Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Ingledsva]

Yes, but the existence homosexuality is incidental to the existence of sexuality which is reproductive in its final cause.

The final cause of sexuality in nature as put there by God, is procreation. To frustrate this ordered purpose is sinful because it's a wilful distorting of God's purposes expressed by the movement of things within nature. This is the same reasoning that motivates the prohibition on contraception, because contraception by its explicit purpose frustrates the intended ultimate reason for sexuality in this worldview.

Natural law is not about what exists in nature, but the movement of things within it towards their intended definite ends. The idea is that one can derive objective moral principles by the observation of such ends. The fact that distortions of the final cause of things in nature exists, is not an insight that that centuries of scholastic thought mysteriously overlooked.

Your belief in a God, and your belief that this God somehow condemns homosexuality, does NOT make such, a fact.


Also, as already stated, homosexuality is found in almost all animals on earth, and as such is obviously normal, and must have a reason for being, and continuing. Thus not evil, or immoral.



*

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, but the existence homosexuality is incidental to the existence of sexuality which is reproductive in its final cause.

The final cause of sexuality in nature as put there by God, is procreation. To frustrate this ordered purpose is sinful because it's a wilful distorting of God's purposes expressed by the movement of things within nature. This is the same reasoning that motivates the prohibition on contraception, because contraception by its explicit purpose frustrates the intended reason (or natural goal) for sexuality.

Natural law is not about what exists in nature, but the movement of things within it towards their intended definite ends. The idea is that one can derive objective moral principles by the observation of such ends. The fact that distortions of the final cause of things in nature exists, is not an insight that centuries of scholastic thought mysteriously overlooked.

Do you still believe all that?

 

[Glaurung]

Do you still believe all that?

Not so much as my main goal was to point out the coherency of the concept of lust. This in turn brought about the point that in a committed homosexual relationship, sex can serve the same legitimate functions as it does for heterosexuals, so what is the basis of the objection in the Christian wordview? Which of course brings up the the concept of natural law and its "objective morality".

What came next was the obvious counterpoint that homosexuality exists in nature therefore it must be natural, which is an augment that can only be made by someone who does not understand what natural law even is in the Christian context.

I'm not advocating so much as I'm trying to explain. If you're going to attack a worldview, then it helps to actually understand it rather than address only facile misinterpretations of it. My actual beliefs are irrelevant. Although I am suspicious of natural law as a coherent way of viewing the world in light of the current understanding we have today. Aristotle was a genius, but he's outdated. He has been outdated for many centuries.

Your belief in a God, and your belief that this God somehow condemns homosexuality, does NOT make such, a fact.

Explaining a belief system, and even defending it from misrepresentation, is not the same thing as adherence. You assume far too much.

Also, as already stated, homosexuality is found in almost all animals on earth, and as such is obviously normal, and must have a reason for being, and continuing. Thus not evil, or immoral.

Firstly, I question the coherency of sexual orientation as a concept that can really be applied to animals. Does a male dog have sex with another male, because of a homosexual attraction? Or is it actually the case that a male dog is just going to hump anything that even vaguely appears as a viable mate so as to satisfy its drive to hump things? Which of course exists for an obvious reason.

Secondly, I'd ague that homosexuality is incidental to the evolution of sex. Just because a trait isn't directly useful from an evolutionary standpoint, doesn't mean it will be selected out if it doesn't prevent a species' survival. Just because a trait isn't selected out, doesn't mean it has a "purpose". It seems as if you're the one who actually believes in ordered purpose, which would be ironic.

 

[Ingledsva]

Not so much as my main goal was to point out the coherency of the concept of lust. This in turn brought about the point that in a committed homosexual relationship, sex can serve the same legitimate functions as it does for heterosexuals, so what is the basis of the objection in the Christian wordview? Which of course brings up the the concept of natural law and its "objective morality".

What came next was the obvious counterpoint that homosexuality exists in nature therefore it must be natural, which is an augment that can only be made by someone who does not understand what natural law even is in the Christian context.

I'm not advocating so much as I'm trying to explain. If you're going to attack a worldview, then it helps to actually understand it rather than address only facile misinterpretations of it. My actual beliefs are irrelevant. Although I am suspicious of natural law as a coherent way of viewing the world in light of the current understanding we have today. Aristotle was a genius, but he's outdated. He has been outdated for many centuries.


