• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Hey Who Believves In Homosexuality because i am christain post your beliefs!!!!!!!!!

Discussion in 'Archived - Ethics & Morality' started by mnmcandiez, Jul 11, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    +137
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Perhaps, but that's not what I've been saying. Hating someone because of their actions and not approving of their actions are two separate things.

    No, it doesn't, and I've already demonstrated an example where it falls short of true morality.

    This is a straw man, though, since this is not what homosexuals are condemned for. The Bible never condemns a person, as far as I know, for homosexual urges. What is condemned, however, are homosexual acts. Thinking someone is pretty and ravaging them in bed are two completely separate issues.

    From what I read, a lot of homosexuals were abused by a member of the same sex when they were younger - a sort of psychological trauma if you will. However, this is surely not the case for all homosexuals. For other practicing homosexuals, I don't think that public disdain matters enough to them to outweigh their desire for homosexual sexuality. If it did, they would not do it. These people had a choice to make: Either (1) Abstain from these homosexual urges & find more acceptence in the public eye, or (2) Fall head long into satisfying these desires and find less acceptance in the public eye. Practicing homosexuals have chosen the latter.

    You make it sound as if change were unnatural for a number of homosexuals. Even from a secular eye, this is not necessarily true. Suppose a man has a splinter in his eye. You can get rid of it, but how you get rid of it determines how much damage you will sustain and the probability of success. The same concept applies to the psychological world, and in this case, homosexuality. It is harder for some than others, for sure, but I do not believe that people are impossibly trapped within the homosexual frame of mind.
     
  2. Kyubi-no-Youko

    Kyubi-no-Youko Well-Known Member

    52
    +0
    *giggles* Sorry..you said 'falls short of true morality' and your example was someone tripping (yes, I'm that tired right now. anything is funny). Anyway, it depends on how you define true morality. Who's moral standards are you talking about? I think it's safe to assume you mean Christian morals.

    I should take that back. It does harm someone. the homosexual. But only because of the way they are treated by society. Not that some homosexuals don't live self destructive lives, but that's something that can be said for heterosexuals as well.


    No, it's not. It's an over exaggarated point simplifying people's irrational/pointless behavior towards homosexuals. And it is my turn to say 'there are those who would disagree with you' ^_^ the Bible may not condemn just *being* homosexual/having homosexual urges, but a vast majority of people do.


    You know, I'm still waiting to find this article. I have never, ever heard of this (other than from people, such as yourself, saying they heard or the read about it somewhere)

    True. Personally, I think (as I've said) there are various ways people can 'become' homosexual. 1.) Heterosexuals who willing engage in homosexual acts 2.)psuedo-homosexuals...possibly coming from people abused by members of the same sex, or something. possibly taught 3.) born with it.


    You miss the point. You've basically given the 'Well, if they want us to stop being nasty and mean and hateful towards them, then they should stop doing the thing/s we don't like'. Why can't they just stop being hateful towards us? Why do we have to make the sacrifice?

    Homosexual urges are not overwhemling, uncontrollable urges. We experiences the same feelings for the same sex that heterosexuals do for the opposite. And they are not all sexual urges. Many of them are romantic. Saying I have a crush on another woman and wanting to ravage her in bed (or actually having a relationship/doing so) may be seperate things, but they are on the same feild. Homosexuality is not just about sex.

    A true homosexual cannot fall in love with a member of the opposite sex or experience any desire for them, just as a true heterosexual cannot fall in love with a member of the same sex or experience any desire for them.


    Not unnatural. Pointless. (though they may be one and the same XP).

    But homosexuality isn't psychological (Ok, for some it may be). It's biological. My feelings towards sexual orientation changing are the same as my feelings towards gender changing. I don't care. If someone wants to do it (for whatever reason). Let them do it. I'm just saying the facts are, right now, that it is more harmful than helpful. If they find better ways to do it and people want to, hey, more power to them.

    The rest of us, though, are happy the way we are. We may get treated rotten sometimes...but we try to be bigger people and not let it bother us ^_^
     
  3. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    +137
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Objective good and evil, not whether or not something works out to a person’s benefit (i.e. does it harm someone).

    In particular, yep. The only way any real sort of morality makes any sense at all is to have its base be God.

    An exaggeration, straw man – no reason to split hairs. Point is that what you said people were being condemned for was quite simply untrue.

    Quite right, but this is where I think their behavior is uncalled for.

    A thief a murderer can say the same thing. That’s not what I’m getting at. I simply pointed out that you have made a choice: To accept society’s disdain rather than give up your homosexual cravings.

    I’m sure it’s not entirely about sex, but it would seem to play a very critical roll. Otherwise, why not be just friends? Besides, it would seem sex is far more common in the homosexual world than it is in the heterosexual: http://www.inoohr.org/homosexualstatistics.htm

    I don’t think this is a correct analogy. It is like saying a person born with a bad temper cannot become temperate any more than a calm person can become rash, and so it is okay for this person to follow the desires of his heart based on this bad temper. It’s utter folly since both of them have different starting points and different goals. In the world of sexuality, it might be more probable to get back on the right track than it is to derail oneself.

