WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

That is my moral stance on homosexuality, but I cannot project that onto people who do not adopt the same moral framework as I do (eg. non-Christians) - they are free to act as they choose. Can you reference where exactly I say (or otherwise communicate my "point of view") that homosexuals shouldn't act on their sexual desires because being gay is "wrong"?

A gay bar - great example of people who identify themselves by their sexual orientation; that's kinda loading the dice. And yes, my sexual orientation in that context would be a part of my identity... your point?

I'm quite alright now, thanks.

 

Kinda my point: sexual orientation is a part of your identity; it is just that you tend to move around in contexts where it is the norm, so you are not conscious of it. Spend some time in a gay bar however and you suddenly are the minority, and are very aware of it. Just like you only become aware of just how white you are (and what that means) when you find yourself in the projects of Philly.

 

I have already conceded this

 

Interesting, what you said there seems to imply that morality, or your idea of what is moral / immoral is taught, rather than 'divine' in origin- hence why 2 different people from a similar culture can hold opposing moral values. Ergo, morality doesn't come from god aferall... Anyway...

Sure thing ( sort of ):

In a round about way, you seem to be saying that homosexuality is okay, so long as no sexual activity is performed; as in, it's okay to think gay, but not to do gay. I think it was that other ejit Shichibukai that specifically said being gay was wrong- my bad, but my point still stands about the validity of gay relationships and gay activity.

How about I ask a direct question instead; do you believe homosexuality is wrong, if so, which aspects?

I believe ( as I said before ) that gay relationships are just as valid as straight ones, and that everyone is free to act on their primal urges if they wish to, or not, and should be able to do so without being labelled as deviants somehow ( I don't find the thought of gay sexual activity all that nice really- watching my step brother sat on another guys lap and kissing and cuddling was a bit cringeworthy but it doesn't affect me in any way, shape or form- everyone just told them to get a room, like we would have with a straight couple.. ). I'll admit that christianity is generally a lot less harsh when it comes to dealing with gays compared to some religions and cultures, but that's what happens when everyone bases their thought process and moral framework on a single, inflexible source of inspiration...

 

People are wired differently, gender, age, race it doesn't matter, can't really stereotype people as everybody is wired differently. My younger brother is 12 years old, if he grows up to love the meat stick then fair enough, my dad will hate it but it really wouldn't bother me, a person is more than sexual preference deep.

 

IMHO homosexuals are a good thing. The more male homosexual couples there are the more females there are for me. The more female homosexual couples there are the less unsatisfied-with-penis women i will find.

They also tend to be really nice people if you respect them and they usually cook very well. The ones i know at least. They also throw very awesome parties. I would not mind having a homosexual couples as neighbours.

 

You're misinterpreting what I said - just because people don't choose to adopt the same moral framework as me doesn't mean that their moral frameworks are correct, nor does it mean that my moral framework cannot be divine in origin. And all moral frameworks are taught, whether they are claimed to be divine in origin or not. Your objection makes no sense.

The question doesn't make sense - homosexuality is a state of being, not a behaviour. If you were to ask if I think that homosexual behaviour is wrong, then yes, of course I do (and you already know this). However, I don't think homosexual "sin" is any more wrong than heterosexual "sin" (eg premarital sex, extramarital sex, group sex etc). People draw attention to homosexuality as if it deserves special treatment... it doesn't.

______________

To anybody who is interested:

I was teaching a Sunday School class today and wanted to share something that really surprised me.

Ever heard the story of "The Good Samaritan"? I started off by asking the kids the following question:

If when walking home from school one day you find somebody lying in a bush who has been badly beaten. You look closer and see that it is in fact the school bully - the kid everybody is scared of, and the kid who has been making your school experience a living hell. Do you help him up and take care of him, or do you leave him and walk on? Every single kid answered identically: "I would leave him and walk on."

