why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[m.ramdeen]

Hi RF'ers I'm new to this forum
Kinda picked up this site cuz I like forums with the flame wars, drama and all the contention goodness that they bring :camp:

Anyhoo, I saw this thread and it seemed to hit all the checkboxes, pretty active too. And have been keeping up with it ever since. All 125 pages of it lol

So @ 1robin, in post #1166 you made a comment like so

What rights do they have and where did they get them? Do governments have a warehouse full of rights that they dispense at will?

It got me thinking, what kinda weird argument is that?
Don't all of us have human rights and right to equality and what-not?
Seemed like a strange way to bring across a point. So I talked about it with my co-worker and then it hit me; especially that last bit about the government having a warehouse stocked with rights to dispense at will

What makes a government have to back out the pen and paper to make something official that X person has X right to do X activity?

And the only thing I could think about is that the government is lobbied into making these declarations which we call our "rights"

For instance:

the "right" to bear arms​

Taking the government out of the equation. If I saw anybody (other than a security guard or police officer) strolling down the street leisurely with a weapon I would surely be intimidated. But this man has a "right" to bear (or conceal) his firearm. So while I find that it seems against the grain of how a normal society should operate, this person has a right to do so because their forefathers lobbied for this clause to be in the constitution and thus make it an acceptable practice by today's standards.

So jumping straight to the homosexual argument. The stance is that the homosexual community within society should be given the right to freely practice their way of living without holding back on any of the "rights" provided to any of their heterosexual counterpart.



It is at this point that 1robin's point hits home.

1. Where did this right come from?
2. Who took it away from the homosexual community?
3. Why does the homosexual community have to lobby for their rights?

And all that I could think about is that the general populace does not see the homosexual way of life as following the normal societal mode of operation. In other words "it goes against the grain"

So we end up with a situation where the homosexual community must seek to lobby, petition and parade to present their stance to the government in an effort that it becomes a "right" aka. an acceptable (equal) practice within the normal, societal mode of operation

I get the feeling that somebody's gonna chime in with "who determines what is normal and what isn't" :rainbow1:



So my question to 1robin are as follows?

1. Based on my response, have I summed up that quote you put forward accurately? i.e. Are we on the same page with this rights argument?
2. Based on your response to #1 (above) has modern society "misinterpreted" the definition of what are human "rights"? By this I mean has the definition of rights moved from: "the privileges that we humans are entitled to as being equal with our fellow human" to "government enforced constitutions that allow practices to be acceptable to our fellow man"

Hope I didn't jump onto this forum with my first post hot and heavy :shout
Thanks again RF'ers for welcoming me to the community

PS. Still trying to play around with this profile thing and figure out how to put in religion, title and profile pic like what everybody else has on the left side of their post :help:

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Still Ev isn't provable. It is&will always be just a theory. The"facts"prove something but it isnt Ev. Its either Darwin's cell geniuses or an IDr created it all. Cells designing&creating millions of extremely diverse species is no more possible than giving a six month old baby many tools&expecting him to design&build the Empire State building. Again, none of these organisms existed before. Cells have way less intelligence than even a six month old baby. This makes clear that Ev is an impossible, slight of hand, snake oil theory toted as fact, when in fact it is not.

When you add to that the many things that had to take place even before life began for it to survive you get yet another list of facts that seriously call into question all that Ev claims as being valid. With all the things that must be in place for life to succeed(especially for higher life-forms)it would be an extremely rare case if even one earth-like planet can exist anywhere else in the universe.

Regarding God: For more than 46 yrs I have studied the whole Bible, parts many times. This I can attest to: Only one eternal truth can exist. It only exists in the Bible. Only one God can occupy infinity. That God is the God of Israel. Infinity is the only place no cause needed can exist. It is the only place one can declare the end from the beginning for anything they create outside themselves(they set the borders&barriers). By outside I mean like any artist, what you create is separate from you even if you have to move out of the way for your creation to exist. Only a spirit has the capability of occupying infinity, undetected&can move through the universe w/o being part of it. Everything else is measurable=it has finite properties.

God's infinite existence is only provable b/c Jesus is the Son of God&He wasn't talking out 2 nor 1000s of sides of His mouth=no confusion. Jesus couldn't do whats in the NT w/o knowing&understanding the entire OT(impossible unless God was with Him&the NT[explains OT]didn't exist yet). The Apostles couldn't write the NT unless Jesus made them remember all He did. Jesus is the only one in History who said He is the way, the truth&the life&no one knows God w/o Him(Jn 14:6; Act4:12)=more evidence for the real IDr of all Creation.

3 things.
1) Theory is the best any idea can be in Science. A "law" is something else. A theory may never become a law so evolution being a "theory" has no bearing on its impact.

