Homophobia causes the problems, not homosexuality

[Vigilans]

I don't know what country you live in. I live in the USA, where we are a constitutional republic.

The whole problem, politically, with "Freedom and equality for all" is that is in conflict with religionists who demand the freedom to oppress people based on their religion. They call that "Freedom of religion'".

Fortunately, the principles and Constitution are winning the battle. It is a slow process, but it is working.

Tom

I live in England. I know the USA has a codified constitution, but the United States Congress still passes laws doesn't it? If so, my criticism of morality modelled after law does extend to the USA too.

 

[Uberpod]

I would argue that this isn't actually a system of morality at all. If we are taking orders from above with no thought to consequence in the world we actually live in, with no thought for empirical evidence, I would say we are not practicing any system of morality. To exercise morality one needs to be able to reason out choices and make distinctions between what is right and wrong based on the consequences of taking certain actions. If we're not doing that, we're just following arbitrary orders, which to me, is not practicing any kind of morality at all.

And if morality has changed, as you say, then how can we know what these changes are, and why the changes have been made? Or does that not matter?

He is accepting and embracing an authoritarian basis for morality. This is often the reasoning and morality of children in their 1st decade. Why do people with the obvious cognitive ability to use and apply principles and evidence on their own, chose the moral system of children?

 

[Thruve]

Storm. I effing love you bro.

 

[Vigilans]

I would argue that this isn't actually a system of morality at all. If we are taking orders from above with no thought to consequence in the world we actually live in, with no thought for empirical evidence, I would say we are not practicing any system of morality. To exercise morality one needs to be able to reason out choices and make distinctions between what is right and wrong based on the consequences of taking certain actions. If we're not doing that, we're just following arbitrary orders, which to me, is not practicing any kind of morality at all.

And if morality has changed, as you say, then how can we know what these changes are, and why the changes have been made? Or does that not matter?

Not with no thought to consequences. Many theologians have argued that Christians may do 'the lesser of two evils' in certain situations. There are just wars for example. As an extension of this, empirically observing the consequences of actions can help us to decide between evils. What I have said is that the moral precepts themselves can't be derived empirically. The Catholic Church continues to extol the virtues of reason in making moral decisions. My reasoning is merely informed by Scripture and the Sacred tradition. The great theologians don't endorse a bare consequentialism. As for your two questions, I could try my best to answer them. I fear that Columbus wouldn't like me to highjack his thread with Soteriology though.

 

[Thruve]

From reading all of these posts, I find it worth saying that I don't blame society, Christianity, or the gay community for my problems.
I don't do drugs. I play safe when I do play. My relationships are messed up but thats because of my own personal struggles and trust issues resulting from things I had done in my past or from specific experiences.. I learned from those mistakes, and I sure as hell don't blame the world for them.

I don't blame society when I cheat.
I don't blame society when I get cheated on.
I don't blame christianity while my father drives around with anti-gay marriage stickers on his truck. If anything, it makes me love him even more because I know hes missing the inevitable truth and I can't imagine how he feels about himself in reference to his relationship with god.
I don't blame christianity for depriving states with the right for gay marriage. Ill get married if I want to dammit. Ill go buy an effing ring from K jewelers and put it on my mans effing finger.
I don't blame society when I do drugs, because I know, morally, drugs are bad. EVERYONE KNOWS THEY ARE BAD.

Obviously there are exceptions. There are individuals who intentionally lie and pass out stds. There are individuals who rape and kill. There are gay "bashers" who publicly humiliate. Then again, every sexual orientation , race, gender, and nationality face these struggles.


Down here in South Florida, we have dozens upon dozens of rehab centers. There's a handful of them which are LGBT centered and Ive talked with a few gay dudes, and even dated, who attended these LGBT rehab centers. One dude was down here for meth, another cocaine, and another alcohol. Two were from LA and were club promoters. Club promoters. Enough said. The other was married and had got a divorce and became an alcoholic. My dad was an alcoholic when my mother divorced him too. So, for him to blame the world is utter garbage.

All being a homosexual has done for me, as a christian, is teach me to look outside of the box, especially the box of religion. It has taught me that religion is garbage, and that God is so much more than a a book and our interpretations of it.





In reference to your story in a later post, Tom, I am sorry to hear about your old friend. I have heard many stories similar to that one, and some even more gruesome. Thankfully, guys like you and a few others have fought the wretched past and brought a better, bright future for my generation of gays and gays to come. Our problems now though, are very different, and I don't agree that its because of homophobia.

 

[Koldo]

This is an enormous straw-man. Read my posts carefully. I've not used the word 'penis' once. I'm discussing the purpose of the sexual apparatus. Not the urinary apparatus. The two functions are unrelated. I've been discussing the purpose of sperm, not the purpose of the penis as a whole. I've not said 'the penis is only for reproduction.' What I have said is that sperm is for conception, rather than for spilling on the floor.

Do you consider headbutts to be a sinful act too?
How about this...?

They are carrying water buckets on their heads!
It must be sinful, right? The head was clearly not designed to do that!

 

[McBell]

The Bible says that masturbation et al. are sins. This is not an innovation of man. The line of reasoning you take issue with was developed by the Scholastics. It demonstrates that God's will is observable in nature. This tradition does not contradict scripture, it supplements and elucidates it. I'm an Anglo-Catholic Ingledsva. I believe that sacred tradition is invaluable to an understanding of Scripture.

Please provide the verses that support your claim.
Thanks

 

[Vigilans]

Do you consider headbutts to be a sinful act too?
How about this...?

They are carrying water buckets on their heads!
It must be sinful, right? The head was clearly not designed to do that!

Magnificent. It doesn't violate a primary precept of the Natural Law. Christ said nothing of bucket-balancers.

 

[McBell]

This is an enormous straw-man.

No it isn't.
You said sex organs, the mans sex organ is the penis.

Read my posts carefully. I've not used the word 'penis' once. I'm discussing the purpose of the sexual apparatus. Not the urinary apparatus.

You might have MEANT to say sexual apparatus, but you didn't.
You said sex ORGANS.

The two functions are unrelated.

I've been discussing the purpose of sperm, not the purpose of the penis as a whole. I've not said 'the penis is only for reproduction.' What I have said is that sperm is for conception, rather than for spilling on the floor.

So sorry.
My mistake.
I should have known you really meant:

sperm is for conception, rather than for spilling on the floor.​

when you actually said:

Masturbation et al. are sins because they abuse and/or obstruct the observable function [purpose] of the sexual organs.​

How silly of me to have not known...

Yes, that is sarcasm.

 

[Koldo]

Magnificent. It doesn't violate a primary precept of the Natural Law.

How not? The head was not intended to be used like that!

Christ said nothing of bucket-balancers.

What did he say about masturbation?

 

[Vigilans]

No it isn't.
You said sex organs, the mans sex organ is the penis.



You might have MEANT to say sexual apparatus, but you didn't.
You said sex ORGANS.




So sorry.
My mistake.
I should have known you really meant:

sperm is for conception, rather than for spilling on the floor.​

when you actually said:

Masturbation et al. are sins because they abuse and/or obstruct the observable function [purpose] of the sexual organs.​

How silly of me to have not known...

Yes, that is sarcasm.

Sorry Mestemia, you're right, I wasn't as clear as I thought I'd been. I'll soften my tone.

 

[gsa]

Norman: I answered your post Tom from both sides of the issue. Are you proclaiming to be a pedagogue of what my church did in regards to proposition 8? I am assuming that is what you are referring to. If so, state your case. My church has not dissimulated in anyway about its stand and what actions it took in regards to Proposition 8. I do not understand your vituperative criticism or your supercilious tone in your post. Marriage between one man and one woman, this tradition of marriage has been and is sacrosanct.

This from an LDS member, whose church has historically embraced polygamy? Or is "one man and one woman" a term of art in this case?

Your historical revisionism also ignores the June 29, 2008 letter that came "from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations," in which the presidency implored members to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time." The same letter states that "[l]ocal Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause."

I was living in California at the time, and everyone was well aware of how many Mormon footsoldiers were on the ground pushing for passage of the amendment. That's in addition to the member donations that rolled in from individual LDS members; according to figures published at the time, 45 percent of out of state donations in support of Prop 8 came from Utah, representing over 1.5 million in anti-gay contributions.

Who said that Mormons were good on projecting returns on investment? Six years later, we have marriage equality in Utah and Idaho. Nevertheless, only an idiot would ignore the outsized influence of the acolytes of Joseph Smith.

Have no fear: Plenty of liberals are soft on the Saints, if at least some outliers are trotted out as examples of tolerance and post-Copernican reasoning skills, as this thread demonstrates, and will even implicitly defend belief in the wholly indefensible claims of Smith and his successors.

 

[Vigilans]

How not? The head was not intended to be used like that!

Believe it or not, the Scholastics foresaw such counterexamples. Natural Law ethics is more refined than you give it credit for. In essence it's concerned with the realisation of man's purpose. This purpose isn't jeopardised by balancing a bucket on your head. Natural Law ethics has been honed through the centuries, but I imagine you can find a good synopsis on the internet.

What did he say about masturbation?

It's not recorded in the Bible that Christ used the word. That said, He did follow the prophets in condemning sexual sin (i.e. adultery). Given that the Old Testament condemns masturbation, it would seem reasonable, lacking evidence to the contrary, that Christ too numbered masturbation among sexual sins. This is further evidenced by the fact that the Apostles continued to condemn fornication and the like.

 

[gsa]

It's not recorded in the Bible that Christ used the word. That said, He did follow the prophets in condemning sexual sin (i.e. adultery). Given that the Old Testament condemns masturbation, it would seem reasonable, lacking evidence to the contrary, that Christ too numbered masturbation among sexual sins. This is further evidenced by the fact that the Apostles continued to condemn fornication and the like.

Setting aside the useless natural law speculations, just where do you think that the scriptures condemned masturbation?

 

[McBell]

It's not recorded in the Bible that Christ used the word. That said, He did follow the prophets in condemning sexual sin (i.e. adultery). Given that the Old Testament condemns masturbation, it would seem reasonable, lacking evidence to the contrary, that Christ too numbered masturbation among sexual sins. This is further evidenced by the fact that the Apostles continued to condemn fornication and the like.

I shall once again flat out ask you to present the verses that support your claim.

Simply claiming "the bible says" does not get the job done.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He is accepting and embracing a authoritarian basis for morality. This is often the reasoning and morality of children in their 1st decade. Why do people with the obvious cognitive ability to use and apply principles and evidence on their own, chose the moral system of children?

That's what I'm wondering.

 

[Koldo]

Believe it or not, the Scholastics foresaw such counterexamples. Natural Law ethics is more refined than you give it credit for. In essence it's concerned with the realisation of man's purpose. This purpose isn't jeopardised by balancing a bucket on your head. Natural Law ethics has been honed through the centuries, but I imagine you can a good synopsis on the internet.

It is completely jeopardised by balancing a bucket on your head. The head is not intended to carry heavy objects, and when done it can actually bring harm.

The natural law ethics is nothing more than an attempt to reason ( and fit ) morality into a bottle, which ultimately fails miserably. It is arbitrary in itself. Anything goes.

It's not recorded in the Bible that Christ used the word. That said, He did follow the prophets in condemning sexual sin (i.e. adultery). Given that the Old Testament condemns masturbation, it would seem reasonable, lacking evidence to the contrary, that Christ too numbered masturbation among sexual sins. This is further evidenced by the fact that the Apostles continued to condemn fornication and the like.

Fair point. Curiously, the same doesn't apply to female masturbation, which wasn't formally forbidden.

 

[Ingledsva]

The Bible says that masturbation et al. are sins. This is not an innovation of man. The line of reasoning you take issue with was developed by the Scholastics. It demonstrates that God's will is observable in nature. This tradition does not contradict scripture, it supplements and elucidates it. I'm an Anglo-Catholic Ingledsva. I believe that sacred tradition is invaluable to an understanding of Scripture.

And I will ask AGAIN - where does the Bible say that?

It doesn't!


*

 

[Vigilans]

I shall once again flat out ask you to present the verses that support your claim.

Simply claiming "the bible says" does not get the job done.

Genesis 38 - Onan is punished for spilling his seed.
John 7:53-8:11 - Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. He prevents her from being stoned and says "go, and do not sin again."
I Corinthians 6:9 - St. Paul says "Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you."

These words are taken from the Revised Standard Version.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I read this on the internet which means it's true:

"Genesis 38 is the only time that masturbation is even mentioned, and Onan wasn't even punished for masturbating. He was punished for disobeying God."