Yet Another "Gay" Thread

[Dirtydeak]

Your problem is your claims have been refuted and you wont accept it

Argued with..... Definitly

Misunderstood ..... Maybe

Refuted? ..... Uhhhh, no

Stop getting all defensive. What makes homosexual relations acceptable?

 

[Helo]

Argued with..... Definitly

Misunderstood ..... Maybe

Refuted? ..... Uhhhh, no

You have said that homosexuality is wrong because it is un-nautral.

We have provided more than enough examples of homosexuality in the natural world

You have said homosexuality is wrong because sex organs werent designed to for homosexual use (And I notice you seem to have this fixation on gay MALE sex, you totally ignore women in your train of thought)

You have failed to provide definitive proof that sexual organs are only for heterosexual sex

As far as I can see, your arguments are as solid as the Hindenburg on its first landing in America.

Stop getting all defensive. What makes homosexual relations acceptable?

Because its a relationship between two consenting adults who have every right to love annother human being without you laying down rules as to WHO they can love.

But...Im all for compromise. Since you want to say who homosexuals can be in a relationship with, it seems only fair that YOU should have to follow a restriction as well. So how about...you can only date women that are 200 lbs or heavier. I mean it seems only fair, I mean...these girls today who weigh 100lbs...that cant be natural...

 

[Dirtydeak]

So how about...you can only date women that are 200 lbs or heavier.

Cool with me. I dig big women.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9262351&postcount=3

Since we are going to do it this way. Ill give it to you.

However you state that homosexual relations are natural because they occur in nature. What about murder, or rape, theft, pediophilia, canableism, ect. All of this acts are observed in primates. Your on another thread railing about pedophiles (which I agree) and how wrong they are, but then you come here and defend homsexuals on the premiss that it happens in nature so it is ok. So why is it only ok for homosexuals? Why are you pushing your morals down pedophiles throughts? (being devils advocate, I do not condone pedophilia)

 

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

What about murder, or rape, theft, pediophilia, canableism, ect. All of this acts are observed in primates. Your on another thread railing about pedophiles (which I agree) and how wrong they are, but then you come here and defend homsexuals on the premiss that it happens in nature so it is ok. So why is it only ok for homosexuals? Why are you pushing your morals down pedophiles throughts? (being devils advocate, I do not condone pedophilia)

Let's move past the fact that your now moving the goalposts (earlier you were only interested in demonstrating homosexuality to be 'naturally' perverted, while now you're just interested in describing homosexuality as 'perverted' in any sense possible), and take a look at the new issue you've raised.

Murder could well be considered 'natural'. It's observed in nature. (Often, individuals within one species will kill another member of it's own species. Natural selection is not limited to species .vs species conflict. There is also competition within the species itself...).

Theft is a difficult one to compare to nature, since possession is less well defined in the animal kingdom. But you do see instances of animals claiming areas of land, or they might claim the right to mate with a particular group. And often indivuduals will fight each-other to either 'keep' that claim, or 'take' that claim away from another. Whether you'd consider that theft is arguable. It could very well be seen as part of a very primitive 'contract' of sorts - decided by physical conflict. But I can see that the prinpcile - at least - can be seen in nature.

Pediophilia -well, I'd be very interested in knowing how you'd define this happenning in nature wihout asking an animal "Ermm - so exactly what is the age of consent amongst your particular species?!".
I suppose you could judge it by whether one of the partners can possibly be in any position to bear, or produce offspring in any way...

Cannabilism - certainly can be seen in nature -no arguments there.


So now your only challenge is to show us where any one of us stated that everything that is natural is morally right.

*tumbleweed passes*

...anytime now would be nice

*another tumbleweed passes*

Hmm - ok. Well, let me try and help you.
The original topic we were responding to was how 'un-natural' homosexuality was. This stance was incorrect, and we made it clear it was incorrect.
So now that we have responded to that, you've taken that to mean that we think that EVERYTHING natural is moral?

..do you know what a 'strawman argument' is?

 

[Dirtydeak]

My ascertions are not based on morals. It is a simple question:



Just because an act is observed in nature,dose it make it ok for humans to do so?

If so, where do we draw the line? Answer: moral compass.

The only reason you 'think' or 'believe' homosexuality is ok because it is moraly aceptable to you, and thats the only reason. If you accept it on the basis of observed behavior in primates, there are many other behaviors that would have to be considered ok for hummans. The reason why it is wrong for a human to eat another is the same reason it is wrong to have same sex relations, because of morals. Both are displayed in nature, however you only condone one of these acts. By your explaination of observation both acts should be justifiable. But they are not. Hummans have the ability to reason, and justify their actions in ways that other creatures cannot.

 

[kopilo]

My ascertions are not based on morals. It is a simple question:



Just because an act is observed in nature,dose it make it ok for humans to do so?

