Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   homosexuality
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 239 (21135)
10-30-2002 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by TrueCreation
10-30-2002 4:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Is there a book-chapt-verse you'd like to attribute to your quote?
--N/M - didn't take enough time to read the quote, I would put emphasis on the segment I cited in my last post.

Augustine was a primary theological shaper of thought and went so far as to argue that sex was sinful even within wedlock unless the specific purpose was always conception!
How Sex Was Made A Sin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2002 4:59 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2002 10:15 PM nos482 has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 239 (21147)
10-30-2002 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by nos482
10-30-2002 6:21 PM


And? The guy was an Italian missionary in the 500's, & thusly does not exactly have the final word as to whether his biblical interpretation is correct or not.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nos482, posted 10-30-2002 6:21 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nos482, posted 10-31-2002 6:26 AM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 34 by John, posted 10-31-2002 8:44 AM TrueCreation has replied

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 239 (21166)
10-31-2002 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by TrueCreation
10-30-2002 10:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
And? The guy was an Italian missionary in the 500's, & thusly does not exactly have the final word as to whether his biblical interpretation is correct or not.

That would be Saint Augustine, so his opinion does carries some weight. And Christianity does frown on sex for pleasure for the most part now.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2002 10:15 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by TrueCreation, posted 10-31-2002 3:37 PM nos482 has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 239 (21173)
10-31-2002 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by TrueCreation
10-30-2002 10:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
And? The guy was an Italian missionary in the 500's, & thusly does not exactly have the final word as to whether his biblical interpretation is correct or not.

It does not do you well to downplay the influence tha Augustine has had on Christianity. That influence is second only to Paul's influence, IMHO.
You are correct that his is not the final word, but calling him 'some missionary' is like calling Ghengis Khan some guy who led an army.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2002 10:15 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by RedVento, posted 10-31-2002 9:51 AM John has replied
 Message 47 by TrueCreation, posted 10-31-2002 3:38 PM John has not replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 239 (21174)
10-31-2002 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by John
10-31-2002 8:44 AM


quote:
It does not do you well to downplay the influence tha Augustine has had on Christianity. That influence is second only to Paul's influence, IMHO.
You are correct that his is not the final word, but calling him 'some missionary' is like calling Ghengis Khan some guy who led an army.
I just had to comment on that, I actually spit out my coffee when I read this...
I also wanted to comment on homosexuality.. This is not my belief btw, I feel that as long as I'm not involved, and no one is getting hurt then by all means be "gay"
BUT, it can be viewed as wrong from an evolutionary/biological standpoint quite easily. The point of life is the propogation of species, and obviously people engaged in purely homosexual relations will never fullfill their evolutionary destiny. Obviously that can be construed as a "bad" thing and therefore homosexuality must be bad since it could concievable lead to the extinction of humans.
Remember this is not my thinking, but it CAN be used as an argument as to why homosexuality is wrong, or bad, or whatever...
Red
[This message has been edited by RedVento, 10-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by John, posted 10-31-2002 8:44 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by John, posted 10-31-2002 10:12 AM RedVento has replied
 Message 41 by nator, posted 10-31-2002 11:40 AM RedVento has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 239 (21176)
10-31-2002 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by RedVento
10-31-2002 9:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
BUT, it can be viewed as wrong from an evolutionary/biological standpoint quite easily.
I don't think so. This is the point both Schraf and I have been arguing. The thread is pretty short so I don't think it worthwhile to scrounge up particular posts.
quote:
The point of life is the propogation of species, and obviously people engaged in purely homosexual relations will never fullfill their evolutionary destiny.
And hundreds of millions of bees never mate. They are incapable of it, actually. I think the pure raw mate-and-make-babies argument can only apply to non-social animals and really, there aren't very many of them. Once a social structure gets in the game, the rules change. Things that may not be beneficial for loners may suddenly become helpful. I personally think that sexuality in humans serves to maintain social bonds, which we depend upon a great deal.
quote:
Obviously that can be construed as a "bad" thing and therefore homosexuality must be bad since it could concievable lead to the extinction of humans.
There is pretty good evidence that homosexual behavior has been around a VERY long time. It also exists in other animals. It seems, therefore, that there is something wrong with the analysis of the behavior as 'bad' and leading to extinction.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RedVento, posted 10-31-2002 9:51 AM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 10-31-2002 10:37 AM John has replied
 Message 42 by RedVento, posted 10-31-2002 11:57 AM John has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 37 of 239 (21178)
10-31-2002 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by John
10-31-2002 10:12 AM


