Same sex attraction

[Charlemagne_II]

BlueShadow

All it does is confuse them and mess with their mind their whole life thinking everything they do is a sin. That is why most of them are atheists, because they don’t understand why God would allow the to be born that way.

I agree with your conclusion. Most people become atheists because they put their will before the will of God. They intend to do that forever, so why not just remove the red light and rush into whatever immorality suits them?

 

[Seeker2010]

bad becomes not bad, because ‘no harm is claimed’ or the act is between consenting adults.

‘Bad’ actions must have a reason for being ‘bad’. If I were to stand up right now and start shadow-boxing, I may look silly, but I’ve harmed nobody. On the other hand, were you standing in front of me while I were doing so, and I punched you in the face, you have been harmed. So the same action (throwing a punch) is morally neutral or morally bad depending on the outcome, or more to the point, intent. If I try to punch you and miss, the fact that you were not punched doesn’t make my action any less bad. To add an additional wrinkle into the mix, it’s not necessarily morally bad if I punch you in the face, if it’s in the context of an athletic competition to which we have both consented.

If an action causes no harm, or the harm is limited to those who have chosen to knowingly take on the risk, I cannot see how it can be labeled as ‘bad’.

We are talking about our culture. It must happen here, the reason we have incest laws in every state in the U.S.

The person to whom I was responding specifically stated that other cultures had more frequent cases of incest. Regardless, it’s hardly common, it’s not a sexual orientation, and it’s a strawman as the only thing homosexuality and incest have in common is they both deal with sexuality. Homosexuality=/=Incest.

And if the possibility of having children is eliminated by the parties, does this change your position?

It might. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not championing incest, the very idea skeeves me out, but just because I think something is skeevey is not a good enough reason for me to insist other people don’t do it. For that matter, the idea of male-male sex skeeves me out, but that doesn’t matter.

Further, I ask you this: if you are truly concerned about the welfare of children, how about the risk to the mental and social health of children adopted or ‘created’ by IVF or use of surrogates by same sex couples? Or, the children in polygamous / polyamorous relationships, which if legalized, you said you would not have problems with?

I’ve seen no compelling evidence that any such risks exist. Regardless, unless you’re advocating recriminalizing homosexual behavior (which will be extremely difficult as it’s been found by SCOTUS to be a fundamental, constitutionally protected right), using this point as an argument against gay marriage is moot. Marriage is a legal status. There are already homosexual and polyamorous relationships who have children, and giving them legal marriage won’t change that one iota.

 

[Seeker2010]

Unless, of course, one of the parties gives AIDS to the other.

By that logic, you’d have to label skydiving as immoral, because the one of the parties chutes could fail leading to his death. Regardless, with AIDS (or any other disease) the parties have knowingly taken on that risk, and if they were wise would take steps to prevent infection, but that’s on them.

Not so. Both are sexual disorders because they are unnatural attractions. God did not make us to have sex with our same sex any more than God made us to have sex with out mothers or fathers. Stop putting this on God. Why not put it on the Devil, where it belongs?

Incest is not the result of sexual attraction to only family members, it’s the result of sexual attraction to A SPECIFIC family member, probably because that person is human and sexually attractive. I’m putting it on god because god is the designer of homo sapiens, either directly or indirectly. Being attracted to your own gender is something inherent in the design.

This is downright false, and you know it. Lesbians also exchange bodily fluids.

I did not say they were immune, I said statistically speaking lesbian sex is the safest sex a human can partake in, with ‘safe’ meaning least likely to transmit disease. 'Cause you know the AIDS rate in the lesbian community is so high, right?

By the way, since there is no cure for AIDS at present, why are you defending it as natural. Is self destructive behavior natural?

Risky behavior is natural, and is done all the time. Every time a person steps onto a football field, they are risking injury, even death. Even mundane things like driving to work, or taking a bath carry with them a non-zero chance of injury or death.

The leading cause of death is birth. It’s 100% fatal. Ain’t none of us getting out of this alive.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

*Regardless, unless you’re advocating recriminalizing homosexual behavior (which will be extremely difficult as it’s been found by SCOTUS to be a fundamental, constitutionally protected right), using this point as an argument against gay marriage is moot. Marriage is a legal status. There are already homosexual and polyamorous relationships who have children, and giving them legal marriage won’t change that one iota. *

SCOTUS has not said gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right, though I expect the matter will eventually go to the Supreme Court.

By that logic, you’d have to label skydiving as immoral, because the one of the parties chutes could fail leading to his death. Regardless, with AIDS (or any other disease) the parties have knowingly taken on that risk, and if they were wise would take steps to prevent infection, but that’s on them.

How many people have died from sky diving as opposed to how many have died from AIDS? The risk factor increases exponentially with homosexuality as opposed to sky diving.

Incest is not the result of sexual attraction to only family members, it’s the result of sexual attraction to A SPECIFIC family member, probably because that person is human and sexually attractive. I’m putting it on god because god is the designer of homo sapiens, either directly or indirectly. Being attracted to your own gender is something inherent in the design.

Just like a liberal to blame everything on God instead of human sin and direct disobedience to God.

I did not say they were immune, I said statistically speaking lesbian sex is the safest sex a human can partake in, with ‘safe’ meaning least likely to transmit disease. 'Cause you know the AIDS rate in the lesbian community is so high, right?

Do you actually read my posts? Do you mean lesbian sex is safer that sex between two married people who have always been faithful to each other? Give me a break! Don’t you know that lesbians can also be promiscuous and even bisexual? Don’t you know that lesbians can contract AIDS. Don’t you know that married couples who have been faithful to each other cannot contract AIDS by sexual contact with each other? Whew!

lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianhealth/a/LesbianAIDS_2.htm

Risky behavior is natural, and is done all the time.

This is true, as druggies, alcoholics, and homosexuals ought to know. The risk factor is not a recommendation for the act, unless one is stupid.

*The leading cause of death is birth. It’s 100% fatal. Ain’t none of us getting out of this alive. *

That one you can blame on Adam and Eve … or God. Take your pick!

 

[Betterave]

You read something in my post that I obviously didn’t intend. I’m sorry if I offended you or any other person. My intentions are furthest from the idea. My idea was to get you to see what people who suffer pedophilia probably go through. I don’t suffer from pedophilia, so I don’t know exactly what they feel like. But given that you see such a sexual action as immoral, it is a given that you think they should restrain them. And I agree. My idea was not to compare a homosexual couple to pedophilia.

Blueshadow jumped to a groundless conclusion and self-righteously attacked you for no good reason whatsoever - she should be apologizing, not you!

 

[Betterave]

I’m not saying that they weren’t, but the way they are presented makes them look like personal attacks. In other words, instead of saying:

…you could have just left it at:

…and instead of using the line “that is sophomoric”, which is basically a sophisticated way of flaming the other poster for making childish arguments (not that said arguments aren’t necessarily childish), you could, again, just leave out the comment and point out the logical fallacy and/or just respond in a less condescending manner.

For example, to this:

Instead of this:

…this would have been more appropriate:

To conclude, if you have to resort to (directly or indirectly) attacking your opposition just to get your point across, you aren’t getting very far above their level, and are instead inviting further unsupported back-talking. If your reader respects you, they will respect your point.

BTW: It isn’t just you, Betterave. I think everyone who has posted on the last page or two should be reading this.

I guess you may be right, but the problem is that the reference to the sophomoric nature of the comments reflects that fact that the strategy of pointing out the fallacies was not effective, my arguments were being ignored. When you repeatedly point out errors in reasoning and that doesn’t make a dent in your interlocutor’s sophomoric self-assurance, what do you do then? It seems to me that she/he needs to be invited to look at him-/herself and to understand that she/he is making intelligent discussion impossible. I think that’s really the *most *relevant point to make at some points of an argument.

 

[Betterave]

Ah, we have actual substance. Excellent!

So here is the question. If he is capable of doing so, why doesn’t he? After all, the penalty for a lack of belief is eternal damnation, we’re told god wants salvation for all, so he could ensure a lot more belief by showing himself. And you are right, knowledge does not directly imply compliance, but faced with an indisputable fact that lack of belief and/or specific actions will cause eternal damnation will cause most people to comply.

There are some obvious reasons why he doesn’t, which we can discuss if you want. But “not knowing why X” does not imply “not X” - so how is this relevant?

It being an indisputable fact is very different from “Well, I know this or that religion SAYS this or that action (or belief) will lead to eternal damnation, but I don’t believe that to be true so I see no reason to comply.”

Riiight… what is your point?

At 9:30AM this coming Tuesday, I may feel the desire to masturbate. However, if I happen to be in public I will refrain from doing so because the risk of arrest is virtually 100%, and I don’t want to go to jail. However, if I am home and my blinds are pulled I might do it. But, if I know, indisputably, that doing so will result in a trip to hell forever, I’m going to refrain to avoid that, as my understanding is jail is a walk in the park compared to hell, and if I’m willing to abstain to avoid jail, I’m doubly willing to abstain to avoid hell. Whether or not I agree with it.

Okay… again, what is your point?

Obviously, I don’t believe that, and I certainly don’t KNOW it, so if I am in appropriate circumstances and desire to masturbate, I guess I will.

But if god wants salvation for me, but will in actuality send me to hell for masturbating, why not show himself to me (I’m using the first person here, but this is just an example and really applies to everyone) so that I will be more inclined to obey and subsequently receive salvation?

Again: how is this question relevant?

If you did so, I missed it. Did you point it out (e.g. explain yourself) or merely declare it so?

Well let me point out that you miss a lot! I pointed it out and explained it in post 183. I didn’t get very far after that because of your insistence on producing more absurd caricatures instead of trying to understand what I told you.

 

[Betterave]

My comment wasn’t rude! I asked you to quit calling him immature and ignorant!

Then you twist it on me saying that I was the one being rude by telling YOU to quit calling others names?

Yeah, I don’t think so. Ive had enough of you and your games. Grow up.

So you ignore what I’ve said and my grounds for saying what I’ve said, tell me I’m rude and to grow up… but you’re comments aren’t rude? That’s a claim I’m afraid we disagree on (although since this is a philosophy forum and we’re supposed to be interested in getting to the truth using good arguments, ‘rude’ isn’t the first word that comes to mind for me).

 

[Betterave]

(Language nit: PolyGAMY is one man, many women, whereas polyAMORY is 3+ regardless of gender. If it were ever legalized, I cannot imagine it would be pure polygamy.)

Wrong. Polygyny is one man, multiple women. Polygamy can go either way. Polyandry is one woman multiple men. Polyamory is a recent coinage which has nothing to do with marriage and seems to just be a fancy word invented for the purpose of legitimizing the notion of having non-exclusive (multiple, concurrent) sexual relationships.

 

[Seeker2010]

SCOTUS has not said gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right, though I expect the matter will eventually go to the Supreme Court.

You are right, but what I meant was SCOTUS found consensual sodomy to be a constitutional right, so I guess I don’t understand why you all are protesting so much.

What is it you want?

Homosexuals are not going away, they’re raising children, poly people are living poly lifestyles. As these actions have been found constitutionally protected, even if you want to make them illegal, it will require a constitutional amendment, which is extremely difficult and probably practically impossible. And if you’re not advocating criminalizing them, what is it that you are advocating?

They’re here. They’re queer. Get used to it.

How many people have died from sky diving as opposed to how many have died from AIDS? The risk factor increases exponentially with homosexuality as opposed to sky diving.

Does it? Or is it simply that relatively speaking there are more homosexuals than skydivers? According to the CDC, about 18,000 Americans die annually due to AIDS. Now, that sounds like a lot of people, but it’s only .00006% of the population. I’ve heard estimates that roughly 10% of people are gay, for arguments sake let’s say it’s half of that. Further, let’s assume just for giggles that 100% of the AIDS deaths are gay men.

300,000,000 population
x .50 males
150,000,000
x .05
7,500,000

18,000 is 0.0024% of 7,500,000. Thus for all homosexual men in America, only 2.4 die for every 100,000 gay men.

Wow. Even I thought it was worse than it actually is.

The USPA estimates the fatality rate for skydiving at 1 for every 100,000 jumps. It’s a bit hard to do a direct comparison, as the 2.4/100,000 figure is PEOPLE and the 1/100,000 figure is ACTIONS, but would seem there’s not much difference in the risk profile after all.

Do you actually read my posts? Do you mean lesbian sex is safer that sex between two married people who have always been faithful to each other?

That is not what I said. I said that statistically speaking, lesbian sex is the least risky form of sex humans can perform. That is a fact, not an opinion.

Yes, if you are in a monogamous relationship with someone who is uninfected, your risk of infection is zero if both parties remain truly monogamous. But that is true regardless of if whether or not it is a heterosexual relationship or not.

This is true, as druggies, alcoholics, and homosexuals ought to know.

I gave you mundane, everyday examples, including things you probably personally do on a daily basis and you come back to me with druggies and alcoholics? Life is risky. You can accept that or you can live in a bubble. Your choice.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

The USPA estimates the fatality rate for skydiving at 1 for every 100,000 jumps. It’s a bit hard to do a direct comparison, as the 2.4/100,000 figure is PEOPLE and the 1/100,000 figure is ACTIONS, but would seem there’s not much difference in the risk profile after all.

This logic is not at all persuasive. It does not take into account the fact that homosexuals also risk contracting other diseases than AIDS that may or may not be fatal. A sky diver **always **dies. There are probably at this moment thousands of homosexuals not only dying from AIDS, but also suffering from other sexually transmitted diseases that are mentally and/or physically debilitating. You haven’t even mentioned them in your statistics. Nor have you mentioned those who suffer and die from rectal cancer due to sodomy. Nor have you mentioned those whose marriages to women have been wrecked because they turned to sex with men. The list goes on and on.

*They’re here. They’re queer. Get used to it. *

The human race has never gotten used to it. Why should I?

*Life is risky. You can accept that or you can live in a bubble. Your choice. *

The sexual bubble my wife and I live in is safe. The homosexual’s bubble is not.

I guess you just haven’t figured out that AIDS is Mother Nature’s way of saying: “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.”

 

[Seeker2010]

Okay… again, what is your point?

Start with the following assumptions.

1- God loves us.
2- God wants everyone to receive salvation.
3- God hates masturbation.
4- In fact, God hates masturbation SO much, that he’ll torture you for all of eternity if you do it and are not absolved prior to your death.
5- Lots of people masturbate, and of them, a lot do not receive absolution before they die.
6- Most of those mentioned in 5 are not doing so to directly contradict number 3, but because they simply don’t believe it to be true.
7- Notwithstanding that, #4 goes into affect when these poor souls die. God is sad, but them’s the rules.

Second set of assumptions:
1- Most people will not masturbate in circumstances that could lead to punishment, such as being arrested if you do so in public.
2- Even people who would otherwise masturbate would refrain if they KNEW FOR CERTAIN doing do would send them to hell for eternity.

Ergo, god himself could save most, if not all of those poor souls by merely making his presence known, and making it clear that he means it about masturbation. I’m not suggesting that he strip anyone of free will, I’m suggesting that he can allow that will to be fully informed.

Yet he does not? Why? (For the record, my answer is that he doesn’t give a rip if people masturbate, but since you think he does, why allow all those souls to drown when they could so easily be saved?)

 

[Betterave]

They’re here. They’re queer. Get used to it.

Classic line from the Simpsons: “We’re here - we’re queer - we want to kill the bear!”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

*Yet he does not? Why? (For the record, my answer is that he doesn’t give a rip if people masturbate, but since you think he does, why allow all those souls to drown when they could so easily be saved?) *

They have been saved by the crucified Christ. But God does not choose to force salvation on anyone. Some choose not to be saved because they put themselves against the will of God to be saved. You can’t seem to grasp that salvation or damnation is your choice, not God’s, though God urges the salvation of all.

How could they be easily saved? By creating them in such a way that they could not choose evil? Then God would have created robots, not men and women.

 

[Betterave]

Start with the following assumptions.

1- God loves us.
2- God wants everyone to receive salvation.
3- God hates masturbation.
4- In fact, God hates masturbation SO much, that he’ll torture you for all of eternity if you do it and are not absolved prior to your death.

Let’s stop right there and refer to the Catechism:

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

Now is there any part of this that you don’t understand? Can you see that your little argument is based on a straw man view of what the Church teaches? Can you try hard to remember all of the other times you’ve been corrected when you have produced this same straw man argument? Can you explain why you continue to produce it, regardless of the fact that it is clearly based on a silly caricature of what the Church actually teaches?

**

 

[Seeker2010]

It does not take into account the fact that homosexuals also risk contracting other diseases than AIDS that may or may not be fatal.

You were the one who kept saying ‘But what about AIDS, but what about AIDS!’ So I decided to see, well, what about AIDS? Frankly I’m shocked the numbers are so low, and I suspect you are too, but you’re afraid to admit it.

The only other non-curable disease homosexual sex can expose themselves is HSV (a medical nuisance) and HPV, which for men has no symptoms. You’re grasping at straws now.

Nor have you mentioned those who suffer and die from rectal cancer due to sodomy.

Because the numbers are so absurdly small they’re not even worth discussing. It’s true, research indicates homosexual men are 7x more likely to get anal cancer than straight men.

But do you know how few people die from anal cancer? 700. Per year. Out of 300,000,000. Do you know that 60% of them are women? And did you know that 90% are attributable to HPV, for which we now have a vaccine? That by 100 years from now, HPV will be extinct?

No, you didn’t know all of that because you don’t bother looking into anything before making proclamations.

Nor have you mentioned those whose marriages to women have been wrecked because they turned to sex with men.

People do not wake up one day and go, ‘Ya know what, I’m tired of being straight. I think I’m gonna try the gay thing for awhile.’ Men who have come out of the closet causing a divorce were gay the whole time, even if they couldn’t admit it to themselves.

The human race has never gotten used to it. Why should I?

Ah, the times they are a changin’! 100 years from now they’ll look back on our society’s view of homosexuality with the same scorn we do to the racists of 100 years ago. It will happen. It is happening.

I guess you just haven’t figured out that AIDS is Mother Nature’s way of saying: “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.”

I’m surprised it’s taken someone this long to trot out ‘AIDS is God’s way of punishin queers just fer bein’ queers.’ You’re sounding rather hateful today.

 

[Seeker2010]

They have been saved by the crucified Christ.

Ah, but that is a gift that comes with strings. Believe! Obey!

Some choose not to be saved because they put themselves against the will of God to be saved. You can’t seem to grasp that salvation or damnation is your choice, not God’s, though God urges the salvation of all.

Do you really believe a single soul has ever truly chosen damnation? Would you purchase a house knowing that the bedrooms are filled with boiling oil, and once the house was purchased you would literally be forced to bathe within? No, you wouldn’t. Nobody CHOOSES to be punished, especially that way.

You say masturbation (or whatever, it’s merely an example) is evil, which is laughable, but nonetheless by masturbating people are choosing damnation, I say that’s wrong. IF masturbation caused damnation, and IF people knew that beyond doubt, they would not masturbate. As evidence I give the the current crime wave of people masturbating in public. Oh, wait, you mean that’s not happening? Perhaps because they’d get arrested?

You think the average person fear arrest more than eternal damnation?

How could they be easily saved? By creating them in such a way that they could not choose evil? Then God would have created robots, not men and women.

I’m not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that if the true nature of god is as you and your church believe, then your god is a cruel and petty tyrant. He makes people gay, but punishes them for acting on it. He makes sure there’s competitive religions on the world, but punishes those who choose the wrong one (or none at all). He can get a virgin (12 years old, btw, just learned that recently) pregnant, but a thin layer of latex has him stumped, and you’ll be punished if you use it.

Codswallop.

God is light, god is love. Not this petty little dictator wannabe your church speaks of.

 

[BlueShadow123]

So you ignore what I’ve said and my grounds for saying what I’ve said, tell me I’m rude and to grow up… but you’re comments aren’t rude? That’s a claim I’m afraid we disagree on (although since this is a philosophy forum and we’re supposed to be interested in getting to the truth using good arguments, ‘rude’ isn’t the first word that comes to mind for me).

You were being rude, and I pointed it out. Because your ‘tactic’ of debating by calling others names, is no way to debate successfully.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

Ah, the times they are a changin’! 100 years from now they’ll look back on our society’s view of homosexuality with the same scorn we do to the racists of 100 years ago. It will happen. It is happening.

That is no doubt what certain degenerate Greeks and Romans were saying to each other before Christ appeared on the scene. It didn’t happen then, and it’s not going to happen in 100 years. You fool only yourself to think so.

*I’m surprised it’s taken someone this long to trot out ‘AIDS is God’s way of punishin queers just fer bein’ queers.’ You’re sounding rather hateful today. *

All I pointed out is that actions have consequences. I didn’t rejoice in those consequences, and I feel sorry for the homosexuals who have to live with the consequences of their own choice. But their choice was not God’s choice, and you have to stop being hateful in this forum with such remarks as the following:

*God is light, god is love. Not this petty little dictator wannabe your church speaks of. *

This forum was not created for blasphemers of our God to celebrate their art. Keep it up and I will certainly report you for a foul mouth. :tsktsk:

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
But do you know how few people die from anal cancer? 700. Per year. Out of 300,000,000. Do you know that 60% of them are women? And did you know that 90% are attributable to HPV, for which we now have a vaccine? That by 100 years from now, HPV will be extinct?

Just so readers know, here’s the context of the stats you provided.

SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Anal Cancer:It is estimated that 5,260 men and women (2,000 men and 3,260 women) in the U.S. will be diagnosed with and 720 men and women will die of cancer of the anus, anal canal, and anorectum in 2010.

Anal Cancer On The Increase: Risk factors associated with increased anal-cancer risk included gay or bisexual orientation among men, a high number of lifetime sexual partners and a history of receptive anal sex. The study also suggested that the overall increase in anal cancer rates might be partially attributable to an increase in the average number of lifetime sexual partners and an increase in the number of people engaging in anal sex, particularly among women.

Receptive anal intercourse, whether male or female, increases the chances of anal cancer sevenfold. From this link.

Homosexual and bisexual men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than straight men. From this link.

No matter how much you try, the stats do not paint a pretty picture, Seeker.

…
Ah, the times they are a changin’! 100 years from now they’ll look back on our society’s view of homosexuality with the same scorn we do to the racists of 100 years ago. It will happen. It is happening.

How you wish. But don’t hold your breath.

I’m surprised it’s taken someone this long to trot out ‘AIDS is God’s way of punishin queers just fer bein’ queers.’ You’re sounding rather hateful today.

Not fair, not accurate, Seeker. That’s not what Charlemagne said. Unbridled promiscuous homosexual acts are what significantly triggered the AIDS spread, not orientation or ‘just fer bein’ queers.’ That’s a fact, for which others and innocents have also been affected (the disease having been passed on to unsuspecting wives/girlfriends of bisexual men and to their babies in the womb). How can anyone be glad for such tragedies?

In your rabid defense of same sex acts, you minimize behavior that could have been curbed, as though men are only ruled by libido. And you blame God for men in their exercise of free will by acting on a disordered sexual urge! Who is being hateful? You can’t stand the fact that the majority has and will always look at homosexual acts as outside the norm, even if same sex advocates eventually succeed in having existing laws changed in favor of gay ‘marriage’. The majority has and will always look at poly sex as outside the norm, as well.

. . . . . .