Homosexuality is not a sin

beefy
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Homosexuality is not a sin

These are not my words... They were taken from a site http://media.www.hsuoracle.com/media...90-page4.shtml


Let me start this off with a quote from a famous lesbian, Lynn Lavner:

"There are 6 admonishments in the Bible concerning homosexual activity, and our enemies are always throwing them up to us - usually in a vicious way and very much out of context.

What they don't want us to remember is that there are 362 admonishments in the Bible concerning heterosexual activity. I don't mean to imply by this that God doesn't love straight people, only that they seem to require a great deal more supervision."

Remember this throughout this article.

I am going to attempt to keep this short and simple, so here we go.

Some claim that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 clearly say that homosexual sex is an abomination. In fact, it merits death. Isn't it obvious that God hates homosexuality?

Yes, depending on which translation you are using, Leviticus does say, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it's an abomination."

However, a few points must be made about this statement:

a) It appears in Leviticus, which was given to preserve the distinctive characteristics of the religion and culture of Israel. However, as stated in Galatians 3:22-55, Christians are no longer bound by these Jewish laws. Even if you, for some reason, argue that these "laws" are still important, then you surely follow all of them, right?

It is interesting that people who use Leviticus against the Queer community forget the part that talks about religious sacrifices, making women sleep in tents outside during their period, the dietary restrictions placed on them and how to cleanse a leper, all of which appear in Leviticus.

The laws of Leviticus are completely obsolete for today's Christian; however, even if you do claim to live by the laws of Leviticus, it is not fair to pick and choose which laws you are going to live by, or condemn a people by, if you are not going to follow the others. You should not need any more convincing evidence than this; but if you do, be my guest.

b) The word that was in the original work, "to'ebah," which was translated into Greek as "bdglygma" actually means "ritual impurity" rather than abomination (or enormous sin). These passages in Leviticus can be translated to not mean homosexual sex generally, but only limiting homosexual sex in Pagan temples.

c) This passage does not denounce homosexual behavior as a whole, but just the specific act of anal sex. This was meant for the prevention of disease. It was ruled unclean because it was physically unclean; however, hygiene has made wonderful advances since that time.

d) These passages in Leviticus can be interpreted in many ways. I have seen it interpreted by scholars and priests to mean: "don't have sex with another man in your wife's bed;" "don't have sex with another man in the temple;" and "don't have sex with another man and pretend he is a woman," just to name a few.

I have never seen an interpretation in any Bible, or from any scholar, that specifically says to never have sex with a man.

Some claim the Bible simply does not support gay marriage. Chapter two of Genesis defines marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman. And later, in Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus himself reiterates the traits of a traditional marriage. How can you argue that anything other than celibacy is honorable for gay and lesbian people?

Yes, marriage is a holy union. However, in these passages, while Jesus reiterates (but does not require) the traditional marriage, he also provides an exception for eunuchs (castrated men - or otherwise impotent men, in today's terms), and allowed them to be married, saying that this law is given to those to whom it applies.

Because these eunuchs were born sexless, God made an exception for them because it was natural. The same applies to the Queer community today. Science has proven homosexuality is completely natural, so it seems God would allow for homosexual marriages.

In Matthew 19: 4-5, Jesus encourages a traditional path, but does not discourage alternatives, except in the case of divorce.

Jesus did stress purity of marriage, but not in regard to the sexes of the people within it. It can be seen that the reason that churches are against homosexual marriage is not because it is explicitly said by God, but because of a lack of instruction to specifically allow it.

In the time that the Bible was written it would have been impossible to foresee the future to be able to specifically allow or forbid homosexual marriage.

Some claim, in Paul's letter to the Corinthians, he lists homosexuals amongst the many sinners who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Doesn't that make God's position on this vice very clear?

If we look at the other types of people listed in this passage, we can understand what it is actually talking about. Law breakers, thieves, adulterers and drunks are specifically mentioned. The word "homosexual" was not found until the 1890s, so it would have been impossible for it to be in the original version.

What actually appears in the original is Paul condemning those who are "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind." In this context, the original Greek word, "malakos," is translated into effeminate, or soft, which, more than likely, refers to someone who lacks discipline or moral control.

In this passage, when Paul condemns "abusers of themselves with mankind," he is speaking of male prostitutes.

Then there are the people who claim that, even though science has proven that people don't choose there sexual orientation, the fact remains that homosexuality is unnatural. Romans 1:26-27 tells us that humans have a sinful nature, and therefore commit sins against God. Certain people are predisposed to be alcoholics and pedophiles, but that doesn't make their actions any less immoral. God tells us to "tear out your eye" if it makes you stumble. Why can't you just accept homosexuality as the part of your nature you must deny?

Because the Bible has gone through so many translations, and through the hands of many people (some being non-believers), it is not surprising that the meaning has become a little fuzzy in parts.

Homosexuality is normal. The phrase "para physin" appears in the original text for this verse. This term is often translated to mean "unnatural;" however, more accurate translation would be unconventional.

Proof for this can be found in 1 Corinthians 11:14 where Paul uses this phrase to refer to men with long hair (unconventional, not unnatural) and in Romans 11:24 where Paul uses this phrase to refer to the positive action God made to bring together the Jews and Gentiles.

All in all, homosexuality is obviously not a sin, unless you take passages from the Bible and add your own words or you just try really hard to interpret it that way. Let's just remember Galatians 5:14, where Paul stated, "…the whole Law is fulfilled in one Statement, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Do I believe

  Do I believe homosexuality is a sin ? 

..according to Judeo-Christian tradition ?  

 Yes, affirmative, most assuredly.

   Also, the article you referenced chose not to quote the last part of Leviticus 20:13 where it stated the penalty for homosexual behavior is death .    "..their blood be on their own head" etc.  

  I mean really, does executing someone  seem like a sign of disapproval to you ?...it does to me.  

  The ancient Hebrews killed their own children if they were simply considered "rebellious"; they even killed people for behavior as benign as "picking up sticks" because it violated their prohibition against working on the Sabbath.  Do the people whose religious traditions you are referring to seem like a very tolerant people to you ?