So here's me teaching kids that they must "treat everybody with love and respect, no matter who they are or how they treat you - these are Jesus' words." So that's the indoctrination and brainwashing that SuicideNeil speaks of; these are the "horrors" that we are forcing upon the children of today's society!

 

Don't want to get into the discussion, just the good samaritan stuff reminded me of this Mitchell and Webb video

Then don't get involved, and don't post funny videos either --there is a whole thread in GD for that stuff. --Nexxo

 

I wouldn't consider that video a valid contribution in a "Serious Discussion" thread - seriously, do you guys have anything to say about Christianity/the Bible that isn't a mockery? It looks a lot like you don't.

Edit: I have no objection to videos like that, just not here - that's what the demote thread is for.

 

Alright guys, sorry. Just a bit of a lighthearted break that's all. I wasn't mocking.

 

Been having what Lenny has called withdrawal symptoms from this thread, because as he said it's not profitable for anyone.

Ah ha, Shichibukai doesn't agree with us on the topic of homosexuality label him am intolerant bigot, apply social pressure the get him to shut up.

Putting forward the homosexual/paedophile connection, I'm just making a case against homosexuality, I could put forward one from the spread of disease or suicide statistics etc, but the former is just shows people aren't using protection, the latter would just be blamed on societal pressure and I would have probably been branded a dismissed a bigot earlier.

I have had homosexual friends while in school, they knew I didn't agree with their way of life. I would gladly put my head on a guillotine and tell you, they couldn't say of a single day in which I was hurtful or discriminatve to them as a result of their homosexuality, whether or not they were present in the room or not.

I can vouch for that from personal experience, but on the converse there was this one guy who made such a big deal of his sexuality, the entire atmosphere changed when he walked in the room. In contrast someone else who was homosexual would be welcomed by the very same people.

I'm against homosexuality because I believe it to be detrimental and can be changed (Not saying everyone is going to have some magical experience and never have a craving again) , while the majority of people believe it cannot because of accounts like this.

I've never looked into this so called ex-gay therapy, but it seems like they're trying to address a spiritual problem through carnal and psychological methods. (If what the article describes is all there is to it)

Spoiler

Quotes from the Bible incoming-->

Before someone responds, "you're bactracking from it being a way of thinking to a spiritual problem".The Bible says, "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he..." Everyone who's homosexual/Bi-sexual would have had to address it in his mind at one point in his/her life or another and accept it in his/her heart. When that person accepts Jesus, the Bible says you are changed in spirit, but your body and soul which have been going a certain direction for all of your life, will be in conflict with what has happened in your spirit. (Hence we see persons who say they've become christians then still have problems with addictions, detrimental eating habits etc.)

Your way of thinking is changed by believing what the Bible now says (Transformed by the renewing of your mind) is true about you and not what the cravings in your body say.(inb4 promoting denial.)

This is very simple, but obviously not very easy otherwise you wouldn't see the aforementioned phenomena.

To tell a homosexual/bi-sexual it is wrong to act out your urges and offer no way to change the root of the urges, will just lead to the situation you see from the last 6 paragraphs of page 4 in this article.

For me to say homosexual acts are wrong, but it's ok to be homosexual is like saying; The acts committed by the Nazis were wrong but the root of their actions is just fine. (Just trying to explain don't, try and drag me into a debate about beliefs/sexual orientation etc etc.)

The only convincing argument you guys have put forth for homosexuality being quote "natural" was the brain differences, but differences are seen in the brains of paedophiles too :/.

How can the results of her research be the premise of her research? Contradictory to what you believe to be true, must be wrong. The only reason I put forward this book is because the author explains how the structure of the brain is changed according to your thoughts. My offer still stands Nexxo.

Never said that was the peer review process. Like I said simply read them for yourself don't take mine or anyone else's word for it.

A sample size of 269 is large enough to be valid for a reliable study on the general population? Regardless of that, what qualifies as being "identifiably homosexual" and Who is doing the identifying?

Just found this Pretty much confirms what I was getting to with those questions. Before you dismiss it again as a biased source, care to show me which secular organisation critiques the study?

