Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[MountainPine]

You have not provided any accurate information about sexual orientation being a choice. OTOH, I CAN and will.

Ngun, T. C., & Vilain, E. (2014). The biological basis of human sexual orientation: Is there a role for epigenetics. Adv. Genet, 86, 167-184.

Sanders, A. R., Martin, E. R., Beecham, G. W., Guo, S., Dawood, K., Rieger, G., ... & Duan, J. (2015). Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation. Psychological medicine, 45(07), 1379-1388.

The latter source you cited is about the Xq28 chromosome, and I've refuted that in my video. The other source from Tuck Ngun is based on studies of twins, which don't produce valid prove. I've also invalidated the case for homosexuality via studying twins in my video. You've just provide sources of information that I've already refuted. How childish! Here, I'll post my video again. Try watching it this time:

Gays do not spread disease to women. HIV is a disease that affects men and women equally now. Mostly it is seen in IV drug users these days.

That is not what I said. I said that gays transfer it to bisexuals, and those bisexuals transfer it to women, and I never said it was the only way. You are also talking about now. I'm talking about the origin of how it was spread. Just so you know, disease transfered by IV are not sexually transmitted, they are intravenously transmitted. So your argument is irrelevant.

Moral consensus is reached by society.

Actually, society is subjective based on the influences it is subject to.

Yes, morality IS most definitely subjective. For some of the ancient Latin American peoples, IE: Aztecs, Incans, cannibalism was perfectly acceptable. And today, in some parts of the middle east and more particularly, in Africa, rape is not only allowed it is condoned. For those peoples, it is morally acceptable. For you, morality includes finding all homosexuals deviant and abnormal. Those are your morals. They are not mine, however,

If it is moral to them, then you are obligated to respect them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Try watching it this time:

NARTH is an anti-homosexual group that has a leader who was caught with a gay prostitute.

 

[MountainPine]

NARTH is an anti-homosexual group that has a leader who was caught with a gay prostitute.

So? Exactly how does that make the information false? Sounds like an ad hominem attack against NARTH.

 

[MountainPine]

No because you broke secular laws in doing so, if you disagree with the laws of this society you need to campaign against it or leave.

I was speaking of morality. You're speaking of laws. IRRELEVANT.

1) Show me where it is in that agenda.

I have, but you decided to ignore the link I posted in #1911.

Yes it does, just like not accepting someone's race is.

lol, don't be ridiculous. We've been through this already.

Bull****, Islam forbids that actually it is done in many pagan African cultures, just like male genital mutilation is done in Jewish and Christian cultures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation

Homosexuality is indeed not a culture, it is a genetic condition.

*yawn*

No one is saying that a man and a woman being in a relationship is unnatural.

I've never implied anyone said that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Gay shellfish would think the world is their oyster.

PS This thread has driven me insane, hence the shellfish puns.

 

[MountainPine]

PS This thread has driven me insane

You're welcome But I would have thought you were already insane, being Dr. Evil's assistant, and all.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But I would have thought you were already insane, being Dr. Evil's assistant, and all.

I'm actually undercover, but keep it quiet - this is my true identity:

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You still have not provided a Biblical reference that states that anal sex is prohibited. Therefore, as can be seen, this is merely your opinion. Nothing wrong with that but at least be man enough to admit the fact.

Jo...I cant provide you with a specific bible reference for many things that I know would be condemned....rape. pedophilia, beastiality, etc..... The thing is, because you approve of male anal sex which the bible condemns, you are pushing anal sex with a woman because it not spelt out specifically....but logically it would fall under condemnation for the same reason male on male anal sex is condemned...it is a perversion... I don't know why you are so into anal sex?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

HE was making a point about absistence as a response to your point about animals which I clearly explained.

I am honestly starting to think you are just trolling me because I doubt your reasoning skills are as low as they seem.

Show me the point I made about animals in the post # 1929 or apologize? Can't you read....there isn't any!

 

[MountainPine]

Pedophiles are already pushing to have pedophilia as a recognized orientation rather than a mental illness. They want rights too. You can find evidence for this all over Google. Before you know it will be legal for kids to marry adults, and then zoophiles will start pushing for rights..... oh, boy...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Pedophiles are already pushing to have pedophilia as a recognized orientation rather than a mental illness. They want rights too. You can find evidence for this all over Google. Before you know it will be legal for kids to marry adults, and then zoophiles will start pushing for rights..... oh, boy...

Slippery slope fallacy. Paedophilia and homosexuality are completely unrelated, and the right for consenting adults of the same gender to be together is completely different to the right for an adult to be together with a minor who is not considered to be capable of giving informed consent.

Almost every argument you have made in this thread has been a fallacy. Do you have anything better?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

No offense, but for the sole purpose of example, if I believed it was okay to rape women and I broke into your mother's house and raped her, then you would have no right to hate me for it but have respect for my subjective morality. See the error in your logic? Morality is not subjective.

Yeah we would because you would have caused terrible harm to one of our family members. The fact that you're saying it would be okay for you to do this shows that you view morality in a black & white way. If your version of morality isn't true then neither is anybody else's. It's quite worrying that the only thing seemingly holding you back from doing whatever you wanted is the unshakeable (and unquestionable) belief that your holy book holds the key to moral behaviour for everyone, whether we like it or not.

 

[MountainPine]

Slippery slope fallacy. Paedophilia and homosexuality are completely unrelated, and the right for consenting adults of the same gender to be together is completely different to the right for an adult to be together with a minor who is not considered to be capable of giving informed consent.

