Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
1robin said:
Why are the actions of monogamous, healthy homosexuals wrong?
What makes an action right?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
why can't we have a relationship with other men?
- Thread starter davidthegreek
- Start date
Why are the actions of monogamous, healthy homosexuals wrong?
What makes an action right?
Ken Brown
Well-Known Member
Hi tumbleweed41, but then you are not living by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of G-d. Speaking of misogynism, the hatred of G-d is much more prevalent than the hatred of women, and there are extreme consequences for hating Him (Psa 68:1) KB
averageJOE
zombie
Mom: Daughter!! Daughter whats wrong?!
Daughter: (crying) Mom! I was just raped!!!!!
Mom: What??!! Do you know who did it?
Daughter: Yes! That mean boy who lives next door!
Mom: (Sigh) Well, go jump in the shower and I will go over there and talk with his parents to start making the wedding plan.
Daughter: WHAT???!!!! I want that monster to rot in prison!!!
Mom: YOU HATE GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No. It isn't my only two choices. The rapist committed a crime, and should be prosecuted.
I choose not to live in such a theocracy. And enforcing a law that says any woman should stay with a man who raped her is the very definition of cruelty.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
- The God I believe in does not have the anthropomorphic qualities you speak of.
- I have no hatred of the God I believe in.
- I do not hate the God you speak of. It would be foolish to hate something one does not believe to exist.
- IMHO, the misogynism advocated by yourself is the the result of patriarchy, not divine revelation.
I don't see a problem with that in the god you describe.
I will bear those consequences in the name of justice. It is not for the hatred of women that I'm a feminist, but for justice.
A man who rapes another man commits a crime and would be punished. The same must be true if a man rapes a woman or a woman rapes a man(yes, that can and does happen). Rape is rape, regardless of the genders involved, and the consequences must be equal.
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
Hmmm I dont remember God speaking these words...
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts #574, #575, #579, #580, and #581.
If you believe the majority of the largely false and misleading claims in your post #304, it is no wonder that you oppose homosexuality as much as you do.
If you believe the majority of the largely false and misleading claims in your post #304, it is no wonder that you oppose homosexuality as much as you do.
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
The attempt of well-reasoned bigotry is always such a pathetic display.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I have had issues at work and could not post much. Sorry. I will assume answering this post will satisfy all the ones that were combined here. You and a few others have used the idea that if not every single gay person has a disease that is an argument for allowing the practice. I can't even begin to comprehend why you think that would be. I wanted someone to finally explain why you think this.
It is absolutely perfect logic if heterosexuality had much lower numbers. If I was to say that stealing a candy bar was wrong but buying one was right. Does that statement change if only 20% of the thefts are punished? Homosexuality adds greatly to suffering. It kills and harms millions, costs billions, and even hurts ones who do not do it and does not have any corresponding gain to even begin of justify it. That is true even if only 20% of them have a disease. This is quite absurd. It is as if you have thought up some arbitrary percentage that determines that anything less makes it moral and anything more simply means you must find another way to justify it. This is why I was saying these are the worst arguments I have seen for anything, ever.
That has no relevance. Why in the world is 20% (which is at least 100s of thousands) ok with you, when the actions have no justification and are voluntary?
I do not think I have even mentioned aids more than a time or two. You could cure aids but the rest of the STDs would still make it absurdly destructive.
That is exactly why gluttony is also considered a sin. Nature agrees with the Bible and abhors errant behavior. If we were discussing Obesity I would have said the same thing. However I don't think you will. Do you think obesity is morally wrong? Do you think anything is?
I have made no claims about treatments. I am not qualified and having a treatment or not having one, a bad one or good one has no effect on whether something is wrong or right. That would be a theological or medical discussion of another type. By this very strange logic are we to release all prisoners because rehabilitation has not been very successful? I will add that if nothing else worked abstinence would be a perfectly effective solution. I do not want to hear any pseudo psychology about abstinence causing terrible problems. When in the Navy I had to practice it quite often and it is practiced by tens of thousands of Catholic priests and others, and they have led satisfied fulfilled lives. I just can't get past how ineffective these arguments are. You seem to suggest that unless I can provide a cure for every murderer I must allow the practice. Where do you this logic?
Psychology is not a science. It is a pseudoscience. Freud was an idiot. This argument besides being just incorrect is also against you. Whatever level of emotional trauma you invent or find a psychologist has invented would be a fraction of the over whelming impact of practicing homosexuality. You are basically saying let's do it even though it will kill 100,000 people a year so we can avoid making 1,000 frustrated (even if that was true). That is not even to mention the trauma that having same sex parents or a gay father has had on children. Since we modern moral relativists adopted the insanity contained in your arguments we have to keep a large number of kids doped up every day and even then they shoot up schools. We are not going in the right direction and people like you are steering this wayward ship. Keep it up too much longer and we will be shipwrecked.
