Which is why I specifically wasn't stating that homosexuality should be "illegal" or "punishable." I'm sorry the topic seemed to get skewed, but the question is if homosexuality is "morally acceptable" in a way other sexual deviation is not (from a biblical perspective).
I see.
As a non-Christian I am probably not the right person to answer this from a biblical perspective, but assuming for a moment that I´d consider the bible morally authoritative I guess I´d have a hard time picturing something as morally acceptable if the bible says "it´s immoral".
However, I´d like to point out that - as far as I know - when the bible discusses sexual (im)morality, it usually speaks about actions and not about orientations. (Then again I mean to recall a passage where the bible says something to the effect of "a hostile thought is already murder", so someone might be inclined to extrapolate that to "the desire for an immoral action is as bad as the action itself").
As for the issue of (lack of) control:
The Christian concept of "freewill" seems to leave not much space for the idea that there could be issues in which acting upon our orientation/desire/wishes/needs is beyond our control.
Then again, "freewill" is not a biblical term, but a theological concept that was invented much later. So I guess it is irrelevant for an answer from a biblical perspective).
__________________
Why I call myself a „non-believer“ or „atheist“:
I can´t relate to any of the god concepts I´m familiar with so far.
Either I´m not convinced by the concept, or
– although not having a problem with the worldview itself -
I see no reason to call one of its elements „God“:
There are already more precise, more common, less loaded and less likely to be misunderstood terms for these elements.
E.g. I prefer to call nature „nature“, the universe „universe“ and everything „everything“.
Haha, funny.
AID's is not an argument against homosexuality, it is an argument against sodomy (anal bleeding combined with seminal fluids makes very easy disease transfer)
Saying AIDs rates in homosexual males is higher is as much to the point as saying AIDs rates in black people are higher. Although technically true, it really doesn't say anything about the morality or consequences of a given "life style"
If we were basing how we should live on AID's rates then we would all be white lesbian muslims living in norway.
__________________ "We can easily forgive a child that is afraid of the dark, the real tragedy is when people are afraid of the light"
-Plato
Heard this line so many times before….its the old if I can link a minority to criminal activity then my personal prejudice is justified.
As popularized as homosexuality has become, the term "homophobia" is being cast around more and more.
So…an intrinsic characteristic is “popular”?
First, I'd like to point out, based on my understanding of the bible, I believe that a man lying with a man is sinful.
So you are offended by people who eat shellfish…take out bank loans….wear shirts made of poly-cotton blends…shave….refuse to impregnate their widowed sister in law…right?
Or are these somehow different?
The bible also teaches me to hate sin. This does NOT equate to a hatred of sinners. We all fall short, we all have weaknesses, I have plenty of gay friends, and I'm opposed to the mistreatment of gay people, however, I still view the action as wrong.
However, even this understanding is quite often belittled and insulted as homophobic. People suggest "I can't help who I love" ... so get used to it.
Perhaps you are unaware of the definition of homophobia
So, what about pedophiles? Not people who kidnap children and have their way with them against their will... but my last room mate was 24, dating a girl who had just turned 16. This falls under the category of pedophilia. He happens to be "sexually ambiguous," so his preference in girls are not the epidomy of "the womanly form" ... he tends to like flat-chested, under-developed women.
So, is this considered OK by people who are such champions of the homosexual community?
You are asking if it is OK for a heterosexual man to like flat chested legal aged women…
If he simply preferred the male form,
I know quite a few “flat chested” women…and I have never thought of them as looking like men.
this would be considered "the way he was born" ... and although much of society considered it a perversion, and unacceptable... if you don't like it, you're intolerant, and that's bad.
Now go apply your attack on gays and lesbians to interracial couples…it works the same for them Although much of society considered it (interracial marriage) a perversion and unacceptable…if you don’t like it, you’re intolerant
But, if his preference for the male form leads him to an attraction to under-developed (and thus under-aged) females... is this not equivalent?
Do you have some sort of trouble differentiating between women and men?
Similarly, when he was in the other mood, the men he was attracted to tended to be feminine scene-kid types, I'm sure some of them were in the same age-group (Although I don't know that it ever went far enough to be "illegal" ... I was certainly uncomfortable by their actions).
Sexual orientation isn’t a “mood”
__________________ First they ignore you...
Then they laugh at you...
Then they fight you...
Then you win.
Mahatma Ghandi
Going purely on the opening here (haven't read other posts, sorry y'all....to many for me to read atm): First, I don't consider a 24 and a 16 yr old "pedophilia". Age of consent doesn't necessarily imply when pedophilia occurs or not.
Given that most cultures accept [even encourage] a girl to be married, to much older men typically, mind you, at 13 (average, from what I have seen in researching this a bit) - and this age is generally accepted as being "mature".
Second, "court definitions "(those used by law enforcement purely for a "line in the sand" in cases) do not, I repeat DO NOT always mean the same or are to be taken the same as true definitions. Hence:
The focus of pedophilia is sexual activity with a child. Many courts interpret this reference to age to mean children under the age of 18. Most mental health professionals, however, confine the definition of pedophilia to sexual activity with prepubescent children, who are generally age 13 or younger.
So, I feel that the use of "pedophilia" is being drawn a bit far in this.
For instance, were I - at 19 - to be head over heels for a 16 yr old (not counting the discretion of Georgia in the use of a "three year difference" clause to under age cases), I could be marked as both a "pedophile" (socially) and a "sex offender" (legally) were we to take it past a friendly, innocent level.