Off topic, a bit, I know, but I wanted to chime in with a bit of correction here.
quote:
And hundreds of millions of bees never mate. They are incapable of it, actually. I think the pure raw mate-and-make-babies argument can only apply to non-social animals and really, there aren't very many of them. Once a social structure gets in the game, the rules change. Things that may not be beneficial for loners may suddenly become helpful.
Most eusocial critters, at least Hymenoptera (bees, wasps, ants and their ilk), are highly caste stratified into reproductives (a queen, and some male drones) and a huge majority of non-reproductives. A good case has been made (starting with Wilson, for instance), that the entire social structure of eusocial insects is "built" around insuring the survival and reproduction of the colony. In fact, in a lot of the species' males have a realllllyyyy short lifespan geared specifically and ONLY toward mating. So saying that "once a social structure gets in the game the rules change" seems to me to be inaccurate. I'm not disagreeing with your overall premise (see below), just that using eusociality is a bad example.
quote:
I personally think that sexuality in humans serves to maintain social bonds, which we depend upon a great deal.
Couldn't agree more - that's actually the evolutionary explanation for why sex is so enjoyable . We can observe the use of sex - both literal and figurative, and both homo- and heterosexuality - in our nearest cousins where it very much serves to maintain, strengthen, or occasionally determine, social bonds.
Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by John, posted 10-31-2002 10:12 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by nos482, posted 10-31-2002 10:55 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 39 by John, posted 10-31-2002 10:58 AM Quetzal has replied

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 239 (21180)
10-31-2002 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Quetzal
10-31-2002 10:37 AM


Originally posted by Quetzal:
Couldn't agree more - that's actually the evolutionary explanation for why sex is so enjoyable . We can observe the use of sex - both literal and figurative, and both homo- and heterosexuality - in our nearest cousins where it very much serves to maintain, strengthen, or occasionally determine, social bonds.
Yes, there is a good example of this in the "wild" with Bonobos(sp) chimps. They've completely separated sex from reproduction and use it as we would a handshake to greet each other. They "practice" almost every form of sexuality with very few taboos (no sex between mothers and sons over a certain age, etc). They are also the only known primates which haven't been known to commit murder from what I understand.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 10-31-2002 10:37 AM Quetzal has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 239 (21181)
10-31-2002 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Quetzal
10-31-2002 10:37 AM


[QUOTE]A good case has been made (starting with Wilson, for instance), that the entire social structure of eusocial insects is "built" around insuring the survival and reproduction of the colony. In fact, in a lot of the species' males have a realllllyyyy short lifespan geared specifically and ONLY toward mating. So saying that "once a social structure gets in the game the rules change" seems to me to be inaccurate. I'm not disagreeing with your overall premise (see below), just that using eusociality is a bad example.[/b][/quote]
Can you elaborate? I don't really follow.
You state: {quote...the entire social structure of eusocial insects is "built" around insuring the survival and reproduction of the colony.[/quote]
Fine. Any social structure ultimately is geared toward the survival of the colony. This doesn't change the fact that some individuals do not directly reproduce.
Maybe I'm missing something?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 10-31-2002 10:37 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Quetzal, posted 11-01-2002 6:47 AM John has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 239 (21183)
10-31-2002 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by nos482
10-29-2002 4:06 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]--False [/QUOTE]
Yes, you're beliefs are false. It is a major teaching that sex for pleasure is a sin. It is only the heretic sects which say otherwise.
Oh, so now the broad paintbrush has been reduced to a narrower one by the admission that only the Chistian groups not included in your "heretic sects" consider sex for pleasure wrong.
nos, I mean this with all earnestness; please work on being less sloppy in your debating.
The idea is to be intelligent and fair and to stick with the evidence.
You all-too easily slip into a "All you religious people are a bunch of dumb poo poo heads" style of posting which is childish and diminishes the otherwise general very high quality of discourse around here.
You and I are often agree on the issues, but I find myself wishing you weren't on "our" side, because of how snide and condescending and downright sloppy you can be, and often are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nos482, posted 10-29-2002 4:06 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by nos482, posted 10-31-2002 2:19 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 41 of 239 (21184)
10-31-2002 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by RedVento
10-31-2002 9:51 AM


