*dries away tears*Originally posted by: mribnik1
No no, that had nothing to do with any of the posts in this thread, in fact, I haven't read them all. I just saw that some of the posts were about that and I was adding that I always assumed that's what it meant. I agree with you on this and many other issues, so that most certainly wasn't directed at you, or any individual. I just thought that's what it meant. haha.
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: Tabb
The VAST majority of homosexual will tell you it is NOT a choice.
Take your bible thumping bs somewhere else.
Bush will also tell you that God speaks through him.
You know, Hilter also said the same thing...
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
*dries away tears*Originally posted by: mribnik1
No no, that had nothing to do with any of the posts in this thread, in fact, I haven't read them all. I just saw that some of the posts were about that and I was adding that I always assumed that's what it meant. I agree with you on this and many other issues, so that most certainly wasn't directed at you, or any individual. I just thought that's what it meant. haha.
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet but aidjan posted a while back about a gay gene. I've always found the evolutionary aspect of homosexuality to be interesting. Why would a gene that promotes wasting energy on mating with the wrong sex survive? Apparently, the gene's evolutionary advantage is that in women, it tends to lead to more children.
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: Tabb
The VAST majority of homosexual will tell you it is NOT a choice.
Take your bible thumping bs somewhere else.
Bush will also tell you that God speaks through him.
You know, Hilter also said the same thing...
And you believe neither, right?
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: Tabb
The VAST majority of homosexual will tell you it is NOT a choice.
Take your bible thumping bs somewhere else.
Bush will also tell you that God speaks through him.
You know, Hilter also said the same thing...
And you believe neither, right?
What do you think?
Originally posted by: Tabb
Didn't that thread result in a huge flame war?
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: Tabb
The VAST majority of homosexual will tell you it is NOT a choice.
Take your bible thumping bs somewhere else.
Bush will also tell you that God speaks through him.
You know, Hilter also said the same thing...
And you believe neither, right?
What do you think?
I think so. Then why the unflinching faith in homosexual revelations?
Boy, that sounded terrible!
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Tabb
Didn't that thread result in a huge flame war?
Yeah. And?
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Tabb
Didn't that thread result in a huge flame war?
Yeah. And?
No one reached a conclusion that I could agree with.
Originally posted by: tss4
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: tss4
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
They may not choose to be attracted to people of the same sex, but they certainly choose to have sex with them.
And besides, since when does what people say about their lifestyle take precedence over scientific facts on the matter?
Apparently since reading the link Rip posted, where that is the 'evidence' offered.
And what is wrong with choosing to have sexual relationships with people you are attracted to? Don't forget - not all homosexuals are promiscuous, and not all heterosexuals are monogamous, so you aren't going to get far with that sort of argument.
The evidence is that science has not said that homosexuality is something genetic. There is no scientific proof for this claim, and many studies show correlations between current homosexuals and the situation of their childhood. I did not read everything from Rip's link.
I never claimed that homosexuality was somehow something worse than other sexual promiscuities, morally speaking. I DO claim that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and so I am claiming there is something wrong with choosing to have sex with someone you are attracted to if you are not willing to have a serious, lasting relationship with that person in marriage. I am basing this belief on the Bible, and what I have seen in my own life and the lives of my close friends. We can debate this point if you want, because it really is the issue at the heart of this debate.
And since you brought up homosexual promiscouity, you should know that monogomous relationships between homosexuals are statistically very rare. I know this is opening another topic, because a lot of debate rages on this issue, but the facts are simple: sexual exclusivity in homosexual relationships, including government sanctioned unions, are not nearly as common as they are in heterosexual relationships.
We're not debating if you beileve that gay sex is immoral. What we are trying to figure out is why people are gay.
I believe the morality and the choice are related.
You're stil missing the point. The thread was started about why people were gay. Not the morality of being gay or whether they choose to act on it on or not. Its acknowledged by many christians that its ok to be gay. Its the act of ingulging in gay sex that is quesioned as being immoral. But we are not even getting that far in this discussion. this is a discussion of why they have gay feelings to begin with.
