As the thread suggests.
I mean people are born gay, just as we are evolved from ape-like ancestors, just as some people are are born with various differences in their chemical and physiological make-up.
So is it like a part of original sin? Can you be born a sinner? Who does it hurt and why is it a sin?
Mr. Fishy doesn't think that a person is born homosexal. That implies sexual tendences at birth.
As for the sin the intended order of life is male to female inorder to continue the species, acting in defiance to the "natural order" is looked upon as a mockery of the gift of proceation.
As for the born with a personality is that were true, Twins would act the same. Same interest same talents, they don't. Twins act and look different as they age into indiviuals. Saying the a person is born straight or gay implies that it can or should be fixed.
Also Mr. Fishy didn't evolve from an ape, other fishys regressed from Mr. Fishy.
|
Well you have to agree to the premise that a)people are born gay (I do believe that there are gay people who are born gay, but not that it's the case for every gay person ever, I believe that while there are those who are born gay, there's also those for whom it is behavioral.)
b) that there isn't a distinction between being attracted to the same sex and having actual sex. (i.e. is being gay a sin, or is having gay sex a sin) I'm pretty sure from what I've seen and studied that it isn't a sin to be attracted to members of the same sex, but that it is a sin to actually have sex with a member of the same sex (granted there are also passages in the bible that equate thought to commital, so the argument isn't black/white). Keep in mind that regardless of your sexual preference it is possible to go through life without having sex at all.
And a direct answer to one of your questions, yes you can be born a sinner. We are all born sinners, the only person who wasn't born a sinner was Jesus.
Who does it hurt and why is it a sin are two separate questions. There are things that are sins that don't hurt anyone. As to why it's a sin, no one can give you a true answer to that as the whole premise of our religion is that we don't understand the workings of our lord, we will never know the "why".
|
Well, I know Leviticus mentions it as a sin, and I know one of the Pauline epistles mentions it later on.
Specifically with some google-fu Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
and "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." (I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11)
As to the nature of WHY other than god said no. You'll have to look at the writings of St. Augustine. Augustine was the first I know to comment on the WHY of it. Augustine wrote that sex was only to be for reproduction otherwise it was sinful, so if you didn't have a chance of reproducing it's sin. So infertile couples, older couples, couples using birth control, and homosexuals were all lumped into this category by Augustine.
From my understanding of the topic I will address it as best as a gay pagan can.
So is it like a part of original sin?
I'm not sure about that one because from MY understanding original sin was when eve CHOSE to bite the fruit of knowledge, then adam did the same. There by CHOOSEING to disobey GOD's direct order. That is ORIGINAL sin.
Can you be born a sinner?
Theroretically everybody is born a sinner because of the original sin. Not until you have accepted Jesus crist as your Lord and savior is your sin slate clean.
Who does it hurt and why is it a sin?
Supposedly it hurts the sinner because they are in direct disobediance with GOD's law. It a sin because if you look at:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
or
Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (NIV)
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
or
Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
I hope this answers your questions.
Now you see why I personally chose to not be a christian and embraced the GODS of my ancestors.
Please understand that all answers are based on my understanding of the King James version of the bible with a southern baptist teachings.
|
Speaking as a non-Christian who still knows a tremendous amount of Protestant dogma -- homosexuality is a sin becasue God, through the Bible, has said it is a sin.
Speaking as a teacher of Ethics and ethical theory -- using the former reason for homosexuality being a sin, it falls under the argument of Natural Law, the theory of Ethics Aristotle first posited. Natural Law, of course, has been proved a fallacy over and over again through the ages -- Aristotle was pretty damn smart but he missed that one.
Feel free checking out Natural Law (and maybe even the other 3 Classical bases for Ethics).
As the thread suggests.
I mean people are born gay, just as we are evolved from ape-like ancestors, just as some people are are born with various differences in their chemical and physiological make-up.
So is it like a part of original sin? Can you be born a sinner? Who does it hurt and why is it a sin?
