Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Prevalence of Homosexuality ...

studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:34:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
in Animals. Could this lead to a downfall of the more serious and uptight denominations of Christianity?

One could argue that the prevalence of homosexuality in wild animals hints towards the "nature" aspect of the infamous nature vs. nurture sexual orientation debacle.

Generally, Christian groups believe that the ultimate creator of children (eventually people / adults due to natural physical and mental development) is God.

As it stands today, and could easily stand in the future, many straitlaced groups view homosexuality as one of the worst sins that can be committed in one's lifetime. I know of several Christian denominations that do not accept anyone who is homosexual.

Once Christian groups make a connection between this "homosexual nature" and the fact that they believe God creates people in His image, the aforementioned Christians will lose thier minds. They will be forced to either reconcile their differences, completely reject the idea of natural homosexuality (which they have been doing, but this is a little different in the sense that more scientific data can substantiate the claim of a natural disposition), or spend several months to years attempting to re-analyze their religion as a whole.

Thoughts?
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:36:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:34:25 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
in Animals. Could this lead to a downfall of the more serious and uptight denominations of Christianity?

One could argue that the prevalence of homosexuality in wild animals hints towards the "nature" aspect of the infamous nature vs. nurture sexual orientation debacle.

Gays are created by the government. It's a massive conspiracy.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:38:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:36:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:34:25 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
in Animals. Could this lead to a downfall of the more serious and uptight denominations of Christianity?

One could argue that the prevalence of homosexuality in wild animals hints towards the "nature" aspect of the infamous nature vs. nurture sexual orientation debacle.

Gays are created by the government. It's a massive conspiracy.

What do you feel about the synopsis as a whole? Is it plausible? A little far-fetched?
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:39:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:38:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
What do you feel about the synopsis as a whole? Is it plausible? A little far-fetched?

Wait, are you being serious? I was making fun of Alex Jones. If anything, the government is putting LSD in that guy's water...
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:41:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:39:46 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:38:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
What do you feel about the synopsis as a whole? Is it plausible? A little far-fetched?

Wait, are you being serious? I was making fun of Alex Jones. If anything, the government is putting LSD in that guy's water...

I'm talking about what I originally posted. I haven't seen the video yet.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:46:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:34:25 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
in Animals. Could this lead to a downfall of the more serious and uptight denominations of Christianity?

One could argue that the prevalence of homosexuality in wild animals hints towards the "nature" aspect of the infamous nature vs. nurture sexual orientation debacle.

Generally, Christian groups believe that the ultimate creator of children (eventually people / adults due to natural physical and mental development) is God.

As it stands today, and could easily stand in the future, many straitlaced groups view homosexuality as one of the worst sins that can be committed in one's lifetime. I know of several Christian denominations that do not accept anyone who is homosexual.

Once Christian groups make a connection between this "homosexual nature" and the fact that they believe God creates people in His image, the aforementioned Christians will lose thier minds. They will be forced to either reconcile their differences, completely reject the idea of natural homosexuality (which they have been doing, but this is a little different in the sense that more scientific data can substantiate the claim of a natural disposition), or spend several months to years attempting to re-analyze their religion as a whole.

Thoughts?

Are you saying that if animals do it then we should also follow? Does this apply to all animal behavior? Or just actions that some one picks and chooses from? Just questions, not making accusations or assumptions.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:47:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:41:13 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
I'm talking about what I originally posted. I haven't seen the video yet.

Oh, that. I don't know or care. The God hates f@gs crowd can believe whatever they want, as long as they don't forcefully impose their BS views on anyone else. Generally, they're not smart enough to think through these kinds of things and they just rely on whatever nonsense their pastors and various televangelists tell them.

Note: this is not an invective against Christianity, it's an invective against ignorant, intolerant, fundamentalist extremists who don't read the Bible and wouldn't understand it if they tried.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:49:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:46:56 PM, jharry wrote:
Are you saying that if animals do it then we should also follow? Does this apply to all animal behavior? Or just actions that some one picks and chooses from? Just questions, not making accusations or assumptions.

He's not arguing that homosexuality is a good thing that ought to be emulated, he's pointing out that its not a choice like a lot of uneducated people seem to think.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:51:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:46:56 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:34:25 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
in Animals. Could this lead to a downfall of the more serious and uptight denominations of Christianity?