    Only if you want to throw morality to the winds, but if you wanted to do that, a lot of other admirable efforts would be pointless as well (i.e. patience, humility, honesty, etc).

    Highly implausible. The human mind is the most important sex organ in the entire body. Your psychological mindset is easily the determining factor.

    Ah, here’s the heart of the matter: Apathy. It is refusing to come to step two in getting back on track sexually: realizing that gay is not okay. I’m not any sort of sexual therapist or psychologist, and so I don’t know all the methods people have tried to rid themselves of homosexual desires, but I do know it’s possible and I refuse to believe that there is any sin that someone is inevitably stuck in no matter what. With God, all things are possible (Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27).
     
  4. Kyubi-no-Youko

    Kyubi-no-Youko Well-Known Member

    52
    +0
    True morality should work to the benefit of all. If something doesn't feel right, don't do it.


    Why?


    I was just joking before. ^^ And what I said was entirely true, btw. Not everyone thinks that way, but there are many who do. There are those who have the 'hate the sin, not the sinner' attitude, but they tend to take it out on the sinner.


    ^_^

    But a theif or murderer harms people (yes, there's the bloody harm thing again. I know it doesn't matter to you...but hurting people, erm...hurts. XP) I'm saying society has no reason to have this disdain. It's irrational. I can understand someone being disgusted towards two people of the same sex having sex, but there's no reason for the treatment gays get.

    I think of it this way:

    I think spiders are disgusting and freaky. Does that give me a right to hate them? No. I mean, they aren't trying to frighten me on purpose or anyting, for one thing XP


    There is a difference between sexual love (lust) romantic love (the kind between lovers/a husband and wife) and friendship. Though, often one can't go without the others. Just like heterosexuals, homosexuals experience all these kinds of love.
    As for the site...I haven't done any background checking, but it seems awful biased to me. 0.0.

    I wish I knew where they find these people...there must be a secret, promicious, over sex-driven community of gays somewhere I don't know about. And frankly don't want to know about. They give the rest of us a bad name. Just cases are fallible.

    Just because there are homosexuals who live bad lifes doesn't mean homosexuality=bad lifestyle.

    But homosexuality isn't a 'wrong track'. A person cannot choose their sexuality. It's not fully understand (by me, at least), but we do no control the way our body reacts to sexual stimuli. No matter how it comes about, we don't control it. Telling a homosexual who doesn't want to change that they must be heterosexual and have romantic/sexual interest towards the opposite sex is like telling someone they have to have romantic/sexual interest towards a paper clip.

    You misread what I wrote. I said pointless to some homosexuals. There are those of us who live good lives, are in monogamous relationships, and are generally happy. We see no reason to change. People try to convince us we are wrong, foul creatures. I don't see why. We live normal lifes (though the definition of normal is questionable at times), save for having romantic/sexual interest/relationships in the same sex.

    sexuality in itself is biological. hetero or homo. Not that psychological mindset isn't a factor.


    Here's the 'track' bit again. Are you one of those people who thinks everyone is born heterosexual? Or just that everyone should be heterosexual (I think those people like the 'people were born homosexual after the fall of man. We must change them.' bit)

    I said myself I don't think people are 'stuck' being any sexuality. There are ways to change people, but they only have a success rate of .5% My opinion is 'if the want to, let them. If they don't, don't force them' (Ok, that's argueable. It's really an oversimplification.) I'd never say to a homosexual who wanted to change "No! You can't. Think of what you'd be doing to our cause! People would think that because you want to change that means homosexuality is wrong and we all want to change!" If someone is not happy as a homosexual, I don't see why they should stay one.

    I'm agreeing with you. I'm just saying as it stands now there is no (though I hate the word in this case) 'cure' for homosexual. There is no proven method to change a person's homosexuality RIGHT NOW.Any method usually only works on deeply religious people who are convinced something is wrong with them and they must change.
     
  5. Kyubi-no-Youko

    Kyubi-no-Youko Well-Known Member

    52
    +0
    I found this and thought it interesting:

    It's a basic principle; you have spiritual freedom, but not to the point of harming your self or others. Compare this to several of Jesus' teachings. Matthew tells us that Jesus was so committed to the principle of non-harm that he regarded the intent to do violence as bad as violence itself. Meanwhile, John quotes Jesus as saying "Truth sets you free." But what is the truth that sets us free? The truth of love, trust, healing, and divine grace; in other words, the universal truths that can be found in any spiritual path. The opposite of harm is love. "Harm none" is another way of saying "Love your neighbor as yourself."
     
  6. tcampen

    tcampen Veteran

    +141
    Unitarian
    Private
    US-Others
    "The only way any real sort of morality makes any sense at all is to have its base be God."

