Homosexuality

[cacian]

I was mostly just joking

but I do find the science behind the differences between straight and gay brains very compelling and there does seem to be some kind of link to development in the womb , so why wouldn't that include physical differences?

Hi Bluehound I think you do bring out a good point here.
I personally do not believe that science could ever explain properly and punctually what goes on someone's mind let alone establishing differences in the brain about a straight person to non.

Science as a rule ot thumb sets out to lable things into tags and boxes to justify itself as going beyond's god's creations and unfortunately with humans it is a tad bit more complicated then that.

Science feels that it could only cope with a human that is not straight if it finds a concrete reason, a biological reason, in order to justify its own lack of comprehension and grap on what people are about.

Once science has convinced itself that there is a mistake an error with a gay person say then it sets out to create a kind of an antidote ( and make lots of money) in order to cure what it thinks is a an error.

There is no cure and there is no mistake and there is no differences within the human biological system only maybe one and that is DNA.
The mistake is science because it refuses to face its own prejudices and relentless searching for the unsearchable to justify its awkward existence.

The role of science is to constantly find faults in everything and everyone and then try to get rid of it. If it does not like what it sees then it sets out to desicate it under the microscope turns it into a biological piece of meat and when it has convinced itself that it has found the fault then moves on to create the cure for it like the side effect to try and eliminate it.

I mean to think that sexuality, gay sexuality, is being made to sound like a medical condition is very worrying and frankly extremely short sighted.
What a ridiculous statement.

I consider science's mind extremely weak and intolerant of anything it cannot comprehend people nature and space. People are always going to be different no matter what we do say or think. It is a fact of life.


I think in this instance what people really need is a massive intellectual challenge a huge boost of new brain cells to get them to think clearly and realise that people are always going to be different.

I do not need science to tell me what I already know and that is most times then none the answer is staring right in the face and yet some chose to go around in circles and lands nowhere.

So to answer your question no I do not believe physical features contribute anything towards how a person feels thinks or behaves.

Bluehound this just me ranting haha sorry if came across as rude it is not towards you.

[Charles Darnay]

science is not a sentient being.

[cacian]

science is not a sentient being.

Science is an establishement like religion and politics. It has followers and in big numbers and so yes it is not a sentient being but a group of beings.

[Charles Darnay]

Science is also not an establishment, and neither is religion for that matter. There are religious establishments (such as churches &c.) and there are scientific establishments (communities, universities &c.) be they are not all-encompassing.

For example, when people say "homosexuality is against religion" - no, it is against certain establishments. There are religions that support it. Likewise, your attributions to "science" above are a) overly generalized and b) somewhat muddled.

[Shea]

Here again, I didn’t label it a sin, the Bible did. If someone has a problem with the word “sin”, please don’t attack me for it. I’m not trying to judge anyone, that’s God’s job.

I was thinking about this statement this morning and thought that maybe I needed to make a clarification. Just because the Bible lists something as a sin, doesn’t mean it’s a green light for attacking people. We have to be careful to separate what is actually stated in the Bible and our own personal experiences. There are no examples of the mean spirited haters, such as one would see from gay-bashers, among true Christians found in the Bible (if there are, I've yet to see them). The gay-bashers have taken rather plain and simple statement of who will not get into heaven and (with full hypocrisy) turned it into a weapon. It was never meant to be a weapon. It was meant to be a warning. No person can force another person to willingly heed a warning and trying to force it causes more harm in my opinion.

Honest and unhindered debate is how a good society reaches sound decisions.

My hubby, who is rather interested in a good debate, suggested that I bring this up to you. If you really want to have an honest and unhindered debate, it may help to familiarize yourself with the rules and etiquette (though this really depends too on what kind of debate you’re engaging in). Here’s a site that I found, http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html. And though I’m not at all an experienced debater, I can confidently point out that according to this website, you are committing the fallacy of the straw man argument with regards to your comments to me.

[cacian]

Hi shea can I ask you and this out of context for a minute what doe your signature say?
I can't read it.
Thanks!