One could argue that the prevalence of homosexuality in wild animals hints towards the "nature" aspect of the infamous nature vs. nurture sexual orientation debacle.

Generally, Christian groups believe that the ultimate creator of children (eventually people / adults due to natural physical and mental development) is God.

As it stands today, and could easily stand in the future, many straitlaced groups view homosexuality as one of the worst sins that can be committed in one's lifetime. I know of several Christian denominations that do not accept anyone who is homosexual.

Once Christian groups make a connection between this "homosexual nature" and the fact that they believe God creates people in His image, the aforementioned Christians will lose thier minds. They will be forced to either reconcile their differences, completely reject the idea of natural homosexuality (which they have been doing, but this is a little different in the sense that more scientific data can substantiate the claim of a natural disposition), or spend several months to years attempting to re-analyze their religion as a whole.

Thoughts?

Are you saying that if animals do it then we should also follow?

I am not saying that at all. I am talking simply more about concepts, pre-conceived notions, etc. I am talking about the philosophical repercussions and meaning that this prevalance has on the perception of various uptight Christian denominations.

Does this apply to all animal behavior? Or just actions that some one picks and chooses from?

Could you be more specific? I think what I stated above should suffice, but I would like you to elaborate.

Just questions, not making accusations or assumptions.

Any type of relevant feedback is appreciated.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:51:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:49:50 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:46:56 PM, jharry wrote:
Are you saying that if animals do it then we should also follow? Does this apply to all animal behavior? Or just actions that some one picks and chooses from? Just questions, not making accusations or assumptions.

He's not arguing that homosexuality is a good thing that ought to be emulated, he's pointing out that its not a choice like a lot of uneducated people seem to think.

Thank you. I hope what I posted will explain as well.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:53:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:49:50 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:46:56 PM, jharry wrote:
Are you saying that if animals do it then we should also follow? Does this apply to all animal behavior? Or just actions that some one picks and chooses from? Just questions, not making accusations or assumptions.

He's not arguing that homosexuality is a good thing that ought to be emulated, he's pointing out that its not a choice like a lot of uneducated people seem to think.

Well that isn't what I was asking. If an animal does something does that automatically mean we can/should also? I think reasoning might agree but he is special. :)
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:54:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:53:10 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:49:50 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:46:56 PM, jharry wrote:
Are you saying that if animals do it then we should also follow? Does this apply to all animal behavior? Or just actions that some one picks and chooses from? Just questions, not making accusations or assumptions.

He's not arguing that homosexuality is a good thing that ought to be emulated, he's pointing out that its not a choice like a lot of uneducated people seem to think.

Well that isn't what I was asking. If an animal does something does that automatically mean we can/should also? I think reasoning might agree but he is special. :)

No, but, again, that really wasn't the point of the OP.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:54:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:53:10 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:49:50 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:46:56 PM, jharry wrote:
Are you saying that if animals do it then we should also follow? Does this apply to all animal behavior? Or just actions that some one picks and chooses from? Just questions, not making accusations or assumptions.

He's not arguing that homosexuality is a good thing that ought to be emulated, he's pointing out that its not a choice like a lot of uneducated people seem to think.

Well that isn't what I was asking. If an animal does something does that automatically mean we can/should also? I think reasoning might agree but he is special. :)

I am not talking about that. I am speaking more of its meaning, and the fact that it may contradict what many Christians like to believe.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:58:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:54:52 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:53:10 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:49:50 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:46:56 PM, jharry wrote:
Are you saying that if animals do it then we should also follow? Does this apply to all animal behavior? Or just actions that some one picks and chooses from? Just questions, not making accusations or assumptions.

He's not arguing that homosexuality is a good thing that ought to be emulated, he's pointing out that its not a choice like a lot of uneducated people seem to think.

Well that isn't what I was asking. If an animal does something does that automatically mean we can/should also? I think reasoning might agree but he is special. :)

I am not talking about that. I am speaking more of its meaning, and the fact that it may contradict what many Christians like to believe.

I don't see the difference. Please explain. I don't understand the difference in the meaning in this topic.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:00:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:34:25 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
in Animals. Could this lead to a downfall of the more serious and uptight denominations of Christianity?

I hope so, and other uptight snotty religious, and even non-religious people. I really hope ignorance, stupidity, and hate gets erased, especially about something so trivial.