If so, where do we draw the line? Answer: moral compass.

The only reason you 'think' or 'believe' homosexuality is ok because it is moraly aceptable to you, and thats the only reason. If you accept it on the basis of observed behavior in primates, there are many other behaviors that would have to be considered ok for hummans. The reason why it is wrong for a human to eat another is the same reason it is wrong to have same sex relations, because of morals. Both are displayed in nature, however you only condone one of these acts. By your explaination of observation both acts should be justifiable. But they are not. Hummans have the ability to reason, and justify their actions in ways that other creatures cannot.

if cannibalism was morally right, it still wouldn't mean humans would recieve natural nurishment from eating other humans (hence cannibalism can lead to anemia).. However there has been a debate over if homosexuality actually effects society, and the results came up with nothing negative..

If you want to contest if homosexuality has negative side effects in society go here: http://www.christianforums.com/t2297641-dangers-of-homosexual-relations.html

Also trying to compare homosexuality to anything other then other sexualities which are not paraphilias, is a little bit like comparing unrelated topics, especially if the only thing that connects them is the occurence in nature.

 

[Helo]

However you state that homosexual relations are natural because they occur in nature. What about murder, or rape, theft, pediophilia, canableism, ect. All of this acts are observed in primates. Your on another thread railing about pedophiles (which I agree) and how wrong they are, but then you come here and defend homsexuals on the premiss that it happens in nature so it is ok. So why is it only ok for homosexuals? Why are you pushing your morals down pedophiles throughts? (being devils advocate, I do not condone pedophilia)

Because homosexuality is between two CONSENTING ADULTS, pedophillia is often between a man and a child who either doesnt know better or is unwilling. Pedophilles also ruin people's lives, homosexuals just make conservatives uncomfortable (Which is TOTALLY fine by me )

What about murder, or rape, theft, pediophilia, canableism, ect. All of this acts are observed in primates.

And where are you getting this?

Apes will kill eachother, but they do so for territorial reasons or to enforce the social order and it tends to be rare

Cannibalism....Chimps will sometimes kill smaller monkeys of other species and eat the meat but I dont think that qualifies as cannibalism

There is no rape in the ape world, the females mate with the biggest and baddest hombre, the one who can kick the most ass. They do have daliances sometimes on the side with someone on a lower rung of the social ladder, but these can be brutally punished if the alpha male finds out

You are demonstrating a very poor knowleage of ape behavior.

 

[TheGMan]

Just because an act is observed in nature,dose it make it ok for humans to do so?

If so, where do we draw the line? Answer: moral compass.

Okay, so I'm a bit confused at this point. That's okay. It happens to me a lot . First you say that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural. And now you say that just because something is natural, it doesn't make it moral.

The only way I can see to sort this out is to say that all unnatural things are immoral but just because something is natural it does not make it moral. So 'naturalness' is necessary for morality but not sufficient (as a mathematician like me would put it ). Am I barking up the right tree here?

Oh and Merry Christmas everyone.

 

[TheGMan]

One of the earliest appearances of the word (here the verb) occurs in Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77.10 Although the date of this section of the oracle — indeed, of the finished oracle itself — is uncertain, there is no reason to take the text as dependent on Paul or the New Testament. The oracle provides an independent use of the word. It occurs in a section listing acts of economic injustice and exploitation; in fact, the editors of the English translation here quoted (J. J. Collins) label the section "On Justice"Never accept in your hand a gift which derives from unjust deeds.)Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life.Do not arsenokoitein, do not betray information, do not murder.) Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man. Take heed of your speech. Keep a secret matter in your heart. (Make provision for orphans and widows and those in need.)Do not be willing to act unjustly, and therefore do not give leave to one who is acting unjustly.

Gosh there's a lot here. I'll pick on this bit. I haven't managed to find the original Greek of the Sibylline Oracle online. The version I found had, Do not 'arsenokoitein', do not slander, do not murder. I'm not sure any of these particular vices quite qualify as 'economic'. They are all crimes against person. I agree that is not a list of sexual vices but in this context 'arsenokoitein' - followed as it is by 'slander' - is something done to dishonour someone. Which I think fits with more general attitudes to homosexuality at that time. But I think it is still possible to interpret arsenokoites in line with its etymology whilst still being consistent with the notion that it was considered at the time as a sexual perversion but rather as something that dishonoured the... um... 'victim'.

However, it is fairly clear that, whatever it is, Paul lists it with sexual vices.

 

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

First of all, glad to note that you haven't denied moving the goalposts in your argument...
...big of you.

Just because an act is observed in nature,dose it make it ok for humans to do so?

It's an obvious question with an obvious answer...
...No.

Why would you even put this forward as an idea? Or (more importantly) why would you think WE think this?

The only reason you 'think' or 'believe' homosexuality is ok because it is moraly aceptable to you, and thats the only reason.