    Uh, which god? Even if you narrow it down to the Christian god, there are thousands of Christian denominations, and several times more independent Christian churches and movements, all with their own take on what is immoral according to god. This ranges from not ingesting alcohol to being ok to sleep with multiple partners - all consider themselves Christian. And while it might be tempting to point the finger at those who "consider themselves Christian, but really aren't," those other are already pointing the finger back. Sorry, but there is no evidence of an objective morality according to god. It seems like we'd all do well to treat each other with dignity and respect, and go from there.

    I don't happen to be gay, but I have several good friends that are. They're normal people that lead essentially the same life as I, with the same drive to be successful professionally, responsible socially, and loved personally. All are in monogamous relationships, and are a far cry from the implications of those "statistics" from the inhoor.org website. (I revisited the site, and it's propaganda is transparent. Such a diatribe on AIDS alone is telling. I could go on and on about it, but that may give the site more exposure than it really deserves.)

    "A thief, a murderer can say the same thing (that to commit the immoral act is in his nature and thus not immoral). That’s not what I’m getting at. I simply pointed out that you have made a choice"

    I think the point is, it isn't always that kind of choice. Making this type of comparison is unfair. Keep in mind that 40 years ago, if a black man were walking down the street holding hands with a white woman in the deep south of the USA, that man could very well find himself dead in the morning. And the arguments for opposing such interracial relationships were invariably based on what was "unnatural" and a sin against god.

    Jedi, I don't know what your experience is with gay and lesbian individuals, but I can't help but to wonder if you'd had the same experience that I've had with happy, healthy, productive, committed citizens who happen to be gay or lesbian, then you'd have a different opinion. No one advocates the spread of diseases, public displays of sexuality, or people hurting one another. But to link homosexuality with necessarily, or even usually, including these traits is patently false. That is the straw man argument.

    Even if claiming god determined homosexual acts to be immoral, we must ask why? God's morality still needs to make sense on some rational level. To accept something as immoral according to god without some independent, rational basis for it being so leaves the conscience open to accepting anything as immoral, no matter how absurd. So the questions is this, "God thinks homosexual acts are immoral, because ___________________." If one could give a reasonable answer to this question, then maybe we'd get somewhere. (And let's stay away from lazy arguments like trying to use the spread of AIDS - especially considering the vast majority of AIDS cases are spread thru heterosexual contact.)
     
  7. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    +137
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    So if not killing someone doesn’t feel right, don’t do it? This philosophy is absurd. True morality works by telling us what we ought to do regardless of whether or not we are benefited.

    Because any other basis is arbitrary or can be changed at will (i.e. a person’s “feelings”). To get into depth on the nature of morality would require we separate ourselves from the current homosexuality train of thought and derail onto a whole new different line of debate, though.

    Irrelevant.

    There may be no reason to treat them as outcasts because they’re sinners, but there is reason to have a disdain toward their homosexual actions; just as much reason as there is to have disdain toward the act of lying.

    Do you like them? Considering you think they’re disgusting and freaky, I’d think not. I’d imagine you have a sort of “anti-like” toward them, in other words, a sort of hatred. This is not a parallel analogy anyway, though. You don’t like the spider for what it is regardless of morality. Homosexual actions are condemned in direct proportion to morality, not because these homosexuals had no choice in the matter. If people have no choice but to do evil, then it makes no sense to blame them – they had no choice. This is not the case for the homosexual, though. These people choose of their own accord how to act, or to even act at all. Simply because they have a particular desire to do something does not compel them beyond control to do it.

    Oh, here we go with the ad hominem fallacy again. Look at the sources, bub. There’s Newsweek, Science Magazine, the United States Census Bureau, etc. I’d hardly think of these big names as ignorantly “bias” sources.

    If the average homosexual lifestyle is like that, it would be utter folly to ignore the connection. Average heterosexual, not like this. Average homosexual, like this. Coincidence? Hmmm.

    It looks like you and God disagree on this, then. Personally, I’ll stick with the ultimate authority of morality rather than a creation under its rule.

    Now that’s not entirely true. The crux of the issue lies with psychology.

    It seems there are ex-homosexuals who would disagree with you.

    No, I didn’t. You didn’t type what you meant, it seems. You left the comment as generally “pointless.”

    According to statistics, the majority of homosexuals can’t say that.

    If you’re doing something that is against morality, I’d see that as reason enough to change. The problem seems to be your philosophy on morality: If it doesn’t hurt anyone, it’s okay. I’ve already demonstrated that this falls short, and gives no reason to see patience, humility, courage, etc as morally good attributes (as most presume they are).

    I believe in that possibility, but I’m not saying it’s a certainty either. Either way, the conclusion is irrelevant to the morality of homosexual action.

    Everyone should be heterosexual just as much as everyone should be self-controlled and moral. Homosexuality is not the way God intended human sexuality to be.

