To whose authority do you submit?

Are you saying homosexuality is a positive life course?

I am neither saying that it is or isn't . . . i am pointing out that you have a glaring (and it ought to be embarrassing) fallacy in operation. You state that if one believes in a creator, "it is certain that homosexual behavior is contrary to the designs of the creator." There is nothing about the mere stipuation that the cosmos were created which makes any such thing certain. In fact, stipulating that the cosmos were created makes nothing certain other than that the cosmos were created.

The argument most likely to be advanced against you by those who stipulate a creation but don't agree with your opinion of homosexuality would be that it is an absurdity to think that a creator would create homosexuals only to condemn them. I don't have a dog in that fight, so don't try to debate me on it. I see nothing inherently negative in the mere fact of homosexuality.

To return your focus to your problem, though, it is not axiomatic that homosexuality were contracy to the design of any putative creator, simply because one posits that the cosmos were created.

Not to offend, but people who do not question their beliefs are very often in danger of submitting to the authority of ignorance...

Now, I'm not a volatile creature, and I have few enemies in this world. Ignorance is one, though...

I think, then, that you fail to understand that aspect of human nature which leads people to fervently espouse a belief set. Your references to ignorance are meaningless to people who believe that they have subscribed to a ready-made set of all the answers. Apparently, people are sufficiently intellectually overwhelmed by the questions which arise from the mere fact of existence that they are eager to embrace a belief set which will comfort them that they have access (even if they don't avail themselves of it) to all the answers at the best, and a code of living which will immunize them from the consequences of ignorance at the least.

In short, were it not such a volatile subject, the likely response of the true believer would be: "Yeah . . . so?"

I see we differ on whether homosexuals are homosexual by nature and have come full circle to the Hobson's choice discussion we had a few weeks ago.

Homosexual behavior is not without serious medical and psychological consequences. Homosexual inclinations, while admittedly stronger in some, are not absolute defining forces in one's behavior.

I'm not debating you; just stating what appears evident in the bible. God's requirements are not harmful.

And i was pointing out to you that what appears evident in the bobble cannot be said to be conclusively and exclusively a description of what any putative creator intends. If you will make statements such as that, honesty ought compell you to provide the caveat that you refer specifically to the deity stipulated in the bobble.

As for medical and psychological conquences for homosexuals, that is either naive or willfully disingenous.

HIV/AIDS first appeared in North America among the members of the homosexual community, specifically in New York. It rather quickly spread within the homosexual community and within the industrialized world because air travel is relatively inexpensive. It also spread to the IV drug abuse community. But it has not spread much further. It has appeared in heterosexuals in the industrialized world who are not IV drug abusers largely from tainted blood tranfusion, and, very rarely, through promiscuity with those who are bi-sexual. There is absolutely no reason to assert that HIV/AIDS is a unique problem of homosexuals. In Africa and India (and to a lesser extend in China and Russia) the disease is spreading rapidly by heterosexual relations. It was largely limited in the idustrial world to homosexuals and IV drug abusers because of good public health systems, and a wide-spread and intelligent understanding of public health issues by the populations of industrialized nations. It is one of the worst, and most deplorable, canards of fundamentalists Christians that HIV/AIDS is a homosexual disease, and is letting the camel's nose under the tent to proceed to the contention that it is the result of the judgement of god.

As for psychological problems to be associated with homosexuality, that is a canard also. In a society with the prevalent repressive attitudes of Protestantism which has long been the norm in the United States, it is little to be wondered that homosexuals have psychological problems. This has not necessarily been the case in ancient societies nor presently is in other societies which are not bigoted against homosexuality.

This contention of yours about the "problems" of homosexuality suffers from the same lack as your ridiculous blanket statement of what a creator intends merely from being a creator--a lack of specificity.

In the United States, homosexuals have serious health and psychological "problems" as a the simple result of being homosexual and living in America. Lesbians don't have those health issues, and it is not axiomatic that they have those psychological problems. The most honest statement you could make would need to be pointedly specific--male homosexuals in the United States face severe health problems and psychological problems because of the unique circumstances in which they live.

Neo-

Hi. Thanks for sticking your opinions out there. I appreciate it.

Here's the thing. Can you, without referencing the Bible or God, explain why sex between two men is wrong?

This subject has been discussed before. The evidence I have so far offered has been disputed. I'll recheck my notes and references and see if I can do a better job of explaining.

Re: To whose authority do you submit?



S E L F R U L E D . . .

How? I don't know... I don't think it was really a decision.

Re: To whose authority do you submit?
Welcome to the forum, self. I take it from your name that you are your own authority. Do you believe in free will? How about obeying the laws of the land. Do you submit to that authority?
How about social mores?
Grammatical and spelling conventions, etc.?

Hello Neologist; thanks.

Mmm... the laws of the land... Yes; but not blindly; I say keep an eye out for trouble all the time.

Spelling... did you konw taht the hmuan barin can sitll raed a txet as lnog as the frist and lsat leettrs are the smae?

Social mores and free will... I can't discuss today; not without considering a whole array of implications! :wink:

First of all I searched JAMA vis a vis homosexual health risks
A search of the American Psychiatric Association website, using the term "Homosexual Disorders" will reveal the reasoning behind the removal of homosexuality from the class of mental disorders. I found this press release on Reparative Therapy to be most interesting.

I distrust the APA as much as I distrust Religion backed sites, because both have a dog in the fight, so to speak.

So the best that I can say as a graduate psychology major and a lifelong collector of anecdotal evidence is that the homosexual lifestyle is often a Hobson's choice, but a choice nevertheless. And abstaining from homosexual activity, while it may be gut-wrenchingly difficult, is not impossible and brings blessings to those who search God's word for strength.

You already know that not a small amount of what I have just posted comes from personal experience.

I hope this helps.