As for the research being from Paul cameron, I can't find his name in the sources and his organisation is the Family Research Institute not the Family Research Council.

Evolutionary Science tomorrow or whenever I can find the time sorry.

 

Fair dos, but even if you aren't mocking, the content of the video is.

I know you don't want to be dragged into a debate about this, but let me make my own stance clear: I don't share your opinion on homosexuals being "wrong" off the bat. Your comparison between homosexuals and the Nazis doesn't work, because the root of the Nazis' actions was brainwashing and twisted indoctrination; people aren't brainwashed into sexual orientation.

The Bible provides no grounds for the belief that being gay is wrong, nor does it provide any grounds for the belief that homosexuals ought to be transformed into heterosexuals. On the contrary, it does very candidly forbid homosexual practice.

 

You mean like you apply social pressure to gay people?

Alternative explanations are a bitch, huh? Your theory remains unproven.

OK, pro tip here: basing your argument on stories in the bible and equating homosexuals to Nazis is never a good idea if you want to engage people in a rational or scientific argument.

So are you saying that 87% to 95% of all illnesses are caused by the way you think?

It's good that you have started to dig into the neuropsychological complexities of sexual orientation and behaviour. However you are at risk of losing the forest for the trees. We now have identified neurodevelopmental factors, learning disability and child abuse trauma. Homosexual behaviour indeed has a range of different contributing factors, like child sexual abuse has a range of different contributing factors. Like physical illnesses have a range of different contributing factors. The important point to learn from all this is that it's not just about how your thinking changes brain structure and vice-versa. If that were true, we could cure --that is, effect significant changes in the anatomical brain structure of-- autism, schizophrenia, severe learning disability and traumatic brain injury just by training people to think differently. Dr. Leaf would certainly seem to claim that, but mainstream science has proved it doesn't work like that (and not for lack of trying).

Then there is the thorny issue of how you translate all these variables into diagnostic categories. How do you define a homosexual? How do you define a paedophile? We are still bickering over how you define schizophrenia. It's a much more complicated story than you are starting to find out, I'm afraid. And there are no magic answers nor magic wands.

You just mentioned a study with a sample size of 127. What sample size would you consider sufficient? How did you arrive at that number?

Good questions about identifiability though; I have been asking you the same thing, really. How do you determine whether someone is homosexual?

Yup, it's so excited that it feels the need to repeat the point about Jenny et al.'s study (point 23 and 24)! But it's still the same circular reasoning: male molesters of boys must be homosexuals because only male homosexuals would molest boys. What about their sexual relationships with women then? Their marriages? Their heterosexual family lives? This remains unexplained. The article is full of such previously mentioned reasoning errors (which you still have not addressed) and massaging data which contradicts their position. For example:

When we read the actual study, guess what we learn? The study involved 192 subjects (comprised of 4 roughly equivalent groups of homosexual and heterosexual men and women) who were shown photographs of either male or female faces between the ages of 18 and 60. Participants were then asked to rate their degree of attraction to each face. 

 None of the male faces shown to homosexual men and heterosexual women were actually below the age of 18. The study it goes on to state that: “Heterosexual men showed a strong sexual preference for young adult (twentyish) female faces and heterosexual women showed a strong sexual preference for somewhat older (thirtyish) male faces, as expected from past studies of heterosexual. The prediction that homosexual and heterosexual men would prefer younger partners of their preferred sex than would homosexual and heterosexual women was confirmed.”

In other words folks, both gay and straight men tend to like them young.

The Family Research Council really has to stop regurgitating Brian W. Clowes and start doing some of their own literature review (and so do you). Some scientists have accused the Family Research Council of distorting and misrepresenting their work (example here).

But you're going about it all wrong, scientifically speaking. To prove a theory it must withstand tests by evidence to the contrary. You find me a secular (as in: not having an a priori ideological position on the issue) scientific review of the literature that supports your points, and we can talk. Try the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association; the British Psychological Society; The British Psychiatric Association; sources like those.

