homosexuality

Originally posted by mark24:Perhaps I should have asked, WHY should they deny their phenotype, when they are harming no-one?Because to a theist sex for pleasure is evil and dirty and a sin and thus must be denied to one's self. You know the so-called Original Sin nonsense.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-26-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
But the analogy still stands...if genetics justifies one behavior, then it *must* justify another or you are inconsistent.

---

Only if genetics is the only criterion used in the justification.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE][B]Perhaps I should have asked, WHY should they deny their phenotype, when they are harming no-one?[/QUOTE][/B]Is morality defined only in terms of whether or not it hurts anyone?
If so then your point is sound.My morality isn't so simple because I presuppose a creator who created the sexes with certain intentions. Basically I don't think homosexuality is a good idea because things are they way they are to serve as a means to an end (there's a lot of theology there I am intentionally omitting) and homosexuality is not a part of that means.As I've tried to point out, the practice of homosexuality isn't bothering me, I don't think it's going to bring about the fall of the Western world. But, given that morality is rather subjective, and given that my moral-decision structure is more complicated than just by deciding if its ok or not based upon whether it hurts somebody, I think my moral decisions make as much sense as anyone elses', and I think I am justified in choosing my own moral stance about such issues. After all, if people are allowed to decide that homosexuality is ok in their own moral views I should be allowed to decide that homosexuality is not ok, based upon my own moral views and theological perspectives. It feels very strange to have my own personal values debated in this thread for that reason. [QUOTE][B]True, but then people who have genetic disorders that harm others should be treated with understanding too, wouldn't you say?[/QUOTE][/B]Huh? Well yeah if they don't hurt somebody connected to me (I'm not going to say I'm beyond vengeance or other unfortunate traits humans sometimes express). [QUOTE][B]Or are you a lock-em-up-&-throw-away-the-key kind of a bloke?[/QUOTE][/B]Most of the time, no (see above disclaimer). This is a strange tangent and I'm wondering why we've come here.If it answers your question, I try to go by a live-and-let-live philosophy. Gay people aren't bothering me so why should I bother them? After all I can accept them as people and share society with them, but nowhere is it required that I agree with them.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-26-2002]

[QUOTE][B]You know the so-called Original Sin nonsense.[/QUOTE][/B]Something I don't believe in of course but I'm still trying to omit theology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[B][QUOTE][B]I also understand that the use of the phrase "so-called" before the word "homosexual" every single time it appears in the LDS policy on gays doesn't make you think that they aren't even willing to use the word by itself because this might make people think that they believe gay people are "naturally" like that.

​

To me, using "so-called" in this way is the way people use it to mean that whatever a group or a person is calling themselves isn't really what they are; a "so-called" artist would be a term for someone who calls themselves an artist but that the writer doesn't consider a "real" artist, for example. [/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

(Apologies to the moderators for the excessively long quote, but I needed all of it.)

​

The president and prophet of the church that you pointed out uses "so-called" is 92 years old. He was my age before the Second World War. Back in those days the word "gay" meant "merry". The word was not even associated with homosexuality until 1953 and then it was slang.
Homosexuality entered the pop culture (and we all learned the new definition of "gay") much later than that.

​

The word "Lesbian" was coined in 1703 but this dictionary uses the primary definition as "of or related to Lesbos".

​

(Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1989)[/QUOTE]

​

Are you telling me that the writings of the president are not reviewed by anyone else before being made public? He has no assistance to make sure everything is clear?

​

I wonder why he just didn't use the word "homosexual", then?

​

quote:

---

How else is "so-called" generally used to mean something else, Gene?

---

​

In reference to new slang.

​

"These so-called skaters..."

​

"This so-called metal music"

​

Yes it can be meant in a derogatory sense but you have to look at the context, and consider the speaker.

---

Hmmm, Idid look at the context, and the speaker, and that's how I came to my interpretation.The speaker is coming from the context of beliving that the two genders were created by God for the union of man and woman exclusively. It makes perfect sense to me that someone who believes this wouldn't really be able to think that homosexuals were "really" homosexual, because God made the two genders for a reason. I believe that you have used this argument yourself.

quote:

---

And if, as you have consistently claimed, the LDS church refuses to acknowledge that gay people are "really" gay then why does President Hinckley, in that very same message, contradict your interpretation by pointing out that for some people, those urges are overwhelming and difficult to control? It sounds like he's admitting some people are very prone to homosexuality, by nature of their biology, the exact opposite of your claim.

---

No, it doesn't sound like that to me. I think you are reading too much into what is there.He mentions nothing at all about nature or biology in the entire statement.Combine that significant ommission with the inclusion of the "so-called" qualifiers and you come to my conclusion.[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by mark24:

​

Perhaps I should have asked, WHY should they deny their phenotype, when they are harming no-one?

​

Because to a theist sex for pleasure is evil and dirty and a sin and thus must be denied to one's self. You know the so-called Original Sin nonsense.

