The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children

[Me Myself]

Ugh, I couldn´t even pass the first part.

I don´t even remember what I saw xD.

I just remember that Milk was boring for what I saw. It was not much admitedly

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Also, you still haven't answered the questions I really wanted to see you answer. It seems to me that it's always walking on eggshells when I ask these questions. Please answer these questions directly, without skipping over them -- please.

1) From earlier, are you saying that you don't morally agree with God's commands to kill homosexuals, but you trust God's morals anyway? How do you know you aren't worshipping a demon if you disagree with God's moral command to kill homosexuals (even if it was later redacted)?

2) Do you or do you not agree that it was justified to kill homosexuals just for having sex before the New Testament? Was it or was it not the just, holy, and correct thing to do? Please give a definite answer on this, and explain why, and whether you truly agree with it.

3) What specifically about homosexual sex do you think causes the societal ills that you worry about?

I tried to remember the other questions, but I'll have to get to them tomorrow. I've asked so many pointed questions that I felt really got down to the nitty gritty that you have overlooked -- with your permission I would please like to see you answer them directly.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty

1. God's law even in the OT was for the nation of Israel, his followers. Generally speaking, neither God nor the Israelites went around imposing the law on other nations. The best comparison for today would be how the Christian community conducts buisness strictly inside the Chrsitian community. And regardless of the era in which I lived, I would be called to TRUST God's ways even if I didn't have full understanding of them. In other words, I wouldn't be in a position to go so far as to disagree with him.

2. It's impossible for me to put myself in the shoes of a OT person because the OT ways were designed to get is into a position to where we were ready for the ways of Jesus. Christians today are the result of the OT having first been accomplished followed by the NT. It's hard to imagine how different I'd be had I been born 3000 years ago in the Middle East in a world much less civilized than ours. I'm guessing I'd be an uncivilized brute wielding a club, or at least much less civilized than I am today, which maybe isn't saying much. Just look at the influence that the teachings of Jesus have had on the Western world over the past 2000 years.

3. I'll tackle this separately in a few minutes

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I thought Milk was a great movie. Why did you think it was nasty?

I just meant the intimate scenes. Other than that I enjoyed the movie and thought it was quality, even if I disgreed with some of the themes

 

[Me Myself]

Let's get down to the nitty gritty

1. God's law even in the OT was for the nation of Israel, his followers. Generally speaking, neither God nor the Israelites went around imposing the law on other nations.

The OT os the one saying that homosexuality is wrong.

Jesus NEVER ONCE spoke against it. So, it would be inaccurate to say that it is a "christian" thing. Many christians think so, sure. The same way many christians thought the crussades were okay in their time.

Fact is, neither crussades nor immorality of homosexuality have grounds in what Jesus said anywas.

 

[McBell]

It has nothing to do with not being willing or able to provide Biblical references. It has everything to do with WHO IS ASKING. Your typical post is only two lines and the amount of thought you put into it is probably two seconds. You make no effort whatsoever to demonstrate that you've engaged the material that people give you to read. You don't comment on any main points, themes or anything specific for that matter. You make no effort to communicate that you at least understand where the person is coming from, even if you disagree. If you disagree you make no effort to communicate why. You basically use one of three responses.

If you simply disagree with something you say:

Argument "X" is bull ****

If you feel a little stronger about it you say:

Argument "X" is a pile of bull ****

And when you REALLY feel strongly about it you say:

Argument "X" is a steaming mountain of bull ****

A second grade audience might find those "arguments" compelling but you'll have to do a little better if you want to be taken seriously here

If you are not going to present, all you have to do is say so.

No need for all this fluff and puffery.

I know that the Bible never explains why god says a man laying with another man as a man lays with a woman is an abomination.
I also know that anything and everything you try to present as an explanation why is nothing more than a wild stab in the dark assumption.

I also know that you have set up your "no integrity" pit and now have no way of staying out of it.

So feel free to continue with the blatant avoidance.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

3) What specifically about homosexual sex do you think causes the societal ills that you worry about?