One could argue that the prevalence of homosexuality in wild animals hints towards the "nature" aspect of the infamous nature vs. nurture sexual orientation debacle.

That seems to be the idea.

Generally, Christian groups believe that the ultimate creator of children (eventually people / adults due to natural physical and mental development) is God.

I would hope they thought that, otherwise I'd question their religion.

As it stands today, and could easily stand in the future, many straitlaced groups view homosexuality as one of the worst sins that can be committed in one's lifetime. I know of several Christian denominations that do not accept anyone who is homosexual.

Yes, its quite sad. I want to stand outside one of those churches with a sign that says "God hates haters"

Once Christian groups make a connection between this "homosexual nature" and the fact that they believe God creates people in His image, the aforementioned Christians will lose thier minds. They will be forced to either reconcile their differences, completely reject the idea of natural homosexuality (which they have been doing, but this is a little different in the sense that more scientific data can substantiate the claim of a natural disposition), or spend several months to years attempting to re-analyze their religion as a whole.

Religion causes a lot of harm, especially to one's mental health, especially if the person happens to be gay.

Thoughts?

I think no matter where people believe we came fromor where we go, they all need to get their heads out of their @ss and learn how to make the most of life within the guidelines of their own morality, the law of the land, and their religion [if they are religious], in a way that is resectful to other's choices, lives, and hapiness.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:00:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:58:20 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:54:52 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:53:10 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:49:50 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:46:56 PM, jharry wrote:
Are you saying that if animals do it then we should also follow? Does this apply to all animal behavior? Or just actions that some one picks and chooses from? Just questions, not making accusations or assumptions.

He's not arguing that homosexuality is a good thing that ought to be emulated, he's pointing out that its not a choice like a lot of uneducated people seem to think.

Well that isn't what I was asking. If an animal does something does that automatically mean we can/should also? I think reasoning might agree but he is special. :)

I am not talking about that. I am speaking more of its meaning, and the fact that it may contradict what many Christians like to believe.

I don't see the difference. Please explain. I don't understand the difference in the meaning in this topic.

I did not mention any connection between the actions of the sub-species animals with our actions.

My post focused more on the action of this behavior, the result it concludes about the nature vs. nurture debate, and how this breakthough will affect Christianity as a whole.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:10:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 9:00:12 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:58:20 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:54:52 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:53:10 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:49:50 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:46:56 PM, jharry wrote:
Are you saying that if animals do it then we should also follow? Does this apply to all animal behavior? Or just actions that some one picks and chooses from? Just questions, not making accusations or assumptions.

He's not arguing that homosexuality is a good thing that ought to be emulated, he's pointing out that its not a choice like a lot of uneducated people seem to think.

Well that isn't what I was asking. If an animal does something does that automatically mean we can/should also? I think reasoning might agree but he is special. :)

I am not talking about that. I am speaking more of its meaning, and the fact that it may contradict what many Christians like to believe.

I don't see the difference. Please explain. I don't understand the difference in the meaning in this topic.

I did not mention any connection between the actions of the sub-species animals with our actions.

My post focused more on the action of this behavior, the result it concludes about the nature vs. nurture debate, and how this breakthough will affect Christianity as a whole.

I guess I'm still missing your point somewhere. Your focused on the actions of the behavior. I'm not sure the impact it will have on Christianity.

Take this behavior in nature.

When a new lion takes over a pride he systematically murders every cub born of another sire. It makes sense from an evolutionary stand point.

So if I marry a women that has a child by a different father I could murder this child? Lions do it, it is natural for them to do so. It is a prevailing behavior, should I copy or mimic a animal behavior because it happens in nature? Or i this the point in which we begin to pick and choose which behaviors we can/can't adhere to?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:14:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 9:10:45 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/5/2010 9:00:12 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:58:20 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:54:52 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:53:10 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:49:50 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:46:56 PM, jharry wrote:
Are you saying that if animals do it then we should also follow? Does this apply to all animal behavior? Or just actions that some one picks and chooses from? Just questions, not making accusations or assumptions.

He's not arguing that homosexuality is a good thing that ought to be emulated, he's pointing out that its not a choice like a lot of uneducated people seem to think.