    People’s understanding of morality does not alter morality itself any more than a person’s limited understanding of math affects the laws of mathematics. There is an objective standard of good & evil, and God has spelled it out in scripture. In all honesty, I have yet to run into any well-read Christian who just isn’t sure what is moral and what is not, or who disagrees with another well-read Christian on some sort of major moral issue. I think there are bound to be gray areas where the Bible isn’t crystal clear, but homosexuality is not one of them, and of those, essentially all such gray areas are minuscule.

    You’d be surprised at the stupid tactics people will resort to in order to justify their sinful desires.

    Haha, what a joke. I propose you do a study on this then. Perhaps you should start by reading “The Abolition of Man” by C.S. Lewis. He surveys all sorts of cultures throughout various time periods in demonstrating the existence of an objective moral code. Like I said, we could get into this line of debate, but it would require we change topics from the nature of homosexuality to the nature of morality.

    What a nice atheistic answer. The problem then is this: Why? You can’t answer that outside of your own personal fancy. If anyone were to disagree with you, you couldn’t say they were any more wrong than if the two of you had a dispute about which type of ice cream was the best.

    Can we say “ad hominem” once again? Look at the sources, pal. Some of those bigger names I think you should recognize.

    "I think the point is, it isn't always that kind of choice.[/quote]

    Having homosexual urges? Of course not. Like I said before, it could also be due to trauma or psychological errors.

    And I would have debated against them too. Past follies of a people concerning a different topic are no excuse to swing the pendulum all the way to the other side whenever a similar situation arises.

    I don’t let my emotions get in the way. Let’s just look at the facts and go from there.

    Hardly. It is drawing a parallel line with the same line of reasoning to show that it is utter folly. There’s a fine difference. Haven’t you taken a philosophy course or two in college? :)

    This is where we get into the nature of morality, a discussion I’ve participated in here numerous times before; however, it is an entirely different line of debate all in itself. For the sake of staying on track, I think it should suffice, at least for the moment, to leave it at this: God, the creator of all there is, as the ultimate authority concerning morality.

    Untrue. Homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% (or perhaps even 5%) of the population. Didn't you read through that website? :)
     
  8. tcampen

    tcampen Veteran

    +141
    Unitarian
    Private
    US-Others
    "There is an objective standard of good & evil, and God has spelled it out in scripture."

    Ok, then why do well read, saved christians disagree on Capital Punishment? How is that possible? What about consumption of alcohol? Or how about contraception? And even abortion (ever heard of Clergy for Choice)? These aren't trivial issues, but often core to our societal debate on right and wrong. It would be easy just to point at those who take a contrary opinion to you on these issues, but you really don't have any exclusive right to biblical interpretation or deciding who the true christian is. We read, informed, bible based Christains have different takes on these issue, which really calls into question this so-called objective, absolute morality contained in the bible.

    tcampen: "It seems like we'd all do well to treat each other with dignity and respect, and go from there."

    Jedi: "What a nice atheistic answer. The problem then is this: Why? You can’t answer that outside of your own personal fancy. If anyone were to disagree with you, you couldn’t say they were any more wrong than if the two of you had a dispute about which type of ice cream was the best."

    Now this is the greatest of straw man arguments. Morality without subscribing to your concept of god does not automatically mean that I'm just making it up as I go according to my own whims and desires. Can't you see the obvious, rational reasons why rape is wrong and destructive? Would you be incapable of understanding why this is so without referring to the bible? How about murder, or theft, or cheating? Do I really have to go thru this?

    Also, there are plenty of cultures with moral systems that have had absolutely no contact or exposure with your Judeo/Christian religious tradition. If only your god could be the source of morality, morality could not exists anywhere that was totally unaware of your god. There is undoubtably common ground of what we all consider to be moral or immoral, which is necessary for the existence of any civilization.

    But yes, now I'm getting off track.


    "Untrue. Homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% (or perhaps even 5%) of the population. Didn't you read through that website?"

    Yes, in the USA where infection and mortality rates have leveled off for years now. But in the entire world, "Over 80% of adult HIV infections are due to heterosexual transmission." - http://www.womenhiv.org/fastfacts.html
     
  9. Kyubi-no-Youko

    Kyubi-no-Youko Well-Known Member

    52
    +0
    I don't hate spiders at all. Just because something frightens me doesn't mean I have to hate it. That's absurd. I'm simply saying it is pointless for me to hate spiders simply because I have a phobia of them. They don't mean to frighten me and if one bit me it would only be in defense. I still think they're gross though.

    Does that make spiders gross? On a personal level..yes...but others don't think so. I try to leave them alone, and they leave me alone.

    Or take me and you for example. I disagree with your views (clearly). Does that mean I should hate you? Of course not. Hell, I like everyone on this board (even the ones who tick me off a bit XP). Hate wastes too much energy.

    A similar thing can be said about people's attitude towards homosexuals. They think the act is gross. Does their personal feelings make it gross and wrong for everyone. No.


    I think non-harm is a perfectly good basis for morality. I mean non-harm in ALL forms. Yes, there's more to it then that. I know. If you narrow down...all things dealing with morality end up at non-harm. Homosexuality seems to have gotten out of that loop, though.