quote:
BUT, it can be viewed as wrong from an evolutionary/biological standpoint quite easily. The point of life is the propogation of species, and obviously people engaged in purely homosexual relations will never fullfill their evolutionary destiny.
That is only true if all or a majority of individuals in a species engage in such "purely homosexual" behavior, and it is actually only true of males. Females could still be "taken" and impregnated.
You are right; the point of life is the propagation of species. If you are gay and your brother is not, and you help to protect and raise your brother's children, a great deal of your genes are still being passed on through your nieces and nephews.
In addition, if sexual behavior in humans was exclusively concerned with reproduction, there would be no reason for humans to be interested in sex except during the time when the female is fertile. The fact that we see humans as being interested in sex at all times during a woman's cycle strongly implies that, for humans, sex is a powerful bonding behavior which is very important to our success as a species.
quote:
Obviously that can be construed as a "bad" thing and therefore homosexuality must be bad since it could concievable lead to the extinction of humans.
Except that it is obvious that a relatively small percentage of the human population follows an exclusively gay lifestyle, and this percentage has never been very high as long as such things have been recorded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RedVento, posted 10-31-2002 9:51 AM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by RedVento, posted 10-31-2002 12:14 PM nator has replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 239 (21187)
10-31-2002 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by John
10-31-2002 10:12 AM


quote:
And hundreds of millions of bees never mate. They are incapable of it, actually. I think the pure raw mate-and-make-babies argument can only apply to non-social animals and really, there aren't very many of them. Once a social structure gets in the game, the rules change. Things that may not be beneficial for loners may suddenly become helpful. I personally think that sexuality in humans serves to maintain social bonds, which we depend upon a great deal.
Well when one human female can birth litereally millions of offspring then comparing a bee's sexuality to a humans might have some weight, until then I am not convincened. As to sexuality used to maintain social bonds I would tend to agree, since sex is pleasurable. And since there is a relativily small window in which to procreate during a cycle we need a reason to have sex as often as possible to ensure or try to ensure pregnancy. But that also lends itself towards propogation.
quote:
There is pretty good evidence that homosexual behavior has been around a VERY long time. It also exists in other animals. It seems, therefore, that there is something wrong with the analysis of the behavior as 'bad' and leading to extinction.
There is only one other animal I know of that exhibit "homosexual" behaviour, the bonobo(sp?) chimp, which uses sex as tension releiver. Also as a way to releive tensions in the group. As far as I know they are also the only other species that get pleasure from the act.
As to the exinction, extrapolate homosexuality out to its obvious ludicrous end. What if EVERYONE was homosexual? There was no heterosexual intercourse, what would that do the collective future of the race? Then tell me that it couldn't be argued that homosexuality cannot be seen as "bad."
Personally I really could not care less, obviously that situation will never happen and thus is not really important to consider, but considering where this conversation is taking place..
Its the kind of argument that can be made and really has a hard time being defeated because of the half-logic, and proposterous situations involved =/
Red
Make Love(to whomever) not War