Well that isn't what I was asking. If an animal does something does that automatically mean we can/should also? I think reasoning might agree but he is special. :)

I am not talking about that. I am speaking more of its meaning, and the fact that it may contradict what many Christians like to believe.

I don't see the difference. Please explain. I don't understand the difference in the meaning in this topic.

I did not mention any connection between the actions of the sub-species animals with our actions.

My post focused more on the action of this behavior, the result it concludes about the nature vs. nurture debate, and how this breakthough will affect Christianity as a whole.

I guess I'm still missing your point somewhere. Your focused on the actions of the behavior. I'm not sure the impact it will have on Christianity.

Take this behavior in nature.

When a new lion takes over a pride he systematically murders every cub born of another sire. It makes sense from an evolutionary stand point.

So if I marry a women that has a child by a different father I could murder this child? Lions do it, it is natural for them to do so. It is a prevailing behavior, should I copy or mimic a animal behavior because it happens in nature? Or i this the point in which we begin to pick and choose which behaviors we can/can't adhere to?

I'm not trying to be rude, but you may want to read my original post a few more times.

You are not understanding the point of it. Kenyon understands what I'm trying to talk about, and, in essence, I am correlating this scientific evidence with the common "ignorant" perceptions of many Christians.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:16:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
All dogs go to heaven, so they can't be gay.[1]

[1] Walt Disney
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:39:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 9:14:06 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:

I'm not trying to be rude, but you may want to read my original post a few more times.

You are not understanding the point of it. Kenyon understands what I'm trying to talk about, and, in essence, I am correlating this scientific evidence with the common "ignorant" perceptions of many Christians.

Your right. I'm completely missing the point some how. Sorry. I'm out.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:40:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:34:25 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
in Animals. Could this lead to a downfall of the more serious and uptight denominations of Christianity?

It should.

One could argue that the prevalence of homosexuality in wild animals hints towards the "nature" aspect of the infamous nature vs. nurture sexual orientation debacle.

Yes. And to the small group who believe that since 'animals' do it, we should... you're missing the point entirely. Humans are not that different than animals, we're just capable of 'higher' thinking. And to put us in a completely separate category just because of that, is to deny our evolutionary connection to lower primates. We evolved from animals. And we should use our 'higher' thinking to realize that gays are not anymore unnatural than homosexuals. Both groups deserve a spot in humanity. Know why? We're both humans who aren't inherently evil or wrong. To think otherwise is close-minded and ignorant.

Generally, Christian groups believe that the ultimate creator of children (eventually people / adults due to natural physical and mental development) is God.

As it stands today, and could easily stand in the future, many straitlaced groups view homosexuality as one of the worst sins that can be committed in one's lifetime. I know of several Christian denominations that do not accept anyone who is homosexual.

How sad is that?

Once Christian groups make a connection between this "homosexual nature" and the fact that they believe God creates people in His image, the aforementioned Christians will lose thier minds. They will be forced to either reconcile their differences, completely reject the idea of natural homosexuality (which they have been doing, but this is a little different in the sense that more scientific data can substantiate the claim of a natural disposition), or spend several months to years attempting to re-analyze their religion as a whole.

And why can't they let Christianity or Catholcism evolve into a more accepting religion? Why are gays the antichrist? God created everyone in his image.... EVERYONE. And guess what? That includes gays.

Thoughts?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 3:00:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:47:44 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:41:13 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
I'm talking about what I originally posted. I haven't seen the video yet.

Oh, that. I don't know or care. The God hates f@gs crowd can believe whatever they want, as long as they don't forcefully impose their BS views on anyone else. Generally, they're not smart enough to think through these kinds of things and they just rely on whatever nonsense their pastors and various televangelists tell them.

Note: this is not an invective against Christianity, it's an invective against ignorant, intolerant, fundamentalist extremists who don't read the Bible and wouldn't understand it if they tried.

I agree 110%.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 7:12:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:34:25 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
Thoughts?
OK, I'll bite.

Prevalence of Homosexuality in Animals. Could this lead to a downfall of the more serious and uptight denominations of Christianity?
As far as serious & uptight denominations of Christianity goes, I'd say uptight but not serious.

One could argue that the prevalence of homosexuality in wild animals hints towards the "nature" aspect of the infamous nature vs. nurture sexual orientation debacle.
Not really. (1) Human homosexuality NOT= animal homosexuality. (2) The nature vs nurture debacle still holds quite strongly. The problem with it is that some think of it as a very simplistic argument: born gay vs taught to be gay. This is not the real argument.

