage it / stamp it out. While I'd disagree with both points of view, I can at least understand the first group as they aren't attempting to impose their personal moral position on others.

BTW georgyporgy, why should it be the role of public servants (ie; teachers) to instruct children in the Catholic faith? If Catholics feel that kids aren't getting an adequate faith formation they need to step up to the plate themselves and stop relying on other people to do it.

Snappy Smurf

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There is a plenty of hysteria and bad logic on both sides of this debate.

For what it's worth, I'd distinguish between some one who feels that all homosexuality activity is morally wrong, but leaves that up to the conscience of the person concerned, and those who feel that all homosexuality activity is wrong and that the State should effectively intervene to discourage it / stamp it out. While I'd disagree with both points of view, I can at least understand the first group as they aren't attempting to impose their personal moral position on others.

BTW georgyporgy, why should it be the role of public servants (ie; teachers) to instruct children in the Catholic faith? If Catholics feel that kids aren't getting an adequate faith formation they need to step up to the plate themselves and stop relying on other people to do it.

In Catholic schools, they're Catholic teachers, hired by the Church and in part paid for by the Church IIRC.

I think homosexuality should be kept hidden, out of public view. I wouldn't advocate bedroom police. The Church is free to teach the doctrine of the Church. The state should approve only heterosexual marriage. All other 'sexual relationships', whether they be hetero or homo, are informal and ought to have no standing in law. That would be my position.

Corkfeen

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There is a plenty of hysteria and bad logic on both sides of this debate.

For what it's worth, I'd distinguish between some one who feels that all homosexuality activity is morally wrong, but leaves that up to the conscience of the person concerned, and those who feel that all homosexuality activity is wrong and that the State should effectively intervene to discourage it / stamp it out. While I'd disagree with both points of view, I can at least understand the first group as they aren't attempting to impose their personal moral position on others.

BTW georgyporgy, why should it be the role of public servants (ie; teachers) to instruct children in the Catholic faith? If Catholics feel that kids aren't getting an adequate faith formation they need to step up to the plate themselves and stop relying on other people to do it.

In Catholic schools, they're Catholic teachers, hired by the Church and in part paid for by the Church IIRC.

I think homosexuality should be kept hidden, out of public view. I wouldn't advocate bedroom police. The Church is free to teach the doctrine of the Church. The state should approve only heterosexual marriage. All other 'sexual relationships', whether they be hetero or homo, are informal and ought to have no standing in law. That would be my position.

You think it should be hidden but the rest of Ireland doesn't concur. Care to respond to my other post?

Benny_Cake

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

In Catholic schools, they're Catholic teachers, hired by the Church and in part paid for by the Church IIRC.

I think homosexuality should be kept hidden, out of public view. I wouldn't advocate bedroom police. The Church is free to teach the doctrine of the Church. The state should approve only heterosexual marriage. All other 'sexual relationships', whether they be hetero or homo, are informal and ought to have no standing in law. That would be my position.

Not so, teachers salaries are paid in full, by the State. The State is also responsible for school inspections and so on.

Your position is that the church should be free to teach it's doctrine (which I agree with, although whether it should do so in state-funded schools is another matter). Why should the State not be free to provide a civil framework for the recognition of same-sex relationships then?

Snappy Smurf

Corkfeen wrote: »

You think it should be hidden but the rest of Ireland doesn't concur. Care to respond to my other post?

Please resubmit your specific question. It's a lot easier that way than sending me on a treasure hunt.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Not so, teachers salaries are paid in full, by the State. The State is also responsible for school inspections and so on.

Your position is that the church should be free to teach it's doctrine (which I agree with, although whether it should do so in state-funded schools is another matter). Why should the State not be free to provide a civil framework for the recognition of same-sex relationships then?

Catholic schools were set up by the Church - people and priests - as they wanted education for their kids, long before the state got round to providing it. People have very short memories.

If you don't want to send your kids to a Catholic Church then you should do what others have begun to do - set up your own.

Now, I happen to think that the Catholic schools are no longer fit for purpose because they've lost a real sense of Catholic ethos and mission, but that's a separate issue.

It's funny, because in once Catholic Ireland, now all grown up (but bankrupt with it, morally and financially) the powers that be are keen to throw off the shackles of Catholicism. But over in the UK, where they are smarter, they recognise the value of what they call 'faith schools'. Ireland needs to grow up - like it you agree!

Zombrex

Can I just clarify something (and this isn't a say something offensive so I can be offended request).

An awful lot of focus is on sexual lust when it comes to homosexuality. Do the regular Christian posters here accept that there is in fact a lot more to homosexuality than this, that gay people fall in love with members of the same sex the way heterosexuals fall in love with members of the opposite sex? That being gay is pretty much exactly the same as being straight, encompassing the same range of relationships, simply that the gender is changed.

Or to put it simply, that it is about far more than simply desire for sexual intercourse. I ask because I regularly detect on this forum a tendency to pretend otherwise, to focus purely on the sexual lust aspect of homosexuality, in order I suspect to make it seem that what a homosexual is giving up is not that big a deal.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Can I just clarify something (and this isn't a say something offensive so I can be offended request).

