samtonga43
Well-Known Member
But what makes you think that it is NOT possible for a homosexual man to have sexual intercourse with a lesbian?
Maybe you need to enrol in a sex education class...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Homosexuality and religious.
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
Maybe you need to enrol in a sex education class...
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
Christian here, and perfectly able to be compassionate sans caveats. Careful with the generalizations!
It always comes back to the same explanation: We have to follow the laws from God (that isn't known to exist) as dictated through a mortal who claims to be God's Messenger (but we can't confirm this), so we have no choice.
But there are many choices. Choose not to be Bahai because it has a bigoted law that the hierarchy won't eliminate. The hierarchy could decide to eliminate this law by claiming God spoke to them, but they don't. Bahai members could choose to splinter a different sect (hey, if the Abrahamic religions can do it....).
That's enough. Nobody needs to justify themselves for taking sexual pleasure in a consensual, adult relationship. But there must be more benefit to humanity, since evolution has selected for it. You've seen suggestions for how homosexuality might benefit families and villages.
You responded to, "Even gay people can reproduce." Your objection is irrelevant to the issue of whether homosexuality is immoral. Being able to conceive during homosexual sex is also irrelevant. The entire issue of the moral status of homosexuality rests in it not being immoral, that is, not a harmful behavior.
Humanists need a better reason than that somebody SAID that a god told them to tell the rest of us how to behave.
It's already been done in this thread by several posters here. The Humanist answer is because it's not immoral according to rational ethics, which are based in the Golden Rule and utilitarian ethics.
We don't. The term Abrahamic religions has appeared in this thread. Skeptical moral theorists have this discussion frequently with the Christians, and they ask the same question - why are you just singing us out? Same answer.
Abrahamic religions demonized and marginalized homosexuality, essentially defining it as a form of spiritual sickness. Humanists are busy trying to undo the effects of Abrahamic homophobia. Getting homosexuality recognized as a natural, normal human function was one great step forward, as was decriminalizing homosexuality and legalizing same sex marriage.
Religion doesn't do as good a job with ethics as Humanism. Humanism informed the West that secular democracies with guaranteed individual human rights was more conducive to societal happiness than the authoritarian regimes that preceded them. Freedom of (and from) religion is a humanist concept. Humanists taught Christianity that slavery and pedophilia were immoral, and are busy teaching them that homosexuality, atheism, and abortion are not.
That's not an argument. That's a claim, one that contradicts the available evidence, and thus, while believed by those willing to believe by faith, is rejected by those who require sufficient empirical evidence (the only kind of evidence) to believe.
Yeah, but being empiricists, we didn't act like they were real until they were discovered. The rule is the same for gods for empiricists. Discover a god first, and we can talk, but you'll have to meet the empiricist's standards for demonstration - evidence that is best explained by positing the existence of a deity. You find that the words of Baha'u'llah meet that bar, but they don't meet the definition I provided for evidence for a deity. Those words could have been written by human beings, and support a godless metaphysics as well or better than a supernatural one.
Reproof accepted. You are quite right. I have known many Christians of the same temperament. I should have said "many believers, inspired by dogma, have difficulty being compassionate without caveats."Christian here, and perfectly able to be compassionate sans caveats. Careful with the generalizations!
And indeed, many non-believers (in gods) still hold dogmatic beliefs of other kinds that limit their ability to be compassionate.
Homosexuality is common in nature. But this is yet another red herring. It doesn't matter if it's natural or unnatural. Nothing is immoral because it is natural or unnatural. And once again, homosexuals don't need to justify themselves to you or anybody else. They don't need to meet your criteria for acceptability. That only applies to you. All this talk about genetics and STDs and nature is irrelevant. Is the behavior harmless? If yes, it cannot be called immoral. That is the standard in the rational ethics of Humanism.
Homophobic religious dicta undermine societal and individual well-being.
There are no irrational prejudices in Humanism. Its prejudices are based in reason and empiricism, including that those are the path to knowledge, not faith. Rational prejudices are called learning.
I'm assuming that you mean only irrational or faith-based prejudices. Those are prejudices based in nothing. Being rational does protect one from that. If one can master critical thought, he becomes immune to indoctrination, and all of his future prejudgments (prejudices, beliefs about what is true) will be rational (empirically derived).
That's not credible to me if you are Baha'i and accept its doctrine as divine. What you are saying to me is that you never reveal that you consider them spiritually defective because a god said they were. It says that you wish that they weren't gay, and that you don't approve of them, even if you conceal such opinions. You might have convinced yourself that if you harbor no overt hatred that your relationship is unaffected, but I don't believe that, and nor should any homosexuals you know who know what Baha'i doctrine is and that you accept it uncritically.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I said: I know a man who on another forum was with his male partner for 50 years and he was devastated when he got ill and passed on. He never really recovered from his loss, he was never the same after that.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I was not talking about homophobic prejudices. I was talking about the man's loss of this partner. I really liked this man on the other forum and I felt terrible for him when he lost his partner of so many years.
What harmful nonsense?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Who said that I ever believed all of that?
I believe that homosexuality is immoral, according to God, but I do not believe that it is evil or that it is a sexual aberration that should be purged.
My religion does not have a prejudice against gay people.
Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
prejudice meaning - Google Search
The Baha'i Laws regarding homosexual behavior are not based upon a preconceived opinion. They are based upon God's perfect knowledge of human nature and what is best for humans individually and collectively.
God needs no defense so I do not need to defend God and His Laws.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
My views already reflect that because I personally know gays who love each other just as straight people do.
Whose fault is that?
It will disappear from the gene pool. But that hasn't happened with homosexuality, which appears throughout much of the animal kingdom. That should tell you something.
No, you don't, but then you aren't discriminated against for your sexuality, either. You also don't need to proclaim that white lives matter.
I think he's right. Homophobia is a type of hatred. You understand, I hope, that you are not the arbiter of whether others find your opinions bigoted. The objection we see most often here is that the bigot doesn't feel hatred. Why would that matter to deciding whether such beliefs are homophobic and destructive to the gay community? That just means that you've learned to feel good about the belief.
You pushed his buttons and got the reaction you were likely looking for. I think he would agree that posting angrily like that was an act of acute angst caused by the mood of the conversation, which was dismissive of who he is and how he feels, and a net harm to his argument. He has never expressed hatred of any kind on RF before to my knowledge. Now, because of that choice, you get to turn it around and call him the hater, as if he were the instigator or is somehow in the wrong for hating how homophobes have made his life harder and expressing it emotionally. This is the same tactic used with BLM - push them to violence and then say, see, there's the problem.
Too bad that you can't feel empathy there. But you also forfeit empathy when you do that. Yesterday, there was a similar thread complaining about having to be empathetic to the transgendered. It seems to be a symptom of modern American life more and more. Gun people have no empathy for terrified school children or their parents, and walk through Wal-Marts with assault rifles strapped to their backs. Empathy-free Karens are shouting at people in their neighborhoods and calling police over nothing but color. The Christians are inflicting their theocratic beliefs on an unwilling majority, utterly indifferent to the pain that causes. People are coughing in the faces of others for being asked to wear a mask, indifferent to the fears of others around them. The mantra of Republican voters was, "F*** your feelings." All of those people have lost my empathy. I am as indifferent to what becomes of them as they are to those they treat so shabbily.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
My point was that homosexuals cannot reproduce by having sex with each other.
I know that homosexuals can have children by having heterosexual sex. My best friend @Truthseeker is married to a lesbian and they had sex in order to have their son Michael.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, I never said that. How you got from point a to point z I do not know.
Sex and sexual desire are not synonymous although they are connected, because one usually has sexual desire before they have sex. This was once a big interest of mine so I did research and wrote a paper on disorders of sexual desire back when I was in grad school studying psychology.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, I do not think that religions are preoccupied with sex.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So is it a fact or an opinion what makes a disorder a disorder?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Humans are different from animals, since humans have an animal nature, but humans also have a spiritual nature that other animals do not have.
What is natural for animals is natural for humans if humans only follow their animal nature, but if humans follow their spiritual nature then it is not natural for humans to behave like animals.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
In your opinion.
For we Humanists, that's all there is is fallible human beings, some of whom speak as if a god exists and has their ear. Nature created man and the laws of physics. So, it comes down to who believes by faith and who won't. That's where the error lies - belief by faith.
Humanism offers better advice. We should not listen to self-proclaimed prophets and messengers. We should not believe by faith. We should listen to our minds (reason) and hearts (conscience). Knowledge comes from experience (empiricism), not holy books.
It's the politicians who lack the moral compass, and in America, they are mostly Christians. Religion offers no solutions. In fact, it's part of the problem. Faith always is. It's just guessing, and most guesses are incorrect:
- "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position ad responsibilities)
- "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla
- "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood. . . . I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill.
You are using a definition of knowledge that has no use or value to me. For me, knowledge is a collection of facts, facts being ideas that demonstrably map onto some aspect of reality, and this can be used to anticipate outcomes better than competing ideas. Faith doesn't do any of that. It just piles up sterile guesses.
Somehow, you don't see that as homophobia.
But your right and wrong aren't based in reason. They're based in faith. If you don't have right and wrong correct, you can't judge that properly. As you can see, many consider your religion wrong-headed in what it and its adherents DO say.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
What is natural for animals is sometimes natural for humans
There is nothing illogical about what I said unless the Bible is wrong.
It is not natural for humans to always behave like animals because humans have a spiritual nature that animals do not have. You should know that if you read the Bible.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
I just explained that in post #3115.
Humans are different from animals, since humans have an animal nature, but humans also have a spiritual nature that other animals do not have.
What is natural for animals is natural for humans if humans only follow their animal nature, but if humans follow their spiritual nature then it is not natural for humans to behave like animals.
#3115 Trailblazer, 2 minutes ago
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
But the Bible is not about right or wrong. It is about opinion, so it has nothing to do with everyday world unless you believe that is all opinion and all opinion goes. You are conflating two versions of natural. One is about facts and the other is about opinion.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, it was no such attempt. Two people who love each other having sex with each other for purposes other than producing offspring are in the same light.