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

fog · Oct 13, 2003, 01:00 pm

A rather conservative Christian friend of mine (I'm also Christian, but consider myself more 'liberal' in my beliefs) was talking about how he doesn't really have a problem with people who are gay; they're sinners, he insists, but everyone is a sinner.

First, I assume you can see a distinction in the types of sin -- we're all sinners in the sense that we're not perfect, we're all selfish, or what have you. But the type of sin that he implies homosexuals engage strikes me as different -- they're sinners because they're doing something bad.

So this makes me wonder... Do you consider homosexuality wrong (from a religious standpoint), and why? I don't, for the reason that I believe for something to be a sin, it requires an 'overt act' -- you have to actaully do something. You could argue that actually engaging in gay activities was an overt act, but I have a problem with that also. You're not really harming anyone else by being gay. (Assuming, of course, that those involved were willing. But the same is true for heterosexuals...) Furthermore, if God "created you in his image," how can you possibly be a sinner for a trait you have no control over?

But I think a lot of people who have religious objections to homosexuality find basis for it in the Bible. This I find disturbing; the Bible has numerous passages that are essentially antisemetic in nature. Do Christians hate Jews because the Bible says so? As a Christian, I can say I certainly don't -- they're a sister religion on which we're based. Why is homosexuality any different? It really makes no sense to say "Because the Bible says so."

I'm interested in seeing what others think, though. Try to stick to the religious aspect of it, though; I'm not as interested in your personal opinions or sexual orientation. (I think you can hate gays but have no objection to them religiously, or you could be gay but think it's a religious sin. Personal opinion and religious beliefs don't seem too related in this case.)

Section 8 · Oct 13, 2003, 03:22 pm

The bible should not be considered fact, because it's not proven and it never will be.
On homosexuality, it isn't a sin. There is no reason to believe that a loving gay couple can not make good parents. They're are just attracted to different things. No one is the same, and if there is a God, I'm sure he would encourage homosexuality, if you feel that way.

Geoff332 · Oct 13, 2003, 06:39 pm

Quote:

because it's not proven and it never will be

Nothing has actually been proven, or ever will be, so that's hardly a convincing argument.

This can be approached from two directions. The level of personal choice and whether or not homosexuality is a sin.

All sinners have choices about whether they sin or not -- the question is always, "how much choice?" On a more abstract level, the question might be, "is the sin in the choice or in the action?" This slips us straight into classical moral theory. There are two basic schools of thought on morality: teleological and deontological. Teleological frameworks assume that morality is determined by the outcomes of actions -- most usually represented by utilitarianism. Deontological frameworks assume that there are moral duties or obligations that exist, irrespective of the outcomes -- the Ten Commandments, Kant's categorical imperative and rights theories are all deontological frameworks.

My general feeling on homosexuality (well, on all human behaviour) is that we have a genetically determined predisposition, we are enculturated to certain behaviours, and then we have choices. Genetics makes some people more disposed towards certain behaviours, beliefs and so forth. Culture provides another set of boundaries -- both positively as 'good' behaviours and negatively as 'bad' behaviours, that we react against. Within these boundaries, people have choices. This is true of all behaviour, in one way or another. The question then becomes, "how strong are these relative boundaries compared to the individual choices?"

The second way to approach it is to look at the full context of what the Bible tells us about the 'sin' of homosexuality. It's interesting to note that the relevant passages that talk about the prohibition of homosexuality (I can't remember them all; but I can possibly dig them up, if necessary) also prohibit or prescribe a bunch of other things that are either done or not done by most people -- Christian today, or not (we don't stone people to death any more, even though the Bible tells us we should). As such, the emphasis on sexual behaviour seems to be more culturually than religously determined. In short, it seems that the Church is as obsessed with sex as the rest of society.

Sodfather · Oct 13, 2003, 06:39 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by "Section 8"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Section 8")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There is no reason to believe that a loving gay couple can not make good parents.[/b]

Aside from the faults of that statement, it's completely out of place:
<!--QuoteBegin-"fog"
Try to stick to the religious aspect of it, though; I'm not as interested in your personal opinions or sexual orientation.[/quote]
we're speaking of the morality of homosexuality from a Christian viewpoint, not really the ability of gays to parent as you came out with out of nowhere.

And since I already broought it up, there is great reason to believe that they cannot be good parents. First of all, they are, in fact, gay. That child would never hear the end of the insults, heckling, etc. concerning his gay parents. He would be fighting an uphill emotional battle from the minute those parents take possession of him. Kids have enough problems without gay parents to deal with.