Come on man, you are putting words in people mouths with definitions that are ambiguous. Most Christians will not say "It is OK to be gay" because there is a lot of confusion on what you mean when you say someone is gay. Certainly, most of the people I talk to assume that if you call yourself gay you are engaging in, or have no problem with, homosexual sex. And Christians definately would not agree with that, tss4.
And besides, the OP purposefully and very firmly stated that homosexuality is not a choice and that he was convinced of this. I feel he is mistaken, so I posted to present my views on the subject, because I would say it is a choice. And once you talk about choice it isn't long before it becomes a moral issue. There, so now you have the thought progression.
You're wrong. I was raised southern Baptist and was told consistently that it was the act of gay sex that was wrong. In addition, my wife's family is catholic as are many of my freinds. So I'm quite aware of how the catholic faith feels about this too. They believe that its fine to be gay but not to act on it. They do, quite clearly make the distinction between being gay and acting on the urges. So, I'm quite right when I say that most chirstians (that are knowledgeable about the churches stance) would tell you its ok to be gay (and most do in fact believe it not to be a matter of choice), but not to act on it. These are not my words but the words of chirstian and catholic preists.
In addition, I'll agree that most christians have moral objections to gay sex, but it is incorrect to say that christians do not approve of gay sex. There is a significant and growing minority of christians that do approve. If you need evidence look at the American branch of the Anglecan church... Its in quite the turmoil right now over this issue.
This is an interesting discussion to see play out over time. 20 years ago, you would have been hard pressed to find the support that gay rights has today. Any opinion poll broken down by age group, quite clearly shows the drastic difference between attitudes on gay rights between young adults (<30) and older generations. In young adults, the majority approve of gay rights. As the generations age, its almost inevitable that attitudes will increasingly become more tolerant of gays. It'll be interesting to see how much more widely accepted gay rights are in another 20 years.
One last thing, above in my quote of your words you say :
" the OP purposefully and very firmly stated that homosexuality is not a choice and that he was convinced of this. I feel he is mistaken, so I posted to present my views on the subject, because I would say it is a choice. "
then in a reply to someone else you said :
"I AGREE WITH YOU THAT HAVING A HOMOSEXUAL DESIRE IS NOT A CHOICE"
I can only way this could be taken in a manor that doesn't directly conflict with each other is if you are distinguishing between the desire and the act of homosexuality. Which is what I was refering to about what is accepted in christianity. So why is it ok for you to distinguish between them, but when I do it, I'm "putting words in people mouths with definitions that are ambiguous. "???
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Tabb
Didn't that thread result in a huge flame war?
Yeah. And?
No one reached a conclusion that I could agree with.
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Tabb
Didn't that thread result in a huge flame war?
Yeah. And?
No one reached a conclusion that I could agree with.
And you not agreeing with someone was based on the fact there was a flame war?
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
I never said that all actions that cause harm are neccessarily immoral, because certain things cause more harm than others and that is obvious. My point is that you are basing your view of what is and isn't immoral on SOMETHING, which I'm not sure of.
Surely, you don't see the difference between an accident and purposefully engaging in something that harms you not just physically, but emotionally and psycologically? If there were no STDs I would still say that promiscous sex is immoral, because there are other serious consequences (mental, psycological, etc.) that are very obvious.
Now, whether or not you are aware that something is harming you in some way, that is a separate issue. I base my morality on God and the Bible, and I'm very open about that. I will argue that the morality talked about in the Bible is a reasonable morality, with facts that support it. But reason can only uncover what the spirit already knows to be true. I begin by believing that homosexuality is immoral because the Bible tells me it is, and then when I see all the facts that show the negative consequences of homosexual lifestyles, I am not at all surprised.
I tend to avoid the word 'moral' and focus on the word 'ethical', but that really is semantics:
If your actions impose on the freedoms of, or cause preventable harm to, another person (a specific person, or an aggregate one, like the 'public' when you litter), without their legitimate consent, then they are unethical.