Science is also not an establishment, and neither is religion for that matter. There are religious establishments (such as churches &c.) and there are scientific establishments (communities, universities &c.) be they are not all-encompassing.

For example, when people say "homosexuality is against religion" - no, it is against certain establishments. There are religions that support it. Likewise, your attributions to "science" above are a) overly generalized and b) somewhat muddled.

Hi Charles how do you mean by "homosexuality is against religion''?
I thought it was the other way around.

[Bluehound]

Hi Bluehound I think you do bring out a good point here.

Science feels that it could only cope with a human that is not straight if it finds a concrete reason, a biological reason, in order to justify its own lack of comprehension and grap on what people are about.

Once science has convinced itself that there is a mistake an error with a gay person say then it sets out to create a kind of an antidote ( and make lots of money) in order to cure what it thinks is a an error.

There is no cure and there is no mistake and there is no differences within the human biological system only maybe one and that is DNA.
The mistake is science because it refuses to face its own prejudices and relentless searching for the unsearchable to justify its awkward existence.


I mean to think that sexuality, gay sexuality, is being made to sound like a medical condition is very worrying and frankly extremely short sighted.
What a ridiculous statement.

I must admit I had not thought of these studies as being some sort of crusade to find a cure.
In fact I imagined quite the opposite, that genuinely interested scientist (some of whom may well be gay themselves) were seeking to show that being gay is not some made up airy fairy excuse to live a hedonistic life (as some people seem to think) but a genuine difference which we are born with and have no control over - ie proving their is no point trying to cure it or fight it, just let people love who they want to love.

I have always fancied both sexes , since before I knew what that really meant and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's because my brain is wired a little differently.

[Shea]

Hi shea can I ask you and this out of context for a minute what doe your signature say?
I can't read it.
Thanks!

Sure It's the first 11 lines of Beowulf. I learned to pronounce them in Old English when I was in college and set them to music with my harp for a class project.

LO, praise of the prowess of people-kings
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped,
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes,
from many a tribe, the mead-bench tore,
awing the earls. Since erst he lay
friendless, a foundling, fate repaid him:
for he waxed under welkin, in wealth he throve,
till before him the folk, both far and near,
who house by the whale-path, heard his mandate,
gave him gifts: a good king he!

[cacian]

Sure It's the first 11 lines of Beowulf. I learned to pronounce them in Old English when I was in college and set them to music with my harp for a class project.

LO, praise of the prowess of people-kings
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped,
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes,
from many a tribe, the mead-bench tore,
awing the earls. Since erst he lay
friendless, a foundling, fate repaid him:
for he waxed under welkin, in wealth he throve,
till before him the folk, both far and near,
who house by the whale-path, heard his mandate,
gave him gifts: a good king he!

Hey Shea this is great thank you so much and what a brilliant idea to turn a piece such as this into a musical piece!!

[Charles Darnay]

Hi Charles how do you mean by "homosexuality is against religion''?
I thought it was the other way around.

yes, yes it is. That was a typo.

[JuniperWoolf]

I never said that I didn’t value the physical and mental health of my fellow human beings.

You didn't have to say it. This is going nowhere. Here, this will help things along - pick one, if you please:

Possibility one: you are unaware of the extent of suffering caused by adherance to the three biblical passages which might be interpreted as saying that homosexuality is a sin.

If this is you, click this link.

Possibility two: you are aware that this suffering exists, but do not believe that it is serious to any extent.

If this is you, click this link.

Possibility three: you are aware that your interpretation of the bible adds to a culture* which causes much suffering to other people, especially young people who have Christian family ties. Still, you value your interpretation of the bible more than you do the well-being of those people.

*You add to this culture by spreading a hate-insighting belief. All we can know for certain is that you shared it here on this forum, so given that information I doubt very much that you're completely silent and impartial when the subject comes up in real life (although from what I've witnessed of you thus far, you might very well insist that you do just that). Even if this is the first time in your whole life that you've ever discussed your "disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle," that's the view which you represent in this thread since that's what you've brought to the table. So, continuing on...

If someone chooses to have a problem with the fact that the Bible calls homosexual acts a sin, then their issue is not with me, it’s with the Bible.

It's with your interpretation of the bible, which has already been said in this thread by another Christian. The preacher in the pink church on the corner from my house is gay, your view on this matter doesn't reflect that of the majority of Christians, especially internationally. You’ve chosen to “disagree with the homosexual lifestyle,” don’t try to pass all responsibility away from you. The new testament only mentions what we today would consider homosexual behaviour at most three times.

Romans 1:26-27 - Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 - But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

That is it, that is everything it says. Do you really think that those three passages, compared to the multitudes of passages promoting love and acceptance and concern for your fellow-man, are worth going along with something which causes so much pain? The scarcity of references to homosexuality in the New Testament suggests that it was not a matter of major concern either for Jesus or for the early Christian movement, so why is so in the United States today?

Also, minor point: you said that you do not believe that homosexuals are "inferior," but if it is as you claim and you take every word in the bible literally and are unflinching about it's points , then you believe that they are "lawless," "rebellious," "ungodly," "sinners," "unholy," "profane," "immoral," "wrongdoers," and "shameful." You can't say that you agree with all of that and then say that you don’t consider yourself above them, the book that you apparently take for the literal truth (enough to speak up in a public forum to defend that belief) equates homosexuals with murderers and kidnappers.

I’m not trying to judge anyone, that’s God’s job.

Well then why do you “disagree with the gay lifestyle,” or rather why do you have any opinion on it at all? Shouldn't you not give it any thought and focus on the good parts of the bible rather than those which cause suffering and hate? Yet here you are, you came into the thread with that opinion.

There's a difference between being homosexual and fooling around with someone of the same sex for the fun of it, at least to my eyes.

Don't try to get personal, it's dull. I mean it's what makes them happy. I'm saying, maybe it's not such a depraved life as you make it out to be, that of the wretched LGBT. The whole "why would anyone choose to be homosexual?" stance just sounds wrong, don't you think? I hear that all the time among liberals. Imagine someone saying "why would anyone choose to be black?" or "why would anyone choose to me a woman?" Hearing that as a woman, or as a black person: kind of depressing, don't you think? Being LGBT doesn't mean your whole life sucks forever. The primary problem is as Charles said: growing up, teenagers being raised by these people or being forced to go to school with children who are raised by them (which includes the majority of American kids), who might get beaten, possibly to death, or who might actually not know any better than to take what these bloody people have to say seriously. Statistically, this problem applies strongly to teen and young adult suicide, beatings, and depression. BUT: there’s still light at the end of the tunnel (not exclusively of course, but still - no need to add to the doom and gloom, eh?).

http://www.itgetsbetter.org/

If you are saying that merely saying that homosexuality is a sin incites beatings, murder, suicide etc, then you are basically accusing Shea of hate speech.

If you want my line of reasoning, it’s here:

See, your homophobic stance is contributing to the whole modern anti-gay hate machine, which means you're doing your part to dehumanize people into having their rights denied to them. Plus, you know, you're doing your small part to incite beatings, murder, depression, self-loating, suicide ect.

Contributing to a culture of hate and self-loathing (do you deny that this culture exists?), and the reason for doing to just isn’t good enough. The reason is: the bible says so in three passages, three passages which are difficult to translate into modern English in the first place as modern homosexuality doesn’t have an ancient equivalent, socially, culturally or otherwise, and so anyone reading the passages in English isn’t getting the full breadth of what it says in the first place anyway. Can you not see how the justification for the belief is pathetic when we consider the impact of the belief?

Free speech is touted in nations' constitutions in order to give the people an outlet to speak out against oppression. Unfortunately, this opens the door for the oppressor's themselves. Am I being oppressive for desiring the curtail of free speech in this instance? Possibly.

For me, I wouldn’t want to curtail anyone freedom of speech; you just have to try to change their minds.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I wasn't getting personal, per se, but when you answer that question with "enjoyment," it implied to me that you were suggesting a bit of frivolity. That it corresponds with you was coincidental.