An awful lot of focus is on sexual lust when it comes to homosexuality. Do the regular Christian posters here accept that there is in fact a lot more to homosexuality than this, that gay people fall in love with members of the same sex the way heterosexuals fall in love with members of the opposite sex? That being gay is pretty much exactly the same as being straight, encompassing the same range of relationships, simply that the gender is changed.

Or to put it simply, that it is about far more than simply desire for sexual intercourse. I ask because I regularly detect on this forum a tendency to pretend otherwise, to focus purely on the sexual lust aspect of homosexuality, in order I suspect to make it seem that what a homosexual is giving up is not that big a deal.

Not so.

The usual Christian position is not that 'homosexuality' (as in an orientation) is sinful - but that homosexual activities are sinful.

Therefore, quite clearly, it is those who wish to argue against the usual Christian position who are making this all about sexual lust.

Corkfeen

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Please resubmit your specific question. It's a lot easier that way than sending me on a treasure hunt.



Catholic schools were set up by the Church - people and priests - as they wanted education for their kids, long before the state got round to providing it. People have very short memories.

If you don't want to send your kids to a Catholic Church then you should do what others have begun to do - set up your own.

Now, I happen to think that the Catholic schools are no longer fit for purpose because they've lost a real sense of Catholic ethos and mission, but that's a separate issue.

It's funny, because in once Catholic Ireland, now all grown up (but bankrupt with it, morally and financially) the powers that be are keen to throw off the shackles of Catholicism. But over in the UK, where they are smarter, they recognise the value of what they call 'faith schools'. Ireland needs to grow up - like it you agree!

This post in general...

Corkfeen wrote: »

I doubt parent's attitudes will change by the time their children are in secondary school and teacher's would be equally unwilling to teach it as they would in Primary schools..... You will simply eliminate every Catholic school in the country if you teach something that 99% of Irish people do not agree with. You want teenagers to be taught that coming out is wrong and that it is evil to give into their desire to be in relationship with someone they care about if they are of the same sex, that's going to do wonders for the mental health of young people...

Endorsing such indoctrination in the school system is entirely wrong and far more immoral. You're just a condemning a minority, this is in no way different to teaching anti-semitism or racism in the education system. If you really want your children to believe this, do it yourself as it is not the duty of schools to teach intolerance of any variety.

All support, for Catholic schools would go out the window if they started condemning homosexuality. (And yes, saying that it should remain hidden is not acceptable and rather risky for one's mental health, the suicide rates are bad enough as they are) Why should a student be taught a teaching as fact that not even their parent's believe in? There is no difference between teaching anti-semitism and racism, if you're really desperate to brainwash your teenagers with such views, why not teach them yourself?

Teachers have no choice but to teach in Catholic schools and parents don't have much of a choice either, the majority of the Irish people do not have any objections to homosexuality. But you think that state schools (funded by the public) should be pushing homophobic stances that religions hold because they used to be funded by them...

Your proposal will only set the education system back and is only abusing the power of teachers. We were stuck with a Catholic education system, that does not give free reign to push views upon the youth. You are free to push the views upon your own child unfortunately, but to extend that to an education system that is funded by the public will not and should not happen. It would be an exploitation of a schooling system that is in dire need of change. If such an effort was made, they would cease to be RCC schools fairly lively as public support for them would dwindle to a greater degree than it currently has.

Snappy Smurf

Originally Posted by Corkfeen
I doubt parent's attitudes will change by the time their children are in secondary school and teacher's would be equally unwilling to teach it as they would in Primary schools..... You will simply eliminate every Catholic school in the country if you teach something that 99% of Irish people do not agree with. You want teenagers to be taught that coming out is wrong and that it is evil to give into their desire to be in relationship with someone they care about if they are of the same sex, that's going to do wonders for the mental health of young people...

Endorsing such indoctrination in the school system is entirely wrong and far more immoral. You're just a condemning a minority, this is in no way different to teaching anti-semitism or racism in the education system. If you really want your children to believe this, do it yourself as it is not the duty of schools to teach intolerance of any variety.

Howl on sweetheart - let's get something straight - there are Catholic schools which are maintained by the Church. Usually a bishop or priest will be in charge and all the staff are Catholic. Well at least in Ulster there is the CCMS. I am not sure how things are done in the south but anyway, the point is, these aren't 'state schools' - they are Catholic schools. So if you want alternatives, you're gonna have to get busy.

You call it coming out, I call it labeling. The Church would discourage youths from labeling themselves. Like branding themselves. The Christian understanding is radically different from the world's understanding, it's like poles apart. The world sells a lie to try to make it all better whereas the Church offers the truth about the human person, broken but loved by God and called to love. If teaching young people to engage the homosexual lifestyle was actually producing more hurt and more pain and more despair, then wouldn't that be cruel? That is the position of the Church and so the Church is keen for the truth to prevail because people, not ideology, are what matters.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

This is a manifestly incorrect statement. There are measureable differences in brain structures between gay and straight men, there is a lot of genetic evidence, studies between twins support a biological disposition and tons of other physical characteristics that only manifest statistically (but relevantly).