  Aside from a minority of religious dissenters, why does the condemnation against homosexuality seem to be a prevailing interpretation among the three Abrahamic religions ?   No matter how misguided the viewpoint, an almost universal consensus of *opinion ( *homosexuality is sinful ) goes a long way in indicating what the original meaning was considered to be, more politically correct opinions notwithstanding.

  The premise that you are suggesting makes as much sense to me as suggesting that members of the Ku Klux Klan aren't really racist bigots ( they really only object to white people who have tanned skin. )

  I'm an atheist ( a former protestant, fundamenmtalist Christian ) who has gay friends of both genders and I definitely don't view homosexuality as a "sin" but if you try and tell me that the religious traditions that you refer to are not homophobic then I would have to infer that you have a habit of falling victim to you own wishful thinking.

  ps, I am not trying to ridicule your perception of tolerance; it's simply that the condemnation by Yahweh /  Allah / God for those who practiced homosexuality ( sodomites ) is so blatantly obvious that to assert otherwise just boggles the mind.

   Cheers.

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Why anyone would trust a

 Why anyone would trust a bunch of 2000 year old patriarchal, mysogynistic homophobes about the permissibility of homosexuality is beyond me.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


beefy
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
The word "homosexual" was

The word "homosexual" was not even invented until the 1800s. There was no word for "Homosexual" in either the Hebrew or Greek language. Therefore, the word "homosexual" was never in the Bible until some misguided translators put it there.

The homosexuals acts supposedly condemned by the Bible are about pedophilic relations between old men and young slave boys, and also to the practice of homosexual behaviors in pagan idol worship. 

It's important to research the culture of that time to know what the word translated "homosexual" really meant.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
just because the word

just because the word "Douche" didnt exist 2000years ago, doesnt mean you couldnt be one back then...

What Would Kharn Do?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Did they have a Hebrew

  Did they have a Hebrew word for adultery ?  Even if they didn't,  I assume that they could identify that behavior as well...

  ( same punishment, too. Death. )

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
beefy wrote: Therefore, the

beefy wrote:

 Therefore, the word "homosexual" was never in the Bible until some misguided translators put it there.

 

Um.....'Sodomite'?

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


beefy
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
As far a I know, a sodomite

As far a I know, a sodomite refers to one who lives in Sodom. Simple as that. Just like a Cannanite is one who lives in Canaan. Has nothing to do with homosexulity in the slighest. Sodom was killed for all the wicked people in it, not for homosexuality.

And yes, there is a word for adultery, I do believe. Do you want me to look it up for you or something?

Like I said, the word currently translated as "homosexual" actually refers to slave-owning pedophiles and pagan idol ritual worship.'

If you want to prove my assertion wrong, I suggest you do a little research on the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
beefy wrote: If you want to

beefy wrote:

 

If you want to prove my assertion wrong, I suggest you do a little research on the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures.

  What would be even more telling about your implied obvious conclusions would be to allow you to engage in a discourse with a fellow Christian of the Evangelical bent and watch you both argue as to who has the correct interpretation.  Street brawls are always fun to watch.

  

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Why don't you go convince the rest of your "flock" then?
 

Gay marriage bans aren't really my idea of enjoyment.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hello. The link doesn't

Hello. The link doesn't work. "File not found."

I think the Bible does condemn homosexuality, so I'll type some responses.

beefy wrote:

"There are 6 admonishments in the Bible concerning homosexual activity, and our enemies are always throwing them up to us - usually in a vicious way and very much out of context.

I found three unambiguous quotes. They specifically refer to a man being a with man instead of "sodomy" or "homosexuality." I do not think that they are out of context. I have read Leviticus and most of Romans. 

Quote:
What they don't want us to remember is that there are 362 admonishments in the Bible concerning heterosexual activity. I don't mean to imply by this that God doesn't love straight people, only that they seem to require a great deal more supervision."

The Bible simply restricts sexual intercourse in general. Obviously, the Bible wouldn't need to set up complicated parameters for homosexual activity if it was completely forbidden. Thus, the fact that there are more verses limiting heterosexual activity than homosexual activity isn't evidence for anything, except, that these people were sexually repressed morality control freaks.

Quote:
a) It appears in Leviticus, which was given to preserve the distinctive characteristics of the religion and culture of Israel. However, as stated in Galatians 3:22-55, Christians are no longer bound by these Jewish laws. Even if you, for some reason, argue that these "laws" are still important, then you surely follow all of them, right?

That doesn't solve the moral issue. Christians still have to address why God had these laws at one time, even if not in the present.


Also, what about the verses in the New Testament condemning homosexuality?

For example: "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. Romans 1:26-28

Quote:
b) The word that was in the original work, "to'ebah," which was translated into Greek as "bdglygma" actually means "ritual impurity" rather than abomination (or enormous sin). These passages in Leviticus can be translated to not mean homosexual sex generally, but only limiting homosexual sex in Pagan temples.

That sounds like pure speculation. These verses don't say anything about Pagan temples. My NIV just says, ""Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22 and "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." Leviticus 20:13

Quote:
c) This passage does not denounce homosexual behavior as a whole, but just the specific act of anal sex. This was meant for the prevention of disease. It was ruled unclean because it was physically unclean; however, hygiene has made wonderful advances since that time.

Again, just biased interpretation. 

Besides, if this was what the writers of the Bible meant, then why does it specifically denounce homosexual activity instead of just discouraging sex in general? Is homosexual activity more unclean?

Quote:
d) These passages in Leviticus can be interpreted in many ways.

But it can't be interpreted to mean that homosexuality is wrong?

Can't have a cake and eat it too.

Quote:
I have seen it interpreted by scholars and priests to mean: "don't have sex with another man in your wife's bed;"

Great, but these verses don't say anything about wives or beds.

Quote:
"don't have sex with another man in the temple;"

Nope, doesn't say anything about temples.