I tried to remember the other questions, but I'll have to get to them tomorrow. I've asked so many pointed questions that I felt really got down to the nitty gritty that you have overlooked -- with your permission I would please like to see you answer them directly.

This is the tough one where I'm going to attempt to tread gently. I believe in the proverb which says that one can judge a tree by its fruit. The problem is that with such a hot button issue as this one in which things like sex, identity, and faith are at stake, the fruit can be very tough to discern due to mixed messages. When you think about it people's LIVES are at stake in this debate. We can talk all day and night about what the "scientific" findings say about the fruit of a homosexual lifestyle. We saw that demonstrated in the other thread. There is no consensus and both sides have sources that could be considered "credible" by professionals in the social sciences. I sincerely doubt we'd see such differences of opinion if the subject was spore germination of fungi. It seems that at a time when we need them most, the "scientific" community has left us without a true compass. Personally, I came into the debate with a belief taken on faith regarding homosexuality. I left downright disturbed by the "scientific" evidence that I saw used to support the traditional Christian position on the matter. You can say that material was taken out of context, was interpreted incorrectly, did not go through a system of checks and balances, or was not conducted by credible scientists, but the reality is that there was ALOT of it, from secular/medical sources. The material seemed to be pointing to the notion that LGBT activists have been painting a misleading picture about how healthy their lifestyle really is. And I understand that when it comes to the issue of whether homosexuality is harmful, accusations such as the material being taken out of context, misinterpreted, etc. will be made by the position in the wrong regardless of the quality of the sources because of the fact we're dealing with people's lives and their gods, not something inconsequencial like fungi. Many people will not be willing to believe that something like a belief system or lifestyle that they trust to satisfy them might all be bs. I believe in this debate many conmen are hiding behind PHDs and "expertise". Naturally, both sides accuse the other of fabricating research in this matter. Though the "scientific" community may not be impressed this method, one can look as the anatomical make up of the body to see that it is designed to be joined with the opposite gender. Could that fact offer some insight into the proper operation of the human machine? I personally think so but realize that most people don't seem to find that as compelling as I do. Regardless, I've resolved to be content in the knowledge that we're all just not going to see eye to eye on this issue.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The OT os the one saying that homosexuality is wrong.

Jesus NEVER ONCE spoke against it. So, it would be inaccurate to say that it is a "christian" thing. Many christians think so, sure. The same way many christians thought the crussades were okay in their time.

Fact is, neither crussades nor immorality of homosexuality have grounds in what Jesus said anywas.

Jesus doesn't mention every sin imaginable. He does quote the Torah which spoke of homosexual acts so we know he considered it authoritative

 

[Me Myself]

And I understand that when it comes to the issue of whether homosexuality is harmful, accusations such as the material being taken out of context, misinterpretted, etc. will be made by the position in the wrong regardless of the quality of the sources

But both sides have said the same. If that affirmation was true, then both sides would be wrong.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

But both sides have said the same. If that affirmation was true, then both sides would be wrong.

It means that only one of them is being honest

 

[Me Myself]

Jesus doesn't mention every sin imaginable. He does quote the Torah which spoke of homosexual acts so we know he considered it authoritative

That doesn´t mean he taught it was all good. It simply means he knew his people considered it authoritative. To anyone knowing anything about speaking to a crowd, it would be unwise not to quote it when it is in your side.

But there is no dobut he opposed it at least as much as he sided with it.

So the Christian thing to do is to accept authoritativeness from the scriptures he actually QUOTED (like "you are gods") and take all the rest at least with pillar of salt.

He has definetely spoken against OT laws.

One must indeed judge by the fruits which passages are moral and which are not. The same way Jesus did.

 

[Me Myself]

It means that only one of them is being honest

Not necesarily at all.

Both sides´s studies could have been inconclusive. Actually, I have heard this from some social studies agencies, stating that it is inconclusive one way or the other because no reliable study has been made so far. And that was 2010.

You are saying that the side that does it must be wrong, if both of them do it, then the arrgument says nothing about the actual nature of the stuff.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

That doesn´t mean he taught it was all good. It simply means he knew his people considered it authoritative. To anyone knowing anything about speaking to a crowd, it would be unwise not to quote it when it is in your side.