Minors are capable of making conscious consent, especially teenagers. Legally? No, however legality isn't relevant here. Laws can always change anyways. They have for gays, why not for other objectionable groups?

Almost every argument you have made in this thread has been a fallacy. Do you have anything better?

I don't see how anything I've made was a fallacy. Spiny Norman tried to point out that my example of rape was a red herring and a straw-man, but my argument clearly suited the topic (subjective morality) quite well. Whether you or anyone else thinks my arguments are fallacies or not doesn't mean that I don't have a point. I couldn't care less what you think.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So? Exactly how does that make the information false? Sounds like an ad hominem attack against NARTH.

Because there are some issues with a group saying that you can "cure" homosexuals, and that gay men can become straight, and their head guy gets caught with a male prostitute. And there are also many apologies coming from groups like NARTH and the psychologists and psychiatrists who supported groups like them and "conversion therapy" for the harm and damage they have done to homosexuals.

The thing is, because you approve of male anal sex which the bible condemns, you are pushing anal sex with a woman because it not spelt out specifically....

And you still haven't caught on that anal sex is really more of a heterosexual thing. Yes, homosexual men do it, but not nearly as often or as frequently as you are assuming. And, of course, some lesbians use toys to anally penetrate their partner. But anal sex isn't really something that is a "gay thing."

 

[MountainPine]

Yeah we would because you would have caused terrible harm to one of our family members. The fact that you're saying it would be okay for you to do this shows that you view morality in a black & white way. If your version of morality isn't true then neither is anybody else's. It's quite worrying that the only thing seemingly holding you back from doing whatever you wanted is the unshakeable (and unquestionable) belief that your holy book holds the key to moral behaviour for everyone, whether we like it or not.

The Bible lays out a foundation of morality, as well as the Sutras and other religious texts, however, morality is a degree of conscience. People who practice something that has been objectively immoral for thousands of years or what is unnatural is going against their conscience, whether they admit it or not.

 

[MountainPine]

Because there are some issues with a group saying that you can "cure" homosexuals, and that gay men can become straight, and their head guy gets caught with a male prostitute. And there are also many apologies coming from groups like NARTH and the psychologists and psychiatrists who supported groups like them and "conversion therapy" for the harm and damage they have done to homosexuals.

Those apologies were surely derived from bribes or threats, or because they didn't want to lose face from the public. Anyway, you cannot use this to invalidate anything NARTH has said.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Spiny...the thread is about homosexuality in the context of biblical teaching......shellfish is way off topic....but it is your standard mo to misdirect and create strawman digressions...kids..

People are responding to your assertion that you get your morality from the Bible. Spiny Norman is making a point that speaks directly to that assertion, as I also did.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Minors are capable of making conscious consent, especially teenagers. Legally? No,

Congratulations. You just rendered almost anything you can follow this statement with moot, since consent is a legal term. Informed consent is necessarily defined in legal terminology. What you're saying is akin to saying "It can be legal to murder". No, by definition, it can't.

however legality isn't relevant here.

It is relevant when it comes to matters of informed consent.

Laws can always change anyways. They have for gays, why not for other objectionable groups?

For the same reason that giving the vote to women and black people didn't suddenly extend the same right to rabbits, squids, rocks and small puddles of lighter fluid.

I don't see how anything I've made was a fallacy.

Then you don't understand what a slippery slope fallacy is. It's when you argue against a particular position or claim by inferring a particular result would necessarily follow without giving any rational argument to support the assertion. You did that, so you committed a fallacy.

Spiny Norman tried to point out that my example of rape was a red herring and a straw-man, but my argument clearly suited the topic (subjective morality) quite well. Whether you or anyone else thinks my arguments are fallacies or not doesn't mean that I don't have a point.

Actually, if you are committing a logical fallacy (as you demonstrable have done), then that literally means you DON'T have a point (or at least a solid argument).

I couldn't care less what you think.

You're certainly acting like it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This thread is about homosexuality and bible teaching on the subject.....the wider debate about morality wrt incidents in the bible narrative is not being discussed. Now get on topic and stop creating strawman digressions..

Here are the passages I put to you....wave your hands about all you like about biblical personages who didn't mention homosexuality... they are not relevant to the subject and are not being discussed. Now get on topic and stop creating strawman digressions...

Genesis 19 .... Leviticus 18:22 ... Leviticus 20:13 ... Romans 1:26-27 .. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ... 1 Timothy 1:10

I am replying directly to statements you made about where you get your views on homosexuality, which definitely pertains to the subject of the thread. You said you rely on the ancient peoples of the Bible, whom you believe were wiser and more moral than you are. I pointed out that they stoned people to death for minor infractions and dashed babies' heads against rocks at god's command. Then you came back and said you don't listen to those people because they're "faithless" (even though they were commanded by god to do such things), rather you relied on the word of ancient prophets, the contents of the 10 commandments and the sermon on the mount. To which I asked the question you have refused to answer for several pages now. That question was:

Then I repeat, where do your views against homosexuality come from then? Jesus never mentioned it and the 10 commandments don't refer to it. If those are the "relevant teachings" where are you coming up with your views on it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Those apologies were surely derived from bribes or threats, or because they didn't want to lose face from the public. Anyway, you cannot use this to invalidate anything NARTH has said.

It does invalidate it because the people, driven by conscious, apologized for what they did. They people who used to practice such things realized they were causing harm to people and that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Really, it's not me using ex-NARTH personnel to discredit them, it's the very same ex-NARTH personnel who used to practice those ways who have invalidated their own data and research. No bribes, no threats, but lots and lots and lots of guilt.