Again: always check your sources.

If I understand you correctly, you argue that homosexuality is wrong because some homosexual activity is deviant, harmful or has adverse consequences. But some heterosexual activity is deviant, harmful and has adverse consequences also (even within the context of marriage). Does that mean that heterosexuality is wrong?

The idea that the frequency of deviance, harm or adverse consequences is higher for homosexual activity remains scientifically unproven. You can quote the Bible, but that's ideology (regardless of what you think is its source), not scientific fact. And you know what happens when we restrict people's freedoms, or try to "cure the way they think for their own good and/or the good of society" based on ideology. It may not be the gays who are like the Nazis here.

As for evolution: you argue that a deity described in scriptures thousands of years old, whose existence you take on faith is more plausible than a scientific theory that has been tested in a system that has been proven to work, in a vast body of work and withstood all challenges to the contrary. To the extent that creationists have to resort to changing laws to get their theories taught, rather than letting it stand on its own scientific merit. Basically, you challenge science from a position of ideology and faith, (i.e. you just don't believe it) like your sources on homosexuality argue from an a priori ideological premise rather than objective scientific enquiry. That's fine, but don't call it scientific debate; don't presume to be talking on those terms. I see no point in continuing this debate because we are not talking from the same frame of reference.

 

It makes perfect sense; you previously stated that morality is divine in origin and separate from human life & evolution; now you are saying the opposite.

That statement flies in the face of what you have been trying to suggest previously.

Homosexuality doesn't require special treatment, no- what gays want is EQUAL treatment, without being discriminated against for no good reason ( such as how the church does ). EDIT: Gays celebrate their cultural differences just like any number of other minorities do with carnivals and festivals etc ( take Druids for example )- it helps reinforce their place in society and validates their existence- I don't think people should be made to participate by flying rainbow flags from their government buildings if they don't want to ( see: gay police incident a few years back ), but then there will always be well-meaning positive discrimination which no one wants, but can't be helped due to useless politicians making decisions on our behalves...

Pfffffffttttt. you're trying to divert attention away from the bad parts of religion. Anyone can be a good samaritan & taught to look out for one another; there is no need to veil such teaching with religious overtones ( ergo, only religious people make good, good samaritans ). Many a bad thing has been done in the name of religion too don't forget.

 

Intorelance doesn't mean you have to actively discriminate in some verbal or physical way, it's a state of mind ( except in the southern states of america obviously- 'burn the gays' and such is there motto.... )

Brainwashing people into thinking they are straight, under the guise of spirituality. No better than brainwashing children into believing in god under the same same guise pretty much.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with nazi germany, nothing at all- it's a very, very poor comparison to try and make. Nazi germany was the result of one man and a wave of support & obedience, it has nothing to do with a mental predisposition for liking members of the same sex; their is no ulterior motive behind a homosexuals actions in the way you are implying.

Exactly, thanks for supporting that point of view with evidence. I very much doubt anyone wakes up one day and decides they like the idea of raping or attacking children, though the onset of such behaviour can take much longer as it often doesn't manifest itself until much later in life, and givne the legal standpoint on such acts the perptrator needs to consider their actions & control their urges more carefully ( or become a priest, ya know. Oops, cheap shot... ).

 

Erm...no I'm not. I believe that morality is divine in origin and is absolute, but that doesn't mean it exists wholly and completely in every human mind from birth; people are free to choose whether they adopt it or not, and those who do choose to adopt it have to learn it first. Your objection still makes no sense.

Equal to what - heterosexual coulpes who can procreate and have biological children? Sorry... no can do. Equality is as much of a myth as tolerance IMO.

Ah yes, I almost forgot - I also taught the kids to grow up into suicide bombers.