    As for statistics on monogamous relationships....well, there must be enough of us to want same sex marriage laws passed.

    Honestly...you don't want us to be promiscuous, then you won't let us be monogamous XP
    Even if there is a small number of us (now), we're still here. Yes, conservative homosexuals exist. You just don't hear about us a lot because we're not interesting enough to put on the news. Who knows, maybe 'our kind' will spread.

    I think those polls are faulty. I would say this even if they were more in my favour. Why? Because they didn't ask the whole homosexual community. There are still many of us afraid to come out/who are unsure of our sexuality. The ones who are really 'out' are the radical liberals, accompanied by 'pro-gays' (that makes it sound like they're trying to indorse homosexuality, doesn't it XP) Of course, there are those of us who realized "I'm gay....I wonder if we have any orange juice". In other words, we just accept the way we are and get on with life. Of course, then we have society to deal with.


    I understand you Christians want to change us out of love...or something. But I think you're going about it the wrong way. At least the 'we're not going to treat you like human beings until you change' method doesn't work.

    Anyway...loads of love. I have to go to the dentist to get a crown..0.0...Well, that's not until September...but I'm already dreading it.

    Ok...enough off-topicness. Bai Bai.
     
  10. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    +137
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Simple: because not all are basing their conclusions on the Bible. Simply because someone is a Christian does not automatically mean they follow Biblical guidelines 100% of the time.

    You’ll find it’s only the ignorant Christians who see any type of alcohol consumption as bad in and of itself.

    I’ve heard of those right-winged wackos who think that contraception is bad, and I’d tear them up in a debate.

    Abortion isn’t black & white, since there are times it can be the lesser of the two evils.

    That’s why I debate even with other Christians over these issues. I readily admit that some of my fellow Christians aren’t as smart or well-read as they ought to be.

    Hardly. Again, for most of these issues, it seems to be the country bumpkins & uneducated who call into question things like contraceptives, saying that anything with alcohol is bad (even though Jesus Himself turned water into wine), etc. The only real issue is abortion, and even there, I haven’t met or heard of any well-read Christian who is 100% for or against, since there are a lot of variables that get mixed into the scenario.

    Oh, I’d love to see how. This should be good.

    Yep. I really wish atheists would get this through their heads and stop begging the question: You have no non-arbitrary, objective basis for morality. You can’t say “it’s common sense,” since that only begs the question. “How do I know? Oh, I just know. It’s common sense, didn’t you know?” That doesn’t get anyone anywhere. The best I’ve seen any atheist do in this type of discussion is appeal to selfishness. They don’t want to steal because they don’t want to be stolen from. If this is the basis of their “morality,” then being selfish is really a good thing, and selfless people are really quite stupid. The problem expands further in that whatever these people can get away with, things that they actually want to do, there’s no reason for them not to do it. For the atheist, if he wants to do something and can do it without bringing upon himself undesirable consequences that outweigh his initial desire to do it, he’ll go for it. That is a very big problem.

    Ah, but according to my presupposition, humans all came from the same place, thus it’s only logical that they would have similar, if not the same, moral standards.

    Told you. That rabbit got chased off right into the bushes like I knew it would. That’s why I told you from the beginning that I didn’t want to get into this in great detail.

    But again, I point out that you have a particular “anti-like” toward spiders. What is a synonym for “anti-like?” Just curious. :)

    Quite right, but the problem you have is not with me, but rather, with my argumentation & the stance I’ve taken, and so there’s really no obvious reason to direct a chunk of hatred at me.

    Quite right – that’s why I’m not using my personal feelings as a basis to say it’s wrong. That would be rather useless.

    Not according to the picture I painted concerning the men hypothetically tripping me. That situation clearly demonstrates that morality reaches beyond the boundaries of “did it harm someone?”

    2-5% of the entire American population can be a large number of people.

    Funny at a first glance, but surely not to be taken seriously. It seems society wants you to be monogamous, but not in the way you’re thinking.

    Oh, quite right. I think the more a certain people are oppressed, the more some of those people will hold on to their lifestyle. Trying to oppress a people into getting them to act in a certain fashion can often times be anti-productive.
     
  11. Volos

    Volos Well-Known Member

    +164
    Pagan
    Married
    Regarding the site http://www.inoohr.org/homosexualstatistics.htm
    Jedi keeps using this site as his reference for the lives of gay men and women.

    The Facts page is part of the “International Organization of Heterosexual Rights webpage” To say this site is thinly disguised bigotry would imply that there is any attempt to disguise the prejudice presented at all.

    The site moderator in reference to the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Texas Sodomy case wrote: “Who is the attorney for the homo's? Did he take any law courses? Unless he paid off the Supreme Court, does he have any chance of winning?”

    The site has many many faults and it would take pages to go into all the falsehoods presented there.

    Many references contain no information. The idea of a reference section is so that others can examine original documentation and to give credit to the original author. A citation of:
    is useless. What issue of the Advocate was the quote in question taken from? Who was the author? Who was speaking? Was the quote taken out of context? Did the author of this site just make it up? There is no way to know.

    One of the first things I notices was that all but one of the references listed are more than ten years old. In fact the average date of the references used is more than twenty years old. This is not to say that the information is not accurate or usable but one has to wonder why modern statistical data and information was not used. The single exception to the age of the references is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, published in 1994. In this case the author of the site was trying to show that sexual orientation. “…is a phrase made up by homosexuals to try to make themselves look less filthy than they really are. The purpose of the phrase is to take the spotlight from what these perverts do, and put it on the notion that they are just poor, mistreated people, who simply are attracted to members of the same sex - as if they aren't engaging in activity forbidden by God Almighty.” The author of the site might be interested to learn that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has gone through two revisions since 1994 neither of which include homosexuality as a mental disorder.
    The reason for the removal of homosexuality as a mental illness was that there was no evidence that homosexuality was a mental illness nor was there ever evidence to suggest it was a mental illness.

    Of the first 25 “statistics” cited eight come from “Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" by Dr. E. Fields of Marietta, GA. There is no publication data, and no date of publication for this reference. An internet search revealed that there is a Dr. Edward R. Fields of Marietta, Ga. Dr. Fields is the editor "The Truth at Last," a white supremacist newspaper.

    The site attempts to provide statistics showing that homosexual men are significantly more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men. The statistics cited are based on research done by Paul Cameron.
    In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Paul Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).
    A careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed.
    For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample were homosexual and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. Cameron's 54% statistic does not appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain how he arrived at that figure.
    In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether "homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils" (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner" (p. 1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction.

    For more information on Pual Cameron and his “research” http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html

    The site misrepresents the Kinsey studies and its famous 10% of the population estimate. What Kinsey and his colleagues reported was that 10% of the males in their sample and 6% of the females had been more or less exclusively homosexual in their behavior for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. The author of the site adds that “This study involved a disproportionate number of people who had been in jail for sex crimes (hardly a random sample of the population). Kinsey also did perverse studies involving young boys and pedophiles.” The author of course did not include a reference for just where he obtained these “facts.” :confused:

    I could go on but after reading how GLADD (Gays and Lesbians Against Drunk Driving) is really out to open a sex club in my local public school I find myself at a loss for words. :rolleyes:
     
  12. Volos

    Volos Well-Known Member

    +164
    Pagan
    Married
    You are arguing that morality must have come from somewhere, and since you can’t find a basis in human nature, then it must have come from someplace else. You are making the claim that the non-arbitrary, objective basis for morality is God. However this does not put you in a better place than the atheist. How does God endorsing an action make it right? If there was no justification to be found in human nature, then on what does God base His morality? At this point most Christians usually argue that God is by definition all-good, so whatever He says is good is good. However, this is just avoiding the problem by appealing to authority. If we can't justify a good action by saying that it's just good by definition, then we can't defend God's goodness by saying that He is just good by definition.
     
  13. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    +137
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
     
  14. Kyubi-no-Youko

    Kyubi-no-Youko Well-Known Member

    52
    +0
    There is a difference between not liking and hating. I don't hate anything or anyone. Think of it on a scale...is the best way I can explain it, I suppose. I've yet to reach 'hate' on the scale.

    I think Spiders are fasinating and useful creatures. XD

    I just prefer we stay away from each other. I am trying to get over my fear though. ^^


    Exactly. Wait...I had a point...somewhere...gah! I'll get back to it. Well, here's another one. What's the obvious reason to direct a chunk of hatred at homosexuals?

    Honestly, saying homosexuality is wrong/disgusting/immoral seems about as logical as saying "It's immoral to try to find cures for diseases".

    Which reminds me (don't know how). Even if the majority of homosexuals live questionable lifestyles, that does not mean their lifestyle (I mean the promiscious, radical kind) is a result of their homosexuality. That part is a choice...and (for many, it seems) a bad one.




    I never said it didn't. I'm just saying non-harm is a good basis for morality. Common sense is *part* of it.

    Let's take putting your hand in the fire. Say the Bible said 'don't put you hand in a fire'. And you asked 'why?'. Common sense says "because it will burn" Common sense is the 'why' of morality, I think. Like when you were a child and your mother told you not too eat too much. Why? Because you might get sick.

    using the 'curing diseases' example again. Where would the common sense be in not curing diseases? No where...it's ridiculous.



    LoL. ^_^
     
  15. Volos

    Volos Well-Known Member

    +164
    Pagan
    Married
    This is still an appeal to authority. If something is moral because God commanded it, morality is arbitrary since whatever God commanded would be moral. If God commands something because it is moral, then God's commands are not the basis of morality. Arbitrarily saying that God is good embodied does not change things.
    Your view that God is “not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God” leads to several very distinct problems:
    First, this view ultimately puts limitations on God's power has paradoxical implications in that it implies that God could not do certain things that are well within the powers of human beings.
    Second if we accept that goodness in part of the essential nature of God it leads to the notion that if God did not exist then goodness would not be a property of anything. However one can easily affirm objective morality and deny the existence of God with perfect consistency.
     