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by John, posted 10-31-2002 10:12 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by John, posted 10-31-2002 12:39 PM RedVento has replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 239 (21189)
10-31-2002 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by nator
10-31-2002 11:40 AM


quote:
That is only true if all or a majority of individuals in a species engage in such "purely homosexual" behavior, and it is actually only true of males. Females could still be "taken" and impregnated.
You are right; the point of life is the propagation of species. If you are gay and your brother is not, and you help to protect and raise your brother's children, a great deal of your genes are still being passed on through your nieces and nephews.
In addition, if sexual behavior in humans was exclusively concerned with reproduction, there would be no reason for humans to be interested in sex except during the time when the female is fertile. The fact that we see humans as being interested in sex at all times during a woman's cycle strongly implies that, for humans, sex is a powerful bonding behavior which is very important to our success as a species.
Right, but IF homosexuality IS genetic, then those genes can be passed, and CAN become a dominant trait that COULD lead to the majority having only homosexual intercourse?
As to why sex is pleasurable, since we will only have one child at a time normally, and the rate at which females can reproduce is once every 12-13 months, and up until recently child mortality wasnt so hot, we needed to make sure we had as many children as possible. Given the small window of opportunity there needs to be a reason to have sex as often as possible to increase the chances of copulation, hence sex feels good.
quote:
Except that it is obvious that a relatively small percentage of the human population follows an exclusively gay lifestyle, and this percentage has never been very high as long as such things have been recorded.
Definelty, hence my personal feelings.. But, and lets play what-if, what if the "gay genes" became dominant, and over the course of the next 100 years that small minority became the vast majority? Would you still feel the same way?
I am 99% sure that that wont happen, but it can't hurt to think about it, since all that will do is give you a further understanding of where this argument is coming from.
Just to make sure everyone knows, I am just playing Devil's Advocate, I really don't have strong feelings about the topic one way or another..
Red

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 10-31-2002 11:40 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 11-01-2002 2:11 AM RedVento has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 239 (21192)
10-31-2002 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by RedVento
10-31-2002 11:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
Well when one human female can birth litereally millions of offspring then comparing a bee's sexuality to a humans might have some weight, until then I am not convincened.
Number of offspring isn't relevent.
quote:
And since there is a relativily small window in which to procreate during a cycle we need a reason to have sex as often as possible to ensure or try to ensure pregnancy.
I think you've got this backwards. The human menstrual cycle is extremely wasteful of nutrients and other resources. There had to be something driving it, and that driving force was social bonding via sex.
quote:
There is only one other animal I know of that exhibit "homosexual" behaviour, the bonobo(sp?) chimp, which uses sex as tension releiver.
You don't have dogs, do you?
There isn't much info here, but there is a list of critters.
[url]No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/ambwww/SCIENCE-OF-SEXUALITY.htm[/b]http://www.geocities.com/ambwww/SCIENCE-OF-SEXUALITY.htm[/b][/b]http://www.geocities.com/ambwww/SCIENCE-OF-SEXUALITY.htm[/b][/quote]
quote:
As far as I know they are also the only other species that get pleasure from the act.
This is a very broad statement. How do you know?
quote:
As to the exinction, extrapolate homosexuality out to its obvious ludicrous end. What if EVERYONE was homosexual?
You're right. This is the ludicrous end.
What if everyone ate only bananas? What if everyone worked at a gas station? What if everyone only slept on the right side of the bed?
quote:
Then tell me that it couldn't be argued that homosexuality cannot be seen as "bad."
You can argue anything, but making a good argument is a much different thing.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RedVento, posted 10-31-2002 11:57 AM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by RedVento, posted 11-01-2002 9:27 AM John has replied

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 239 (21199)
10-31-2002 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by nator
10-31-2002 11:26 AM


Originally posted by schrafinator:
Oh, so now the broad paintbrush has been reduced to a narrower one by the admission that only the Chistian groups not included in your "heretic sects" consider sex for pleasure wrong.
nos, I mean this with all earnestness; please work on being less sloppy in your debating.
The idea is to be intelligent and fair and to stick with the evidence.
You all-too easily slip into a "All you religious people are a bunch of dumb poo poo heads" style of posting which is childish and diminishes the otherwise general very high quality of discourse around here.
You and I are often agree on the issues, but I find myself wishing you weren't on "our" side, because of how snide and condescending and downright sloppy you can be, and often are.
And while I'm at it maybe you should work on your sense of humour as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 10-31-2002 11:26 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by nator, posted 11-01-2002 2:15 AM nos482 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024