From what I've read, the only reason it's a sin is because God tsked at the idea with one of his 32 fingers and said "No". There's no real reason given why, God just don't like it apparently. Then again, consider that we really aren't supposed to be going to the bathroom or even having sex with our spouses unless it results in pregnancy(note- not that we WANT it to result in pregnancy, she has to BECOME pregnant, otherwise you're sinning; some views say she is the one who is sinning if she is taking steps to avoid pregnancy or knowingly has sex with you when she is not fertile, ymmv), so I take this prohibition, along with the vast majority of others, with a grain of salt.
It is a sin because "God" said so. Labelling it as such is nearly as useful as a bucket of steaming hamster vomit (my apologies to any ill hamsters who may be reading). Wait...I take that back. It's very useful if the goal is to divide the world into "us" vs. "them."
But who would ever want to do that? :P
One is not, typically sexually active before one hits puberty, but are born with those sexual predelections hardcoded. Similarly some people are hardcoded differently. Bisexuality is a different thing, as is female and male homosexuality. But many, many gay people are indeed born with that hardcoded. While there are examples of behaviorial homosexuality, in various societies throughout history. In most western socities I would put money on the substantial majority of gay people being born with homosexual tendencies. Now the proportion may not be correct, but the fact that people ARE indeed born gay is. There are chemical markers, and various other mutations that render it a physiological fact, not always. But I bet mostly. I'm not saying bisexuality is wrong, or that some people don't choose to be gay. But that isn't the standard case by intuition.
Twins wouldn't have the have the exact same make up, not even identical twins. From their first seperation, they followed a similar plan, but it is not a perfect one. If your DNA was cloned, that clone may not look or think exactly as you do, even if they encountered all of your life, they'd almost certainly, statistically be very similar, but not 100% likely to be the same. Mutations happen all the time. However if one was born with an idetical twin who was gay, it is certainly probable that they would be more likely to be gay. Not definite.
That said, so all in all it's a sin because its in the Bible, that makes sense, I was just wondering if there was some other basis. But even if God is real, and gave various prophets messages, your basically playing chinese whispers to define morality, aren't you? I mean whos to say that these prophets didn't frame things in their own moral framework, and the Abrahamic faiths are not exactly the most socially tolerant or acceptable, even at thier time? Or that the books haven't been editted and mistranslated? I'm genuinely not trying to be offensive. I just don't get it. I mean their are older books, shorter books, newer books, and similarly with faiths and ideas. Why other than tradition is that one special? Why is what it says considered a relevant input to a moral argument?
"Appeal to Authority" Mr. Fishy thinks that the right term.
Also know as my Dad/Mom said.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Bugleyman's vitrol aside, Jeremy hit it on the head with the scripture references for me, more the NT than the OT ones though.
Now keep in mind, as I said elsewhere, we're all sinners, and as a Lutheran (heretic) I do hold that it is faith, not deeds, that earn us salvation.
I also look at it as 'acting' on the impulse as opposed to having it. When I was married, I appriciated many attractive women, but I'd not act on it. In theory, being single, I shouldn't be knocking boots with anyone. I'm not sure I could resist though, hormones being what they are. (ladies, if you'd like to test my resolve, e-mail me. ;-)) It doesn't make it right if I give in.
Now, also as I've said elsewhere, it's not my job/duty/mandate to force my beliefs on another. So I'm not going to send spybots around to see who's buggering whom.
Jeremy, I don't think Thomas Aquinas was automatically excluding infertile couples. Christian thought does recognize Sarah and Abraham after all. :-)
<theological aside>
<second aside>
|
|
Unfortunately, the issue of being born gay is not known to be true or untrue. There is no conclusive evidence to prove either point, however the tilt is slightly in the favor of homosexuality being learned behaviour instead of instinctual behaviour. As for the sin part, from a Christian (post reformation) viewpoint the sin is in the act of homosexuality. Leaving aside the concept of Original Sin, certain behaviours are deemed sins. If you give in to urges, whether homosexuality, rage, jealousy, etc. then you have sinned. Having the urges are not a sin.
|
|
All in all it's a sin because its in the Bible .... I was just wondering if there was some other basis. But even if God is real, and gave various prophets messages, your basically playing chinese whispers to define morality, aren't you?