It's pretty easy to see that stealing, killing, lying, and yes, knowingly exposing someone to an STD without disclosure would fall under my definition as 'unethical'.
And those religions actively discriminate against gays here in the U.S.?Originally posted by: Tabb
You orginally stated that christianity is somehow the only reilgion that only has a grasp on morality concerning homosexsuality. This isn't true. There are plenty of religious groups that do activily discriminate gays.Originally posted by: conjur
Last I checked we were in the United States and all men were created equal.Originally posted by: Tabb
Goto the middle east, they'll still kill you for homosexsuality I beileve.Originally posted by: conjur
No, it fits perfectly.Originally posted by: Vic
You are inaccurately assuming that Christianity is the only religion that has moral rules against homosexuality. Quite the contrary, Christianity is about the only major religion that has at least partially accepted homosexuality (if not universally). So your out-of-the-blue comment really doesn't work here.Originally posted by: conjur
Who cares what Christians think? Why is the world's morals supposed to be based upon what the Christians think? Are Christians holding a monopoly on morality?
HA!
Name me the activist groups of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. that are clamoring for bans on same-sex marriage; calling for bans of books whose authors were gay or whose content included discussion of homosexualiy; calling for legislation preventing homosexuals from adopting children.
It's all "persons" were created equal
Originally posted by: conjur
And those religions actively discriminate against gays here in the U.S.?Originally posted by: Tabb
You orginally stated that christianity is somehow the only reilgion that only has a grasp on morality concerning homosexsuality. This isn't true. There are plenty of religious groups that do activily discriminate gays.Originally posted by: conjur
Last I checked we were in the United States and all men were created equal.Originally posted by: Tabb
Goto the middle east, they'll still kill you for homosexsuality I beileve.Originally posted by: conjur
No, it fits perfectly.Originally posted by: Vic
You are inaccurately assuming that Christianity is the only religion that has moral rules against homosexuality. Quite the contrary, Christianity is about the only major religion that has at least partially accepted homosexuality (if not universally). So your out-of-the-blue comment really doesn't work here.Originally posted by: conjur
Who cares what Christians think? Why is the world's morals supposed to be based upon what the Christians think? Are Christians holding a monopoly on morality?
HA!
Name me the activist groups of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. that are clamoring for bans on same-sex marriage; calling for bans of books whose authors were gay or whose content included discussion of homosexualiy; calling for legislation preventing homosexuals from adopting children.
It's all "persons" were created equal
Originally posted by: conjur
And those religions actively discriminate against gays here in the U.S.?Originally posted by: Tabb
You orginally stated that christianity is somehow the only reilgion that only has a grasp on morality concerning homosexsuality. This isn't true. There are plenty of religious groups that do activily discriminate gays.Originally posted by: conjur
Last I checked we were in the United States and all men were created equal.Originally posted by: Tabb
Goto the middle east, they'll still kill you for homosexsuality I beileve.Originally posted by: conjur
No, it fits perfectly.Originally posted by: Vic
You are inaccurately assuming that Christianity is the only religion that has moral rules against homosexuality. Quite the contrary, Christianity is about the only major religion that has at least partially accepted homosexuality (if not universally). So your out-of-the-blue comment really doesn't work here.Originally posted by: conjur
Who cares what Christians think? Why is the world's morals supposed to be based upon what the Christians think? Are Christians holding a monopoly on morality?
HA!
Name me the activist groups of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. that are clamoring for bans on same-sex marriage; calling for bans of books whose authors were gay or whose content included discussion of homosexualiy; calling for legislation preventing homosexuals from adopting children.
It's all "persons" were created equal
Originally posted by: conjur
No, it fits perfectly.Originally posted by: Vic
You are inaccurately assuming that Christianity is the only religion that has moral rules against homosexuality. Quite the contrary, Christianity is about the only major religion that has at least partially accepted homosexuality (if not universally). So your out-of-the-blue comment really doesn't work here.Originally posted by: conjur
Who cares what Christians think? Why is the world's morals supposed to be based upon what the Christians think? Are Christians holding a monopoly on morality?
