Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality.

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

If we choose to accept a lifestyle

---

"Lifestyle"? What is this "lifestyle" you're talking about? Surely you don't think all gay people live like they've been made over by Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, do you?If being gay is a choice, then being straight is one, too. Tell us, riVeRraT, when did you decide to become straight? Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a result of a bad experience with another person of the same sex? Perhaps what you need is just a good, gay lover to bring out your homosexual side. Perhaps it's because you had an overbearing father and weak mother that resulted in your heterosexuality and thus you never had a good example of how you were supposed to relate to people of the same sex. With appropriate therapy, I'm sure we could work through your neurotic attachment to people of the opposite sex.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

PecosGeorge writes:

quote:

---

I don't care if you walk from New York to California on your head, it's your head. Or is it? If I tell you that the rocks you encounter on the road will hurt your head, am I judgmental?

---

Poor analogy.Being gay doesn't hurt. It causes no harm of any kind.Therefore, you are being judgemental when you say that being gay will cause harm. Obviously, it doesn't, therefore claims that it does are simply wrong.

quote:

---

Do a study on the psychological make-up of the standard homosexual, and let me know if he is pretty much your average human being.

---

Yep. They are.Dr. Evelyn Hooker was one of the first people to do exactly that. For decades, the psychological claim that gays were psychologically damaged came from the fact that the only people the psychologists had seen who were gay were those seeking psychological help. They never went out to find gay people who weren't in need of a psychiatrist.So that's what she did and she found that gay people are in no way more damaged than anybody else in a similar position.By the way, if you make any reference to Paul Cameron or any research that gets traced back to him, I'll know that you can be dismissed out of hand as someone who literally does not know what he's talking about.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Thank you for your support.

backtalk33 writes:

quote:

---

And most of the girls said that they thought it was "cool" to be a lesbian

---

I think it's "cool" to be able to ride a unicycle.I can't, however.You do understand the difference between admiration of something and actually being that something, yes?

quote:

---

and a small percentage of girls admitted that they had pretended to be gay.

---

Define "pretended to be gay"? Do they mean held hands, engaged in a little kissyface, and whatnot...usually in front of other people in order to make sure that people saw?That's not "being gay." Instead, these girls should be asked if they had actually had sex (clothes off, some sort of touching of the vagina, etc.) with another girl, in private, where nobody else could see.

quote:

---

The story of the homosexual, and all he/she will suffer because of his/her sexual sin will likely differ from mine, but make no mistake, there will be consequences.

---

BZZZZT!Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, bakctalk33. Johnny, tell her what parting gifts she has!Well, Bob, bakctalk33 has won herself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of her life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, bakctalk33 gets a reward of going straight to Hades for her hubris. She'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for her continued insistence that those around her are unworthy of explanations.But, she won't get hungry because she'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat.You didn't really think that the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

as if there's any danger of that happening.

---

​

never said there was.

---

Yes, you did.Why would you even bring it up unless it were a possible danger?By your logic, it is bad to eat because if everything were eaten, then we'd all starve. If everybody were to eat everything, then there'd be no food left and everybody would die.Ridiculous, right? We are in no danger of eating everything, so there are no "consequences" of eating.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Impossible. Humans are a part of nature and thus everything they do is in accordance with the laws of nature. Humans are incapable of doing anything unnatural. If it were unnatural, it would be impossible to do.

---

​

The laws of nature with respect to keeping the human race going. Our survival.

---

But there is no danger of the human race going extinct due to a lack of reproduction.If everybody were a rocket scientist, we'd all die because there would be nobody to grow food and we'd starve, no medical care and we'd perish from disease, no housing and we'd succumb to the elements.Does that mean being a rocket scientist is unnatural?If everybody were a priest, we'd die for the same reasons.Does that mean being a priest is unnatural?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And before you try some silly retort, remind yourself that there are gay animals, too. In fact, pretty much every single mammalian species out there has been observed to have gay members. Dolphins are particularly randy and about 25% of them are at the very least bisexual if not gay.

---

​

But do they love each other.

---

Yes.In the case of some bird species, they mate for life. If that isn't love, what is it?Of course, you've painted yourself into a corner. Your argument is that being gay "goes against nature." Well, if we as humans can't be gay because the gay animals "don't love each other," then why should we be straight since the straight animals "don't love each other," either.Therefore, since gay humans do love each other, there is no difference between gays and straights and thus there is no moral difference between them.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you truly loved gay people, you would want them to receive equal treatment under the law.

