Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Logically, the male gender is mated to the female gender. The purpose is to procreate. It goes against nature to use your genitalia for another purpose. One can love a person of the same sex and not be sexual. Just because you haven’t fallen in love with a person of the opposite sex doesn’t mean you never will.
Part of the problem is man has made a sport out of sex. Perverted it really. It’s sad.
So every single time you have had sex of any kind, it was exclusively done to create a child?
It seems to me the OP's key point, which I applauded, has predictably been lost.
There are only four basic perspectives on the issue of homosexuality.
1. The traditional Abrahamic religious one. Traditional Judaism, Christianity and Islam all condemn homosexuality, period (see https://www.anic.org.au/wp-content/u...osexuality.pdf). The vast majority of serious scholars, whether secular or religious, agree this is the position clearly set forth in the OT and NT and affirmed throughout the centuries by traditional Judaism, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism and Islam.
Those of us who believe the Bible is God’s inspired word accept the biblical condemnation, period. "God has condemned homosexuality" is our substantive reason for believing homosexuality is sinful. We may speculate about God’s reasons, but the reasons are irrelevant. Our personal views of homosexuality are irrelevant. Whether the human authors of the OT and NT understood God’s reasons or had a primitive understanding of homosexuality is irrelevant. Whether society increasingly takes a more accepting or celebratory attitude toward homosexuality is irrelevant. Whether society regards us as delusional or worse is irrelevant.
Pope Francis, in a recent plea for homosexuals to be treated with compassion, nevertheless reaffirmed that homosexuality is a sin and “intrinsically disordered.” There is no possible basis within traditional Christianity for homosexuality to be normalized as non-sinful. There is wide latitude for homosexuals to be treated with understanding and compassion, but not for their sin to be normalized.
2. The mostly secular one whereby homosexuality is neither normalized nor celebrated but is regarded as aberrant, unhealthy or immoral for reasons having nothing to do with religion. I have no idea how prevalent this view is, but it certainly exists. It was the position of the American Psychiatric Association as recently as 1973 (more recently than that, actually).
3. The secular one whereby the religious perspective itself is condemned and is deemed irrelevant to the issue of homosexuality. Homosexuality is normalized and celebrated as being as normal as heterosexuality. There is no doubt this view has exploded in popularity in recent decades and will continue to do so. I regard this as a demonically influenced manifestation of the depravity the Bible says will characterize the end times, but I also accept that my views are irrelevant and silly or distasteful to those in this category.
4. The so-called progressive religious one which attempts to align Judaism, Christianity and perhaps Islam with those in category #3 – not just to urge greater understanding and compassion toward homosexuals as Pope Francis did but to "creatively" reinterpret the Bible and rewrite religious history in order to sow confusion as to whether homosexuality really ever was or should now be regarded as sinful. I have no doubt this dishonest effort will continue to be influential. I regard it as one of the clearest manifestations of the demonically influenced depravity and false teaching the Bible says will characterize the end times.
There is really no room for respectful, meaningful dialogue between those in category 1 and those in categories 3 and 4, as we see in every thread in which the topic of homosexuality is discussed. To my mind, the debate over homosexuality is simply a microcosm of the celestial war between Good and Evil. It cuts to the very heart of what it means to be a Jew, Christian or Muslim. For those in categories 3 and 4, it's something like a microcosm of the war between Religious Superstition and Enlightened Secular Humanism. The OP seemed to recognize this.
There is another contributor in this forum who recently explained she is a Mormon, very religious in fact, but not in agreement with the stance the Mormon church has taken with respect to homosexuals. Where does she fall on your list? There are lots of those kinds of religious people who share that sort of rationale. Rationale or perspective that needs to be considered as well if you are going to promote a "respectful, meaningful dialogue" that actually includes everyone. A more discerning rationale if you will...
The only other thing I will add is that all "perspectives" are relevant if they have any influence on how we all treat other fellow human beings. All the more relevant when that influence is exercised in real terms by a large group of people. Be the group political or religious. All relevant to say the least, but which is the right or wrong way to think and act all considered? What is better over worse regardless our differences or reasons for them?
This is the question we are all called upon to judge as best we can, and why I say the criteria with regard to judging right from wrong most important. Also why I say all hope for progress or change for the better lies in the next generation of people who have not had their perspectives already cemented. They are the ones who will help us be better people. Or not perhaps, but the next generation has always been the one that helps us move from the more backward ways to something a little better. Something better than what the entrenched status quo is always very reluctant to allow. The progress made from one generation to the next in terms of civil rights for example. For minorities, women and now the LGBT community too.
No. It's nothing more than a common attempt to shoehorn some logic into the illogical dictates of religious authoritarianism. It's a bit of pop-history with no evidentiary basis, trotted out by people who wish to impress others.
Myriad ancient societies had pork as a staple food. Polynesians and various eastern Asians come to mind. Health risks particular to pork are no more of an overall danger to humans than those particular to poultry or fish staples that saw no such prohibitions handed down by the supposed ancient Department of Health and Religion. Beyond that, the ancient Middle East was of course a place of subsistence agriculture, and famines are a recurring staple of such places. Eschewing food that might occasionally make one sick when starvation is always a crop failure away is mind-numbingly bad policy.
It's nothing more than flimsy pseudo-history.
I was thinking the same thing after I posted my response about this and signed off yesterday. Just about any food can be tainted if not handled and/or cooked properly, but also quite safe if handled and/or cooked to avoid health risks. Chicken certainly included. As if chickens are all that much more discerning about what they consume than pigs are. Hardly! Take it from someone who used to raise chickens. They'll eat anything...
"nothing more than flimsy pseudo-history" indeed, but we all know how everyone will rationalize whatever they want to believe and perspective in whatever way works for them and their agenda.
How to judge all such notions?
Best we can I suppose. Fingers crossed more people judge right over wrong one way or another...
I would assume that homosexuality was taboo because it was rare. Sort of like how left handers were treated in some cultures. Being left handed was sininster, guache' and all that.
My father and sister were both left handed and forced to use their right hand instead for the same reasons largely promoted by the Catholic church in my father's case. Because my father didn't want people thinking such things about my sister in my sister's case.
I tend to think it was because it doesn't produce children. Strength in numbers was how these ancient tribes survived, so producing children was a primary goal. Go forth and multiply and all that. Wander in the desert for "forty years" to build enough strength to form an army that can displace the current inhabitants in the land that you have your eye on. Having or not have children was not a choice. It was the role of a woman from menarche to start producing.
Two guys going off by themselves and wasting all that potential seed was pretty useless to the society.
I'm not sure all sex even back in those days was inspired by the thought of adding numbers to the tribe. In fact I'd say most of it wasn't, but no doubt procreating has always been an overriding goal on a more macro level for all species.
That fact aside, the two guys going off didn't much care what the tribe thought about what they were doing and what the tribe thought about the two guys didn't really understand or explain those two guys very well either. Past reasons really no matter. We know better now. Or hopefully most of us do anyway...
Logically, the male gender is mated to the female gender. The purpose is to procreate. It goes against nature to use your genitalia for another purpose. One can love a person of the same sex and not be sexual. Just because you haven’t fallen in love with a person of the opposite sex doesn’t mean you never will.
Part of the problem is man has made a sport out of sex. Perverted it really. It’s sad.
There is another contributor in this forum who recently explained she is a Mormon, very religious in fact, but not in agreement with the stance the Mormon church has taken with respect to homosexuals. Where does she fall on your list? There are lots of those kinds of religious people who share that sort of rationale. Rationale or perspective that needs to be considered as well if you are going to promote a "respectful, meaningful dialogue" that actually includes everyone. A more discerning rationale if you will...
The only other thing I will add is that all "perspectives" are relevant if they have any influence on how we all treat other fellow human beings. All the more relevant when that influence is exercised in real terms by a large group of people. Be the group political or religious. All relevant to say the least, but which is the right or wrong way to think and act all considered? What is better over worse regardless our differences or reasons for them?
This is the question we are all called upon to judge as best we can, and why I say the criteria with regard to judging right from wrong most important. Also why I say all hope for progress or change for the better lies in the next generation of people who have not had their perspectives already cemented. They are the ones who will help us be better people. Or not perhaps, but the next generation has always been the one that helps us move from the more backward ways to something a little better. Something better than what the entrenched status quo is always very reluctant to allow. The progress made from one generation to the next in terms of civil rights for example. For minorities, women and now the LGBT community too.
The "slow maturation of humankind" seems to proceed with "Glacial majesty toward an inaccessible goal."
But here's another fact: Homosexuality exists, it exists in humans and it exists in many animals as well. To say it is "against nature" is silly. Nature does not have a purpose, the natural selection process of evolution just selected heterosexual sex for reproduction. Heterosexuality is necessary for reproduction and thus the majority of beings within our species and other sexual dimorphic species have evolved to be heterosexual.
Homosexuality naturally exists in much smaller percentages. That's natural, that's okay, not harming anyone. In fact, it could be argued that it helps humankind because there are many children given up for adoption that a loving homosexual couple can give a safe, healthy, happy home that wouldn't be there otherwise if every single individual was heterosexual, fertile and having children of their own.
Plus, IDK about you, but I see life as so much more than just on a sheer biological level of what we are, and what is best for evolution. We don't look at our lives in such a way otherwise, so why would we here?
Okay, but if I am in a purely romantic relationship with another woman, are you going to see that as just fine? Are you going to tell me that, too, isn't "immoral" to you? We kiss, we hold hands, we sleep in the same bed, but we never do anything sexual. You think that the conservative Christians are going to be okay with that? I sincerely doubt that.
Anyway, me bringing up the loving another woman aspect was to add a much-needed dimension to this discussion: that homosexuality isn't just about sex. Well, I mean there are aromantic homosexuals (just as there are aromantic heterosexuals), but for most, that isn't true. It's more about love than sex for many of us. We fall deeply in love with someone and then come to the point of sex later on as an expression of that love. Just like many heterosexual people do.
By taking out the aspect of love, it is taking away a vital aspect of why telling us to abstain is so cruel. Imagine that feeling of unrequited love, except you're stuck with that all of your life, heck, perhaps even you are mutually in love, but because some arbitrary, baseless rules from a collection of books from 2000+ years ago have influence in enough of my family, culture and country we can't have that love. How cruel is that? Simply inhumane. (that is a scenario, not the reality in my country... right now. But it is in other parts of the world, and there are Christians celebrating that, disgusting. That is depravity.)
I'm bisexual. Lol. But, ah yes, the ol' "the right man will come along" line, if I had a dime for everytime I've heard that, I'd have enough money to move to Boston.
I do believe, personally, for me, in sex only with someone I'm in love with. But I don't hold the rest of society to those standards, because... live and let live when it doesn't effect you. Simple.
Also and again worthy of serious consideration. My compliments.
Anyone who has owned a male dog or two knows a bit about what you are explaining anyway...
There is another contributor in this forum who recently explained she is a Mormon, very religious in fact, but not in agreement with the stance the Mormon church has taken with respect to homosexuals. Where does she fall on your list? There are lots of those kinds of religious people who share that sort of rationale. Rationale or perspective that needs to be considered as well if you are going to promote a "respectful, meaningful dialogue" that actually includes everyone. A more discerning rationale if you will...
My minimal understanding of LDS beliefs is that the church has historically held to the traditional biblical message. If someone in the LDS church disagrees with that message, I would place that person in my category 4. Certainly, however, there are Christians who hold to the traditional biblical message but believe their church's approach to the issue has been unreasonably harsh and non-cpmpassionate. That person would still be in category 1. That's precisely my view of 98% of what I hear on Christian talk radio - entirely biblical but unreasonably hasrh (although, as I've said, I believe most of that is pushback against LBGTQ proselytizing).
Quote:
The only other thing I will add is that all "perspectives" are relevant if they have any influence on how we all treat other fellow human beings. All the more relevant when that influence is exercised in real terms by a large group of people. Be the group political or religious. All relevant to say the least, but which is the right or wrong way to think and act all considered? What is better over worse regardless our differences or reasons for them?
Within my category 1 perspective, the key dialogue to me is with fellow believers who hold the same perspective. Given this perspective, what is the appropriate way to deal with the LBGTQ community? There is room for many views within this perspective. I suppose there can be dialogue with those who hold other perspectives, but the bright dividing line of sinful vs. non-sinful is always going to remain. I would think that in 99.9% of my interactions with a homosexual, he or she would have no idea what category I was in and would hear nothing different from me than from anyone else unless the interaction for some reason specifically involved the biblical perspective.
Quote:
This is the question we are all called upon to judge as best we can, and why I say the criteria with regard to judging right from wrong most important. Also why I say all hope for progress or change for the better lies in the next generation of people who have not had their perspectives already cemented. They are the ones who will help us be better people. Or not perhaps, but the next generation has always been the one that helps us move from the more backward ways to something a little better than the entrenched status quo that is always very reluctant to allow progress along these lines to happen. The progress made in terms of civil rights for minorities, women and now the LGBT community too.
But in the traditional Christian view, God has determined right and wrong. We as Christians try to apply this in a manner that is consistent with Jesus' message of mercy and compassion, but we aren't free to decide that what God has declared sinful isn't really sinful. What you call "progress or change for the better" is not, in the traditional Christian view, for the better at all. What you call "the more backward ways" are, in the traditional Christian view, God's ways. This is my very point - someone in category 3 or 4 has little to say to someone in category 3 or 4, and vice-versa.
The "slow maturation of humankind" seems to proceed with "Glacial majesty toward an inaccessible goal."
If you are quoting me, I call it the "slow maturing of man," but "maturation of humankind" has a certain right to it too...
Glacial progress indeed, but better is not an inaccessible goal. Perfection is perhaps an inaccessible goal, but the inability to achieve perfection should not stunt the effort toward better or progress. An effort that should never end really...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "slow maturation of humankind" seems to proceed with "Glacial majesty toward an inaccessible goal."