No s**t sherlock. How long did it take you to reach this astounding conclusion?!

If you accept it on the basis of observed behavior in primates, there are many other behaviors that would have to be considered ok for hummans.

I don't accept homosexuality as moral just because it's seen occuring naturally in other animal species.
That tells you it's natural, not that it's moral. I thought we already covered this...

The reason why it is wrong for a human to eat another is the same reason it is wrong to have same sex relations, because of morals.

Only according to your set of morals. Thankfully, there are others here who hold a less dogmatic view.

Both are displayed in nature, however you only condone one of these acts. By your explaination of observation both acts should be justifiable. But they are not. Hummans have the ability to reason, and justify their actions in ways that other creatures cannot.

Again, assigning a judgement to me and others that no-one actually made.
...when you're finished talking on my behalf, would you mind if I spoke for myself?

Thank you so much

My moral compass is centered around freedom, as long as the freedom of others is maintained.
Therefore homosexuality is moral, and murder isn't. It's all very simple.

Now, I don't give a flying toss how much you agree or disagree with my stance. If there is to be any point in this debate continuing, you must argue the points I am making, and not the points that you are pulling out of your a**e on my behalf.

 

[outlaw]

Gosh there's a lot here. I'll pick on this bit. I haven't managed to find the original Greek of the Sibylline Oracle online. The version I found had, Do not 'arsenokoitein', do not slander, do not murder. I'm not sure any of these particular vices quite qualify as 'economic'. They are all crimes against person. I agree that is not a list of sexual vices but in this context 'arsenokoitein' - followed as it is by 'slander' - is something done to dishonour someone. Which I think fits with more general attitudes to homosexuality at that time. But I think it is still possible to interpret arsenokoites in line with its etymology whilst still being consistent with the notion that it was considered at the time as a sexual perversion but rather as something that dishonoured the... um... 'victim'.

However, it is fairly clear that, whatever it is, Paul lists it with sexual vices.

Economic exploitation of others….sexual sins…A pimp comes to mind

 

[TheGMan]

Economic exploitation of others….sexual sins…A pimp comes to mind

Not quite sure what you're arguing here.

The point is, even from the sources you cite, it doesn't seem to stand up as an 'economic' sin. Not unless you consider murder or poisoning to be 'economic' sins which is really stretching it. Even in To Autolychus you could just as easily group it with savagery and abusive behaviour, which would crimes against person.

 

[SimplyMe]

Well it seems to be where the battle lines are drawn at the moment. Anyway...

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who takes the position that homosexuality is immoral and that God takes a rather dim view of it. My queston is pithy... "Why?"

I'm presuming that a wise and loving God wouldn't just wake up one day and think "I know, I'll make homosexuality an abomination for the heck of it." I'm not really interested in the exegesis on this one. I'm prepared to accept that, for instance, arsenokoites means 'male homosexual'. Personally, I'm of the opinion that you have to do some violence to etymology to make it mean anything else. But my question is, why does it say what it does on the matter.

What I am interested in is an extra-Biblical corroboration of the position that homosexuality is immoral.

I'm not one that believes that homosexuality is immoral but I've heard an explanation that makes more sense to me than most: that it was a matter of numbers. They Israelites were often fighting their neighbors and it was necessary to have as many children as possible to increase the population, both to have more males to fight as well as increasing their numbers to control territory. Additionally, because of the wars there would have been fewer men than women. Thus the idea that multiple wives and concubines were okay. What wasn't okay were sexual activities not designed to increase the population. Of course, were this true then it would also lead to the idea that the ban is no longer needed today, that it is no longer immoral.

 

[TheGMan]

I'm not one that believes that homosexuality is immoral but I've heard an explanation that makes more sense to me than most: that it was a matter of numbers. They Israelites were often fighting their neighbors and it was necessary to have as many children as possible to increase the population, both to have more males to fight as well as increasing their numbers to control territory. Additionally, because of the wars there would have been fewer men than women. Thus the idea that multiple wives and concubines were okay. What wasn't okay were sexual activities not designed to increase the population. Of course, were this true then it would also lead to the idea that the ban is no longer needed today, that it is no longer immoral.

Hmmm. It certainly makes some sense although it feels like a brutally utilitarian approach to human relationships. But I'm not sure that men are the limiting factor in population growth if you allow multiple wives. I'm sure there would be plenty of other males around to take up the slack.

 

[SimplyMe]

Hmmm. It certainly makes some sense although it feels like a brutally utilitarian approach to human relationships. But I'm not sure that men are the limiting factor in population growth if you allow multiple wives. I'm sure there would be plenty of other males around to take up the slack.

I'm not entirely sure, though I believe it was that they wanted to limit multiple wives, preferably not have them at all. Part of it, too, would be to maintain the gene pool. With too few men you'd quickly get into a situation where too many people (at least on a local level) are closely related.