Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?
- Status
S
Sair
Guest
As far as I’m aware, based on what I’ve read, Paul was an apocalyptic preacher - he believed the end of the world was nigh, so advised everyone to basically stay as they were. Of course, he was wrong about the former situation, so…
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
All personal remark in a debate are out of order, attack the argument not the personOh, is it? Do explain…
1 Corinthians 7:7-9 & 32-35:
Well, men got away with hugging, kissing, writing love letters to each other and sleeping in the same bed in Mediaeval England, indeed some were wedded in churches after plighting their troth.
I’m mean that’s totally not gay at all right?
Nah Paul simply liked to rant… a lot
M
Mudgely
Guest
I’ll take your suggestion for what it is worth.Well, if you’d take the time to read other’s posts properly, you’d notice I gave a long and considered opinion right back at the start of this thread and attempted to answer the OP’s question directly. Since then we have had a plethora of uninformed opinions and banal generalities that really do nothing for the topic. Unless posters do their homework this thread goes nowhere. So, my suggestion to you is go back and read!
M
Mudgely
Guest
John, you are truly clueless. Your posts are just a garbled mess of reactionary misinformation, accusation, bigotry, condescension, insults and hatred. I won’t be responding to you anymore.
S
Sair
Guest
What do you think is the difference between ‘empirical’ and ‘evidentiary’ approaches to science? Properly understood, they are one and the same.
Ever think that the psychological problems faced by homosexual people are caused by the lack of acceptance from others - who, it should be pointed out, would have to change far less radically in order to countenance homosexuality than homosexual people would have to change to fit into the confines of mainstream society?
It’s also as well to point out that these ‘breeding programs’ were instituted for the sake of heterosexual couples who felt they had a ‘right’ to have children, despite being physically incapable of doing so. Who are you to condemn homosexual couples for claiming rights already claimed by heterosexual couples? Look to your own house first, I say…
L
Lui
Guest
If I constantly attack you with a hostile condescending attitude to all your posts, first implying that everything you say is wrong, false, uninformed, purposely take things you’ve said out of context but ignore the important things you’ve said, I then instruct you to do your homework and the dish out the my opinion which I call a FACT or the truth, I wonder how long it would take you to respond in a similar manner.
Now to morality: there are no F.A.C.T.S(as John put it) when it comes to morality. Natural law is a theory which cannot be proven. The whole Christian religion can be a fabrication that has no truth whatsoever. It might be the result of some religious sect in the first century or of a political group or whatever. It is a belief system roughly 1/4-1/3 of human society belongs to and probably a lesser amount that actually believes in. The same goes with any religion, the belief in aliens or the monster of Loch Ness.
No one knows what will happen when we die and no one knows why we are here in the first place. Science has explained the whole development of life, called evolution, which is more or less a F.A.C.T. It explains how man developed from the first single organism.
The more intelligent the human-like species became, the more advanced their strategies and rules became. There might be some form of instinctive morality which is more a behavior form which is necessary to survive. The early humans lived in tribes. When they saw an unfamiliar face from another tribe the response might have been: KILL. There was no moral conscious that said: DO NOT KILL. It meant either kill or be killed. The priority was to protect your tribe(it really hasn’t changed at all except the tribes are now nations).
When humans developed more so did their moral values. They needed to adjust them according to their life conditions. If food was scarce it was time to attack other tribes and and take away their food, or maybe their women to ensure a more mixed gene pool based on a natural selection principle.
This principle basically repeats itself. Early humans thought the moon or whatever was some kind of God. the more sophisticated people became, the more they structured their religions based on past stories they heard, that might be exaggerated and new concepts they developed. This took place in every society, culture or tribe around the world. Christianity took the moral code that was already developed by the Jews and added new stuff, and the Jews took them from the previous religion that led to Judaism etc.
Things that were dangerous such as eating pork was then forbidden because people got sick from it so they said God forbids pork. The same goes with other things that damaged the society.
Gay sex or sex with children might have been morally ok at certain times but as society developed they shifted their attitude and changed the moral code.
We move on to more modern times. In the meantime the Romans decided to accept Christianity as their religion which made it spread to Europe and the rest of the world. North Europeans were called pagan savages who must be forced to accept the moral code of the superior conquerors. The same later happened when the American continent was discovered.
Europeans that settled in the New World had to deal with a lot of danger. The area was basically wild nature, a jungle. They came from a modern Europe to a place that had nothing except native people who wanted to protect their living space. Obviously the moral code shifted and it was ok to execute the savages like you get rid of cockroaches. Man power was needed so less educated African, who lived in tribes and was considered as some kind of animal was imported like a product. You buy some cattle, chickens, and a couple of Africans. The slave owners weren’t even evil. Their moral code just accepted that Africans were inferior beings you use to do your work. Slavery was a natural thing throughout history. No one ever had a guilty feeling about it UNTIL moral values shifted because times changed, the need for slaves diminished and people questioned the old moral code. This process repeats itself again and again. It’s a slow process. While it was normal to just throw a gay person in a dungeon in the 19th century and torture him, things started changing in the 20th century. Morality values changed just like the life style changed.
There is also a pattern where conservative values like in the Fifties are followed by new movements that challenge the old ones to make new changes like it was done in the Sixties. Then often a conservative era follows to stabilize the new values. In the Sixties people questioned racism and protested, Conservative right wing people tried to defend the old values they thought were true. Then changes are made, people who grow up in the Seventies get a new view on the aspects and develop their own views. Suddenly they realized that other values are questionable like forbidding gay sex. Protests start again and right wing conservatives try to stop it. Religion comes in handy because it is sort of an untouchable law. You just say God has always had this opinion, it is a sin and these people are sinners, end of discussion. That leads to people questioning God and the whole concept.
Throughout history of mankind it was always the same old story. Morality shifts and changes, sometimes goes back a step, then two forward. Obviously I will be attacked by the right wing conservative Catholics because it is in their nature not to accept this. They try to uphold their values. That is what they do. It all has it’s purpose. Radical and conservative views go hand in hand. They need each other to keep a balance. One can’t work without the other. (continued in next post)
L
Lui
Guest
That’s how progress is made and how we ended up from living on trees to sitting in front of a computer in a cozy home.
Anyway, right wing conservatives will try to stop gay rights and marriage which is normal but it won’t happen: homosexuality is now widely accepted by all major nations and more and more are accepting gay marriage. That’s how progress works. The whole development of human society always follows the same pattern and that’s how moral values shift.
The so-called facts of the “natural moral law” is just a theory. Parts of it are even true because there is a certain universal moral code that you find in all societies which is probably needed to survive but it isn’t a fixed code that says homosexuality is wrong.
This is my analyses. Obviously it will be mocked, attacked, labeled as utter nonsense, despised etc but it’s normal. I find believing in Adam and Eve, Noah’s ark, the Gospels as nonsense too. It’s the way it has always been. 100 thousand years ago one human tribe mocked the other tribe for their customs. Nowadays the tribes are religious groups or non-religious groups and each fights until death to prove their point. You have the same with any topic: vegans battle omnivores, nerds battle over which computer system is best, athletes argue over which training style is the truth. That’s how it goes…
Enjoy
Anyway, that was my take on “Objective” morality. The OP invited to discuss the topic which is why I’m here but it’s time to move on. Take care.
Anyway, right wing conservatives will try to stop gay rights and marriage which is normal but it won’t happen: homosexuality is now widely accepted by all major nations and more and more are accepting gay marriage. That’s how progress works. The whole development of human society always follows the same pattern and that’s how moral values shift.
The so-called facts of the “natural moral law” is just a theory. Parts of it are even true because there is a certain universal moral code that you find in all societies which is probably needed to survive but it isn’t a fixed code that says homosexuality is wrong.
This is my analyses. Obviously it will be mocked, attacked, labeled as utter nonsense, despised etc but it’s normal. I find believing in Adam and Eve, Noah’s ark, the Gospels as nonsense too. It’s the way it has always been. 100 thousand years ago one human tribe mocked the other tribe for their customs. Nowadays the tribes are religious groups or non-religious groups and each fights until death to prove their point. You have the same with any topic: vegans battle omnivores, nerds battle over which computer system is best, athletes argue over which training style is the truth. That’s how it goes…
Enjoy
Anyway, that was my take on “Objective” morality. The OP invited to discuss the topic which is why I’m here but it’s time to move on. Take care.
B
Benadam
Guest
I’ve noticed something about the civil laws surrounding same sex marriage that seem unique to me but admittedly my sphere of awareness is small. I don’t know of any laws in this nations past that make certain citizens violate their consciences to obey. Are their any laws that would force you to violate your conscience ?That’s how progress is made and how we ended up from living on trees to sitting in front of a computer in a cozy home.
Anyway, right wing conservatives will try to stop gay rights and marriage which is normal but it won’t happen: homosexuality is now widely accepted by all major nations and more and more are accepting gay marriage. That’s how progress works. The whole development of human society always follows the same pattern and that’s how moral values shift.
The so-called facts of the “natural moral law” is just a theory. Parts of it are even true because there is a certain universal moral code that you find in all societies which is probably needed to survive but it isn’t a fixed code that says homosexuality is wrong.
This is my analyses. Obviously it will be mocked, attacked, labeled as utter nonsense, despised etc but it’s normal. I find believing in Adam and Eve, Noah’s ark, the Gospels as nonsense too. It’s the way it has always been. 100 thousand years ago one human tribe mocked the other tribe for their customs. Nowadays the tribes are religious groups or non-religious groups and each fights until death to prove their point. You have the same with any topic: vegans battle omnivores, nerds battle over which computer system is best, athletes argue over which training style is the truth. That’s how it goes…
Enjoy
Anyway, that was my take on “Objective” morality. The OP invited to discuss the topic which is why I’m here but it’s time to move on. Take care.
M
Mudgely
Guest
There are child protection laws in some states which require physicians to administer blood based treatment, even over the parent’s or a child’s objections. These laws are are meant to protect the welfare of children in families of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is a grey example, as the child is the patient. Physicians are not held accountable for the ill consequences of following a fully informed patient’s wishes. There is a very definite problem area when someone who is unconscious arrives for medical treatment. Consent is presumed. If it comes to light that the patient is a Jehovah’s Witness, the physician is still allowed to administer whatever the best medical practice is, absent legally binding instructions to the contrary.
You can be drafted into a war which violates your conscience. There is a means to conscientiously object, but that decision is made by a board, and can go either way. It would be possible to have the choice of facing criminal charged for following your conscience.
There are many things which taxes revenues are used to pay for which violate people’s consciences. Abortion comes to mind. Warfare. Support of religious institutions through tax exemption. In a large pluralistic society, there will always be someone who has legitimate moral objections to the way the government is run.
B
Benadam
Guest
M
Mudgely
Guest
J
John21652
Guest
Which is exactly the reason why I used this little icon :banghead:
Oh, that opinion/theory has been floating around for quite a while now. Firstly, it reeks of abnogating responsibility and blaming someone else for the problems of gays. Secondly, why should the vast majority of people have to wrestle with a great change in moral and social structure changes just to accomodate the 1-3% of the population who are claiming victimhood? First they wanted to be left alone and not abused, bullied, or villified. Fair enough, said society. However, that wasn’t enough for the hard core gay lobby. They next wanted something more and that was to have their minority behaviour normalized and so then came the demand to be able to marry and even preach their lifestyle as a normal alternative. .
Who am I? Well, I am a member of the human race and a member of the 97% who aren’t homosexual, so on those two facts alone, I have every right to condemn homosexuals claiming the same rights as the rest of us enjoy.
Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say someone, or anyone, has the ‘right’ to condemn children to being brought up by same sex couples?
J
John21652
Guest
Islam is indeed a Natural Law religion. It is part of the foundation and structure of the Islamic religion.
May I refer you to a book by C.S. Lewis, called The Abolition of Man. In it he writes -
In using that quote, I point out that the use of human reason and logic, described by Lewis as a universal attribute, was a large factor in the early development of Islam. Platonism and Aristotelianism were heavy influences on early Islamic philosophy. However, that Islamic philosophical tradition has indeed been ‘watered down’, so to speak, by the emphasis on devine revelation and the emphasis given to the Koran as the word of Allah as given to Muhommet. However, scholars still see natural Law influences at work, even in what you would probably describe as the 'capriciousness" of modern Sharia Law. Here’s one scholarly article on the subject - The Nature Of Natural Law In Islam.
The subject of the discussion wasn’t the “majority of white people in the south”. The subject was the majority of the U.S population.
The Church is based on natural Law moral theory. Natural Law moral theory always says that homosexual acts are disordered. However, I am glad to hear that loving someone of the same sex is neither disordered, nor a sin. After all, I have three brothers and I love them dearly…
That is not what Paul said at all. He wrote in 2Corinthians 7:7 “Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am”, for he was an aesthetic that prided himself on self mastery. However, also at 7:7 he wrote “However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that” because he knew that not all men were like him. At 7:2 he wrote “But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband” and he outlined how and why each should remain faithful to the other. The only time he suggested that anyone should remain celibate is at 7:9 where he wrote “But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.” Once again, he was stressing his aestheticism. However, he then added *“But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” *. Those are hardly the thoughts of someone who was of the opinion that “everyone should be celibate”, as you so misleadingly wrote.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Well yes we can see traces of natural law in Islam, but that doesn’t mean it embraces it just as a society might have a few of those who commit homosexual acts and yet society does not embrace it at all.
R
RobbyS
Guest
i imagine if one looks at the incident of other habits of behavior, one can find similar patterns. What has to be resisted as that the idea that this shows a “cause,”
R
RobbyS
Guest
Natural law implies autonomy in nature. I don’t think that Islam allows this.
R
RobbyS
Guest
The gays are the shock troops of the sexual revolution, whose aim is to undermine the sexual morality that underlies the marriages laws. They hope to establish the dogma that reproduction is a moral evil, that humans are not subject to biologicalk laws.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Other tendencies often have genetic causes.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
You mean like fetal hormones altering the development of the brain?
- Status