Prestor John
Well-Known Member
He didn't have to. It was already explained in the Mosaic Law.
-
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!
God's opposition to homosexual behavior. Why?
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Perhaps because other effects take place apart from genes?
My point exactly. I don't know why others on this thread (not you) insist that being abused by an older same-sex person in your youth is of null effect!
shmogie
Well-Known Member
I am not very familiar with the politics of your country, though I know it is a gorgeous place ! ( almost as pretty as Arizona, lol). We had an issue here regarding homosexual marriage. I was opposed to it on the basis of language, not religion. Marriage is a word that in the western world, since Constantine became emperor of Rome, and in the Jewish tradition for 4,000 years, has meant between a man and woman. Homosexual marriage throws the word and it's meaning in the trash. What I did support was a civil union for homosexuals, or anyone, with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage, without screwing around with the language. Since marriage is a privilege, not a right, at least in the US, I believe the US supreme court overstepped it's bounds, in ordering homosexual marriage. It is what it is.Whilst I do agree the trouble makers are the vocal minority. Perhaps I am still a little jaded since the recent SSM debate my country had. Literally both sides come out of the woodwork. I think it was the only time I've seen my country be more interested in debating politics than arguing about which Football code is better. Just.........weird.
Half my family is Catholic, my close family friends are non denominational Christians. Whilst a tad "traditional," they're all pretty chill about "teh gayz" issue. So I'm not saying Christian is synonymous with homophobic actions. Of course not.
Although I will still admit that the greatest push back from the anti side seem to strongly identify as Christians. I mean I don't really see Jewish denominations protesting gay marriage.
Just saying there's a bit of smoke.
Ex Gay camps are atrocious unscientific wastes of time. They basically try to "treat" gay people into becoming or at least acting heterosexual. Which is, by the way, denounced by any scientist even remotely acquainted with the mental health industry.
Might be more prevalent in America though as the "religious freedom" excuse is a lot stronger than other Western Countries.
I know that rarely, Christian psychologists and Psychiatrists work with homosexuals who SEEK THEM OUT, regarding their sexual proclivities, and who might consider them inappropriate. NO ONE is forced into this.
As I pointed out, there have been homosexuals who have renounced that lifestyle, for thousands of years. it is neither unknown or impossible. In some quarters this fact is hysterically attacked and every effort made to delegitimize these people, because their life makes the demanded narrative suspect.
The vocal, dogmatic, sometimes vicious minorities exist in both camps. The alleged Christian, nazi's, and the gaystopo. The first do not represent most Christians, or myself. THe latter, I believe do not represent most homosexuals. I have spoken to a few and they are offended that the crazy's can be taken as representing them.
Frankly, I am offended you use the term " religious freedom excuse ". Allow me to school you on the US Constitution. Our rights aren't like silly putty that can be molded by popular demand, or political intrigue. Our rights are absolutely rock solid in the Constitution and can't change except under the most extraordinary circumstance, a convention of the states. Which has never happened, and probably never will.
Our rights are encoded in the Constitution in the Bill of Rights., 10 rights that apply to every American. They include the freedom of the press, the protection from unreasonable searches or seizure, the right of equal protection under the law, the right to bear arms, the right of the free practice of religion.
NO right is more important than another. You might as well say the protection from unlawful searches is an excuse for crooks to get away with crimes, or the right to a free press is an excuse for the press to print libel.
Unlike other country's, the US IS NOT a democracy. The majority doesn't nor do the high politicians rule in all things. We are a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution is the final law of the land, the guarantor of rights for every American. These rights, as the Constitution says are "unalienable".
Me, or any other American exercising their rights in any sphere isn't an "excuse" for anything, in my case, it is my birth right, defended by members of my family going back to The The Revolution.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Nobody has said that.
Well actually I was meaning that genes alone are not the only things involved that dictate what is passed on as being inherited. There appear to be other considerations but I am not qualified to say what (gene expression, other effects?) - perhaps another could step in?
And I do think that such things might have some effect, as you pointed out, but I doubt it accounts for many though.
Edit: I knew there was something missing - not sure this has been mentioned (probably), but the number of previous males born to a female tends to make the next male more likely to be homosexual, with an increased probability for each older sibling. Has possibly been proposed for paedophilia too but not sure about that.