Ethics is the study of how we determine right and wrong actions, good and bad things. So, with a basic primer in ethics, we can begin to see patterns in how different people determine what is right and wrong (actions) and good and bad (things).
The argument that a thing is good or bad because a "Higher Power" says it is is a type of Natural Law argument to determine ethics.
There are 4 types of arguments in Classical Ethics to determine what is right or wrong, good or bad. Natural Law has been proven to be invalid, thus when a person uses an argument of Natural Law to determine right and wrong -- it is an invalid argument. Murder, for example, may indeed be wrong, but certainly not because of Natural Law.
In case you are interested but do not want to look it up, the 4 Classical kinds of arguments are
1) Deontology --
2) Utilitarianism --
3) Relativism --
4) Natural Law --
-----------
When one teaches Ethics 101, the first lesson goes something like this: these are the 4 types of arguments and what they're all about; this is why Relativism and Natural Law are bogus; these are the intrinsic problems with Utilitarianism and Positive Rights .... Here are some papers on issues (abortion and euthanasia, for example), tell me which arguments are Deontological, Utilitarian, Relative or of Natural Law .... Now, write a paper about an issue (abortion or euthanasia, for example) and use ONE of the two viable Etical arguments (Deontology or Utilitarianism) and, using that basis, argue both sides (a Utilitarian argument both FOR and AGAINST abortion, for example).
|
|
Your statement that Natural Law has been proven false is incorrect. Also, Deontology is far from being "universally" agreed upon. Those may be your opinions or the points of view of the sources you choose to read or study, but to automatically dismiss those you disagree with is intellectually dishonest.
|
|
Your statement that Natural Law has been proven false is incorrect. Also, Deontology is far from being "universally" agreed upon. Those may be your opinions or the points of view of the sources you choose to read or study, but to automatically dismiss those you disagree with is intellectually dishonest.
No, Natural Law is bogus, but please don't just take my word for it -- check it out.
Deontology -- well, Positive Rights are certainly tricky -- that's accepted. Perhaps the best way to put it is thus: a Deontological argument will be accepted over a Utilitarian argument, one will trump the other.
|
|
Natural Law is problematic because it is semantically impossible to define "natural."
And when we just use common sense (cuz we don't really need semantics in everyday life), well, Air Conditioning is NOT natural. But it's not bad, using one is not wrong. Plastics are not bad, using them is not wrong.
Meanwhile, it is "natural" for a cat to torture a mouse. Cats aren't bad. Killer whales torture seals. Killer whales are not bad. Our closest relatives, Binobo Chimps (in addition to having sex face to face instead of face to back), practice infantile sex. Can we say that binobo chimps are bad?!
Again, murder, lying, homosexuality -- anything may be bad or good -- just not because of a Natural Law argument. Rape is bad for some other reason/s.
|
|
I don't know, I will read more current stuff, but I remember back in the '90s when I was really big on this debate that the anti Natural Law side had some pretty big holes in their logic. If Natural Law is completely bogus, that bodes ill for us as the Constitution and DoI are completely based on that concept.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Rather than debate this topic, I’d like to address what seems to be the underlying thought. Why trust and listen to the Scriptures? Why believe in God and if we do what makes Scripture correct? How do we know God gave us what is the Scriptures and how do we know that the Scriptures are accurate?
There are facts that point to the validity and credibility of Scriptures (which I’ll get to in a moment). But even when armed with the facts, the choice to believe or not believe comes down to faith.
Jesus turned away many people who asked how to become His follower because following Jesus is hard. He expects believers to give up possessions, comfort (including sex in many cases), safety, family, and even life on this Earth to follow Him. As I type, Christians all over the world are being matyred for their faith: imprisoned, beaten, starved, tortured, murdered etc. Not everyone is willing to walk that road, no matter the future benefits.