  16. tcampen

    tcampen Veteran

    +141
    Unitarian
    Private
    US-Others
    Hey, quick aside...


    how do you all get your quotes of other's writings to be indented and colored like that?

    please lemme know, thx
     
  17. tcampen

    tcampen Veteran

    +141
    Unitarian
    Private
    US-Others
    "Yep. I really wish atheists would get this through their heads and stop begging the question: You have no non-arbitrary, objective basis for morality. You can’t say “it’s common sense,” since that only begs the question. “How do I know? Oh, I just know. It’s common sense, didn’t you know?” That doesn’t get anyone anywhere. The best I’ve seen any atheist do in this type of discussion is appeal to selfishness. They don’t want to steal because they don’t want to be stolen from. If this is the basis of their “morality,” then being selfish is really a good thing, and selfless people are really quite stupid. The problem expands further in that whatever these people can get away with, things that they actually want to do, there’s no reason for them not to do it. For the atheist, if he wants to do something and can do it without bringing upon himself undesirable consequences that outweigh his initial desire to do it, he’ll go for it. That is a very big problem."

    Hmmm, I never said I was an atheist, so let's not assume - as that makes an ....... I'm for religion, I think it is good for society. I'm no atheist.

    But I haven't abandoned my reason either. Morality is based on combination of experience, knowledge, custom, tradition, authority, emotion, sympathy, and empathy to name a few. I find it absurd to call selfish the qualities of empathy and sympathy a moral person feels when they see another fellow human suffer, or even to want to avoid suffering myself. That's selfish? If I see an old lady get beaten, my ability to understand how she must feel and understand the desire want to avoid that physical and emotional trauma personally and apply it to others. This trait is a virtue, not something to be condemned as you assert. (I wasn't aware that Jesus condemned sympathy and compassion as you seem to assert.) Feelings of loss, pain, violation, fear, and the like are universally undesirable. When we, as a society, learn to live by common rules that minimize unnecessary forms of these experiences. Knowledge, wisdom and tradition help us to understand that sometimes suffering in the short term will make us better off in the long term, or for our decendants. And our desire for predictability in our lives inspires enforcement of the rules. Similarly, compassion, sympathy and empathy also help us to understand the value of such positive traits as love, charity and forgiveness. Yes, this is a grossly simplistic response to your point, but it clearly provides a viable alternative to the position of "God said it was so, so it is - so just accept it." I may be out of line for thinking god should make sense, but that's just my rational mind talking....sorry.

    "Again, for most of these issues, it seems to be the country bumpkins & uneducated who call into question things like contraceptives"

    Oh, I'll be sure to let the Pope know he's an uneducated country bumpkin. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

    "That’s why I debate even with other Christians over these issues. I readily admit that some of my fellow Christians aren’t as smart or well-read as they ought to be."

    While I understand how selfishness is an avoidable trait, isn't arrogance among them as well? Or perhaps I'm all mixed up and its really a terrible burden to be so right when all others, including other christians, are so wrong?

    While most christians would probably agree on a single morality as dictated by god, those same christains. including you, do not agree on what that morality is, necessarily. Just because you've convinced yourself of some divine inspiration of biblical interpretation does not mean we must all accept it as true. You must remember, its YOUR interpretation of god's word. Yes, you may be right on some or most of it, but it is still YOUR interpretation - and not all christains, even the well read ones, share it. This is why the "it's not what I say, it's what God says" routine just won't fly with those of use who use our brains. For if that were the case, far more christians would agree on material aspects of biblical interpretation than they do. This diversity of thought is proof of that fact.

    Now, back on track....

    I don't happen to be among those who believe in an inerrant bible. This is for many reasons, all reasonable I can assure you. In fact, I'm not convinced your bible is any more inspired than the teachings of any of the other worlds major religions. Paul said some beautiful things, and some pretty ugly things. He was human, flawed like the rest of us. And his take on homosexuality was a reflection of the biases and prejudices of his time. Paul's teaching about women was used to oppress them for nearly 2,000 years - only recently has modern interpretation found respect for women means it is morally wrong to commit physical violence in any form against one's wife. (Remember, this wasn't always the popular interpretation.) So maybe a couple of the bible's authors were simply wrong on this issue.

    I understand this would appear to be an undesirable conclusion, for it would seem to open the door for revisiting nearly every aspect of the bible. But this is being done anyway, by all christains, even though they may profess to only be following god's words as he wrote it. (again, for proof, look at the utter lack of consensus among christains on this issue.)

    Believe it or not, we'd probably agree on what is right and wrong a vast majority of the time - we just disagree on how we got there. (See, I'm trying hard to find common ground.) :)
     
  18. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    +137
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I think it’s because homosexual activity is seen by a lot of people as a filthy act committed by people perceived to give themselves over to their desires without regard to morality (thus, in a sense, being primitive as well).

