Why do you think it's wrong for someone else to be gay?

[Apostle John]

So, good, then?

Re. the thread title, I’m absolutely delighted you are gay and not me. Thank you God.

Good luck with your endeavours. Btw what are Dawkins’ views on homosexuality as an evolutionary biologist? All the science papers I have read on the subject aren’t very scientific.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Re. the thread title, I’m absolutely delighted you are gay and not me. Thank you God.

Well, I'm not gay, as it happens. But if you were born gay, I hope you had people around you who were kind, generous and loving towards you rather than being happy to say the things that you say.

Good luck with your endeavours. Btw what are Dawkins’ views on homosexuality as an evolutionary biologist?

Fine.

All the science papers I have read on the subject aren’t very scientific.

Homosexuality isn't really an issue for evolutionary biology. It's not a genetic trait (or, at least, not as simple as being attributable merely to genetics).

 

[Apostle John]

Well, I'm not gay, as it happens. But if you were born gay, I hope you had people around you who were kind, generous and loving towards you rather than being happy to say the things that you say.

I have seen Christian families with a gay family member and can see it is a struggle with this issue. It cannot be easy for them. I would never preach to anyone who is gay, it is their life.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have seen Christian families with a gay family member and can see it is a struggle with this issue. It cannot be easy for them. I would never preach to anyone who is gay, it is their life.

Well, that's progress. I hope you understand the immense pain and difficulty of being someone born a particular way that results in people treating you like you're a defect at best and a demon at worst.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Atheists will find that to be wrong when they stop breathing.

I was born with a form of sleep apnea where you stop breathing in your sleep.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Atheists will find that to be wrong when they stop breathing.

I still have a different faith in God. You will find that to be wrong when you stop breathing.

See how it works for all of us and not just you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All the science papers I have read on the subject aren’t very scientific.

We can tell, we know, it is apparent and obvious you haven't read scientific papers on it. But that didn't stop you from thinking you was right about Dawkins despite you being so wrong, now did it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... All the science papers I have read on the subject aren’t very scientific.

What is science?

 

[Apostle John]

We can tell, we know, it is apparent and obvious you haven't read scientific papers on it. But that didn't stop you from thinking you was right about Dawkins despite you being so wrong, now did it?

What’s so special about Dawkins’ meme idea.

 

[Apostle John]

What is science?

I see it just simply as knowledge. I don’t really like hypotheses, that’s just imaginative thinking also not all knowledge can be found through observing the natural world and through experimentation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see it just simply as knowledge. I don’t really like hypotheses, that’s just imaginative thinking also not all knowledge can be found through observing the natural world and through experimentation.

Yes, not all knowledge is objective. But some people tend to claim their individual subjective truth as universal or objective for all humans.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can we really trust a book that condones rape and slavery to be a reliable moral compass?

I'm not sure we can fault the Bible here.

@Apostle John sure isn't the first person I've heard this from, but I think when Christians read a story that condemns same-sex gang rape and respond with "see?! Homosexuality is bad!" instead of "see?! Gang rape is bad!", that reflects on their values, not on the text.

 

[Apostle John]

I'm not sure we can fault the Bible here.

@Apostle John sure isn't the first person I've heard this from, but I think when Christians read a story that condemns same-sex gang rape and respond with "see?! Homosexuality is bad!" instead of "see?! Gang rape is bad!", that reflects on their values, not on the text.

The homosexuality is there for all to see.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The homosexuality is there for all to see.

... but some are blind to (or okay with?) the rape.

 

[Father Heathen]

... but some are blind to (or okay with?) the rape.

Lot offered his own daughters to them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not sure we can fault the Bible here.

@Apostle John sure isn't the first person I've heard this from, but I think when Christians read a story that condemns same-sex gang rape and respond with "see?! Homosexuality is bad!" instead of "see?! Gang rape is bad!", that reflects on their values, not on the text.

The problem with the Bible is it describes many things it regards as sexual "sins," but rape isn't really one of those. To the contrary, some forms of rape are even permitted into the Bible, like a wife being expected to submit to her husband, sex slavery and the idea women can be treated as inheritable property. And, it also must be mentioned Lot's daughters were not punished for getting him drunk and raping their own father.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Wait its bad to be gay?

 

[Shaul]

The question is ambiguous. What is meant by "wrong"? There is morally or ethically wrong and there is objectively wrong. Making an ethical judgement of the actions of others is a perilous venture and to be eschewed. But if there are objective things about being gay that are deleterious, that could be said to be "wrong". Gay people as a group experience certain harmful things more than others in general. Things such as higher suicide rates, higher rates of domestic violence, shorter life expectancy and more frequent rates of certain diseases. Objectively that could be said to be "wrong".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The question is ambiguous. What is meant by "wrong"? There is morally or ethically wrong and there is objectively wrong. Making an ethical judgement of the actions of others is a perilous venture and to be eschewed. But if there are objective things about being gay that are deleterious, that could be said to be "wrong". Gay people as a group experience certain harmful things more than others in general. Things such as higher suicide rates, higher rates of domestic violence, shorter life expectancy and more frequent rates of certain diseases. Objectively that could be said to be "wrong".

No, it can't. That is not objective. You are playing with words.
Or if you like I can construct the same reasoning about you and arrive at "wrong". So please stop doing that.

 

[Shaul]

No, it can't. That is not objective. You are playing with words.
Or if you like I can construct the same reasoning about you and arrive at "wrong". So please stop doing that.

The things I mentioned can be objectively measured. Assuming there is agreement that things that harm people are innately wrong my statements are correct.