ING - And what exactly makes you think we have to use only your definition. We could care less what the Christian concept of it is. We are not Christian. Homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom - of which we are a part.

Your belief in a God, and your belief that this God somehow condemns homosexuality, does NOT make such, a fact.

Explaining a belief system, and even defending it from misrepresentation, is not the same thing as adherence. You assume far too much.


ING - And just what "misrepresentation" would that be? They can't even prove there are any verses against homosexuality in their Bible!

Also, as already stated, homosexuality is found in almost all animals on earth, and as such is obviously normal, and must have a reason for being, and continuing. Thus not evil, or immoral.

Firstly, I question the coherency of sexual orientation as a concept that can really be applied to animals. Does a male dog have sex with another male, because of a homosexual attraction? Or is it actually the case that a male dog is just going to hump anything that even vaguely appears as a viable mate so as to satisfy its drive to hump things? Which of course exists for an obvious reason.


ING - Ummm! Dude! We are animals. That answers the question. We also have studies showing higher primates use homosexual sex to lessen conflict, make alliances, and gain protection, etc.


Secondly, I'd ague that homosexuality is incidental to the evolution of sex. Just because a trait isn't directly useful from an evolutionary standpoint, doesn't mean it will be selected out if it doesn't prevent a species' survival. Just because a trait isn't selected out, doesn't mean it has a "purpose". It seems as if you're the one who actually believes in ordered purpose, which would be ironic.

And there are ongoing studies that disagree with you.


"Researchers at the University of Padua in Italy have previously shown that female relatives of Gay men have 33 percent more children on average then women without gay male relatives. Now these same scientists have also shown the correlation in female relatives of bisexual men.

The researchers posit that unknown genes located on the X chromosome may increase sexual attraction toward men in both males and females. In women, this would theoretically increase the odds of reproducing. It may also explain the question of how (and why) "gay genes" are passed down through generations."

In other words when that Evolutionarily Advantageous X is passed to a female fetus - she is likely to have more children.

When that same X is passed to a male fetus as part of his XY - he is more likely to be gay.


One idea, - it has been noted that there are higher numbers of gay births after great conflicts like war. They think perhaps the female body (under stress) chemically alters the fetus. This makes sense. The mother is under stress (chemical) and the homosexual offspring means a temporary slowdown in the group's reproduction, yet extra help, during the rebuilding phase! This would be an evolutionary advantage!


Another study has shown that women with several male births in a row - have a higher chance of having a homosexual baby. It is thought this is again chemical in nature, to stop an overpopulation of males. Again an evolutionary advantage.


*

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

And this disapproves of it being a violation of nature how exactly?

Because it's found in nature.

 

[viole]

What came next was the obvious counterpoint that homosexuality exists in nature therefore it must be natural, which is an augment that can only be made by someone who does not understand what natural law even is in the Christian context.

I think it relatively simple. If it exists in nature, it is necessarily natural. The alternative would be that it is super-natural. Is homosexuality supernatural?

You seem to postulate mysterious Laws of Nature that for some reason have holes so that things that violate them can still find a place in Nature. What kind of Law is that then?

Ciao

- viole

 

[AlphaAlex115]

Because it's found in nature.

And humans are not counted as being part of nature?

Are you kidding me?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

And humans are not counted as being part of nature?

Are you kidding me?

That's actually exactly the point I'm trying to make!
You said homosexuality is "unnatural." Unnatural means not found in nature. Homosexuality is found in nature. How complicated are you going to pretend this is?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Sins were invented by people in order to frighten the masses to conform to standards set by people.

Exactly! Short, sweet, and to the point. Nothing more than a fear-mongering control mechanism.

 

[Glaurung]

I think it relatively simple. If it exists in nature, it is necessarily natural. The alternative would be that it is super-natural. Is homosexuality supernatural?

And I'm saying that this is an equivocation. Natural law is a formal system of deductive moral reasoning based of a metaphysical framework of Aristotle.

It's not about what is found in nature, but the supposed teleology within it. This is not that hard to understand.. yet.

You seem to postulate mysterious Laws of Nature that for some reason have holes so that things that violate them can still find a place in Nature. What kind of Law is that then?