But there is no dobut he opposed it at least as much as he sided with it.

So the Christian thing to do is to accept authoritativeness from the scriptures he actually QUOTED (like "you are gods") and take all the rest at least with pillar of salt.

He has definetely spoken against OT laws.

One must indeed judge by the fruits which passages are moral and which are not. The same way Jesus did.

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Mestimia: do you see that when I'm talking with someone who has actually demonstrated a willingness to engage and put some thought into what I write I'm happy to talk sources?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Not necesarily at all.

Both sides´s studies could have been inconclusive. Actually, I have heard this from some social studies agencies, stating that it is inconclusive one way or the other because no reliable study has been made so far. And that was 2010.

You are saying that the side that does it must be wrong, if both of them do it, then the arrgument says nothing about the actual nature of the stuff.

If we're talking about the findings specifically regarding homosexual adoption, then even the side opposing them argues that, with the exception of children having more partners of the same gender, the findings are inconclusive, mainly due to the fact that enough time hasn't elapse to get an accurate view... if I'm not mistaken that is. There's a little bit more than that being discussed. Issues such as the general health of the lifestyle and its impact on one's emotional, mental, and physical well being are also being studied/debated and have been for a while. And yes, if those studies have shed even a glimpse of light upon the issue, then one side is definately not being honest.

 

[waitasec]

Like I said, I've seen plenty of studies which show cohabiting heterosexual people compared to married people generally have worse mental and physical health, experience more violence, separate far easier, smoke and drink far more. I've seen similar studies for homosexual relationships. Maybe these studies actually give us a window into how the human machine functions best? That's a Christians believe God's commandments are anyways, an operating manual for the human machine

maybe these studies are biased.
if there are plenty of studies, show me one that isn't biased towards a christian ideological agenda.

 

[Rakhel]

let's see, what's more depressing...

1. loving who you love

or

2. being treated as a second (or third) class citizen
for loving who you love.

3 not being able to be who you are

 

[Duck]

Also, on my drive home from work, I thought of something else.

With respect to "studies show..." type arguments about homosexuals and STD's, depression, suicides, drugs, and other correlations with nastier sides of society...

I've already pointed out that homosexuals aren't necessarily (in fact, aren't usually) part of a distinct "culture" or "lifestyle" from homosexuals, but this analogy will, I hope, help to demonstrate what I mean by that.

What's the first thing you think of if I told you that someone rides a Harley?

Do you think of the stereotypical caricature of a biker guy, rude, part of a "biker gang," maybe smelly, definitely part of a different "culture" or "lifestyle?" It's hard not to, sometimes.

But does riding a Harley necessarily mean you're part of a different culture or lifestyle? Of course not -- there are regular everyday people that ride Harleys that have nothing to do with all that.

So consider a hypothetical scenario where a guy says he rides a Harley at work, and his coworkers are shocked and start saying things like, "Studies show that people who ride Harleys are more likely to carry STD's, are more prone to violence, etc., etc., etc.?"

See the glaring error in their "reasoning" there?

Likewise, most homosexuals aren't part of any sort of "homosexual culture" or "homosexual lifestyle." They're everyday people like you. (I can with confidence insert here, "or me," because I'm certainly not part of any sort of "homosexual culture.")

Does that make more sense? Can you see how it's unfair to say homosexuals are more prone to all these societal ills because of their "lifestyle," when most of us aren't even sure what you mean by "homosexual lifestyle?"

It's just as much a mistake to assume that homosexuals are more prone to STD's, cheating, promiscuity, depression, and so on just because they are homosexual as it is to say the same about someone just because they happen to ride Harleys. (Yes, the analogy is imperfect because ostensibly people choose to ride Harleys or not, but hopefully you get the point.)

