Homosexuality: What's up with that? (V.2)

"women who are turned on by the thought of two men together."

I love those women.

 

Face it, Saint - you more or less ARE one of those women.

 

My penis says otherwise.

 

Your penis says all kinds of things - how am I to know what of it is lies and what is truth?

 

Cwrn:

"It's not as if I'm expecting homosexuals to be unique in their denial of certain aspects of their personality."

Yes, it is. You're asking homosexuals to forever deny a very basic and potent biological drive.

No, it's not. Heterosexuals should deny that drive until they get married, but guess what? Not every heterosexual gets married: there are "old maids" and resigned bachelors. There are quite a few heterosexuals who will not find anyone who wants to marry them.


"People who have unusually quick tempers should deny that part of themselves and keep it in check."

And yet again homosexuality is lumped into a category in which it is equated with behaviors that specifically harm others. Amazing.

Equally amazing is the fact that you take the one aspect of anger -- that it harms others -- and ignore other, more relevant features. Anger, like sexual attraction, is a "very basic and potent biological drive." That is the similarity. We're supposed to keep our anger in check, so why not our lust?

(And, the fact is, anger is one of my weakest areas. I emphasize anger just to make clear that I too have my struggles, but those struggles don't excuse those times in which I fail.)


"Heterosexuals must keep their own sexual attractions in check: the unmarried must abstain, and the married must remain faithful."

This is flawed on so many levels:

1) With the advent of reliable birth control, no one ever need wait until marriage to get jiggy with it.

This assumes that the morality of marriage is strictly related to procreation. I do not make that assumption, as I've already made clear.


2) You're asking homosexuals to fight their sexual urges for their entire lives, while the happy fun heteros only need wait for marriage. Nice.

And again, some heterosexuals never find anyone willing to marry them: you ignore that fact. That too is convenient and "nice."


3) Wonder of wonders, homosexuals have life-long commitments, just like heterosexuals. If ducks can do it, so can fags.

I do not see the relevance.

If you want to continue this line of thought, an adult and a child could have a life-long sexual relationship, too. But that doesn't justify the relationship and make it moral.


4) All of this works under the presumption that your faith is 100% correct and faiths that see things differently are wrong. It operates under the concept that everyone should be a part of your little religion - Christianity is by no means the most populace religion in this world.

And popularity does not determine accuracy, so again I question the relevance of that comment.

Do I believe my belief system is correct? Yes, I do -- but so does everyone else who is honest about what they sincerely believe.


"If morality is a real and important thing, and if our natural selves do not completely align with morality, then we should deny those parts that are immoral."

Life is immoral. We live in an immoral world. Life operates thanks to death. In order to survive, we must kill. This is a horrific fact of life and something that, in human terms, in human morality, is terrifying. We only cope with it because myth and religion have helped us to find ways in which to embrace this vile way of life.

Nice worldview: why again are you trying to justify homosexuality as a moral act? If human life is inherently immoral, your efforts seem in vain.


"Fortunately, I believe that we are not alone in our efforts, that God Himself can help those who ask."

Give us the hotline number, then.

See my signature.


It has been my experience that God hasn't said much of late, and even when He did make assertions, thousands of years ago, it was via a solitary person who came down from a mountain or out of the desert - the kind of person that would, by today's standards be termed a raving looney.

And how closely have you been listening to God? Have you even tried?


"But what is required of us as a first

 

Heterosexuals should deny that drive until they get married, but guess what? Not every heterosexual gets married: there are "old maids" and resigned bachelors. There are quite a few heterosexuals who will not find anyone who wants to marry them.

Yet they still had a choice in the matter - they could find someone in the sense that it wasn't forbidden and was actually encouraged. This is a ridiculous analogy, which can more or less be summed up as, "homosexuals, forbidden from having a marriage, are no different from heterosexuals who couldn't find a partner." Right.

Equally amazing is the fact that you take the one aspect of anger -- that it harms others -- and ignore other, more relevant features. Anger, like sexual attraction, is a "very basic and potent biological drive." That is the similarity. We're supposed to keep our anger in check, so why not our lust?

This is just insane. 1) My point is that HOMOSEXUALITY HARMS NO ONE, VIOLENCE DOES. You cannot make a proper allegory between the two and expect anything but a scoff from me. 2) I DO keep my lust in check, just as I keep my temper in check. It isn't as if homosexuals are all out there boinking anything of the same sex they possibly can - we, too have commited relationships wherein we must subdue our lust for others in defference to our mates. Yeesh.

