Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Draka]

Two teenagers consenting to sex is consensual. Forget the law for a minute and apply some logic.

I never said it wasn't did I? I said there are many ages which come up in the consent laws. I'm not about to go through them all as many vary state to state.

Now, why don't you pay attention to the point of what I had said instead of ignoring it in favor of claiming anything else.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I was saying that young women generally don't need lubricants because their vaginas have natural lubricants.

Even young women dry up and have difficulties. Especially with men who are unaware of these things.

 

[Draka]

Yes you are wrong because I never said that poorly lubricated vaginal sex doesn't hurt. I was saying that young women generally don't need lubricants because their vaginas have natural lubricants.

Even if we naturally lubricate, every woman is different and sometimes it isn't enough in the first place or doesn't last that long. And do you think only young women have sex?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No it isn't. When two teenagers make a conscious decision to have sex, and even plan it out and "play safe", is that not informed consent?

No, it's underage sex. We were discussing paedophilia, which means an adult having sex with a child below the age of informed consent.

Do you really think people are not informed about anything until they are 18? Pfff....

Once again, you are confusing the concept of "being informed" with the legal concept of informed consent.

 

[MountainPine]

Oh shoot, here:


http://brainblogger.com/2015/05/14/homosexuality-in-the-brain/


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/23/GR2008062300060.html

There are many more articles about this out there if you would bother to look.

I clicked the link to the first source, this is what is said at the end: "So, are people born gay or lesbian? Scientists hesitate to provide a conclusive answer." FAIL. Nice try though.

 

[MountainPine]

No, it's underage sex. We were discussing paedophilia, which means an adult having sex with a child below the age of informed consent.

What about a 19 year-old with a 17 year-old? That's hardly an age difference.

Once again, you are confusing the concept of "being informed" with the legal concept of informed consent.

Consent is consent. Legal vs. illegal is not always a matter of right vs. wrong. If the law allowed pedophilia then you wouldn't have a problem with it, right?

 

[Draka]

I clicked the link to the first source, this is what is said at the end: "So, are people born gay or lesbian? Scientists hesitate to provide a conclusive answer." FAIL. Nice try though.

Ok, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the brain forms in utero and orientation is most likely formed at that time, let's just say it was formed after birth. So what? Do you control the wiring of your brain? No. It is something beyond your control. It is biological. Neurological. Not a choice. Why don't you even try, just a little, to understand that? One can't choose their orientation. I could no more choose to be a lesbian than I could choose to be black or 6'4" or have size 2 foot size. It is biologically impossible. I can't rewire myself, I can't change who I essentially am.

 

[Draka]

Consent is consent. Legal vs. illegal is not always a matter of right vs. wrong. If the law allowed pedophilia then you wouldn't have a problem with it, right?

You do realize that the reason the laws have come about when it comes to sex and minors is because psychologists have found that those under certain ages are mentally and emotionally incapable of fully understanding, and thus consenting, to full sexual relationships. There is a clear victim in the case. It would never be legally allowed. Again...there IS NO VICTIM in regards to homosexuality in general. None. Not there. No crime. No perpetrator. Can't compare. Not just apples and oranges, this is apples and carburetors.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Knows or thinks? I know for a fact it is not genetic, and anyone who says it is not a choice is consciously lying.

Nonsense. So tell me then, when did you make the conscious choice to be heterosexual?

Or did you just find yourself attracted to members of the opposite sex one day like basically every other person who is heterosexual?


Shadow Wolf and Draka gave you entire explanations as to the chemical and epigenetic evidence we have that shows that sexual orientation is something we are born with.

Would you eat your kids in a survival situation? It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior and vice-versa.

We’re talking about whether something is natural or not. NOT, whether it is “good” or “bad.”

Human nature is different than animal nature.

Not so much, no. Humans are animals. Animals have sympathetic nervous systems just like human beings do.

We are conscious beings who think think our minds

Animals are conscious beings as well. Have you never seen a gorilla before?

We have a concept of morality, decency, logic, and reasoning. We can invent complex materials, and create civilizations, cultures, ideals, etc. Animals are only bound to their instincts. They don't know why they do what they do, nor why they need to fit in where they fit in. They just do according to instinct. Animals are not naturally sexual like humans are. They only have sex during mating season to propagate their species, and sometimes, like I said before, to dominate another animal (anal sex). Again, no animal will ever engage in prolonged homosexual activity to the exclusion of heterosexuality.

Animals aren’t naturally sexual like human beings?

There is evidence that dolphins, pigs and some other primates engage in sex for pleasure and/or are capable of feeling pleasure when having sex. Pregnant female gorillas have been known to use sex in order to as a tactic to thwart their rivals, I.e. they are not having sex merely to procreate during a specific mating period. Male zebra finches, gulls and penguins have been observed bonding in long-term same-sex pairings even when females were introduced to them. So it appears your views on this are a bit outdated.

I was wrong for saying that "survival mode" is not natural behavior. It is not behavior at all, it has a state of mind that is "switched on" in particular situations. The behavior is the actions that proceed from that state of mind. But even animals will hesitate to eat their young and try to search for food, and will only do it as a last resort.

It is considered a behavior. I’m glad that you can concede that it is natural though because I was wondering what on earth you were talking about.

The first question is off-topic, so I will not answer that, and the second one doesn't deserve an answer because you asked it in order to lead to an ad hominem attack, and it's a stupid question.

Both questions were in response to a comment you made.

Why assume that’s where I was going when I haven’t made any ad hominem attacks at all in this thread?

Knows or thinks? I know for a fact it is not genetic, and anyone who says it is not a choice is consciously lying.




Would you eat your kids in a survival situation? It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior and vice-versa. Human nature is different than animal nature. We are conscious beings who think with our minds. We have a concept of morality, decency, logic, and reasoning. We can invent complex materials, and create civilizations, cultures, ideals, etc. Animals are only bound to their instincts. They don't know why they do what they do, nor why they need to fit in where they fit in. They just do according to instinct. Animals are not naturally sexual like humans are. They only have sex during mating season to propagate their species, and sometimes, like I said before, to dominate another animal (anal sex). Again, no animal will ever engage in prolonged homosexual activity to the exclusion of heterosexuality.

I was wrong for saying that "survival mode" is not natural behavior. It is not behavior at all, it has a state of mind that is "switched on" in particular situations. The behavior is the actions that proceed from that state of mind. But even animals will hesitate to eat their young and try to search for food, and will only do it as a last resort.



The first question is off-topic, so I will not answer that, and the second one doesn't deserve an answer because you asked it in order to lead to an ad hominem attack, and it's a stupid question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The pest again....what don't you understand about off topic nonsense? This thread is about the morality of homosexuality according to the bible....here are the passages I present to you.....Genesis 19 .... Leviticus 18:22 ... Leviticus 20:13 ... Romans 1:26-27 .. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ... 1 Timothy 1:10 Now the subject of my dietary habits in the context of biblical rules is not what the OP is about....it is not the issue being discussed....so don't change the subject and read the linked passages above for your understanding of morality as it pertains to homosexuality...

I fail to believe you are actually this obtuse.

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?

 

[jeager106]

Sadly "it" is a sin according to most Christian religions.
That said I am a chemically dependent person addicted to booze and pain meds.
I just got out of a 2 week rehab that is trying to save my life as I will surely die if I
don't stop boozing and using.
One of my helpers is openly gay.
I LOVE him.
Not at all in a sexual way but in a family way.
He is sober for 20 + years and he knows I am not even close to being
gay and he loves me anyway.
H0W SPECIAL IS THAT?
He is keeping me ALIVE, not trying to be sexual in any way.
Do I love him????????????????
Hell YES I do!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What about a 19 year-old with a 17 year-old? That's hardly an age difference.

That is still potentially statutory rape at the very least. How is this relevant to our earlier discussion?

Consent is consent. Legal vs. illegal is not always a matter of right vs. wrong. If the law allowed pedophilia then you wouldn't have a problem with it, right?

No, I would still have a problem with it, because it would still be an emotionally mature adult sleeping with a child who has no proven emotional maturity to deal with the potential consequences of the action or its implications. You seem to be leading this discussion on a completely random tangent. I'm not debating law with you. I'm refuting your ridiculous slippery slope fallacy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

First I want to thank @SkepticThinker for pointing out @ImmortalFlame 's post addressing this because I remember it being one of those head slapping moments when I read through this thread earlier.

This is a whole lot of "no". If you find yourself in a situation where someone is doing something which makes you uncomfortable, and the thing they are doing is completely legal for them to be doing and they have every right to do so, then it is not them that need removed from the situation, but you. If you find yourself in a designated smoking area and there is someone smoking there and you don't like the smoke the YOU leave that area. You do not make them put out their cigarette. In a public setting, where the public has rights, if you don't like any part of the public exercising those rights then YOU leave. Not them.

Likewise, if someone works in the public sector, their wages paid by tax money, then they work for ALL the public whether they religiously agree with anyone or not. If a person cannot separate their beliefs from the job they are to do then perhaps they should not have that job. That goes for not just judges and country clerks and the like, but also for businesses who intend to make their money in the public sector. In businesses which deal with public accommodation one cannot simply refuse service to someone because they are black, or because they are female, or because they are...gay. When one takes this absurd idea that it is okay to discriminate against homosexuals if your religion makes you think that you don't have to "deal with" them just how far does that go? Providing car insurance? Medical care? Adoption services? Or do you simply draw the line at businesses which deal in the business of matrimony? Discrimination is discrimination and if you go into a job or business in which you are going to have to be dealing with the public then that means ALL the public. If a person can't handle that without discriminating against people then perhaps they should work in such lines of work.

 

[Draka]

Sadly "it" is a sin according to most Christian religions.
That said I am a chemically dependent person addicted to booze and pain meds.
I just got out of a 2 week rehab that is trying to save my life as I will surely die if I
don't stop boozing and using.
One of my helpers is openly gay.
I LOVE him.
Not at all in a sexual way but in a family way.
He is sober for 20 + years and he knows I am not even close to being
gay and he loves me anyway.
H0W SPECIAL IS THAT?
He is keeping me ALIVE, not trying to be sexual in any way.
Do I love him????????????????
Hell YES I do!

People are people, human beings with hopes, fears, dreams, emotions, weaknesses and strengths. Our orientation doesn't change any of that. If we'd all see each other as just people we would all be more happy.

And strength and blessings to you and yours.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I clicked the link to the first source, this is what is said at the end: "So, are people born gay or lesbian? Scientists hesitate to provide a conclusive answer." FAIL. Nice try though.

Let's make a scientific experiment of this. Our research question/postion/statement will be that sexual orientation is a choice. We'll take you, and other "it's not a choice" members here for our experiment group. Our control group will be identified heterosexuals who do not believe it's a choice. We will then proceed to have all subjects attempt to get frisky with someone of the same sex. We will record brain waves as well as genital response.
But, I really don't need that to know you aren't going to get a hard on trying to screw a guy, and you aren't going to enjoy it, no matter how hard you try to choose to enjoy it. We also won't see much satisfaction from our heterosexual control group.
Void the null hypothesis.

 

[MountainPine]

That is still potentially statutory rape at the very least. How is this relevant to our earlier discussion?

Only according to the law, not according to nature.

Male zebra finches, gulls and penguins have been observed bonding in long-term same-sex pairings even when females were introduced to them

Mhmm, sure. Just like the male penguin in the San Fransisco zoo bonded with another male until it died, and bonded with a female afterward. Critics were saying the penguin "was in denial" LOL! (source)

Nonsense. So tell me then, when did you make the conscious choice to be heterosexual?

Or did you just find yourself attracted to members of the opposite sex one day like basically every other person who is heterosexual?

Honestly, I didn't have any interest in sex until I hit puberty when I was 12. I was curious in both sexes at the time, but found women to be appealing. Homosexuals are still in that "curiosity" stage, and never grew up.

 

[Draka]

Honestly, I didn't have any interest in sex until I hit puberty when I was 12. I was curious in both sexes at the time, but found women to be appealing. Homosexuals are still in that "curiosity" stage, and never grew up.

Or you could just be bisexual and limiting yourself to women due to religious instruction.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Only according to the law, not according to nature.

We are TALKING about law. "Statutory rape" doesn't exist in nature - it's entirely defined by LAW. Why are you having so much difficulty understanding this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Mhmm, sure. Just like the male penguin in the San Fransisco zoo bonded with another male until it died, and bonded with a female afterward. Critics were saying the penguin "was in denial" LOL! (source)

What I posted were observable instances of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

Are you seriously linking me to Conservapedia??

Regardless of what your Conservapedia page says (and I read it), you have to admit that the penguins discussed in the article engaged in homosexual pair bonding behavior.

Honestly, I didn't have any interest in sex until I hit puberty when I was 12. I was curious in both sexes at the time, but found women to be appealing. Homosexuals are still in that "curiosity" stage, and never grew up.

So you didn't consciously choose your sexual orientation. Thank you.

The rest of this answer is garbage.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Homosexuals are still in that "curiosity" stage, and never grew up.

No, bi-curious people are in a curious stage. Homosexuals know what they like. And what they like isn't the opposite sex.