One should also look at the source of the data that these "studies" use. Many of the studies that conclude gays (and truthfully, its always about the guys, lesbians are pretty much dismissed out of hand, I think it is a patriarchal thing) are more prone to STIs, have huge numbers of sex partners, etc. were conducted at clinics serving sexual health problems. In other words, the source of the data that gays are more likely to have sexually transmitted diseases was the treatment centers that those people that did have STIs went to for treatment, the numbers that went for treatment were then applied to the population as a whole. I imagine that I can come up with similar numbers for heteros if I wanted, and probably conclude that lesbians don't ever get diseases.

 

[Agnostic75]

I believe God takes a much harsher view toward sin than we do.

But if a God exists, he has never directly made any comments about homosexuality. You cannot provide reasonable evidence that a God inspired and presevered all of the Bible.

Human proxies (Bible writers) are a poor substitute for a God to use to communicate with humans when he could easily directly communicate with everyone himself. This suggests that if a God exists, deism makes a lot more sense than religious books do.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to nnmartin: Do you oppose homosexuality? If so, why?

I don't especially oppose it but I think discretion to be a good thing.

What do you mean by "discretion"?

I would say that the legal angle needs to be looked at the other way round, i.e., those wishing to legalise it need to come up with the reasons.

No, that is not the way that laws work. For example, smokers do not have to provide reasonable proof that smoking cigarettes in public places is healthy. Rather, opponents of smoking cigarettes have to provide reasonable proof that smoking cigarettes in public places is unhealthy. There is not reasonable proof that homosexuality, and/or same-sex marriage, are generally unhealthy for homosexuals, and for society.


People are innocent unless proven guilty, right?

 

[Meow Mix]

This is the tough one where I'm going to attempt to tread gently. I believe in the proverb which says that one can judge a tree by its fruit. The problem is that with such a hot button issue as this one in which things like sex, identity, and faith are at stake, the fruit can be very tough to discern due to mixed messages. When you think about it people's LIVES are at stake in this debate. We can talk all day and night about what the "scientific" findings say about the fruit of a homosexual lifestyle. We saw that demonstrated in the other thread. There is no consensus and both sides have sources that could be considered "credible" by professionals in the social sciences. I sincerely doubt we'd see such differences of opinion if the subject was spore germination of fungi. It seems that at a time when we need them most, the "scientific" community has left us without a true compass. Personally, I came into the debate with a belief taken on faith regarding homosexuality. I left downright disturbed by the "scientific" evidence that I saw used to support the traditional Christian position on the matter. You can say that material was taken out of context, was interpreted incorrectly, did not go through a system of checks and balances, or was not conducted by credible scientists, but the reality is that there was ALOT of it, from secular/medical sources. The material seemed to be pointing to the notion that LGBT activists have been painting a misleading picture about how healthy their lifestyle really is. And I understand that when it comes to the issue of whether homosexuality is harmful, accusations such as the material being taken out of context, misinterpreted, etc. will be made by the position in the wrong regardless of the quality of the sources because of the fact we're dealing with people's lives and their gods, not something inconsequencial like fungi. Many people will not be willing to believe that something like a belief system or lifestyle that they trust to satisfy them might all be bs. I believe in this debate many conmen are hiding behind PHDs and "expertise". Naturally, both sides accuse the other of fabricating research in this matter. Though the "scientific" community may not be impressed this method, one can look as the anatomical make up of the body to see that it is designed to be joined with the opposite gender. Could that fact offer some insight into the proper operation of the human machine? I personally think so but realize that most people don't seem to find that as compelling as I do. Regardless, I've resolved to be content in the knowledge that we're all just not going to see eye to eye on this issue.

Thanks for that explanation (I'll respond to your other response to me in a moment -- I felt this one was more important to me at the moment)

From the context of your response, it seems that you lean towards the position that those in defense of homosexuality are at best misguided, or at worst dishonest. For instance, look at how you worded this portions of your post:

"...And I understand that when it comes to the issue of whether homosexuality is harmful, accusations such as the material being taken out of context, misinterpreted, etc. will be made by the position in the wrong regardless of the quality of the sources..."

That seems to me like you're suggesting it's more than possible (perhaps probable) that those who defend homosexuality are "in the wrong" when they question the use and veracity of the studies casting homosexuals in a negative light -- am I right?