Not that your point has any relevance to what I was saying even if you weren't completely wrong.



I know you need to toe the Christian-condemnation line here but this doesn't really have anything to do with what I am saying about judging people based on the actions of others.

Show me anything you have that shows that sexuality is biologically determined from birth or that there is a gene that determines sexuality.

There's been nothing demonstrated as far as I can tell that shows this.

Oh, and in terms of your claims about judging, this sin is no greater and no lesser than any other sin as far as Christianity is concerned. My sin before God makes me about as guilty as your sins. Thankfully, Jesus Christ came to rescue us if we only will repent and believe in Him, much as the man in Jimi's article has done.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Not so.

The usual Christian position is not that 'homosexuality' (as in an orientation) is sinful - but that homosexual activities are sinful.

Therefore, quite clearly, it is those who wish to argue against the usual Christian position who are making this all about sexual lust.

What is the sinful aspect isn't really the issue of my question. Rather how homosexuality as a state someone is in is viewed.

For example I had a discussion with you about homosexuality a few months ago where the notion that a homosexual man could fall in romantic love with another man, the way a heterosexual couple would, seemed totally alien to you (you kept comparing what I was talking about to loving your son or brother and saying you saw no issue with that).

So I'm not asking what you take issue with, I'm asking do you understand what homosexuality actually is.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

For example I had a discussion with you about homosexuality a few months ago where the notion that a homosexual man could fall in romantic love with another man, the way a heterosexual couple would, seemed totally alien to you (you kept comparing what I was talking about to loving your son or brother and saying you saw no issue with that).

That's rather an example of how you misquote and misrepresent others. I don't believe I ever suggested such a concept was alien to me. I shared my opinion that romantic love, if not accompanied by sexual activity, is no different from familial love in terms of Christian morality.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Show me anything you have that shows that sexuality is biologically determined from birth or that there is a gene that determines sexuality.

There's been nothing demonstrated as far as I can tell that shows this.

Oh, and in terms of your claims about judging, this sin is no greater and no lesser than any other sin as far as Christianity is concerned. My sin before God makes me about as guilty as your sins. Thankfully, Jesus Christ came to rescue us if we only will repent and believe in Him, much as the man in Jimi's article has done.

There is no one factor that determines sexual orientation, but the reality that there is a genetic part to sexual orientation has been known since the 70s. Statistical studies on related couples demonstrates that a genetic link increases the odds someone will be homosexual, but does not alone determine this.

Of course even if there were no genetic factor that doesn't mean it is a choice either. Developmental factors are also known to play a role in sexual orientation and you don't have any control over those either.

Of course the fact that the vast majority of gay people will tell you they didn't choose to be gay should also be a hint :pac:

Actor

Benny_Cake wrote: »

For what it's worth, I'd distinguish between some one who feels that all homosexuality activity is morally wrong, but leaves that up to the conscience of the person concerned, and those who feel that all homosexuality activity is wrong and that the State should effectively intervene to discourage it / stamp it out. While I'd disagree with both points of view, I can at least understand the first group as they aren't attempting to impose their personal moral position on others.

That homosexuality is sinful isn't a "point of view". It's a moral truth that has been thought through by brains much bigger than yours I can tell you.

philologos

Zombrex: Show me some studies that show that sexuality is biologically determined from birth. I'm more than happy to consider them, but I'm very sure that there is no concrete evidence to show this.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I don't believe I ever suggested such a concept was alien to me.

Well ya did. Here specifically

If you take away the sex then surely "homosexual commitment" simply means a non-sexual commitment between two people of the same gender? The love between a father and a son for example.

Nothing to do with "in terms of Christian morality", you discussed the example of homosexuals in love with a father loving his son. We had a long discussion about these being two different types of love, which at some point for some reason included an example of a woman sharing ice cream with her dog. But initially the concept of romantic love between homosexuals appeared alien to you, certainly if you thought it was equivalent to the love between a father and son or between two friends of the same sex who minded each other such as nuns.

PDN wrote: »

I shared my opinion that romantic love, if not accompanied by sexual activity, is no different from familial love in terms of Christian morality.

Do you agree though that they different types of love, different states of emotional connection? And that homosexuals fall in love with each other the same way that heterosexuals do?

I'm happy if you do, in my experience though a lot of Christians don't, viewing homosexuality as nothing more than a state of desiring sexual intercourse and nothing more.

Benny_Cake

Actor wrote: »

That homosexuality is sinful isn't a "point of view". It's a moral truth that has been thought through by brains much bigger than yours I can tell you.

Yes, it is a point of view. And if someone says that not all homosexual relations (as opposed to homosexuality) are sinful, that is also a point of view. If people didn't come to different conclusions regarding the morality of relationships, then there would be no discussion. I'm sure someone with your superior intellectual capacity realises that though.

Actor

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you agree though that they different types of love, different states of emotional connection? And that homosexuals fall in love with each other the same way that heterosexuals do?

The sexual chemistry just isn't there. It isn't designed that way. Sure, you can attempt to emulate the reproductive act till the cows come home, but it will get you nowhere.

Homosexuality is a distortion of Platonic love AFAIC.