---

​

Not so. If gay people loved me right back, and I wanted to steal from them, I'm sure they wouldn't vote for a rule to let me, just because they love me.

---

Non sequitur.How does stealing relate to equal treatment under the law? Stealing is against the law regardless of your sexual orientation.Stealing takes your property away from you and thus, does you harm.How does somebody else being gay do you harm? Do gay people get to vote twice in elections? Do they get to have easements on your property simply because they're gay? Do they have the right to force you to do anything you don't want to do?Be specific.

quote:

---

I told you, I feel as though its wrong

---

Irrelevant.The question is not whether you feel it's wrong. It's whether there should be a law against it simply because you feel it is wrong.Why are you so gung-ho to create a law prohibiting something that has absolutely no effect upon you?

quote:

---

I have just decided to not hate them for it, and would pull any gay person out of a burning car just the same.

---

But the car isn't on fire.Why are you overreacting to something that isn't a problem?

quote:

---

Oh and stop judging me, because you don't have me figured out in the least.

---

(*snort!*)This coming from the one who can't seem to go five posts without inserting some sort of psychological analysis into his response?Physician, heal thyself!

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Why is it that when someone doesn't agree with the gay lifestyle, that they automatically become afarid of them?

---

Because people who aren't afraid of homosexuality (what is this "lifestyle"? Not all gay people are poster children for Queer Eye) simply don't care if there are gay people.I don't like liver. Can't stand the taste of it. I don't go around thinking any less of people who do like it. Their enjoyment of liver affects me in absolutely no way. Nobody forces me to eat anything I don't want to eat. I'm an adult and I understand that I am the one in control of my life.Why are you so obsessed over something that doesn't affect you in any way?

quote:

---

I do not have a problem with a single race or lifestyle, I accept all.
More than you will ever know.

---

You're really a black lesbian in an interracial relationship?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to berberry:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What I don't understand is why virtually every fundie I know can't speak, write or spell correctly. Why is it that anyone should take your arguments seriously when you won't even bother to learn your native tongue?

---

​

Because its not my job to spell correctly.

---

Yes, it is. You are trying to convey your point through the medium of written language. The only way to do that is to express yourself in such a way that you will be understood.That means correct spelling and grammar.

quote:

---

I also could if I wanted too, but time is limited,

---

Huh?How does spelling correctly take any more time?Why can't the fundies teach their children how to speak?
This verbal class distinction by now should be antique!
If you spoke as he does, sir, instead of the way you do
Why you might be a creationist, too!Hear an Old Earth one or worse
Hear a Young Earth one converse
I'd rather be forced to read a sad Chick Tract
Trumpeting the joys of ignorancy
Just like this one:Irreducible complexity!I ask you, sir. What sort of theory is that?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

To backtalk33:Welcome to the forum, backtack33.Just wanted to clarify your position here -First query -
Are you (and/or the bible, in your opinion) against:1) Homosexuals (defined as people who are sexually attracted to those of the same sex)and/or2)Homosexuals engaging in homosexual sex,and/or3) Anyone engaging in homosexual sex?*******************************************************************Second query -On the nature/nurture continuum, I can think of 3 ways to describe how homosexuality (the attraction, not the act) could come about:1) Purely nature: That is, whether I am heterosexual or homosexual is determined solely by my genetic materials. This would mean that my sexual preferences is rigidly defined at the time I was born.Examples of (1) are sex and eye colour. They are entirely determined by nature/genes, unless physically altered through medical operations.2) Purely nurture (Tabula Rasa argument): That is, sexual preferences are purely learnt from the environment around us. This view dictates that the majority of us are heterosexuals because most of the people around us during our critical periods (when we were young) were heterosexuals, so we learnt our sexual preferences from them. Homosexuals, in this case, are viewed as individuals who have experienced a series of strong associations between homosexuality and sexual gratification during a critical period for learning sexual preference. They have then associated sexual gratification with people of the same sex and henceforth became sexually attracted to sexual icons/symbols of the same sex - resulting in homosexuality.Example of (2) is learnt fear. For example, fear of motoring after a serious car crash; fear of animals after a traumatic childhood experience; or more simply, fear of fire after we get burnt.3) A bit of both: That is, examining the condition of homosexuality as one would a physical/psychological disorder (no offence to audience intended, please read on to understand that the comparison is made purely on the METHOD of analysis). This view supposes that homosexuality has a natural predisposition (genetic in nature) which may or may not manifest itself, depending on the precipitating factors (environment surrounding the individual during their upbringing) and any "stress events" which may trigger the onset of homosexuality.Examples that could be attributable to (3) is almost anything you can think of. If advances in genetic studies can reveal predisposition genes, and experience in the past can account for aggravations leading to a manifestation of these predisposition genes, then the majority of personal attributes (sexual preferences, personality, diseases, psychological disorders, fear, intelligence, etc.) can all be explained by this argument.********************************************************************Of course, what I have outlined above are probably not ALL the choices available. But for argument's sake, I am very interested in what stance you take in relations to both of the above queries. I also meant this post for everyone else to define their stance on homosexuality along the nature/nurture continuum.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Sleeping Dragon writes:

