What do you think of homosexuality?

[Celtic_Son]

I think it is an abomination to God just like his word says. That was one of the reasons he destroyed Sodom & Gomorah for right? I think the person is still a child of God but the Homosexuality is an abominable sin. That is just my opinion.

 

[RyanL]

Digger71:

Ryan, I was not specifically responding to anything you said, but to another post entirely.

My apologies - I thought you were doing the whole talk-around-him-like-he’s-not-really-here thing. I was mistaken - again, I apologize if I was overly confrontational.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[BlindSheep]

Libero:

Cool, me too - I respect the Catholic church for it’s position (and I understand it) but God has not called me to appreciate it yet - maybe he will maybe he won’t…

Anywho - is this the curse of the young people?.. Dun dun dunnnn

Well, there is at least one young person here (27) who disagrees, partly at least.
I believe homosexual sex is always unhealthy, sinful, and unwise. However, I also think this about adultery, fornication, etc. I think that the temptation to have sex when/with whom we shouldn’t is something almost everyone struggles with at one time or another. I am repulsed by attitudes (on both sides) that degrade and dehumanize people because of their sexual attractions, and there are gay people who are very dear to me, and I can see that the "gay culture"is endangering them, which makes me sad.

 

[Dubervilles]

I have to agree with Libero here. Even my mother and grandmother believe that eventually it will be proven without a doubt that homosexuality is from birth. (in some cases).

Personally a couple weeks ago my husband and I went with our gay friends to get their ‘domestic partnership’ notarized (state of CA) and we couldn’t be happier for them.

 

[RyanL]

Dubervilles:

I have to agree with Libero here. Even my mother and grandmother believe that eventually it will be proven without a doubt that homosexuality is from birth. (in some cases.

I don’t mean to belittle or demean this in any way, but I have to ask…if pedophilia and beastiality were determined to be “from birth”, would you be equally happy for us to sanction those behaviors? Would that make those behaviors morally good?

God Bless
RyanL

 

[LRThunder]

Libero:

Sodomy Laws - laws don’t come much more religious than those

Your in the “revolution” stage

And how often do the police actually try to enforce those laws?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Dubervilles:

I have to agree with Libero here. Even my mother and grandmother believe that eventually it will be proven without a doubt that homosexuality is from birth. (in some cases).

Personally a couple weeks ago my husband and I went with our gay friends to get their ‘domestic partnership’ notarized (state of CA) and we couldn’t be happier for them.

Even if it could be shown that homosexuality is genetic (and that is a highly debateable point.), it would no more make the act morally acceptable than a genetic disposition toward alcoholism would make a drunkard’s boozing morally acceptable or a disposition to violent criminal behavior make violent criminal acts acceptable. I will grant that it might reduce culpability, but it does not bear on the objective question on the act itself. The elephant is still sitting on people’s heads, but still no one will pay it any mind.

Scott

 

[buffalo]

Dubervilles:

I have to agree with Libero here. Even my mother and grandmother believe that eventually it will be proven without a doubt that homosexuality is from birth. (in some cases).

Personally a couple weeks ago my husband and I went with our gay friends to get their ‘domestic partnership’ notarized (state of CA) and we couldn’t be happier for them.

We know God created them male and female. Original sin brought corruption and death into the world. Our environment also plays a part in genetics. Given this, even if one is predisposed genetically they are called to chastity. This is a higher calling than simply giving in and embracing the condition. This applies to any other sinful predisposition as well.

 

[Libero]

BlindSheep:

Well, there is at least one young person here (27) who disagrees, partly at least.
I believe homosexual sex is always unhealthy, sinful, and unwise. However, I also think this about adultery, fornication, etc. I think that the temptation to have sex when/with whom we shouldn’t is something almost everyone struggles with at one time or another. I am repulsed by attitudes (on both sides) that degrade and dehumanize people because of their sexual attractions, and there are gay people who are very dear to me, and I can see that the "gay culture"is endangering them, which makes me sad.

Yeah “young” - you have got a good eleven years on me

 

[Digger71]

RyanL:

What did I say about my desire for an emotional response? Oh, that’s right…I said that’s exactly what I don’t want. Way to pay attention, though.

I’ve now full read your full response, and what can I say? I was not referencing your arguments at all, or your points, I was simply providing a series of observations and possibilities to a ‘I cant believe’ post.

So please calm down.

However, I do believe that for many people disgust = immoral at some level, especially for culturally inculcated values. Not all disgust is the same, I feel a set of emotions that can be labled ‘disgust’, though my disgust at touching raw flesh is different to my disgust at intellectual dishonesy, which is different to the disgust I feel for some types of politics. The relationship between disgust and immoral is not automatic and inevitable, there is clearly a societal element.

It is not clear that morals are ever purely rational. I think morals are not. I think ethics demonstrate more rationality.

Anyway, light reading for both of us. people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/

Have I ever claimed any of that? I am completely convinced that many homosexual couples sincerely love each other and are trying to express that love through their sexual acts.

I was not refering to you, but to a sense I had picked up.

The below does reference Catholic doctrine, but is the sort thing one comes across. Incidently sense the disgust…

Rather interestingly, I found this reference WARNING IT IS A HATE PAGE!!! DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE!)

tencommandments.org/homosexual.html

DO NOT READ THE ITALICISED SECTION IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE

*Homosexuals use many methods to deceive the gullible into tolerating homosexuality. One way they do so is to point to same sex attraction among animals. Do not be deceived into thinking that since same sex attraction has been observed among animals that this somehow legitimizes same sex attraction for humans. Some animals are also known to eat carrion, excrement and attack and kill humans. If same sex attraction among them can be rightly used to legitimize same sex attraction among humans, so can all their other unclean and murderous tendencies. Animals are irrational creatures that are not accountable to God. Only totally depraved fools point to the **nasty actions of dogs *as examples to follow rather than live according to the righteousness of God. Homosexuals prove they have fallen lower than animals by making animals as their mentors and examples to follow. One thing for sure is creatures of instinct demonstrate that they are more righteous than homosexuals, because they do not seek to justify their acts by the nasty acts of homosexuals.

This page is filled with hatred and the author certainly only practices christian rituals, but it has many echoes…

mask.org.za/article.php?cat=&id=225

hrw.org/reports/2003/safrica/safriglhrc0303-02.htm

I never referred to your arguments, but some on these boards condemn homosexuality becasue there is no procreation between same-sex couples

Why are you trying to blur the question?

I haven’t even approached your question.

So the core of your response has nothing to do with the core of my argument. Interesting way of responding.

:banghead:

For at least the third time on this thread I will say - Basing your morality on what is legal and what is illegal is basing your morality in the sand.

I am pretty sure I never said morality was based on legality. I am pretty sure I discussed the concept of consent and only that, per se.

It’s not a “thus” statement, but I’ll agree that animals cannot vocalize or sign their consent at law. That said…we do lab testing on animals and we don’t require their consent for that. We exterminate animals and we don’t require their consent for that. Why on earth should we expect their consent in this area? Aren’t you dogmatically singling out sex as a “different kind of act”? Why are you so narrow-minded?

Actually I a not the one who brought up zoophilia and pedastry and conflated them with homosexuality. Far from being ‘narrow minded’ I waslimiting myself because the subject could get very wide.

But to answer you. If something cannot be considered as able to consent, it is also implicitly unable to refuse consent. It is not deemed (yes DEEMED) able to make judgements.

 

[Libero]

RyanL:

I don’t mean to belittle or demean this in any way, but I have to ask…if pedophilia and beastiality were determined to be “from birth”, would you be equally happy for us to sanction those behaviors? Would that make those behaviors morally good?

God Bless
RyanL

With respect Ryan, I think you really are trying to compare apples and oranges here. There are fundamental problems with bestiality and paedophillia that do not occur with homosexuality, those being:

Bestiality - an entire different species, no emotion involved, lack of consent…

Paedophillia - youths are not mature enough to engage in sexual acts…

Paedophillia and bestiality are both highly harmful to at least one participants human life.

It is arguable whether or not consential sex between two adult homosexuals is harmful to the human life - I am leaving out religious arguments at this point.

Note: I should make sure you recognise my signature, thankyou

 

[Libero]

LRThunder:

And how often do the police actually try to enforce those laws?

Have you never heard of all the famous people persecuted under them in Britain?

Oscar Wilde to name one,

And a person of far more importance, ALAN TURING - a hero!

I don’t know about the US though so you can fill me in

 

[LRThunder]

Libero:

Have you never heard of all the famous people persecuted under them in Britain?

Oscar Wilde to name one,

And a person of far more importance, ALAN TURING - a hero!

I don’t know about the US though so you can fill me in

The insinuation was that the US had a theocracy and I pointed out examples where this is not the case.

Even if sodomy laws are still on the books in Britain or the U.S. does not make either country a theocracy. In fact, I’d say that a reverse trend, at least for the U.S. seems to be the case…a trend away from Christianity or away from a theocratic government.

 

[Dubervilles]

No I don’t think beasteality and pedophelia are similar at all–animals cannot consent for sex and neither can children (and even if they do the consent ages should remain in place as they do today)…in both of those cases they are hurting someone or something else.

They more I post on this board I realize that apprently sex should be phased out all together for everyone…after all if you are homosexual–no sex, if you are single–no sex, if you are married but don’t want children at all–no sex, if you are married and are trying to control how many children you want to have (or waiting years in between or after your marriage) because you want to persue careers and other interests–no sex (except for a couple times to have children)…

Anyways…our friends have been in a loving relationship much longer than my husband and I, are good people and probably could raise better children than we could.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Digger71:

Homosexuals use many methods to deceive the gullible into tolerating homosexuality. One way they do so is to point to same sex attraction among animals. Do not be deceived into thinking that since same sex attraction has been observed among animals that this somehow legitimizes same sex attraction for humans. Some animals are also known to eat carrion, excrement and attack and kill humans. If same sex attraction among them can be rightly used to legitimize same sex attraction among humans, so can all their other unclean and murderous tendencies. Animals are irrational creatures that are not accountable to God. Only totally depraved fools point to the **nasty actions of dogs **as examples to follow rather than live according to the righteousness of God. Homosexuals prove they have fallen lower than animals by making animals as their mentors and examples to follow. One thing for sure is creatures of instinct demonstrate that they are more righteous than homosexuals, because they do not seek to justify their acts by the nasty acts of homosexuals.

I will take your word that it is a hate-filled site and will not visit it myself, but are you saying that he is lying? That is, homosexuals do not find examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kindgom and try to hobble a case that it makes human homosexual acts acceptable?

Scott

 

[Libero]

LRThunder:

The insinuation was that the US had a theocracy and I pointed out examples where this is not the case.

Even if sodomy laws are still on the books in Britain or the U.S. does not make either country a theocracy. In fact, I’d say that a reverse trend, at least for the U.S. seems to be the case…a trend away from Christianity or away from a theocratic government.

Can you not see the connections -

Also as I said Britain abolished its laws quite some time ago now - Britain was practically theocratic, but then again we had a monarch ruling so it was different…

Anyway it is all off topic now…

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Dubervilles:

No I don’t think beasteality and pedophelia are similar at all–animals cannot consent for sex and neither can children (and even if they do the consent ages should remain in place as they do today)…in both of those cases they are hurting someone or something else.

They more I post on this board I realize that apprently sex should be phased out all together for everyone…after all if you are homosexual–no sex, if you are single–no sex, if you are married but don’t want children at all–no sex, if you are married and are trying to control how many children you want to have (or waiting years in between or after your marriage) because you want to persue careers and other interests–no sex (except for a couple times to have children)…

Anyways…our friends have been in a loving relationship much longer than my husband and I, are good people and probably could raise better children than we could.

Again, none of this remotely puts together a rational case that the homosexual act is morally acceptable–everyone is still waiting for someone to do it. The bestiality/pedohilia distinction is arbitrary and the comments about this board regarding sex are just sad caricature.

Scott

 

[RyanL]

Digger71:

I’ve now full read your full response…

Did reading my responses include reading my direct response to you in post #99? I’ll quote it in its entirety so you don’t have to go back a page.

RyanL:

My apologies - I thought you were doing the whole talk-around-him-like-he’s-not-really-here thing. I was mistaken - again, I apologize if I was overly confrontational.

God Bless,
RyanL

Hmmph. I guess not. What more can I do?

In any case, again you respond to my intellectual argument regarding coherent morality with an emotive post meant to distract the reader from the point at issue.

Disappointing, really.

I have not attacked on an emotive level, and you respond by saying, “Yeah, but other people do.” What does that have to do with me?

Oh, yeah, and since you read my arguments you also must have read where I discussed the consent issue and how the law addresses complicity and implied consent. Again, you have failed to address anything I have posted.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Libero]

Scott Waddell:

Again, none of this remotely puts together a rational case that the homosexual act is morally acceptable–everyone is still waiting for someone to do it. The bestiality/pedohilia distinction is arbitrary and the comments about this board regarding sex are just sad caricature.

Scott

Morally acceptable?

Fine, using the following definition of moral, taken from www.dictionary.com

Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

I shall provide a simple justification.

Whether or not something is moral can be judged by whether it is good or bad. In a world of conflicting religious spiritual views, I do not feel it appropriate to include religious theme. Therefore, I use the idea of physical or significant psychological harm to other people, and a huge negative impact on society to summarise a bad action. And good can be something that benefits society.

As responsible homosexual itercourse does neither (as does fruitless heterosexual intercourse) I believe that it can only be considered “neutral” therefore it can be morally justified.

NOTE: These are my opinions - nothing more.

 

[RyanL]

Dubervilles:

No I don’t think beasteality and pedophelia are similar at all–animals cannot consent for sex and neither can children (and even if they do the consent ages should remain in place as they do today)…in both of those cases they are hurting someone or something else.

I have already addressed this point several times. Please, read the discussion before posting - and when you post again, please bring substantive moral reasoning to the table. I’m not asking for opinion, I’m asking for a coherent and internally consistant system of moral thought that justifies homosexuality and does not also justify pedophilia, beastiality, adultry, polygamy, etc. I have focused only on pedophilia and beastiality simply because most rational people find these things morally unacceptable - the question is what moral distinction separates these from homosexuality.

They more I post on this board I realize that apprently sex should be phased out all together for everyone…after all if you are homosexual–no sex, if you are single–no sex, if you are married but don’t want children at all–no sex, if you are married and are trying to control how many children you want to have (or waiting years in between or after your marriage) because you want to persue careers and other interests–no sex (except for a couple times to have children)…

Yeah - you’re prolly right. Who in their right minds would dare desire that sexual congress be linked in any way to procreation? How silly…that Dr. Freud must have been some kind of religious nut…(post #50)…certainly there can’t be a *rational reason *for thinking this might have something to do with a moral question…

Anyways…our friends have been in a loving relationship much longer than my husband and I, are good people and probably could raise better children than we could.

I have already said a couple of times now that I believe many homosexual couples are in stable and loving relationships - that’s not what’s at issue. What’s at issue is whether or not this is moral, not whether or not they are happy, loving or prolonged.

Focus, please.

God Bless,
RyanL