Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Section 8 · Oct 14, 2003, 06:22 pm

Sorry, some misunderstanding (my fualt) here. I mean, just providing the bible as evidence shouldn't be permissable. I wasn't trying to "bash" the bible, merely stating that I believe that it should be used as a factual source. Dannyp, I didn't mean to offend you, but thank you for posting about nothing changes if you don't do something.

On if homosexuality is a sin, first you must define sin. I was just trying to understand were your coming from. Here's were I'm coming from:

1. Homosexuality is a natural sexual behavior, that some are attracted to men, and others aren't
2. Homosexuality is not a sin (a crime, or wrongdoing to yourself, or others)
a. I thought that the bilble advocated equal rights among all (correct me if I'm wrong) If it then spoke out against homosexual behavior, that would be very contridictory. This is percisely why I don't believe the bible should be used as a main point. It is left open to, in my opinion, to much interpretation.
3. Many families grow up with just a mother, or just a father. This proves that an "abnormal family" (by societies standards) can function properly

Sorry for the confusion
Shalom

dannyp · Oct 14, 2003, 06:41 pm

section 8: i'm not offended, I just wanted you to take into consideration what you were actually telling people. Same as I am trying to make it apparent to FA that its not right to tell people what to do -- especially how to live. If FA would like to consider them sinners thats fine with me, but there is nothing technically against FA except for it being "unnatural" and ridiculous to "raise a family" being gay.. which is totally debatable.

I still would not agree with point #2 that you wrote section 8. because that is a conflict of terms. the word sin does not mean nearly the same thing they way you say it, as the way xm.bretton or Fallen Angel say it.

#3 I already posted last time, thanks for reading everything :P I made a lot of these points clear already in my posts. Sodfathers intervention is just about the only thing that gets people to read anything I write... augh..

Section 8 · Oct 14, 2003, 07:03 pm

This is way I asked others to post their opinions the meaning of sin. This way debating is much easier.

Geoff332 · Oct 14, 2003, 09:08 pm

Thye Biblical definition of sin is not what most people seem to think. Sin generally means a distance between man and God. In the Old Testement, this distance was defined by the extent to which men followed God's laws (the ten commandments and addendums); in the NT, it's far less clearly defined. The common thread is that one sins when one acts in ways that are not in accordance with God's will. However you define sin, in a Biblical sense, it requires God for the concept of sin to make sense. From a Biblical perspective, if there is no God, there is no sin.

For a Christian, sin is the same as immorality. This is because God determines the moral rights and wrongs of society -- and acting against his will means acting immorally, which is sin. For non-believers, the concept of sin is very similar to the concept of moral behaviour -- with the difference being the absence of God as the referrent for that behaviour. For an atheist, talking in terms of sin is meaningless; but talking in terms of morality is not (although many Christians argue that without God, there is no morality; but this is generally not a very constructive line of argument).

Rather than defining what is 'sin' it would be more useful to understand what individuals use as their criteria for morality.

Sodfather · Oct 14, 2003, 09:19 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,)
I wasn't trying to "bash" the bible, merely stating that I believe that it should be used as a factual source.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Okay - your argument's inconsistencies aside, that's still incorrect. The Bible is one of, if not the most historically accurate documents of all time. Via forensics and other credible, objective might I add, and historical sources such as Pliny the Younger, Seutonious, etc. dozens and dozens of events in the Bible have been verified as having happened. If you research a little I'm sure you'll find me to be right.

Section 8 · Oct 14, 2003, 09:29 pm

Sodfather, I was referring more to the spititual aspects of the bible, and yes I do know that many events in the bible did happen, but not in the spiritual context.

Fallen Angel · Oct 14, 2003, 09:50 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,)

FA; you said "a child to grow properly needs both sexes infuence on their life"

how do you know that? you've never experienced it. Explain in detail, why a child HAS to [we're talking survival here] have both sex parents in their life? Please explain this. I know some friends who have grown up with only their father. Are they any less human for having a single sex raising influence? Please tell me why we are fanatic for believing what we do?

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes I see alot of people growing up with only one parent, in Australia this means the child ususally has no father for 90% of the time.
Fathers provide protection and stability for a child, also a lot of fun.
Mothers provide vital nurturing and stability as well.
If I had grown up with two men as my parents, I would probably be unaware of the importance of females as parents.
Fanatic is not the right word, perverted would be more appropriate

Section 8 · Oct 14, 2003, 09:55 pm

What makes you think that the two same sex parents cannot take on both roles. Also those roles aren't key for children to grow up.

Calling gays perverted, that is disturbing. How are they perveted because they like men insted of woman. People are just born a different way, it's not like they just woke up one morning and were suddenly gay.

dannyp · Oct 14, 2003, 10:11 pm

no perverted is if the gay couple sexually molested eachother and the child.. thats perverted.. but I don't know a single gay person who likes little kids, i'm sure there are some just as there are heterosexual child molesters. Thats overgeneralizing perversion however...

two people raising a child does not necessarily perverse the child though, they are just more accepting of gay things. Even if the boy likes girls, i'm sure the gay couple would be more than happy to have their 'son' bring a girlfriend home. Just because they're gay doesn't mean that the boy will be gay.. nor does it mean the gay parents won't accept heterosexual behavior from their child.

Break down being gay for a second:

1. a heterosexual person is sexually attracted to their own sex.

thats it.. whats wrong with that? sex is sex. you don't see it, whats your problem with it? There are plenty of people with different sexual orientation, but thats their business. The only place it should be controlled is when it is truely perverted. Such as child molestation, rape, or anything that imposes something on one person who does not want it.

another thing to consider are transsexuals.. howcome you don't have a problem with them? they're bisexual and they're born like that. The reason you don't have an issue is because they may appear to be one sex with a different sex. thats not really the case.

plz state some reasoning for it being otherwise.

Fallen Angel · Oct 14, 2003, 11:58 pm

I already have, twice, if you want to support same sex marriages etc go right ahead, just don't expect the majority of people to agree with you or like you pushing something unnatural on them, just because you feel so 'open minded'.

dannyp · Oct 15, 2003, 03:29 am

no you haven't you just say its not regular.. thats all i'm hearing.. you see it as different so you reject it. I don't think that i'm so "open minded" i never said that. I just feel like other people should be able to express themselves sexually as they wish. I hope you do to. Pick whoever or whichever sex you'd like.. but the difference is I don't hate because of difference, you seem to.

xm.bretton · Oct 15, 2003, 04:09 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,)
a. I thought that the bilble advocated equal rights among all (correct me if I'm wrong)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
you are wrong. it doesnt.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,)
Sodfather, I was referring more to the spititual aspects of the bible, and yes I do know that many events in the bible did happen, but not in the spiritual context.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
and now that is just your opinion.

if the events are extremely accurate, and the bible doesnt contradict history at any time... then what reason do you have to say that the bible doesnt deserve to be spiritually accurate.

if the bible doesnt, nothing does.

Fallen Angel · Oct 15, 2003, 06:12 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,)
no you haven't you just say its not regular.. thats all i'm hearing.. you see it as different so you reject it. I don't think that i'm so "open minded" i never said that. I just feel like other people should be able to express themselves sexually as they wish. I hope you do to. Pick whoever or whichever sex you'd like.. but the difference is I don't hate because of difference, you seem to.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I don't hate them, I just don't think they have much right to claim equal rights as custodians of children, its not natural and that is the only reason I have to give you.

dannyp · Oct 15, 2003, 06:46 am

'course its not natural.. its adoption. what gives a gay couple less rights to raise a child? they're human too.

xm.bretton · Oct 15, 2003, 06:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,)
'course its not natural.. its adoption. what gives a gay couple less rights to raise a child? they're human too.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>well that comment was stupid. just because they are included in the species does not give them all the same rights as others.

murders are human. they deserve to adopt children.

I'm not saying homosexuals are relative to murders in anyway, but the point is that a persons actions will decide their rights.

dannyp · Oct 15, 2003, 07:32 pm

Ignore the human part, obviously you don't grasp where I was going with the comment. i'm trying to show how its easy to eliminate the barrier you both seem to have -- they are human too they just feel sexually inclined towards their own gender, what does that do to infringe on your being? why can't they have rights to raise children? What excuse do you have not for them to raise a child? What harm will it do to you personally? If nothing, why are you trying to impose rules on other people to which you have no authority over?

and yes you are saying homosexuals are relative to murderers in that statement.. bound by different relations yes, but you're still suggesting that they shouldn't be able to adopt for no particular reason.

The way I mentioned "they're human too" was to get you to think about how that they are humans with rights, you're a human with rights. They have different sexual preference -- so? what is the reason that you won't let someone else be who they would like to be?

Sodfather · Oct 15, 2003, 10:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,)
what gives a gay couple less rights to raise a child?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
As others and I have already stated, it is perfect fine for gays to parent - that is, if they want to make that child's life difficult right off the bat. Ask any psychologist if a child is better off having two true opposite sex parents or two same sex or two same sex, one acting like another sex: he'll tell you exactly what we've said, the ideal conditions are a mother and a father. Same sex parents are unnatural, and thus, as most unnatural things in a child's life are, are disadvantageous.

It's like consciously choosing for your child to be obese, or to have manic depression, or to have Huntington's disease: although less severe, same sex adoption is still giving the child a disadvantage - consciously. What person would want to put a child through that for their own selfish needs? They want a child? Too bad - they don't have the right to put a child through more pain than necessary just so that they can acheive happiness.

Am I any clearer?

Geoff332 · Oct 15, 2003, 11:27 pm

Based on the same sort of average data, I could conclude that children adopted by parents who earned below a certain threshold of income should not be allowed to adopt. That is, there is a strong association between lower-socioeconomic groups and a variety of crime statistics.

Would you consider this to be fair and just?

xm.bretton · Oct 16, 2003, 09:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,)
Based on the same sort of average data, I could conclude that children adopted by parents who earned below a certain threshold of income should not be allowed to adopt. That is, there is a strong association between lower-socioeconomic groups and a variety of crime statistics.

Would you consider this to be fair and just?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>sure.

if they cant afford the child, they shouldnt be aloud to adopt one.

Geoff332 · Oct 16, 2003, 10:03 pm

I never said they couldn't afford a child. I merely said that their socio-economic status would mean that (statistically) the child would be more likely to appear on a bunch of negative measures -- eg crime.

Would it be fair and just to prohibit them from adopting a child?

Oct 14, 2003, 06:41 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
dannyp projects himself Posts: 130	section 8: i'm not offended, I just wanted you to take into consideration what you were actually telling people. Same as I am trying to make it apparent to FA that its not right to tell people what to do -- especially how to live. If FA would like to consider them sinners thats fine with me, but there is nothing technically against FA except for it being "unnatural" and ridiculous to "raise a family" being gay.. which is totally debatable. I still would not agree with point #2 that you wrote section 8. because that is a conflict of terms. the word sin does not mean nearly the same thing they way you say it, as the way xm.bretton or Fallen Angel say it. #3 I already posted last time, thanks for reading everything :P I made a lot of these points clear already in my posts. Sodfathers intervention is just about the only thing that gets people to read anything I write... augh.. projectdp.com :: thinktankforums.com

Oct 14, 2003, 09:19 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,) I wasn't trying to "bash" the bible, merely stating that I believe that it should be used as a factual source.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Okay - your argument's inconsistencies aside, that's still incorrect. The Bible is one of, if not the most historically accurate documents of all time. Via forensics and other credible, objective might I add, and historical sources such as Pliny the Younger, Seutonious, etc. dozens and dozens of events in the Bible have been verified as having happened. If you research a little I'm sure you'll find me to be right.

Oct 14, 2003, 09:50 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,) FA; you said "a child to grow properly needs both sexes infuence on their life" how do you know that? you've never experienced it. Explain in detail, why a child HAS to [we're talking survival here] have both sex parents in their life? Please explain this. I know some friends who have grown up with only their father. Are they any less human for having a single sex raising influence? Please tell me why we are fanatic for believing what we do? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes I see alot of people growing up with only one parent, in Australia this means the child ususally has no father for 90% of the time. Fathers provide protection and stability for a child, also a lot of fun. Mothers provide vital nurturing and stability as well. If I had grown up with two men as my parents, I would probably be unaware of the importance of females as parents. Fanatic is not the right word, perverted would be more appropriate

Oct 14, 2003, 10:11 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
dannyp projects himself Posts: 130	no perverted is if the gay couple sexually molested eachother and the child.. thats perverted.. but I don't know a single gay person who likes little kids, i'm sure there are some just as there are heterosexual child molesters. Thats overgeneralizing perversion however... two people raising a child does not necessarily perverse the child though, they are just more accepting of gay things. Even if the boy likes girls, i'm sure the gay couple would be more than happy to have their 'son' bring a girlfriend home. Just because they're gay doesn't mean that the boy will be gay.. nor does it mean the gay parents won't accept heterosexual behavior from their child. Break down being gay for a second: 1. a heterosexual person is sexually attracted to their own sex. thats it.. whats wrong with that? sex is sex. you don't see it, whats your problem with it? There are plenty of people with different sexual orientation, but thats their business. The only place it should be controlled is when it is truely perverted. Such as child molestation, rape, or anything that imposes something on one person who does not want it. another thing to consider are transsexuals.. howcome you don't have a problem with them? they're bisexual and they're born like that. The reason you don't have an issue is because they may appear to be one sex with a different sex. thats not really the case. plz state some reasoning for it being otherwise. projectdp.com :: thinktankforums.com

Oct 15, 2003, 03:29 am	#31 (permalink) (top)
dannyp projects himself Posts: 130	no you haven't you just say its not regular.. thats all i'm hearing.. you see it as different so you reject it. I don't think that i'm so "open minded" i never said that. I just feel like other people should be able to express themselves sexually as they wish. I hope you do to. Pick whoever or whichever sex you'd like.. but the difference is I don't hate because of difference, you seem to. projectdp.com :: thinktankforums.com

Oct 14, 2003, 06:22 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Sorry, some misunderstanding (my fualt) here. I mean, just providing the bible as evidence shouldn't be permissable. I wasn't trying to "bash" the bible, merely stating that I believe that it should be used as a factual source. Dannyp, I didn't mean to offend you, but thank you for posting about nothing changes if you don't do something. On if homosexuality is a sin, first you must define sin. I was just trying to understand were your coming from. Here's were I'm coming from: 1. Homosexuality is a natural sexual behavior, that some are attracted to men, and others aren't 2. Homosexuality is not a sin (a crime, or wrongdoing to yourself, or others) a. I thought that the bilble advocated equal rights among all (correct me if I'm wrong) If it then spoke out against homosexual behavior, that would be very contridictory. This is percisely why I don't believe the bible should be used as a main point. It is left open to, in my opinion, to much interpretation. 3. Many families grow up with just a mother, or just a father. This proves that an "abnormal family" (by societies standards) can function properly Sorry for the confusion Shalom

Oct 14, 2003, 07:03 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	This is way I asked others to post their opinions the meaning of sin. This way debating is much easier.

Oct 14, 2003, 09:08 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Thye Biblical definition of sin is not what most people seem to think. Sin generally means a distance between man and God. In the Old Testement, this distance was defined by the extent to which men followed God's laws (the ten commandments and addendums); in the NT, it's far less clearly defined. The common thread is that one sins when one acts in ways that are not in accordance with God's will. However you define sin, in a Biblical sense, it requires God for the concept of sin to make sense. From a Biblical perspective, if there is no God, there is no sin. For a Christian, sin is the same as immorality. This is because God determines the moral rights and wrongs of society -- and acting against his will means acting immorally, which is sin. For non-believers, the concept of sin is very similar to the concept of moral behaviour -- with the difference being the absence of God as the referrent for that behaviour. For an atheist, talking in terms of sin is meaningless; but talking in terms of morality is not (although many Christians argue that without God, there is no morality; but this is generally not a very constructive line of argument). Rather than defining what is 'sin' it would be more useful to understand what individuals use as their criteria for morality.

Oct 14, 2003, 09:29 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Sodfather, I was referring more to the spititual aspects of the bible, and yes I do know that many events in the bible did happen, but not in the spiritual context.

Oct 14, 2003, 09:55 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	What makes you think that the two same sex parents cannot take on both roles. Also those roles aren't key for children to grow up. Calling gays perverted, that is disturbing. How are they perveted because they like men insted of woman. People are just born a different way, it's not like they just woke up one morning and were suddenly gay.

Oct 14, 2003, 11:58 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	I already have, twice, if you want to support same sex marriages etc go right ahead, just don't expect the majority of people to agree with you or like you pushing something unnatural on them, just because you feel so 'open minded'.

Oct 15, 2003, 04:09 am	#32 (permalink) (top)
xm.bretton Molten Ash Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 89	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,) a. I thought that the bilble advocated equal rights among all (correct me if I'm wrong)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> you are wrong. it doesnt. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,) Sodfather, I was referring more to the spititual aspects of the bible, and yes I do know that many events in the bible did happen, but not in the spiritual context.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> and now that is just your opinion. if the events are extremely accurate, and the bible doesnt contradict history at any time... then what reason do you have to say that the bible doesnt deserve to be spiritually accurate. if the bible doesnt, nothing does. xm.bretton xhalation.com

Oct 15, 2003, 06:12 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,) no you haven't you just say its not regular.. thats all i'm hearing.. you see it as different so you reject it. I don't think that i'm so "open minded" i never said that. I just feel like other people should be able to express themselves sexually as they wish. I hope you do to. Pick whoever or whichever sex you'd like.. but the difference is I don't hate because of difference, you seem to.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't hate them, I just don't think they have much right to claim equal rights as custodians of children, its not natural and that is the only reason I have to give you.

Oct 15, 2003, 06:46 am	#34 (permalink) (top)
dannyp projects himself Posts: 130	'course its not natural.. its adoption. what gives a gay couple less rights to raise a child? they're human too. projectdp.com :: thinktankforums.com

Oct 15, 2003, 06:57 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
xm.bretton Molten Ash Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 89	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,) 'course its not natural.. its adoption. what gives a gay couple less rights to raise a child? they're human too.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>well that comment was stupid. just because they are included in the species does not give them all the same rights as others. murders are human. they deserve to adopt children. I'm not saying homosexuals are relative to murders in anyway, but the point is that a persons actions will decide their rights. xm.bretton xhalation.com

Oct 15, 2003, 07:32 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
dannyp projects himself Posts: 130	Ignore the human part, obviously you don't grasp where I was going with the comment. i'm trying to show how its easy to eliminate the barrier you both seem to have -- they are human too they just feel sexually inclined towards their own gender, what does that do to infringe on your being? why can't they have rights to raise children? What excuse do you have not for them to raise a child? What harm will it do to you personally? If nothing, why are you trying to impose rules on other people to which you have no authority over? and yes you are saying homosexuals are relative to murderers in that statement.. bound by different relations yes, but you're still suggesting that they shouldn't be able to adopt for no particular reason. The way I mentioned "they're human too" was to get you to think about how that they are humans with rights, you're a human with rights. They have different sexual preference -- so? what is the reason that you won't let someone else be who they would like to be? projectdp.com :: thinktankforums.com

Oct 15, 2003, 10:42 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,) what gives a gay couple less rights to raise a child?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> As others and I have already stated, it is perfect fine for gays to parent - that is, if they want to make that child's life difficult right off the bat. Ask any psychologist if a child is better off having two true opposite sex parents or two same sex or two same sex, one acting like another sex: he'll tell you exactly what we've said, the ideal conditions are a mother and a father. Same sex parents are unnatural, and thus, as most unnatural things in a child's life are, are disadvantageous. It's like consciously choosing for your child to be obese, or to have manic depression, or to have Huntington's disease: although less severe, same sex adoption is still giving the child a disadvantage - consciously. What person would want to put a child through that for their own selfish needs? They want a child? Too bad - they don't have the right to put a child through more pain than necessary just so that they can acheive happiness. Am I any clearer?

Oct 15, 2003, 11:27 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Based on the same sort of average data, I could conclude that children adopted by parents who earned below a certain threshold of income should not be allowed to adopt. That is, there is a strong association between lower-socioeconomic groups and a variety of crime statistics. Would you consider this to be fair and just?

Oct 16, 2003, 09:37 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
xm.bretton Molten Ash Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 89	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,) Based on the same sort of average data, I could conclude that children adopted by parents who earned below a certain threshold of income should not be allowed to adopt. That is, there is a strong association between lower-socioeconomic groups and a variety of crime statistics. Would you consider this to be fair and just?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>sure. if they cant afford the child, they shouldnt be aloud to adopt one. xm.bretton xhalation.com

Oct 16, 2003, 10:03 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	I never said they couldn't afford a child. I merely said that their socio-economic status would mean that (statistically) the child would be more likely to appear on a bunch of negative measures -- eg crime. Would it be fair and just to prohibit them from adopting a child?