quote:

---

That is, examining the condition of homosexuality as one would a physical/psychological disorder (no offence to audience intended, please read on to understand that the comparison is made purely on the METHOD of analysis). This view supposes that homosexuality has a natural predisposition (genetic in nature) which may or may not manifest itself, depending on the precipitating factors (environment surrounding the individual during their upbringing) and any "stress events" which may trigger the onset of homosexuality.

---

In order to help you make sure that you are not committing the offense, you might want to shift your object of examination from "homosexuality" to "sexual orientation" and to not refer to it, even in passing or through analogy, as a "disorder." That is, rewrite it as follows: The problem with your view as stated is that it still assumes that everyone is "supposed to be" straight. Nobody assumes that you're "supposed to be" white or blond or like chocolate ice cream. It seeks to understand homosexuality as some sort of deviation from heterosexuality rather than to understand sexuality as something that is expressed in multiple ways.Seriously, SD, would you talk about "stress events" with regard to the emergence of heterosexuality? If not, then why treat homosexuality any differently?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

To Rrhain:Thank you for your prompt reply.Reply to your post. You are more than welcome to. I can substitute "sexual orientation", "heterosexuality", "schizophrenia", "physical abilities", "intelligence", or pretty much anything I want to in the place of "homosexuality" in: The reason why I brought up the term "physical/psychological disorder" in my earlier post was because the process of clinical diagnosis IS what I have described (identify predisposition, find precipitating factors, find stress events). "Clinical diagnosis of physical/psychological disorders" was used more as an example of the method than vice versa.I am afraid I do not know if any other processes incorporate this method of examination. If you can suggest any that uses the same method but do not carry the same negative overtone, change it by all means. Well, that is not entirely true. We can examine heterosexuality in the same light:Predisposition in this case is genetic (as with most cases).Precipitating factors would be sexual gratification associations with the opposite sex during the earlier parts of our lives."Stress event" in this case would be puberty, where the combined effects of development of sex organs, hormonal storm within the body, as well as sexual awareness forces the individual(s) in question to seek or create a sexual identity/preference for him/herself.As a matter of fact, sexual orientations of ALL forms (homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, fetishes, etc.) seem to undergo the above process in similar ways.I hope that this clarifies any misunderstanding you may have. This model I have suggested is not, I hope, a biased one, and I would be more than happy to revise it if necessary.Side note:I sincerely hope that I can competently create a framework where both/all parties in this debate can argue on the same level. I think it is apparent that if one party argues along a nature path (gene determined) while the other insists that homosexuality is acquired (learnt - as talkback33 attempted to show with the teenage girl survey example) then it needs clarifying, yes?A problem I have seen in this thread is that those who opposes homosexuality seem to agree that homosexuality is acquired (that is, homosexuality is wrong and somehow, homosexuals can do something about it); while those promoting freedom in sexual orientation seem to agree that homosexuality is innate (or that whether it is innate or learnt bears no relevance to this debate). We're not really JUST discussing homosexuality now, are we?Sincerely awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Sleeping Dragon responds to me:

quote:

---

The reason why I brought up the term "physical/psychological disorder" in my earlier post was because the process of clinical diagnosis IS what I have described (identify predisposition, find precipitating factors, find stress events).

