A personal question

quote:

---

I cannot speak for every religion because Im not aware of all of their scripts and so it would be wrong if I replied that statement, perhaps someone else would defend Judaism or Christianity.

​

But what I can say about Islam is that the Quran doesnt "teach" anything similar to hatred or intolerance to other faiths, it is PEOPLE who teaches those ridicilous belives and if you dont agree with that then please ask, I would be glad to correct your misconceptions about religion.

---

Well, who is to say what is a ridiculous interpretation of the Quran and what isn't?It isn't considered ridiculous to many people to deny voting rights to women in Kuwait today, and women there are supposed to have decent treatment compared to many Muslim countries.It isn't considered ridiculous to the LDS church to simply deny that homosexuality even exists, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.One person's "ridiculous" is another person's truth, Delshad, when we are talking about religion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

As long as they are of our own group. The Other is always a threat to be dealt with. Animals only kill when they are either hungry or feel threatened. Humans are one of the few animals who kill for sport or pleasure, and even prey on their own.

---

​

Lots of animals will eat their own offspring.

​

Animals such as weasels, fishers, raccoons, dogs and cats all kill for pleasure.

​

It's not terribly uncommon.

​

---

​

They kill out of instinct, they are predators.

---

But that is not what you said.You said that they do not kill for pleasure, only if they are hungry or threatened.This is incorrect, as the animals I mentioned DO kill out of a "kill-lust" sometimes, seemingly because of the pleasure it gives.If it was only the instinct of the predator, then wouldn't most predators do this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
They kill out of instinct, they are predators.

---

​

Your black vs. white perceptions are sometimes most amusing. Schaf is right. Many animals kill for the hell of it.

​

---

​

You are humanizing them. Bonk, bonk.

---

Stop being an idiot.If you cannot argue in good faith and must resort to childish "bonk bonk" comments which have nothing to do with the subject at hand and only lower the level of the discussion, then please refrain from posting.Trying to discredit your opponent instead of arguing your case is a lame debate tactic.It is not humanizing animals to point out that weasels, fishers, dogs, cats, and raccoons, for example, sometimes kill when they are not hungry and not threatened.You know, as much as I think you might not believe it and certainly won't admit it, you are wrong.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-19-2002]

[QUOTE][B]It isn't considered ridiculous to the LDS church to simply deny that homosexuality even exists, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.[/QUOTE][/B]Oh please.

Dear SchrafinatorFirstly, I want to make it clear for you that the fundamental reason for religion is to make life easier for us and to make us happy.
It serves as a moral guidance and if you wish to discuss that issue, then you would have to wait until wedndesday,(sorry but Quetzal should be back then and we are planning to open a topic discussing just that.)But what I could tell you is that deep inside a person you misuses religion for his own goals there is usually some other factor behind his acts.
For instance, if a population gets assaulted by another nation, SOME of the habitants would like to revenge the act by any means possible, and they wouldn`t hesitate to interpret the religious scripts in accordance to their desires.
But I stand clear in my position that whenever that happens, that individual is NO longer religious, because he has neglected the fundamental ground that all religion has been made for, love and solidarity.Sincerely Delshad

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]It isn't considered ridiculous to the LDS church to simply deny that homosexuality even exists, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Oh please.

​

---

"Oh, please", what?Am I wrong?The link you provided me about the LDS stance on homosexuality repeatedly refers to "so-called" homosexuality. This strongly suggests to me that the LDS church doesn't think that homosexuality is a real or valid state of being. It implied to me that they think that 100% of humans are 100% heterosexual.Considering that Bonobos, our closest relatives, (as well as many other mammalian species) exhibit abundant homosexual behavior I would think that this would be somewhat meaningful. Not to mention that it makes sense that since there is variation in every other trait in our species; why not sexual orientation?I have asked you repeatedly if you agree with this, and you have never answered substantively, if at all, just like this latest reply.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
Dear Schrafinator

​

Firstly, I want to make it clear for you that the fundamental reason for religion is to make life easier for us and to make us happy.
It serves as a moral guidance and if you wish to discuss that issue, then you would have to wait until wedndesday,(sorry but Quetzal should be back then and we are planning to open a topic discussing just that.)

---

That is what you have been taught, but it hasn't always been that way.Have you read the Old Testament? A great deal of it is God promising to smite down the enemes of his chosen people. There isn't a lot about love and happiness in there.

quote:

---

But what I could tell you is that deep inside a person you misuses religion for his own goals there is usually some other factor behind his acts.

---

Sorry, this is an unsupportable assertion. You have no idea about what is in the minds of people who do violence in the name of God. It is what you choose to believe and, in my view, is an excuse. It is the stock justification by religious people for wrongs done in the name of religion.

quote:

---

For instance, if a population gets assaulted by another nation, SOME of the habitants would like to revenge the act by any means possible, and they wouldn`t hesitate to interpret the religious scripts in accordance to their desires.
But I stand clear in my position that whenever that happens, that individual is NO longer religious, because he has neglected the fundamental ground that all religion has been made for, love and solidarity.

---

Again; read the Old Testament and tell me how much more killing and enemy-felling there is than love.[Fixed bold. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 10-19-2002]

[QUOTE][B]The link you provided me about the LDS stance on homosexuality repeatedly refers to "so-called" homosexuality. This strongly suggests to me that the LDS church doesn't think that homosexuality is a real or valid state of being.[/QUOTE][/B]What? This is the link I gave you.http://www.mormon.org/...y/answer/0,9777,1601-1-60-1,00.htmlPlease read it in context. [QUOTE][B]People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians.[/QUOTE][/B]Probably meaning people that live the gay or lesbian lifestyle. Not necessarily those who just have strong inclinations toward homosexuality.Then he points out that people DO have strong inclinations, including toward homosexuality: [QUOTE][B]They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times.[/QUOTE][/B]He isn't denying homosexuality can be a powerful in-born temptation.Where you got the idea that he is saying that homosexual tendencies do not exist is certainly beyond me because he actually says the opposite but I would appreciate it if you do not misrepresent my religious beliefs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

The link you provided me about the LDS stance on homosexuality repeatedly refers to "so-called" homosexuality. This strongly suggests to me that the LDS church doesn't think that homosexuality is a real or valid state of being.

---

​

​

What? This is the link I gave you.

​

http://www.mormon.org/...y/answer/0,9777,1601-1-60-1,00.html

​

Please read it in context.

​

[QUOTE][B]People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Probably meaning people that live the gay or lesbian lifestyle. Not necessarily those who just have strong inclinations toward homosexuality.

​

Then he points out that people DO have strong inclinations, including toward homosexuality:

​

[QUOTE][B]They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

He isn't denying homosexuality can be a powerful in-born temptation.

​

Where you got the idea that he is saying that homosexual tendencies do not exist is certainly beyond me because he actually says the opposite but I would appreciate it if you do not misrepresent my religious beliefs.

---

Here's the passage:
Gordon B. Hinckley, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued the following statement about homosexuality:"We believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord."People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are."We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families" (Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

quote:

---

Probably meaning people that live the gay or lesbian lifestyle. Not necessarily those who just have strong inclinations toward homosexuality.

---

This is an interesting spin on the passage, but not what the passage says. There's no talk of "lifestyle" in the passage. IN fact, there's no talk whatsoever of "gay", "lesbian", or "homosexual" without the disclaimer of "so-called".The point of the passage, it seems clear and obvious to me, is that while people may find the urge to do the immoral act of same-sex sexual activity, it is never someone's nature to BE a homosexual - someone for whom it is natural to have a loving, romantic, same-sex relationship.Let me rewrite that statement as a debate point:
"It is some people's nature to have loving, romantic same-sex relationships".Hinckley's statement is brief argument against exactly this debate point.Honestly, if you just read the following somewhere:

quote:

---

They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times.

---

What would be your guess as to what it is about? Drug addiction? Gambling problems? Temptation to cheat on your spouse?The LDS church treats homosexuality like these, not as a naturally occuring version of sexuality.So, what reasons, other than religious, do you have for thinking that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality?Or, put another way, do you share the LDS stance that homosexuality is not a normal variation of human sexuality, despite the evidence from nature such as the behavior of our closest relatives, the Bonobos, and despite the logic that sexual preference would have variation among individuals just like any other trait?[Fixed bold. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 10-19-2002]

[QUOTE][B]The point of the passage, it seems clear and obvious to me, is that while people may find the urge to do the immoral act of same-sex sexual activity, it is never someone's nature to BE a homosexual - someone for whom it is natural to have a loving, romantic, same-sex relationship.[/QUOTE][/B]You believe it is someone's rightful nature to be homosexual? [QUOTE][B]What would be your guess as to what it is about? Drug addiction? Gambling problems? Temptation to cheat on your spouse?[/QUOTE][/B]Excellent point! Some people are predisposed to domestic violence by nature of their genetics. Others are predisposed to chemical addiction. Some turn into flat out psychopaths.That doesn't mean that drug addiction, or compulsive stealing, murder, or rape are "natural states of being" or morally acceptable. [QUOTE][B]The LDS church treats homosexuality like these, not as a naturally occuring version of sexuality.[/QUOTE][/B]If homosexuality is natural because it is a genetically predisposed trait and occurs in nature, then aren't the above immoral behaviors equally "natural", and therefore, equally acceptable.Being gay is not the only temptation that comes "naturally" to some individuals.And in the same vein, if gay bonobos means that gay behavior in humans is perfectly permissable, then what about cannibalism in bonobos? Doesn't that become a "natural" thing for people to do?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
You believe it is someone's rightful nature to be homosexual?