You suggest that a lot of people in this debate are "hiding behind PhD's." I agree that might be the case, but I don't think so in my case. For instance, some of the foundation that I'm debating from is sheer first hand experience: I'm a lesbian myself, and through the years I've become acquainted with enough gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and pansexual folks from different backgrounds to know that these studies linking homosexuals to societal ills are being misinterpreted.

The fact of the matter is that there is a culture and a lifestyle of drugs, reckless promiscuity, cheating, and a disregard for sacred mutual feelings among lovers. Where things start getting messy is trying to associate being homosexual with being a part of that lifestyle. Have you considered that the studies that you find so convincing might be skewed because homosexuals who are more openly gay -- who consider their homosexuality important enough to respond to a poll about it -- could be more likely to be the risk taking sort, and include a lot of poeple from the reckless type mentioned above?

Have you also considered that such polls are probably taken in places that are generally known to be "gay hangouts," and thus are more likely to have people associated with a "gay culture?" Think of it this way: what if we took polls about Harley riders, so we polled people in rowdy bars and then acted surprised that owning a Harley is correlated with being a felon with ugly clothes?

Do you see the issue there?

----------

Edit: Also, see Duck's post on the last page about the studies you cite being misinterpreted because of their source samples.

Edit 2: Also, consider how unfair it is to compare the unmarried population to the population that wishes to get married. That's like comparing college kids to settled adults -- how is that fair?

 

[Meow Mix]

Jungle,

Think of it this way. Suppose that you meet the love of your life -- that soul mate who you couldn't live without, who you'd take a bullet for without question, who you just wouldn't really want to go on without if something happened to them.

Now let's say you have, say, blue eyes and they have green eyes... and then some other people come along and they say, "Oh, sorry, we have these studies that show people with blue eyes who have sex with people with green eyes are more prone to STD's, cheating, are more prone to have high numbers of sexual partners, etc. Yeah, sorry bud, you guys can't get married."

Wouldn't your jaw just drop at the sheer arrogance of that?

Wouldn't you think, "First of all, sex isn't the only thing on our minds... second of all, neither of us has STD's, cheats, or has a ridiculous number of sexual partners, so what the hell does any sort of 'study' have to do with us?!"

What would you think about that?

In any case, regarding your points about the anatomy (from your last post), I hope you understand that homosexuals and homosexual supporters do all understand that yes, the male anatomy is biologically "supposed" to fit with the female anatomy.

However, homosexuals can't decide to just start being attracted to the opposite sex. They're attracted to the same sex, and they can't help that. They fall in love with members of the same sex. What are they supposed to do about that? They do the best they can (which ultimately, ends up just as good as heterosexual sex, but that's neither here nor there). What's wrong with that? How is that any different from using something the ear isn't biologically meant for -- earphones -- to enhance life and happiness?

You question homosexual sex because you can't get it out of your mind that it has some kind of moral connotation. But it doesn't! People compare it to beastiality, people compare it to pedophilia, people compare it to necrophilia -- but those things all involve a lack of consent. Homosexuality is shared intimacy and love between two mature, consenting adults that both feel an attraction to one another that they can't help any more than you can help who you're attracted to.

Why deny them of what comes naturally to them when they're not harming or affecting anyone else? Why deny them the ability to settle down with one another and go through this life together in marriage like married men and women do? Why?

-----------

Edit: Homosexuality is found within the animal kingdom, as I'm sure you've already heard, so I think it's completely natural. There are even some arguments that it's a beneficial evolutionary phenomenon to have a small percentage of a social species population be homosexual -- but I'm not going to get into that. I want to try something different here.

If it's impossible for you to see homosexuality as anything other than a disease, let's try this. What if you instead looked at it like a disability (like being infertile)? Homosexuals may not be able to reproduce, but if being able to marry and live with whom they love makes them happy, why deny them of that?

If it's the STD's, reckless promiscuity, and high partner count that bothers you -- why not fight the real source of that (a culture -- a heterosexual and homosexual culture) rather than homosexuality, which has nothing to do with that on a fundamental level any more than riding a Harley has to do with felonies on a fundamental level?