2) Nothing in science is proven. It works off evidence and nearly all evidence supports evolution as has been provided to you both by me and by others.

3) Are you even interested in having a debate or are you just going to repeat the same lies, fallacies and incorrect information over and over again? Your argument can be summed up to "Evolution is wrong because a misrepresentation of science doesn't match up with my religious world view". EVEN IF evolution were proven wrong right now it would bring ANY evidence FOR intelligent design. ID has no supporting evidence so all anti-evolution mongering is all for naught.

Produce for me a single shred of evidence for ID without mentioning evolution. I present that challenge to you before I go any further in this, so far, fruitless discussion.

 

[nash8]

Most guys are fully capable of experiencing arousal and bringing themselves to orgasm even without someone they are explicitly aroused by in the room (if you see what I mean). I was about to say "it wouldn't be hard", but on consideration, it probably would be

LMFAO, that was phenominal sir.

I dunno though. Having sex with someone who does not specifically arouse you is different from having sex with someone of the sex you are not attracted to in my opinion. I am straight, and theres no way I would be able to get aroused with a naked man sitting in front of me. I would assume it would be the same way for a gay person in the opposite situation, but I dunno.

There are definitely cases of sexual identity changes, but they are rare, and are usually not a choice. I personally know a formerly married man who was married to a woman for over 15 years, and they had two children, and one day, his wife told him that through no choice of her own, she had become only sexually attracted to women.

Interesting, I have never really heard this position before.

 

[philbo]

LMFAO, that was phenominal sir.

I dunno though. Having sex with someone who does not specifically arouse you is different from having sex with someone of the sex you are not attracted to in my opinion. I am straight, and theres no way I would be able to get aroused with a naked man sitting in front of me. I would assume it would be the same way for a gay person in the opposite situation, but I dunno.

For some, that may well be the case: there's a whole range of people out there, as has been anecdotally mentioned many times in this thread already. It's not binary: people don't have to be either 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual. People are rarely that simple

Interesting, I have never really heard this position before.

<insert kama sutra-based pun here>

 

[Agnostic75]

Hello Agnostic, you run in unusual circles. What is all this evolutionary stuff doing in this thread? If genetics determined homosexuality then how could your story be true?

Genetics alone does not determine sexual identity, but as I showed in my post #1213, it is an important part of it.

What evidence do you have that environment primarily determines sexual identity?

Please reply to my post #1223.

 

[payak]

Genetics alone does not determine sexual identity, but as I showed in my post #1213, it is an important part of it.

What evidence do you have that environment primarily determines sexual identity?

Please reply to my post #1223.

So reading this I can assume you know what causes it, enlighten me.

 

[Agnostic75]

So reading this I can assume you know what causes it, enlighten me.

As my post #1213 shows, sexual identity is probably caused by a combination of genetics, and environment, and that genetics is an important part of sexual identity. If genetics is an important part of sexual identity, we would expect to find that more identical twins would be homosexual than fraternal twins would be homosexual, which is the case, and that more identical twins, and more fraternal twins would be homosexual than non-twin siblings would be homosexual, which is the case.

In your opinion, why do the vast majority of people have a heterosexual sexual identity? Would genetics be largely responsible for that? If so, wouldn't genetics also be largely responsible for a homosexual sexual identity?

Why do the vast majority of homosexuals who try to change their sexual identity fail to do so? Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

Do you believe that God created the AIDS virus, and many other harmful viruses?

 

[payak]

As my post #1213 shows, sexual identity is probably caused by a combination of genetics, and environment, and that genetics is an important part of sexual identity. If genetics is an important part of sexual identity, we would expect to find that more identical twins would be homosexual than fraternal twins would be homosexual, which is the case, and that more identical twins, and more fraternal twins would be homosexual than non-twin siblings would be homosexual, which is the case.

In your opinion, why do the vast majority of people have a heterosexual sexual identity? Would genetics be largely responsible for that? If so, wouldn't genetics also be largely responsible for a homosexual sexual identity?

Why do the vast majority of homosexuals who try to change their sexual identity fail to do so? Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

Do you believe that God created the AIDS virus, and many other harmful viruses?

You say probably, so you have no real idea in other words.
You do realise I don't believe in god yes.

 

[Agnostic75]

You say probably, so you have no real idea in other words.

I should have said very probably since lots of research that has been done is what would be expected if genetics has a lot to do with sexual identity. If genetics is an important part of sexual identity, we would expect to find that a good deal more identical twins would be homosexual than fraternal twins would be homosexual, which is the case, and that a good deal more identical twins, and fraternal twins would be homosexual than non-twin siblings would be homosexual, which is the case.

Why do you practice heterosexuality instead of homosexuality? Would you say that genetics has anything to do with that?

Why do the vast majority of homosexuals who try to change their sexual identity fail to do so? Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

You do realise I don't believe in god yes.

Do you believe that evolution has caused a small percentage of humans to have strong homosexual urges?

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I don't mean like doing orgies and wicked stuff like that. But why can't we make love to people of our gender. I don't get it. I am attracted to men.

Its not natural , Or a viable part of evolution . Its a reproductive dilemma .

 

[Agnostic75]

It's not natural, or a viable part of evolution. It's a reproductive dilemma.

All of evolution is a survival dilemma since all animals, and plants, eventually die.

Homosexuality has never threatened the survival of the human species, and probably never will.

 

[Moishe3rd]

I don't mean like doing orgies and wicked stuff like that. But why can't we make love to people of our gender. I don't get it. I am attracted to men.

What the heck. Topic is still being discussed so, my two cents -
Go ahead and shtup your guy friends. Gezunt heit. You should live and be well.
Now, according to G-d, you should NOT lie with a man as you would with a woman. It's a sin; bad juju; worse than bestiality and other perverse sexual mores.
However, there are a lot of other sins in the Torah that carry equally hideous penalties such as the sin of loshen hora; evil speech or, simply put - Gossip.
Not only that but, there is no prohibition against being attracted to other men. The only prohibition is that you should not have sexual relations with them.

Now, why would G-d make such a prohibition?
There are many more religious and spiritual answers that I cannot attest to but, for the sake of brevity - it's because it is too easy.
Sexual relations are discussed a great deal in the Torah. It is a principle in Jewish Law that we are to control our sexual urges and direct that excess energy towards G-d and spiritual pursuits. We are to keep our sexual impulses within narrowly defined parameters precisely for the purpose of NOT letting our sexual urges control us. There are the same strictures on anger and violence in the Torah.
Those who claim that they should have a Right to shtup other men are in the same camp as those who claim that they have a Right to express their Anger; their Violence; and their desire to belittle other people with juicy Gossip.
G-d calls on us to control ourselves.

And, homosexuality is So Much Easier than dealing with the opposite sex- be it women or men.
We are, indeed, two different species and, we do not understand each other for the most part.
Whereas some men are, indeed, wired to only be attracted to men, the far, far larger majority of male homosexual relationships are due to pure sexual ease and pleasure. Wham bam thank you Man.
Women are similar. They seek understanding and relationship and, are therefore far more interested in giving understanding and relationship to each other.

In G-d's mandate that Man should control sexuality, He prohibited what is too easy; too hedonistic; too much based on simple emotional and animal impulses...
G-d desires that Man should overcome obstacles and grow. Being married to a member of the opposite sex; having children; and maintaining those relationships are the greatest obstacles that Man can overcome....

 

[Agnostic75]

In God's mandate that Man should control sexuality.

What God has ever personally made a public, audible statement about homosexuality?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Go ahead and shtup your guy friends. Gezunt heit. You should live and be well.Now, according to G-d, you should NOT lie with a man as you would with a woman. It's a sin; bad juju; worse than bestiality and other perverse sexual mores.

I think you got a garbled message from God. He has actually said that He doesn't care if people are homosexual or heterosexual.

 

[1robin]

Its not natural , Or a viable part of evolution . Its a reproductive dilemma .

Is the massive increase in transmission of sexual disease, the billions it costs, and the lack of corresponding justifiable gain, plus the myriad of non STD damage that can occur by using things designed for one purpose for another not enough?

 

[1robin]

What God has ever personally made a public, audible statement about homosexuality?

Why did you impose an audible requirement without any reason to demand it? The Bible records God's position on homosexuality and is not bound by your demands for what form is allowable.

 

[1robin]

I think you got a garbled message from God. He has actually said that He doesn't care if people are homosexual or heterosexual.

That is a statement to knowledge and requires proof. Good luck.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That is a statement to knowledge and requires proof. Good luck.

That's funny. In the message just above this one, you claim that "The Bible records God's position on homosexuality...."

If you ever figure out how to prove that the Bible is the actual word of God, let me know.

Meanwhile, God loves homosexuality and thinks that gay-pride parades are cool.

 

[1robin]

That's funny. In the message just above this one, you claim that "The Bible records God's position on homosexuality...."

If you ever figure out how to prove that the Bible is the actual word of God, let me know.

Meanwhile, God loves homosexuality and thinks that gay-pride parades are cool.

That is pretty much exactly what I expected. The shifting of burdens and the absurd assumption that until what you prefer is proven wrong it must be factual. Since I asked for the proof of your claims first then you must supply them first. When that is done I will show what evidence my claim was based on. Again, good luck.