Not laws of nature not in the sense of what happens in nature or how physical reality works, but the objective moral principles by the observation of the final cause in the Aristotelian framework.

And it's not me postulating anything. It's everyone's refusal to understand what I'm actually talking about then assuming that my discussion of the system must mean my advocating.

and what exactly makes you think we have to use only your definition. We could care less what the Christian concept of it is. We are not Christian. Homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom - of which we are a part.

Because things are not what you decide they are. I'm explaining the basis of the Christian moral wordview, and it's coherency (although obsolescence) and you keep pointing out the irrelevant or accusing me of advocating it as a modern system of moral reasoning. You can't just turn around and say, natural law is now what I say it is. But you're certainly free to devise your own system of natural law by your own rules.

Are you even capable of grasping what this conversation was even about?

 

[Nada]

Oh boy...opcorn:

 

[sojourner]

Yes, but the existence homosexuality is incidental. Sexuality evolved to be reproductive, hence the final cause of sexuality is reproduction. The fact that sex feels good is a mechanism of sex, but a mechanism isn't the same things as a purpose, which if the purpose of sex in nature is to reproduce, then homosexual sex cannot be natural in its final cause.

The final cause of sexuality in nature as put there by God, is procreation. To frustrate this ordered purpose is sinful because it's a wilful distorting of God's purposes expressed by the movement of things within nature. This is the same reasoning that motivates the prohibition on contraception, because contraception by its explicit purpose frustrates the intended reason (or natural goal) for sexuality.

Natural law is not about what exists in nature, but the movement of things within it towards their intended definite ends. The idea is that one can derive objective moral principles by the observation of such ends. The fact that distortions of the final cause of things in nature exists, is not an insight that centuries of scholastic thought mysteriously overlooked.

I think you're overanalyzing. First off, the only reason I've ever heard given is "because the bible says so. Most Xtians wouldn't know a teleological argument if it bit 'em in their natural butts. Second, Aristotlean thought is outdated anyway. If that's truly the argument, it's an argument without merit by today's standards.

 

[Glaurung]

I think you're overanalyzing. First off, the only reason I've ever heard given is "because the bible says so. Most Xtians wouldn't know a teleological argument if it bit 'em in their natural butts. Second, Aristotlean thought is outdated anyway. If that's truly the argument, it's an argument without merit by today's standards.

And I never disagreed. Although certain others have utterly failed to grasp this.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Not laws of nature not in the sense of what happens in nature

If I could facepalm this over 1,000 times I would..

Do you even realize what you are saying? You are literally telling us that the laws of nature do not mean what happens in nature. Please take a basic logic class for the sake of my faith in humanity.

 

[Glaurung]

If I could facepalm this over 1,000 times I would..

Do you even realize what you are saying? You are literally telling us that the laws of nature do not mean what happens in nature. Please take a basic logic class for the sake of my faith in humanity.

Please take a class in comprehension and understand that I'm talking about the teleology in nature as understood by the Christian Aristotelianism of the mediaeval world. Which is the framework in which much of the moral thinking of Western Christianity developed. if you want to actually understand Christian morality, you need to understand the framework that it developed within.

So before you faceplam me, you should make sure your conceit is as justified as you think it is.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Please take a class in comprehension and understand that I'm talking about the teleology in nature as understood by the Christian Aristotelianism of the mediaeval world. Which is the framework in which much of the moral thinking of Western Christianity developed.

So before you faceplam me, you should make sure your conceit is as justified as you think it is.

The understanding of nature by medieval Christianity is outdated, as is their system of morality. Last time I checked, we don't burn heretics at the stake or rip out the entrails of pagans anymore. This is 2014.

 

[Ingledsva]

And I'm saying that this is an equivocation. Natural law is a formal system of deductive moral reasoning based of a metaphysical framework of Aristotle.

It's not about what is found in nature, but the supposed teleology within it. This is not that hard to understand.. yet.


ING - BULL! You keep trying to claim this is the only way we can think of, or discuss in this nature, and that is incorrect!



Not laws of nature not in the sense of what happens in nature or how physical reality works, but the objective moral principles by the observation of the final cause in the Aristotelian framework.

And it's not me postulating anything. It's everyone's refusal to understand what I'm actually talking about then assuming that my discussion of the system must mean my advocating.