But, yeah, it's so absurd to ask why someone would want to place themselves in a lower societal position. I know when someone asks "why would you want to be disabled" I get really offended. And I know what you're thinking, that the example isn't analogous. Bull****. Gay people, black people, even women are all further down in the hierarchal chain than the traditional white man. If we all got to choose our fate, it would be stupid to choose to be anything but. It is depressing. It's depressing being disabled, and I know it can be depressing being gay. So, what? Just because it's depressing to point out the truth one shouldn't? You're just contributing to the problem in a whole different way. It can be depressing being gay. If it wasn't there wouldn't be much of a problem, would there?

[Shea]

For me, I wouldn’t want to curtail anyone freedom of speech; you just have to try to change their minds.

*Sigh* you have expressed the desire for an “honest and unhindered debate,” but are not willing to play by the rules, so there is no point in arguing with you anymore because you still don’t get it. You’re still using the straw-man fallacy (among others) and don’t seem to have any plans of changing that tactic. I’ve more important things to do with my life than to argue in circles with someone who is as prejudice and filled with hate as the people they think they are fighting against.

Word of advice: you might want to open your mind to other “possibilities” because none of the ones you provided fit me at all. You might be surprised to find that you probably wouldn't want to "change their minds."

Hey Shea this is great thank you so much and what a brilliant idea to turn a piece such as this into a musical piece!!

Thanks Cacian!

[mona amon]

I did. You have to admit that, albeit not in this case, there is hate speech that serves as a performative utterance with dangerous consequences. So the line becomes: does promoting the perpetual existence of this speech contribute to hate speech.The logical answer is no, but it is still unsettling nonetheless. Hatred and subsequent acts stem from somewhere, don't they. Why do we have to allow hateful rhetoric.

Free speech is touted in nations' constitutions in order to give the people an outlet to speak out against oppression. Unfortunately, this opens the door for the oppressor's themselves. Am I being oppressive for desiring the curtail of free speech in this instance? Possibly.

Every major social problem must have a million trillion small causes which eventually converge and cluster together to form the big issue. To identify and stop every small cause of hatred will be impossible and might even do more harm than good. It's easier to dam a powerful river than to try and block every little brook and spring that feeds it.

It's better to risk a bit of 'incitement' than to be too ready to muffle free speech, even when you don't like what you are hearing. Of course, I don't mean that the right to speak should be absolutely unrestricted. There are limits on free speech, and with good reason.

I do not have a problem with people calling something a sin, as long as they

1. Do not try to take the law into their own hands and 'punish the sinner'.

2. Do not incite others to do so.

As long as they're willing to let God take care of it, it's OK with me.

If you want my line of reasoning, it’s here:


Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
See, your homophobic stance is contributing to the whole modern anti-gay hate machine, which means you're doing your part to dehumanize people into having their rights denied to them. Plus, you know, you're doing your small part to incite beatings, murder, depression, self-loating, suicide ect.

Contributing to a culture of hate and self-loathing (do you deny that this culture exists?), and the reason for doing to just isn’t good enough. The reason is: the bible says so in three passages, three passages which are difficult to translate into modern English in the first place as modern homosexuality doesn’t have an ancient equivalent, socially, culturally or otherwise, and so anyone reading the passages in English isn’t getting the full breadth of what it says in the first place anyway. Can you not see how the justification for the belief is pathetic when we consider the impact of the belief? ~ Juniper

But what 'homophobic stance'? As far as I remember, she's not shown the least bit of hatred, open or concealed, in any of her posts. Believing homosexuality (or anything else) is a sin does not necessarily involve hatred. Where did that come from?

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood." ~ Coretta Scott King

Merely waving your Bible at your gay friend (just giving an imaginary example here) and telling her that her lifestyle is sinful doesn't involve denying her humanity, dignity and personhood.

[cacian]

I think the bottom line is not to wave the bible or text at anyone in order to accuse or demune.
An opinion is better valued when it comes from the induvidual themselves and not on what others say write or preach.