3
   

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2003 10:39 pm
.. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2003 10:43 pm
maligar,

That makes no sense. A culture's morals are determined by the objections of the inhabitants.

Telling someone not to object of their culture degenerates is like telling someone not to object when being raped.

Furthermore it is a brainfart in that cultures do not change overnight. They are the product of the push and pull that is objection.

I think the point you were trying to make is that moral is as society does.

If so I agree with that point to some degree, but you've made said point very badly here.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 05:00 am
Maliagar

Going to the shore right now, so I do not have time to respond at the moment.

Your arguments are full of holes -- and I'm sure others will call them to your attention, but I promise to show you how wrongheaded your thinking is when I get back.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 10:09 am
Frank, I admire you for showing the patience of a saint to explain something that seem inpenetrable. I'll sit back and watch; I know you'll do a yeoman's job. And thanks, c.i.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 10:20 am
While not directly related, the following is none the less pertinent, timely, and well worth a read.


The pernicious irrationality of RELIGION[/b]

James Randi wrote:

Why I Deny Religion, How Silly and Fantastic It Is, and Why I'm a Dedicated and Vociferous Bright.


I recommend reading the entire article. For those who may not know, James Randi is, and for years has been, pretty much the master of debunking, and his website and his many books are skewers thrust through all sorts of sacred cows. Far from being "Closed Minded", he invites the interested to expose the errors of his assumptions, assertions, and rebuttals. He has long held out a fully funded $1,000,000 prize to be awarded to anyone able to do so. No valid claim ever has been made, despite frequent efforts at such.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 12:11 pm
I have a theory that maliagar may be putting us on. Either that or s/he gets the Ken Starr Congressional Medal for that lethal combination of an intensely dirty mind coupled with the urge have a world in which one's neighbors are just as obsessive as oneself!

Thank you, Timber, for Randi's sane comment!

Just a thought about the type of stuff Maliagar is posting: Underlying his comments is a belief that the culture is distinct from us, some kind of auto da fe or edict in which we have no control over our own lives. If you ask me, that's even more dangerous to democracy than the irrationality Randi sets out to demolish.

Maliagar says: " And if one day your U.S. culture decides ["your U.S. culture DECIDES"??!] that they should get rid of all Blacks, or kill homosexuals, or get rid of Catholics, or legalize the marriage between a man and a horse, or abort babies, or kill unhealthy children, you shouldn't object either." The culture "decides"? We're steamrolled into not objecting? Huh?

The law of the US defends Catholics and atheists as equals, defends Maliagar's right to express his/her irrational opinions; defends the inclusion in our society of the narrow-minded fundamentalist; defends personal and property rights even when that includes the ******* of watermelons in one's own backyard; is somewhere between defending and turning a blind eye on the insertion of the phallus into orifices other than those designed for procreation; bends over backwards to assure the right of two heterosexuals to not only marry and have children but even get tax breaks for that (something which probably will not last forever because it is essentially discriminatory) etc. etc.

Strong, secular governance is an important part of what we have. It defends diversity. For years people have tolerated the right of Maliagar (or anyone) to set up a box on the corner here and try to persuade us that the world is, in effect, flat after all. What usually happens is that next time we detour via another street.
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 01:30 pm
Hey, Tartarin! Very Happy

You asked me to explain what is wrong with homosexuality, and I did at length. But now, instead of examining my arguments with a comparable care, you just opt out by labeling them irrational? Laughing That really sounds convincing... Razz

No problem. Let's examine how you redirect the discussion (out of lack of arguments?)...

Quote:
I have a theory that maliagar may be putting us on.


No, man. I'm absolutely serious! :wink:

Quote:
Either that or s/he gets the Ken Starr Congressional Medal for that lethal combination of an intensely dirty mind coupled with the urge have a world in which one's neighbors are just as obsessive as oneself!


Twisted Evil That is a lot of labels in one single paragraph, Tartarin. It would be more interesting to listen to your ARGUMENTS (if you have them).

Quote:
Underlying his comments is a belief that the culture is distinct from us, ... we have no control over our own lives... Maliagar says: " And if one day your U.S. culture decides ["your U.S. culture DECIDES"??!] ... The culture "decides"? We're steamrolled into not objecting? Huh?


Well, obviously you have been led to honestly believe that you truly control the direction of this country. I bet you believe things are decided "democratically" (as a matter of fact, most key changes have been decided by the courts, in the most undemocratic of ways). So the culture (yes, the culture) is moving away from where it was 40 years ago. And you are drifting with it, like a ship without an anchor. You truly believe that you are the cause of those changes, but in fact, and thanks to TV and the media, you are just the effect of those changes. You are being taken by the nose without even realizing it. You are being brainwashed without even noticing it.

But there is a way out: Argument, reason, discussion. The problem is, people that think like you don't want to hear it. It offends their faith.

And even when things are decided by voting (the absolute minority of cases), it is absolutely possible that the majority could be WRONG. Hence the need to have clear ideas of our own (if you care to).

Quote:
The law of the US defends... the ******* of watermelons in one's own backyard; is somewhere between defending and turning a blind eye on the insertion of the phallus into orifices other than those designed for procreation...


That's right. That's what the law is doing. And some people feel so proud of it... they really think of themselves the most "advanced" in the world. Smile

The law has changed a lot in the last 40 years, and it is likely to change more in the next 40 years. And those who are drifters will be taken with the flow. "Liberty, how many crimes have been committed under your name". Obviously, your religion's Bible is the U.S. constitution, and its priests the Supreme Justices (whenever they favor liberal causes).

Quote:
Strong, secular governance is an important part of what we have. It defends diversity. For years people have tolerated the right of Maliagar (or anyone) to set up a box on the corner here and try to persuade us that the world is, in effect, flat after all.


Sorry pal, but your view is as religious as mine. The difference is that I acknowledge it, while you don't. Another difference is that I am willing to argue about homosexuality or other issues, while you just tear down your garments and declare me and those who think like me "heretics". Not too rational, in my view.

But the debate continues, and you can be sure that some people do see the point of what I say. For example, the mood of the country is clearly more conservative than, say, 30 years ago.

Take care.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 01:55 pm
Those that agree with maliagar, please raise your hands. c.i.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 01:59 pm
those that can refrain from giggling please raise your hands Wink
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 02:01 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Those that agree with maliagar, please raise your hands. c.i.


Who are you asking? Members of this forum? Or the larger U.S. population (with 55 million Catholics and millions of other Christians?) Or the larger world population, with more than a billion Catholics?

If you're unable to explain your views (having to protect your faith by placing all your trust in Frank), the least you can do is be a little bit more humble about this... don't you think? Rolling Eyes

Laughing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 02:18 pm
Like your kind of humble? Nah.....
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 02:26 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Like your kind of humble? Nah.....


Just your kind (if there is such a thing)... Or you need Frank's help for this as well? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 02:59 pm
Maliagar -- I ask you for your personal feelings about homosexuality, not your theories (which you've been very clear about). Our feelings and our ideas or theories are often very similar, but they are not the same. As for the rest of it, you must be talking about yourself -- you certainly haven't got my number!!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 03:11 pm
I have only read in this thread sporadically. My thought about religion and homosexuality is this: First off, all religions are bogus. What they have to say about homosexuality cannot be bound in true arguments, since they start from a false premise. Humans are mammals. Many if not most mammals exhibit forms of homosexual behavior. To condemn what is a natural part of humanity is an excercise in futility and the behavior will always go on anyway. Might as well argue against erections and going to work every day.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 03:13 pm
I'll have to admit, having, uh, skimmed Maliagar's ravings, that I missed the Catholic Church part. Oh boy. I'm an admirer of the Church in many ways and know it must be clutching its cassock over this "believer"!

Whether it be Maliagar or any other fundamentalist/onetrackmind, I really dislike people who want us all to toe a particular line. Back to Fromm and the attractions of authoritarianism. We need to take this seriously, I guess, but I can't stop laughing at the pretensions.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 03:16 pm
maliagar wrote:
You asked me to explain what is wrong with homosexuality, and I did at length.
I submit you have done no such thing, apart from going to some length; rather that you have parroted the standard homophobic pedagogic aphorisms and indulged in logical falacy. CF: http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/
Now, while in nearly 60 years, I ain't met the right guy (oops ... Politically Incorrect? Twisted Evil ... Should I degender that and say "cogenderist"? Laughing ) yet, and have expended no effort in the pursuit, I do have reservations as to the propriety of homosexuality as a social phenomonon. Still, I note the practice is not exclusively human, an observation which leads me to conclude it is a physiologic attribute, recessive, perhaps, but none the less present in the genetic makeup of fauna. Perhaps more rightly deserving of approbation would be wanton promiscuity, a notable feature of the homosexual lifestyle, though by no means a feature exclusive to that lifestyle. I do not posit that you are wrong per se, but that your arguments as presented fail to support yor position in any forensically valid manner.
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 03:32 pm
Tartarin wrote:
Maliagar -- I ask you for your personal feelings about homosexuality, not your theories (which you've been very clear about). Our feelings and our ideas or theories are often very similar, but they are not the same. As for the rest of it, you must be talking about yourself -- you certainly haven't got my number!!


Look, the issue is why homosexuality is wrong. I'm not talking about "feelings" or the personal circumstances of anybody. I try not to separate the "theories" (teachings) I live by from my every day "feelings". Some people would call this separation hypocrisy, and it is a temptation for everybody.

Perhaps what you're trying to say is: How do we move from general principles to particular cases? How do we go from a universal value to its specific applications? How do we deal with specific people that have this specific problem? That is a whole different discussion, and the Church has very compassionate ways of "hating the sin, loving the sinner". The Church is wise enough to make the distinction between doctrine and pastoral care. I've already mentioned it. The teaching of the Church proclaims the unchanging truths about man. Pastoral care meets people where they are, in order to kindly bring them to a better appreciation of that truth. And this is a spiritual process that may take a lifetime.

So, in terms of the original question that you posed, I may have gay friends, or you may be gay, but that's besides the point. The issue is why homosexuality is wrong, and I already explained it. As a matter of fact, I happen to know gay people who, contrary to all predictions, agree that homosexuality is wrong. And I happen to know lesbians that are totally incapable of discussing this matter in a civilized manner, taking it personnaly (like some people in this forum).

A husband knows that infidelity is wrong, and struggles with the temptation. Many men would say that infidelity is in their genes. Should we legalize poligamy? A kid knows that being selfish or rude is wrong. Should we tell him it is right so that he doesn't have to struggle anymore? A cleptomaniac knows that stealing is wrong, but feels compelled to it (it is in his genes, so to speak). Should we legalize theft? Homosexuals feel attracted to people of the same sex. Should we marry them?

Are you ever going to explain why homosexuality is right? :wink:
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 03:45 pm
Tartarin wrote:
I'll have to admit, having, uh, skimmed Maliagar's ravings, that I missed the Catholic Church part. Oh boy. I'm an admirer of the Church in many ways and know it must be clutching its cassock over this "believer"!

Whether it be Maliagar or any other fundamentalist/onetrackmind, I really dislike people who want us all to toe a particular line. Back to Fromm and the attractions of authoritarianism. We need to take this seriously, I guess, but I can't stop laughing at the pretensions.


I know, I know. This is your creed:

Religious people "rave", whereas atheists "reason" (even though I'm still waiting for a rebuttal of my arguments :wink: ).

Religious people base their positions in pure faith, whereas atheists are purely rational (even though I've repetedly shown that this is not true, without anybody replying).

Religious people have a one-track mind, whereas atheists have an open mind (that's why they so passionately dismiss anything religious without even arguing their point, and embrace sexual "freedom" Twisted Evil ).

Religious people want to homogeneize everybody, whereas atheists value diversity (but this would be a better world if everybody became an atheist Laughing )

Religious people have a psychological problem and desperately need the certainties of authoritarian systems, whereas atheists are free like a boat in the middle of an ocean--without the authority of a compass or a map. Rolling Eyes

You are just giving me the standard anti-religious biases of the French Enlightenment. They are three centuries old. The Judeo-Christian faith is 40 centuries old. Shocked

Take care.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 03:47 pm
You have had several rebuttals of your arguments that have nothing to do with an ad hominem and that dealt with your flimsy arguments directly.

You choose to ignore them.

I don't blame you.
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 03:55 pm
timberlandko wrote:
maliagar wrote:
You asked me to explain what is wrong with homosexuality, and I did at length.
I submit you have done no such thing, apart from going to some length; rather that you have parroted the standard homophobic pedagogic aphorisms and indulged in logical falacy.


A lot of labels, and not one argument or rebuttal.

Quote:
I do have reservations as to the propriety of homosexuality as a social phenomonon.


Perhaps you can explain your reservations better than I?

Quote:
I note the practice is not exclusively human, an observation which leads me to conclude it is a physiologic attribute, recessive, perhaps, but none the less present in the genetic makeup of fauna.


There are many animal practices that are completely unacceptable in human society. Unless, of course, you claim that animal behavior should be normative for us... Exclamation

Quote:
Perhaps more rightly deserving of approbation would be wanton promiscuity...


Aprobation? Of what? Of my argument or of the promiscuous lifestyle?

Quote:
...a notable feature of the homosexual lifestyle, though by no means a feature exclusive to that lifestyle.


Of course. Promiscuity is not the monopoly of homosexuals. However, it is far more prevalent among homosexuals than among heterosexuals. And whatever lifestyle that leads to promiscuity goes against the demands of love, commitment, and child rearing.

Quote:
I do not posit that you are wrong per se, but that your arguments as presented fail to support yor position in any forensically valid manner.


Would it be too much to ask why?

Take care.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/12/2025 at 12:46:10