ING - SEE ABOVE!


Because things are not what you decide they are. I'm explaining the basis of the Christian moral wordview, and it's coherency (although obsolescence)


ING - Again - What coherency? They can't prove those texts are even about homosexuals! Those texts are actually about Sacred Sex, which they considered Idolatry, thus worthy of death.


and you keep pointing out the irrelevant or accusing me of advocating it as a modern system of moral reasoning. You can't just turn around and say, natural law is now what I say it is. But you're certainly free to devise your own system of natural law by your own rules.

Are you even capable of grasping what this conversation was even about?

Who said that? I told you we could care less what the Christian idea is, or is using, to push illogical ideas.


You keep repeating over and over that it has to be discussed within a "Aristotelian framework."


And we have repeated over and over - that is BULL! We could care less how they came up with their illogical stance against homosexuals.


At this point we want them to check out the science, and the fact that most animal species have homosexuality, and stop trying to make Gay people's lives hell, because of misunderstood ancient texts.


*

 

[Glaurung]

Who said that? I told you we could care less what the Christian idea is, or is using, to push illogical ideas.


You keep repeating over and over that it has to be discussed within a "Aristotelian framework."


And we have repeated over and over - that is BULL! We could care less how they came up with their illogical stance against homosexuals.


At this point we want them to check out the science, and the fact that most animal species have homosexuality, and stop trying to make Gay people's lives hell, because of misunderstood ancient texts.


*

Let's go back to the context shall we?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3972070-post515.html

which lead to

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3972072-post517.html

thus

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3972078-post521.html

you missing the point responded with

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3972082-post524.html

Which brings us to your failure to grasp the context of the conversation. It's not about you caring

I'm not telling you to care, I'm telling you that your vapid post not only missed the context of the mention of natural law, but even failed to understand what was even meant by natural law. It's you who dragged this out to endless repetition by insisting that I must be advocating for a worldview, when the context of the conversation makes it apparent that I myself had taken no position at all.

A real conversation we could have had, was for you to ask what it is meant by natural law, and whether such a framework is tenable in the modern world. But again, you think you understand more than you actually do, so as if that could ever have happened. Put aside your own agenda for two minutes and make sure you know what is actually being said first.

 

[Ingledsva]

...


Because things are not what you decide they are. I'm explaining the basis of the Christian moral wordview, and it's coherency (although obsolescence) and you keep pointing out the irrelevant or accusing me of advocating it as a modern system of moral reasoning. You can't just turn around and say, natural law is now what I say it is. But you're certainly free to devise your own system of natural law by your own rules.

Are you even capable of grasping what this conversation was even about?

LOL! Dude! Did you somehow miss the first sentence in # 531, several pages back?


# 531 - Only SOME religions hold that stance (and people they have influenced through abuse, over thousands of years.)


Obviously I understand where you are coming from.


However, you just used "natural law" in the first post, and THEN in a later post said you meant the specific. This is what you said - note no "Aristotelian framework," !just the words - natural law!

# 521 - That may be true, but they maintain that homosexual sex is a violation of natural law thus an immoral distortion of the interned use of sex.

I posted the natural law definitions - including the "Aristotelian framework."


So perhaps you should stop the bull and get back to the topic?


TOPIC - "Is being gay a sin according to your religion?"


Christianity and it's stance, - are not the only ones out there!



*

 

[Ingledsva]

Let's go back to the context shall we?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3972070-post515.html

which lead to

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3972072-post517.html

thus

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3972078-post521.html

you missing the point responded with

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3972082-post524.html

Which brings us to your failure to grasp the context of the conversation. It's not about you caring

I'm not telling you to care, I'm telling you that your vapid post not only missed the context of the mention of natural law, but even failed to understand what was even meant by natural law. It's you who dragged this out to endless repetition by insisting that I must be advocating for a worldview, when the context of the conversation makes it apparent that I myself had taken no position at all.

A real conversation we could have had, was for you to ask what it is meant by natural law, and whether such a framework is tenable in the modern world. But again, you think you understand more than you actually do, so as if that could ever have happened. Put aside your own agenda for two minutes and make sure you know what is actually being said first.

Absolute BULL! See my post above this one -


Then STOP this misdirecting, Red-herring crap, - and get back to the topic!


*