Of course it is strong and I do not suggest that either prostitutes or homosexuality can be stopped, I am only suggesting it isn't sustained or validated. As a Christian I more than most know very well we are imperfect and homosexuality is just one of those imperfections. I have never acted in any way but a sympathetic and respectful manner with them and offer the same understanding and forgiveness I require for myself when I mess up. The colossal difference is that I do not justify or call correct mistakes I nor they make. I may drink too much and drive (though currently I don't drink at all) and I may hope someone would stop me and drive me home but I would never insist drinking too much and driving is ok, a biological necessity (I am a native American), or should be validated by anyone. It is wrong and I was wrong.
This is just plain weird. Of course sex is enjoyable, I never suggested anything else, so is smoking (or whatever you do with) meth. God made sex (a gift) and he made the rules that govern the practice. You suggest we take the gift, break the rules, deny the source of the gift, and suggest defending the abuse of the gift as a right even if it kills millions. When we get out of bounds even nature as well as God punish the practice. That verse above describes a heterosexual situation so I have no idea what you thought it proved.
Some where I saw a claim you made that if no solution exists then the act is determined to be no fault. That is quite absurd. That would only even be considered if the act was unavoidable and this one isn't.
Your arguments sound like the type of reasoning a child gives for his deserving a pony. People who want bad enough to validate something will do so by any means possible.
1. Only 1 out of 5 instead of 100% aids infection does not make the act right or defendable.
2. With God the act is absolutely wrong. Without God the subjective governing moral dynamic is maximum human flourishing, and it would still be wrong.
3. It has no gain that justifies it's terrible negative effects.
You are literally demanding that an act of lust that will cause a great increase in human suffering even for people who do not do it is morally good and to even suggest it isn't is morally wrong. This is moral insanity and a sympton of modern secularism.
4. A Proverb about heterosexuality is not a defense for homosexuality.
Unless you can give good reasons for your views I can't justify these long posts much longer.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
I agree 100 %. No matter what laws man creates to justify his substtituting intellectualism for intuitive humanistic nature, nature will still give its due reward to the resistance we hold against it.(worded for the unbelieving)
Laws will never take away the depression,anxiety, and any other imbalance that comes from nature as being a result of our being out of alignment with it.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
The second question is a much better point than the previous ones. The first is easy to resolve but the second is interesting.
The first is as invalid as saying Russian Roulette is morally sound because only one in six times does anyone get killed. Murder is not right if they murderer escapes capture. The killing of babies as a form of birth control is not right even if a percentage of the mothers never have any residual emotional trauma. Cannibalism produces a certain strange disease called Kuru. Is Cannibalism right or should be allowed because not all the cannibals get the disease? This argument is invalid and bizarre and even if I defended homosexuality would never ever use it.
The second is a little more meaningful but I think capable of resolving. You keep attempting to somehow indicate that my religious views put me on lower moral ground than you and that is quite absurd and will fail here as well. With God homosexuality is a crime against the stated purpose of human sexuality however even without God it is no less wrong but takes more words to illustrate.
I debate mostly religious issues and have gained some competence and familiarity with both positions on most issues. Moral relativists, evolutionists, materialists and subjectivists make the same type of claim concerning morality. 90% say morality is determined by human flourishing (that is ridiculous but that is another subject), the more realistic 10% say morality is an illusion without God. They say evolution produces the desirability or undesirability of an act but there is no moral dimension to it. The 10% are more logical than the 90% but either position suggests homosexuality is either immoral or un desirable. It increases the total human suffering of humanity without a corresponding gain that justifies it. In either system it is not justifiable. Talk about against human flourishing, if every one was a homosexual there would be no humans after a generation or two. Even if you could prove God does not exist and prove that morals are an illusion it still would not be justified.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Well said. I looked up homosexuality is destructive and got one and a half million hits. I read the third one I saw and only made it two pages before I got so sick at my stomach I could not endure it. Nature rejects homosexuality as sternly as it has canabalism, drunkeness, drug abuse, and abortion. Assuming the high ground by defending a practice that kills millions is quite desperate. Modern liberal thought is morally schizophrenic and digressive in the extreme.
There is so much truth to this, but interestingly the truth works against arguments that oppose homosexuality.
When I was trying to fight, cure, pray away, submit to "God", all my orientation for decades....never was I so full of depression and anxiety.
It was when - 20 years ago - when I fully accepted my orientation that I began feeling at peace, stopped harming myself, and stopped being on the brink of putting a gun in my mouth.
I know I've said that over and over again, but it bears repeating. It's the homophobic garbage that has been spewed that created a sense of self-loathing back in my teens and 20s. NOT accepting myself as a bisexual was what created any self-loathing and self-harm.
I am disease-free.
I do not support statutory rape. And I advocate for more accountability in statutory rape legislation in prevention, investigation, and sentencing.