Typical atheist trump card; some psychologists (atheists, no less) claim that children are actually predisposed to theism and have to be "brainwashed" into disbelief. Funny how brainwashing is a heinous crime... unless it helps the atheists' cause.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Bible doesn't condemn sexual behavior between two women, does it? If this is the case, why do Christians (and some Jews) lump gay women in with the men? In addition, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has the lesson of inhospitality and failure to receive the word of God. Why do people traditionally interpret that as reinforcing the prohibition against same sex behavior?

 

How can something be an absolute if people can/have to 'opt in'? That makes little sense & a weak argument.

Equal rights to adopt a child for example, the same rights afforded to a heterosexual couple who want to adopt; this is only legal in a very small number of countries, yet is has been proven that children adopted by gay parents turn out just as well, if not better adjusted than children adopted by a straight couple. That's just one example ofcourse..

Been to northern Ireland recently, or in the last few centuries for that matter - ain't too far off man....

Nonsense in the extreme. Young minds are like sponges, they are very susceptible to influence, especially from sources they aren't old enough to remotely comprehend. We pick up on things and try to make sense of them- if you expose a child to christian ideology early enough and in a continued manner they will begin to adopt that way of thinking as it's what they have been 'shaped' into feeling & believing ( especially since it requires no proof ).

If you lock a child in a room and raise it with zero mention of religion or deities ( not even in a grammatical mannerism sense ), then what do you suppose will happen if you expose them to religion and religious teachings when they are old enough to appreciate what they are being told, not taught? This goes back to the Tarzan situation where by someone may be welcomed into heaven, or condemned to hell through no fault of their own, because they are not familiar with the notion of god.


EDIT:

I felt like expanding on my reply to this. Most of what religion calls Jesus' teachings is nothing more than common ****ing sense; it's like some ancient christian leaders gathered up some very obvious pieces of advice, sprinkled 'religion' on them, then tried to copyright & patent the idea and sell it to people as a way of life. By christian logic anyone who isn't in the zombie jesus club cannot possibly be a good person capable of love, kindness, compassion and forgiveness etc.

The fact that people can be & do all those things and more without religion telling them to is no-doubt one of the many reasons why this country and many others are becoming far less theistic, as noted by his most holy hypocriticalness, the pope.

 

Yes, all homosexual behaviour is "condemned" in Romans chapter 1. The conventional (mis)understanding of the Bible is that it is a book of rules/commands, a "book of law"; it is not. Just because things are not outrightly prohibited in the form of succinct injunctions (eg. "Thou shalt not...") does not mean they are not prohibited.

Free will - google it.

My question is why? Why should homosexual couples be considered "equal" to heterosexual couples when, fundamentally, they are not?

Unsupported assertion, followed by an impertinent rant about kids being impressionable...nobody is disputing that. Try again, and this time give a valid reason why you disagree with what psychologists have researched.

Actually, I'd appreciate it if you stop referring to Christians in this way. Think you can manage that modicum of respect?

 

Yeah well, so is wearing mixed fibers or having sideburns. What are you wearing, beardyface?

Daniel Everett was a missionary who attempted to bring the word of God to the Piraha people. These were a people, living happily with no concept of God, yet equally as loving and cruel and moral as any christian society. Isolated in the rain forest, with no concept of god, where did their morality come from?

Because before they are homosexual, in fact before they are a couple, they are people. Using your high-level distinction one could equally ask - Why should black couples be considered "equal" to white couples when, fundamentally, they are not?

It isn't that they are predisposed to theism, it's that they are susceptible to believing in the supernatural, and that this susceptibility is traceable to useful cognitive features - Useful in the survival sense. I've actually met the guy, Jesse Berring who did that reasearch a few times. He's a lecturer at one of my local universities, QUB. I doubt, as a gay man, he would appreciate your misinformed invocation of his research to support your anti-gay rant.

It's simply a linguistic flourish to underline how ridiculous the christian belief is when looked at objectively. It may be irreverent, but it is till accurate. Just as accurate as the statement "Christians believe that they are in a relationship with an all-powerful space daddy who will party with their ghost forever after they die".