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
The citation had to do with facial recognition, yes. Anyone who denies that early childhood sexual trauma effects that person for life is either ignorant or simply hates any truth when it is presented by any Christian believer like me.
The word "imprinting" as used by scientists to discuss sexual behavior among humans and other animals means "with imprint".
shmogie
Well-Known Member
I think he is talking about rights of an individual, or individual group, disrupting the tranquility and function of the society as a whole.
When the law was given at Sinai by God through Moses, Israel was a nomadic tribe. Anything considered disruptive or harmful to the whole was not tolerated and was eliminated
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
I don't want sex, but when I fantasize about it, it's with guys.
Again, it is instructive to see how you compare being gay with other things. You don't seem to fathom that gay consensual relationships are nothing like nonconsenting relationships or actions that objectively harm someone.
The problem is we never have proof God even said so, only the words of certain authors, many of whom probably protest too much.
I mean, I'm secure in MY sexuality, so I don't feel the need to legislate everyone else's (except in terms of consent and harm and while I have issues with S&M kind of stuff, I also know that consent should be involved and at least don't send the partner to the hospital or morgue).
The problem is that governments are needed once families grow to a larger size. You may not need a chief for a small neighborhood, but once you start getting into town-level populations, you'll need SOMETHING.
It means she becomes his permanent sex toy. It's NOT helpful. Dealing with the rapist and giving women in the country equal civil rights would do more than creating sex slaves for predators.
Was Abraham or Sarah gay?
There's more to life than family.
And you find the "basic income" idea or "safety net" idea to be less compassionate than forcing women to be attached to their predators?
Would your life be able to deal with a lack of government, the one that puts the road on the ground, the utilities in your house, etc? Unless you can live totally off grid without even money (because the government owns it, not you ... see Jesus' talk about whose face is on the coins ... yours ain't), you are a hypocrite.
*sigh*
The shoe thing, at least, is a health concern issue. I feel truly sorry for anyone in relationships with anyone who just doesn't value consent and nonharm.
Everyone in the US has a right to have their rights. By discriminating with no real basis other than "I think God thinks it's icky", you are ignoring THEIR rights. That is why, despite not being on Team Satan, I DO enjoy their incessant trolling of the religious rights groups. I will support them always for picking apart hypocrisy.
They deserve to go to Heaven and RuPaul is God.
Ru *sits on jeweled throne*: Now ... sashay ... away.
They were still bitter that David never seemed to love his wives, but clearly went bonkers when Jonathan died.
Their hands bled like what Delores Umbridge did the kids at Hogwarts as they had to write about David and Jonathan naked together at night because the whole kingdom knew about it and they couldn't lie about it 100%.
The Best Christian disagrees with you.
But you act like it's a right. I mean, why bother complaining about historically inaccurate definitions of marriage if it's all just a hobby for humanity anyway?
As long as YOUR rights aren't taken like those OTHER people's.
Just not minorities.
And yet they are ignored until created in an amendment.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Again, nobody has said that anywhere on this thread. There's no need to distort others' positions in an attempt to bolster your own argument.
Your assertion was that every single gay person you've met was sexually abused as a child, by a person of the same sex as themselves and/or had a broken relationship with a parent of the same sex, and that such experiences have a lot to do with determining our sexual orientation due to imprinting of said experiences.
When we argue with your claim, we're not saying that being sexually abused as a child does not affect a person for the rest of their lives. That would be silly, and it's a complete distortion of the argument. We're saying that imprinting doesn't work as you seem to think it does in this case.The article you posted does not back up your claims, and it's basically spelled out in the article that imprinting doesn't determine sexual orientation.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I guess I'm trying to ask HOW?
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
Nope. You're wrong.
I meant that people are designed to reproduce in this life and the next.
Naama
Chibi Lilith
If I can use D&D terms, in my personal subjective view, God is not good or evil he is Lawful Neutral. He believes in law and order and that's how he determines right and wrong.
I think that trying to control people's sexual lives is wrong but God probably did it to try to increase the Jewish population.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Skwim
Veteran Member
But millions of people call him good, and he even stated that he creates evil.
One can only assume that if there's any law it would have to be a law he created, so it would stand to reason that he believes in his law. Therefore, it also follows that these laws are what he basis his concepts of right and wrong on. So
Considering all the impediments to a successful conception and birth that god as left people with, coming down on homosexual behavior because it doesn't lead to child birth is irrational.
.
Naama
Chibi Lilith
I just don't agree with those people. He created evil after all.
One can only assume that if there's any law it would have to be a law he created, so it would stand to reason that he believes in his law. Therefore, it also follows that these laws are what he basis his concepts of right and wrong on. So
That's a good point!
I would just say He does what He wants. Because he has no power over him that's all he can do.
Oh I don't think he's rational XD
Skwim
Veteran Member
Good for you.I just don't agree with those people. He created evil after all.
That's a good point!
I would just say He does what He wants. Because he has no power over him that's all he can do.
Oh I don't think he's rational XD
.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
I don't want sex, but when I fantasize about it, it's with guys.
Again, it is instructive to see how you compare being gay with other things. You don't seem to fathom that gay consensual relationships are nothing like nonconsenting relationships or actions that objectively harm someone.
I compare them with other behaviors that would eliminate one from Church membership. I know, you don't like it. Not my problem, take it up with the Apostle Paul. Because one is denied Church membership, hate or dislike isn't a factor. We have specific instructions for life on a whole host of issues, habitual pursuit of anything that would disqualify one for membership means disqualification, that's all.No one is compelled to seek membership. If they do, they must adhere to the standards.
The problem is we never have proof God even said so, only the words of certain authors, many of whom probably protest too much.
I mean, I'm secure in MY sexuality, so I don't feel the need to legislate everyone else's (except in terms of consent and harm and while I have issues with S&M kind of stuff, I also know that consent should be involved and at least don't send the partner to the hospital or morgue).
The problem is that governments are needed once families grow to a larger size. You may not need a chief for a small neighborhood, but once you start getting into town-level populations, you'll need SOMETHING.
It means she becomes his permanent sex toy. It's NOT helpful. Dealing with the rapist and giving women in the country equal civil rights would do more than creating sex slaves for predators.
Was Abraham or Sarah gay?
There's more to life than family.
And you find the "basic income" idea or "safety net" idea to be less compassionate than forcing women to be attached to their predators?
Would your life be able to deal with a lack of government, the one that puts the road on the ground, the utilities in your house, etc? Unless you can live totally off grid without even money (because the government owns it, not you ... see Jesus' talk about whose face is on the coins ... yours ain't), you are a hypocrite.
No. You are speaking with Biblical knowledge deficiency. Paul speaks about governments and government institutions and how a Christian should live in harmony with the government and it's edicts as far as possible. See Romans 13
*sigh*
The shoe thing, at least, is a health concern issue. I feel truly sorry for anyone in relationships with anyone who just doesn't value consent and nonharm.
a health issue, correct. Now, what do you think of someone being compelled to participate, in any way, in a rite, service, or ceremony that is in direct conflict with his/her religious beliefs?
Everyone in the US has a right to have their rights. By discriminating with no real basis other than "I think God thinks it's icky", you are ignoring THEIR rights. That is why, despite not being on Team Satan, I DO enjoy their incessant trolling of the religious rights groups. I will support them always for picking apart hypocrisy.
No , actually what you demand, with no right to do so, would be hypocrisy. You and your, dare I say ilk (?) demand rights, till someone who has one you don't like comes along, then you demand elimination of their right. Don't work that way in America, perhaps Iran
They deserve to go to Heaven and RuPaul is God.
Ru *sits on jeweled throne*: Now ... sashay ... away.
They were still bitter that David never seemed to love his wives, but clearly went bonkers when Jonathan died.
Their hands bled like what Delores Umbridge did the kids at Hogwarts as they had to write about David and Jonathan naked together at night because the whole kingdom knew about it and they couldn't lie about it 100%.
The Best Christian disagrees with you.
But you act like it's a right. I mean, why bother complaining about historically inaccurate definitions of marriage if it's all just a hobby for humanity anyway?
As long as YOUR rights aren't taken like those OTHER people's.
Just not minorities.
And yet they are ignored until created in an amendment.
I don't want sex, but when I fantasize about it, it's with guys.
Again, it is instructive to see how you compare being gay with other things. You don't seem to fathom that gay consensual relationships are nothing like nonconsenting relationships or actions that objectively harm someone.
The problem is we never have proof God even said so, only the words of certain authors, many of whom probably protest too much.
I mean, I'm secure in MY sexuality, so I don't feel the need to legislate everyone else's (except in terms of consent and harm and while I have issues with S&M kind of stuff, I also know that consent should be involved and at least don't send the partner to the hospital or morgue).
The problem is that governments are needed once families grow to a larger size. You may not need a chief for a small neighborhood, but once you start getting into town-level populations, you'll need SOMETHING.
It means she becomes his permanent sex toy. It's NOT helpful. Dealing with the rapist and giving women in the country equal civil rights would do more than creating sex slaves for predators.
Was Abraham or Sarah gay?
There's more to life than family.
And you find the "basic income" idea or "safety net" idea to be less compassionate than forcing women to be attached to their predators?
Would your life be able to deal with a lack of government, the one that puts the road on the ground, the utilities in your house, etc? Unless you can live totally off grid without even money (because the government owns it, not you ... see Jesus' talk about whose face is on the coins ... yours ain't), you are a hypocrite.
*sigh*
The shoe thing, at least, is a health concern issue. I feel truly sorry for anyone in relationships with anyone who just doesn't value consent and nonharm.
Everyone in the US has a right to have their rights. By discriminating with no real basis other than "I think God thinks it's icky", you are ignoring THEIR rights. That is why, despite not being on Team Satan, I DO enjoy their incessant trolling of the religious rights groups. I will support them always for picking apart hypocrisy.
They deserve to go to Heaven and RuPaul is God.
Ru *sits on jeweled throne*: Now ... sashay ... away.
They were still bitter that David never seemed to love his wives, but clearly went bonkers when Jonathan died.
Their hands bled like what Delores Umbridge did the kids at Hogwarts as they had to write about David and Jonathan naked together at night because the whole kingdom knew about it and they couldn't lie about it 100%.
The Best Christian disagrees with you.
But you act like it's a right. I mean, why bother complaining about historically inaccurate definitions of marriage if it's all just a hobby for humanity anyway?
As long as YOUR rights aren't taken like those OTHER people's.
Just not minorities.
And yet they are ignored until created in an amendment.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Nope. No rights are created by an amendment. All rights exist in the Constitution. Amendments and laws can guarantee that no one is denied their rights,I don't want sex, but when I fantasize about it, it's with guys.
Again, it is instructive to see how you compare being gay with other things. You don't seem to fathom that gay consensual relationships are nothing like nonconsenting relationships or actions that objectively harm someone.
The other things are all habitual behaviors that disqualify one from church membership. You don't like it, but you need to take it up with the Apostle Paul
The problem is we never have proof God even said so, only the words of certain authors, many of whom probably protest too much.
God said so, take it, or leave it. You are't compelled to believe anything.
I mean, I'm secure in MY sexuality, so I don't feel the need to legislate everyone else's (except in terms of consent and harm and while I have issues with S&M kind of stuff, I also know that consent should be involved and at least don't send the partner to the hospital or morgue).
The problem is that governments are needed once families grow to a larger size. You may not need a chief for a small neighborhood, but once you start getting into town-level populations, you'll need SOMETHING.
It means she becomes his permanent sex toy. It's NOT helpful. Dealing with the rapist and giving women in the country equal civil rights would do more than creating sex slaves for predators.
Was Abraham or Sarah gay?
There's more to life than family.
And you find the "basic income" idea or "safety net" idea to be less compassionate than forcing women to be attached to their predators?
Would your life be able to deal with a lack of government, the one that puts the road on the ground, the utilities in your house, etc? Unless you can live totally off grid without even money (because the government owns it, not you ... see Jesus' talk about whose face is on the coins ... yours ain't), you are a hypocrite.
Uh, read Romans 13, a synopsis, governments are to be obeyed whenever possible
*sigh*
The shoe thing, at least, is a health concern issue. I feel truly sorry for anyone in relationships with anyone who just doesn't value consent and nonharm.
Sigh, the shoe thing may be for health reasons, but what about having you constitutional rights denied for no reason other than others don't like them ? It cuts both ways
Everyone in the US has a right to have their rights. By discriminating with no real basis other than "I think God thinks it's icky", you are ignoring THEIR rights. That is why, despite not being on Team Satan, I DO enjoy their incessant trolling of the religious rights groups. I will support them always for picking apart hypocrisy.
If a Christian were to deny the fundamentals of the faith, to please you and your ilk, that would be hypocrisy. Cite some of this alleged discrimination you are so het up about.
They deserve to go to Heaven and RuPaul is God.
Ru *sits on jeweled throne*: Now ... sashay ... away.
They were still bitter that David never seemed to love his wives, but clearly went bonkers when Jonathan died.
Their hands bled like what Delores Umbridge did the kids at Hogwarts as they had to write about David and Jonathan naked together at night because the whole kingdom knew about it and they couldn't lie about it 100%.
The Best Christian disagrees with you.
The best christian does not know s**t from shinola. Total and complete BS.
But you act like it's a right. I mean, why bother complaining about historically inaccurate definitions of marriage if it's all just a hobby for humanity anyway? What ?
As long as YOUR rights aren't taken like those OTHER people's.
Tell me about those other people
Just not minorities.
ALL PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY LAW. There are no special rights, and anyone who thinks here are, i.e, homosexual rights, black rights, left handers rights, is ignorant of The Constitution
And yet they are ignored until created in an amendment.
I don't want sex, but when I fantasize about it, it's with guys.
I apologise for any offence. I simply mean that your constitution has much stronger protections for religious freedoms than other countries. And it's true isn't it? I mean you guys can actually get away with a lot more than in say in my country by using religion as a reason. We're actually a little more harsh towards the rights of religious communities than America. Not a whole lot mind you. But still. Whether that is good or bad depends on what exactly is being controlled I suppose.
Religion can and is often used as an excuse to justify both the good and the bad. Homeless shelters or Ex Gay therapy, both have religious reasons for existing. I'm not saying every religious person will necessarily agree with either. Perhaps one might want better protection for the homeless and take issue with certain practices of a shelter, for arguments sake. I know many Christians in my own life even who consider Ex gay therapy abhorrent. When I said religious excuse all I really meant was your country is so fervent in its sincere belief of freedom, it can and has been used to justify actions that might always fly in other countries. I'm not trying to be offensive I'm kind of saying you guys really really love freedom.
As for not being forced, whilst I really want to agree with you, some kids are being forced. There's even documentaries made about their experience! Like the aforementioned Kidnapped for Christ. Even the UN had to step in at one point to try to save a gay kid from the clutches of this so called "Christian institution." I mean they were unsuccessful but when you have the UN of all people say you're abusing someone's rights, well I think such actions goes against American principles of freedom. But that's just how I see it.
In an ideal world it would be only desperate adults seeking out such questionable institutions. Reality tells me different.
And that should be fought against, no matter where you hail from.
As for marriage, it's just a word. Words change all the time. Many words have definitions that are actually the opposite of their original.
Meh.
I mean look at Old English (and I mean actual Old English, not Shakespearen English as many people lazily seem to link it to.) It is virtually unrecognisable to us modern speakers. You try to read Beowulf in its original text and unless you have actually studied Old English I guarantee you will need a translator.
Language evolves and changes constantly. In fact if it stays static it usually dies. So who cares if the definition of a word changes?
I don't get all the bluster over the word marriage. And I come from a culture that takes marriage so seriously we literally celebrate it for an entire week (both night and day) and consider it not just one lifetime but several thousand.
Trust me, gay marriage can't trash anything.
Last edited:
I never denied that. I'm arguing against your claim that all gay people are gay because they were abused. I took issue with your citation because you used it in that context, when in reality all it really said was personal taste (which is NOT sexual orientation) is affected by imprinting. Which is fair enough. But even the text itself stressed that it is not evidence that sexual orientation is the same thing and that further studies need to take place in its conclusion.
I am still willing to give you time to bring up relevant studies to back up your claim. I think I'm being more than fair here.
Last edited: