NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anyoen seriously think that homosexuality is connected to beastaility!?
Obviously not! No self respecting bestialist has sex with an animal of the same sex as themselves.

LOL! XD
Who said it was just tails?
I pursue this discussion - no more.

Obviously not! No self respecting bestialist has sex with an animal of the same sex as themselves.

I bet they would. x-x

I bet they would. x-x
That is an outrage! I'm telling my priest.

I find it quite amusing that those christian groups have no problem adhering to the "When you have sex with another man, you defile both yourself and he" part of Leviticus, yet have problems accepting the rest of the Jewish law, such as do not eat pork, or shellfish.

I find it quite amusing that those christian groups have no problem adhering to the "When you have sex with another man, you defile both yourself and he" part of Leviticus, yet have problems accepting the rest of the Jewish law, such as do not eat pork, or shellfish.
This is a good point.

That is an outrage! I'm telling my priest.
Maybe you should also ask him why the catholic priests are sometimes gay. :fluffle:

I find it quite amusing that those christian groups have no problem adhering to the "When you have sex with another man, you defile both yourself and he" part of Leviticus, yet have problems accepting the rest of the Jewish law, such as do not eat pork, or shellfish.

I'll third that, people only state rules that they think are bad or 'worse' then others when all sins are the same in God's eyes. Meaning they all can be repented and washed away. I hear that's how Hitler got into heaven. :p

Maybe you should also ask him why the catholic priests are sometimes gay. :fluffle:
Sometimes? I thought it was a requirement...

But that would mean...

I have many questions to ask my priest...

ooh, and i'd like to point out that this law does appear to only exclude men from having relationships with other men, not women (Lev 19:?)

I find it quite amusing that those christian groups have no problem adhering to the "When you have sex with another man, you defile both yourself and he" part of Leviticus, yet have problems accepting the rest of the Jewish law, such as do not eat pork, or shellfish.


Oh I get a kick out of quoting for them the directions for proper animal sacrafice by fire in the book of Leviticus. (Chapter 1:1 through about 1:12).

Sometimes? I thought it was a requirement...

But that would mean...

I have many questions to ask my priest...
No, you have it wrong.
You have to be a paedophile, not necessarily a gay one.

Sometimes? I thought it was a requirement...

But that would mean...

I have many questions to ask my priest...

Go ask him....NOW! XD

lol

I find it quite amusing that those christian groups have no problem adhering to the "When you have sex with another man, you defile both yourself and he" part of Leviticus, yet have problems accepting the rest of the Jewish law, such as do not eat pork, or shellfish.As far as I can remember, the New Testament revokes the eating laws.

As far as I can remember, the New Testament revokes the eating laws.
Proof of this?

Proof of this?
Matthew 3:17

Matthew 3:17
"And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
huh?

Matthew 3:17

I don't have the bible...can you post it?

Yes, the new testament does invoke all of the Jewish Law, "This is my blood of the new covenant". What I am saying is that the church appears to pick and choose from these revoked laws

I don't have the bible...can you post it?
I just did.

"And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
huh?
I just said a verse at random to see who would look it up. :p

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I just said a verse at random to see who would look it up. :p

Sorry, couldn't resist.
You succeeded in confusing me.

I just said a verse at random to see who would look it up. :p

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Darn it! You just made me choke on my Wild Cherry Pepsi.

*waves hand* I'm not here.

Do you have ANY proof to back up your claim though?

I just said a verse at random to see who would look it up. :p

Sorry, couldn't resist.

wow nice random choice! that verse is considered one of the most important of the new testament, as it is God's acknowedgement of Jesus as his Son

wow nice random choice! that verse is considered one of the most important of the new testament, as it is God's acknowedgement of Jesus as his Son
It must have been divine guidance.

Do you have ANY proof to back up your claim though?
No. I'm a good agnostic. I wouldn't be able to tell you what part of the NT to look for it even if I had one in front of me (through a strange twist of fate, I just found my dad's Bible, actually). I remember reading that Jesus got quoted on saying that all was clean to be eaten.

Yes, the new testament does invoke all of the Jewish Law, "This is my blood of the new covenant". What I am saying is that the church appears to pick and choose from these revoked laws


cough cough proof cough

No. I'm a good agnostic. I wouldn't be able to tell you what part of the NT to look for it even if I had one in front of me (through a strange twist of fate, I just found my dad's Bible, actually). I remember reading that Jesus got quoted on saying that all was clean to be eaten.

Sounds like last supper....and its way out of context lol XD

Mark 7:1-11, apparently.

Mark 7:1-11, apparently.
And what does this one say?!

And what does this one say?!
"And lo, he said from heaven, sausages truly are the food of God."

*snip* Jesus got quoted on saying that all was clean to be eaten...

So that justifies gay oral sex, at the very least :p *rolls*

"And lo, he said from heaven, sausages truly are the food of God."

Mark 7:5 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, that they should nourish themselves on that which takes the form of the sausage.

So that justifies gay oral sex, at the very least :p *rolls*

You realise they aren't cannibals... OMG, why is it that every thread about gays ends up discussing cannibalism?

You realise they aren't cannibals... OMG, why is it that every thread about gays ends up discussing cannibalism?
-_-'

Well, everybody knows those homo perverts are all waiting for an occasion to take a bite out of all the normal, decent folks around!

[/sarcasm] :p

Mark 7:1-11, apparently.7:14-19 according to my dad's Bible. I can't be bothered typing that up though.
7:18,19 will have to do: 18"Are you so dul?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
I have the feeling the part in the parentheses got added by the editor of the version I have, but I can't really double check it for lack of other editions lying around ;)

Mark 7:5 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, that they should nourish themselves on that which takes the form of the sausage.

Get the real ones. x-x

7:14-19 according to my dad's Bible. I can't be bothered typing that up though.
7:18,19 will have to do: 18"Are you so dul?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
I have the feeling the part in the parentheses got added by the editor of the version I have, but I can't really double check it for lack of other editions lying around ;)

I'm proud that I said the wrong verse. This makes me a better atheist :).:upyours: (that is because it looks satanic, not because of the profanity)

7:14-19 according to my dad's Bible. I can't be bothered typing that up though.
7:18,19 will have to do: 18"Are you so dul?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
I have the feeling the part in the parentheses got added by the editor of the version I have, but I can't really double check it for lack of other editions lying around ;)

Can also be gay sex. :O

Get the real ones. x-x
Fine:
Mark 7:5 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, that they should nourish themselves on that which takes the form of that which shall henceforth be known affectionately by the name, hotdog.

"And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
huh?

DO NOT QUESTION THE WORDS OF YOUR LORD! :p

I'm proud that I said the wrong verse. This makes me a better atheist :).:upyours: (that is because it looks satanic, not because of the profanity)Agnostics are very sorry excuses for athiests. We're not sure of anything, not even there not being a God :p

Fine:
Mark 7:5 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, that they should nourish themselves on that which takes the form of that which shall henceforth be known affectionately by the name, hotdog.

I still doubt that. >.>

DO NOT QUESTION THE WORDS OF YOUR LORD! :p

You are the Lord my God and I shall have no others? You are full of shit, you know that?

Agnostics are very sorry excuses for athiests. We're not sure of anything, not even there not being a God :p

Whaaaat?

You are the Lord my God and I shall have no others? You are full of shit, you know that?

That's full of holy shit to you mister!

That's full of holy shit to you mister!
That's Master to you, sir! I am a child.

Whaaaat?

Religious emos.

I believe homosexuality is a genetic trait comparable to being left-handed. Like so many left-handed people of long ago (maybe), homosexuals are oppressed to behave contrary to their personality. Remember, it was custom to tie the left hand of a child so it would learn to be right handed.

Questions I have about the Christian stance on homosexuality.

-Judism (sp?) has no problem with homosexuality. Now if Christianity is based loosely off of Judism, where did the problem come from? The Greeks and Romans had no problem with it and they also influenced Christianity. So where did the trend come from?

-The "bible thumpers" out there who are so quick to quote the bible, for the most part do not know where their hatred for homosexuals comes from either. They quote the bible and use it as proof BUT how can they quote a book written by MAN as the divine truth? And if your too stubborn to see that, then which bible is the REAL word of God? The St. James bible? The Gutenberg Bible? Because if your going to hold a book as infalible you should pick a version.

-In Christian history, homosexuality was rarly seen as a sin, deviant behavior yes. But a sin? No. The bible says "You are my friends if you do whatever I command you" (John 15:14), and in "God's Word" can be found a description of the character He desires to find in men and women: "On this one will I lock: on him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at my word" (Isaiah 66:2). Those quotes are frequently used to show an anti-homosexual meaning, but where EXACTLY does it say that loving a member of the same sex is wrong?

-"The works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like ... those who practise such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (verses 19-21) Another widly used quote by "bible thumpers" once again does it say anything anti-homosexual? No. All of those can be atuned to hetero and homosexuals.

-Yes, there are anti-homosexual messages in the Bible. I admit that. But, there are also passages telling Christians to live a life of poverty. Now the church obviously did NOT listen to the passages about living a life of poverty, so why listen to the passages about anti-homosexuality? Why can the Church be allowed to omit some passages and not others?

If the Christians want to be so hard nosed and true to the bible on the issue of homosexuality, then they should be forced to listen to ALL the passages of the bible, example: a "true" Christian should not be able to be either for or against the evils of homosexuality, seeing how its a sin to judge people, a "true" Christian should not want to "kill all homosexuals" as one person said earlier because its a sin to kill someone.

Just my thoughts on the subject..... oh and lets not forget all the Priests who sleep with young men and women, and by Priests, I mean the Christian Holy men who are "leading" you to salvation...

Depression? "Risk?" Gee, so I'm not just hell-bent and twisted sinner, I have a disease now, too?

Well, fuck you.

hear, hear.

I find it very frustrating that so many Christians and "Christians" reject this and adopt a "Kill them all!" stance when they claim to be loving individuals. We ought to help homosexuals overcome their problem, not condemn them."

Whether or not you, vellia, adopt the "kill 'em all" stance you discuss, you obviously do not treat gay people as equal. Homosexuality is not a problem unless people make it one! It's not a disease that must be treated. Whatever your reaction to gay people is -- whether or not you think they should all be killed -- you are still not accepting gay people as people, which they are.

The fact of the matter is regardless of what religious right Christians actually believe, few advocate killing all homosexuals. James Dobson and Focus on the Family in particular believe performing homosexual actions is a sin much like murdering, lying, and raping. They believe homosexuality is a choice and in thier reality no one is inherently homosexual. They simply choose to be that way, in the same way a murderer chooses to murder. They have no more intention of killling homosexuals than they do of killing everyone who has ever lied. Part of the reason this issue is so controversial is because liberals are so ignorant of how the other side thinks. Some think they understand, but writing off every person on the religious right as simply a lunatic just doesn't cut it. There are some very intelligent people on the religious right and effective dialogue will never happen unless liberals open their minds.

The fact of the matter is regardless of what religious right Christians actually believe, few advocate killing all homosexuals. James Dobson and Focus on the Family in particular believe performing homosexual actions is a sin much like murdering, lying, and raping. They believe homosexuality is a choice and in thier reality no one is inherently homosexual. They simply choose to be that way, in the same way a murderer chooses to murder. They have no more intention of killling homosexuals than they do of killing everyone who has ever lied. Part of the reason this issue is so controversial is because liberals are so ignorant of how the other side thinks. Some think they understand, but writing off every person on the religious right as simply a lunatic just doesn't cut it. There are some very intelligent people on the religious right and effective dialogue will never happen unless liberals open their minds.
See the problem? And you say liberals should open their mind.

The fact of the matter is regardless of what religious right Christians actually believe, few advocate killing all homosexuals. James Dobson and Focus on the Family in particular believe performing homosexual actions is a sin much like murdering, lying, and raping. They believe homosexuality is a choice and in thier reality no one is inherently homosexual. They simply choose to be that way, in the same way a murderer chooses to murder. They have no more intention of killling homosexuals than they do of killing everyone who has ever lied. Part of the reason this issue is so controversial is because liberals are so ignorant of how the other side thinks. Some think they understand, but writing off every person on the religious right as simply a lunatic just doesn't cut it. There are some very intelligent people on the religious right and effective dialogue will never happen unless liberals open their minds.
I'm afraid to have an open mind around James Dobson. He eats brains.

Maybe you should also ask him why the catholic priests are sometimes gay. :fluffle:

Being gay, according to the Catholic Church, is not a problem, as it is not something the person can help. Acting on it, on the other hand, is considered to be a sin.

Of course, what I *think* you are referring to is pedophile priests, and one should note that being a pedophile attracted to same-sex children is not the same as being homosexual. Often, in pedophiles who are also attracted to adults, the gender of the adults and children they are attracted to is different. Homo-, Bi-, or Heterosexuality refer to adult sexuality.

Questions I have about the Christian stance on homosexuality.

-Judism (sp?) has no problem with homosexuality. Now if Christianity is based loosely off of Judism, where did the problem come from? The Greeks and Romans had no problem with it and they also influenced Christianity. So where did the trend come from?

It really depends on who you talk to in Judaism. Some of the more orthodox faiths still do have a problem with homosexual relationships. The more progressive rabbis generally don't seem to.

The trend came from several places - the Leviticus passage is one, although that one might be mistranslated. There are also passages from Paul, but they are unclear, largely because Paul uses words he made up that have later had "homosexual perversions" and other such definitions attributed to them. Much of what he has to say seems to be against being a straight person who goes out and performs homosexual "sexual favors" to get things in return. So it all comes down to how you interpret and translate the passages, really.


The fact of the matter is regardless of what religious right Christians actually believe, few advocate killing all homosexuals. James Dobson and Focus on the Family in particular believe performing homosexual actions is a sin much like murdering, lying, and raping. They believe homosexuality is a choice and in thier reality no one is inherently homosexual. They simply choose to be that way, in the same way a murderer chooses to murder.

And this is a belief one can only have if one ignores mountains of evidence to the contrary, and thinks one is better than everybody else and thus never got that "choice".

Part of the reason this issue is so controversial is because liberals are so ignorant of how the other side thinks.

In most controversial issues, *both* sides are "ignorant of how the other side thinks." Of course, many of us were raised in an environment where the way the "other side" of the issue thinks was drilled into us. We simply actually, you know, looked at the evidence.

Some think they understand, but writing off every person on the religious right as simply a lunatic just doesn't cut it. There are some very intelligent people on the religious right and effective dialogue will never happen unless liberals open their minds.

There are some intelligent people making irrational decisions about all sorts of things. But we hardly have to be "open" to bigotry to demonstrate its irrationality.

Being gay, according to the Catholic Church, is not a problem, as it is not something the person can help. Acting on it, on the other hand, is considered to be a sin.

Of course, what I *think* you are referring to is pedophile priests, and one should note that being a pedophile attracted to same-sex children is not the same as being homosexual. Often, in pedophiles who are also attracted to adults, the gender of the adults and children they are attracted to is different. Homo-, Bi-, or Heterosexuality refer to adult sexuality.

I know that...but it was a joke..... :rolleyes:

I hate everyone, so there. :)

I wrote a reply to your post, Dempublicents1, but it got eaten by a crash on my end, right before an 8 hour long meeting. I'll try to rebuild it, and maybe throw in some stuff from later in the thread.
No, I'm saying that there is no reason that any homosexual should be told by society that their attractions are wrong, or that they should repress their sex drives.

You said that the societal condemnation of pedophiles was "not at all like" that experienced by homosexuals. As far as I can see, the only difference between the two (soely in terms of the condemnation itself) is the degree of condemnation and your opinion that the societal condemnation of pedophiles is correct.

It isn't the "end-all-be-all", but it is a part of it. Of course, the mental stress has to be from within, not placed externally.

That seems a rather arbitrary line to me. This is especially the case when people have such a strong tendency to internalise societal condemnation. We don't really know how much of what we believe is arrived at through largely internal processes, and how much of it is a byproduct of our socialisation from infancy, so I fail to see how you're able to use that as a distinction, unless of course, you're appealing to some intrinsic moral standard (like God ;) ).

Another issue could be the fact that being sexually attracted to children is no more or less a problem than lacking empathy, or having constant fantasies of harming others.

WHAT? No less a problem than lacking empathy?! You're seriously putting me in the same category as a sociopath?

You are absolutely misinterpreting me. The mental stress on pedophiles would come from within - from the absolute knowledge that what they wish to do is wrong. It isn't an externally applied mental stress from a society that simply does not want to accept them.

Let me try something:
The mental stress on gays would come from within - from the absolute knowledge that what they wish to do is wrong. It isn't an externally applied mental stress from a society that simply does not want to accept them.

Wow. It worked. All I had to do was change one word, and it's a classic religous arguement against homosexuality.

I didn't say that. But the thing that makes them pedophiles is the wish to have sexual relationships with children.

First you said, "The very fact that they cannot act upon their impulses, and are ashamed of them, is harmful to them. Even if they never hurt another person, their own wishes will harm them.

It would be as if you constantly had fantasies to brutally murder people. That would be inherently harmful because you would know that doing so would be wrong, but the urge would still be there."

Then I said, "So you're saying that whenever I get the urge to beat the shit out of idiots telling me how to live my life, I'm harming myself by dreaming about things I can never do? And I suppose that's a mental disorder to?"

Then you said that "If you get those urges constantly and they are the only relationship you can imagine having with such people, then yes, it is most definitely a mental disorder."

Now, to me, this says that you believe that the only relationship a pedophile can immagine having with a child is a sexual one, since otherwise, it apparently doesn't qualify as a mental disorder under the guidelines of the last thing I quoted there.

Is it really so much to ask that you follow your own arguements? It's exhausting tracking the entire thread of the conversation down so that we can stop talking past one another.

The bigot's arguemnt is without rationality. They choose a group and just decide that the group, though causing no harm to anyone, is wrong/inferior/etc. Pedophiles have urges that, if acted upon, will cause harm - plain and simple. It isn't bigotry to point that out.

It would seem that you don't have a problem with the rationality of their arguements, given that you've used them yourself more than once. Your issue seems to be, if I read that correctly, their method of chosing their targets.

I didn't say anything about "immoral thoughts". I said something about the urge to harm someone. You really need to read what I actually say, instead of what you want to hear.

I'm sorry. When you started talking about how wrong it was to have thoughts of harming people, I must have just jumped to the conclusion that you were one of those people who talk about "a sin in ones mind is the same as that sin put into action". Apparently that's not where you were going with that line of conversation. Now, where were you going with that, exactly?

A pedophile wants to have sex with children - something that would be harmful to the child. Thus, the pedophile wants to do something that would hurt another. It isn't a matter of what I find to be "immoral". You were mischaracterizing pedophilia by acting as if the only difference between homosexuality and pedophilia was the availability of willing partners. The difference has nothing to do with "willingness" and everything to do with the ability to consent.

Would you feel better if I changed the word willing to the word conscenting? It's closer to what I orignally meant anyway. Now if you're through knit picking my word choice...

I never said anything even remotely suggesting this. In fact, I have yet to say, at any point, that pedophiles or pedophilia are evil.

No. You've just said that we have "wrong" thoughts. Where ever did I make that connection to the word evil? [/sarcasm]

Blocking the thoughts is virtually impossible. Sexual attraction is sexual attraction. Helping a person who constantly has urges to harm people cope with that, on the other hand, is not a problem.

Any suggestions on "coping" that don't end in castration or incarceration? I've yet to see anything from anyone that could be remotely characterised as help.

Ah, I see the problem. You think the "mental illness" label has to do with morals. It does not. There is nothing immoral about having a mental illness. I don't think that those with pedophilia are "evil" or "immoral" (unless they act on it) any more than I think someone who has OCD is "evil" or "immoral".

Actually that's just part of the problem. I think your claimed definition of mental illness appeals to some sort of absolute moral code, and thus replaces the word evil with the term mentally ill, yes, but there's more.

You can't say that one form of abnormal sexuality is healthy, and another is the product of a deranged mind. This is especially the case when the effects on the mind of the person with that sexuality are virtually indistinguishable.

I would reccomend whatever therapy you may or may not need to repress any and all urges you have to have sex with children and, if possible, find a loving relationship with an adult. If such therapy is not feasible, then there isn't much that can be done, eh?

The same techniques once used to "cure gay" are the ones being used to treat pedophiles even now, with much the same effect. Such treatments, in the words of an earlier poster, are actually damaging to the mental health of the patient.

There's no cure for what I've got, and honestly, I wouldn't want it if it were offered. Tampering with a person's mind, even with the best of intentions, has horrible consequences in every instance.

You have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you? I said that the act being fantasized about is harmful. Try again.

You also tried to sound understanding and altruistic when you said that the act of fantasising was somehow harmful to me.

I think you're the one with reading dificulties. (Or memory issues, since you can't seem to remember your own posts.)

The only way we could have an "equal rights" campaign for pedophiles in the same way that we can for homosexuals (which is what you seem to be suggesting) is to march for such recognition.

You fail to comprehend that I find the idea of sexually abusing children to be as morally objectionable as you do. The difference is that I don't judge a person because they have thoughts that disgut me. You do.

As it is, there is no legal discrimination against pedophiles that I am aware of - unless they have already harmed children.

In that case, I reccomend that at your next job interview, before leaving, you mention, "Oh yeah, I'm a pedophile. That isn't a problem is it?" Discrimination against pedophiles is not written into the laws (since you can hardly call preventing child rape discrimination against anyone but rapists), but the defact biggotry is still there, and quite strong.

You may not be aware of that discrimination, but it's something I live my life in constant fear of. You know how being gay used to be something you could be hauled out into the streats and stoned for? If anything can invoke that kind of irrational mob mindset among our more liberalised society...

Please, do show me anywhere that I have "lashed out against" pedophiles. Wait, I haven't. You assume that, when I say that they fantasize about doing something that harms others, that means I am calling them "evil" or "immoral", something I never said or suggested.
Your memory is astoundingly short:
"If you fantasize about having sex with children, and you don't find that to be a problem, then I don't think you're worth talking to."

You should seriously at least give your posts in this thread a quick once over before you try to pass off a claim like that.
i love how every conversation about homosexuallity eventually turns into one about pedophelia and/or beastiality. and by love, i mean "am slightly offended by"

its just a shame that people still equate homosexuality with those sorts of sexual practices.
These things come up because discussing one form of abnormal sexuality always brings to the surface thoughts about other forms of abnormal sexuality.

And it is sad that people equate the two. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but I'm not gay.
hey now, i say do whatcha want. but thats not a gay issue and we cannot be asked to fight their fight for them. if people want to marry their horses, they need to get off their asses and hit the streets!!!
Because solidarity is something we should be discouraging. :rolleyes:

If this aditude that "I'll fight for me and mine, but you and yours got nothing to do with me" keeps up, real tollerance might never take root.
Being gay, according to the Catholic Church, is not a problem, as it is not something the person can help. Acting on it, on the other hand, is considered to be a sin.

So, would you say that the cathlic church considers it, *gasp* a mental illness? A desire to commit immoral acts? And your stance is different how?

Of course, what I *think* you are referring to is pedophile priests, and one should note that being a pedophile attracted to same-sex children is not the same as being homosexual. Often, in pedophiles who are also attracted to adults, the gender of the adults and children they are attracted to is different. Homo-, Bi-, or Heterosexuality refer to adult sexuality.
I was unaware of that. I had assumed that the three primary labels were applied regardless of age or, I guess species. Do they use specific words to make the homo/hetero/bi determination among pedophiles?

Does anyoen seriously think that homosexuality is connected to beastaility!?

Only in the very loose sense that both are patterns of sexual desire and/or behavior that mainstream society feels is "unnatural" and/or "immoral".
I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned necrophilia yet.

I find it quite amusing that those christian groups have no problem adhering to the "When you have sex with another man, you defile both yourself and he" part of Leviticus, yet have problems accepting the rest of the Jewish law, such as do not eat pork, or shellfish.


Wait... we can't pork shellfish!?

Oh.
Nevermind. I misread you.

ooh, and i'd like to point out that this law does appear to only exclude men from having relationships with other men, not women (Lev 19:?)


I have mentioned that, and the notion that this is a good clue that the biblical ban on (male) homosexuality is like due to disease prevention.
Same with the ban on bestiality (which applies to both men and women).
But nobody's really replied about it.

I believe homosexuality is a genetic trait comparable to being left-handed. Like so many left-handed people of long ago (maybe), homosexuals are oppressed to behave contrary to their personality. Remember, it was custom to tie the left hand of a child so it would learn to be right handed.

Bingo.

I have mentioned that, and the notion that this is a good clue that the biblical ban on (male) homosexuality is like due to disease prevention.
Same with the ban on bestiality (which applies to both men and women).
But nobody's really replied about it.

And also the fact they couldn't imagine women doing it I think. :o Though it is cleaner by far for women.

Only in the very loose sense that both are patterns of sexual desire and/or behavior that mainstream society feels is "unnatural" and/or "immoral".
I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned necrophilia yet.

Sex with the dead? O.O
You're kidding, right?

Sex with the dead? O.O
You're kidding, right?
Corpses are inanimate objects. It's just a really weird form of masturbation. Nothing to do with homosexuality at all. (Unless the corpse was of the same gender.)

Corpses are inanimate objects. It's just a really weird form of masturbation. Nothing to do with homosexuality at all. (Unless the corpse was of the same gender.)

I DON'T WANT TO KNOW! *vomits uncontrollably*

The fact of the matter is regardless of what religious right Christians actually believe, few advocate killing all homosexuals. James Dobson and Focus on the Family in particular believe performing homosexual actions is a sin much like murdering, lying, and raping. They believe homosexuality is a choice and in thier reality no one is inherently homosexual. They simply choose to be that way, in the same way a murderer chooses to murder. They have no more intention of killling homosexuals than they do of killing everyone who has ever lied. Part of the reason this issue is so controversial is because liberals are so ignorant of how the other side thinks. Some think they understand, but writing off every person on the religious right as simply a lunatic just doesn't cut it. There are some very intelligent people on the religious right and effective dialogue will never happen unless liberals open their minds.How open minded of you.

How open minded of you.
The last sentance of his post absolutely makes no sense. These are the type of people defending homosexual rights? Jeeze! No wonder we're/they're losing!

And also the fact they couldn't imagine women doing it I think. :o Though it is cleaner by far for women.

Oh, I'm positive that men have always been able to imagine girl-on-girl action.

In the homosexuality section, it forbids guy-on-guy action. No mention of girl-on-girl.
In the bestiality action, it forbids guy-on-pony action AND it forbids girl-and-stallion action.

I'm sure if they were capable of picturing women seducing animals that they were capable of imagining women seducing each other.

Furthermore, look at the penalties involved.
Guy-on-guy = death for both.
Guy-on-animal = death for both.
Girl-on-animal = death for both.

This leads a lot of people to ask the question, "What did the poor animal do to deserve death?"
Nothing. It just might be infected, that's all.
Take no chances with plagues. That's clearly shown in the old testament.

I DON'T WANT TO KNOW! *vomits uncontrollably*

Which is exactly how people react to homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality.

You said that the societal condemnation of pedophiles was "not at all like" that experienced by homosexuals.

Actually, what I said was that the situation of homosexuals is not at all like that of pedophiles, as homosexuals are not in a situation in which acting upon their sexuality causes harm. Both have received societal condemnation, but the inherent situation is not the same.

As far as I can see, the only difference between the two (soely in terms of the condemnation itself) is the degree of condemnation and your opinion that the societal condemnation of pedophiles is correct.

You keep saying this, and yet I have expressed no wish to condemn pedophiles. It wouldn't make any sense to condemn someone for something that they cannot control. Only those who act on it are to be condemned.

That seems a rather arbitrary line to me.

Do you not think that harming others is wrong? Would that not lead you to feel bad about wanting to harm others?

WHAT? No less a problem than lacking empathy?! You're seriously putting me in the same category as a sociopath?

In the same category (ie. mental illness)? Yes. On the same level? No.

Let me try something:
The mental stress on gays would come from within - from the absolute knowledge that what they wish to do is wrong. It isn't an externally applied mental stress from a society that simply does not want to accept them.

Wow. It worked. All I had to do was change one word, and it's a classic religous arguement against homosexuality.

The difference is that homosexuality is not wrong. (Note: By this, again, I am talking about acting on homosexuality - the language wasn't clear.) There is nothing inherently wrong about having sex with a member of the same sex because it harms no one. Sex with children, on the other hand....

I could argue that black is purple because I said so, and it would be the same argument as arguing that purple is purple, but it would only make logical sense in the second case.

Now, to me, this says that you believe that the only relationship a pedophile can immagine having with a child is a sexual one, since otherwise, it apparently doesn't qualify as a mental disorder under the guidelines of the last thing I quoted there.

The important part was the "constant" factor. Most people probably think of killing someone at some point in their lives. It is only if it is a constant thing that it could be seen as a problem.

Meanwhile, if one is attracted to someone, the thought of that relationship is *always* there. Thus, if a pedophile is attracted to a child, they will always want to have sex with that child, regardless of what relationship does or does not develop.

It would seem that you don't have a problem with the rationality of their arguements, given that you've used them yourself more than once. Your issue seems to be, if I read that correctly, their method of chosing their targets.

Let's try this again:

The bigot's arguemnt is without rationality. They choose a group and just decide that the group, though causing no harm to anyone, is wrong/inferior/etc. Pedophiles have urges that, if acted upon, will cause harm - plain and simple. It isn't bigotry to point that out.

Now, if you could actually answer what was said instead of making shit up?

I'm sorry. When you started talking about how wrong it was to have thoughts of harming people, I must have just jumped to the conclusion that you were one of those people who talk about "a sin in ones mind is the same as that sin put into action".

I never said it was "wrong" to have thoughts of harming people per se, just that the action being thought of (if it will harm someone) is wrong. If one often has the urge to harm others, that should be viewed as a problem, not because of "immoral thoughts", but because focusing on such things isn't healthy.

Would you feel better if I changed the word willing to the word conscenting? It's closer to what I orignally meant anyway. Now if you're through knit picking my word choice...

You can call it nitpicking, but it is the entire point I am making here - the distinct difference between homo-, bi-, or heterosexuality and pedophilia.

No. You've just said that we have "wrong" thoughts. Where ever did I make that connection to the word evil? [/sarcasm]

No, I didn't. I said you fantasize about doing something that is wrong. You cannot change who you are attracted to any more than anyone else, so it would be nonsensical to label you "evil" for it.

Any suggestions on "coping" that don't end in castration or incarceration? I've yet to see anything from anyone that could be remotely characterised as help.

I'm not a psychiatrist. I have a feeling it would be a very difficult thing to cope with, and I'm glad I'm not there.

Actually that's just part of the problem. I think your claimed definition of mental illness appeals to some sort of absolute moral code, and thus replaces the word evil with the term mentally ill, yes, but there's more.

Except, of course, that it doesn't.

You can't say that one form of abnormal sexuality is healthy, and another is the product of a deranged mind. This is especially the case when the effects on the mind of the person with that sexuality are virtually indistinguishable.

Yes, actually, I can. Why? Because one person wants to do something that is not in any way harmful to anyone. The other wants to do something that would harm a child. Thus, the second is a problem, while the first is not. The only way to argue with that is to say that it is perfectly ok to harm someone.

The same techniques once used to "cure gay" are the ones being used to treat pedophiles even now, with much the same effect. Such treatments, in the words of an earlier poster, are actually damaging to the mental health of the patient.

This is very possible, and unfortunate.

There's no cure for what I've got, and honestly, I wouldn't want it if it were offered. Tampering with a person's mind, even with the best of intentions, has horrible consequences in every instance.

Does it? So you are opposed to all therapy for anyone, then? Are you a scientologist?

You also tried to sound understanding and altruistic when you said that the act of fantasising was somehow harmful to me.

I don't claim to understand. I'm not attracted to children. But I can certainly see how being attracted to children could be harmful.

You fail to comprehend that I find the idea of sexually abusing children to be as morally objectionable as you do. The difference is that I don't judge a person because they have thoughts that disgut me. You do.

Once again, you are making things up. I haven't judged anyone for thoughts. I haven't claimed that anyone is "bad" or "evil" for thoughts. I have never made any such claim because to do so would require that I make some sort of statement that people have control over who they are attracted to - which I know to be incorrect.

The only thing I have condemned is acting upon pedophilic fantasies. You keep trying to stretch that into a blanket condemnation of pedophiles, but it simply isn't there.

In that case, I reccomend that at your next job interview, before leaving, you mention, "Oh yeah, I'm a pedophile. That isn't a problem is it?" Discrimination against pedophiles is not written into the laws (since you can hardly call preventing child rape discrimination against anyone but rapists), but the defact biggotry is still there, and quite strong.

Unless the person in question is applying for a job at a daycare or something similar, in which case the organization in question might have an argument for a compelling interest, anyone who could provide evidence that they were discriminated against on this basis would have the makings of a lawsuit.

Of course, I don't see why someone would say any such thing, any more than I'm going to leave a job interview by saying, "By the way, I'm bisexual." (unless, of course, the job interview is for porn or stripping or something, in which case it might be a help)

You may not be aware of that discrimination, but it's something I live my life in constant fear of. You know how being gay used to be something you could be hauled out into the streats and stoned for? If anything can invoke that kind of irrational mob mindset among our more liberalised society...

And that is unfortunate. But there are always those who will resort to violence against others.

Your memory is astoundingly short:
"If you fantasize about having sex with children, and you don't find that to be a problem, then I don't think you're worth talking to."

You should seriously at least give your posts in this thread a quick once over before you try to pass off a claim like that.

That isn't "lashing out against pedophiles." Nor is it "condemning" pedophiles. It was a specific comment made at you. I admit that I, perhaps, should not have made it, but you can hardly suggest that the statement somehow applies to all pedophiles, nor that it labels pedophiles as "evil."

You are equating "something wrong with", with "OMFG IT IS SO WRONG!" If someone has a broken leg, there is something wrong with their leg, but their leg is not "wrong" or "evil".

So, would you say that the cathlic church considers it, *gasp* a mental illness? A desire to commit immoral acts? And your stance is different how?

Actually, no. Read their dogma. They list it as a normal part of humanity, not a mental illness.

I was unaware of that. I had assumed that the three primary labels were applied regardless of age or, I guess species. Do they use specific words to make the homo/hetero/bi determination among pedophiles?

Not that I have heard.

Questions I have about the Christian stance on homosexuality.

-Judism (sp?) has no problem with homosexuality. Now if Christianity is based loosely off of Judism, where did the problem come from? The Greeks and Romans had no problem with it and they also influenced Christianity. So where did the trend come from?

I don't know how Jews feel about homosexuality, but Jews are bound to the old law from the Torah (or TANAK) while Christians are bound by the new law which came after Jesus' birth. The only way that the Roman and Greek empires (not people) influenced Christianity is what language they chose to translate the Bible in; the Greeks translated it to Greek (this Bible was called the Septuegint) and the Romans changed it to Latin (called the Vulgate). But there have never been translations of translations, which would cause and degredation of the Bible. Each translation comes from the original Heberew and Aramaic texts. So where does the problem with homosexuality come from for Christians? In Romans, Paul wrote the best "how to be a Christian" (if you will) description we will see after Christ was born. In Chapter 1 a great example is layed out "27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Please, read the verses around it for more context.

-The "bible thumpers" out there who are so quick to quote the bible, for the most part do not know where their hatred for homosexuals comes from either. They quote the bible and use it as proof BUT how can they quote a book written by MAN as the divine truth? And if your too stubborn to see that, then which bible is the REAL word of God? The St. James bible? The Gutenberg Bible? Because if your going to hold a book as infalible you should pick a version.

The only bible you will see that has true variances in is the Mormon bible because they have "living prophets" and there are small subtle differences in their bible.

-In Christian history, homosexuality was rarly seen as a sin, deviant behavior yes. But a sin? No. The bible says "You are my friends if you do whatever I command you" (John 15:14), and in "God's Word" can be found a description of the character He desires to find in men and women: "On this one will I lock: on him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at my word" (Isaiah 66:2). Those quotes are frequently used to show an anti-homosexual meaning, but where EXACTLY does it say that loving a member of the same sex is wrong?

It doesn't, it's just ignorant people peacemealing together a bad argument.

-"The works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like ... those who practise such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (verses 19-21) Another widly used quote by "bible thumpers" once again does it say anything anti-homosexual? No. All of those can be atuned to hetero and homosexuals.

sounds like old law again to me.

-Yes, there are anti-homosexual messages in the Bible. I admit that. But, there are also passages telling Christians to live a life of poverty. Now the church obviously did NOT listen to the passages about living a life of poverty, so why listen to the passages about anti-homosexuality? Why can the Church be allowed to omit some passages and not others?

The #1 thing talked about in the Bible, more than anything else, is the poor. This is something overlooked by nearly all Christians. It is truly sad. But the Bible is not written to be 100% litteral. If you open your BIble, the very first thing you see is Genesis, which is written in the form of a poetic narrative, not a literal, direct scribing. It's not that we have to live our lives with nothing, it's that we are to live as if we have nothing. When we live as though we have nothing, we are completely reliant on God, trusting him, listening praying and not spending all of our time distracted by the cool new yacht we just bought. If God wanted his people to be poor, he wouldn't have led them to the land he had promised.

If the Christians want to be so hard nosed and true to the bible on the issue of homosexuality, then they should be forced to listen to ALL the passages of the bible, example: a "true" Christian should not be able to be either for or against the evils of homosexuality, seeing how its a sin to judge people, a "true" Christian should not want to "kill all homosexuals" as one person said earlier because its a sin to kill someone.


No Christian should hate any homosexual. While it says in the Bible it is a sin, and people compare it to rape and whatever else, God views all sins the same, no one is greater than another. Homosexuals, like any other person, deserves human rights because that's what they are, human. It is sad how extremist people in our country have become, but if we are to become the next generation, we need to put aside the ignorance and blind hatred of another generation and come into our own.

And also the fact they couldn't imagine women doing it I think. :o Though it is cleaner by far for women.

AND theres the fact that by many relgions at the time, multiple wives were allowed... I guess the Bible is just protecting the People's interests...



-In Christian history, homosexuality was rarly seen as a sin, deviant behavior yes. But a sin? No. The bible says "You are my friends if you do whatever I command you" (John 15:14), and in "God's Word" can be found a description of the character He desires to find in men and women: "On this one will I lock: on him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at my word" (Isaiah 66:2). Those quotes are frequently used to show an anti-homosexual meaning, but where EXACTLY does it say that loving a member of the same sex is wrong?

It doesn't, it's just ignorant people peacemealing together a bad argument.


Leviticus 18:

When you have sex with another man you defile both yourself and he


Although this is old law, hence the points I have rasied thus far

I was driving behind someone who had a bumper sticker that said.

Marriage=Man+Woman

Of course the little fish was no more than three inches above it and I felt the sudden urge to go berserk on the car with a golf club. Logic escapes these people.

I was driving behind someone who had a bumper sticker that said.



Of course the little fish was no more than three inches above it and I felt the sudden urge to go berserk on the car with a golf club. Logic escapes these people.

Don't worry, he was probably a closet homosexual.

It doesn't, it's just ignorant people peacemealing together a bad argument.



Piecemealing, i think you'll find

Piecemealing, i think you'll find

The personal pronoun, 'I', should be capitalised, I think you'll find.

But please don't let this thread revert to one about grammar. Please, for the love of God, don't!

Oh no, it was the "Chryogenically [sic] Frozen For 250 Years" one, which was largely centred around grammar.

Of course the little fish was no more than three inches above it and I felt the sudden urge to go berserk on the car with a golf club. Logic escapes these people.
As it does you, apparently.

As has been previously stated, liberals have the annoying tendency of meeting conservative charges of immorality with equally childish charges of stupidity. Many of these so called “Bible thumpers” are clever, calculating and dangerous. They’ve already proven that they have the ability to take over the government.

Conservatives are not to be mocked; they are to be feared by any man or woman who values their freedom to seek pleasure in this world.

As it does you, apparently.

As has been previously stated, liberals have the annoying tendency of meeting conservative charges of immorality with equally childish charges of stupidity. Many of these so called “Bible thumpers” are clever, calculating and dangerous. They’ve already proven that they have the ability to take over the government.

Conservatives are not to be mocked; they are to be feared by any man or woman who values their freedom to seek pleasure in this world.

Well conservative leaders aren't stupid, actually their followers usually aren't either, many can be very intelligent. They're just not big on the free thought department. It's like the Bible has been so successfully planted in their minds from such a young age they're incapable of thinking that it could possibly be wrong. It always amazes me.

Taking children to church is tantamount to brain washing.

As it does you, apparently.

Ok then. I guess you took my exagerration for face value.

Many of these so called “Bible thumpers” are clever, calculating and dangerous. They’ve already proven that they have the ability to take over the government.

I'm not impressed by people who can manipulate the strong hearted and weak minded.

The only way that the Roman and Greek empires (not people) influenced Christianity is what language they chose to translate the Bible in;

You haven't studied much church history, have you? In truth, the East-West split (Roman Catholic vs. Greek Orthodox, although they weren't called that at the time) came largely out of differences between the cultures. The Roman emporer was often involved in church politics, even suggesting some parts of the Nicene Creed, and other things. Our celebrations of Christmas and Easter both come out of "pagan" traditions.

But there have never been translations of translations, which would cause and degredation of the Bible. Each translation comes from the original Heberew and Aramaic texts.

Once again, you demonstrate complete ignorance of the subject. People didn't start retranslating from the original texts until very recently. The King James Bible, for instance, was a translation of the Vulgate, which was a tranlsation of the Septuagint, which was largely a translation of original Scriptures. On top of having been through 3 steps, it was also commissioned by a king who would have beheaded his followers for including anything he didn't like (hence, there are missing verses from the King James Bible). Since then, up until fairly recently, most other English versions were versions which took the King James Bible and updated the language, thus taking it essentially through another "translation".

Now, there are Bibles which are translated direct to English, some even with footnotes as to disputed words, like the NRSV.


So where does the problem with homosexuality come from for Christians? In Romans, Paul wrote the best "how to be a Christian" (if you will) description we will see after Christ was born. In Chapter 1 a great example is layed out "27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Please, read the verses around it for more context.

Taken within the context of the time, one could easily read this as a condemnation of those who are straight, but would have homosexual sex, largely for temple favors. At the time, it was not unusual for such things to be done.

The only bible you will see that has true variances in is the Mormon bible because they have "living prophets" and there are small subtle differences in their bible.

How much variance is necessary before it is "true variance"?

Taking children to church is tantamount to brain washing.

Only if you aren't clear to them that the decision on what to believe is, in the end, their own.

All right, Dempublicents1, I think we need to take a step back. We're both taking one another's arguements too personally, and lashing back. I apologise for allowing things to get this bad, and not recognising my own growing irrationality.

I'll try to respond to this most recent post in a more reasonable, and mature manner than I have recently.
Actually, what I said was that the situation of homosexuals is not at all like that of pedophiles, as homosexuals are not in a situation in which acting upon their sexuality causes harm. Both have received societal condemnation, but the inherent situation is not the same.

And I believe that my point was that the situations are indeed similar because both are widely condemned by society because of a sexual prefference over which they have no control.

I think my real problem with your statement in this part of our arguement was your use of the term "not at all like". The situations are alike in many respects. I know that there are certain important differences, but I became rather outraged when you seemed to be denying the similarities.

You keep saying this, and yet I have expressed no wish to condemn pedophiles. It wouldn't make any sense to condemn someone for something that they cannot control. Only those who act on it are to be condemned.

Perhaps I have attributed a stance to you unfairly. I opologise if this has been the case.

Do you not think that harming others is wrong? Would that not lead you to feel bad about wanting to harm others?

I think I see what you're saying. You don't seem to see any path for me between reprehensible depravity and tortured self-loating. I understand that it's hard to see a third path, but I'm convinced it exists. I'm convinced that there is a way to embrace my nature without giving myself over to those desires.

Maybe I'm a fool for even thinking it's possible for me to be something other than a monster or a tortured shut-in, but I do believe it at the very core of my being. I have to.

