Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
OK … whatever you say
- Status
A
ahoyhoy
Guest
It’s always amusing when a male who enjoys close friendship with other males inevitably faces the accusation: are you gay? No one has a problem with female-female platonic relationships, but apparently males just don’t have the luxury to form any bond with another male without getting the third degree.
(By the way, I think the term you were looking for was “speculation,” not “evidence.”)
Also, there’s something I don’t get.
I see you acknowledge that Jesus once existed. What I don’t understand is why you’re so adamant about Jesus not dying. To have faith is one thing, but you don’t seem to be the kind of person who likes to rely on faith. So what’s the basis of your claim exactly? What’s your source? What book has so convinced you that Jesus in fact didn’t die?
S
shoewindow3000
Guest
We believe that Christ instituted the Church on earth and entrusted to her (among other things) the authority to define any issues concerning faith and morals.
Now, that being said…
If you want to know what the Church teaches on any issue,** LOOK IT UP IN THE CATECHISM.**
First of all,** a sin is an act of the will**. When our will contradicts God’s Will, we call it “sin.” And when something contradicts our will, we call it “pain.”
The Church teaches that homosexual/heterosexual desires themselves are not sin. The sin is when a person acts on the desire. Why? Because desires cannot be controlled. We do not “will” a desire or a temptation.
As a matte of fact, all people, regardless of their vocation in life, are called to some form of chastity.
Basically, any sexual act other than procreation within marriage is sin.
There…answer solved. Now can we get back to the thread???
Now, that being said…
If you want to know what the Church teaches on any issue,** LOOK IT UP IN THE CATECHISM.**
First of all,** a sin is an act of the will**. When our will contradicts God’s Will, we call it “sin.” And when something contradicts our will, we call it “pain.”
The Church teaches that homosexual/heterosexual desires themselves are not sin. The sin is when a person acts on the desire. Why? Because desires cannot be controlled. We do not “will” a desire or a temptation.
As a matte of fact, all people, regardless of their vocation in life, are called to some form of chastity.
Basically, any sexual act other than procreation within marriage is sin.
There…answer solved. Now can we get back to the thread???
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Of course i would for there is no rational reason for claiming that homosexuality is immoral, as is evident by the replies on this board.
Give me a rational reason for your belief that homosexuality is immoral.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Actually i don’t, but it says exactly that in your book. Its called the resurrection. I’ve see people on this forum claim that they talk to jesus, so clearly christians think he is alive.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Dogmatic beliefs LOL
You did make a comparison to pedophiles?
The church and the pope clearly didn’t take as strong stance on pedophilia as it was not only rife in the church, but it was also covered up.
R
rinnie
Guest
What exactly are you searching for here. I answer you questions but if I do not give you the answer you want you continue to ask it. I said we live in a free country. If someone who is muslim and bound themself to that law it is their choice. God has given them a free will. Would I live under thier law absolutely not. Alot of the thing they do goes totally against my God the same as Gay marriage. Why would I welcome one sin and not another.
God gave us free will. In sahria law that is taken away from you. They fill they are God. That is my opinion of it. But as I told you if someone muslim under their own free will choose to live that life I have no right to take that away from them. But just like any other sin I go by the law of my faith and would not partake in their sin either. If you want my personal opinion then NO I would never live under their law. Like gay marriage having many wifes also breaks a commandment of God under my faith.
If my neighbor was muslim and refused to go out in public without covering her face she is not hurting anyone by covering it. Just like I am not hurting anyone by not covering mine. IF she could not be friends with me becasue I do not obey her law then fine, we could not be friends. God never took away my free will and neither will a Muslim. But on the same token if I felt I was offending God by not covering my face I would cover it. But I do not.
SOme of their beliefs I do agree in. I believe in God so do they. I am not familiar with their faith but from what I have read they reject Jesus CHrist not God. I could be wrong. So if they are God fearing people even though we have different ways of practicing our faith we are both doing the best we can.
But this is not a post about how I fill about their faith. Personally I believe in the ten commandments and they imo disobey alot of them. Sorry. But this is not a debate about their faith.
So my answer is no I could never become a part of their faith. Is that good enough for you?
Also you say you do not reject Christ. yes you do. You either accept something or you reject something. You reject that he exists so you reject him. I am sorry you cannot have it both ways.