Quote:
and "don't have sex with another man and pretend he is a woman," just to name a few.

Doesn't say that either.

Quote:
I have never seen an interpretation in any Bible, or from any scholar, that specifically says to never have sex with a man.

There are many scholars that use this interpretation, especially non-theists, so the people that wrote this article are either ignorant or lying. Heck, if nobody interpreted it that way, then who are they even arguing with? Who are these "enemies" they speak of? Demons?

Quote:
In the time that the Bible was written it would have been impossible to foresee the future to be able to specifically allow or forbid homosexual marriage.

Impossible? The Bible is the word of God. Surely, God could foresee that Western religion would be in a ruckus over gay marriage. Furthermore, there have always been homosexuals, so even if they don't make a statement concerning marriage, they must have had an opinion concerning gay relationships.

Quote:
Then there are the people who claim that, even though science has proven that people don't choose there sexual orientation, the fact remains that homosexuality is unnatural.

What is moral is not synonymous with what is natural anyways. To imply such a relationship would be a naturalistic fallacy.

It is natural for men to occasionally want to rape women. Certainly, that doesn't suggest rape is moral.

Quote:
All in all, homosexuality is obviously not a sin, unless you take passages from the Bible and add your own words or you just try really hard to interpret it that way.

The writers of this very article, in this very article, added words to passages from the Bible to form dubious interpretations because they really wanted to "interpret it that way." Double standard, anyone?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Instead of deciding what is

Instead of deciding what is or is not sin under this or that religion, why don't we simply deny the existance of all sins. Sins are imaginary. They are based on the judgements of imaginary beings.

And for that matter: the bible calls for the death of men who lie with men. This isn't ambiguous or confusing. Except for lesbians. Does the Bible forbid lesbianism; or does it only forbid men with men? Mabye God supports gay marriage, but only if both chicks are hot (taken from tshirthell.com i believe).

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


beefy
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
My favorite part was: Heck,

My favorite part was: Heck, if nobody interpreted it that way, then who are they even arguing with? Who are these "enemies" they speak of? Demons?

Lol, you know that was really funny. The whole thing. Good job. Smiling lol

But really mate, the reason why I think you thought the whole passage was found to be a bunch of nonsense to you is because you didn't give her "scholars" the benefit of the doubt, as she had expected you to do.

 What you did was far more intelligent. You used you NIV Bible to try and see what those verses actually said. 

What you are fogetting, however, is that she and her "scholars" read the original Greek and Hebrew verses, and then came up with all possible translations for the words in English.

What you should really do is go on google search and look up the phrases of these "supposed" scholars and see if any of the verses in question have ever been translated that way.

I have done a bit of this myself. And the number of different translations on this is astounding. There are even more translations for these verses than I thought.

Or you could do it the hard way, and actually learn each Greek and Hebrew Word in these verses. That would take a very long time, I think.

Point is, the more translations you find, the easier it will be to come to the conclusion that a loving an exclusive homosexual relationship is not condemned as sin by the Holy Bible.

And this issue an important issue for the Christians and the homosexuals, for every day we have more homosexuals commiting suicide because of the persucution from the mainstream Christian churches.  It is the church's fault, bceause the mainstream Christian churches never took enough time to do a deep study on these Bible verses that "seem" to condemn homosexuality.

Our time is running out, and gay hate-crimes are on the rise.

Fact: Did you know that a full 1/3 of all teenage suicides in the U.S. are homosexuals? Think about how many teenagers in the US commit suicide every day. And then think about how 1/3 of all those teenage suicides are homosexuals.

This is a terrible tragedy! They are killing themselves! I have read their journals, some of them even crying out to God to save them, begging God to please change their desires! But their desires do not change. They were born this way, and they are being persecuted by the Christians for it.

If the churches that accept gay people for who they are and I cannot prove mainstream Christian churches wrong, then the death toll on homosexuals will continue to rise! Both in suicides and hate crimes!

Will anyone help me in this?

This is really good!

And for that matter: the bible calls for the death of men who lie with men. This isn't ambiguous or confusing. Except for lesbians. Does the Bible forbid lesbianism; or does it only forbid men with men? Mabye God supports gay marriage, but only if both chicks are hot (taken from tshirthell.com i believe).

This can be used to show that the passage was not referring to homosexuality, because it left out the females. This is where a newly researched translation from the Original Greek could be put in.

How exciting!

 

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Haha, thanks beefy. By the

Haha, thanks beefy. 

By the way, I'm curious, are you a Christian? 

beefy wrote:

Or you could do it the hard way, and actually learn each Greek and Hebrew Word in these verses. That would take a very long time, I think.

There should be some programs or two-language dictionaries online that will allow you to look up individual words. It shouldn't be too bad, but I'm too lazy right now to do it. Maybe later.

Quote:
Point is, the more translations you find, the easier it will be to come to the conclusion that a loving an exclusive homosexual relationship is not condemned as sin by the Holy Bible.

Maybe. Language can never be perfectly precise in the first place. Translating to a different language just makes it ten times worse. Sometimes, one language will use a figure of speech that doesn't make sense in another. Sometimes, one language will have no word with the exact same meaning as a word in another language. 

But, I still think the examples in the article you linked are ridiculous. How can the same sentence mean:

don't have sex with another man in your wife's bed

or

don't have sex with another man in the temple

or

don't have sex with another man and pretend he is a woman

I admit that I haven't read the Bible in its original languages, but...holy ****! I mean, this is just too much. Don't they have a word for "wife" or "temple" or "pretend" or "bed" in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic? Maybe it means, "Don't have sex with another man on a bed in a temple and pretend he's your wife?"  

Quote:
Will anyone help me in this?

This is an atheist forum, so pretty much everyone here would support you on this.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


beefy
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Thanks. By the way, I am a

Thanks. By the way, I am a Christian. Hope that means y'all atheists will still help me, even though I am Christian.

I have been kicked out of many churches in my life. Maybe it's because I won't let someone standing at a podium tell me what the Bible says. I read it for myself, no commentaries, no study guides, none of that extra mumbo jumbo.