(And, the fact is, anger is one of my weakest areas. I emphasize anger just to make clear that I too have my struggles, but those struggles don't excuse those times in which I fail.)

Hey, it's spiffy that you endeavor to work through your anger, but that doesn't equate it at all to homosexual desire. For one thing, everyone copes with anger to some degree - not everyone copes with homosexual desire. Also, once again, there is no shadow self of anger as there is with the comparison of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Sorry, the analogy simply does not work.


"2) You're asking homosexuals to fight their sexual urges for their entire lives, while the happy fun heteros only need wait for marriage. Nice."

And again, some heterosexuals never find anyone willing to marry them: you ignore that fact. That too is convenient and "nice."

It's not by any means analogous. Those who never find anyone have simply not been able to find anyone - this is completely different from someone who, by your standards, would be FORBIDDEN to find anyone. Homosexuals could meet any number of people who would make them happy in a relationship, but would not be allowed to as per your faith, whereas your "old maids" and "bachelors" would have been able to do so, had they met the right person.


"3) Wonder of wonders, homosexuals have life-long commitments, just like heterosexuals. If ducks can do it, so can fags."

I do not see the relevance.

Obviously not.

If you want to continue this line of thought, an adult and a child could have a life-long sexual relationship, too. But that doesn't justify the relationship and make it moral.

What? We're not talking about pedophilia. That's quite a leap. Allowing homosexuality leads to pedophilia or bestiality? Ha. Big difference, my friend. As we've said countless times, relationships between adults and children tend to be HARMFUL to the children whereas relationships between two adults of the same sex are beneficial to both.

"4) All of this works under the presumption that your faith is 100% correct and faiths that see things differently are wrong. It operates under the concept that everyone should be a part of your little religion - Christianity is by no means the most populace religion in this world."

And popularity does not determine accuracy, so again I question the relevance of that comment.

And I question the relevance of the assertion in the first place. By my standards, your morality has no bearing on MY life, which is my point. People like yourself, who espouse a certain morality, as if it is the one and only truth, need to understand that professing your beliefs as if th

 

As I've already established that STD's are not predominantly transmitted by gays, in what way does gay sex harm the partners?

 

We're supposed to keep our anger in check, so why not our lust?

First, because it's not just a matter of lust. Gay people don't just go arround thinking "I wanna shag everyone who is of the same sex as me". They mean to have full relationships (and yes, amonsgt the feelings they have, there's probably lust, as there is in a straight relationship).
To answer your question: because anger often leads to aggressive behaviour and to hurting people.

2) You're asking homosexuals to fight their sexual urges for their entire lives, while the happy fun heteros only need wait for marriage. Nice.

And again, some heterosexuals never find anyone willing to marry them: you ignore that fact. That too is convenient and "nice."

There was no argument against the fact that some straight people can't marry, get relationships, etc. I see it happening all the time. Simply this topic is called: "Homosexuality: What's up with that?" and not "Straightness: What's up with that?". People are generally inclined to answer the actual topic at hand (or should be).

3) Wonder of wonders, homosexuals have life-long commitments, just like heterosexuals. If ducks can do it, so can fags.

I do not see the relevance.

If you want to continue this line of thought, an adult and a child could have a life-long sexual relationship, too. But that doesn't justify the relationship and make it moral.

If *you* want to continue on that line of thought and thought, you'd come to the brilliant conclusion that there is a HUGE difference between a loving relationship and one of abuse.

4) All of this works under the presumption that your faith is 100% correct and faiths that see things differently are wrong. It operates under the concept that everyone should be a part of your little religion - Christianity is by no means the most populace religion in this world.

And popularity does not determine accuracy, so again I question the relevance of that comment.

Absolutely agreed. The german people on WW2 also voted for Hitler to be elected, perfectly knowing that he'd discriminate such minorities as jews and homossexuals.

There are sins against man and sins against God. If God created us to commit to lifelong heterosexual monagamy (or celibacy) and we rebel against His designs, then we have sinned against Him.

Monogamy? Sure. But where does it state "heterossexual" *anywhere* in the Bible?

And, I believe, we've hurt ourselves in the process: God's will is not arbitrary. All-loving, He wants what is in our best interest. All-knowing, He knows what that is. All-powerful, He can bring that about. To reject His will -- which is, I believe, in our best interests -- is to harm ourselves.

So I suppose the majority of mankind in your POV is masochistic? Alrighty then.

 

Yet they still had a choice in the matter - they could find someone in the sense that it wasn't forbidden and was actually encouraged. This is a ridiculous analogy, which can more or less be summed up as, "homosexuals, forbidden from having a marriage, are no different from heterosexuals who couldn't find a partner." Right.

There are differences, sure, but are the differences important for this discussion?

The fact that an old maid was morally free to look for a husband is a difference, no question about that. But, assuming she can find no husband, that difference doesn't matter: I believe she is still morally obligated to remain chaste.


This is just insane. 1) My point is that HOMOSEXUALITY HARMS NO ONE, VIOLENCE DOES. You cannot make a proper allegory between the two and expect anything but a scoff from me. 2) I DO keep my lust in check, just as I keep my temper in check. It isn't as if homosexuals are all out there boinking anything of the same sex they possibly can - we, too have commited relationships wherein we must subdue our lust for others in defference to our mates. Yeesh.

Homosexuality may indeed harm no human. But as I've said before in this very thread, there are two types of sin: sin against man and sin against God. If embracing homosexual desires is against God's will, it is against Him.

I do not mean to imply that homosexuals are intrinsically less monogamous -- nor do I think such a statement can be reasonably inferred from what I've written. I'm simply saying that I believe people must completely deny embracing their homosexual desires.

Does that, perhaps, makes things more difficult for those with homosexual desires compared to those with heterosexual desires?

Probably, but I don't see how that matters: we each have our own crosses to bear. Some of us must deal with homosexual desires, some of us must deal with a tendency to drink too much, and some of us must deal with a shorter temper.

That doesn't mean we're free to complain because we were dealt a bad hand in life. I do believe God will take what we were dealt into account. What matters is not what hand we're dealt but how we play that hand.

(And, ultimately, I do not believe God will give any of us more than we can bear.)


Hey, it's spiffy that you endeavor to work through your anger, but that doesn't equate it at all to homosexual desire. For one thing, everyone copes with anger to some degree - not everyone copes with homosexual desire. Also, once again, there is no shadow self of anger as there is with the comparison of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Sorry, the analogy simply does not work.

I could respond if I knew what a "shadow self" was.

Beyond that, analogies are simply analogies: because they compare two unlike things, there will be some attributes that are not shared between the two. What matters are those attributes that are actually shared: are my observations about them correct or not?


It's not by any means analogous. Those who never find anyone have simply not been able to find anyone - this is completely different from someone who, by your standards, would be FORBIDDEN to find anyone. Homosexuals could meet any number of people who would make them happy in a relationship, but would not be allowed to as per your faith, whereas your "old maids" and "bachelors" would have been able to do so, had they met the right person.

But that doesn't make them "completely different." Again, this analogy has some common attributes and some attributes that are not shared between the two.

Here's one common attribute: the old maid and the homosexual are morally required to remain celibate.

The difference you bring up is real, but does that affect the common attribute? I don't see how: I don't see how the old maid's moral struggle is made any easier with the fact that she's been jilted by every man she pursued.


"If you want to continue this line of thought, an adult and a child could have a life-long sexual relationship, too. But that doesn't ju

 

DarkWoman, I think I covered most of your questions in my previous response to Cwrn.

Two I didn't:


Monogamy? Sure. But where does it state "heterossexual" *anywhere* in the Bible?

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. -- Matthew 19:3-6

(A few verses later, Jesus also upholds chastity as a proper alternative to marriage. For comparison, Mark 10:2-9 covers the same event.)

This passage certainly emphasizes the idea of monagamy, but I believe Jesus is clear: God made men and women so that they would form lifelong, monagamous, heterosexual relationships under the bonds of marriage.

While many emphasize Old Testament scripture and Paul's letters as proof that homosexuality is immoral (and their emphasis may be well-placed), I believe this passage is sufficient. Jesus Himself establishes what sexual options are morally permissible: heterosexual monagamy and lifelong chastity. It stands to reason that all deviations from these options (homosexuality, polygamy, one-night stands, unfaithfulness) are immoral.

It may certainly be the case that some deviations are more morally reprehensible than others. In truth, I think homosexual monagamy is commendable compared to heterosexual "playing the field." As has already been noted by others, the latter results in hurting innocent lives and the former does not.

But saying that unfaithfulness is more reprehensible than homosexuality gets away from the main topic of whether homosexuality is immoral at all. I believe it is, and I believe we are called to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48).


So I suppose the majority of mankind in your POV is masochistic? Alrighty then.

Not masochistic: rebellious. It's not the idea that Hell is pleasant or enjoyable, it's the wrong-headed notion that it's "better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven."

 

Monogamy? Sure. But where does it state "heterossexual" *anywhere* in the Bible?


The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. -- Matthew 19:3-6


(A few verses later, Jesus also upholds chastity as a proper alternative to marriage. For comparison, Mark 10:2-9 covers the same event.)

This passage certainly emphasizes the idea of monagamy, but I believe Jesus is clear: God made men and women so that they would form lifelong, monagamous, heterosexual relationships under the bonds of marriage.

The excerpt that you showed although mentions heterossexual couples does not state anywhere anything against homossexuality. It merely says: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." and since homossexuality does not stop heterossexuals from getting together and procreate, I don't see any mention agaisnt it.

EDIT: And while I'm at it, I must ask: in your POV, someone homossexual who had never had a relationship or just sex with anyone would you consider him/her a sinner? And if so, please state your reasons.

 

There are differences, sure, but are the differences important for this discussion?

Of course they're important to this discussion. Now, if I were to say "Clowns scare the bloody living crap outta me" that would not be important to our discussion, no matter how true it may be.

The fact that an old maid was morally free to look for a husband is a difference, no question about that. But, assuming she can find no husband, that difference doesn't matter: I believe she is still morally obligated to remain chaste.

This makes absolutely no sense. She would be chaste one way or another - there is no choice involved. If aforementioned old maid (anyone else getting flashbacks to that weird-ass card game?) can find someone who is willing to pork her outside of marriage, chances are she could find someone to marry her, if she tried. Furthermore, she would be permitted, vis a vis your dogma to enter into marriage and thus boink to her heart's content.

You give homosexuals no such leeway - in your system, they must FIGHT their urges, even when given an opportunity whereas this old maid must not fight any urges, she is simply never given the chance to indulge them.

Homosexuality may indeed harm no human. But as I've said before in this very thread, there are two types of sin: sin against man and sin against God. If embracing homosexual desires is against God's will, it is against Him.

If homosexuality harms God, then He's quite the wussy omnipotent creator. Trust me, if my mother can deal with it, God sure as hell can.

I do not mean to imply that homosexuals are intrinsically less monogamous -- nor do I think such a statement can be reasonably inferred from what I've written. I'm simply saying that I believe people must completely deny embracing their homosexual desires.

I do not feel that you have implied such a thing - my point was that comparing denial of homosexual desire to that of a married man denying himself some shagging on the side is suspect - homosexuals in relationships deal with that exact same issue and therefore, you cannot say that heteros have in monogamy a cross that can be likened to the entire condition of homosexuality.

Does that, perhaps, makes things more difficult for those with homosexual desires compared to those with heterosexual desires?

Probably, but I don't see how that matters: we each have our own crosses to bear. Some of us must deal with homosexual desires, some of us must deal with a tendency to drink too much, and some of us must deal with a shorter temper.

I see. So, we're back to how fickle and arbitrary this God person tends to be, eh?

"Let's see... Your cross will be your temper, which is somewhat easy to control... Your cross will be uncontrollable flatulence at social gatherings... Your cross will be a big honkin' nose that scares of the fine-ass phillies... And YOUR cross will be an unquenchable desire to do the nasty with people of the same sex, only in order to follow my rules, you can't indulge it. Bwhahahahahahahaa! Man, this randomness is fun! I crack me up!"

That doesn't mean we're free to complain because we were dealt a bad hand in life. I do believe God will take what we were dealt into account. What matters is not what hand we're dealt but how we play that hand.

Did you get this from the Bible or are you just creating your own rules that you assume God would also employ?

(And, ultimately, I do not believe God will give any of us more than we can bear.)

Homosexuals - modern-day Jobs. Fun!

I could respond if I knew what a "shadow self" was.

Okay, look at it this way:

Homosexuality is to Heterosexuality as a quick temper is to ________________

Beyond that, analogies are simply analogies: because they compare two unlike things, there will be some attributes that are not shared between the two. What matters are those attributes that are actually shared: are my observations about them correct or not?

No. You analogies are used to espouse how a

 

I really should have started a new thread a page or two ago. Things just got a bit active here.

 

I'm all for the new thread.

Let's have it!

 

Will there be pillow talk in the new thread??

 

All righty. New thread it is .