L
Langdell
Guest
I haven’t read this whole thread, so my apologies if I’m repeating something discussed above.
As someone who was an atheist for many years, I would suggest that you try to consider that most atheists are people who are honestly trying to find the truth. They are struggling with some of the same difficult issues that most believers also struggle with – Why do bad things happen to good people? Where was God during the Holocaust? How could the Church transfer molesting priests from one parish to another without warning? Etc. Like all of us, atheists apply their reason to these problems to the best of their abilities. It’s just that they come to different conclusions.
Who knows when faith will re-awaken in an atheist or when s/he will suddenly hear God? I like to think that most atheists are just “temporary” atheists.
.
J
josie_L
Guest
Homosexuality on a rational basis doesn’t make any sense because homosexuals can’t procreate, and therefore it is an anomaly, and that anomaly as I understand it cannot be understood in biological terms alone, that is, there is no proof that homosexuality is solely biological. It’s more like a case of nature vs. nurture. Homosexuality maybe more about nurture than nature and hence it is immoral because it is a choice rather than a biological construct.
J
josie_L
Guest
double post.
J
j1akey
Guest
I’m a hetrosexual. I didn’t choose to be hetrosexual. I didn’t wake up one day and say “I’m making the decision to like girls”, it just happened when I reached puberty, it’s a biological response. I don’t see how anyone can say sexual orientation is a choice, is there anything besides the church that actually backs this up? Has there been any study done to determine it’s a choice? Sure acting on that orientation is a choice just like choosing to live without any sex in your life is a but the biological and mental process behind what someone is attracted to isn’t a choice no matter how much these so called ex-gay camps claim it is.
C
Convert66
Guest
Charles,
Why do you continue with your “drive-by” approach? You hurl accusations, lob empty challenges with commitments to actually provide a rebuttal and then you never do. Is your atheism that shakey, that you must toss rhetorical bombs and then run before the rot goes off and gets on you too?
You haven’t dealt with a single point I have raised. You haven’t answered a single question. You sneer and snicker as if that is discussion. Is your last name Dawkins, by chance?
You simply wish to reject actual discussion by lobbing politically correct epithets and accusing me of likening homosexuality to pedophilia, which is evidenced by the fact that you did not accuse me of comparing homosexuals to UFC fighters or gladiators. You are being evasive and dishonest because you got busted without an actual argument.
Earlier you boasted that your morality was based upon what is acceptable in society. You seem to think this is somehow the superior position to basing one’s morality upon revealed truth or faith. Yet, to premise your morality upon society you must have faith (reasonable faith) that society is correct in its moral prescriptions.
You also boasted that you would be “as well worshipping Hitler as God”, which is what the Nazis did by basing their morality upon Nazi society. This led to the slaughter of 6 million Jews, several millions homosexuals; mentally ill; mentally handicapped; as well as Gypsies, Catholics, Lutherans and anyone else opposed to Nazi society’s moral recipes. This is aside from the forced abortions of “lesser” or “defective” races; sterilizations and downright torture in the name of science.
You never attempted to answer any of this. You snickered and sneered. Why should anyone take anything you have to say seriously?
Not to mention it reduces the average life-span of the participants and leads to std’s, colon cancer, and oral cancers in much higher rates than heterosexual monogamy.
The same immorality is assigned to any heterosexual acts that are outside of Marriage, closed to nature’s ordered design of conception, preservation of life, adulterous or otherwise self-seeking. This would also include pederasty, incest, rape, masturbation or prostitution. It is disordered and juvenile.
Given your obsession with sexuality, while insisting there is no God, It doesn’t take a Freudian to discern why you are an atheist.
I’m still waiting on examples of moral superiority in pre-Christian paganism. Give me a single example of a pre-Christian, pagan society that legalized homosexual marriage. Just one!!!
Otherwise, you’ll just have to deal with that fact that many of your own moral givens have been inherited through Christian revelation and tradition, and 2000 years of Christian society. You certainly didn’t arrive at a pro-peace; anti-slavery; pro-tolerance attitude by way of the scientific method. This leaves your faith in the moral goodness of these moral attitudes solely in the realm of dogmatic belief.
Stay safe, Chuck.
All my best . . .
Why do you continue with your “drive-by” approach? You hurl accusations, lob empty challenges with commitments to actually provide a rebuttal and then you never do. Is your atheism that shakey, that you must toss rhetorical bombs and then run before the rot goes off and gets on you too?
You haven’t dealt with a single point I have raised. You haven’t answered a single question. You sneer and snicker as if that is discussion. Is your last name Dawkins, by chance?
Case in point. A sneer is not an answer. If you are unable, or unwilling to examine your own dogmatism it is not my fault. I will assume that you subscribe to the scientific method, given your attitude towards faith of any kind. Tell me what is justice? Can you do so with the scientific method? Man discovered that numbers corresponded to external reality about 4,000 years ago. It took another 2,000 years or so to formulate a theory about gravity, yet, here we are a couple thousand years later and your scientific tradition is still wrestling to actually describe what gravity is and how it actually works, let alone exists. Still, you are dogmatic in your assertions that science will eventually answer all these questions. It is reasonable to assume, after so long a time, that science can’t explain the origins of the universe, that a “theory of everything” will always remain out of reach and with certainty science can never decide what justice truly is, because it is not a question of science. Your faith in science is dogmatic. Deal with it. (pssst . . contrary to postmodernist, fuzzy-headed intellectualisms, dogmatism is not an epithet).Dogmatic beliefs LOL
Is this a question? It reads like a declarative statement. The only comparisons were there to demonstrate how absurd it is to reject a moral proscription of homosexual behavior based upon what Jesus didn’t say in the Gospels. As I pointed out, He said nothing about pederasty, but I will assume that you have a moral objection to pederasty. He said nothing about the Roman circus, but I will assume you have a moral objection to death-sport as entertainment.
You simply wish to reject actual discussion by lobbing politically correct epithets and accusing me of likening homosexuality to pedophilia, which is evidenced by the fact that you did not accuse me of comparing homosexuals to UFC fighters or gladiators. You are being evasive and dishonest because you got busted without an actual argument.
Earlier you boasted that your morality was based upon what is acceptable in society. You seem to think this is somehow the superior position to basing one’s morality upon revealed truth or faith. Yet, to premise your morality upon society you must have faith (reasonable faith) that society is correct in its moral prescriptions.
You also boasted that you would be “as well worshipping Hitler as God”, which is what the Nazis did by basing their morality upon Nazi society. This led to the slaughter of 6 million Jews, several millions homosexuals; mentally ill; mentally handicapped; as well as Gypsies, Catholics, Lutherans and anyone else opposed to Nazi society’s moral recipes. This is aside from the forced abortions of “lesser” or “defective” races; sterilizations and downright torture in the name of science.
You never attempted to answer any of this. You snickered and sneered. Why should anyone take anything you have to say seriously?
You are right, although I think the Pope was kept in the dark by Bishops that exercised their own authority and let the offenders skate past accountability in many instances. They should be held accountable, in my opinion, like any other criminal. It is a part of my faith that because of their positions they will be held to a higher standard by God for this sin.
I do not think homosexuality is immoral. I think it is a burden. It is no more immoral than heterosexuality. It is in the acts that immorality or sin is involved. Homosexual acts are immoral because they are against the purpose of nature, against the complimentary relations prescribed by nature, and the act is self-seeking and closed, by its nature, to the creative act as natures prescription of procreation can never be involved. It is not the gift of self to another that is complimentary, but the self-seeking in a mirror image of sameness, that is an act of self-will and self-gratification.
Not to mention it reduces the average life-span of the participants and leads to std’s, colon cancer, and oral cancers in much higher rates than heterosexual monogamy.
The same immorality is assigned to any heterosexual acts that are outside of Marriage, closed to nature’s ordered design of conception, preservation of life, adulterous or otherwise self-seeking. This would also include pederasty, incest, rape, masturbation or prostitution. It is disordered and juvenile.
Given your obsession with sexuality, while insisting there is no God, It doesn’t take a Freudian to discern why you are an atheist.
I’m still waiting on examples of moral superiority in pre-Christian paganism. Give me a single example of a pre-Christian, pagan society that legalized homosexual marriage. Just one!!!
Otherwise, you’ll just have to deal with that fact that many of your own moral givens have been inherited through Christian revelation and tradition, and 2000 years of Christian society. You certainly didn’t arrive at a pro-peace; anti-slavery; pro-tolerance attitude by way of the scientific method. This leaves your faith in the moral goodness of these moral attitudes solely in the realm of dogmatic belief.
Stay safe, Chuck.
All my best . . .
R
rinnie
Guest
I do not believe anyone has said that you can choose your feelings and urges. We said the lifesyle you choose is the choice.
You see we believe in the word of God. And the word of God says there is no urge or feeling that cannot be overcome with God.
SO no one is saying you can control how you feel, we are saying you can only control how you choose to act on those feelings.
Just like a person who is married may get sexual feeling for another person other than their spouse. We do not deny the feelings and agree that they are real. But it is their choice to go against the word of God and cheat or to not cheat.
Its the same thing you either choose to sin or you don’t. We all have the urge to sin one way or another. The thing that a person must do is remove themself from the sin the best they can.
So for a person who is attracted to another rather they are gay or not is to try to stay away from that person and remove themself from the temptation the best they can.
J
josie_L
Guest
There is no proof that homosexuality is solely biological, do you have evidence that it is? Furthermore, I remember reading about a case of identitical twins in which one was straight and the other gay, can you explain such anomalies to me?
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
What about all the studies showing a strong genetic or biological component to homosexuality? There’s twin studies (of both fraternal and identical twins), twin studies where the twins were raised apart from one another, studies on fruit-flies (that actually found a genetic switch, which believe it or not converts a fruit fly into a homosexual), etc.
I read an excellent essay on this topic in the New England Journal of Medicine (I’ll try & find a link for you). The evidence isn’t absolutely conclusive … but it’s pretty darn persuasive at this point. While psychology plays an obvious role in sexual development, it seems biology is the decisive factor.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone, since biology plays an important role in personality and mental health generally speaking.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
Actually the twin studies shake out something like this. In about half of all cases where one twin is gay, the other is gay as well. That shows a 50% correlation. When compared to the general population (about 2% of all people are homosexual) the biological influence seems obvious. These numbers tend to hold even where the twins are raised apart.
However, you’re right to say it’s not solely biological (since, inversely, roughly half of all identical twins where one twin is gay do not share a common sexual preference).
The fact that we see such a large disparity between these twins and the general population (in terms of sexual preference) even where the twins were raised apart is truly remarkable. Yet we still don’t why roughly half of these individuals do not share a common sexual preference with their twin, although there are a variety of possible explanations (and it doesn’t necessarily mean psychology plays a significant role). For instance, in many cases the homosexual twin may not be biologically homosexual (and may be a homosexual solely due to psychological factors). It’s also possible homosexuality is largely influenced by deficient prenatal care, and one twin is affected differently than the other (however, there are newer studies that show homosexuality can run in families, so a prenatal explanation is beginning to look unlikely).
In short it seems that nature, not nurture is the dominant factor in sexual preference. However, much more research is needed. Frankly I’m really not sure why these sort of facts bother religious people so much? We are biological creatures after all & people are born with all sorts of deficiencies. From autism to chemical imbalances that cause chronic psychosis, right down to less dramatic examples (like hypertension, diabetes, heart problems, alcoholism, etc.) biology determines much of who we are.
J
josie_L
Guest
Hi yankee, well first, I’m not suggesting that there isn’t a biological component I’m just not sure as to how much of a factor it plays in homosexuality? Do you remember the exact studies, I would like very much to view them? Anyways, as far as I can remember there was no evidence of biological factors for women who were/are gay?
J
josie_L
Guest
It doesn’t bother us, but I tend to believe that it may have less to do with biological factors than environmental factors.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
yeah you’re right … no such links found with women, only men (a remarkable fact in itself). I’ll try & dig up the link (but it’ll have to be later … I gotta get some stuff done right now); but like I said it’s an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (and it provides excellent footnotes and links to various studies), so you can probably Google it & find it pretty easy.
J
josie_L
Guest
But don’t you find it strange that being gay would be biological for men but not for women?
p.s. Don’t bother with the link if you don’t have the time (I’ll trying finding it in the Journal as you suggested) Thanks anyways.
- Status