I have been banished from many churches because I do not simply sit down, listen to a pastor and yell out "Praise Jesus!" I read and study and contemplate on the Bible in its entirety, not just the verses or scriptures that the Pastor chooses to pick out for me.

When I began to read the Bible more and more, I came to an astonishing (but somewhat suspected) conclusion! That mainstream Christianity is teaching false doctrine!

The way I see it, the best way to stop all the evils that mainstream Christianity is doing in the world...

like war, persecuting homosexuals, forcing their laws upon nonbelievers

...is to infiltrate it from the inside!

Teaching Christians to go to war and kill their fellow man...False Doctrine. (Plethora of biblical evidence already prepared)

Teaching Christians that Homosexuality is a sin..................False Doctrine. (Biblical evidence being compiled-work in progress)   

Teaching Christians to force "Christian Laws" on nonbelievers...False Doctrine(Biblical evidence prepared)

Teaching Christians to say vows, oaths, or promises of any sort...False Doctrine(Biblical evidence prepared)

Teaching Christians to judge and condemn other people..........False Doctrine     (Biblical evidence prepared)

Teaching Christians that if you are once saved, always saved...False Doctrine     (Biblical evidence prepared)

Once everything is ready, I will likely start my career as a theologian. I might be a pastor, but I would rather someone else do that (I'm not the greatest public speaker because I have terrible memory). I wish to help others see that Christianity should never be forced upon anyone! That if others choose to be a Christian, they will have done so of their own free will! And if they choose to become a Christian, it is because they see the good examples  that other Christians have set! No more Hypocrisy! No more Biggotry! No More Greed!

A Christian church that gives to the poor on the street, instead of calling them crazies, drug-addicts and welfare-junkies!

A Christian church that feeds and clothes its enemies in the third world countries that hate America! What a change will occur in those regions because of the love we will have shown!

A Christian church that stoops down to help all who ask them, instead of being haughty and condescending!

That is the kind of Christian church I want to see! The one Jesus envisioned.

 

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
The people who commit

The people who commit suicide could just convert to a different religion. It's not like Christianity is the only game in town.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
beefy wrote: "... for every

beefy wrote:

 


"... for every day we have more homosexuals commiting suicide.."

       and then what, God sends them to Hell ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:The people who

Gauche wrote:

The people who commit suicide could just convert to a different religion. It's not like Christianity is the only game in town.

      Yes, let these potential suicide victims convert to a different religion.  Hopefully a religion whose "holy book" was written by a competent diety who was familiar enough with the vagaries of human opinion. 

    The atheist George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) was astute enough to perceive this serious flaw, even if God was not :

      "No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says, he is always convinced that it says what he means."

   

 

  Yes, imagine a god, who actually had the wisdom and foresight to anticipate such problems and then chose to employ...as only a perfect Being could do... such precise, unambiguous language and phrasing that the verses could not be manipulated by his followers to support completely contradictory viewpoints.

  ...as such, based upon the present Bible and its obvious "malleability" it seems that the Christian god's omniscience and creativity is highly over-rated.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Hate to address the obvious,

Hate to address the obvious, but of course homosexuality isn't a sin.  Sins don't exist.

By the way, someone needs a theist badge (beefy).

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: Sins don't

Thomathy wrote:

 Sins don't exist.

Jormungander wrote:

Sins are imaginary. 

 

Uhm..so evil doesn't exist? So immorality doesn't exist? So an atheist speaking about evil, or moral is speaking just of immaginery shit?

The wikipedia definition of sin: "Sin is a term used mainly in a religious context to describe an act that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such a violation."

What i find more often than not is this sort of stupidity that plagues atheist who have a foaming dislike for all things religion. You find atheist claiming guilt is a christian invention, who renounce the word "faith", who can't stand to say I have faith in my wife. The other day I was hearing Michael Shermer say we can't say we believe in evolution, because believe is not the correct word. It's comically absurd.

 

 

 


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote: Thomathy

theTwelve wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

 Sins don't exist.

Jormungander wrote:

Sins are imaginary. 

 

Uhm..so evil doesn't exist? So immorality doesn't exist? So an atheist speaking about evil, or moral is speaking just of immaginery shit?

The wikipedia definition of sin: "Sin is a term used mainly in a religious context to describe an act that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such a violation."

Ahem, immorality does exist.  Evil is a very subjective term.  I'm sure it exists as something different to everyone, with few things that universally can be agreed to be evil.  A sin is exactly as it is defined by wikipedia and as such, it cannot be real.  In order to sin, in the religious sense, one must break some arbitrary moral rule created by and enforced by a god.  Gods don't exist.  There is no arbitrary moral rule I can break.  I can commit no sin in that sense.

Quote:
What i find more often than not is this sort of stupidity that plagues atheist who have a foaming dislike for all things religion.
I don't particularly like religion.  I would hardly discribe it as a foaming dislike.  That sounds rabid.  Particularly, in the case of sin, I find it ridiculous to acknowledge something which would require belief in a god.  Clearly, if someone does not believe in a god, they cannot believe in sin.  The concept is dependant on the existence of a moral law giver.

Quote:
You find atheist claiming guilt is a christian invention,
I don't.

Quote:
who renounce the word "faith",
In what way?  If you mean faith as analogous to trust, then I have no problem with the word.  If you mean faith as in 'belief without (and despite) evidence', then I find it contemtible.  It is an insult to honest inquiry.

Quote:
who can't stand to say I have faith in my wife.
If you mean that she is trusted, as in, 'I have faith that my wife will do the right thing.' then it is meaningful.  I would not make sense to say that one has faith in one's wife and mean that you only believe, without evdience, that she will do the right thing.  That would be very strange indeed, since we can safely assume that the person knows their wife quite well and has become trusting that she would 'do the right thing', even if that thing is unprecedented.  You're blatantly committing the fallacy of equivocation.  Doesn't such intellectual dishonesty bother you in the least?

Quote:
The other day I was hearing Michael Shermer say we can't say we believe in evolution, because believe is not the correct word. It's comically absurd.
Well, it's not the correct word.  You can believe that the sun goes round the Earth, but the truth is independant of that belief.  The Earth goes around the sun.  I'm sure you can understand that in the category of things in which you believe are not necessarily all those things which are true.  Should I draw you a Venn diagram to illustrate this?

(Someone else needs a theist badge too: theTwelve.)

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
beefy wrote:A Christian

beefy wrote:

A Christian church that feeds and clothes its enemies in the third world countries that hate America!

I had always wondered whether the a government would consider this treasonous...

 

What Would Kharn Do?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Thomathy wrote:

averagechristianjoe wrote:
What i find more often than not is this sort of stupidity that plagues atheist who have a foaming dislike for all things religion.
I don't particularly like religion.  I would hardly discribe it as a foaming dislike.  That sounds rabid.  Particularly, in the case of sin, I find it ridiculous to acknowledge something which would require belief in a god.  Clearly, if someone does not believe in a god, they cannot believe in sin.  The concept is dependant on the existence of a moral law giver.

 

Morals are relative. What is good for one person isn't for the next person. There is no absolute morality. Sorry. "Sin" is all in your head. The same as Islam thinks women showing their faces is a "sin". The same as christians think buttsecks is a "sin". The same as Jews think doing things on sabbaths are a "sin".

 

It's all in their heads.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Hambydammit wrote: Why

Hambydammit wrote:

 Why anyone would trust a bunch of 2000 year old patriarchal, mysogynistic homophobes about the permissibility of homosexuality is beyond me.

 

In all honesty it is not beyond me, not that I think this is rational, but merely to the point that "gap" answers seem to be the species default.

I think religious heterosexuals should worry about their own innie and outie "gaps", and less about what two concenting adults do on their own time.

OH MY FUCKING GOD, SOMEONE IS DOING SOMETHING I FIND YUCKY, AND THEY MIGHT GIVE ME COOTIES OR MAGICALLY TURN ME GAY!

Wait a minute....I've shook hands with gays......SHIT! MY PENIS IS GOING TO FALL OFF!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Be careful, this is the

Be careful, this is the "Kill 'em with Kindness" subforum.

theTwelve wrote:
Uhm..so evil doesn't exist? So immorality doesn't exist? So an atheist speaking about evil, or moral is speaking just of immaginery ****?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sin

1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible c: an often serious shortcoming

2 a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

Sin, defined as an offense against religious law or God, doesn't exist.

Once we define what is bad, we can say that certain things are bad. For example, if one human hurts another human for no good reason, we can say that the first human has done something evil. Or, if a human constantly wants to hurt other humans for no good reason, we can say that person is evil. So, evil is just an adjective, a description of a person's character or an action with malicious intent. Evil exists, but it doesn't exist as any actual "thing;" it has no substance.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
I love this one

Analyzed this bit from a literary perspective during a lunch conversation one time...

 

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it's an abomination."

 

The problem is, even with this translation there are two possible definitions for the word "as" even when we assume "lie" to mean "have sex with."

 

as: In the same way.  You shall not lie with a male in the same way as with a female.  Yet neither gender is stated as the preference.  This is the typical "homosexuality is a sin" interpretation, but it doesn't actually forbid homosexuality.  It forbids bisexuality, but only when sex is performed in the same way with both sexes.  So I can have proper sex with a woman and anal/oral sex with a man, and God won't care.  Also, "one lies with a female," could be referencing the correct way to have sex with a woman (for reproductive purposes), in which case this passage merely forbids a biological impossibility.

 

as: At the same time.  You shall not lie with a male at the same time as with a female.  This basically forbids mixed-gendered orgies.  But interestingly, in an orgy with 1 man and 5 women, the man has done nothing wrong (by this quote) while the women have.  Reverse for 1 woman and 5 men.  Also, an all-male or all-female (and thus decidedly homosexual) orgy would be a-okay, and is actually preferred over heterosexual orgies.

 

Of course, when we look at what "lie" means, we could be forbidding multi-gendered cuddle time but feeling okay about any kind of sex performed while standing.  I could also interpret this passage as requiring me to tell the truth whenever I am accompanied by both a man and a woman.  Or perhaps I can tell lies when accompanied by men as long as I always tell the truth while accompanied by a woman.  Or maybe I just have to tell my lies in a different way, or tell different lies, depending on which sex accompanies me.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


beefy
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Zaq, that was a funny

Zaq, that was a funny interpretation. I liked it.

"I could also interpret this passage as requiring me to tell the truth whenever I am accompanied by both a man and a woman.  Or perhaps I can tell lies when accompanied by men as long as I always tell the truth while accompanied by a woman.  Or maybe I just have to tell my lies in a different way, or tell different lies, depending on which sex accompanies me."

LOL.

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:When I began to read

 

Quote:
When I began to read the Bible more and more, I came to an astonishing (but somewhat suspected) conclusion! That mainstream Christianity is teaching false doctrine!

Dude, you're seeing the trees and missing the forest. You and about 8324720803240270 other people have noticed this problem (thus the various sub-categories of Christians); why can't you just accept what's obvious?

The whole thing is false. Made up. Fake. A total sham.

 

It's not a problem specifically with your Church or Pastor - it's the religion itself. It's self-contradicting mumbo-jumbo. And no, i'm not buying the, 'Well this person found these scholars, and these scholars think that the Bible actually only has this sugar-coated variety of bigotry' line either. I mean, even if you were given the full benefit of the doubt, it's okay to be a bigot so long as the homosexuals you're marshalling hatred against are also Pagans? 

 

It's been said multiple times already, but homosexuality doesn't have to find some degree of harmony with the Bible in order to not be a sin. It axiomatically isn't a sin because sin is an incoherent concept invented by barely literate desert nomads a couple thousand years ago. It's time to grow up and be a man, dude. whenever some fuck like your priest or a douchebag like me tries to tell you what your own sexuality is all about, tell them they can go ride a chainsaw and that your sexual habits are no more or less bizarre than anyone elses.

It's a planet full of weirdos. Welcome to the party.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

@ 1:20


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
... Clock, i've never met

...

 

Clock, i've never met anyone who intrigued me and made me want to smash my head against a wall, quite like you...

 

What Would Kharn Do?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

The Doomed Soul wrote:

...

 

Clock, i've never met anyone who intrigued me and made me want to smash my head against a wall, quite like you...

 

 

I do what I can.

 

Laughing out loud

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Wiccan
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-07-29
User is offlineOffline
What I don't get is why

What I don't get is why people give a flying f*** what the Bible says about homosexuality.

People don't change, attitudes do over time.  Who knows, maybe one day being heterosexual will be taboo. 

Until then, gay people need to put on a good show, fight for equal rights before the law, and society will catch up later - that's the way it's been with most things.

To bring up nature vs. nurture... I'd concede that maybe there are genetic dispositions to homosexuality or some "chemical imbalance", but until I see proof I'm going to consider it bollux and conclude that it is a choice.

Now, when I conclude that it is a choice, people are going to jump down my throat and automatically assume that I'm anti-gay or some crap.  That's not the case in fact.  My point is, just because it (in my opinion) is a choice, does not make it any less valid.  If the whole "nature" aspect is helping you sleep at night, that's pathetic.  Find some inner peace with yourself.  You're worth just as much as any other person in the world so chill.  I forget who said it but the quote goes like this, "Be the change you wish to see in the world."

And that's my 2 cents for now.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

It's a choice for seagulls to be lesbian~

And dogs, and cats, and monkeys, rabbits, dolphins.....

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Wiccan wrote:To bring up

Wiccan wrote:
To bring up nature vs. nurture... I'd concede that maybe there are genetic dispositions to homosexuality or some "chemical imbalance", but until I see proof I'm going to consider it bollux and conclude that it is a choice.

Now, when I conclude that it is a choice, people are going to jump down my throat and automatically assume that I'm anti-gay or some crap.  That's not the case in fact.  My point is, just because it (in my opinion) is a choice, does not make it any less valid.  If the whole "nature" aspect is helping you sleep at night, that's pathetic.  Find some inner peace with yourself.  You're worth just as much as any other person in the world so chill.  I forget who said it but the quote goes like this, "Be the change you wish to see in the world."

And that's my 2 cents for now.

Let's see how easy it is for you to choose to fuck something or someone you normally wouldn't.  Oh, it seems so easy to extend that woefully inept argument onto such one dimensional dispositions, but have you ever thought you would want to -like you'd be horny to and would like it and would want it and would masturbate and be turned on- fuck someone you thought was just plain disgusting?  Even someone who fit the gender characteristics of someone you would fuck?  If it's a choice, let's see you really, honestly get turned on by something you aren't currently turned on by.  If it's a choice, you can simply choose to be.

Don't be daft.  I don't think that anyone finds 'peace' with themselves merely due to the belief that their behaviour is natural (and never mind that their behaviour can't be anything but natural).  It's just so damned annoying to read people maintain that others' sexuality is a choice, especially when their reasoning for the conclusion is based on the same logic as a god-of-the-gaps argument.  Just because it's not genetically caused (which is really stupid to believe) or caused by something else doesn't mean that the default is 'it's a choice'.  The default, when you don't know something, is that you do not know!  Would you like to justify choice as an explanation without invoking gap-logic?  Don't bother, it's a bad explanation that has been ruled out because it doesn't jive with reality; you know, like those studies done on sexuality?  (Science is amazing, right?)

I'm only coming down hard on you because that bad logic needs to be exposed.  Ttruly, fuck what the bible has to say about homosexuality, but you don't get a free pass to say stupid shit.  If you don't know what causes homosexuality, you don't conclude that it's a choice, you conclude that you don't know.  How about you wait for proof with the rest of us and rule out those bad explanations along the way -explanations like choice.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Wiccan
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-07-29
User is offlineOffline
Oh what a sound argument

Oh what a sound argument you make!  Player please. You're so blinded by your anger that you lash out against people who come to a rational conclusion.  It may not be perfect, but your assumption that acceptable arguments are absolutely concrete is baseless.  We get to a point where there is not sufficent information and must chose what is most convenient to our view of the world.

To me, it has been a choice.  So don't be so quick to judge my conclusions.  Does that mean "Lets change all the gay people to being straight"?  NO. Because that's retarded. 

Also, you're working on a purely aesthetic notion of attraction.

Another flaw of your rant is your vague reference to studies done on sexuality.  Hello, cite that shit.  Also, I seriously doubt that you have seen every study that ever existed.  Science has a lot of uncertainty and it is hard to find nonspurious correlation between biological factors and social results.

From sociology (which is a field of science I would highly recommend you study), we see that there are cases that would suggest a natural influence on sexual identity.  I'm thinking of Intersex cases in children.  But there are strong indicators of an overwhelming affect of socialization to the development of children.  This is when our society pushes on us gender roles, and based on our individual experiences with this forced socialization, the results unsurprising vary.  Each individual rejects or accepts such roles of society, or chose to go against it and do their own thing.

I question why I'm even bothering to respond, honestly.  I don't care about changing your mind.  From my reading of other posts by people, I would say people are where they're going to be.  My goal is to put my opinion out there and broaden the scope of the discussion.  If you don't like it then stick your fingers in your ears and pretend everyone agrees with you so you can live in your own little happy place until you calm down. 


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Wiccan wrote: Oh what a

Wiccan wrote:

Oh what a sound argument you make!  Player please. You're so blinded by your anger that you lash out against people who come to a rational conclusion.  It may not be perfect, but your assumption that acceptable arguments are absolutely concrete is baseless.  We get to a point where there is not sufficent information and must chose what is most convenient to our view of the world.

Are you crazy?  You're merely guessing that 'choice' is the answer to the question of differing sexualities.  You don't actually have an argument as to why.  You simply chose it because you don't accept other explanations.  When you don't know something, the intellectually honest answer is to admit that and research.

Quote:
To me, it has been a choice.  So don't be so quick to judge my conclusions.  Does that mean "Lets change all the gay people to being straight"?  NO. Because that's retarded.
Yeah, but studies clearly show that sexuality is not a choice.  If you actually bothered to look it up, even Wikipedia can attest to that and you can find links to the actual resources.  Also, keep your strawmen down.  This isn't about whether the cause of homosexuality means that homosexuals should rather be 'straight'.

Quote:
Also, you're working on a purely aesthetic notion of attraction.
That was an example.  The gist of the examplewas to try to be attracted, sexually, to something you are not currently.

Quote:
Another flaw of your rant is your vague reference to studies done on sexuality.  Hello, cite that shit.  Also, I seriously doubt that you have seen every study that ever existed.  Science has a lot of uncertainty and it is hard to find nonspurious correlation between biological factors and social results.
And homosexuality would still be a mental disorder if it wasn't found out through trying to change the sexuality of a person through behavioural psychology and psychotherapy that it doesn't work.  It's not a contested finding.  Sexuality cannot be 'changed'.  It is simply not a choice, certainly not in the sense that it is chosen by the individual.

Quote:
From sociology (which is a field of science I would highly recommend you study), we see that there are cases that would suggest a natural influence on sexual identity.  I'm thinking of Intersex cases in children.  But there are strong indicators of an overwhelming affect of socialization to the development of children.  This is when our society pushes on us gender roles, and based on our individual experiences with this forced socialization, the results unsurprising vary.  Each individual rejects or accepts such roles of society, or chose to go against it and do their own thing.
I thought we were discussing sexuality and not gender roles.  You seem to be confused; they are not the same.

I question why I'm even bothering to respond, honestly.  I don't care about changing your mind.  From my reading of other posts by people, I would say people are where they're going to be.  My goal is to put my opinion out there and broaden the scope of the discussion.  If you don't like it then stick your fingers in your ears and pretend everyone agrees with you so you can live in your own little happy place until you calm down. 

I'm not angry or upset.  I believe I had written that it was annoying.  It is annoying when people don't make sound arguments.  It's also annoying when people don't respond to genuine arguments and rather attack a lack of sources or citations, especially when they don't list thses themselves.  Incidentally, I can find no evidence that coroberates your opinion that sexuality is a choice.  And don't you find it absurd to suggest that something as varied as sexuality could be a choice?  Think it through.  What would be the default from which the choosing commences?  Further, is the choosing conscious?
 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.pdf

 

 

The APA obviously has no idea what they are talking about.

 

The American Psychiatric Association issued a statement in 2006, backed by numerous other mainstream medical organizations, which stated: "There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed." The statement went on to say that positions espoused by ex-gay organizations "are not supported by the science." 

 

I mean really. Who would believe that?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Wiccan wrote:To me, it has

Wiccan wrote:
To me, it has been a choice.



You would honestly have us believe that you choose what turns you on?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Nnmph.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I have heard cases of

I have heard cases of homosexuals that were born into religious families that condemned homosexuality. Stuck between their religion and their sexual preference, some of these individuals committed suicide. So, I find it quite hard to believe that these people simply chose to be gay.

Wiccan wrote:
To bring up nature vs. nurture... I'd concede that maybe there are genetic dispositions to homosexuality or some "chemical imbalance", but until I see proof I'm going to consider it bollux and conclude that it is a choice.

I think it is a combination of genetic and environmental factors that vary from individual to individual. But, that aside, why do you choose "choice" by default? It is as much a positive claim as a genetic predisposition. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Wiccan
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-07-29
User is offlineOffline
Blah blah blah...

"What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

Source: http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

Points:

1.  There is no scientific consensus. So therefore, neither of our opinions can be coroberated.

2.  Uncertainty of what determines sexual orientation. So can choice or anything be ruled out 100%, according to the APA... No.

3.  Involvement of nature and nurture.  Yeah, I recognized both.  I think I may have downplayed the nature aspect by listing only 1 example, oops.  Guess that one's on me.

4.  People have little or no sense of choice.  This is an assertion, presumably, based on a survey of concerned individuals.  I presume this because the data gathered is not quantitative, but qualitative.  Furthermore, these are internalized qualitative attributes.  So as an outside observer cannot discern the sexuality of an individual, a self-assessment must be done by every individual of their "sense" of choice.  If we assume that the question asked of the individual is, "Do you feel that you could sexually desire or engage in sexual behavior with a member of the sex opposite of the one you are currently attracted to by making a choice?", then it is a two part answer that must be made.  For one, "sexually desire" begs more questions such as "What aspect of men/women do they sexually desire?" ...is it dark hair, strong build, small build, freckles... wit, cleverness, stubbornness... and "Are those things exclusive to one sex only?"  The examples I listed previously do not seem to be.  Other things such as attraction dependent on whether or not a person has a penis/vagina/or both would lead to a negative response more often.  So that is where, I hypothesize, the "little" of the "little to no sense of choice" is coming from.  Of course, I want to point out that this is necessarily based on an individual's conscious perception; disregarding the subconscious.  So therefore, there is a whole other aspect we are not factoring in.

Part 2 of the question: Could you choose to engage in sexual behavior with the opposite sex that you are attracted to?  Well, yeah.  There are many reasons people do... prostitution, desperation (uni-sex societies), "just curious", etc.  I don't think I need to spend time elaborating on this because it's obvious.  I doubt that those surveyed thought long enough about the question they were given (Whatever it's wording) to explore this avenue.

In essence, the APA's assertion there is useless as it is too weak.  They're talking about "most people" and giving a non-quantified number to support their claim.  And so I reject it and studies that would dare to not be as thourough as possible.

 

I hope that all of this was rational and logical enough for you to follow.  If it helps, get a piece of paper and map everything out. Laughing out loud And why don't you have a nice cup of tea while you're at it... it's claimed to help calm the nerves.

I like being crazy. It comes with a free straightjacket and shiny buckles.


Wiccan
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-07-29
User is offlineOffline
Hi Butter,Regarding the

Hi Butter,

Regarding the *explitive* religious people who try and "turn" gay people straight, I would argue that what I'm considering in personal choice, not affected by force or coersion by others.  What you are talking about is someone forcing a gay person to chose to be straight, which does not seem to me to be a choice the individual is making rather than the preference of another that is being forced upon them.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Wiccan wrote:I hope that all

Wiccan wrote:

 

I hope that all of this was rational and logical enough for you to follow.  If it helps, get a piece of paper and map everything out. Laughing out loud And why don't you have a nice cup of tea while you're at it... it's claimed to help calm the nerves.

I like being crazy. It comes with a free straightjacket and shiny buckles.

Wait, were you going to retract what you had said?  Or are you going to continue to be intellectually dishonest?  You were wrong.  As I've pointed out, if you don't know the answer, you don't know.  You can't simply make presumptuous guesses and claim that 'choice' is the basis of sexuality.  Further, you've managed to avoid directly responding to any of the arguments addressed to you.

You're off the rocker if you think any of us are actually worked up about this.  My eyebrow is raised in a rather quizzical way.  I'm slightly amused by your thickheadedness.

Quote:
For one, "sexually desire" begs more questions such as "What aspect of men/women do they sexually desire?" ...is it dark hair, strong build, small build, freckles... wit, cleverness, stubbornness... and "Are those things exclusive to one sex only?"
Oh, that's not begging the question.  That's raising the question.  It's small wonder you aren't responding directly.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Wiccan wrote:Hi

Wiccan wrote:

Hi Butter,

Regarding the *explitive* religious people who try and "turn" gay people straight, I would argue that what I'm considering in personal choice, not affected by force or coersion by others.  What you are talking about is someone forcing a gay person to chose to be straight, which does not seem to me to be a choice the individual is making rather than the preference of another that is being forced upon them.

Many of these people try this willingly.  There is no success rate.  At least in part, the people choose to believe (in their religion) despite the reality.  In any case, it certainly put the idea of choice on its head.  Why would a Christian choose to be gay just so that he can then go to a church or group willingly to try to be made straight so that he conforms to his religious beliefs only to fail at the attempt to change the choice he has made?  (I think Occam would suggest a reasonable solution to that puzzle.)

And again, what would be the default position from which people make the choice about their sexuality?

 

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Wiccan
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-07-29
User is offlineOffline
http://dictionary.reference.c

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

"Opinion:

–noun

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

 

1. persuasion, notion, idea, impression. Opinion, sentiment, view are terms for one's conclusion about something. An opinion is a belief or judgment that falls short of absolute conviction, certainty, or positive knowledge; it is a conclusion that certain facts, ideas, etc., are probably true or likely to prove so: political opinions; an opinion about art; In my opinion this is true. Sentiment (usually pl.) refers to a rather fixed conviction, usually based on feeling or emotion rather than reasoning: These are my sentiments. View is an estimate of something, an intellectual judgment, a critical survey based on a mental examination, particularly of a public matter: views on governmental planning."

 

Submit an argument to me how an opinion can be wrong. Laughing out loud I look forward to it.  Oh, and by saying the phrase "begs the question" I was not referring to "Begging the Question" (the rhetorical device)... and yeah, the whole non sequiter that you used there... it was spiffy. ;D

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

My opinion is the earth is flat. Anything you say that is evidence against this I will say isn't sufficient proof, and isn't accurate or detailed enough for me.

 

If you give more details after I say this, I will disregard them and state that it is my opinion again.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

oh mai. Look what I did there.


Wiccan
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-07-29
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to irrationality. ;D

Welcome to irrationality. ;D Ain't it wonderful. :3 I love it.  Things are much less boring.

In my opinion, it's better than rationalizing the worth of everything.  Think of it this way... if everyone is equal in the world, is the life of your brother/sister/mother/father/spouse/best friend more important than anyone elses?  Even if they've accomplished the same social and economic achievements?  I'm sure you're going to come back at me with a cool rational response that of course their lives are worth the same and your someones should not be treated better than others?

Personally, I would go with the emotional/irrational view that my family is most important... but I guess that's just my base human perspective coming out of the closet again.

Hehe. ^.^ Have a nice day!


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Wiccan wrote:In my opinion,

Wiccan wrote:

In my opinion, it's better than rationalizing the worth of everything.  Think of it this way... if everyone is equal in the world, is the life of your brother/sister/mother/father/spouse/best friend more important than anyone elses?  Even if they've accomplished the same social and economic achievements?  I'm sure you're going to come back at me with a cool rational response that of course their lives are worth the same and your someones should not be treated better than others?

Personally, I would go with the emotional/irrational view that my family is most important... but I guess that's just my base human perspective coming out of the closet again.

Hehe. ^.^ Have a nice day!

 

What you're expecting is that rational = unemotional and therefore you'll receive a cold "all are worth the same" response that shows rationality to be uncaring.  However, it depends how you measure value really doesn't it?

 

I would say the rational response is that of course your family's lives are worth more to you.  As parents, siblings and children they are individuals that nurtured and protected you, and that represent the best chance of your lineage being passed on.  It's perfectly rational to have developed an attachement to those related to you and to develop a protective nature.  To you they are more valuable than any other human being becaue they contribute worth to your own existence.

 

Outside your family?  Well that's different.  Animals outside the family will feel the same way about their own family so in a sense your family is of no value to them - unless of course you find a way of working together that is mutually beneficial.  Even then the familial bond will still hold higher than anything else regardless of how useful you are.

 

And on a larger scale how valuable are your family to the human race?  Unless they display extraordinary traits which benefit all of mankind (like the intelligence and skill required to cure cancer or end poverty) then, as long as they maintain the ability to breed, they are of as much value to the species as any other human.

 

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss