*(obvious one) Which is worse(in your moral opinion)?
* Would you allow abortion if you knew a child would turn out Gay?
* If abortion is wrong, and Gay people are wrong, then who adopts the unwanted children when the Gays are gone?
Just some few questions, honest opinions are welcome, this isn't like a 'I Hate Christian' thing, I just want to know, because I can't really put myself into your shoes, ya know?
Goes with question #2
You fail to see that Christians persecute Gays to feel better about themselves...a paper tiger approach. With or without the Bible, we as a society agree that rape is wrong (actually, go try to find that wisdom in your bible). Why arn't Christians out there marching against this crime committed so commonly against women? There are real victims for such a 'sin.'
The bolded portion is exactly why Christians aren't "out there marching" against a sin with "real victims." There is no need to march in opposition of a sin that is socially recognized as such. What would be the purpose? Christians make posters and chant outside the Capitol, "Rape is wrong! Rape is wrong!" the government answers, "Yes it is. That's why we have laws against it" and then everyone goes home? That was kind of a silly question.
But I've said it in this thread, I've said it in that thread, I'll say in any thread Christians have no basis for persecuting homosexuals or, for that matter, anyone. You keep throwing Christian persecution in my face as if I am some kind of proponent. Whether or not a group is persecuted has nothing to do with whether or not it is consistent with a particular ethos. The statement that "homosexuality is wrong" refers to the latter. For you to accuse me of advocating some kind of persecution, first I have to say something like "it is my duty to prevent homosexuality from happening." That Christians persecute any group is inconsistent with the religious convictions they claim to have. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me over that.
Homosexuality was practiced by most ancient societies and the Hebrews railed against it so that their people would not assimilate into other cultures. Plenty of ancient authors commented on homosexuality...especially the Greek (go figure). It is pure nonsense to suggest this is a new phenomenon.
Homosexual behavior was practiced in every society, as best we can guess. The chances that we have invented some broad category of sexual deviancy in the modern times are slim. However, in every society it was met with varying degrees of acceptance. The Israelite stance toward homosexuality was not, as you suggest, contrary to that of their neighbors and designed to maintain ethnic purity. Their stance on homosexuality was only marginally more strict than that of the neighboring societies in the Ancient Near East. (If you would like, I would gladly quote some ancient law texts to that effect.)
What is a new phenomenon is to understand homosexuality as an essential sexuality rather than a behavior. That is an entirely modern conception of it. There was no homosexuality apart from homosexual behavior like there is now. It simply wasn't there.
How ecumenical of you...there is not a shred of empirical evidence to suggest that homosexuality is not a naturally occurring behavior.
I'm fine with that. You seem determined to argue about it anyway.
The real question here is what motivates Christians to persecute anyone?
Human nature motivates people to persecute other people. It motivates people to persecute Christians; it motivates Christians to persecute other people. But we agree that Christians shouldn't be persecuting homosexuals. I'm not sure why you insist on arguing about that either.
You seem to have misunderstood basically everything I've said, probably because you approached it with a prejudiced antagonism.
Yes...I do come to this discussion with a bias...being Gay is not wrong in any way; despite the beliefs of those who think it is. You fail to see that Christians persecute Gays to feel better about themselves...a paper tiger approach. With or without the Bible, we as a society agree that rape is wrong (actually, go try to find that wisdom in your bible). Why arn't Christians out there marching against this crime committed so commonly against women? There are real victims for such a 'sin.'
Christians seem to like to prop themselves up by picking an out-group and making themselves feel good at that groups expense.
Quote: from Prince o palities at 6:48 am on July 8, 2009
That something is a modern construct does not mean it is wrong. It merely means that ancient authors cannot comment on it. That is why the "thus" is present in my paragraph, to link my rationale to my conclusion. The conclusion is not that the ancient understanding is better, but that ancient texts moral texts cannot comment on the morality of essential sexuality because there was no concept of essential sexuality. My statement would stand whether I believed in something like an essential sexuality or not.
Moreover, I assume the reference to your homosexual dog was to indicate the fact that homosexuality is natural. Aside from the flaw of arguing the validity of something morally based on its occurrence in nature, my post made no comment about whether or not I believed that homosexuality was an essential part of a person. They could uncover conclusive evidence of a "gay gene" this afternoon and it wouldn't alter what I said in my post in any way.
How ecumenical of you...there is not a shred of empirical evidence to suggest that homosexuality is not a naturally occurring behavior. Perhaps the allele is there to keep herd populations in check.
Edit, in response to your edit: we "bigots" care what we think. Whether or not Christians think homosexuality is a sin is of absolutely not value to you, but it is an important discussion regarding our internal unity. You'll notice, that I began that post by saying that I do not support discrimination against homosexuals based on moral arguments. There are no laws against pre-marital sex. There shouldn't be laws against homosexuals. The issue is not whether or not to discriminate against homosexuals because what they do is wrong; it is whether or not homosexual behavior and Christianity are incompatible.
How easy for you and I to have that opinion...neither is gay and neither has a stake in that lifestyle. The real question here is what motivates Christians to persecute anyone? Jesus made zero comments on homosexuality being a sin and told zero stories about the wicked homos (as I think you pointed out on your other post).
That something is a modern construct does not mean it is wrong. It merely means that ancient authors cannot comment on it. That is why the "thus" is present in my paragraph, to link my rationale to my conclusion. The conclusion is not that the ancient understanding is better, but that ancient moral texts cannot comment on the morality of essential sexuality because there was no concept of essential sexuality. My statement would stand whether I believed in something like an essential sexuality or not.
Quote: from Forever Angel at 11:22 pm on July 7, 2009 I don't know if I've ever asked you before. Do you believe that being homosexual is a sin? Being homosexual is a modern construct, part of a presupposition that your predilections are part of your essence. This concept of essential sexuality is completely foreign in any time but our own, including the time of the Biblical writers, both Old and New Testament. (In fact, some ancient cultures, parts of classical Greece for example, likely understood same-sex attraction as a basic component of human sexuality.) Thus, the Bible doesn't ever say anything about "homosexuality" (i.e. the inclination or essential sexuality).
I don't know if I've ever asked you before. Do you believe that being homosexual is a sin?
Being homosexual is a modern construct, part of a presupposition that your predilections are part of your essence. This concept of essential sexuality is completely foreign in any time but our own, including the time of the Biblical writers, both Old and New Testament. (In fact, some ancient cultures, parts of classical Greece for example, likely understood same-sex attraction as a basic component of human sexuality.) Thus, the Bible doesn't ever say anything about "homosexuality" (i.e. the inclination or essential sexuality).
So is the germ theory and the theory of gravity...the Bible misses those as well...modern constructs? maybe science is a modern construct as well.
Quote: from Prince o palities at 6:32 am on July 8, 2009
That having been said, nothing which is essential to our being can be a sin (at least not as I understand sin, though certain Augustinians or Calvinists would likely have less trouble admitting this). Sin is by definition a wilful act which contradicts the ultimate purpose of God for humanity. Therefore, sexual activity between people of the same sex is a sin. The essential sexuality that people posit behind this behavior cannot be a sin.
And we have to create a God as well...
For those of you who are unfamiliar with St Agustine's donation to the modern church hegemony's repressive sexual views please go find a copy of his book Confessions. He was a pervert and wanted to think everyone else had the same problem.
For a more complete discussion of homosexuality and Christianity, see: http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-issesn-support-a.html (Actually, if I would have been thinking, I would have just quoted that topic and saved myself the time. Oh well, I've written it now, and it is a little more clear here than in the introduction to that topic.)
(Actually, if I would have been thinking, I would have just quoted that topic and saved myself the time. Oh well, I've written it now, and it is a little more clear here than in the introduction to that topic.)
Too bad homosexual animals, like my dog Blazer, can't read this blather...he might well change his "choice."
BTW...your dissertation about the religious view was well-studied and well written...but who cares what a bunch of bigots think? They persecute Gays to feel superior. When was the last crusade against other sins like Theft or Murder?
For a more complete discussion of homosexuality and Christianity, see: http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-issesn-support-a.html
If I knew my child would turn out gay, I still wouldn't abort. No way in hell would I ever abort. I don't like the idea of gays either, especially not as my own child. But, I can accept and move on. I'd never forgive myself for aborting.
Unwanted children aren't all adopted by gays. Couples who can't conceive adopt. Even couples who can conceive adopt. Besides, there will always be gays I reckon.
All sins are ontologically but not teleologically equal. Between the two, I would suggest that abortion is teleologically more devastating. However, the question is flawed in its formulation because traditional Christian understanding puts culpability for abortion on the aborter and for homosexuality on the homosexual. There is no single moral agent to decide between abortion and homosexuality. If I should be asked whether it is better for me to abort a gay fetus or allow the gay fetus to live, the answer is obvious. Abortion is wrong; allowing other people who sin to live is not. (If it were wrong, I would be morally obligated to abort all fetuses since all are destined to sin, thus making the moral stance on abortion contradictory.) Since it is not wrong to allow sinners to live, there is no moral tension there at all.
However, the question is flawed in its formulation because traditional Christian understanding puts culpability for abortion on the aborter and for homosexuality on the homosexual. There is no single moral agent to decide between abortion and homosexuality. If I should be asked whether it is better for me to abort a gay fetus or allow the gay fetus to live, the answer is obvious. Abortion is wrong; allowing other people who sin to live is not. (If it were wrong, I would be morally obligated to abort all fetuses since all are destined to sin, thus making the moral stance on abortion contradictory.) Since it is not wrong to allow sinners to live, there is no moral tension there at all.
Because if the woman as not made the decision to keep the baby before this time, then she should be forced to have the child. Because it would have now been living.
Do we really want to force anyone to have an unwanted child? Who will raise the child?
Come join the debate at www.thehereticandthepreacher.com .
Lev 17:11
From scientific views, this means that life begins as soon as the blood enters the veins. I am not religious in any way, but I do believe that abortion should only be legal up to this point.
Quote: from jamesish at 2:22 am on July 4, 2009 "If my fetus were gay" is such an unrealistic question that it can't honestly be answered. I dunno about that, imagine if there is a "gay gene" that could be tested for, it wouldn't be too out there for some people who were strongly anti-gay to get an abortion if the child posses the said genes.
"If my fetus were gay" is such an unrealistic question that it can't honestly be answered.
I dunno about that, imagine if there is a "gay gene" that could be tested for, it wouldn't be too out there for some people who were strongly anti-gay to get an abortion if the child posses the said genes.
Now that is a moral issue!
594 users online 
225323 members 852 active today Advertise Here
594 users online 225323 members 852 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