Facts: a huge body of circumstantial evidence points to the existence of God being more probable than life being random (including but not limited to the complexity of DNA, the number of random variables that have to come together for any life (not just sentient) to come into existence, and the creation of the universe requiring a huge power source directed to overcome the Law of Entropy (the theory of the Big Bang tries to cover this but it has some large gaps it can’t cover).
Second, there is as much supporting historical data about the life of Jesus and the details given in the Gospels as there is for any other figure that lived 2000 years ago.
Third, the Dead Sea Scrolls are a Hebrew text that covers the Old Testament for all the books except Esther. There are also the Septuagint translations, the Aramaic Targums, quotations in early Christian writers, and the Latin translation of Jerome.
Fourth, there are about 5000 documents recording the New Testament and 86,000 quotations found in the church Fathers, old Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian translations dating from the 3rd century and Jerome’s Latin translation. The New Testament is the best-attested document of all ancient writings.
Circumstantial evidence points to the idea that God could certainly exist. And the Scriptures we have are extremely accurate with many different corroborating original sources in various languages by a wide range of groups. Scripture itself says that we can trust it for teaching, answering moral questions, and getting to know God.
However, following Jesus means giving a lot up however you look at. The question is, is a future good life of immortality and walking and working directly with God in a new world free of sickness, suffering, and death worth the sacrifices we have to give now? Especially when you can’t see that future but can only hope and long for it?
Jesus said, that for many, the answer would be no. The cost is too high despite the huge payoff in the end.
As a final note, trust nothing I say. If you truly want the truth, test everything you hear from the Pope on down to your fellow gamer. Check Scriptures, talk to learned men and women, and pray. If you seek God, you will find Him, but you have to make sure no one else leads you astray. Test whatever you are told by checking Scripture, praying, asking questions, and seeking answers. This is your eternal life we’re talking about here, do some research!
That depends on if you define homosexuality as a trait. A trait is defined as "a generalized and focalized neuropsychic system (peculiar to the individual), with the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide consistent (equivalent) forms of adaptive and expressive behavior" - Allport (1937). If you do, then homosexuality is neither completely biological nor is it completely influenced by environmental factors but a combination of the two.
With that said, it's not whether or not someone is "born gay" it's whether that particular trait shows itself in the course of that person's life. Most often it does not as many environmental and biological influences go against it. However, because you can have a child who is born with blonde hair and blue eyes from two parents who have neither of those traits and that child could then become an all-star athlete means it is very possible that no matter what influences exists, a person will be who they are supposed/choose to be in the end.
In summary, who cares. Why must we always look at things in a moral black and white way? Reality is not like that at all, as shades of gray exist in all aspects of our lives. We should spend less time arguing about the morality of being gay and abortions and spend more time trying to figure out how we are all going to sustain ourselves in the future with our economy crapping out. Topics like this give politicians an easy way out of discussing the hard topics like how they are going to really make changes for the better of this country.
|
|
If you look at a lot of bibilical laws, they made health and safety sense as well as religious sense....
But again, this is not foolproof.
There has been great discourse, in fact, on whether the roots of eating pork as sinful are because either A) it is harmful uncooked or B) because pigs competed with humans for the same kind of food an humans couldn't afford to share their diet. Last I heard (several years ago) those who study that particular area of history still didn't agree as to which was more accurate.
Also, there are a number of things not harmful when done safely -- Sodomy, for example is absolutely no less dangerous than intercourse in many situations. And intercourse is not bad.
There's lots of examples both ways and it's certainly accepted that the origins of many religious laws were absolutely for health -- but certainly not always.
|
|
If Natural Law is completely bogus, that bodes ill for ....
Don't forget, just because Natural Law and Relativism are bogus DOES NOT mean that a conclusion of such is bogus.
As I said, murder is BAD -- it's just bad for a reason other than Natural Law. (In this case, the thing is bad for a Deontological reason -- we have a right not to be murdered -- that's a Negative right as opposed to a Positive right (the right to an education is a positive right and IS tricky).
So, whether homosexuality is good or bad may yet to be determined -- I've not yet argued either way in this forum, BUT, using a Natural Law argument either for or against it does NOT prove it one way or the other.
|
|
Why trust and listen to the Scriptures? Why believe in God and if we do what makes Scripture correct?
Again, speaking as a non-Christian who nonetheless knows a great deal of Protestant dogma -- it's ALL ABOUT FAITH
If one believes that a God exists then one certainly believes that that God is cool enough to get the Bible right. If there was a text that He didn't want in it over the generations then it wouldn't be there now. Bottom line.
Bugleyman's vitrol aside, Jeremy hit it on the head with the scripture references for me, more the NT than the OT ones though.
Now keep in mind, as I said elsewhere, we're all sinners, and as a Lutheran (heretic) I do hold that it is faith, not deeds, that earn us salvation.
I also look at it as 'acting' on the impulse as opposed to having it. When I was married, I appriciated many attractive women, but I'd not act on it. In theory, being single, I shouldn't be knocking boots with anyone. I'm not sure I could resist though, hormones being what they are. (ladies, if you'd like to test my resolve, e-mail me. ;-)) It doesn't make it right if I give in.
Now, also as I've said elsewhere, it's not my job/duty/mandate to force my beliefs on another. So I'm not going to send spybots around to see who's buggering whom.
Jeremy, I don't think Thomas Aquinas was automatically excluding infertile couples. Christian thought does recognize Sarah and Abraham after all. :-)
<theological aside>
** spoiler omitted **<second aside>
** spoiler omitted **
Strange...I thought the bible condemned woman on woman partying as much as man on man. I'll have to double check, but I think it's been mentioned above.
|
I normally don't post responses to threads like these (religious threads), as I've been flamed far too often in them whenever I do. However, I make an exception in this instance (at the risk of becoming flame bait) to point out the Book of Genesis. In Chapter 19, two angels were visiting Lot in Sodom, who not knowing who or what they were, offered them lodging in his home. However, verses 4-5 play out what happens after they get to his home:
"But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them (KJV: know them, RSV: know them, NIV: can have sex with them, NJB: can have intercourse with them)."
- taken from Wikipedia entry on Sodom and Gomorrah.
Lot refused to give the men up, offering up his daughters (twin virgins, in fact) in their stead. They refused, threatened him and sought to do to him what they were going to do the men. The angels responded by striking the crowd blind. After this, they reveal to Lot that they were there to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
The rest you probably know.
Just figured I'd throw that out. I'll also say this. It has been suggested that homosexuality is in and of itself an unnatural act. I agree with this, but that is only because people choose to be homosexual. That is not an opinion, BTW. That is fact. People make the choice to be straight or homosexual, or whatever. I'm not saying there aren't factors that go with those choices, but they are still choices that were made.
(I also don't believe I evolved from apes either, mainly because I like to think of myself as being more than a mere animal. Doesn't have anything to do with my religious beliefs, just my personal choice. No disrespect intended to Mr. Fishy.)
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Why trust and listen to the Scriptures? Why believe in God and if we do what makes Scripture correct?Again, speaking as a non-Christian who nonetheless knows a great deal of Protestant dogma -- it's ALL ABOUT FAITH
If one believes that a God exists then one certainly believes that that God is cool enough to get the Bible right. If there was a text that He didn't want in it over the generations then it wouldn't be there now. Bottom line.
I agree. However, I also see the merits of science and historical research. It reaffirms my faith when thousands of years of Biblical teaching and doctrine hold up consistantly when tested. The outcome is what I'd expect: God speaks the truth and the Scriptures give humans a conduit to that truth. Science and historical research go hand in hand with faith study in my opinion.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Strange...I thought the bible condemned woman on woman partying as much as man on man. I'll have to double check, but I think it's been mentioned above.
Years ago (so I don't have bookmarks and am relying on memory) I read an article by a Rabbi who went in to great detail on the topic. I asked him about female/female pairings as he was very specific.
He replied that the Torah is silent on woman/woman. Apparently in the Talmud there's an admonition to not 'act as the people of Egypt' and Orthodox faiths look to that as an admoniation of female/female pairings, but the Torah itself was silent.
I told my mom that apparently, if she didn't date an Egyptian chick, she'd be fine. ;-)
In all seriousness, I'd be interested if you could find some reference.
|
|
He replied that the Torah is silent on woman/woman. Apparently in the Talmud there's an admonition to not 'act as the people of Egypt' and Orthodox faiths look to that as an admoniation of female/female pairings, but the Torah itself was silent.
I told my mom that apparently, if she didn't date an Egyptian chick, she'd be fine. ;-)
Now thats the funniest quote I've seen all day :) My mom would flip if I told her that!
|
|
The Declaration of Independendce (is) based on (Natural Law).
WOAH!
I didn't really see this the first time I read over it.
The Bill of Rights is Absolutely NOT based on Natural Law.
It is 100% based on Deontology.
Deontology = HUMAN RIGHTS.
The Bill of Rights is 100% about human rights.
In fact, when Jefferson wrote the initial draft he used the term "sacred" rights and EVERYONE else demanded it to be changed to "inalienable" rights. Completely taking religion out of it.
|
|
I agree. However, I also see the merits of science and historical research. It reaffirms my faith ...
You're absolutely right.
One of my friends -- actually my Department Head of Science, a Christian, have talked quite a bit about this.
It certainly reaffirms his faith when science or anthropology makes a new discovery and he finds a way to relate it with his interpretations of the Bible.
|
|
I'll also say this. It has been suggested that homosexuality is in and of itself an unnatural act.
Ah, a perfect example of an argument of Natural Law: "It's not natural to..., or, it is natural to..."
Whether or not homosexuality (for example) is good or bad can not be determined through Natural Law. If it is good (or bad), it's NOT because it's natural (or unnatural).
No disrespect intended to Mr. Fishy.)
Actually, it sounds as if you and Corey agree.
I'll also say this. It has been suggested that homosexuality is in and of itself an unnatural act.Ah, a perfect example of an argument of Natural Law: "It's not natural to..., or, it is natural to..."
Whether or not homosexuality (for example) is good or bad can not be determined through Natural Law. If it is good (or bad), it's NOT because it's natural (or unnatural).
No disrespect intended to Mr. Fishy.)Actually, it sounds as if you and Corey agree.
OK First I would like to say I have a question and that it is true question not intended to be in any way inflamitory.
How can you define homosexuality as "unnatural" when it appears all throughout the animal kingdom in alot of species.
I realise the argument is that "we" as humans are above the animals and therefore you can't compare us to "them" but if the animals are creatures of instinct and are given to these impulses based on that instinct and assumeing that due to their animal intellect they have no concept of the "divine" then that would imply that their behavior is driven by their nature and therefore natural.
If it is natural for the animals why is it not natural for us humans?
http://xkcd.com/386/
OMG that comic is about W E Ray!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
OK First I would like to say I have a question and that it is true question not intended to be in any way inflamitory.How can you define homosexuality as "unnatural" when it appears all throughout the animal kingdom in alot of species.
I realise the argument is that "we" as humans are above the animals and therefore you can't compare us to "them" but if the animals are creatures of instinct and are given to these impulses based on that instinct and assumeing that due to their animal intellect they have no concept of the "divine" then that would imply that their behavior is driven by their nature and therefore natural.
If it is natural for the animals why is it not natural for us humans?
To trot out, I think, reducto ad absurdiam, it's natural for some animals to eat their young, mark their borders, etc. I don't think anyone justifies beating up other guys and then dominating their mates either. :P
That said, now we get metaphorical. Do animals 'love' as humans do? It is my understanding that most homosexual activity in animals can be argued to be a form of dominance. (which, amusingly gets us back to bullying.)
On a more serious note, and in lieu of locking down a civil discussion: please be aware that in discussing the morality of homosexuality/nontraditional lifestyles, you're actively discussing the worth and morality of an unspecified number of Paizo employees.
This makes some of them sad.
Sad Paizonians have trouble focusing.
Unfocused Paizonians make new Pathfinder books ship later.
Just sayin'. :)
|
|
Ray seems to be of the camp that that's a dumb argument.
Just to clarify -- I've not said, one way or the other, whether homosexuality is good or bad. My opinion on the matter is not relevant.
At all.I AM saying that to posit that anything is good or bad using an argument of Natural Law is fallacious.
Please understand, this is not my opinion -- it is not subjective.
As I said earlier, semantically there is no way to define natural.
And even when we leave theory (the classroom or textbook) behind -- there are many things that are "natural" that we would pretty much all say are "bad" -- cats torturing mice and binobo chimp adults raping binobo chimp babies. And meanwhile there are lots of things that are "unnatural" -- air conditioning and pacemakers and hearing aids, that most people would agree aren't "bad."
So if someone says homosexuality is permissable because it's Natural -- it's not a good argument (whether that person is ultimately correct or incorrect).
And if someone says homosexuality is not permissable because it's Unnatural -- it's a bad argument (whether that person is ultimately correct or incorrect).
|
|
As for the not natural debate about homosexuality. Maybe you should read the work of one Bruce Bagemihl . He wrote a book on his studies of homosexual behavior in animals and found over 300 species back in 1998 who displayed the behavior. His update in 2005 found over 1800 species.
Unfortunately, the issue of being born gay is not known to be true or untrue. There is no conclusive evidence to prove either point, however the tilt is slightly in the favor of homosexuality being learned behaviour instead of instinctual behaviour. As for the sin part, from a Christian (post reformation) viewpoint the sin is in the act of homosexuality. Leaving aside the concept of Original Sin, certain behaviours are deemed sins. If you give in to urges, whether homosexuality, rage, jealousy, etc. then you have sinned. Having the urges are not a sin.
This is a trickyily worded statement, the first statement that is. There IS evidence, of both, and the tilt is definately in the instinct camp. The trick here is that there isn't really a huge differences in alot of cases, because you can train your brain to produce different chemicals, and rewire itself. However, their is a basic assumption that most people are not conditioned gay, in fact most people are probably slightly bisexual, with most guys simply not finding other men attractive as a general rule, this has not been he case throughout history, and in ancient China and Japan for example it wasn't often considered strange to have male lovers as long as one's wife was a female for reproduction purposes.
There can't really be totally conclusive evidence, even when more is known, because there is almost no such thing in that type of psychology.
|
|
On a more serious note, and in lieu of locking down a civil discussion: please be aware that in discussing the morality of homosexuality/nontraditional lifestyles, you're actively discussing the worth and morality of an unspecified number of Paizo employees.
This makes some of them sad.
Sad Paizonians have trouble focusing.
Unfocused Paizonians make new Pathfinder books ship later.
Just sayin'. :)
Understood I will try my best to be more civil and nice. But everyone remember we are talking about real people. I have no problem letting you know that I have a husband we've been married for almost a year now. So there are real people behind anything you may assume may be the truth. For example I never choose my sexuality I actually tried for many years to be the opposite with no effect. I became much happier when I admitted it to myself. Like it or not I have never been attracted to a female no matter how hard I tried.
|
|
On a more serious note, and in lieu of locking down a civil discussion...
I hope I have not said anything offensive (thinks concernedly back to using words such as "bogus") -- please understand, I'm trying to make a point about Natural Law (and Relativism, for that matter) -- not any person's argument.
If you've posited an argument of Natural Law I'm not saying you're incorrect or whatever -- just that the framework of your argument is fallacious.
Some here are mincing words. Though humans are not born with the secondary sexual characteristics that present themselves during puberty, they are born hardwired with their ultimate sexual preference intact.
That is to say, gay people are born to be gay, despite not yet realizing it or being sexually active at birth.
Several recent medical studies concluded that gay men are hardwired to be attracted to other men, bisexuals of both genders were wired more or less to be heterosexual, while gay women were wired less to actually respond sexually toward women (though they still do so), than they were wired to be turned off by the thought of men as sexual partners.
This leads some researchers to think that bisexuality has more to do with Nurture than Nature (environmental influences rather than genetic ones), while affirming for most of the scientific community what they pretty much already know through other studies: that gay people are wired to be so before birth.
The focus seems to continue to be on males, so a lot more is thought to be understood as to when and how a boy becomes wired to be attracted to men. Some studies point to a gene, carried by both heteros and gays, which is switched on at some point during the gestation process through the mother's diet or other external forces.
Interestingly, some of the more vocal and small-minded Evangelicals in this country, while at the same time accusing gay people of choosing to be gay and calling them an abomination before God, are also known to be funding research into how to switch off the supposed "gay gene."
Personally, that kind of hypocrisy just goes to prove what I already know, and that is it more hate than God driving people like that. If God made the gay gene, then these people have no business shutting it off. But since it is not God, but hate they actually worship, they are able to live with that level of hypocrisy. I couldn't.
As to whether homosexuality is a sin, I personally think any first-grader (the age I was when I was asked not to return to Sunday school) can tell that the Bible has been touched and polluted by angry human hands over and over. So to me, the only sins that count are the ones that truly destroy something on a Universally-understood level. Like murder or theft, or beating people, or hating others because they were born different from us.
Or, the shorter, better Litmus test might be that since God is supposed to be greater than I am, and I know better than to hate gays and am accepting of the Evolutionary path that brought them to us, God must necessarily not hate gays and be accepting of Nature, as well. Otherwise, I am greater than God.
I'm not sure what God is, or isn't, but I do believe the Universe is greater, bigger, and more mysterious than I am. So I accept that it knows what it is doing in making gay people. Or, if it knows nothing, I still can accept that Evolution is a natural process through which things work out for the best, gay people included.
No sin.
|
|
Just a quick exersise that we all had to do when we took Ethics 101:
Deontology (in theory acceptable, whether correct or incorrect):
Homosexuality is permissable because people have the right to choose their sexual preference...
Homosexuality is not permissable because people do not have a right to choose a "deviant" sexuality.
Utilitarianism (in theory acceptable, whether correct or incorrect):
Homosexuality is permissable because it is better for a society to have happy people and when people cannot express their sexual preference they are not happy...
Homosexuality is not permissable because the cost of having homosexual relationships in society is greater than any individual benefits of homosexuals.
Relativism ("bogus" because Relativism is fallacious):
Homosexuality is permissable because we voted and the majority voted it is okay....
Homosexuality is not permissable because in our culture and society we don't really like it.
Natural Law ("bogus" because Natural Law is fallacious):
Homosexuality is permissable because it is a natural part of nature....
Homosexuality is not permissable because the Higher Power I believe in says it is not permissable.
Bugleyman's vitrol aside
No "virtol" here. Just a resigned, exasperated sigh at the persistence of a premise ("homosexuality is a 'sin'") that shouldn't fool anyone anymore -- but does.
The actual bitter hatred in this situation is easy to spot. That is, of course, if one is really looking...
|
|
On a more serious note, and in lieu of locking down a civil discussion: please be aware that in discussing the morality of homosexuality/nontraditional lifestyles, you're actively discussing the worth and morality of an unspecified number of Paizo employees.
That's impossible, paizo employees have no worth or morality to begin with, so having discussions about sexuality even if it directly relates to a paizo employees lifestyle should in no way hamper their ability to put out products :)