Generally, Christian groups believe that the ultimate creator of children (eventually people / adults due to natural physical and mental development) is God.
I guess, but I would think that God would be more responsible for the "soul-stuff" than the "baby batter stuff."

As it stands today, and could easily stand in the future, many straitlaced groups view homosexuality as one of the worst sins that can be committed in one's lifetime.
That's just ridiculous; but there is no shortage of ridiculous people. These are by far a minority of Christians and hopefully their numbers will keep dwindling.

I know of several Christian denominations that do not accept anyone who is homosexual.
That's sad but gay or straight, I wouldn't want to be part of that denomination.

Once Christian groups make a connection between this "homosexual nature" and the fact that they believe God creates people in His image, the aforementioned Christians will lose their minds.
I disagree: they've already lost their minds!

They will be forced to either reconcile their differences, completely reject the idea of natural homosexuality (which they have been doing, but this is a little different in the sense that more scientific data can substantiate the claim of a natural disposition), or spend several months to years attempting to re-analyze their religion as a whole.
Perhaps; we can only hope.

I personally think that there is a little of both going on in the Nature vs Nurture argument. In my opinion it splits like 10% vs 90% or so. I believe it's mostly a nurture thing and that there are very few that are completely from nature. Now the nurture side doesn't mean that "my aunt taught me to be gay": this is way to simplistic. It's a combination of things that occur through out the persons life: environmental factors, interactions with people, experiences, etc.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 7:26:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What the OP is trying to get at is it a choice. If it happens in nature it is less likely to be a choice than a product of nature i.e. God. If it is a choice it is man's creation and can be deemed as sinful, it is God's creation, or a part of nature, then it cannot be deemed as sinful.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 8:30:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/6/2010 7:26:10 AM, innomen wrote:
What the OP is trying to get at is it a choice. If it happens in nature it is less likely to be a choice than a product of nature i.e. God. If it is a choice it is man's creation and can be deemed as sinful, it is God's creation, or a part of nature, then it cannot be deemed as sinful.

some men are also naturally more violent... and naturally attracted to women that are Not their wives... even some priests are naturally attracted to altar boys.

I think you included the last bit b/c you realize that the Catholic Church's position on this is that some men Are naturally attracted men.... and that It's ONLY a sin if they act on it...

Thus all Gays should be celibate!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 8:33:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/6/2010 8:30:14 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/6/2010 7:26:10 AM, innomen wrote:
What the OP is trying to get at is it a choice. If it happens in nature it is less likely to be a choice than a product of nature i.e. God. If it is a choice it is man's creation and can be deemed as sinful, it is God's creation, or a part of nature, then it cannot be deemed as sinful.

I thought you were using "as" in a comparitive manner... like "your as tall as him"...

but now it seems to me your using it in the more straightforward descriptive manner.... so... *correction* (I shouldn't have underlined "as").
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 11:08:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yeah, what Matt said. I was raised Catholic and I know they don't deny that some people cannot choose their sexuality (Mirza agrees with this). However they think gays should not ACT on their sexuality; that's the sin. Of course this doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Why is *the act* of gay sex immoral? Anyone? Anyone? Obviously it doesn't hurt willing participants mentally, emotionally or physically -- and in fact, those inclined to want gay sex *benefit* emotionally, mentally and physically from said sex. In other words, there's nothing immoral whatsoever about the act itself. Responsible sex is healthy and rewarding.

Someone like Mirza would say that gay sex is an immoral act because it doesn't produce children. I'm sure any reasonable person can see the absurdity and/or irrelevance in this position, but nevertheless, some people actually believe that. What I don't understand is the choice aspect of this position. Theists say *intent* is what determines the morality of a lot of acts. For instance if I accidentally take money from you, but I didn't intend to, then the act of stealing itself wouldn't be a sin because it wasn't really "stealing." Similarly, if Catholics can accept that gays don't choose to be gay, then they didn't *intend* to "sin" so what's the problem? Again this is all non-sensical to me.