I guess when you seemed to deny that option existed, I took it as badly as anyone who has faith in something he can't prove takes it when that beleif is challenged.

In the same category (ie. mental illness)? Yes. On the same level? No.

You said it was "no more or less a problem", that to me said, "same level". Perhaps that's not how you meant it, but you should be aware of how I arrived at my incorrect conclusion.

The difference is that homosexuality is not wrong. (Note: By this, again, I am talking about acting on homosexuality - the language wasn't clear.) There is nothing inherently wrong about having sex with a member of the same sex because it harms no one. Sex with children, on the other hand....

I could argue that black is purple because I said so, and it would be the same argument as arguing that purple is purple, but it would only make logical sense in the second case.

Where did we go wrong here? I think I see it. Are you talking about how it's possible for a homosexual to release sexual tension through a nonabusive relationship? In that case, I think you're comparing apples to oranges. In an effort to compare apples to apples, let's normalize for a few factors.

Let's take the example of a pedophile and a homosexual who were both celebate, and both suffered the more extreme social condemnation, and both came to believe themselves that what they desired to do was morally wrong.

In that example, would you still argue that there was a basic difference between the two? Some component of the mental stress on both comes from within, from their own belief in the wrongness of their own sexuality, so the source of the stress doesn't seem to be a factor. Let's normalize it one more level and say that the homosexual believes (because of some ignorant superstision or another) that engaging in homosexual activity will cause death and disease to his partner. Does that belief make the difference go away?

The important part was the "constant" factor. Most people probably think of killing someone at some point in their lives. It is only if it is a constant thing that it could be seen as a problem.

Meanwhile, if one is attracted to someone, the thought of that relationship is *always* there. Thus, if a pedophile is attracted to a child, they will always want to have sex with that child, regardless of what relationship does or does not develop.

I think we either have radically different levels in our sex drives, or radically different definitions of words like constant and always.

For me, there are indeed times when sex of any sort is not on my mind, even when interacting with people I find sexually attractive. I'll admit that my own experience of having a sex drive in no way qualifies me to talk about human sex drives in general, but does not an exception disprove a rule?

Let's try this again:



Now, if you could actually answer what was said instead of making shit up?

I opologise for lashing out at you in my earlier response to that. I genuinely interpreted your statement there as something along the lines of, "It's not biggotry to be against someone who really is bad." Clearly my interpretation was incorrect, but understand that it really did feel like an attack at the time.

I never said it was "wrong" to have thoughts of harming people per se, just that the action being thought of (if it will harm someone) is wrong. If one often has the urge to harm others, that should be viewed as a problem, not because of "immoral thoughts", but because focusing on such things isn't healthy.

People get the urge to harm one another all the time. None of us are perfect. Isn't that one of the themes most religeons keep driving home? We all have both our virtues and our vices. Our malevolent impulses, however repressed, are always there. I don't think you're so deluded as to consider yourself a "morally perfect" being who never feels real temptation to do wrong.

I personally think trying to pretend we don't have such thoughts is what's unhealthy. When you get the urge to hurt someone, and you chastise yourself with, "don't even think about that", all you're doing is refusing to agknowledge and explore thoughts and feelings that are as much a part of you as your more altruistic ones. If we don't explore them when the temptation to act is weak, we'll be less prepared for when the temptation is strong. So called crimes of passion occur because people deny their violent urges during those times they are most able to control them, and thus are unprepared for them when the urge strikes hard.

I take the oposite approach. I give my passions full reign when I am safe from the chance of acting them out, so I am well prepared when the real oportunity and temptation presents itself.

Pretending you don't have a dark side is just like any other hubris. It sets you up for a fall.

You can call it nitpicking, but it is the entire point I am making here - the distinct difference between homo-, bi-, or heterosexuality and pedophilia.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my initial statement. I really do wish that I'd used conscenting in the first place, but I doubt it would have made a real difference for the arguement that followed. You still would probably have brought up the ability to conscent as a correction to even that.

I had meant that statement to point out that one of the fundamental differences between the two is that a pedophile is forced to rape if he is to follow the edicts of his sexuality, but a homosexual is not. My point was not to belittle the difference you've spent your time arguing for, but rather to agknowledge it.

No, I didn't. I said you fantasize about doing something that is wrong. You cannot change who you are attracted to any more than anyone else, so it would be nonsensical to label you "evil" for it.

Again, I seem to have gotten overly emotional, and misinterpreted your statements in a damning light. The error seems to have been entirely mine, and I agknowldge and opologise for it.

I'm not a psychiatrist. I have a feeling it would be a very difficult thing to cope with, and I'm glad I'm not there.

I'm not a psychiatrist either, but I do know that it's harder coping with the external stress placed on me by society than it is coping with having the urge to rape small children. The social pressures are harsh, and the kind of "help" that's usually offered or suggested always comes down to something unpleasant like castration and incarceration. All that does is make the stress worse, and coping more dificult.

Sometimes it gets so bad that I feel like everyone's against me. This has been one of those times, and I'm sorry I lashed out at you.

Except, of course, that it doesn't.

Apparently not. I stand corrected.

Yes, actually, I can. Why? Because one person wants to do something that is not in any way harmful to anyone. The other wants to do something that would harm a child. Thus, the second is a problem, while the first is not. The only way to argue with that is to say that it is perfectly ok to harm someone.

I think this ground has already been covered earlier in my post.

This is very possible, and unfortunate.

Sad but true. You'd think that after the treatment failed to convert gays, they'd figure out that sexual orientions can't be changed that way. Unfortunately, all they seem to have decided is that it doesn't work on gays.

Does it? So you are opposed to all therapy for anyone, then? Are you a scientologist?

I'm oposed to therapy, yes. Also mind altering drugs. I think that a person's psychological development must be drive from within, because when it's directed from the outside, it's brainwashing regardless of intent. Inadvertent brainwashing does happen (look at the repressed memory phenomenon). I'm not a scientologist, but then again I'm also completely ignorant of their teachings. For all I know what I believe might end up being what they teach.

I don't claim to understand. I'm not attracted to children. But I can certainly see how being attracted to children could be harmful.

I can see how it could be harmful too. The trouble is that you don't seem to see any way that it could not be harmful, and that's the notion I'm challenging.

Once again, you are making things up. I haven't judged anyone for thoughts. I haven't claimed that anyone is "bad" or "evil" for thoughts.

As is becoming a habbit here, I find I must opologise again for mischaracterising your statements.

I have never made any such claim because to do so would require that I make some sort of statement that people have control over who they are attracted to - which I know to be incorrect.

I disagree with the idea (whether you personally hold it or not) that even that would be enough to warrent such a condemnation. Thoughts and feelings have no moral consequences at all unless and until they are acted upon.

The only thing I have condemned is acting upon pedophilic fantasies. You keep trying to stretch that into a blanket condemnation of pedophiles, but it simply isn't there.

Do you have no control over your own mind? Are you not in any way in control of what direction your daydreams take? I do make choices about the direction my fantasies take. I often direct them to places you would no doubt find objectionable. I deliberately chose subjects which would result in harm if acted out in reality.

You've repeatedly talked about how a person thinking about harmful actions is somehow unhealthy. Since I often chose to think about such actions, and thus am harming myself, the logical conclusion is that my thoughts are harmful. I'm personally from the old school of moralism that says, "harmful=bad", so you see where I got my reasoning from I hope.

Unless the person in question is applying for a job at a daycare or something similar, in which case the organization in question might have an argument for a compelling interest, anyone who could provide evidence that they were discriminated against on this basis would have the makings of a lawsuit.

I think you're well aware of the fact that being legally and morally in the right means rather little even in a court of law when popular opinion is against you. Judges are people. Attornies (in spite of some bad jokes to the contrary) are people. Juries are made up exclusively of people.

What you're saying is like trying to say that a gay facing similar discrimination before the gay rights movement would have the makings of a lawsuit. Even if all their legal ducks were in a row, the chances of successfully bringing and carrying out such a suit in a deeply prejudiced culture just isn't significant.

Of course, I don't see why someone would say any such thing, any more than I'm going to leave a job interview by saying, "By the way, I'm bisexual." (unless, of course, the job interview is for porn or stripping or something, in which case it might be a help)

I used that example only because it would be easier to fake it that way. The more likely alternative would be where after being on the job for a while, it is discovered or suspected by a superior, resulting in termination.

And that is unfortunate. But there are always those who will resort to violence against others.

That blaise aditude toward violence is sickening, but I guess it only invokes outrage in some people when it's their own clique that's being threatened.

That isn't "lashing out against pedophiles." Nor is it "condemning" pedophiles. It was a specific comment made at you. I admit that I, perhaps, should not have made it, but you can hardly suggest that the statement somehow applies to all pedophiles, nor that it labels pedophiles as "evil."

I can absolutely suggest that the statement applies to all pedophiles, at least all of them who disagree with your contention that we're sick.

You are equating "something wrong with", with "OMFG IT IS SO WRONG!" If someone has a broken leg, there is something wrong with their leg, but their leg is not "wrong" or "evil".

Point is that when you decide that something is wrong with someone, the next logical step is to try to "fix" that person. That's the sort of thinking that does indeed lead to moralistic preaching. You may not have gone so far as that, but your statements are in the same ballpark.

Actually, no. Read their dogma. They list it as a normal part of humanity, not a mental illness.

You know what, I'm not the least bit interested in christian dogma anyway, so I'll conceed whatever point we were arguing here and move on.

Not that I have heard.
I'd just always thought that those people who were attracted to one gender in adults and the other gender in children were just bisexuals who happened to find a particular set of features attractive in one gender but not the other.

Where did you get the idea that the homo/hetero/bi labels only apply to a person's adult relationships in the first place?

You haven't studied much church history, have you? In truth, the East-West split (Roman Catholic vs. Greek Orthodox, although they weren't called that at the time) came largely out of differences between the cultures. The Roman emporer was often involved in church politics, even suggesting some parts of the Nicene Creed, and other things. Our celebrations of Christmas and Easter both come out of "pagan" traditions.

Yes it's true that the Romans and Greeks influenced Christianity, but they didn't influence the text of the Bible. The Church was also corrupt at the time being too much a part of politics. You are arguing Church, I am arguing the one thing that never changes, the Bible. (I'm sure you are probably wanting to argue something about the Apocryhpa, but don't bother, you will just be blowing more steam).

Once again, you demonstrate complete ignorance of the subject. People didn't start retranslating from the original texts until very recently. The King James Bible, for instance, was a translation of the Vulgate, which was a tranlsation of the Septuagint, which was largely a translation of original Scriptures. On top of having been through 3 steps, it was also commissioned by a king who would have beheaded his followers for including anything he didn't like (hence, there are missing verses from the King James Bible). Since then, up until fairly recently, most other English versions were versions which took the King James Bible and updated the language, thus taking it essentially through another "translation".

I'm glad you called me ignorant...really I am, because an ignorant man is about to enlighten you to truth. The King James Bible is not a translation of the Vulgate (along with EVERY translation of the Torah) is translated from the original Hebrew text. The New Testement was then translated using Byzantine text type which is the largest number of the New Testement Greek Scrolls. The New Testement is different from the Torah in that they were originally written in different languages (again, Torah=hebrew, aramaic and N.T.=Greek). So the only part of the Septuegint "translated" into the Vulgate is the New Testement, which was alread written in Greek (therefore, no translation necessary). And yes, King James was an idiot, that still doesn't change the Biblical texts.

Taken within the context of the time, one could easily read this as a condemnation of those who are straight, but would have homosexual sex, largely for temple favors. At the time, it was not unusual for such things to be done.

you obviously didn't read the text around the romans chapter 1 verse as I recommended. The people continued to mistreat God, knowing well that he is real and present, but they chose to worship other gods and ignore the true God, so he allowed them pursue their sinful desires and that is where it leads on to men and women abandoning natural relations with women for unnatural relations with each other. The key words there being "natural" and "unnatural."



You're just here looking to pick a fight aren't you? "you haven't studied much church history, have you?" and telling me I'm completely ignorant. Try as you may, you cannot lessen the value and consistency of the Bible.

Why do so many Christians, "Christians," and other persons attack homosexuals so much?
[. . .]
I find it very frustrating that so many Christians and "Christians" reject this and adopt a "Kill them all!" stance when they claim to be loving individuals. We ought to help homosexuals overcome their problem, not condemn them.

"Love the sinner; hate the sin!"

Any thoughts?


To answer the initial question: Christianity- not the teachings of the man, but the power-institution that arose- is, like any other power-institution, dependent upon dichotemies (us/them, believer/non-believer, good/evil, etc) and heirarchies (of authority, of virtues, of sins, etc) to subordinate individuals to the larger entity in order to assert control. Gay people are one of many convenient scapegoats for religious authorities.

What I find frustrating, as a gay man, is when 'compassionate' straight people frame homosexuality as a problem that they need to help us 'overcome.' This is still just a soft-core pathologisation of homosexuality, less hostile than "kill em all" but that still aims at eliminating gay people by 'curing' us, and it remains blind to the reality of homosexuality. The reality is that homosexuality is not a 'problem' or a pathology. It is a function of nature's capacity for diversity. It's present in nature; and before the non-believers (or believers, for that matter) in evolutionary theory try to use the "evolution should eliminate homosexuality as non-conducive to survival" argument, homosexuality manifests in a small enough percentage of the population that is poses no significant threat to the perpetuation of the species. In fact, by producing individuals without children of their own, with the time and energy to help reproducing heterosexuals raise their offspring, it may be advantageous to the species. Homosexuality is a biological predisposition (probably a recessive gene) and the only choice involved in 'being gay' is whether or not we accept our feelings and be true to them, or allow social 'normative' pressures to drive us into denial and repression.
The fact is, there is no "gay problem." The problem belongs to heterosexuals (more specifically, those heterosexuals who cannot accept homosexuality, who feel confounded and/or threatened by it and choose to pathologise and attack gay people). It is a "straight problem" with gay people. Every minority 'problem' has in fact been the majority's problem with a minority, where that minority was problematised in order to justify oppression. The 'black problem,' the 'Jewish problem,' for a couple of examples. The "problems" were not black people, or Jewish people. The problems were racism and anti-semitism on the part of non-blacks and non-Jews, things that we recognise and identify in retrospect as 'sins' of the powerful. If all heterosexuals would accept homosexuality as simply another state, alternative (but not a threat) to heterosexuality, and end the marginalisation and persocution of gay people, allow homosexuals to integrate *fully* into society as equals, then there would be no 'gay problem.'
'Sin' is just a word Person A uses to render Person B's behaviour morally inferior, whether that behaviour actually has a moral dimension or not. A just definition of 'morality' conforms to the harm principle. Actions which cause harm are immoral. As such, whether you have sex with a male or female has no inherent 'moral' dimension. If sex is not consentual- regardless of the sex of the partner- that is 'immoral.' But consentual sex between to consenting adults, in and of itself, is not a 'moral' or 'immoral' act.

What I find frustrating, as a gay man, is when 'compassionate' straight people frame homosexuality as a problem that they need to help us 'overcome.' This is still just a soft-core pathologisation of homosexuality, less hostile than "kill em all" but that still aims at eliminating gay people by 'curing' us, and it remains blind to the reality of homosexuality.

I agree completely. The "noble" goal of "curing" someone of their sexuality really is just a way of softening the blow of intollerance. It's still intollerance, and should be challenged.

Homosexuality is not how the world is supposed to be...are their gay animals (appart from humans)???


NO

:)

Homosexuality is not how the world is supposed to be...are their gay animals (appart from humans)???


NO

:)

Well, assuming you mean "are there gay animals (apart from humans)???", yes.
Whilst Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Homosexual_behavior_in_animals) isn't the most reliable source, I think it fits this purpose acceptably.

Homosexuality is not how the world is supposed to be...are their gay animals (appart from humans)???


NO

:)
The answer to your question is yes, not no.

Look up the sexual behaviour of dolphins, bonobo monkeys, geese, penguins, rats, and pretty much every other damn species whose sexual behaviour was studied by scientists and naturalists. The rate of homosexuality varies widely according to specy, but it's present in all of them.

In some, like the dolphins or bonobo(which are among the closest animals to man evolutionary and genetically speaking), form life-lasting relationships between members of the same sex.

So yes, homosexuality is PART OF how the world is supposed to be.

All right, Dempublicents1, I think we need to take a step back. We're both taking one another's arguements too personally, and lashing back. I apologise for allowing things to get this bad, and not recognising my own growing irrationality.

I apologize as well. I misread some of what you had to say, although there are still points you make that I disagree with.

I think I see what you're saying. You don't seem to see any path for me between reprehensible depravity and tortured self-loating. I understand that it's hard to see a third path, but I'm convinced it exists. I'm convinced that there is a way to embrace my nature without giving myself over to those desires.

Not so much "tortured self-loathing". I think you are taking it a bit far. I simply see a problem with any psychological condition that leads to one having recurring or constant urges to harm others.

Maybe I'm a fool for even thinking it's possible for me to be something other than a monster or a tortured shut-in, but I do believe it at the very core of my being. I have to.

I think you have this idea that, if you have a mental illness (ie. if pedophilia is a mental illness), that you have to be one of these things. I don't think that is true.

You said it was "no more or less a problem", that to me said, "same level". Perhaps that's not how you meant it, but you should be aware of how I arrived at my incorrect conclusion.

I can certainly understand why you thought that. I really mean, "no more or less a mental illness", not that each mental illness was an equal problem.

Where did we go wrong here? I think I see it. Are you talking about how it's possible for a homosexual to release sexual tension through a nonabusive relationship?

It really isn't so much about sexual tension. A homosexual can have a meaningful, loving, and yes, sexual, relationship with the object of their fantasies. A pedophile can certainly love a child, but cannot have that type of relationship. It isn't really all about sex, but about the relationship with another that can include sex.

Let's take the example of a pedophile and a homosexual who were both celebate, and both suffered the more extreme social condemnation, and both came to believe themselves that what they desired to do was morally wrong.

In that example, would you still argue that there was a basic difference between the two?

To a point, yes. The homosexual would decide that it was "morally wrong" simply because of the pressures of society, while a pedophile, even if society never condemned them, would know that what they wanted to do is wrong (I hope - there's one on this board who doesn't seem to agree).

I think we either have radically different levels in our sex drives, or radically different definitions of words like constant and always.

For me, there are indeed times when sex of any sort is not on my mind, even when interacting with people I find sexually attractive. I'll admit that my own experience of having a sex drive in no way qualifies me to talk about human sex drives in general, but does not an exception disprove a rule?

When I say "always", I don't mean, "You never think about that person in any way except having sex." What I mean is that you can't just say, "You know what? I know that I shouldn't be attracted to this person. Therefore I am not. I don't want to have sex with them at all."

Suppose, lets say, that I was attracted to a happily married and monogamous man. I would know that acting upon that attraction would be (in my opinoin at least) morally wrong. But I wouldn't be able to just turn off the attraction. I would certainly be able to work with that man without acting on it, and there would be times when sex was far from my mind, but that attraction wouldn't just go away.

People get the urge to harm one another all the time. None of us are perfect. Isn't that one of the themes most religeons keep driving home? We all have both our virtues and our vices. Our malevolent impulses, however repressed, are always there. I don't think you're so deluded as to consider yourself a "morally perfect" being who never feels real temptation to do wrong.

No, of course not. It is a perfectly normal human response to lash out when angry, for isntance. But I would worry about someone who told me that they often had the urge to harm someone unprovoked. If someone told me that, when walking down the street, they saw a guy they had never met and wanted to rip his head off, I'd be worried. If someone told me that they constantly had rape fantasies - that when they dreamed of sex, they dreamed of raping women, I would be worried.

I'm oposed to therapy, yes. Also mind altering drugs.

In that case, our argument is rather moot. The distinction lies much deeper. Based on this logic, it would appear that nothing at all should be considered a mental illness. I would not agree with that.

I'm not a scientologist, but then again I'm also completely ignorant of their teachings. For all I know what I believe might end up being what they teach.

Hehe, I doubt it. Scientologists believe that mental illness is a sign of "Thetans", which are the souls of long dead aliens that an evil overlord brought here to kill them, attached to you, and that you must be cleansed of them to be "cured".

You've repeatedly talked about how a person thinking about harmful actions is somehow unhealthy.

As an occasional thing, no. As my fiance pointed out to me the other night, most people have probably, at some point, had a fantasy about killing someone, for instance. But someone who thinks about it on a regular basis, I believe, is unhealthy.

I think you're well aware of the fact that being legally and morally in the right means rather little even in a court of law when popular opinion is against you. Judges are people. Attornies (in spite of some bad jokes to the contrary) are people. Juries are made up exclusively of people.

Yes, but you seemed to be equating things with reference to the civil rights movement. While we can certainly try to educate people about sexuality, we cannot legislate tolerance and acceptance. All we can legislate is what one may legally do. What they think at home is their own.

I can absolutely suggest that the statement applies to all pedophiles, at least all of them who disagree with your contention that we're sick.

I see no major difference between someone saying, "I often fantasize about raping children, but it really is no problem," and "I often fantasize about torturing and murdering people, but it really is no problem."

Where did you get the idea that the homo/hetero/bi labels only apply to a person's adult relationships in the first place?

Various sources. Psychology makes a distinction between adult sexuality and pedophilia. And, it seems that it is not uncommon for a pedophile to be "straight" in their adult sexuality but to be attracted exclusively to same-sex children.

Yes it's true that the Romans and Greeks influenced Christianity, but they didn't influence the text of the Bible.

This is like saying, "It's true that American society influenced Mark Twain, but it didn't influence Tom Sawyer.

The Church was also corrupt at the time being too much a part of politics. You are arguing Church, I am arguing the one thing that never changes, the Bible.

The Bible wasn't even in existence as a canon until a couple hundred years into the history of the Church. And guess who decided which texts, and which versions of those texts to include? It was the Church!

Thus, if the Church was corrupt and political (the last is absolutely true), there is no logical reason to believe that the Bible may not be as well, considering that it was politics which was used to determine what would be included and what to leave out.

I'm glad you called me ignorant...really I am, because an ignorant man is about to enlighten you to truth.

Too bad most of what you say is completely incorrect.

Meanwhile, don't take "ignorant" as an insult. It isn't one. Just a statement.

The King James Bible is not a translation of the Vulgate (along with EVERY translation of the Torah) is translated from the original Hebrew text.

Considering that this is counter to every history and theology text I have ever read, you're going to have to provide some support on this.

The New Testement was then translated using Byzantine text type which is the largest number of the New Testement Greek Scrolls. The New Testement is different from the Torah in that they were originally written in different languages (again, Torah=hebrew, aramaic and N.T.=Greek). So the only part of the Septuegint "translated" into the Vulgate is the New Testement, which was alread written in Greek (therefore, no translation necessary).

I think you mean that the Septuagint was Greek. The Vulgate was Latin and was, whether you like it or not, translated for the Septuagint. And the Torah only refers to the first five books of the Old Testament, and the oldest texts for it are completely in Hebrew. Parts of the Old Testament may have been in Aramaic originally.

And yes, King James was an idiot, that still doesn't change the Biblical texts.

It did, considering that there are words of Christ present in older texts that are ommitted in the King James Version. Something about when it is appropriate to rise up against a king....

you obviously didn't read the text around the romans chapter 1 verse as I recommended.

No, I did. You just don't like my interpretation of it.

The people continued to mistreat God, knowing well that he is real and present, but they chose to worship other gods and ignore the true God, so he allowed them pursue their sinful desires and that is where it leads on to men and women abandoning natural relations with women for unnatural relations with each other. The key words there being "natural" and "unnatural."

Yes, and to suggest that homosexuality is "unnatural" is to ignore mounds of evidence to the contrary. Thus, one must either believe that Paul was wrong, or that Paul was referring to the "natural" relations of the people in question - that those in question were actually straight, and were turning to homosexual relations counter to their natural impulses.

You're just here looking to pick a fight aren't you?

Not in the least. I was just amazed that someone so very misinformed would act as if they are an expert on the subject.

Try as you may, you cannot lessen the value and consistency of the Bible.

I never said the Bible wasn't valuable. And one only needs to actually read it to find the occasional inconsistency.

Homosexuality is not how the world is supposed to be...are their gay animals (appart from humans)???

Yes, actually. You can find animals in nature that are homosexual, bisexual (very common), and heterosexual. You can even find transgendered animals.

I apologize as well. I misread some of what you had to say, although there are still points you make that I disagree with.

It's pretty clear that we've still got some points of disagreement, but I'm still glad we could clear the air before trying to tackle them.

Not so much "tortured self-loathing". I think you are taking it a bit far. I simply see a problem with any psychological condition that leads to one having recurring or constant urges to harm others.

In that case, I'm not sure what form you believe that this harm I'm doing to myself takes, if not the form of self-loating?

I think you have this idea that, if you have a mental illness (ie. if pedophilia is a mental illness), that you have to be one of these things. I don't think that is true.

An illness implies that it is intrinsicly better to be cured. That I would be inately better off, all else being equal, if this aspect of my being were to be purged. I disagree with that notion. Even if it were possible to succeed at such a purge, I would lose a significant aspect of my personality. It's not unlike those people with dyslexia, or ADD who disagree with the notion that they would be intrinsicly better off without their "mental disease".

I can certainly understand why you thought that. I really mean, "no more or less a mental illness", not that each mental illness was an equal problem.

I'm glad to hear that it was just a misunderstanding.

It really isn't so much about sexual tension. A homosexual can have a meaningful, loving, and yes, sexual, relationship with the object of their fantasies. A pedophile can certainly love a child, but cannot have that type of relationship. It isn't really all about sex, but about the relationship with another that can include sex.

So you've replaced the term sexual tension with... What? Romantic longing? I still don't see how that changes what we're talking about.

To a point, yes. The homosexual would decide that it was "morally wrong" simply because of the pressures of society, while a pedophile, even if society never condemned them, would know that what they wanted to do is wrong (I hope - there's one on this board who doesn't seem to agree).

In that case, the only difference you seem to be able to give is that the pedophile was right to consider his condition immoral, and that the gay was wrong to come to the same conclusion. I don't see how the psychological impact changes when they've both come to the same conclusions, and responded in the same way.

(I presume you're talking about DSN? Is he even still around?)

When I say "always", I don't mean, "You never think about that person in any way except having sex." What I mean is that you can't just say, "You know what? I know that I shouldn't be attracted to this person. Therefore I am not. I don't want to have sex with them at all."

Suppose, lets say, that I was attracted to a happily married and monogamous man. I would know that acting upon that attraction would be (in my opinoin at least) morally wrong. But I wouldn't be able to just turn off the attraction. I would certainly be able to work with that man without acting on it, and there would be times when sex was far from my mind, but that attraction wouldn't just go away.

And would you say that you have some sort of mental illness, because you're experienceing uncontrolable "constant" sexual feelings it would be morally wrong to act on?

No, of course not. It is a perfectly normal human response to lash out when angry, for isntance. But I would worry about someone who told me that they often had the urge to harm someone unprovoked. If someone told me that, when walking down the street, they saw a guy they had never met and wanted to rip his head off, I'd be worried. If someone told me that they constantly had rape fantasies - that when they dreamed of sex, they dreamed of raping women, I would be worried.

I guess you should be worried about me. I do often get the urge to cause unprovoked harm. I do occasionally get the urge to rip off strangers' heads while walking down the streat. Nothing ever comes of it, and I don't lose sight of the moral consequences of such an act.

Maybe that's why I don't see the threat of negative thoughts that you do, and why we aren't seeing eye to eye on this situation.

In that case, our argument is rather moot. The distinction lies much deeper. Based on this logic, it would appear that nothing at all should be considered a mental illness. I would not agree with that.

Perhaps so. I believe that if people are dangerous, they should be locked away, but if they aren't dangerous, they should be left alone. Either way, trying to alter who they are is brainwashing regardless of intentions.

Hehe, I doubt it. Scientologists believe that mental illness is a sign of "Thetans", which are the souls of long dead aliens that an evil overlord brought here to kill them, attached to you, and that you must be cleansed of them to be "cured".

Nope. I guess I'm not a scientologist then.

As an occasional thing, no. As my fiance pointed out to me the other night, most people have probably, at some point, had a fantasy about killing someone, for instance. But someone who thinks about it on a regular basis, I believe, is unhealthy.

Unhealthy in what way? Which is more dangerous: If I slugged anyone who pissed me off? Or if I visualise in gory detail tearing the flesh from their faces with my fingernails?

Yes, but you seemed to be equating things with reference to the civil rights movement. While we can certainly try to educate people about sexuality, we cannot legislate tolerance and acceptance. All we can legislate is what one may legally do. What they think at home is their own.

You said that there wasn't prejudice, or something that I believed implied the same. I pointed out my disagreement. Perhaps that was another miscommunication though.

I see no major difference between someone saying, "I often fantasize about raping children, but it really is no problem," and "I often fantasize about torturing and murdering people, but it really is no problem."

I don't see that major difference either. Difference is that I don't consider either to be a problem, while you see both to be a problem.

Various sources. Psychology makes a distinction between adult sexuality and pedophilia. And, it seems that it is not uncommon for a pedophile to be "straight" in their adult sexuality but to be attracted exclusively to same-sex children.

Weird. But then again, I'm no soverign of sexual normalcy myself anyway.

Homosexuality is not how the world is supposed to be...are their gay animals (appart from humans)???


NO

:)

you are either an idiot or being very sarcastic.

I refuse to believe that people make such bold claims without doing prior research that proves them wrong, but just in case...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Gay_penguins_NY_Zoo.jpg

Cute penguins. They are gay. Their names are Squawk and Milou, one of several same sex pairs that live in the Central Park Zoo.

*snip*
Dude, if it's any consolation, you look more like a angsty teen to me than someone with a mental illness :p (regarding your argument with Dem on wanting to rip people's head off with gory details).

I tend to agree with you that, unless you really try to dismember stangers without provocation on the street, you should be left alone.

However, I'd probably advise to you to either talk about that with friends, family, or even a professionnal if you're so inclined. It's my personnal experience that imagining yourself to attack and maim others is a result of lack of healthy emotional management: you might want to adress all that pent-up anger before you end up lashing at loved ones and hurting them.

Well, either that, or go buy some violent video game and unleash your fury by shooting some poor zombie in the head with a shotgun. Zombies have no feelings, ater all. :p

However, on the whole pedophilia/homosexuality thing, it can be said that the emotionnal trauma is essentially the same: but the difference is that the pedophile can(or should) never act on his attractions, while the homosexual can(and even should, IMHO).

So, a gay man can at least see some light at the end of the tunnel, because there's always hope for him that he'll be able to act on his attractions in a healthy manner, while it's impossible for the pedophile(for obvious reasons).

Mind you, if a man has pedophiliac attractions but never acts on them, he's essentially off the hook, because pedophilia isn't "inherently"(notice the quotes) wrong, but rather hurting children is. It's just socially unacceptable because it almost always leads to children being abused(at least acting on it does). Which is, again, the huge difference between the two issues.

Mind you, if a man has pedophiliac attractions but never acts on them, he's essentially off the hook, because pedophilia isn't "inherently"(notice the quotes) wrong, but rather hurting children is. It's just socially unacceptable because it almost always leads to children being abused(at least acting on it does). Which is, again, the huge difference between the two issues.

The thing about pedophilia is many people enjoy thinking about it. Many people enjoy the thought of domination or, to a lesser extent, taking someone's innocence. Why do you think people roleplay during sex? It is a healthier way of simulating your desires rather than acting them out on a (possibly) non-consenting victim. I know people that get off to rape, humiliation, and even having sex with someone much younger. They do not actually commit these acts though.

In that case, I'm not sure what form you believe that this harm I'm doing to myself takes, if not the form of self-loating?

I don't think that you are "harming yourself", so much as having harmful fantasies and urges.

An illness implies that it is intrinsicly better to be cured.

If possible. If not, it would most likley be better to be without it. I think you would be better off if you weren't attracted to children. That isn't to say that I think you would be better off if you were and then were changed somehow, unless the change was somehow not harmful.

So you've replaced the term sexual tension with... What? Romantic longing? I still don't see how that changes what we're talking about.

Finding a romantic loving and sexual relationship with another human being is one of the best things in life. Those who don't have it most often wish for it, long for it. And it is healthy to find it.

In that case, the only difference you seem to be able to give is that the pedophile was right to consider his condition immoral, and that the gay was wrong to come to the same conclusion. I don't see how the psychological impact changes when they've both come to the same conclusions, and responded in the same way.

One conclusion, however, is externally applied, while the other is intrinsic.

And would you say that you have some sort of mental illness, because you're experienceing uncontrolable "constant" sexual feelings it would be morally wrong to act on?

If I were consistently attracted to married men, I would see that as a psychological problem, yes.

Unhealthy in what way? Which is more dangerous: If I slugged anyone who pissed me off? Or if I visualise in gory detail tearing the flesh from their faces with my fingernails?

The former is more unhealthy to them. The latter would probably be more unhealthy to you.

You said that there wasn't prejudice, or something that I believed implied the same.

No, only that the *law* doesn't contain any discrimination against celibate pedophiles (that I am aware of).


I tend to agree with you that, unless you really try to dismember stangers without provocation on the street, you should be left alone.

However, I'd probably advise to you to either talk about that with friends, family, or even a professionnal if you're so inclined. It's my personnal experience that imagining yourself to attack and maim others is a result of lack of healthy emotional management: you might want to adress all that pent-up anger before you end up lashing at loved ones and hurting them.

This is basically my point (with pedophilia as well). I'm not saying anyone should have anything at all done to them because of their urges. I am simply suggesting that they can be a problem, and that it probably needs to be addressed.

This is basically my point (with pedophilia as well). I'm not saying anyone should have anything at all done to them because of their urges. I am simply suggesting that they can be a problem, and that it probably needs to be addressed.

Homosexuality isn't a problem that needs to be addressed. Putting 2 consenting adult males having sex on an equal plane as raping a child's innocence or beating the shit out of someone is an insult to all pedophiles and murderers.

The thing about pedophilia is many people enjoy thinking about it. Many people enjoy the thought of domination or, to a lesser extent, taking someone's innocence. Why do you think people roleplay during sex? It is a healthier way of simulating your desires rather than acting them out on a (possibly) non-consenting victim. I know people that get off to rape, humiliation, and even having sex with someone much younger. They do not actually commit these acts though.
My thoughts exatly, and why I said that pedophilia isn't "inherently" wrong(quoted to avoid the flamewars and/or misunderstanding that I might somehow support molesting children).

In fact, any fetish is all fine and dandy by me as long as nobody gets hurt or abused. For example, I highly prefer for a man with pedophiliac tendencies to fantasise or read fictional stories and get his rocks off that, however distasteful that may sound, than him actually going out and abusing a child. Or maybe if he had his (adult)girl/boyfriend shave all the way to look younger or whatever. Of course, anything involving children at all should be off limits: child porn or any other form exploitation should be punished severely.

The only possible wrong is on the acts themselves, not in the thoughts: besides, it's impossible to start policing people's thoughts, especially on matters pertaining to morality. So, as long as no child is being hurt or exploited, there's no bone to be had over the issue.

Besides, who here never fantasised about something they know they'd never ever really try? I know thinking about group sex gets me hot, but I'm very unlikely to ever want to try it for real, even if the opportunity arose.

Homosexuality isn't a problem that needs to be addressed. Putting 2 consenting adult males having sex
Or females. Our lesbian friends deserve to get some, too :p


on an equal plane as raping a child's innocence or beating the shit out of someone is an insult to all pedophiles and murderers.
Please tell me this is one heck of a slip of the tongue, or I might be pissed and have to verbally berate you.

Besides, who here never fantasised about something they know they'd never ever really try? I know thinking about group sex gets me hot, but I'm very unlikely to ever want to try it for real, even if the opportunity arose.

As long as the group practices safe sex, you should totally go for it ;). It is very liberating.

Or females. Our lesbian friends deserve to get some, too :p

My bad lol.


Please tell me this is one heck of a slip of the tongue, or I might be pissed and have to verbally berate you.

What? If I made a mistake, I am not seeing it.

What? If I made a mistake, I am not seeing it.
You said putting homosexuality on the same level as beating the shit out of people or molesting children is an insult to the molesters and murderers. This means you would consider homosexuality to be worse than either of those, while I'm pretty sure you meant the other way around.

At least I certainly hope so :eek:

Homosexuality isn't a problem that needs to be addressed.

I never said it was.

I know the thread is long, but at least reading a few posts back could be helpful in a thread, so that you don't end up looking like you can't read.

Putting 2 consenting adult males having sex on an equal plane as raping a child's innocence or beating the shit out of someone is an insult to all pedophiles and murderers.

I really hope this was a typo. But there is no way you can put any sex between two consenting adults on the same level as raping someone, child or not.

You said putting homosexuality on the same level as beating the shit out of people or molesting children is an insult to the molesters and murderers. This means you would consider homosexuality to be worse than either of those, while I'm pretty sure you meant the other way around.

At least I certainly hope so :eek:

No no, I consider it to be hell of alot better. It is insulting to both parties, but I used the bad side for emphasis and sarcasm. Imagine going up to Ted Bundy (assuming he was not a homosexual) and saying "homosexuality is a disorder kind of like how you have antisocial personality disorder." He would probably say "Bitch, I am hardcore because I kill people, not because I stemmed some guys rose!"

I don't think that you are "harming yourself", so much as having harmful fantasies and urges.

Harmful to who? If they're harmful, there has to be someone who's harmed, and if not me (the only one who even knows about them most of the time) then who?

If possible. If not, it would most likley be better to be without it. I think you would be better off if you weren't attracted to children. That isn't to say that I think you would be better off if you were and then were changed somehow, unless the change was somehow not harmful.

The difference between most mental "diseases" and their physical counterparts is that with physical diseases, there's no question in anyone's mind whether they'd be better off without it. It's better to not have cancer than it is to have cancer. It's better to not have the flu than to have the flu. The same can't be agreed to about OCD, ADD, and other mental abnormalities. Mental illnesses are intrinisicly subjective, so there is no absolute standard as to whether it's better to have or not have a particular psychological characteristic.

Finding a romantic loving and sexual relationship with another human being is one of the best things in life. Those who don't have it most often wish for it, long for it. And it is healthy to find it.

I could get all egotistical and talk about my experiences in the field about romantic love, but we should probably speak of generalities. (So no one calls child rape on me, the girl was an adult too and it never got sexual.)

Because you consider it a postive experience, is that reason enough for someone who won't experience it to be classified as mentally ill? One could say very positive things about bungie jumping, and that people who were afraid to jump off a bridge are missing out on a positive experience, and thus are mentally ill.

One conclusion, however, is externally applied, while the other is intrinsic.

Are you actually arguing for the existence of a universal moral code known to all human beings, and distinguishably by them from social indoctriniation? If so, I feel this particular aspect of our discussion is fruitless.

If I were consistently attracted to married men, I would see that as a psychological problem, yes.

You described an attraction to someone you would not be able to pursue in good consience. You then added that you were unable to "turn off" that attraction. Thus, at least one married man is constantly attractive to you.

You have a psychological problem?

The former is more unhealthy to them. The latter would probably be more unhealthy to you.

So for my own mental health, I should start beating the crap out of annoying people? You'll forgive me if I don't take your advice. ;)

No, only that the *law* doesn't contain any discrimination against celibate pedophiles (that I am aware of).

I see. We were talking apples and oranges. You were talking systemic discrimaiton, and I was talking defacto discrmination.

There are systemic discriminations too, but they all fall under the dubious category of protecting the interests of children. Not that I object to statutory rape laws or anything, but have you seen the discussions on "virtual child porn".

In this medium, no child is even involved in the process, yet in many places it's still illegal. There are also laws which forbid reading sexually explicit stories involving minors, even if you were the author. (Thus pedophiles can be prosecuted in some juristictions for reading a journal they may keep of their fantasies.) Drawings are similarly outlawed in certain juristictions.

And of course, as always, Big Brother uses pedophiles as an excuse for more and more invasion of privacy rights against everyone, but that's another issue entirely.

This is basically my point (with pedophilia as well). I'm not saying anyone should have anything at all done to them because of their urges. I am simply suggesting that they can be a problem, and that it probably needs to be addressed.
Again I ask, ADDRESSED HOW?

Harmful to who? If they're harmful, there has to be someone who's harmed, and if not me (the only one who even knows about them most of the time) then who?

You misunderstood. "Harming yourself" would imply, to me, that you were doing something intentionally harmful. Since thoughts are not generally intentional, it wouldn't fall under "harming yourself".

Because you consider it a postive experience, is that reason enough for someone who won't experience it to be classified as mentally ill?

In truth, I consider it a necessary experience to a healthy human life. There are those who forgo it, and that is their choice, but I wouldn't call the choice healthy.

Are you actually arguing for the existence of a universal moral code known to all human beings, and distinguishably by them from social indoctriniation? If so, I feel this particular aspect of our discussion is fruitless.

No. But I would say that any action that needlessly harms a human being is objectively wrong.

You described an attraction to someone you would not be able to pursue in good consience. You then added that you were unable to "turn off" that attraction. Thus, at least one married man is constantly attractive to you.

You have a psychological problem?

You missed a big part of the discussion, apparently. Pedophilia is not the attraction to one child, now is it? If someone had an attraction to one child, it could be a fluke. It could be that the child in question looked older than they were or was very mature or who knows what. If a person is consistently attracted to children, that is pedophilia.

If I were consistently attracted to married men, it would be a problem. It would probably, in that case, demonstrate some sort of need to pursue the unattainable - and might even relate to a fear of sexual relationships.

As I said before, I don't think it is unhealthy to occasionally want to harm someone. But if you consistently want to harm others, that would be a problem. If someone has one rape fantasy, not a problem. If someone's fantasies consistently include raping someone, a problem.

So for my own mental health, I should start beating the crap out of annoying people? You'll forgive me if I don't take your advice. ;)

I didn't say that. I don't think anyone should harm someone else for their mental health.

In this medium, no child is even involved in the process, yet in many places it's still illegal. There are also laws which forbid reading sexually explicit stories involving minors, even if you were the author. (Thus pedophiles can be prosecuted in some juristictions for reading a journal they may keep of their fantasies.) Drawings are similarly outlawed in certain juristictions.

These things are a matter of the "ick" factor, more than anything I think should be banned, although I would not oppose a ban on public display of such things.

Again I ask, ADDRESSED HOW?

If I knew that, I would have answered it already.

You misunderstood. "Harming yourself" would imply, to me, that you were doing something intentionally harmful. Since thoughts are not generally intentional, it wouldn't fall under "harming yourself".

And those thoughts that are deliberately summoned?

In truth, I consider it a necessary experience to a healthy human life. There are those who forgo it, and that is their choice, but I wouldn't call the choice healthy.

I rather disagree, but since there's no point of commonality between our views on this particular point, I suppose we're going to have to go with a live and let live arrangement between us.

No. But I would say that any action that needlessly harms a human being is objectively wrong.

I would agree, but I don't think it's that easy to separate what is objectively morally true, and our social indoctrination. Since often one appears to be the other, and effects us as though it were the other, I fail to see how you can diferentiate the two when making blanket statements about who is and is not mentally ill.

You missed a big part of the discussion, apparently. Pedophilia is not the attraction to one child, now is it? If someone had an attraction to one child, it could be a fluke. It could be that the child in question looked older than they were or was very mature or who knows what. If a person is consistently attracted to children, that is pedophilia.

Regardless, one suggests more. I somehow doubt that a heterosexual male is ever sexually attracted to one male, and if he were, many would indeed take that to mean said male was actually bisexual.

If I were consistently attracted to married men, it would be a problem. It would probably, in that case, demonstrate some sort of need to pursue the unattainable - and might even relate to a fear of sexual relationships.

Those particular pathologies (along with others) are also used to explain away a sexual attraction toward children. Regardless of the source being potentially in other mental disorders, the attraction itself is what we're discussing, not contributing pathologies.

As I said before, I don't think it is unhealthy to occasionally want to harm someone. But if you consistently want to harm others, that would be a problem. If someone has one rape fantasy, not a problem. If someone's fantasies consistently include raping someone, a problem.

Where does it cross the line? When do a few fantasies become a constant problem?

I didn't say that. I don't think anyone should harm someone else for their mental health.

I know that. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of even suggesting that it would somehow be better "for me" if I were to lash out violently rather than supress my urge to kill.

These things are a matter of the "ick" factor, more than anything I think should be banned, although I would not oppose a ban on public display of such things.

That "ick" factor actuall endangers child welfare. Because all "child pornography" is created equal, there is no incentive to limit one's manufacture or distribution of said material to the virtual. As such, hardcore material involving actual child rape in its manufacture is actually more common than softcore material where no sex is involved, and that is more common that any form of virtual material in which no child is even involved.

The "ick" factor isn't even the real reason it's banned. It's the doctrine of incitement that the US has adopted. Those same congresspeople who think violent video games are going to make people go out and kill eachother also believe that access to erotic material of this sort is going to make people go out and rape children.

If I knew that, I would have answered it already.
No one seems to know of anything that will help, yet they're always so quick to point out how I need help.

I'll probably catch flak for this, but I believe if there isn't a real child involved they should be able to write or depict whatever crap floats their boat.

I'll probably catch flak for this, but I believe if there isn't a real child involved they should be able to write or depict whatever crap floats their boat.
Agreed ... as long as no one is invoulentarily harmed (and a child is NEVER EVER in a position to couldentarily commit a sexual act) they have a right to write or draw whatever they want

I tried to read this whole thread from th ebeginning but... wow. lots of posts. I hope I won't inadvertently say anything repetitive, and if I do, then I ask your forgiveness.

What I've been noticing is that there are a lot of posts that are little more than jabs taken at one another, rather than a real effort to communicate. Let me take a moment to tell you where I'm coming from. I have several siblings, and among them is one sister who is an extremely conservative Christian, and a brother who is gay. I can't really say whether they are truly stereotypical examples, if such a thing even truly exists, but suffice to say they are probably useful examples for the purpose of this board, and my point.

My sister and my brother love each other. They can be in the same room with each other and get along fine. Have they had arguments? Sure. Does that change the way they feel about each other, not that I can see. My brother respects my sister's beliefs and her right to live according to them, and my sister also knows that my brother has a right to live his way, and doesn't make it a point to harass him about it.

You won't hear words like "silly little book" or "fag" between them. I guess in a way it would be great to see that in a discussion like this one. If you don't believe in the validity of the Bible, that's perfectly alright. Just understand that if you insult people who do, you will lose the moral highground and you will make yourself appear inflexible and narrowminded. The same goes for the other side. If you insist flatly that all homosexuals are bound for Hell and that's the end of it, then you too lose credibility for the same reasons.

For my part, I am a Christian (different denomination from my sister, but with similar moral teachings). My faith teaches us that God loves all of His children equally and without condition, but still feels the pain of our sin, and that sin distances us from Him. My brother and I have a great relationship, and he knows where I stand and I know where he stands, and that's all we need. I love my brother, and I love to hang out with him and we do things together whenever he's in town. (We live in different parts of the country.) We have a lot in common, and we don't let the differences take away from that. he knows what church I go to, and he is glad for me that I have a place where I am confortable. He has a boyfriend, and I get along with him fine too.

Now that I (hopefully) have made my position clear, I welcome feedback.

And those thoughts that are deliberately summoned?

If you are deliberately thinking about harming others, rather than having it as a response to some stimulus, I would say that probably is an issue.

Regardless, one suggests more. I somehow doubt that a heterosexual male is ever sexually attracted to one male, and if he were, many would indeed take that to mean said male was actually bisexual.

Many believe that everyone is at least a little bit bisexual, but the word is usually only used if one is consistently attracted to members of both sexes. I've heard more than one heterosexual male express interest in one, and only one, other male. Usually, it's framed as an, "Well, if I were gay...." But it is always restricted to one or two. In other words, they generally aren't attracted to men, but there's that very occasional guy that gets them going.

Where does it cross the line? When do a few fantasies become a constant problem?

When they become, well, constant, although I think "consistent" is a better word.

I know that. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of even suggesting that it would somehow be better "for me" if I were to lash out violently rather than supress my urge to kill.

You didn't word it that way. You asked if it would be better to hit someone (and only hit) or imagine yourself brutally ripping body parts off. If you had asked me if it were better to hit someone or to imagine hitting them, I would have stated that the latter was better across the board.

I'll probably catch flak for this, but I believe if there isn't a real child involved they should be able to write or depict whatever crap floats their boat.

No flak. I agree. Although I would have no problem with regulations that restricted where such material could be displayed.

Why do so many Christians, "Christians," and other persons attack homosexuals so much?

I know of three view points on homosexuality: total sinfullness, problem which leads to sin, and no sin.

Total sinfullness is obvious: it is a sin to be gay.
No sin is also obvious: it is in no way a sin to be gay.

But what about the view that homosexuality being a problem which leads to sin? So few people have considered this possibility, especially in Christian circles. This belief is that homosexuals have a problem the same way some people have clinical depression. It is developed, but there are possibly some genetic factors that make it possible for someone to have a greater risk of being gay. Acting on the desires of homosexuality is sinful the same way one who has depression sins when s/he commits suicide. The problem lead to sin, but it was not sin in itself.

I find it very frustrating that so many Christians and "Christians" reject this and adopt a "Kill them all!" stance when they claim to be loving individuals. We ought to help homosexuals overcome their problem, not condemn them.

"Love the sinner; hate the sin!"

Any thoughts?


Well I am a Catholic, and all my catholic friends agree with me when I say that being homosexual isn't gay, only acts that are homosexual. I recognize that it is a problem and that those individuals need help. As a matter of fact it is one theory that homosexuality is caused by a lacking realtionship with the parent of the same sex while the other is overbearing. So I do love the sinner and hate the sin. Indeed many christians missunderstnad the doctrine of the religion when it comes to homosexuality, but the actual doctrine states that only homosexual acts(like gay sex, kissing etc..) are sinful and that simply having an attraction to the same sex is not a sin.

Well I am a Catholic, and all my catholic friends agree with me when I say that being homosexual isn't gay, only acts that are homosexual. I recognize that it is a problem and that those individuals need help. As a matter of fact it is one theory that homosexuality is caused by a lacking realtionship with the parent of the same sex while the other is overbearing. So I do love the sinner and hate the sin. Indeed many christians missunderstnad the doctrine of the religion when it comes to homosexuality, but the actual doctrine states that only homosexual acts(like gay sex, kissing etc..) are sinful and that simply having an attraction to the same sex is not a sin.

If a man is attracted to other men (or a woman to women) then he is gay. if he never acts on his attraction, and instead marries a woman, somehow manages to screw her, maybe even has kids with her, and remains faithful all his life. He is gay.

People who are attracted to people of the same sex, are gay whatever they do. its just part of who they are. its not a choice, its not to do with their relationship with their parents (unless sexuality is defined between birth and about 2 years old, but its impossible to tell). For all intents and purposes they are born that way. being gay is like being black, or tall, or left handed. And I really dont see what everyones problem is.

As a matter of fact it is one theory that homosexuality is caused by a lacking realtionship with the parent of the same sex while the other is overbearing.

From a scientific standpoint, that isn't a theory. It's barely a hypothesis, and is one for which there is little to no support while there is quite a bit out there to refute it.

Well I am a Catholic, and all my catholic friends agree with me when I say that being homosexual isn't gay, only acts that are homosexual. I recognize that it is a problem and that those individuals need help. As a matter of fact it is one theory that homosexuality is caused by a lacking realtionship with the parent of the same sex while the other is overbearing. So I do love the sinner and hate the sin. Indeed many christians missunderstnad the doctrine of the religion when it comes to homosexuality, but the actual doctrine states that only homosexual acts(like gay sex, kissing etc..) are sinful and that simply having an attraction to the same sex is not a sin.

Where does scripture state that gay kissing is a sin?

And your "theory" of homosexualtity is as valid as a similiar theory to explain Catholicism.

I think openly gays should NOT be in the military.
Why? Because I don't want to be in a trench with some guy while he's thinking about my ass.

I'm not a homophobe either, like being afraid of homosexuality or of the same sex, but I just don't care for open gays, like the ones you see on interior decorating shows. Those guys are walking estrogen pumps.

I think openly gays should NOT be in the military.
Why? Because I don't want to be in a trench with some guy while he's thinking about my ass.

Do you think most members of the military are thinking about sex while bullets are whizzing by their heads? Do you think that, when a patrol is attacked in Baghdad, the men are all staring at the woman's ass instead of focussing on not getting themselves or their fellow soldiers killed?

I'm not a homophobe either, like being afraid of homosexuality or of the same sex, but I just don't care for open gays, like the ones you see on interior decorating shows. Those guys are walking estrogen pumps.

Yes, because all those who are openly gay are "like the ones you see on interior decorating shows." :rolleyes:

I think openly gays should NOT be in the military.
Why? Because I don't want to be in a trench with some guy while he's thinking about my ass.
snip
If bullets are flying over my head I doubt my thoughts would be on YOUR ass

Personaly I would be more scared of the secret ones that are checking you out in the shower

But either way if they can do the job they should be able to be in the military, black or white, guy or girl , gay strait or bi.

Well I am a Catholic, and all my catholic friends agree with me when I say that being homosexual isn't gay, only acts that are homosexual. I recognize that it is a problem and that those individuals need help. As a matter of fact it is one theory that homosexuality is caused by a lacking realtionship with the parent of the same sex while the other is overbearing. So I do love the sinner and hate the sin. Indeed many christians missunderstnad the doctrine of the religion when it comes to homosexuality, but the actual doctrine states that only homosexual acts(like gay sex, kissing etc..) are sinful and that simply having an attraction to the same sex is not a sin.

Question: why is it a problem, and why do they need help?

In addition, I dont know how many of you christians/jews read the bible, but lets look at the relationship between (King) David and Jonathan...

1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. 1 Samuel 18: 1-4

Cute isn't it? Brokeback Mountainish. But OK OK it could just be strong platonic love...

. . . they kissed one another, and wept one with another . . . 1 Samuel 20:41

OK...physical homosexual act. Here comes the real kicker though:

I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. 2 Samuel 1:26

If that isnt evidence of a physical homosexual relationship, I dont know what is. To make sure you don't miss the sexual aspect, the "love" is compared (favorably, by the way) with the "love" of a woman. Their souls were knit together in love, and they made a covenant because of their love. Just think about how many covenants are made because of love. The covenant of marriage sort of sticks out.




I'm not a religious hardliner, but I'm not a fan of homosexuality either. Although it's "natural" for them to become homos and that they cannot do anything about it, I believe they should get therapy to "normalize" their orientation. And no, I'm not a homophobe: I can live with them, as long as there aren't too many to worry about.

Also, I think openly gays should NOT be in the military.
Why? Because I don't want to be in a trench with some guy while he's thiking about my ass.


There is no credible, scientific evidence supporting successful "treatment" of sexual orientation, and some persons have reported that great harm was inflicted on them by such "treatments". "Ex-gay" supporters point to others who they say have experienced what they consider success; however, most mainstream medical and psychological organizations reject such claims and consider attempts to change sexual orientation to be ineffective and potentially harmful.

So by "normalize" do you mean totally fistfuck their life?

Also, if you are in a trench during war, I think the gay guy would be more concentrated on surviving than your ass. Your ass might not even be worth looking at so don't flatter yourself too much. :p

My mother's church has a married lesbian minister.

If homosexuality leads to depression, it's only because so many people in America don't tolerate it.

Arguments about 'homosexuality lead to sin' are extremely self serving.

'If you're gay, I'm going to be extremely hostile toward you, causing you to be depressed. Therefore, homosexuality causes depression'.

--

By the way, if you say gay sex is immoral, according to the bible? Well, if you have sex, and it's not strictly for the purpose of procreation, or if you masturbate, at all, you're equally sinful, according to the bible. You can't condemn gay people without equally condemning yourself, if you're 99% of Christians who are anti-gay.

The problem is many christian religions recognize that premarital sex and masterbation are sins. Gay people say that it is not. That is the difference.

I think openly gays should NOT be in the military.
Why? Because I don't want to be in a trench with some guy while he's thinking about my ass.

I'm not a homophobe either, like being afraid of homosexuality or of the same sex, but I just don't care for open gays, like the ones you see on interior decorating shows. Those guys are walking estrogen pumps.

I'm so glad you clarified that you are not a homophobe. We might have jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Also, if you are in a trench during war, I think the gay guy would be more concentrated on surviving than your ass. Your ass might not even be worth looking at so don't flatter yourself too much. :p
For some reason, most straight guys uncomfortable with gays seem to think they're so gorgeously irresistible and attractive that any sane gay man passing by would be unable to resist the urge to savagely rape their ass in public, ignoring all possible consequences of the act.

That's kinda sad and narcissic of them. To all of you guys(you know who you are) : you're not that hot.

If homosexuality is so wrong then why on earth doesnt the bible say so? why didnt "our lord jesus" say something when we was on earth?

At the time of jesus it was perfectably acceptable for people to be intimate with other people of the same sex.

The christian churches only survived to the extent they did (before allowing marrages) because homosexuals joined the clergy.

And if we are going to talk about the religious implications of everything i think first we should look at the origins of the christian faith, and how it has rejected several writing which have been shown to originate from the time of jesus, in his native language, and which were the basis for the gospels. Why? because not only do they negate the need for a structured chuch (closing down thier only source of income) but they also reveal how jesus treated women as equals.

[edit : Just incase u are wondering im a straight male]

If homosexuality is so wrong then why on earth doesnt the bible say so? why didnt "our lord jesus" say something when we was on earth?

Because Jesus wasnt an asshole. More people should actually follow his footsteps.

If anyone should ever find themselves asking "what would jesus do?" They shouldnt even bother because, chances are, the answer is "something you wouldn't."

I'm so glad you clarified that you are not a homophobe. We might have jumped to the wrong conclusion.
Kind of like "Not to be a jerk ..." you know whatever follows is going to make them sound like an asshat

You know if it looks like a homophobe ... acts like a homophobe it may be safe to assume it is one ... maybe not all the time but at least at this time

Why do so many Christians, "Christians," and other persons attack homosexuals so much?

I know of three view points on homosexuality: total sinfullness, problem which leads to sin, and no sin.

Total sinfullness is obvious: it is a sin to be gay.
No sin is also obvious: it is in no way a sin to be gay.

But what about the view that homosexuality being a problem which leads to sin? So few people have considered this possibility, especially in Christian circles. This belief is that homosexuals have a problem the same way some people have clinical depression. It is developed, but there are possibly some genetic factors that make it possible for someone to have a greater risk of being gay. Acting on the desires of homosexuality is sinful the same way one who has depression sins when s/he commits suicide. The problem lead to sin, but it was not sin in itself.

I find it very frustrating that so many Christians and "Christians" reject this and adopt a "Kill them all!" stance when they claim to be loving individuals. We ought to help homosexuals overcome their problem, not condemn them.

"Love the sinner; hate the sin!"

Any thoughts?
It is not a problem or a sin to be gay. Not all gay people are sinners in the sense of the word. Itn't it a sin to hate them becuase they're different. That just brings meaning to the words: "You special, just like every body else." Now i'm not gay but I'm not some christion forcing everyone to be the same by telling them they will go to hell becuase they dont live by the bibles word. It's not our place to say whats right and what isn't. So I say: If they want to be gay, let them. It's their right and we have no reason to interfere!

Because Jesus wasnt an asshole. More people should actually follow his footsteps.

If anyone should ever find themselves asking "what would jesus do?" They shouldnt even bother because, chances are, the answer is "something you wouldn't."
Jesus wasn't an asshole? He didn't like gay people! Jesus Christ you say Jesus wans't an asshole and you dont have logical reasoning?!?

Jesus wasn't an asshole? He didn't like gay people! Jesus Christ you say Jesus wans't an asshole and you dont have logical reasoning?!?

Um. There is a little foam left on the corner of your lips.

He(Jesus) didn't like gay people!
In fact, Jesus never EVER mentionned homosexuality. Nope. Nada, rien, niet.

Homosexuality is frowned upon in the Old Testament, and in Paul's wrtitings, mainly. Jesus never seemed to have a bone with it. You'd think if God cared that much about who we got into our beds, he'd have told his son to get a word in about it eh?

Search all you like, but you'll never find a quote of Jesus saying "Teh gay are WRONG!!1!!11!!One!!"

He(Jesus) didn't like gay people!

All available evidence points to the fact that Jesus himself was either gay, or married to Mary Magdelene. Take your pick.

Jesus wasn't an asshole? He didn't like gay people! Jesus Christ you say Jesus wans't an asshole and you dont have logical reasoning?!?


what?

I'll probably catch flak for this, but I believe if there isn't a real child involved they should be able to write or depict whatever crap floats their boat.
I really wish this was the majority opinion.
Agreed ... as long as no one is invoulentarily harmed (and a child is NEVER EVER in a position to couldentarily commit a sexual act) they have a right to write or draw whatever they want
I agree that endangering children for any reason is irresponsible and reprehensible.
If you are deliberately thinking about harming others, rather than having it as a response to some stimulus, I would say that probably is an issue.

Simple reinforcement training. When a person learns that certain thoughts produce a pleasure reaction, it isn't long before they deliberately seek to recreate those thoughts volentarily. In the same way you learned how to fantasise about those you find attractive, I learned to fantasise about those I find attractive.

Many believe that everyone is at least a little bit bisexual, but the word is usually only used if one is consistently attracted to members of both sexes. I've heard more than one heterosexual male express interest in one, and only one, other male. Usually, it's framed as an, "Well, if I were gay...." But it is always restricted to one or two. In other words, they generally aren't attracted to men, but there's that very occasional guy that gets them going.

To be clear, I'm not one of those people who believes that everyone is bisexual, even "a little bit". I believe some people are, and some aren't. Perhaps that's just another unresolvable conflict of opinion we have that's keeping us from seeing eye to eye.

When they become, well, constant, although I think "consistent" is a better word.

I still don't get the distinction.

You didn't word it that way. You asked if it would be better to hit someone (and only hit) or imagine yourself brutally ripping body parts off. If you had asked me if it were better to hit someone or to imagine hitting them, I would have stated that the latter was better across the board.

The crux of the point I was trying to make was that our thoughts don't have consequences, but our actions do. Repressing actions is healthy, but repressing thoughts is not. I know I got to it in a really roundabout way. Sorry it took me so long to get to the point.

No flak. I agree. Although I would have no problem with regulations that restricted where such material could be displayed.
I don't think anyone is seriusly going to want to put child porn on a billboard or anything in the first place.

We as a society have already relegated porn to seedy bookshops and hidden it behind doors marked "must be 18 or over to enter" in video stores. Do you think virtual child porn would somehow end up less restricted?
Well I am a Catholic, and all my catholic friends agree with me when I say that being homosexual isn't gay, only acts that are homosexual.

What's wrong with homosexual acts? Most of the morality listed in the Bible comes in three forms.

The first is the kind that reinforces the Golden Rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This one is supportive of the idea of tollerance, and suggests that even if you don't agree with what someone else says, does, or looks like, you shouldn't treat them any worse than you would want to be treated. The parts with Jesus stressed this one pretty heavily.

The second kind of morality is the kind focused on hygine. This is the prohibition against certain kinds of clothing and food. Gay sex might well fall into this category, but since Christians as a whole beleive that after Jesus the shellfish thing and the "thou shall not wear clothing made from two kinds of material" stuff got thrown out the window, I see no reason to continue arguing against gay sex if it's in this category.

The third kind of morality is the obedience and ultimate loyalty to God. Some Christians beleive that by gays loving another member of the same sex, they put their sex drives above their love for God. This is probably the most rediculus arguements I hear, since in the first place it implies that we're all gay, and that the only reason us "straights" aren't out there being gay is because we love God enough to restrain ourselves. Secondly, this interpretation suggests that the love between a gay couple is somehow more intese and pure than the love between a straight couple, since a straight couple's love apparently doesn't get into the dangerous category of being put above the love for God.

If I missed something, feel free to correct me.

I recognize that it is a problem and that those individuals need help.

I agree. Gays need help. The first thing you can do to stop your good christian bretheren from condemning them, and stop making life harder for them. The second thing you can do is stop telling them how having a sexual relationship with the one they love is a sin. That'll really take a load off their minds. Maybe once they don't feel rejected by man and god alike, the supposed inherent mental problems will go away.

As a matter of fact it is one theory that homosexuality is caused by a lacking realtionship with the parent of the same sex while the other is overbearing.

Can it possibly be that simple? I take it that heterosexuality is a result of the same sort of pathology, but with the roles of the parents reversed, and the natural state with healthy parents is bisexuality? I call bullshit.

So I do love the sinner and hate the sin.

It's an insincere, condescending sort of love.

Indeed many christians missunderstnad the doctrine of the religion when it comes to homosexuality, but the actual doctrine states that only homosexual acts(like gay sex, kissing etc..) are sinful and that simply having an attraction to the same sex is not a sin.
Where does the Bible preclude men from kissing one another? Or are you talking about church doctrine? In that case, I still want to hear where this one's coming from, since I get the impression you pulled it out of your ass.

In fact, Jesus never EVER mentionned homosexuality. Nope. Nada, rien, niet.

Homosexuality is frowned upon in the Old Testament, and in Paul's wrtitings, mainly. Jesus never seemed to have a bone with it. You'd think if God cared that much about who we got into our beds, he'd have told his son to get a word in about it eh?

Search all you like, but you'll never find a quote of Jesus saying "Teh gay are WRONG!!1!!11!!One!!"

My comments are not directed at Skaladora in particular, but toward this theme generally, and Skaladora's example was a good one.

Jesus didn't specify a lot of things. His form of teaching was generally in parables, and His focus was on trying to get people to understand that the form and ceremony that had distracted their religious practices were diverting them from the true message, namely, of love, forgiveness and righteousness. It's true that in the current canon of Scripture we don't have a record of Jesus Himself addressing the issue of homosexuality. We do know, however, that He said a LOT of things that weren't recorded. John, I believe, pointed out that if everything Jesus said and did were recorded, it would fill a library. I don't have a Bible with me at the moment or I could give you an exact quote, but I think you know the verse I mean.

As Skaladora correctly pointed out, the issue is indeed mentioned in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament writings of Paul. As I recall, he uses similar language to describe it as in the Old Testament, calling it an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman, as nearly as I can remember the text from the King James Version.

If you're going to cite the Bible, at this point you have to make a decision. Either men like Paul were writing under divine inspiration or they weren't. If they were, then the fact that Jesus Himself isn't recorded as saying it becomes irrelevant, since others already did or would, and for it to be repeated would be redundant. Remember, nearly all Christian denominations believe that Paul, among others, was speaking through divine guidance, and his words are as realiable as any.

The alternate route is to ignore all other sources and go exclusively with quotes from Jesus Himself. The pitfall there is that we know for a fact that everything He said and did isn't in there, so there's no way to conclusively make a case if His words alone are your only source.

My 2 cents' worth.

As Skaladora correctly pointed out, the issue is indeed mentioned in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament writings of Paul. As I recall, he uses similar language to describe it as in the Old Testament, calling it an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman, as nearly as I can remember the text from the King James Version.

You recall incorrectly. First of all, it would be rather hard for Paul, who was writing mostly in Greek, to use the same language as that in the OT, which was Hebrew. Interestingly enough, the one verse in the OT that *might* refer to male homosexual sex can also be translated as a prohibition against men sleeping on a woman's menstrual bed. Go figure.

Paul actually made up words, and so we can never be sure exactly what he was talking about. One of the Greek words he used has sometimes been translated as homosexual, but has also been translated as "sexual pervert" and other things. Since there are no other contemporary uses of the word, we cannot possibly know for sure what Paul meant by it. My guess, based on the text around it, would be that he was referring to common practices in which men or women, although they were actually heterosexual, would perform homosexual sex acts with temple priests in order to be blessed or get favors from the temple.

If you're going to cite the Bible, at this point you have to make a decision. Either men like Paul were writing under divine inspiration or they weren't.

Divine inspiration != infallibility. Any of us who ask for guidance from God are divinely inspired. That does not mean that we never make mistakes. It doesn't mean that the inspiration we receive is not filtered through our own fallible minds, and possibly corrupted.

You recall incorrectly. First of all, it would be rather hard for Paul, who was writing mostly in Greek, to use the same language as that in the OT, which was Hebrew. Interestingly enough, the one verse in the OT that *might* refer to male homosexual sex can also be translated as a prohibition against men sleeping on a woman's menstrual bed. Go figure.


Maybe I worded that awkwardly, I aplogize. When I said similar language I meant in the way it was phrased, not referring to the written language. I am well aware of the fact that Paul wrote in Greek and the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. My point is still the same.


Paul actually made up words, and so we can never be sure exactly what he was talking about. One of the Greek words he used has sometimes been translated as homosexual, but has also been translated as "sexual pervert" and other things. Since there are no other contemporary uses of the word, we cannot possibly know for sure what Paul meant by it. My guess, based on the text around it, would be that he was referring to common practices in which men or women, although they were actually heterosexual, would perform homosexual sex acts with temple priests in order to be blessed or get favors from the temple.

And that's fine, but that's beyond the scope of what I'm getting at.


Divine inspiration != infallibility. Any of us who ask for guidance from God are divinely inspired. That does not mean that we never make mistakes. It doesn't mean that the inspiration we receive is not filtered through our own fallible minds, and possibly corrupted.

I agree with you, but that too is beyond the scope of what I'm saying. Let me put it another way. If someone is going to cite the Bible, especially in trying to make a point with respect to the teachings and recorded words of Jesus and the prophets/Apostles, one has to make a decision on how the book itself stands, either reliable or not. Since the issue is how Christians interpret the Bible as a whole, you're not going to gain any ground by being selective in how you cite it. (Mind you, that remark applied to BOTH sides of this debate.)

One can't conclude that homosexuality, or anything else for that matter, is permissible simply on the basis that there's no record in the existing canon of Scripture of Jesus Himself speaking on that issue. If you're going to debate that issue, then the recorded words of Jesus in the 4 gospels isn't very useful one way or the other, for precisely that reason. That goes for both sides.

I agree with you, but that too is beyond the scope of what I'm saying. Let me put it another way. If someone is going to cite the Bible, especially in trying to make a point with respect to the teachings and recorded words of Jesus and the prophets/Apostles, one has to make a decision on how the book itself stands, either reliable or not. Since the issue is how Christians interpret the Bible as a whole, you're not going to gain any ground by being selective in how you cite it. (Mind you, that remark applied to BOTH sides of this debate.)

One can't conclude that homosexuality, or anything else for that matter, is permissible simply on the basis that there's no record in the existing canon of Scripture of Jesus Himself speaking on that issue. If you're going to debate that issue, then the recorded words of Jesus in the 4 gospels isn't very useful one way or the other, for precisely that reason. That goes for both sides.

But therefore can the bible really be used to condemn homosexuals in any way? After all, it does give dimensions for a circular boat that would make pi = 3. Also, it is now commonly agreed upon that at least some homosexuals have no choice about their sexuality. Therefore, one must ask why God created people who were inherently sinful, unless being homosexual isn't really sinful at all.

Maybe I worded that awkwardly, I aplogize. When I said similar language I meant in the way it was phrased, not referring to the written language.

Yes, but because the written languages are so different, and most of us are only reading translations of those texts anyways, to say that the phrasing was the same is rather ludicrous. You might say that it has been translated in much the same phrasing, but even that would generally be incorrect.

And that's fine, but that's beyond the scope of what I'm getting at.

Actually, it isn't. It is directly related. You cannot say, "Paul used the same types of phrases, etc. as the Old Testament," and then discount the fact that we can't be sure what paul was trying to say in the first place. It would be like saying, "George Bush said the exact same thing as Hitler. No, we aren't going to actually examine what was said at all. It was just the same, that's all."

I agree with you, but that too is beyond the scope of what I'm saying.

Not in the least. You phrased it as an either/or - as if you must either accept the entire Bible as infallible, or you must think that it was not divinely inspired. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Let me put it another way. If someone is going to cite the Bible, especially in trying to make a point with respect to the teachings and recorded words of Jesus and the prophets/Apostles, one has to make a decision on how the book itself stands, either reliable or not. Since the issue is how Christians interpret the Bible as a whole, you're not going to gain any ground by being selective in how you cite it. (Mind you, that remark applied to BOTH sides of this debate.)

Interpreting the Bible as a whole does not exclude determining which points are those of God and which are those of the writers. Indeed, it is interpreting it as a whole, instead of as little bits and pieces, that leads to the necessity of such a thing.

One can't conclude that homosexuality, or anything else for that matter, is permissible simply on the basis that there's no record in the existing canon of Scripture of Jesus Himself speaking on that issue.

Of course not. You also can't conclude that driving a car is permissible just because Christ didn't say so. But it is interesting that Christ spent quite a bit of time preaching, and no one thought to record anything He might have said about homosexuality, and yet many fundamentalist Christians today act as if "being gay is bad," is one of the most important teachings of the faith - usually while ignoring many of the recorded ones.

But therefore can the bible really be used to condemn homosexuals in any way? After all, it does give dimensions for a circular boat that would make pi = 3. Also, it is now commonly agreed upon that at least some homosexuals have no choice about their sexuality. Therefore, one must ask why God created people who were inherently sinful, unless being homosexual isn't really sinful at all.

And that opinion is perfectly valid, but just keep in mind that just as you are entitled to your opinion, so are Christians. Your remarks could be construed as an attack on the validity of the Bible, whether you mean them to be or not. That goes both ways. Often, people mean only to express what they believe, and sometimes it gets mistaken for an attack.

Believe it or not, most Christians do adopt a live and let live policy for their life. As with anyting else, it's the loud obnoxious folks that get noticed. Just bear in mind that they do not necessarily speak for the majority. Christians are perfectly entitled to believe what they do, and most don't deserve the venom that they get from people who disagree with them. At the same time they, just like everybody else, have a responsibility to acknowledge that theirs isn't the only system of belief in this world.

That goes for the folks on the other side of this debate as well. You may feel attacked by the uber-conservatives, but your responses toward ALL Christians and attacking the Bible isn't the way to go. Are there issues with the accuracy/translation/history of the Bible? Yes, I believe there are... and most Christians would also acknowledge that... but do bear in mind that the Bible is a source of philosophy and teaching, and many, many people find great comfort and peace in its pages. If your whole argument is based on trying to tear it down, you won't be listened to anymore than you would be willing to listen to a Christian who comes at you by beating you over the head with their beliefs.

Yes, but because the written languages are so different, and most of us are only reading translations of those texts anyways, to say that the phrasing was the same is rather ludicrous. You might say that it has been translated in much the same phrasing, but even that would generally be incorrect.


I disagree with you there. This is how I read yuor logic, please feel free to point out any error on my part:

Premise 1: Hebrew and Greek are very different
Premise 2: It is either impossible or unlikely that the translations can be accurate
Conclusion: It is completely invalid to compare the two verses

I disagree because from my point of view, it is possible to have a reasonably reliable translation, and therefore comparing the two verses is valid. It isn't necessary for you and me to agree on this, I'm only stating my point of view.


Actually, it isn't. It is directly related. You cannot say, "Paul used the same types of phrases, etc. as the Old Testament," and then discount the fact that we can't be sure what paul was trying to say in the first place. It would be like saying, "George Bush said the exact same thing as Hitler. No, we aren't going to actually examine what was said at all. It was just the same, that's all."

I appreciate your point, but I still maintain that it gets outside of mine, which was that the Scriptures must be either taken as a whole, or discounted as such. Picking and choosing isn't a valid tactic for either side of this debate. Since the issue here is how the Scriptures are being interpreted by Christians currently, and since generally people do not get into the business of analyizing the source of the translations, it falls outside my point.


Not in the least. You phrased it as an either/or - as if you must either accept the entire Bible as infallible, or you must think that it was not divinely inspired. The two are not mutually exclusive.

As I said, I agree with you that the Bible can be both divinely inspired, but contain errors introduced by the individuals who put pen to paper. The reason this falls outside my point is, as I stated just above, you can't take just the section where Jesus speaks, use that as the basis for yoru argument, and ignore other writings within the book.


Interpreting the Bible as a whole does not exclude determining which points are those of God and which are those of the writers. Indeed, it is interpreting it as a whole, instead of as little bits and pieces, that leads to the necessity of such a thing.

As it happens, I agree with you, as I have stated.


Of course not. You also can't conclude that driving a car is permissible just because Christ didn't say so. But it is interesting that Christ spent quite a bit of time preaching, and no one thought to record anything He might have said about homosexuality, and yet many fundamentalist Christians today act as if "being gay is bad," is one of the most important teachings of the faith - usually while ignoring many of the recorded ones.

I would like to comment on a couple of points here. Most of Jesus' teachings revolved around clarifying points from existing Jewish belief, such as how to treat thy neighbor and so on. He didn't need to state the obvious, such as "It's wrong to murder" or "Stealing is bad." People knew that already. We also don't know the degree of control He exercised on what was written down, so it's possible that He DID state those things but the writers of the Gospels dind't see the need to beat a dead horse. IF homosexuality was such an issue, then there would be little need for him to revisit the subject.

We also don't know that such things weren't recorded. Now, I know most Christians would reject new writings if they're unearthed tomorrow, but it is a possibility.

Finally, and this may trigger flaming, I hope it doesn't because I'm only making an observation... teachings on homosexuality isn't nearly as important as you seem to suggest. Christian thought revolves around salvation for the soul and the forgiveness of sins through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The issue of homosexuality is often seen in an exaggerated light for the same reason atomic power is so potent... atoms are little things, but break a few apart and.... BOOM! People are VERY emotional on this issue.

I disagree with you there. This is how I read yuor logic, please feel free to point out any error on my part:

Premise 1: Hebrew and Greek are very different

Yes.

Premise 2: It is either impossible or unlikely that the translations can be accurate

No translation can be truly accurate. When we bring something from Hebrew to English, we change the phrasing and the use of words such that they make more sense to us, in our way of speaking. Same with from Hebrew to Greek, or from Greek to English, or from Spanish to English, and so on.

At best, what you can say is that the phrasing in the English translations of the two passages is similar. But simply based on the differences between languages and the problems inherent in translation, it would be silly to say that the phrasing in the original passages is similiar.

Translate "It's raining cats and dogs," into Spanish. Would it still mean the same thing if you said it in Spain?

Conclusion: It is completely invalid to compare the two verses

I never even came close to suggesting this. You can compare them all you like, but unless you speak both Hebrew and Greek fluently, what you are actually comparing is the English translation of the two verses.

Meanwhile, to compare them is not the same as to say they are equivalent in phrasing.

I disagree because from my point of view, it is possible to have a reasonably reliable translation, and therefore comparing the two verses is valid. It isn't necessary for you and me to agree on this, I'm only stating my point of view.[/qutoe]

"Reasonably reliable" does not give you exact phrasing. It means that the basic meaning of the passage has been carried over.

Let's go back to your original quote:

[quote]As Skaladora correctly pointed out, the issue is indeed mentioned in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament writings of Paul. As I recall, [b]he uses similar language to describe it as in the Old Testament, calling it an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman,[b] as nearly as I can remember the text from the King James Version.

This was the portion I had issue with. I never said that you couldn't compare the verses. I simply pointed out that the language is not similar. For the most part, even looking at English translations, the language is not similar.

And, on top of that, there is the issue of Paul having made up words that were not used in any other contemporary source. This means that it is completely impossible to use general translation techniques to know what he was trying to say. All we have is a guess, largely based upon later translations. *If* you know what all the words in a passage mean, you can have a pretty darn reliable translation. If you don't, then you basically have to guess.

I appreciate your point, but I still maintain that it gets outside of mine, which was that the Scriptures must be either taken as a whole, or discounted as such.

Then your point is silly. If you take a view of the Scriptures as a whole, you do not need every individual passage to be absolutely true. Basically, what you are trying to say is, "True" = "Absolutely, infallibly, literally true." The two are not necessarily the same.

Picking and choosing isn't a valid tactic for either side of this debate.

Do you think slavery is ok? How about genocide? Do you think God makes mistakes?

Since the issue here is how the Scriptures are being interpreted by Christians currently, and since generally people do not get into the business of analyizing the source of the translations, it falls outside my point.

Anyone who doesn't get into the business of analyzing the translations had not truly studied the Scriptures. Meanwhile, since I am a Christian, then my opinion relates to how Christians currently interpret Scripture, no?

As I said, I agree with you that the Bible can be both divinely inspired, but contain errors introduced by the individuals who put pen to paper. The reason this falls outside my point is, as I stated just above, you can't take just the section where Jesus speaks, use that as the basis for yoru argument, and ignore other writings within the book.

Of course not. You shouldn't ignore any of it. But that doesn't mean, as you suggested before, that you must accept it all as literal truth.

As it happens, I agree with you, as I have stated.

Then why did you argue with it above?

Finally, and this may trigger flaming, I hope it doesn't because I'm only making an observation... teachings on homosexuality isn't nearly as important as you seem to suggest.

I have never suggested any such thing. It is fundamentalists who focus so much on the issue of homosexuality - making it's "sinfulness" an essential and necessary cornerstone of their faith.

Christian thought revolves around salvation for the soul and the forgiveness of sins through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Exactly my point. So maybe that's what we should be focussing on.

The issue of homosexuality is often seen in an exaggerated light for the same reason atomic power is so potent... atoms are little things, but break a few apart and.... BOOM! People are VERY emotional on this issue.

And that is the very heart of fundamentalism in any religion - focussing on very little things that the fundamentalist views as an "attack" on their beliefs, while ignoring the larger picture or any in depth studey of the religion.

Dempublicents1, I don't know what you want me to say, at this point. I've tried to make the point that some people pick and choose, and that's not a valid tactic. If you want to insist on getting into language debates, no problem, but it's not my meaning here. This is going in circles. I've been as concise as I can.

I'm going to restate my original point, which is simply that one cannot expect to win a debate on what Jesus taught by adhering strictly to what He is quoted as having said in the Bible. What's recorded there is but a tiny percentage of what He said and did. No valid argument can be made for either side by examining only a 1% sampling.

I referenced Paul and the Old Testament because these are the basis for the Christian teaching against the practice of homosexuality. You might believe those refrences are unreliable. Fine. It doesn't change the fact that, for better or for worse, that's how it appears in the english translation and that's what people are going to go by.

If you believe that's a mistranslation, that's fine. If you believe that the Bible as a whole is an unreliable document, that's fine too. If you believe parts are more reliable than others, that's okay too. All I'm saying is that when dealing with the really aggressive conservatives, understand that they DO take it as truth on a whole, whether you agree with them or not.

If I said anything in the process of all the sidetracking that seems to conflict with what I just said, forgive me.

If you want to debate on issues like translation and the true meaning of the scriptures, I'm up for that, but it belongs in a separate thread.

Dempublicents1, I don't know what you want me to say, at this point. I've tried to make the point that some people pick and choose, and that's not a valid tactic.

Then no one can ever use the Bible in any debate, because *all* people "pick and choose."

If you want to insist on getting into language debates, no problem, but it's not my meaning here.

You started the discussion by saying that the language used was the same. If that wasn't your meaning, fine, but you did bring the language issue into it.

I'm going to restate my original point, which is simply that one cannot expect to win a debate on what Jesus taught by adhering strictly to what He is quoted as having said in the Bible. What's recorded there is but a tiny percentage of what He said and did. No valid argument can be made for either side by examining only a 1% sampling.

I never argued with this.

I referenced Paul and the Old Testament because these are the basis for the Christian teaching against the practice of homosexuality. You might believe those refrences are unreliable.

No more, or less, unreliable than any part of Scripture.

Fine. It doesn't change the fact that, for better or for worse, that's how it appears in the english translation and that's what people are going to go by.

In other words, people have to have faith in human beings. If all they will go by is an English translation, without ever looking at the Scriptures themselves or asking guidance from God on those Scriptures, they are placing faith in human beings, not in God.

If you believe that's a mistranslation, that's fine. If you believe that the Bible as a whole is an unreliable document, that's fine too. If you believe parts are more reliable than others, that's okay too. All I'm saying is that when dealing with the really aggressive conservatives, understand that they DO take it as truth on a whole, whether you agree with them or not.

No, they don't. They *claim* to do so, but when you point out parts of the Bible that they don't agree with.....

How many "aggressive conservatives" would argue that slavery and genocide were A-Ok with God, as they clearly are (and are even ordered) in the Old Testament? How many take Christ's admonition against ammassing riches seriously? How many actually refrain from throwing the first stone?

"Aggressive conservatives" generally don't even look at the Bible as a whole document. They "pick and choose" specific translations of specific passages and decide that those particular passages are infallible truth.

If you want to debate on issues like translation and the true meaning of the scriptures, I'm up for that, but it belongs in a separate thread.

Why? If someone is going to bring up the "Scripture says 'X' about homosexuality," comments in a thread about homosexuality, I would think that the place to debate that comment would be in the thread it began in.

Dempublicents1, I don't know what you want me to say, at this point. I've tried to make the point that some people pick and choose, and that's not a valid tactic. If you want to insist on getting into language debates, no problem, but it's not my meaning here. This is going in circles. I've been as concise as I can.

I'm going to restate my original point, which is simply that one cannot expect to win a debate on what Jesus taught by adhering strictly to what He is quoted as having said in the Bible. What's recorded there is but a tiny percentage of what He said and did. No valid argument can be made for either side by examining only a 1% sampling.

I referenced Paul and the Old Testament because these are the basis for the Christian teaching against the practice of homosexuality. You might believe those refrences are unreliable. Fine. It doesn't change the fact that, for better or for worse, that's how it appears in the english translation and that's what people are going to go by.

If you believe that's a mistranslation, that's fine. If you believe that the Bible as a whole is an unreliable document, that's fine too. If you believe parts are more reliable than others, that's okay too. All I'm saying is that when dealing with the really aggressive conservatives, understand that they DO take it as truth on a whole, whether you agree with them or not.

If I said anything in the process of all the sidetracking that seems to conflict with what I just said, forgive me.

If you want to debate on issues like translation and the true meaning of the scriptures, I'm up for that, but it belongs in a separate thread.

Cute. So, you can say, "the Bible says 'X'" and it doesn't matter if the Bible doesn't really say "X" -- that would be the subject of a different thread. :headbang:

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]Cute. So, you can say, "the Bible says 'X'" and it doesn't matter if the Bible doesn't really say "X" -- that would be the subject of a different thread. QUOTE]

Allow me to rephrase so that I can be more clear... The point of this thread, as I understand it, isn't about the proficiency of ancient translators or whether the original hebrew meant what the translators said it meant. The point of this thread was to ask why homosexuals are bashed by Christians.

Can we just take a moment to accept the possibility that I am not stupid, and have tried to be non-confrontational and have treated you with respect? If you've taken the time to read my posts, my meaning should be plain. If it's not worth your time, that's perfectly alright, but I can't keep playing the game where I rephras and rephrase to accomodate folks who either won't bother to try and understand my point, or who just want an argument so bad they will ignore my point to try and instigate a confrontation.

Allow me to rephrase so that I can be more clear... The point of this thread, as I understand it, isn't about the proficiency of ancient translators or whether the original hebrew meant what the translators said it meant. The point of this thread was to ask why homosexuals are bashed by Christians.

Actually, the OP seems to have wanted to put forth the view that homosexuals have a problem that we, as Christians, should "help" them with.

The point of the thread is certainly not about translators, ancient or modern, but you cannot get around including such a discussion if you are going to talk about what the Scriptures say, or what Christians "should" do.

Actually, the OP seems to have wanted to put forth the view that homosexuals have a problem that we, as Christians, should "help" them with.

The point of the thread is certainly not about translators, ancient or modern, but you cannot get around including such a discussion if you are going to talk about what the Scriptures say, or what Christians "should" do.

Oh? Let me see....


Why do so many Christians, "Christians," and other persons attack homosexuals so much?

I know of three view points on homosexuality: total sinfullness, problem which leads to sin, and no sin.

Total sinfullness is obvious: it is a sin to be gay.
No sin is also obvious: it is in no way a sin to be gay.

But what about the view that homosexuality being a problem which leads to sin? So few people have considered this possibility, especially in Christian circles. This belief is that homosexuals have a problem the same way some people have clinical depression. It is developed, but there are possibly some genetic factors that make it possible for someone to have a greater risk of being gay. Acting on the desires of homosexuality is sinful the same way one who has depression sins when s/he commits suicide. The problem lead to sin, but it was not sin in itself.

I find it very frustrating that so many Christians and "Christians" reject this and adopt a "Kill them all!" stance when they claim to be loving individuals. We ought to help homosexuals overcome their problem, not condemn them.

"Love the sinner; hate the sin!"

Any thoughts?

I see both... But if splitting hairs is what you want to do, just bear in mind that's another red herring.


The point of the thread is certainly not about translators, ancient or modern, but you cannot get around including such a discussion if you are going to talk about what the Scriptures say, or what Christians "should" do.

Especially if it's your favorite topic

Especially if it's your favorite topic

What on Earth makes you think it is my "favorite topic"?

Are you attempting to create a strawman?

Outstanding!:)

Cute. So, you can say, "the Bible says 'X'" and it doesn't matter if the Bible doesn't really say "X" -- that would be the subject of a different thread.

Allow me to rephrase so that I can be more clear... The point of this thread, as I understand it, isn't about the proficiency of ancient translators or whether the original hebrew meant what the translators said it meant. The point of this thread was to ask why homosexuals are bashed by Christians.

Can we just take a moment to accept the possibility that I am not stupid, and have tried to be non-confrontational and have treated you with respect? If you've taken the time to read my posts, my meaning should be plain. If it's not worth your time, that's perfectly alright, but I can't keep playing the game where I rephras and rephrase to accomodate folks who either won't bother to try and understand my point, or who just want an argument so bad they will ignore my point to try and instigate a confrontation.

Can you accept the possibility that I am not stupid, have read your posts, and simply disagree with you?

Topic creator, you truly are a fucking idiot.

Apparently, every person in the world who hates fags is Christian. It would be insane to guess that Jews, Buddhists, fundamentalist Muslims, Hindus, or atheists have any problem with homos. /sarcasm


:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Can you accept the possibility that I am not stupid, have read your posts, and simply disagree with you?

Forgive me if I have insulted you, but your response to my quote seemed to suggest that yuo had misunderstood my meaning.

Jesus wasn't an asshole? He didn't like gay people! Jesus Christ you say Jesus wans't an asshole and you dont have logical reasoning?!?
Um. There is a little foam left on the corner of your lips.

Wait... that's not foam...!!!

Topic creator, you truly are a fucking idiot.

Apparently, every person in the world who hates fags is Christian. It would be insane to guess that Jews, Buddhists, fundamentalist Muslims, Hindus, or atheists have any problem with homos. /sarcasm


:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

I guess you are one of those that "hates fags." Are you Christian?

The OP was merely discussing the Christian view of homosexuality. The OP did not presume the only ones with a problem with homosexuality were Christian. Get the difference?

All this talk of animals engaged in homosexual activity!

Yes, there are animals that have homosexual "relations." The only problem(which most persons choose to forget) is that these "relations" are the result of territorial agression or agrssion to drive off a rival mate, not an attempt to mate, or because the male pelican is attracted to the other male pelican. It would be near impossible to know if the male pelicans are attracted to each other with today's technology anyway.

All this talk of animals engaged in homosexual activity!

Yes, there are animals that have homosexual "relations." The only problem(which most persons choose to forget) is that these "relations" are the result of territorial agression or agrssion to drive off a rival mate, not an attempt to mate, or because the male pelican is attracted to the other male pelican. It would be near impossible to know if the male pelicans are attracted to each other with today's technology anyway.

How wrong you are.

Indians thought mating bull buffalo (MALES) was a good sign for spring and luck(I think).

Its not territorial, they want to **** that's all. :)

Topic creator, you truly are a f****** idiot.

Apparently, every person in the world who hates fags is Christian. It would be insane to guess that Jews, Buddhists, fundamentalist Muslims, Hindus, or atheists have any problem with homos. /sarcasm

I am not a Hind, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, or anything else. But I am Christian (traditional Presbyterian if it matters). I know about the disputes in the Presbyterian church. I do not know about disputes elsewhere.

Why would I start a discussion about something I know nothing about?!?!?

How wrong you are.

Indians thought mating bull buffalo (MALES) was a good sign for spring and luck(I think).

Its not territorial, they want to **** that's all. :)

What does that prove, that the Indians (I assume you mean American Indians. It doesn't matter either way.) believed that mating bull buffalo was a good sign? What does that prove? All it proves is that it was out of the ordinary. Why not regular mating? Because something uncommon brings something uncommon: a good spring, not just a mediocre spring.

What does that prove, that the Indians (I assume you mean American Indians. It doesn't matter either way.) believed that mating bull buffalo was a good sign? What does that prove? All it proves is that it was out of the ordinary. Why not regular mating? Because something uncommon brings something uncommon: a good spring, not just a mediocre spring.

Uh...the fact that they became mates...and mated. It wasn't territorial.

All this talk of animals engaged in homosexual activity!

Yes, there are animals that have homosexual "relations." The only problem(which most persons choose to forget) is that these "relations" are the result of territorial agression or agrssion to drive off a rival mate, not an attempt to mate, or because the male pelican is attracted to the other male pelican. It would be near impossible to know if the male pelicans are attracted to each other with today's technology anyway.

So if one man buggers another man as part of territorial aggression, or to drive the buggeree away from the buggerer's woman, then they're not engaging in homosexual acts?

All this talk of animals engaged in homosexual activity!

Yes, there are animals that have homosexual "relations." The only problem(which most persons choose to forget) is that these "relations" are the result of territorial agression or agrssion to drive off a rival mate, not an attempt to mate, or because the male pelican is attracted to the other male pelican. It would be near impossible to know if the male pelicans are attracted to each other with today's technology anyway.

So you can neither confirm nor deny. Yet you try to deny.

If your dog tries to hump the foot rest in front of your chair while you are watching TV, does that mean he's a ottomansexual or an exhibitionist?


The ‘truth’ is far more likely that they simply have hormones forcing them to ‘hump’ something, moving or otherwise. To ‘prove’ that the animal felt an actual attraction something else than simply ‘humping’ would have to be observed.

Uh...the fact that they became mates...and mated. It wasn't territorial.

Can you tell me if the "recipient" (I hate to say that, but I have no idea what else to say!) was fleeing, or if he was enjoying it? And just because they "mated" doesn't mean they mated. Just because a bull sticks its penis in another bull's anus/rectum (I get those two confused.) doesn't mean mating!

And its doesn't change the fact that something lucky is uncommon or unusual or not normal! Why is 4 leaf clover lucky? Because they are uncommon (I've even heard they don't really exist.) Why do you have luck if you find a penny? Becuase when that superstition came about, it was very uncommon to find money on the ground! Everyone was too poor to be able to drop a penny!

So you can neither confirm nor deny. Yet you try to deny.

I'm denying that those who observe such behavior truly know that the homosexual act is a result of attraction, though many of them claim to know.

So if one man buggers another man as part of territorial aggression, or to drive the buggeree away from the buggerer's woman, then they're not engaging in homosexual acts?

I'm not saying that. If I had a gun pointed at my head and was told that if I didn't make love to another boy from my school I would be killed, I might do it. That is still a homosexual act, but it's not a result of attaction, it's a result of trying to save my life. Not all sex acts are the result of attraction. There are other motives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality

Read and be educated! Penguins are a particularly good example as they pair for life.

If your dog tries to hump the foot rest in front of your chair while you are watching TV, does that mean he's a ottomansexual or an exhibitionist?


The ‘truth’ is far more likely that they simply have hormones forcing them to ‘hump’ something, moving or otherwise. To ‘prove’ that the animal felt an actual attraction something else than simply ‘humping’ would have to be observed.

Huh? What's your point? Are you talking against someone, in support of someone, or are you just talking? Any of the above is fine, I'd just like to know where you're coming from.

I'm denying that those who observe such behavior truly know that the homosexual act is a result of attraction, though many of them claim to know.

And I'm noting that your denial is hollow. You can't have it both ways. It could be attraction.

And there is more evidence of gay attraction in the animal kingdom than merely a few same-sex sex acts.

Huh? What's your point? Are you talking against someone, in support of someone, or are you just talking? Any of the above is fine, I'd just like to know where you're coming from.

I'm agreeing with you. The act of an animal trying to mount and/or humping another animal (or an object) is NOT proof of attraction.

Can you tell me if the "recipient" (I hate to say that, but I have no idea what else to say!) was fleeing, or if he was enjoying it? And just because they "mated" doesn't mean they mated. Just because a bull sticks its penis in another bull's anus/rectum (I get those two confused.) doesn't mean mating!

And its doesn't change the fact that something lucky is uncommon or unusual or not normal! Why is 4 leaf clover lucky? Because they are uncommon (I've even heard they don't really exist.) Why do you have luck if you find a penny? Becuase when that superstition came about, it was very uncommon to find money on the ground! Everyone was too poor to be able to drop a penny!

When I said 'mates' that means they were both gay.....and I doubt anyone 'flees' when mating. :P Animals are gay to, its okay.....its only NATURAL. :D

Can you tell me if the "recipient" (I hate to say that, but I have no idea what else to say!) was fleeing, or if he was enjoying it? And just because they "mated" doesn't mean they mated. Just because a bull sticks its penis in another bull's anus/rectum (I get those two confused.) doesn't mean mating!

And its doesn't change the fact that something lucky is uncommon or unusual or not normal! Why is 4 leaf clover lucky? Because they are uncommon (I've even heard they don't really exist.) Why do you have luck if you find a penny? Becuase when that superstition came about, it was very uncommon to find money on the ground! Everyone was too poor to be able to drop a penny!

Now you are just being ignorant. Go read up on the research of not just same-sex sex acts, but same-sex relationships between animals.

I'm not saying that. If I had a gun pointed at my head and was told that if I didn't make love to another boy from my school I would be killed, I might do it. That is still a homosexual act, but it's not a result of attaction, it's a result of trying to save my life. Not all sex acts are the result of attraction. There are other motives.

Are you saying that one of these bulls pulled a gun?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality

Read and be educated! Penguins are a particularly good example as they pair for life.

Interesting.

My opinion still isn't changed - I need to investigate other sources first. But even if it appears that these things are done for sexual pleasure or whatever, how does that change the fact that it's unnatural? It occurs in nature, yes. But so do tumors. Does that mean it's supposed to happen that way?

Very interesting, just the same.

I'm agreeing with you. The act of an animal trying to mount and/or humping another animal (or an object) is NOT proof of attraction.

Nor is it proof of non-attraction, but you'd like to assume there is no attraction.

But you ignore the other evidence of attraction.

Interesting.

My opinion still isn't changed - I need to investigate other sources first. But even if it appears that these things are done for sexual pleasure or whatever, how does that change the fact that it's unnatural? It occurs in nature, yes. But so do tumors. Does that mean it's supposed to happen that way?

Very interesting, just the same.

How do you define unnatural?

If something occurs thoroughout the animal kingdom, it can hardly be called unnatural for animals.

Tumors may be bad, but they aren't unnatural.

Natural != good. Unnatural != bad. Good != natural. Bad != unnatural.

Interesting.

My opinion still isn't changed - I need to investigate other sources first. But even if it appears that these things are done for sexual pleasure or whatever, how does that change the fact that it's unnatural? It occurs in nature, yes. But so do tumors. Does that mean it's supposed to happen that way?

Very interesting, just the same.

Tumors are natural too. I think what you mean to say is that it's not proof it's benign. Interestingly, we require malignancy to be proven before we start lopping things off. There is no proven malignancy in homosexuality.

Now you are just being ignorant. Go read up on the research of not just same-sex sex acts, but same-sex relationships between animals.

How am I being ignorant? If I'm ignorant correct me! I think Khadgar did. And I read what he gave me, though my mind is not yet changed - one cannot rely on one source only! Also, simply because it happens in nature, does not mean it is natural! Again, tumors are found in nature because something isn't working correctly. Simply because something happens doesn't mean it's supposed to happen!

How am I being ignorant? If I'm ignorant correct me! I think Khadgar did. And I read what he gave me, though my mind is not yet changed - one cannot rely on one source only! Also, simply because it happens in nature, does not mean it is natural! Again, tumors are found in nature because something isn't working correctly. Simply because something happens doesn't mean it's supposed to happen!

Um, happening in nature pretty much defines natural. Are tornadoes unnatural? Disease and disorders are natural functions of the human bodies or natural interactions with our environment. We are supposed to die. It's natural.

I think you're trying to equate bad and unnatural and they don't mean the same thing.

How do you define unnatural?

If something occurs thoroughout the animal kingdom, it can hardly be called unnatural for animals.

Tumors may be bad, but they aren't unnatural.

Natural != good. Unnatural != bad. Good != natural. Bad != unnatural.

Tumors are unnatural in that they are not part of the body. I mean one is not born with a tumor, nor is one expected to have a tumor by a certain age, nor does one need a tumor to survive. The cells are not dividing naturally: they are not dividing as they were made to divide. It is unnatural then for a tumor to develop. It is outside the nature of the cells to divide the way they do when they develop into a tumor.

You're using the word unnatural incorrectly then. Tumors are quite natural, every species gets them, it doesn't require an outside force. Homosexuality seems to follow the same pattern, the list of species seen engaged in it is quite large. Difference being that of course the fact I like guys won't kill me. Some fundamentalists would prefer it did, but it won't.

Um, happening in nature pretty much defines natural. Are tornadoes unnatural? Disease and disorders are natural functions of the human bodies or natural interactions with our environment. We are supposed to die. It's natural.

I think you're trying to equate bad and unnatural and they don't mean the same thing.

I thought you were leaving.

Look at my post before this one to see how I explained my use of the word. I don't have a mental dictionary, so I can't think of the perfect word for what I mean, and I'm too technologically disinclined to use the Internet to find it. If you know the word I want, please give it to me.

You're using the word unnatural incorrectly then. Tumors are quite natural, every species gets them, it doesn't require an outside force. Homosexuality seems to follow the same pattern, the list of species seen engaged in it is quite large. Difference being that of course the fact I like guys won't kill me. Some fundamentalists would prefer it did, but it won't.

If it is outside the nature of the cells to divide that way, then a tumor is unnatural, yes? If it is outside the nature of humans (Yes, I realize that can be argued. Another post?) to be attracted to members of the same sex, then it is unnatural, yes?

Actually I think you mean you don't have a mental theasarus. That will come with time and an expanded vocabulary. Now the word you're likely looking for is abnormal, but given enough thought you'll find out a lot of things are abnormal, that's how evolution works, it changes things.

If it is outside the nature of the cells to divide that way, then a tumor is unnatural, yes? If it is outside the nature of humans (Yes, I realize that can be argued. Another post?) to be attracted to members of the same sex, then it is unnatural, yes?

Nope.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unnatural

I suppose you could be using the third defintion, but it doesn't really apply.

How am I being ignorant? If I'm ignorant correct me! I think Khadgar did. And I read what he gave me, though my mind is not yet changed - one cannot rely on one source only! Also, simply because it happens in nature, does not mean it is natural! Again, tumors are found in nature because something isn't working correctly. Simply because something happens doesn't mean it's supposed to happen!

Again, you confuse desirability and naturality. Two different things. (You then make the additional error of confusing desirability and morality.)

As for evidence of homosexuality in animals:
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/animals/love_that_dare_not_squeak.htm
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html
http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/Science3.html


These are just from a simple Google search. I'm sure there are better articles.

If it is outside the nature of the cells to divide that way, then a tumor is unnatural, yes? If it is outside the nature of humans (Yes, I realize that can be argued. Another post?) to be attracted to members of the same sex, then it is unnatural, yes?
Problems arise in two places here. Normailty/generality and Naturalness are not the same thing; the majority does not define nature. The other problem is that you assume something and then work back to find premises for it after you have made your conclusion.

If it is outside the nature of the cells to divide that way, then a tumor is unnatural, yes? If it is outside the nature of humans (Yes, I realize that can be argued. Another post?) to be attracted to members of the same sex, then it is unnatural, yes?

It is not outside the nature of humans OR other animals to be attracted to members of the same sex, even if we accept your definition of unnatural. It's not the result of a virus or some kind of mutation. It has existed throughout history and there is even evidence that homosexuality may have genetic advantages in humans (like homosexuals helping raise the young of their siblings, thus making that young more likely to survive and reproduce successfully).

Again, if you wish to claim malignancy then you're going to have to come with a little bit more evidence than "I think they're icky".

If it is outside the nature of the cells to divide that way, then a tumor is unnatural, yes? If it is outside the nature of humans (Yes, I realize that can be argued. Another post?) to be attracted to members of the same sex, then it is unnatural, yes?

But it obviously isn't outside the nature of cells to divide that way -- because they do so naturally.

Again, you confuse good/bad/natural/unnatural/desirable/undesirable.

In the summer between my fifth and sixth grade years, I experimented with this other guy. I was attracted (I use the word loosely) to girls before that experience. Everything was fine: I still liked girls. Until my 9th grade year, I had several experiment episodes with this guy every year. Every time I had another episode, I found myself becoming more attracted to other guys: having fantasies and the like. And here I am today: gay.

I truly believe that that experimenting traumatized me (I prefer the word corrupted, though it isn't in style to say that.) Yes, I may have become gay anyway, but I cannot see whether I would have or not. All I know is that my attraction to other guys began after I did those things. Therefore, it appears that it was not in my original nature to be attracted to other men.

In the summer between my fifth and sixth grade years, I experimented with this other guy. I was attracted (I use the word loosely) to girls before that experience. Everything was fine: I still liked girls. Until my 9th grade year, I had several experiment episodes with this guy every year. Every time I had another episode, I found myself becoming more attracted to other guys: having fantasies and the like. And here I am today: gay.

I truly believe that that experimenting traumatized me (I prefer the word corrupted, though it isn't in style to say that.) Yes, I may have become gay anyway, but I cannot see whether I would have or not. All I know is that my attraction to other guys began after I did those things. Therefore, it appears that it was not in my original nature to be attracted to other men.

"Be always careful not to take too much from an experience. A cat, having sat upon a hot stove lid, will never again sit upon a hot stove lid. Nor upon a cold stove lid." -- Mark Twain

V, you blame the experiments but surely you wouldn't have experimented had you not had a minimum of potential for homosexuality?

So you still into women? You could just be bisexual you know. Of course given that you were sexually active so young tends to indicate more homosexual leanings. The question is where you attracted to women or were you simply doing what was expected?

Now, I've met women I'm very interested in emotionally, but sexually I've never met one that can do for me what even a very average looking guy can.

"Be always careful not to take too much from an experience. A cat, having sat upon a hot stove lid, will never again sit upon a hot stove lid. Nor upon a cold stove lid." -- Mark Twain

If the cat were a masochist (sp?), it might come back to both.

Now that's a topic I'll have to research. I'm unsure if masochism happens in animals.

V, you blame the experiments but surely you wouldn't have experimented had you not had a minimum of potential for homosexuality?

Pardon?

In the summer between my fifth and sixth grade years, I experimented with this other guy. I was attracted (I use the word loosely) to girls before that experience. Everything was fine: I still liked girls. Until my 9th grade year, I had several experiment episodes with this guy every year. Every time I had another episode, I found myself becoming more attracted to other guys: having fantasies and the like. And here I am today: gay.

I truly believe that that experimenting traumatized me (I prefer the word corrupted, though it isn't in style to say that.) Yes, I may have become gay anyway, but I cannot see whether I would have or not. All I know is that my attraction to other guys began after I did those things. Therefore, it appears that it was not in my original nature to be attracted to other men.

Proof positive. You made out with guys and now you gay. It's clear the experimentation caused the gayness. Want more evidence, I didn't and I'm straight. Revelations, I think we're building a case. Oh, wait, except... one would expect you to experiment with guys if you were gay.

Pardon?
You say the experiments made you gay but surely a potential must have existed, at least a potential in fact, to be homosexual within you otherwise you wouldnt have experimented.

More articles re homosexuality in nature:

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2004/mayjun/features/roughgarden.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/27/1090693965406.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm

So you still into women? You could just be bisexual you know. Of course given that you were sexually active so young tends to indicate more homosexual leanings. The question is where you attracted to women or were you simply doing what was expected?

Now, I've met women I'm very interested in emotionally, but sexually I've never met one that can do for me what even a very average looking guy can.

I agree (regretfully) with your last paragraph. I've even tried to make myself straight (unsuccessfully) through...stuff. I know that it doesn't work - I don't know why I bothered.

If the cat were a masochist (sp?), it might come back to both.

Cute. But I'm not sure you got the point. You're reading too much into your own "experience."

I agree (regretfully) with your last paragraph. I've even tried to make myself straight (unsuccessfully) through...stuff. I know that it doesn't work - I don't know why I bothered.
Neither do I. It seems you refuse to accept you're gay and want to shift the blame for that fact to something external...

Proof positive. You made out with guys and now you gay. It's clear the experimentation caused the gayness. Want more evidence, I didn't and I'm straight. Revelations, I think we're building a case. Oh, wait, except... one would expect you to experiment with guys if you were gay.

No. Again, there are other reasons for homosexual action. I wasn't aware of what I was doing the first few times. I didn't understand what I was doing. I was raped, maybe. I really don't remember why I did it. I know it wasn't the last option!!!! I put it in for emphasis!!! But just because I did it doesn't mean I was gay. I could have been, but it doesn't mean I was.

No. Again, there are other reasons for homosexual action. I wasn't aware of what I was doing the first few times. I didn't understand what I was doing. I was raped, maybe. I really don't remember why I did it. I know it wasn't the last option!!!! I put it in for emphasis!!! But just because I did it doesn't mean I was gay. I could have been, but it doesn't mean I was.

How about you just say the others so we can go from there?

You say the experiments made you gay but surely a potential must have existed, at least a potential in fact, to be homosexual within you otherwise you wouldnt have experimented.

I also have the potential to stick a fork into an electric outlet. Does that mean I am predisposed to do it?

I agree (regretfully) with your last paragraph. I've even tried to make myself straight (unsuccessfully) through...stuff. I know that it doesn't work - I don't know why I bothered.


Guessin you're from a fairly conservative or rural area. I am, tried it, didn't work. Kind of hoped I'd grow out of being attracted to guys. Still haven't. Sooner or later you stop trying to convince yourself you're bi, or just experimenting, and come to admit that you're actually gay. Not to say bisexuals don't exist, they surely do, just that it's a common cover for those in denial.

No. Again, there are other reasons for homosexual action. I wasn't aware of what I was doing the first few times. I didn't understand what I was doing. I was raped, maybe. I really don't remember why I did it. I know it wasn't the last option!!!! I put it in for emphasis!!! But just because I did it doesn't mean I was gay. I could have been, but it doesn't mean I was.

Again, you say you can't confirm or deny something and then deny it. All available evidence suggests that you cannot 'become' gay in the fashion you are claiming and you claim to not know otherwise yet you reject the evidence that your claims are wrong. It doesn't make any sense.

All this talk of animals engaged in homosexual activity!

Yes, there are animals that have homosexual "relations." The only problem(which most persons choose to forget) is that these "relations" are the result of territorial agression or agrssion to drive off a rival mate, not an attempt to mate, or because the male pelican is attracted to the other male pelican. It would be near impossible to know if the male pelicans are attracted to each other with today's technology anyway.

Yes, I'm sure those birds who form same-sex pair bonds and raise offspring together are the result of "territorial agression or aggression to drive off a rival mate."

I'm sure the male dolphins or elephants who form male-male lifelong pairbonds and have lots of sex are doing the same.

I'm absolutely sure that the apes who have sex with members of the same sex, and orgasm from it, are really trying to drive each other off.

:rolleyes:

Neither do I. It seems you refuse to accept you're gay and want to shift the blame for that fact to something external...

I am gay. What is there to deny? And I was at fault. I wasn't raped. I wasn't coerced (sp?). I chose to do the stuff I did. I'm not shifting blame.

Proof positive. You made out with guys and now you gay. It's clear the experimentation caused the gayness. Want more evidence, I didn't and I'm straight. Revelations, I think we're building a case. Oh, wait, except... one would expect you to experiment with guys if you were gay.
That is Rubbish. You can't become gay by accident. It can just take a very long time until you relealize you are gay. For most people thats around 20-25 but you might have had girlfriends or sex before you realised you prefer boys. There are man who have been married for 20 years, have childern and then without something strange happening turn out to be gay. You also got man who experiment with sex with other guys and hate it so they didn't just turn gay. The gay has always been inside a person it sometimes takes a long time or some help to come out.

I also have the potential to stick a fork into an electric outlet. Does that mean I am predisposed to do it?
If you do it, enjoy it (which you seem to have done otherwise why did you repeat the experiment) and show a propensity to do it again? Yes.

How about you just say the others so we can go from there?

What others?

I'm agreeing with you. The act of an animal trying to mount and/or humping another animal (or an object) is NOT proof of attraction.

No, but doing so to orgasm is slightly more clear. Actually seeking out such animals is even more clear. When you start realizing that some birds have different mating dances depending on whether they are trying to attract a male or female, it becomes pretty damn clear. And then when they pair-bond, you can't really deny that it is as close to human homosexuality as you get.

Yes, I'm sure those birds who form same-sex pair bonds and raise offspring together are the result of "territorial agression or aggression to drive off a rival mate."

I'm sure the male dolphins or elephants who form male-male lifelong pairbonds and have lots of sex are doing the same.

I'm absolutely sure that the apes who have sex with members of the same sex, and orgasm from it, are really trying to drive each other off.

:rolleyes:

Vel is about as blind on this as you can get. I already tried to explain it. Then got ignored. >.>

That is Rubbish. You can't become gay by accident. It can just take a very long time until you relealize you are gay. For most people thats around 20-25 but you might have had girlfriends or sex before you realised you prefer boys. There are man who have been married for 20 years, have childern and then without something strange happening turn out to be gay. You also got man who experiment with sex with other guys and hate it so they didn't just turn gay. The gay has always been inside a person it sometimes takes a long time or some help to come out.

Um, Hydrorabus, this is sarcasm. Sarcasm, this is Hydrorabus.

What others?

You other reasons....jeeze I quoted you, so why not give us ALL of them. Right now. :)

I agree (regretfully) with your last paragraph. I've even tried to make myself straight (unsuccessfully) through...stuff. I know that it doesn't work - I don't know why I bothered.

You know, if you were correct that experimenting made you gay, then you should be able to "experiment" your way straight. If you just fool around with enough girls....

Or maybe, just maybe, you are interpreting things wrong because someone has convinced you that there is something "wrong" with you.

There's really no need for him to have to argue with five of us. :p

There's really no need for him to have to argue with five of us. :p
If doing it gets him to argue with himself then there's every need!

You other reasons....jeeze I quoted you, so why not give us ALL of them. Right now. :)

I said that I can't think of other reasons.

You probably want me to say because I was attracted to him, yes? Well, I guess that's a possibility, but I doubt that my upbringing would have allowed me to do that.

You know, if you were correct that experimenting made you gay, then you should be able to "experiment" your way straight. If you just fool around with enough girls....

Or maybe, just maybe, you are interpreting things wrong because someone has convinced you that there is something "wrong" with you.

Or maybe it's because I experimented while my sexual identity was being formed? And now that it is formed, I am unable to change it on my own?

If doing it gets him to argue with himself then there's every need!

Am I arguing with myself? If I am, show me where so I can fix it.

I said that I can't think of other reasons.

You probably want me to say because I was attracted to him, yes? Well, I guess that's a possibility, but I doubt that my upbringing would have allowed me to do that.
I'm not sure upbringing has anything to do with attraction, sir!

And you aren't... that's the problem!

I said that I can't think of other reasons.

You probably want me to say because I was attracted to him, yes? Well, I guess that's a possibility, but I doubt that my upbringing would have allowed me to do that.

Gee, isn't it possible that you were genetically gay and your upbringing has simply made you self-loathing?

Heaven forbid you admit that your being gay isn't some perversity.

I'm not sure upbringing has anything to do with attraction, sir!

And you aren't... that's the problem!

I meant I doubt that my upbringing would have allowed me to experiment if I felt attraction. I thin I would have been to horrified. If I was simply experimenting for experimentation's sake I think I may have gone ahead with it.

You probably want me to say because I was attracted to him, yes? Well, I guess that's a possibility, but I doubt that my upbringing would have allowed me to do that.

Your upbringing wouldn't change who you were attracted to - only how you felt about it or acted on it.


Or maybe it's because I experimented while my sexual identity was being formed? And now that it is formed, I am unable to change it on my own?

Unlikely, considering that psychological research suggests that sexual identity is fairly well set before puberty even begins.

Not to mention the fact that, by your logic, we pretty much shouldn't have gay people in this country. Most gay people experiment with opposite-sex partners while they are still discovering their sexuality, you know. By your logic, that should mean that they never "go gay".

Cat-Tribe: I hope it isn't, that would make about 10% of the world (and I'm among that 10%) perverse...

V; if there was attraction there would be no room for horror, to put it simply, or to state it differently the horror would only have been there if attraction wasn't.

Gee, isn't it possible that you were genetically gay and your upbringing has simply made you self-loathing?

Heaven forbid you admit that your being gay isn't some perversity.

Does being born gay make it acceptable? Persons are born with diabetes: should we leave that alone as well?

Now one can argue that homosexuality is not harmful and is therefore different from diabetes. Yes, let's argue about that. But all I'm doing is showing that sinply because one is born with something does not make it acceptable.

Does being born gay make it acceptable? Persons are born with diabetes: should we leave that alone as well?

Now one can argue that homosexuality is not harmful and is therefore different from diabetes. Yes, let's argue about that. But all I'm doing is showing that sinply because one is born with something does not make it acceptable.
Acceptable? well let's see. Do we shun those with diabetes? Do we try to punish them for having it, tell them they are evil and perverted for it? No. Different circumstances in almost every respect, the only real similarity being that both are things one is born with.

Your upbringing wouldn't change who you were attracted to - only how you felt about it or acted on it.

Unlikely, considering that psychological research suggests that sexual identity is fairly well set before puberty even begins.

Not to mention the fact that, by your logic, we pretty much shouldn't have gay people in this country. Most gay people experiment with opposite-sex partners while they are still discovering their sexuality, you know. By your logic, that should mean that they never "go gay".

I didn't say that experimentation is the defining factor. I only see it as a factor.

I didn't say that experimentation is the defining factor. I only see it as a factor.
Why even that? The predilection (yes, I changed it from potential for good reason) was there.

I meant I doubt that my upbringing would have allowed me to experiment if I felt attraction. I thin I would have been to horrified. If I was simply experimenting for experimentation's sake I think I may have gone ahead with it.

What are you telling us? That your upbringing said, "Homosexuality is bad, but its ok to have sex with members of the same sex?"

Does being born gay make it acceptable?

"Acceptable" is a subjective term.

Now one can argue that homosexuality is not harmful and is therefore different from diabetes. Yes, let's argue about that.

Ok, you tell me how you think it is harmful?

But all I'm doing is showing that sinply because one is born with something does not make it acceptable.

A person who has diabetes is perfectly acceptable. There is no reason that we should condemn them for having diabetes. No one should be ashamed of being a diabetic. Now, diabetes, if left untreated, will kill someone, so we treat it.

You would do better off to compare homosexuality to another odd, but harmless trait, like left-handedness. A person who is left-handed is different from the norm. Once upon a time, they were called "unnatural" and forced to use their right hand instead. But was being left-handed actually ever something to be ashamed of? Did it need treatment? Was it unacceptable? The people in this country, even a generation ago tended to think it was.

Cat-Tribe: I hope it isn't, that would make about 10% of the world (and I'm among that 10%) perverse...

V; if there was attraction there would be no room for horror, to put it simply, or to state it differently the horror would only have been there if attraction wasn't.

The mind, the body, and the heart are three different things. One can be repulsed by the other. In my case my mind is repulsed by my body: my sexuality.

Does being born gay make it acceptable? Persons are born with diabetes: should we leave that alone as well?

Now one can argue that homosexuality is not harmful and is therefore different from diabetes. Yes, let's argue about that. But all I'm doing is showing that sinply because one is born with something does not make it acceptable.
Being born gay or not is not even an issue. "Choice" of sexual orientation is irrelevant. It's not a disease, it's a sexual preference.

Let's say you prefer the color green. Now, most other poeple disagree with you(let's say 90%) and instead prefer blue. Would you want/need to change your favorite color just because you don't like the same as everybody else? No you would't: you like green, that's all, and there's nothing immoral or sinful or weird in liking another color. Just like there's nothing immoral, sinful, or weird about liking your own gender better than the opposite-sex.

Your tastes are just different, and nobody can argue tastes. Doesn't matter whether you were born liking green and it's in your genes for you to like green, or whether you saw something green you thought was nice when you were young and started liking green because of it.

The only reason gayness seems to be a problem is because some whackos several centuries ago decided they didn't like it, and that therefore nobody should like it. That makes about as much sense as me saying I hate brocoli and think radish is superior in all ways, and therefore everyone should eat radish instead of brocoli, because liking brocoli is immoral.

Does being born gay make it acceptable? Persons are born with diabetes: should we leave that alone as well?

Now one can argue that homosexuality is not harmful and is therefore different from diabetes. Yes, let's argue about that. But all I'm doing is showing that sinply because one is born with something does not make it acceptable.

Actually you keep arguing it is unnatural -- which is counter-factual and irrelevant.

Homosexuality is not harmful. You haven't shown that it is.

The mind, the body, and the heart are three different things. One can be repulsed by the other. In my case my mind is repulsed by my body: my sexuality.
The mind, body and heart are three aspects of the same thing. Assuming your Christian think of them as like the Trinity; one is intellectual thought, one is emotion, and one is physical wants. Each is interlinked.

You would do better off to compare homosexuality to another odd, but harmless trait, like left-handedness. A person who is left-handed is different from the norm. Once upon a time, they were called "unnatural" and forced to use their right hand instead. But was being left-handed actually ever something to be ashamed of? Did it need treatment? Was it unacceptable? The people in this country, even a generation ago tended to think it was.
The left-handed simile is right on the mark. I'll remember it, and probably reuse it in the future.

The mind, the body, and the heart are three different things. One can be repulsed by the other. In my case my mind is repulsed by my body: my sexuality.

then perhaps the problem isn't your body, but your irrational repulsion.

You know, if you were correct that experimenting made you gay, then you should be able to "experiment" your way straight. If you just fool around with enough girls....

Or maybe, just maybe, you are interpreting things wrong because someone has convinced you that there is something "wrong" with you.

If he is wrong or right, you know as well as I do that your pretentious argument that he could "experiment himself straight again" is a fallacy even if he IS right about why he has homosexual attractions now.

We can't go back and redo our pre-natal conditions that may have been insufficient of nutrients the first time around, we can't 'go back' and redo toddler-hood simply because we want to learn languages easier again and at that brain development stage it was the best time to learn linguistic skills, and we can't go back to pre-pubescent brain development to redo the hormonal indoctrination our brains went through then. Once done, it’s done, aging is frequently (usually even) a one way street.

What are you telling us? That your upbringing said, "Homosexuality is bad, but its ok to have sex with members of the same sex?"

"Acceptable" is a subjective term.

Ok, you tell me how you think it is harmful?

A person who has diabetes is perfectly acceptable. There is no reason that we should condemn them for having diabetes. No one should be ashamed of being a diabetic. Now, diabetes, if left untreated, will kill someone, so we treat it.

You would do better off to compare homosexuality to another odd, but harmless trait, like left-handedness. A person who is left-handed is different from the norm. Once upon a time, they were called "unnatural" and forced to use their right hand instead. But was being left-handed actually ever something to be ashamed of? Did it need treatment? Was it unacceptable? The people in this country, even a generation ago tended to think it was.

I meant that if I thought about having sex with another guy I wouldn't do it. But if I thought of it as just learning some new stuff I might do it. That doesn't change the fact that I was engaging in homosexual acts. It does show that power of mindsets, though.

Well welcome to the 21st century. Haven't you heard? Everything's subjective. The Nazis were okay guys:rolleyes:

Homosexuality is harmful in the same way all sins are harmful: one turns away from God while one commits them. I ought not to have offered to argue about this because my belief about it being harmful to the person is based on traditional bibliacl principles (or is it principals?).

No, it would not be better to compare it to left-handedness because left-handedness is not a problem. I compared homosexuality to a problem to show that the fact one is born with something does not mean it is okay or not a problem.

The mind, body and heart are three aspects of the same thing. Assuming your Christian think of them as like the Trinity; one is intellectual thought, one is emotion, and one is physical wants. Each is interlinked.

Agreed, but unlike the Trinity they are not of one substance or one mind.

Agreed, but unlike the Trinity they are not of one substance or one mind.
They are of exactly that, though! One substance? You (your soul if you will); one mind... see the matter of the soul.

And of course, its an interesting Biblical interpretation. Is eating shellfish harmful? But God commands you not to. A paradox, a most ingenious paradox...

If he is wrong or right, you know as well as I do that your pretentious argument that he could "experiment himself straight again" is a fallacy even if he IS right about why he has homosexual attractions now.

We can't go back and redo our pre-natal conditions that may have been insufficient of nutrients the first time around, we can't 'go back' and redo toddler-hood simply because we want to learn languages easier again and at that brain development stage it was the best time to learn linguistic skills, and we can't go back to pre-pubescent brain development to redo the hormonal indoctrination our brains went through then. Once done, it’s done, aging is frequently (usually even) a one way street.

His claims are that he experimented as a pre-teen and it made him gay. That development you are talking about is not what he claims caused it. He believes it was experimentation as an 11-year-old. If expermentation can make one have a particular preference it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it goes both ways.

No, it would not be better to compare it to left-handedness because left-handedness is not a problem. I compared homosexuality to a problem to show that the fact one is born with something does not mean it is okay or not a problem.
Quite the contrary. Comparing it to left-handedness is right on the mark.

Homosexuality isn't a problem. Homophobia, discrimination, and prejudice are.

then perhaps the problem isn't your body, but your irrational repulsion.

What is irrational about choosing one’s own course? It might be totally 'natural' to kill my neighbor and slaughter his children so that I can impregnate his widow and get her to carry my offspring instead of his (like the male lions of Africa do)... But even if we have such natural 'inclinations' today, as humans, we as humans, and not animals, have chosen our paths to be something MORE than what has been handed to us by the animal kingdom. There would be no civilization at all except that we overcome our 'natural' inclinations and choose to become something more that what our bodies dictate.

I meant that if I thought about having sex with another guy I wouldn't do it. But if I thought of it as just learning some new stuff I might do it. That doesn't change the fact that I was engaging in homosexual acts. It does show that power of mindsets, though.

Well welcome to the 21st century. Haven't you heard? Everything's subjective. The Nazis were okay guys:rolleyes:

Homosexuality is harmful in the same way all sins are harmful: one turns away from God while one commits them. I ought not to have offered to argue about this because my belief about it being harmful to the person is based on traditional bibliacl principles (or is it principals?).

No, it would not be better to compare it to left-handedness because left-handedness is not a problem. I compared homosexuality to a problem to show that the fact one is born with something does not mean it is okay or not a problem.

People used to believe it was a problem. They used to see it as sinful and wrong and they used to force children to behave as if they were right-handed. It's very comparable.

Ever heard the term, sinister? Know what it comes from?

What is irrational about choosing one’s own course? It might be totally 'natural' to kill my neighbor and slaughter his children so that I can impregnate his widow and get her to carry my offspring instead of his (like the male lions of Africa do)... But even if we have such natural 'inclinations' today, as humans, we as humans, and not animals, have chosen our paths to be something MORE than what has been handed to us by the animal kingdom. There would be no civilization at all except that we overcome our 'natural' inclinations and choose to become something more that what our bodies dictate.
Then don't have sex at all. Its preferable to having any sex, Biblically. And yet you do it. Hm? Ruled by the body's urges once more it seems!

His claims are that he experimented as a pre-teen and it made him gay. That development you are talking about is not what he claims caused it. He believes it was experimentation as an 11-year-old. If expermentation can make one have a particular preference it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it goes both ways.
Yeah, but that reasoning doesn't stand. A lot of homosexuals don't experiment with members of their own sex until very much later in their life. For example: me. Gay man, 23 years old, and I never even approached the another guy until I was nearly 19.

Likewise, a lot of heterosexuals experiment with their own sex. One of my (straight) friends has had experiences with two other guys during his teenage years. I'm talking about full sexual intercourse. He's still straight, and he's been with the same girl for 5 years now, father of a child with the 2nd coming up.

Funny facts: that bastard of a friend of mine had more(twice as many, in fact) male partners in his life than me. So no, sexual experimentation does not determine sexual orientation and preferences.

If he is wrong or right, you know as well as I do that your pretentious argument that he could "experiment himself straight again" is a fallacy even if he IS right about why he has homosexual attractions now.

We can't go back and redo our pre-natal conditions that may have been insufficient of nutrients the first time around, we can't 'go back' and redo toddler-hood simply because we want to learn languages easier again and at that brain development stage it was the best time to learn linguistic skills, and we can't go back to pre-pubescent brain development to redo the hormonal indoctrination our brains went through then. Once done, it’s done, aging is frequently (usually even) a one way street.

Who said anything about pre-natla or pre-pubescent development?

According to Velia, he was already attracted to girls, then fooled around with a guy and that made him gay.


I meant that if I thought about having sex with another guy I wouldn't do it. But if I thought of it as just learning some new stuff I might do it.

Once again, you're basically saying that your upbringing would lead you to believe that it's ok to engage in homosexual acts, as long as you don't actually want to.

Well welcome to the 21st century. Haven't you heard? Everything's subjective. The Nazis were okay guys

Obviously, some things are more clear than others. But, I think that drinking to excess is unacceptable. Others think it is perfectly acceptable, as long as you don't endanger others by doing it. Which one of us is objectively correct?

Homosexuality is harmful in the same way all sins are harmful: one turns away from God while one commits them.

To agree with this, one would first have to believe that homosexuality is a sin. I do not believe it is, any more than I think menstruating is a sin (although there is certainly Biblical evidence that menstruating is sinful). There is no reason to believe that homosexuality turns one away from God any more than heterosexuality.

No, it would not be better to compare it to left-handedness because left-handedness is not a problem.

Really? It was, according to our society 50-100 years ago. In fact, it was so much of a problem that left-handed children were punished for trying to write/eat/etc. with their left hands and often had their left hands tied behind their backs so that they couldn't use them.
What do you know that they didn't know?

In Biblical times, being left-handed would have been a huge problem, at least in the Jewish society. Touching another, eating, writing, etc. with the left hand was strictly forbidden. In fact, this prohibition is the reason for Christ's admonition to "turn the other cheek." By turning the other cheek, a slave or any other person low on the societal ladder could prevent the person seeking to harm them from hitting them at all - since the person in question would seek to backhand them, and could not use the left hand.

What is irrational about choosing one’s own course? It might be totally 'natural' to kill my neighbor and slaughter his children so that I can impregnate his widow and get her to carry my offspring instead of his (like the male lions of Africa do)... But even if we have such natural 'inclinations' today, as humans, we as humans, and not animals, have chosen our paths to be something MORE than what has been handed to us by the animal kingdom. There would be no civilization at all except that we overcome our 'natural' inclinations and choose to become something more that what our bodies dictate.

Now you are arguing natural = bad?

There are more than two options. Natural doesn't have to be either good or bad.

Homosexuality is harmful in the same way all sins are harmful: one turns away from God while one commits them. I ought not to have offered to argue about this because my belief about it being harmful to the person is based on traditional bibliacl principles (or is it principals?).


Except homosexuality isn't a sin. Jesus said not a word against it.