    Oh, of course. However, if the vast majority of homosexuals practice their homosexuality in a promiscuous way, it would seem that those who give themselves over to these homosexual urges do so to the extreme.

    But this gets us no where. Morality can’t be based on “common sense,” since that begs the question. I’ve seen atheists and relativists appeal to this same line of reasoning time and time again. “It’s just common sense” they say. This doesn’t answer anything. They are saying nothing more than “I just know,” which is really no answer at all. A basis of non-harm cannot be the all-in-all of morality, although it might make up part of the picture.

    Ah, but you aren’t talking about morality now. It would be stupid of you to put your hand in the fire, but not morally wrong. Do you not see how “common sense” is useless in the realm of morality?

    Same thing as above. It would work out to your benefit to not eat too much, not that it would be necessarily morally bad if you did.

    Well then, let’s take a look at this.

    You’re presuming that God has the sort of omnipotence where he can do anything. This is unbiblical, and not even a realistic understanding of omnipotence. Most people define omnipotence as “being able to do anything,” but I think it’s better understood as “being able to do anything possible.” Asking God to create a square circle, a triangle with 2 sides, or two mountains without a valley in-between are things that, by definition, cannot be done because of the necessary truths involved. This does not, however, mean that God is not omnipotent. I’m also willing to place a bet that God is able to do some things that exceed human understanding of logic as well.

    I’d like to see how (without basing it on something arbitrary like the flipping of a coin), since every attempt I’ve seen by an atheist to do this has utterly failed. “Good” cannot exist if there is no God. There would only be selfishness, and something would be moral or immoral based on whether or not it benefited an individual. This isn’t morality, but self-promotion. True goodness is inseparable from God.

    Go ahead. I think he’s wrong about a great many things.

    Of course – that’s why I try to clear up misunderstandings. :)

    It does get rather frustrating at times. ;)

    Not that I’ve seen. Whenever there’s been a moral disagreement among Christians, I’ve always seen them refer to the text and come out with a clear answer, not being left dumbfounded forever.

    Of course not – hence my willingness to debate such issues.

    This is nonsensical. You make it sound as if no one can come to an agreement on what scripture says. Morality in the realm of Christianity is not in as much dispute as you make it out to be. I’m not saying “take my word for it.” You can look at the text yourself, and if you see it differently, we can discuss it.

    Yep, you seem to be much more of a relativist than anything.

    I’d love to hear these reasons, but now is not the time.

    Yep, a relativist.

    Can’t please everyone at the same time. There’s a time to be nice, and a time to be firm. There’s no use in sugar-coating everything.

    I’ve debated this topic quite often too, and it seems that people often times forget Paul urging husbands to love their wives and not be harsh with them and all sorts of good stuff. But again, this would lead us into another topic altogether.

    And maybe they were right, and some people tried to twist the words of someone authoritative in order to promote their own views.

    You’re probably right, but what is also important is our understanding of what morality truly is, and the source of morality, I think, is essential to its definition and substance.

    At any rate, I think this has gone on long enough and it seems we’ve gotten off track, just as I thought we would, into the realm of morality & Biblical validity – entirely different topics altogether. It’s been a pleasure, ladies & gentlemen, but I think my time and energy should be redirected elsewhere for the moment. I’m sure we’ll lock horns again sometime in the near future. Until then, adios. :)
     
  19. Kyubi-no-Youko

    Kyubi-no-Youko Well-Known Member

    52
    +0

    Simple. You just have to know the html code.

    put (QUOTE) Message you want quoted (/QUOTE)

    Except but [ ]'s in place of the ( ) 's

    Also, there's a button on the bottom of each post that says 'quote' and will quote the whole message for you, but if you want to break it up you have to use the code.

    Hope that helps.
     
  20. Kyubi-no-Youko

    Kyubi-no-Youko Well-Known Member

    52
    +0
    Such things seem silly, though. It's like...Ok...say 80% of the American Population is obese (I just made up the number for the record). Just because the majority of Americans are obese, should I believe that being an American makes you obese and that all Americans are are the fast track to obesity? No.

    For another record: This was directed at the general opinion.


    I thought I just said that non-harm was only *part* of it. And a large part at that.

    Perhaps I should've explained the example as compared to morality better.

    Ok. Common sense and Morality are both learned. Common sense may be more subconcious, but it is learned. You stick your hand in a fire. It burns. You don't do it again. Why? Because it'll hurt again. Common sense. Of course, common sense goes beyond what's learned. It goes with natural instinct.

    The Morality part comes because we have a concious. To some, there may very well be common sense in harming someone. They may learn it is good to beat their wife/children. Common sense doesn't always lead to the good/right answer. It just leads to AN answer.

    In today's society though, I should hope it would lead to an answer involving non-harm.


    hehehe. Toodles then, Master Jedi. I too have spent too much time here...*eyes the Science forum*
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...