ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUALITY

[dgirl1986]

I can remember when I use to really beat myself up for having sexual attractions and curiosities toward men. I haven't been with a man, but I don't put myself down anymore over the desire either.

Funny thing is, I always had attractions to women...but I thought that everyone did.

 

[Sand Dancer]

one orientation but two gender mates.

Yes.

 

[Sand Dancer]

It simply isn't true that homosexuals cannot change their behavior and desires. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) God purposed sex to be enjoyed within marriage. The perversion of sex has resulted in great harm to mankind, IMO.

Well, when Exodus Int'l "comes out" and apologizes to gays for what they put them through, I'd say it's time to hang the ex-gay lie up.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Maybe you mean it is a different context, but "become" isn't; homosexuals do become homosexual, if someone starts out so it would be a rarity and not the rule. It is just very early in development.

Yes, like during gestation. Sexual orientation happens during gestation.

 

[Mister Emu]

Perhaps, but only in the same vain as part of fetal development

This is, with our current knowledge, unlikely. Genetics and fetal environment provide for a push or set the stage as it were. It isn't a choice but it does have socio-environmental factors. Speculatively, I'd wager it begins emerging at about 2-3 and is fully seated around 6 with 8 being the farthest outlier.

Only if your willing to state that people become heterosexual.

That is an interesting question, whether we are born asexual and become heterosexual and homosexual or born heterosexual and become homosexual. My gut says born asexual in a spectrum(some more some less, much like sexuality itself is a spectrum) towards heterosexual, but I don't have any data to back that up, and it would prima facie be unethical to study.

When people use the word become when talking about sexuality, it implies choice.

I specifically said it wasn't a choice.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is an interesting question, whether we are born asexual and become heterosexual and homosexual or born heterosexual and become homosexual. My gut says born asexual in a spectrum(some more some less, much like sexuality itself is a spectrum) towards heterosexual, but I don't have any data to back that up, and it would prima facie be unethical to study.

I agree we are probably born within some sort of spectrum, but given how social conditioning effects sexuality, I doubt there is any sort of leaning towards hetero/homo going on (given how many cultures have openly practiced bisexuality).
Such a wonderful and wonderfully complicated thing human sexuality is.

 

[dgirl1986]

I specifically said it wasn't a choice.

I know, but that doesnt stop people from using the same word in the same topic but with the opposite meaning.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

conflicting religions will never truly commune. look this forum. you can't even agree on christian scripture! how do you expect to be tolerant of outside scripture?

If it's unrealistic for me to expect conflicting opinions to commune, how is it not even more unreasonable for you to expect conflicting beliefs to all change their mind and adopt the same beliefs? It is more reasonable to anticipate a world filled with different beliefs, but able to live together with a minimum of conflict, than to anticipate a world in which everybody holds to the same beliefs.

no, science has always worked w/religion. you could not even fly to the moon unless the religious had purpose for it, because it is their tax money too.

Total nonsense. You might as well argue that science has always worked with the cheese industry and ghost hunters, because their taxes also paid for the moon landing.

what you do think secularism is if not requiring people to adhere to a specific moral structure?

It's about acceptance of all religious positions, without any one religious position or organization holding power over others. There is no requirement to adhere to any specific moral structure other than those imposed by law.

 

[JoStories]

Maybe you mean it is a different context, but "become" isn't; homosexuals do become homosexual, if someone starts out so it would be a rarity and not the rule. It is just very early in development.

Actually no. My father was bisexual as am I. My aunt was lesbian and her son is gay. That clearly points to a hereditary component to sexual orientation. My sister's son was born female but has been a man since he was about 6.

 

[rusra02]

If those laws are no longer applicable, why do many Christians still quote from them to denounce homosexuality? You can't have it both ways.

I think that even though Christians are not under God's Law to Israel, We can learn much about God's thinking and standards from this Law. They are part of "All Scripture...inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness." And God's prohibitions against adultery, homosexuality, and other sins are also forbidden under the Christ's Law.

 

[rusra02]

Well, when Exodus Int'l "comes out" and apologizes to gays for what they put them through, I'd say it's time to hang the ex-gay lie up.

Is it your position that there are no persons who once practiced homosexuality but now no longer do so?

 

[Nietzsche]

I think that even though Christians are not under God's Law to Israel, We can learn much about God's thinking and standards from this Law. They are part of "All Scripture...inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness." And God's prohibitions against adultery, homosexuality, and other sins are also forbidden under the Christ's Law.

"I do what I want and pretend it's not hypocritical" is what you're saying. You choose to eat shellfish, eat meat & milk, ignoring the dietary laws, you choose to wear clothes of mixed fiber, but you also choose to follow the bit on sodomy because...why? You just don't like gay people?

 

[Marisa]

I think that even though Christians are not under God's Law to Israel, We can learn much about God's thinking and standards from this Law. They are part of "All Scripture...inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness." And God's prohibitions against adultery, homosexuality, and other sins are also forbidden under the Christ's Law.

I keep asking this question, but other than you and Chevron, WHO CARES? Our laws are not based on anyone's holy book, nor should they be. If they were, we'd still have slavery, because that little gem "thou shalt not own another person" didn't make the top 10 list. Which incidentally, finds its home in the OT that apparently only applies to Jews.

 

[Marisa]

Is it your position that there are no persons who once practiced homosexuality but now no longer do so?

Is it your position that choosing celibacy (like catholic priests sometimes do) negates sexual orientation?

 

[Father Heathen]

I think that even though Christians are not under God's Law to Israel, We can learn much about God's thinking and standards from this Law. They are part of "All Scripture...inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness." And God's prohibitions against adultery, homosexuality, and other sins are also forbidden under the Christ's Law.

No, I think the bible reflects far more the culture and social norms of the ancient, primitive savages who wrote it than it does any actual god.

If there is a god, it's not this sock puppet made in the image of dead goat herders.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Secularly, I see marriage as a state sanctioning, approving, and incentivizing the nuclear family unit. The unit that has been shown to produce future generations and provides for social stability, so the state has an interest in it. Homosexual relationships can't do that, so I don't in general oppose such bans. It hasn't to do with dignity, but whether the state has an interest in the relationship. Now, while I was thinking about this, if a homosexual couple had adopted, especially given the nature of our foster and orphanage situation, I would approve of a state marriage, for the nuclear family is being imitated.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the limits involved (though I am glad to hear you don't appose it in general and take a middle road even if you don't agree with it) is that heterosexual couples often marry with no intent of having children. One can have children without being married. And homosexuals are very likely to have surrogate children or to adopt. So all in all I don't really see marriage has having to do with a family unit as much as it once did. Or rather the concept of what makes a "family" is more fluid now.

 

[Father Heathen]

Is it your position that there are no persons who once practiced homosexuality but now no longer do so?

Do heterosexuals who aren't sexually active cease to be strait?

 

[JoStories]

I think that even though Christians are not under God's Law to Israel, We can learn much about God's thinking and standards from this Law. They are part of "All Scripture...inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness." And God's prohibitions against adultery, homosexuality, and other sins are also forbidden under the Christ's Law.

If that is the case, you do refrain from eating pork or shellfish? Do you have slaves or wear clothing not prohibited by God? And so on or do you choose to ignore those prohibitions? Christ never once refuted those precepts.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think that even though Christians are not under God's Law to Israel, We can learn much about God's thinking and standards from this Law. They are part of "All Scripture...inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness." And God's prohibitions against adultery, homosexuality, and other sins are also forbidden under the Christ's Law.

So the genocide, commandment to marry rape victims to their rapists, stoning, and murder in the Old Testament all reflect your god's way of thinking?

 

[Mister Emu]

That clearly points to a hereditary component to sexual orientation.

Yes, there is a hereditary component(twins are the best example, as they are significantly more likely to share homosexuality than other familial relationships). It just isn't enough by itself.

My sister's son was born female but has been a man since he was about 6.

Exactly.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the limits involved (though I am glad to hear you don't appose it in general and take a middle road even if you don't agree with it) is that heterosexual couples often marry with no intent of having children.

These are, in general, the rare exception and I'm softly unsure of whether the state should be invested in ensuring each marriage produces children in a stable home so much as privileging and deincentivizing the dissolution of the relationship that produces. They are the cost of doing business as it were. Though if someone were to propose a ban against planned childless marriages I would have the same feeling.

One can have children without being married.

Which the state has an interest in that not happening, or rather the state has an interest in children being born to parents that have tighter bonds to reduce the risk of single-parent and/or broken homes.

And homosexuals are very likely to have surrogate children or to adopt.

If homosexual couples surrogate or adopt at a similar rate as heterosexual marriages produce children, I would revise my position on secular marriages. Do you know the statistics?