Also, why is Juvanya having a hard time understanding the question? Sac8 was implying that homosexuality in nature helps show that homosexuality is not a choice. Therefore, if it's not a choice, then is it really a sin in itself? Juvanya is saying that just because animals do it doesn't make it moral. That has nothing to do with the fact that it's supposed to prove homosexuality is the result of natural, biological processes and it's not something entirely psychological or "nurture" based meaning it's ignorant to imply it's a willing choice (as if, ya know, the fact that gays are legally treated as second class citizens, oppressed, isolated, bullied to death and victims of frequent hate crimes isn't enough incentive to not choose this fate).
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 11:12:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:34:25 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
in Animals. Could this lead to a downfall of the more serious and uptight denominations of Christianity?

One could argue that the prevalence of homosexuality in wild animals hints towards the "nature" aspect of the infamous nature vs. nurture sexual orientation debacle.

Generally, Christian groups believe that the ultimate creator of children (eventually people / adults due to natural physical and mental development) is God.

As it stands today, and could easily stand in the future, many straitlaced groups view homosexuality as one of the worst sins that can be committed in one's lifetime. I know of several Christian denominations that do not accept anyone who is homosexual.

Once Christian groups make a connection between this "homosexual nature" and the fact that they believe God creates people in His image, the aforementioned Christians will lose thier minds. They will be forced to either reconcile their differences, completely reject the idea of natural homosexuality (which they have been doing, but this is a little different in the sense that more scientific data can substantiate the claim of a natural disposition), or spend several months to years attempting to re-analyze their religion as a whole.

Thoughts?

We were created in the image of God, we then fell. As a result of being fallen we have sinful impulses, such as lust, wrath etc. Heterosexual inclinations are also sinful.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 11:33:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/6/2010 8:33:17 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/6/2010 8:30:14 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/6/2010 7:26:10 AM, innomen wrote:
What the OP is trying to get at is it a choice. If it happens in nature it is less likely to be a choice than a product of nature i.e. God. If it is a choice it is man's creation and can be deemed as sinful, it is God's creation, or a part of nature, then it cannot be deemed as sinful.

I thought you were using "as" in a comparitive manner... like "your as tall as him"...

but now it seems to me your using it in the more straightforward descriptive manner.... so... *correction* (I shouldn't have underlined "as").
Sometimes less is more! Had it been stated without the as, it would have been more clear. Consider:
"If it is a choice it is man's creation and can be deemed as sinful, it is God's creation, or a part of nature, then it cannot be deemed sinful."

BTW, there are choices maid along the way that are contributing factors.

At 10/6/2010 11:08:37 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Why is *the act* of gay sex immoral? Anyone? Anyone?
Me! Me! Me!

Obviously it doesn't hurt willing participants mentally, emotionally or physically -- and in fact, those inclined to want gay sex *benefit* emotionally, mentally and physically from said sex. In other words, there's nothing immoral whatsoever about the act itself. Responsible sex is healthy and rewarding.
Catholic morality is not based on the above. According to Catholicism, are hurt spiritually and possibly emotionally.

Someone like Mirza would say that gay sex is an immoral act because it doesn't produce children. I'm sure any reasonable person can see the absurdity and/or irrelevance in this position, but nevertheless, some people actually believe that.
The anus is an exit, not an entrance.

What I don't understand is the choice aspect of this position. Theists say *intent* is what determines the morality of a lot of acts. For instance if I accidentally take money from you, but I didn't intend to, then the act of stealing itself wouldn't be a sin because it wasn't really "stealing." Similarly, if Catholics can accept that gays don't choose to be gay, then they didn't *intend* to "sin" so what's the problem? Again this is all non-sensical to me.
The intent of committing the sin of sodomy, for starters.

Also, why is Juvanya having a hard time understanding the question? Sac8 was implying that homosexuality in nature helps show that homosexuality is not a choice.
Animals are not humans.

Therefore, if it's not a choice, then is it really a sin in itself?
Yes.

Juvanya is saying that just because animals do it doesn't make it moral.
Juvanya is right.

That has nothing to do with the fact that it's supposed to prove homosexuality is the result of natural, biological processes and it's not something entirely psychological or "nurture" based meaning it's ignorant to imply it's a willing choice (as if, ya know, the fact that gays are legally treated as second class citizens, oppressed, isolated, bullied to death and victims of frequent hate crimes isn't enough incentive to not choose this fate).
Again, humans are not animals. Human homosexuality NOT= animal homosexuality.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.