---

But that still implies that there is something "disordered" about being gay. It implies that there is a "problem" with being something other than heterosexual.You cannot use the word "disorder" without having the implication that there is an "order" that the phenomenon you are investigating is a deviation from.

quote:

---

I am afraid I do not know if any other processes incorporate this method of examination.

---

Um, psychology is (ostensibly) a science and the process you are using is typical experimental procedure: Poke it, prod it, see what happens. When you do this in chemistry, you don't call the chemicals "disordered." When you talk about the atoms reacting and forming a new compound, you don't put a value-laden term upon them.If you're trying to investigate the etiology of sexual orientation without placing a value judgement upon the types of expression, then you shouldn't use words that carry those value judgements.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Seriously, SD, would you talk about "stress events" with regard to the emergence of heterosexuality? If not, then why treat homosexuality any differently?

---

​

Well, that is not entirely true. We can examine heterosexuality in the same light

---

Obviously. But the question wasn't can you but do you.The point I am making is that there is the attitude that heterosexuality is the base and by altering heterosexuality, you wind up with homosexuality or bisexuality.Then there is the attitude that there is a deeper state of which heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality all emerge from.For a crude analogy, the former assumes that heterosexuality is vanilla and all other flavors of ice cream start with that as a base and change it into something else. The latter starts with dairy as a base and adjust it into all the various dairy products such as yogurt, ice cream, cottage cheese, etc.

quote:

---

We're not really JUST discussing homosexuality now, are we?

---

Acutally, that's precisely the complaint I'm making: These conversations are almost always discussing just homosexuality as if heterosexuality was what everyone is "supposed to be." The debate generally revolves around whether or not chocolate ice cream is a sin as if vanilla is of no concern. Instead, the discussion should be how ice cream comes about, not the specific flavor of it.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

To Rrhain:Alright. The misunderstanding seems to remain. I will make another attempt to clarify: This was the original statement I have made. If you use vanilla ice-cream to denote heterosexuality, and chocolate ice-cream to denote homosexuality, then my above statement would be something similar to saying "...eating chocolate ice-cream as one would meat".I am in no way assuming/asserting/hinting that homosexuality is a disorder, and if my expression was lacking, I apologise and make amends. I am merely claiming that the method of examination (eating) may be applied to both chocolate ice-cream (homosexuality) and meat (disorders). NOTE: This is because the examination method was developed FOR investigating disorders, and so investigating disorders IS what it is famous for (This is the reason why I brought up the point). Of course, this in no way implies that the method itself cannot be used for anything else.Having noted that there could be confusion with my statement (as you brought up), I have explained in a later post that the examination method (eating) could apply not only to all the flavours of ice-cream you can think of (all forms of sexual orientations) but indeed, to almost all personal attributes such as physical abilities, intelligence, preferences, etc. (all kinds of food), thus demonstrating the universality of the method. I brought up clinical diagnosis (meat) because that is the most well known (and to the best of my knowledge, the only explicit) usage of the method.I hope the above reasoning would be sufficient in clearing away any misunderstandings regarding my previous comment. Well I am wholeheartedly sorry for the unintended connotations. As I believe that I have made it very clear (in both previous posts) that the METHOD is the focus, not the other, more commonly known utility of the method. Example: if we are discussing ways to dispose of highly-classified secret documents, and I suggest that we could "burn secret documents in a furnace like we would garbage", that is in no way suggesting that I view secret documents as garbage. It just so happens that the commonly used method for disposal of garbage could ALSO be used for classified documents, and the garbage example allows you to understand exactly what I mean (method-wise). Well I hope that after you have read this post, you'll realise that the "former attitude" you're referring to has nothing to do with anything I'm proposing. That is the general feel in the forum, yes.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Sleeping Dragon writes:

quote:

---

I am in no way assuming/asserting/hinting that homosexuality is a disorder

---

But there is no way to avoid that implication when you talk about homosexuality using the word "disorder."I am not saying you are saying that. I'm saying that the way you are expressing your opinion leads one to infer that because of the specific words you use. If you don't think it's a disorder, then you shouldn't use that word. Like it or not, discussions of sexuality are politically charged and extremely sensitive and one needs to be careful of the words one uses.Yeah, yeah...I can hear the response of "PC" already coming, but this has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with understanding that the topic carries baggage. In order to make sure that you're not invoking the baggage, you have to avoid the terms that go along with that.Communication is a two-way street and if you know that one side makes a connection that you don't want to make, then you would do well to avoid that terminology lest they latch onto it.

quote:

---

I am merely claiming that the method of examination (eating) may be applied to both chocolate ice-cream (homosexuality) and meat (disorders).