---

Why wouldn't it be Gene? Biologically, the gender of one's mate is irrelevant unless one wants to make babies. You could argue that this in itself is enough to make homosexuality unnatural. Of course, the same logic also makes infertile men and women unnatural, and those merely choosing not to have kids, and those who only have on or two kids as well-- don't want to cut short the reproductive potential.

quote:

---

Excellent point! Some people are predisposed to domestic violence by nature of their genetics. Others are predisposed to chemical addiction. Some turn into flat out psychopaths.

​

That doesn't mean that drug addiction, or compulsive stealing, murder, or rape are "natural states of being" or morally acceptable.

---

It is an excellent point. Stealing, murder and rape are all different classes of behavior-- ie. they all involve harm to other individuals. You should realize this is a false analogy. As for drug addiction... it is only a problem when it leads to behavior like stealing, murder and rape.

quote:

---

The LDS church treats homosexuality like these, not as a naturally occuring version of sexuality.

---

But you Gene, are far too smart not to realize that the logic is flawed. Homosexuality isn't like murder or rape.

quote:

---

If homosexuality is natural because it is a genetically predisposed trait and occurs in nature, then aren't the above immoral behaviors equally "natural", and therefore, equally acceptable.

---

Equally natural? hmmm... that requires some clarification. There are no rules in nature as a whole. That is, one could probably find an example of any behavior at all in non-human animals. But we aren't talking about nature as a whole, we are talking about a particular species which survives by associating into groups. Certain behaviors, when not checked, are very bad for such associations. Homosexuality is not one of those behaviors.

quote:

---

And in the same vein, if gay bonobos means that gay behavior in humans is perfectly permissable, then what about cannibalism in bonobos? Doesn't that become a "natural" thing for people to do?

---

Already covered this.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[B][QUOTE][B]The point of the passage, it seems clear and obvious to me, is that while people may find the urge to do the immoral act of same-sex sexual activity, it is never someone's nature to BE a homosexual - someone for whom it is natural to have a loving, romantic, same-sex relationship.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

You believe it is someone's rightful nature to be homosexual?[/QUOTE]

​

Sure, why not?

​

[QUOTE][B]What would be your guess as to what it is about? Drug addiction? Gambling problems? Temptation to cheat on your spouse?[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Excellent point! Some people are predisposed to domestic violence by nature of their genetics. Others are predisposed to chemical addiction. Some turn into flat out psychopaths.

​

That doesn't mean that drug addiction, or compulsive stealing, murder, or rape are "natural states of being" or morally acceptable.

---

Gene, do you hold love as a value?Do you consider committed, supportive relationsips to be good?Can you tell me how people of who are in loving, committed relationships are a detriment to anyone in a comparable way to murderers or thieves just because they are the same gender? [QUOTE][B]The LDS church treats homosexuality like these, not as a naturally occuring version of sexuality.[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

If homosexuality is natural because it is a genetically predisposed trait and occurs in nature, then aren't the above immoral behaviors equally "natural", and therefore, equally acceptable.

---

I can't help but think of the time that women were considered dangerous and immoral creatures if they displayed any interst in sex.I have always considered something to be immoral if it is detrimental to innocents. How are gay people hurting anyone by loving each other? [QUOTE]Being gay is not the only temptation that comes "naturally" to some individuals.And in the same vein, if gay bonobos means that gay behavior in humans is perfectly permissable, then what about cannibalism in bonobos? Doesn't that become a "natural" thing for people to do? [/B][/QUOTE]Bonobos, to my knowledge, do not engage in canibalism, although other Chimps do.My whole point about the Bonobos is that homosexuality is not some wierd, cultural peculiarity to some humans, but a widespread primate behavior. In addition, it does not hurt anyone, and in reality serves to strengthen bonds in the Bonobo social network.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Biologically, the gender of one's mate is irrelevant unless one wants to make babies. You could argue that this in itself is enough to make homosexuality unnatural. Of course, the same logic also makes infertile men and women unnatural, and those merely choosing not to have kids, and those who only have on or two kids as well-- don't want to cut short the reproductive potential.