​

[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-26-2002]

---

Of course, not all theists are christians, and not all christians are catholic, and catholics are the only ones who believe in original sin.The broad paintbrush you like to use is inaccurate and not what I would call an asset to debate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Of course, not all theists are christians, and not all christians are catholic, and catholics are the only ones who believe in original sin.

---

Not so, Schraf. I was raised Baptist-- definitely not Catholic-- and original sin was a given. The same is true, I believe, for the Pentecostal sect, to which my mother belonged before being married and to which she has returned after the death of my father. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major denomination which does not believe original sin.^ See that, Nos. I am on your side.Of course, Schaf is right about this:

quote:

---

The broad paintbrush you like to use is inaccurate and not what I would call an asset to debate.

---

------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 10-29-2002]

Original sin is Augustinian and dates from long before the Reformation or even the 1054 East/West split. It is a part of the vast majority of Christian belief systems.However, it does not have to mean "Adam ate this fruit and ever since we've.......". Most non-fundamentalist theologians find it more useful to see original sin in the sense of humans having a selfish imperative. Evolution, incidently, explains extremely well from a scientific POV exactly why that might be - the Australopithecus who gives someone else his food is less likely to be the one ancestral to H. habilis.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
Most non-fundamentalist theologians find it more useful to see original sin in the sense of humans having a selfish imperative. Evolution, incidently, explains extremely well from a scientific POV exactly why that might be - the Australopithecus who gives someone else his food is less likely to be the one ancestral to H. habilis.....

---

Not necessarily - evolutionary anthropology tends be explain the remarkable human quality of altruism rather better than the regrettable quality of selfishness. The genes of the caring sharing (no doubt left-wing liberal) Australopithecus are more likely to survive through the difficulties of existence in the long-term, even if she is inconvenienced short term. As she cannot see into the long-term far enough to identify that advantage, there may be another explanation for her altruism - it offers evolutionary advantage!Interestingly religion plays the same role - providing a people with rules which put long-term adavantage, however difficult it may be to see, over short term expediency. For example, the Hindu prohibition against eating cows ensures that the main source of protein (from milk and ghee), fuel(from dung) and draft labour is not sacrificed to short term expediency in time of hardship. It would be difficult to explain to a starving man why he should not kill his cow to feed his family on the basis that when the crisis is over he will need his cow if any who come through the crisis are to survive long term. A religious tabbo so strong that it would disgust him to contemplate it is very useful in such circumstances.The British, who disdained the logic of this, discovered its sense during the famine of 1942/3 - at the height of the war. They made the killing of cows a hanging offence, precisely because the lack of cows would have extended the crisis far beyond the point at which it might naturally have recovered.Religion and evolution playing the same roles - who would have though it?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Of course, not all theists are christians, and not all christians are catholic, and catholics are the only ones who believe in original sin.

---

Not so, Schraf. I was raised Baptist-- definitely not Catholic-- and original sin was a given. The same is true, I believe, for the Pentecostal sect, to which my mother belonged before being married and to which she has returned after the death of my father. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major denomination which does not believe original sin.[/QUOTE]I stand corrected, and I am rather embarassed to have made the mistake, because I know what you are saying is true."Duh" to me. [QUOTE]^ See that, Nos. I am on your side.Of course, Schaf is right about this:

quote:

---

[b]The broad paintbrush you like to use is inaccurate and not what I would call an asset to debate.[/quote]

​

---

"Because to a theist sex for pleasure is evil and dirty and a sin and thus must be denied to one's self. You know the so-called Original Sin nonsense."
--False------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--False

​

---

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. [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-29-2002]

KJV - Proverbs 5
18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?--Erotic enough for you? Sexual pleasures are most welcome while in the confines of marriage. Your usage of 'theist' as others pointed out to you, was also a problem.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-30-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
KJV - Proverbs 5
18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?

​

--Erotic enough for you? Sexual pleasures are most welcome while in the confines of marriage. Your usage of 'theist' as others pointed out to you, was also a problem.

​

---

Is this pre or post Ausgustian? After Ausgustine the Church took a very dim view on any sex for pleasure at all.1 My son, attend unto my wisdom, and bow thine ear to my understanding: 2 That thou mayest regard discretion, and that thy lips may keep knowledge. 3 For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil: 4 But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. 5 Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell. 6 Lest thou shouldest ponder the path of life, her ways are moveable, that thou canst not know them. 7 Hear me now therefore, O ye children, and depart not from the words of my mouth. 8 Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house: 9 Lest thou give thine honour unto others, and thy years unto the cruel: 10 Lest strangers be filled with thy wealth; and thy labours be in the house of a stranger; 11 And thou mourn at the last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed, 12 And say, How have I hated instruction, and my heart despised reproof; 13 And have not obeyed the voice of my teachers, nor inclined mine ear to them that instructed me! 14 I was almost in all evil in the midst of the congregation and assembly. 15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. 16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. 17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers' with thee. 18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. 20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger? 21 For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and he pondereth all his goings. 22 His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins. 23 He shall die without instruction; and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray.Old Russian proverb; "If your neighbor has a goat and you don't, don't be jealous, kill the goat.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-30-2002]

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.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-30-2002][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-30-2002]