---

You're only digging yourself a hole.Why would you think to compare the study of the etiology homosexuality with the study of psychiatric disorders? What was it about homosexuality that made you think analogies to neurosis would be the best metaphor? Of all the possible ways to describe what it was you were trying to express, psychiatric disorders was the best one you could come up with?

quote:

---

I brought up clinical diagnosis

---

Keep digging. I'm sure you'll get out if you go deeper."Clinical diagnosis"? The best cognitive metaphor you could come up with concerning homosexuality was the practice of examining the mentally ill?If you were trying to point out the innocuousness of the method of study, you should have chosen an example that was innocuous. Using the mentally ill as a metaphor for gay people makes it extremely difficult to then make the claim that gay people are not damaged goods.

quote:

---

Example: if we are discussing ways to dispose of highly-classified secret documents, and I suggest that we could "burn secret documents in a furnace like we would garbage", that is in no way suggesting that I view secret documents as garbage.

---

Yes, it is.Why else would you use garbage as an example? When using metaphor, one needs to be careful about the overtones of the objects being compared. Especially when the subject is notorious and one side of the debate continually refers to one of the objects in a certain way.When it comes to homosexuality, one side of the discussion is quite vocal in their claims that gay people are mentally ill. To use a metaphor that invokes the mentally ill, no matter how good the intention, cannot help but carry some of that baggage along with it.

quote:

---

Well I hope that after you have read this post, you'll realise that the "former attitude" you're referring to has nothing to do with anything I'm proposing.

---

The problem is that everything you said implies exactly that. You simply don't comapre homosexuality to mental illness and expect people to think you're not implying homosexuality is an illness.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

What does lifestyle mean? I do not have a heterosexual lifestyle, I just life women. I am not a stereotypical man, in the sense that I do not hunt, do not have the ability to fix anything and everything a la' McGyver, do not devalue women, am not a racist, do not walk around the house in my beater and boxers and I do not have any porn. All that being hetero to me, is that fact that I find women yummy. Homosexual means that they find members of the same sex yummy. Beyond that, why do you even care? If you really think that God is against gays, then won't He/She/It deal with them? Who made you (and others like you) the God Squad? Odd; every scripture I quoted (not that I believe in the inerrancy of the bible) encourages LOVE. It makes no mention of sex. And isn't sexual desire the only defining difference between gay and straight?River, did you decide to be straight or were you born straight? What? In post 37 in this thread, you said:

quote:

---

So being Gay goes directly against the will of God, and all the teachings of the Bible.

​

Being Gay is also hypocritical.

​

So being that it is against the law of nature, and against Gods will, I would say its a bad idea.
But I love gay people all the same, I just don't agree with what they do, nor will I vote for it a law to do so.

---

Based on your quotes in post 37 only, how can you say that you are not judging anyone, or that you 'accept all'? How can you accept people that are, in your opinion, clearly immoral? I firmly beleive that pedophilia IS immoral, and if an offender even attempted to touch my son, I'd bury him. I also believe that at the very least, the act of rape is immoral. I am intensly opposed to rape and child molestations, and if NAMBLA ever parched in my town, I'd pick them off from a high building.
It doesn't seem like you are opposed to gays because it is 'immoral', but because it is just another case of sex for fun; the end result of which is not a baby.

Hi, Backtalk, thanks for the reply!Regarding the trendy/cool gay study, I would be interested in reading it, if you have the link or can point me to a book title. But, it's strange that they "pretended" to be gay. I wonder if the article states if they had private sex? I am not an exhibitionist so I do not makeout with my wife in public; however, give us half an hour in a private room, and that's a different story. Perhaps these girsl were just trying to be shocking, or were putting on a display for those that were watching? Had they been drinking? I really would like to read more on this. I understand, but why isn't the divorce rate among Christians near 0%? Or even 25% Or even 50%? There appears to be NO difference statistically between Christians and non-Christians.
As far as 'proving' Christianity as a relevant belief system, it would be a step in the right direction if that were not the case.Thanks