HA!
Name me the activist groups of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. that are clamoring for bans on same-sex marriage; calling for bans of books whose authors were gay or whose content included discussion of homosexualiy; calling for legislation preventing homosexuals from adopting children.
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Well, I don't think your definition of "ethical" is 100%, but yeah ethical vs moral is really a semantic argument.
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Well, I don't think your definition of "ethical" is 100%, but yeah ethical vs moral is really a semantic argument.
I'm pretty laissez-faire about ethics - if you aren't hurting someone, or even if you are but they give thier informed consent, or even if you're hurting each other, with mutual consent, you aren't doing anything wrong.
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
But lots of things were frequently fatal - swimming, skinned knees, all sorts of stuff. I agree that sex before antibiotics and birth control was considerably riskier than it is now. But at no time would I have called rape acceptable, and consensual sex has always been between two people accepting the risks of their behavious; ethically there is no problem.Originally posted by: Vic
Indeed. And it is in this context that we can see the reasoning for moral laws against promiscuity and homosexuality. Not but 3 or so generations ago, even minor STD's were frequently fatal (or would result in sterility). There was no easy-cure shot for the clap like we have today. And morality is ethics on culture-wide scale. Life was very different 2,500 years ago.Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I tend to avoid the word 'moral' and focus on the word 'ethical', but that really is semantics:
If your actions impose on the freedoms of, or cause preventable harm to, another person (a specific person, or an aggregate one, like the 'public' when you litter), without their legitimate consent, then they are unethical.
It's pretty easy to see that stealing, killing, lying, and yes, knowingly exposing someone to an STD without disclosure would fall under my definition as 'unethical'.
As 'good advice' though, that's a different story - I'm quite sure the reason God told Jews not to eat pork was that pork was unsafe. Today pork is probably the safest meat you can buy, but I have noticed that God hasn't come back to remedy the situation It's okay, chicken tastes better anyway.
Oh, I get it... but actually, in Jesus' time, pork was still the most dangerous meat aroundOriginally posted by: Trevelyan
I would claim that he did come back and rectify the situation... get it?
(HINT: Christians can eat pork.)
Guess I've missed the Jewish bigots, Hindu bigots, Buddhist bigots, Wiccan bigots, etc. that are trying to force bigoted viewpoints upon our country.Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes.Originally posted by: conjur
And those religions actively discriminate against gays here in the U.S.?Originally posted by: Tabb
You orginally stated that christianity is somehow the only reilgion that only has a grasp on morality concerning homosexsuality. This isn't true. There are plenty of religious groups that do activily discriminate gays.Originally posted by: conjur
Last I checked we were in the United States and all men were created equal.Originally posted by: Tabb
Goto the middle east, they'll still kill you for homosexsuality I beileve.Originally posted by: conjur
No, it fits perfectly.Originally posted by: Vic
You are inaccurately assuming that Christianity is the only religion that has moral rules against homosexuality. Quite the contrary, Christianity is about the only major religion that has at least partially accepted homosexuality (if not universally). So your out-of-the-blue comment really doesn't work here.Originally posted by: conjur
Who cares what Christians think? Why is the world's morals supposed to be based upon what the Christians think? Are Christians holding a monopoly on morality?
HA!
Name me the activist groups of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. that are clamoring for bans on same-sex marriage; calling for bans of books whose authors were gay or whose content included discussion of homosexualiy; calling for legislation preventing homosexuals from adopting children.
It's all "persons" were created equal
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: Tabb
The VAST majority of homosexual will tell you it is NOT a choice.
Take your bible thumping bs somewhere else.
Bush will also tell you that God speaks through him.
You know, Hilter also said the same thing...
And you believe neither, right?
What do you think?
I think so. Then why the unflinching faith in homosexual revelations?
Boy, that sounded terrible!
You think I beileve god spoke through them? I don't think god speaks through ANYBODY.
I think I'll put much more thought into my posts...
Not sure what you mean by "unflinching faith"....