Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality.

To Rrhain:Hmmm....interesting, this. So in order words, would I be justified to assume that you already understood exactly what I intended to convey since my first post? Are you assuring me that there never was any misunderstanding between us, and that you are really only trying to educate me in the finer arts of discussing the issue of sexuality and demonstrate the point that: Is this the gist of it?If so, I thank you (sincerely, no sarcasm intended) for pointing it out. I thought I have already told you that I don't know of any other examples: Can you think of one? Or do I have to abandon mentioning this wonderfully useful theory altogether because I couldn't think of an example where it is used that isn't sensitive to the topic?Damaged goods? If I have implied that homosexuals are somehow "damaged" by stating that we can use the method for investigating psychological disorders to examine the underlying factors which may have led to homosexuality (post 1), then perhaps I have also... ...shown how heterosexuals are also (somehow?) "damaged" as well. (As a matter of fact, anyone who possesses ANY personal attributes at all would be implied "damaged"). Is this really what you're accusing me of?******************************************************************* *cough...choke*Analogies and Metaphor? I'm sorry, it must be that your intelligence far outclasses mine, granting you the power to see associations and implications that are hidden from foolish me. Neurosis was used as a metaphor? *A resounding "huh?"*By the way, homosexuality was NEVER, EVER compared with a psychological illness in my post. EVER. If you want to see implications where none exists (and yes, I have asserted that none exists). If the garbage example was not good enough, try this:We can burn tires in the same way as we burn trees. But tires are not trees. The only similarity lies in that they can both burn. OK? No comparisons. I cannot make this any clearer.
********************************************************************Consider a hypothetical case: If I had described the method without revealling where it is utilised (and to the best of my knowledge, the only place it is utilised), and further considering that a member of this forum should find out from personal research that the method I have described is used to investigate psychological disorders (a likely event), then can you foresee the chaos that would follow?Can you see how I would be seen as deceptive, perhaps baiting the audience into participatng in a ploy that I haven't fully explained. Perhaps to treacherously trick supporters of freedom in sexual orientation into admitting some form of "damage"? Perhaps now you are seeing things from my perspective, yes?To me, the method I have described is objective enough to be used, and broad enough to be useful in investigating any forms of human attributes. I haven't even considered the notion that homosexuality could be viewed as a form of psychological disorder until you brought it up (note: it doesn't fit the defintion)Perhaps a question that I should pose to you is:Why shouldn't a scientific method that is commonly used to explain psychological disorders, and as I have shown, can probably explain most if not all personality attributes, NOT be used in the special case of homosexuality and sexual orientations? What makes sexuality so special? Is that......solely in case "one side makes a connection that you don't want to make"? I suppose then the theory of Evolution should never have been published for fear that fundamentalist Christians at the time would make the connection that Evolution can explain the variety of fauna on this planet without the necessary existence of the biblical God.But evolution has NOTHING to do with God! I hear you shout. Doesn't matter, because other people might make a connection between evolution and creationism, so best to avoid drama and just shut up about it.I see it as the same deal here. I have honestly presented a theory of investigating human attributes, declaring its origins (investigation of psychological disorders), and asserting that it has nothing to do with what we are using the theory to investigate. You come along and say that even though I have already asserted that the two ideas are never ever related, other people may still somehow take offence. *deep sigh*Well if they must, I'll deal with them, ok? You've used 3 posts to educate me NOT to use sensitive words in debates. I consider that lesson learnt. Can we move on now, or do you want to nitpick some more? ^_^Sincerely awaiting your reply.This message has been edited by Sleeping Dragon, 05-30-2004 01:46 PM

---

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

I think your reply is weak.No gay sex in sodom? lol
Where do you think the word sodomy came from?Main Entry: sodomy
Pronunciation: 's-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sexI think its all to clear in the bible that having gay sex is against God.
Also the bible speaks that we should stay as far away from this kind of thing (not support it).
How could it be any clearer?
You just tried to explain away the clearly obvious, why would you do that?1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offendersCould that be any more clearer, or are you going to try and re-interpret the bible for us.King James version,1 Corinthians 6
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,I am trying to see ones reasoning for not thinking being Gay is against God.
Lets see, it only mentions it a few times, so it really must be ok?
I don't get your point.

riVeRraTIf you bother to read other's posts I believe that you will find every point you continue bringing up has been dealt with.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You my friend approach the wacked out in life.
You can twist words up to the point of being pointless.
Even Jesus gave people a chance, and if they didn't get it, he moved on.This is how I feel with you. You come in here screaming at me, and labeling me, and putting words in my mouth.
You have no stance on anything, you merely argue about anything you feel like.Everyone makes spelling errors, this is not a reason to condem someones point. How much less could I care? Well I'm not in school here, so I don't need to be schooled on my wrtting skills, or my typing skills, my points have been made, isn't that good enough?There are many things in life that I would be much better at than you, would I use them to make you look bad, I think not. That would be pointless.Anyone who tries to make another person look bad, his motives has to be questioned. This kind of behaivor would not be sustained in a court of law, it should not be sustained here either, unless it was the topic. Yes but no, lol. Only if it suites my end of the arguement, whatever that might be. Stop taking my point out of context. Again missed my point.Yes God is the father of Jesus.

Yes heterosexuality was a choice.Stop trying to figure me out, you can't do that from a forum.I guess you think being gay is perfectly ok, and you wouldn't mind if your kids were gay?If your father was gay, you wouldn't be here. You probably think thats ok in some sort of twisted way, oh great word twisterer.

Now I will play word games with you.
You said it was a danger, not me. Are the one homophoblic? Cause I'm not. That borders on the retarded of all retarded statements, and you twisted that one a bit too hard. Just point out the merely obvious, the incredibly obvious we are fine with. All rocket scientists could grow their own food, as well as hunt too, or fish. So they wouldn't die, but a gay couple cannot reproduce no matter how hard they try.bzzzt wrong answer, try again. Animals also don't try to get married. I told you I am not comparing us to animals. You are.Being moral also includes believing in God. So if we believe its against God, then its immoral. I will not support it. I fear my God, you don't. How does being a rocket scientist compare then?
Whats good for the goose? They do not do me harm. I never said that. Again with the words in my mouth. There is no law against it, just no law for it. Of course it affects me, and you too. Isn't that obvious? I haven't judged anyone here.
I only try to follow the bible, and what I believe is God word.Plain and simple, I will not support it.
But I do not hate those who do it.Its that simple, stop trying to make it into something its not.

Dude get help fast.

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:9-11 are some off the top of my head that condemn homosexuality.Also the Bible clearly condemns any sexual relations outside of marriage in many more places. About marriage the Bible is crystal clear that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN; therefore homosexual activity even between "married" homosexuals is illegitimate.The story of Sodom and Gommorah in Genesis 19 describes how the city was filled with homosexuals. When two angels came to Lot in the appearance of men, the homosexuals in the city demanded that Lot bring them out to have sex. Lot, unprotected by the government from this sort of behavior (breakdown of authority and freedom), became afraid and offered his daughters to them instead, but they would not have them.Anyone who has read through the New Testament and the Old Testament Pentatuch and still does not recognize that homosexualtiy is immoral is so arrogant and so divorced from reality that they cannot hope to reason objectively about this issue.WHY DOES GOD HATE HOMOSEXUALITY? The answer is authority and original design. Ever since Adam first sinned, man's sinful nature has wreaked havoc everywhere it pleases. God understood this and so he established a series of social institutions to keep man's sinful nature in check and promote an environment of freedom. The basic insitutions are: volition, marriage, family, church, national government. In marriage and family, the man is the head of the wife and kids. Anyone with an ounce of humility understands that without authority kids become monsters and civilization will destroy itself (if God does not destroy it first).
Also, God originaly designed both the bodies and souls of men to love women and vice versa. But with the whole creation in the bondage of decay and sin, alterations have occurred physically and mentally either by genetics or by circumstances that lead to the desire in some for homosexual activity. Many whose desire stems from life experience have over come these desires with God's help. We all experience sinful desires, but that does not mean we must act on them.I just realized I did not support that statement with references as you asked. Well, I try to remember doctrines as I learn them from the scriptures, but rarely memorize chapter and verse. If you or anyone is truly interested in the truth and want me to look up the supporting passages for this statement please e-mail me. And don't be afraid to read the primary source: the Bible.

---

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2

Sleeping Dragon responds to me:

quote:

---

So in order words, would I be justified to assume that you already understood exactly what I intended to convey since my first post?

---

No, you wouldn't.Your words conveyed the exact opposite meaning of what you later expressed what you were trying to say. Given some of your other posts, it was a very different point you were making and I didn't understand why you were suddenly treating gay people as mentally ill.Thus, my response of "Are you sure you really want to describe it that way?"

quote:

---

quote:

---

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?

---

​

I thought I have already told you that I don't know of any other examples

---

Then you needed to try again. Surely it must have occurred to you that if you needed to preface your statement by saying, "no offence to audience intended," then you were going down the wrong path and should have tried again.

quote:

---

Can you think of one?

---

I did. I rewrote your passage removing all references to psychological disease and making the focus the study of the etiology of sexual orientation rather than focusing specifically upon homosexuality as if heterosexuality were the natural, assumed default: Looking back, I should probably have re-phrased "stress events" to something like "biological events such as the onset of puberty," but you see my point.Your statement was mired in the language of disorder, disease, and neurosis, focused on homosexuality as if it were a deviation from "normal." There's no way not to have those overtones affect the point of what you're trying to say.

quote:

---

Or do I have to abandon mentioning this wonderfully useful theory altogether because I couldn't think of an example where it is used that isn't sensitive to the topic?

---

It isn't useful if it doesn't convey the point you are trying to make. It isn't useful if it leaves your audience with images of mentally ill gay people.

quote:

---

Damaged goods? If I have implied that homosexuals are somehow "damaged" by stating that we can use the method for investigating psychological disorders to examine the underlying factors which may have led to homosexuality

---

When you talk about the methods of investigating [I][B]PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS[/I][/b] as an appropriate process for investigating homosexuality, how else is one supposed to take it? The methods used for investigating [I][B]PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS[/i][/b] are useful for things that actually are psychological disorders. Why would they be useful in studying homosexuality if being gay were not a psychological disorder?

quote:

---

Is this really what you're accusing me of?

---

Since you didn't mention a single thing about heterosexuality until I pointed out that you were seemingly saying gay people were psychologically disordered, the answer to your question is yes. That is precisely what I am accusing you of.Nothing you said indicated that you were talking about the etiology of sexuality in general. You focused specifically and solely upon homosexuality and thought that the best metaphor to use was "psychological disorder."What else is someone supposed to think?

quote:

---

By the way, homosexuality was NEVER, EVER compared with a psychological illness in my post. EVER.

---

Yes, it was.What was the point of saying that methods of examining psychological disorders would be appropriate in the examination of homosexuality if not to imply that homosexuality is a psychological disorder?

quote:

---

We can burn tires in the same way as we burn trees. But tires are not trees. The only similarity lies in that they can both burn. OK? No comparisons. I cannot make this any clearer.

---

But we burn trees for specific reasons. If you're going to talk about burning tires in the language of burning trees, then you're invoking those same reasons.

quote:

---

If I had described the method without revealling where it is utilised (and to the best of my knowledge, the only place it is utilised)

---

Keep digging.If the method you were using is only used upon psychological disorders, how could it possibly be useful in examing homosexuality if homosexuality were not a psychological disorder?Simple logic, SD:If A, then B.
A, therefore B.

quote:

---

Why shouldn't a scientific method that is commonly used to explain psychological disorders, and as I have shown, can probably explain most if not all personality attributes, NOT be used in the special case of homosexuality and sexual orientations?

---

Because they're not psychological disorders and thus those methods would not be useful. Since that method, by your own words, is only used on psychological disorders, why would they be used on homosexuality if not to say that homosexuality is a psychological disorder?If A, then B.
A, therefore B.

quote:

---

even though I have already asserted that the two ideas are never ever related, other people may still somehow take offence.

---

Because even though you said you weren't trying to make the relation, your very words show that you are making the relation.It's like riVeRraT's claim that he loves gay people, but he doesn't want them treated equally under the law.That latter statement completely negates the former. If he doesn't want gay people to be treated equally under the law, then he necessarily does not love them. It doesn't matter how much he professes his deep caring for gay people, discrimination is not loving and there is no way to get around it.Simple logic:If A, then not B.
B, therefore not A.If you love, then you don't discriminate.
You do discriminate, therefore you don't love.

quote:

---

Can we move on now, or do you want to nitpick some more?

---

So long as you keep insisting that somehow referring to homosexuality as something amenable to the investigation of psychological disorders, we will keep coming back to it.The solution is completely up to you.The phrase you're looking for is, "Oops! I certainly didn't mean that. I guess I had better find a better way of expressing it," and then completely dropping the metaphor you were trying to use.Instead, you're trying to salvage something which completely contradicts your stated point.You wave the knife around, you end up cutting things. If you didn't mean to cut things, then you have to put the knife down. You can't insist upon waving it around and demand that we don't notice the things you cut simply because you didn't mean to cut them.If you don't mean what your words implied, then you need to find different words. You can't keep using the same words and demand we don't notice the implications of them simply because you don't mean them.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

DISCLAIMER: This is a from a Christian point of view, so please don't come arguing me down about how my argument is religious.Well, God's most blatant disagreement was concerning the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities in the Middle East. As some may know already, these two cities are now part of the Dead Sea (how ironic!!). According to the Bible, homosexuality, and other perversion, is an "abomination." Besides that, only a few other references to homosexuality are made. We human beings have the right to think and believe as we wish, therefore, we will derive a theory, and deduct to a conclusion. So...here's a few things that advocates of homosexuality may want to answer:1) What defines love? Is it sexual love (eros), or is it unconditional love (agape)?2) Many people tell me what's wrong with homosexuality. What's right with it?3) We accept people for who they are, but should we accept their behaviors on the same scale?4) Do you think that there is a standard upon which our life should be based on?5) Why are homosexuals pushing to get their behavior taught in schools? Why not teach heterosexuality also?6) If all behavior should be allowed, then why not legalize polygamic and polyandric marriages? How about bestiality? Public sex? Nothing's wrong with it, right?This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 05-30-2004 08:05 PM

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Everyone makes spelling errors

---

Yep.The difference is, I feel embarassed about my mistakes because it means I screwed up and the point I was trying to make might have been misunderstood.I'm notorious for dropping my nots. I have no idea why it happens, but I write things and then read them later only to find that I meant to use the word "not" in the sentence and it isn't there. I will mean to say, "I do not think that's true," and it will be written down as, "I do think that's true." Where on earth did the "not" go?

quote:

---

this is not a reason to condem someones point.

---

It is if it gets in the way of understanding and you don't care about it. Why should anybody else care about your ideas if you don't care about it?

quote:

---

Well I'm not in school here, so I don't need to be schooled on my wrtting skills, or my typing skills, my points have been made, isn't that good enough?

---

If it is difficult to understand your point because of poor writing skills, wouldn't you want to know?

quote:

---

Yes but no, lol.

---

That is, it seems, to be your argument. It's perfectly natural for a man to give a woman oral sex, even though it has no chance of reproduction, but it is anathema for a woman to do it because homosexuality has no chance of reproduction.That makes no sense.

quote:

---

Yes God is the father of Jesus.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you? I've got over four billion other people who say differently. What is it you have to show for your statement that shows all of them to be wrong?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Yes heterosexuality was a choice.

---

You didn't answer my question.How did you come about your heterosexuality? Did you make a careful analysis of the situation, experiment with various sexual techniques, and realize that while that humpy dock-worker had his appeal, he just didn't have the breasts you really craved?So you're saying if you wanted to, you could have a hot, sweaty, steamy man-sex session without any reservations?I think the word you're looking for is "bisexual."

quote:

---

I guess you think being gay is perfectly ok, and you wouldn't mind if your kids were gay?

---

Not at all. Why should I mind? I wouldn't care if they were gay just as I wouldn't care if they were left-handed. The only thing that I would worry about is whether or not they were happy and behaving with integrity and honesty.

quote:

---

If your father was gay, you wouldn't be here.

---

Strange...gay people seem to have children all the time.And what does that have to do with anything? If my father were sterile, I wouldn't be here, either. Does that make sterility an abomination in the eyes of god?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

It's none of your business. It's none of your business. No one is asking you to accept. They are only TELLING you to stop discriminating. Yes. Again with assertions that you have not supported.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Motherf.... You didn't answer the questions!! Quit with the circular reasoning!! Answer my questions!! And these are things that are SEEN in society...you must have your head in your own can of crap.

This hasn't happened yet, and if it does, I will admit my mistake and correct myself. I never claimed to be perfect. Don't take my word for it, I never intended that. Go find him yourself, thats the only way to find him.All of this is way off topic anyway.