---

We would also have to consider it "unnatural", from a Biological viewpoint, to refrain from creating children as soon as we reach sexual maturity, which would be around 12 for girls and a few years older for boys.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
We would also have to consider it "unnatural", from a Biological viewpoint, to refrain from creating children as soon as we reach sexual maturity, which would be around 12 for girls and a few years older for boys.

​

---

Ah, correct. I forgot about that one. Gracias.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE][B]Why wouldn't it be Gene?[/QUOTE][/B]Because just because someone is genetically predisposed to a behavior
does not make that behavior "natural" to them.I'm waiting on your side to show that it is.Now think about this.From an evolutionary perspective, disregarding any supernatural beings, what is the purpose of sex?To reproduce.Why do we crave sex?So our genes get passed on.Homosexuality is an aberration of that. A fluke. It isn't the "natural" way of things, even in a completely naturalistic worldview. In fact it "should" be selected against so I wonder
why it is still around.Schrafinator's point seemed to be that it is "natural" for people to be that way. Even if she could prove it were natural it would not mean it was "right". Moral values transcend simply trying to transmit genes. [QUOTE][B]You should realize this is a false analogy.[/QUOTE][/B]I don't see it as a false analogy because, like same-sex marriages, they are not allowed by the church.Also, like homosexuality, they are all genetically predisposed.Therefore, if having a biological predisposition towards being gay makes it morally ok to be gay, being genetically predisposed to having violent episodes must make it morally ok to kill or do whatever may occur during one of those episodes.Now, granted, the law (IMO, rightfully) makes a distinction for the insane, but that doesn't justify crime.Therefore, there must be more to the issue than just rather or not a person (to use Schraf's words) "is 'really' gay". That is the purpose of my analogy. And by the way, I just want to clear up the original question, that it is my opinion that they *are* actually gay, though I suspect the gay culture occasionally sweeps in 'natural' heteros from time to time.The "problem" with my analogy is that we have different worldviews.Your definition of "immoral" is something that hurts someone, or perhaps, even only behaviors that hurt someone else. My definition of "immoral" is wider than that. Some behaviors can be "immoral" without hurting somebody, at least directly. I believe homosexuality is immoral, as are the other behaviors I mentioned. You apparently believe that only the behaviors that harm others are immoral. I respect that, you seem to be good people so your moral values, at least the ones that affect others, are strong. But the problem is that I can never prove to you that homosexuality is immoral, so I have to try to skirt around it. The purpose of this analogy was just to demonstrate that a genetic predisposition cannot be used to justify being gay. Taken in that context I fail to see how it is flawed. Please re-examine it and comment further in future posts. On to the next point. [QUOTE][B]Certain behaviors, when not checked, are very bad for such associations. Homosexuality is not one of those behaviors.[/QUOTE][/B]Hey, I agree with that. I need to point out first that by the nature of the culture of the place where I live I'm not knowingly around people who are openly gay so I can't really be sure about this, but I don't think I have anything against gay people. I don't see how they're doing anything bad to society by being the way they are. I'm not openly supporting same-sex marriage but I'm not *necessarily* against it either (open minded there). I also don't believe in the "homosexual agenda" those infuriating "Christians" talk about on the radio all the time (I actually heard one of them praise Stalin for his anti-gay policies once).*But* I believe it is contrary to the way God would want it to be. Obviously there are two sexes and I don't see any way around it. Plus Mormon theology comes into play but I'm not going to try to explain it, it is quite pointless to people who do not adhere to those beliefs and I would rather not have sacred things ridiculed.Suffice to say the Church does not recognize same-sex marriages. I
don't think that's a problem because gay people are not required to join unless they want to, and if they believe in the church, then obviously they must also believe the policy is correct. Theology is a package-deal and I don't think anyone should criticize us for it.After all, these are our beliefs, everyone has a right to worship (or not worship) God as they choose. It is easy for some of you here on this board to show tolerance towards a minority of society like homosexuals and at the same time show intolerance towards the LDS church (or whoever) because they don't share the same worldview as they do. Granted, homosexuality-at-large does not have a whole theology or worldview different from yours like we do, but I think you should try to be more consistent. [QUOTE][B]Already covered this.[/QUOTE][/B]I don't think "natural" should be the only criterion here. I think the "natural" perspective ultimately serves my position but we humans have very much distanced ourselves from what we would do "in nature". A good example someone mentioned in a later post was the observation that we normally don't have offspring as early as we would do otherwise.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-20-2002]