-I will say now: that I do not see this happening anyway, but it is for the sake of argument - no more, no less. -
__________________ *avatar by the wonderful Kudos[_therealone]*
"I've never been much worried about the afterwards. I've seen so much torment and terror on this side of time that I never saw the need of hell on the other. Just being alive is punishment enough for whatever you do." --Ruarri from Summer of the Red Wolf by Morris West
Taking each day as a gift, the good and the bad, from God. And thanking Him all along the way.
I'll resist the urge to point out "the significance of sex" being an act of procreation, inherently putting homosexuals (as well as anyone who doesn't want children at the moment, or can't have children for a certain reason) in the same boat as minors... Although it would be on topic, it's not really an honest argument. I understand there is a difference, but someone COULD make that point.
Well, many minors can reproduce, considering that minors include people up to age 17. Not to mention List of youngest birth mothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and with more advance technology, this list is only going to increase (which is quite sad when you think about what causes the pregnancy).
If we're judging the whether or not it's socially acceptable based on the mental capability to understand the significance of sex, a good portion of the adult population should not be allowed to have sex either!
Preach it.
To put it in very politically incorrect terms, if you saw a couple of retards get together and actually have a relationship (including a physical one)... would you really look down on them for it? Or would you think "Well... good for them!"
The main point of the discussion is in response to your last part: "not to be confused with them having a choice regarding their sexual orientation, which of course they don't"
Why is one sexual orientation (homosexuality) considered something a person has no control over, and is natural and should be accepted, when others (for example being attracted to minors, animals, or any number of fetishes deemed inappropriate) considered something a person has a choice in, and something people can put their foot down to and say "No, that's immoral, you can't legally do that."
There is a difference between saying the attraction is immoral, and saying acting on that attraction is immoral, but most people don't seem to know that.
Keep in mind, I am NOT advocating any such sexual deviance, nor am I suggesting that "being gay should get someone thrown in jail." Only pointing out the correlation to show that "just plain not approving of homosexuality" doesn't necessarily make a person "intolerant and homophobic" any more than "just plain not approving of pedophealia" makes a person "intolerant and pedopheliphobic") (No, I'm not sure that's the right word... but pedophobic would be a fear of children. So, "pedopheliphobic" would be my best guess for "the fear of sexual attraction to minors")
Semantics -_-. Do we call it homosexualphobia or homophobia? The second one should technically be fear of sameness.
__________________
.
..:
If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh.
The past is dead. It was all just a dream...
- Magus
To help protect the sanctity of marriage, please keep all affairs heterosexual.
If no image appears, something has gone wrong. I don't know. Probably run out of squirrels.
I do agree with you. Some of the laws against possessing photo's of minors are ridiculously harsh. They should be focusing on catching the people that took them, not tracking down the people who right click.
Actually, they can be too harsh on the people who make them as well.
Wait for it...
You are probably asking me what the bleep do I mean by 'too harsh'. Well, you see there are those who abuse children and take photos of it, and then children who take photos of themselves (or maybe a boyfriend/girlfriend). The first group should be thrown in jail. But we should not treat the second group like we do the first group, but many times the law has.
__________________
.
..:
If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh.
The past is dead. It was all just a dream...
- Magus
To help protect the sanctity of marriage, please keep all affairs heterosexual.
If no image appears, something has gone wrong. I don't know. Probably run out of squirrels.
When people think of "homosexuality" too many just think about males. I'm not sure if it's always been this way, but have you noticed how fashionable it is for girls to claim "Oh, I'm bi."
Of course, this is until I start talking to them, then they're gay... until I leave. (I hate my life)
.... then again, with the whole emo/scene kid fad, that's been fashionable for guys as well. Is that over yet, btw?
Girls kissing girls? Center of the party.
Guys kissing guys? Run for your bleeping life.
(Standard attitude at college.)
__________________
.
..:
If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh.
The past is dead. It was all just a dream...
- Magus
To help protect the sanctity of marriage, please keep all affairs heterosexual.
If no image appears, something has gone wrong. I don't know. Probably run out of squirrels.
Heard this line so many times before….its the old if I can link a minority to criminal activity then my personal prejudice is justified.
The irony in that should be blowing peoples computers together. You are linking pedophilia (minority) with child molestation (illegal activity) and justifying your own person prejudice to the point when someone links to homosexuality (minority) to pedophilia (minority), you see it the same as linking it with something illegal. You, sir, now owe me a new irony meter.
So…an intrinsic characteristic is “popular”?
So you are offended by people who eat shellfish…take out bank loans….wear shirts made of poly-cotton blends…shave….refuse to impregnate their widowed sister in law…right?
Or are these somehow different?
Perhaps you are unaware of the definition of homophobia
You are asking if it is OK for a heterosexual man to like flat chested legal aged women…
I know quite a few “flat chested” women…and I have never thought of them as looking like men.
Agreed. Don't know where he received this notion from.
Now go apply your attack on gays and lesbians to interracial couples…it works the same for them Although much of society considered it (interracial marriage) a perversion and unacceptable…if you don’t like it, you’re intolerant
Do you have some sort of trouble differentiating between women and men? Sexual orientation isn’t a “mood”
__________________
.
..:
If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh.
The past is dead. It was all just a dream...
- Magus
To help protect the sanctity of marriage, please keep all affairs heterosexual.
If no image appears, something has gone wrong. I don't know. Probably run out of squirrels.
.
Linear Mode