I advocate for full comprehensive sex education to prevent the spread of disease and to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I advocate for more accountability in hate-crime legislation. And I advocate for more accountability in hate-crimes through education and longer incarceration for criminals guilty of hate-crimes.
I fight against homophobia and the ignorance and hatred - and eventually the immense suffering - that results from it.
I am not ashamed of my orientation.
.
.
.
What is my "gay agenda"? To live without legal discrimination, without being harassed, and without fear for my safety.
What is my "queer lifestyle"? I work, come home, raise my children, and love my husband. I volunteer my time, attend parent-teacher conferences, and enjoy the occasional tea with my friends. I enjoy sex, but since I hold an absolute standard of only engaging in adult consensual sex, what I do in the privacy of my bedroom is not the business of anybody else's.
There is no coercion. No teaching people how to be queer. And there is no shaming people out of their own personal and individual beliefs they hold for themsevles.
In other words, live your lives. Raise your children. Hate queers, if you'd like. Heck, I will fight for your right to say that you DO hate queers. But I'll fight against lies spread about people like me, and I'll fight for equal protections and liberties across the board for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.
You could also try to look up incarceration rates of black men, and watch how racist and bigoted lies pop up about the reasons surrounding them too.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I think the modern tendency of liberal moralists is all in favor of the politically correct view that traditional morality is bad and no one is accountable for anything. I have become weary with people insisting any claims that are inconvenient for them are biased. I myself have almost never used that argument unless I could prove it. I never dismissed Islamic sites (for example) without providing sufficient and specific justification. It is a non-argument, only a place holder for one. The majority of stats come from insurance and medical studies and they do not have the luxury of making up stuff. If all inconvenient data is biased why is the first question when giving blood, Are you a homosexual? In fact why is that a primary concern in all of medicine and health? What is killing homosexuals at a much higher rate than the rest of us, bias? I do not think denials, dismissals, and hand waving at well-established fact a persuasive argument.
averageJOE
zombie
With this line of thinking, what would it matter , to you, then if (when) homosexual marriages are finally legalized?
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Yeah, and bravery too. It's sickening how people behave bravely, knowing that their odds of injury and death skyrocket. And that their family and friends will suffer for it. Those firemen who climbed the World Trade Center stairs... what the heck would drive them to such perverted behavior!
Yep. The brave and the homosexuals, two peas in a (twisted) pod.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I am amazed when people think this way.
As if, without the moral guidance of a divine being, man cannot behave ethically. The black and white thinking of, "without God to guide you, anything goes!", is counter to the observational evidence of those who have survived without the Bibles guidance for thousands of years.
Everyone is accountable to their fellow man. Societal ethics guide our behavior.
In my opinion, those who feel they are accountable to no one are sociopaths, and those that feel their only accountability is to an unseen force are only slightly better off.
Morals and ethics evolve as society changes. And when one argues that all the Levitical laws no longer apply, they are only demonstrating this truth.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
How in the heck can you get that out of my statement? I said modern politically correct thought is tending in the direction where traditional morals are taboos and taboos are now moral. You can't get what you did from that. However if you wish to debate morality with God and without I am more than willing but first you must know what it is I actually think (that is how things are supposed to go).
1. I believe both believers and non-believers have a God given conscience.
2. I believe an atheist can recognize evil as wrong and good such the same way a Christian can.
3. There are good and bad atheists (speaking in human terms) and good and bad Christians.
4. The difference is morality without God is no longer moral. It is an opinion based preference which assumes arbitrary value for humans that in other words is specialism.
5. A Christian can give absolute justification for morality and truth categories like evil and good. An atheist can give any absolute justification for any of those terms.
You said: The black and white thinking of, "without God to guide you, anything goes!", as if that was some kind of black mark on Christianity. The most famous instance of this statement being made was by an honest atheist. His name is Dostoevsky and wrote that statement in a famous novel.
A Google search produces a number of hits for this Russian phrase, and Google's search box suggests another variant, "Без бога всё дозволено." The second clauseвсё дозволеноis a variant of the phrase "everything is permitted," which appears several times in Dostoevsky's novel, along with всё позволено.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/andrei_volkov/dostoevsky.html
I can show that many other atheists who actually have the courage of their convictions like for instance the philosopher of science said that without God morality is an illusion and he is right.
'NO MORE THAN A COLLECTIVE ILLUSION FOBBED OFF ON US BY OUR GENES FOR REPRODUCTIVE ENDS?' [1] (Ruse1986)
Or how about another prominent atheist Richard (the worst argument against God in the history of western thought) Dawkins. He said this gem:
When asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] arent right?", Richard Dawkins replied, "Whats to prevent us from saying Hitler wasnt right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question
http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins'_commentary_on_Adolf_Hitler
Morals are value statements. You can't make them when humans are mere biological anomalies with no special worth at all.
In summary both atheists and Christians can act morally or immorally but only a Christian can justify why each act is moral or immoral.