Second, growing up with a parent (in this case, parents) of a single gender (no hermaphrodites allowed) is a proven disadvantage to children: they need both a mother and a father figure. Again, you're putting the child at a disadvantage from birth.

dannyp · Oct 13, 2003, 09:31 pm

Ok section 8, I have to interject something. See where you said:

Quote:

The bible should not be considered fact, because it's not proven and it never will be.
On homosexuality, it isn't a sin. There is no reason to believe that a loving gay couple can not make good parents. They're are just attracted to different things. No one is the same, and if there is a God, I'm sure he would encourage homosexuality, if you feel that way.

see where it says "the bible should not"? Thats where you should have stopped typing.. not because I am personally offended that you're saying the bible shouldn't be considered fact.. its that you're telling people what they should do with it. Then you continue to use a blanket statement and say it isn't proven with no argument whatsoever. I don't agree with all of Christian values either, but you shouldn't use blanket arguments like this with no backup.

And how is homosexuality not a sin? compaired to what? the bible? you just said the bible wasn't fact and should be never considered so. That makes no sense at all -- what is your basis of the word 'sin'. because you obviously disreguard it in the Christian sense.

Seeing this much defensiveness from me you may be thinking i'm a hardcore conservative christian, but I am not. Your post here seems very ridiculous though and self-contradictory. Also, like Sodfather said, the originator of the post wanted different views from the Christian perspective - your reply provided none of that.

One thing I have noticed fog, is that you cannot say to a conservative Christian that the bible isn't totally factual. This is one thing I have learned from some of my Christian friends. If you disreguard this in any one instance, the belief that the christian has will be compromised. There is no way, in that persons eyes, that they will let that happen, so you essentially are wrong to them. I found your comment interesting about antisemitism in the bible, and I agree.

I also should point out the nature of conservitive people. No matter how much a liberal person pushes facts in their face, the conservative will always refute to the things that have worked in the past and hold on to values that are more consistant. Heterosexuality is the epitome of sexual stability. Without this stability [eventually] we will not be able to reproduce if everyone decides to go homosexual, so why in a conservatives mindset would anyone even consider this as a possibility? So they have to call it a sin, and there is plenty to back it up in the bible. On the other hand a liberal would view the persons personal inflection towards their sexuality as important as a conservative would value his ideals.

eh just things to think about

Section 8 · Oct 13, 2003, 09:33 pm

Sodfather, what proof is their that children need a mother and father figure. Also describe mother and father figure, as it's left to much open to interpretation.

xm.bretton · Oct 13, 2003, 09:49 pm

you said from a religious (more specifically christian) standpoint, but at the same time you say you dont want any opinions. and again you say that the bible is no reason either.

well christians should follow the bible in my opinion.

“Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me.” (John 5:39)

Jesus himself was known to quote the bible when teaching.

"It is written..." (matthew 19:3-8)

Quote:

for the reason that I believe for something to be a sin, it requires an 'overt act' -- you have to actaully do something

matthew 9:4 - And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said: “Why are YOU thinking wicked things in YOUR hearts?"

matthew 5:27-28 - “YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ But I say to YOU that everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
(adultry is a sin)

Quote:

Do Christians hate Jews because the Bible says so? As a Christian, I can say I certainly don't

the bible says to love everyone. only hate what is bad.

Quote:

the type of sin that he implies homosexuals engage strikes me as different -- they're sinners because they're doing something bad

1 Cor 6:9,10 - What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.

Fallen Angel · Oct 13, 2003, 11:54 pm

Homosexuality has its place in society, but should not be even considered a lawful alternative to a natural man + woman relationship.
A child sometimes gets scared and sleeps with the parents.
For a kid to crawl between two homosexual men, especially if that kid is a boy is revolting to say the least.
I don't agree with Lesbians raising children either.
I know gay's are very considerate people, but raising children in their lifestyle is not right.

Section 8 · Oct 14, 2003, 12:09 am

How is homosexuality innatural, it's just the way someone is born. I don't see how disgusting that is, it's not like they're having sex. How is raising their children not right?

Fallen Angel · Oct 14, 2003, 12:20 am

For a society to thrive and function properly its basic unit the family, man+woman+ child(s) must be adherred to as the only way of bringing up a kid, above everything else.

Section 8 · Oct 14, 2003, 12:22 am

I don't believe in forcing conformity FA, you have yet to post why the traditional family must be adherred to. Also in a family with same gender parents the children would be tought to be more tolerant of others behaviors.

Fallen Angel · Oct 14, 2003, 12:30 am

You are forcing your own brand of conformity but Section 8, its called Political Correctness, 'tolerate this or I'll report you for sexism'.
I explained in my last post that Homosexual familys are not right for society, because they degrade the natural relationship that is a family between a man and a woman and children.

Section 8 · Oct 14, 2003, 12:35 am

Ha! How about I'm trying to allow humans basic human rights, if you want to call it political correctness than I'm fine with it. Why do they degrade the family? The only difference is their gender, keep in mind that not all families have to meet your criteria in order to function properly.

Fallen Angel · Oct 14, 2003, 12:46 am

My criteria as you call it, is what most people agree with, its only lunatics like you who promote alternatives to the natural family as aceptable that will agree with you.

Section 8 · Oct 14, 2003, 12:59 am

FA, please outline the criteria, and why gay parents wouldn't make good parents. If supporting equality makes me a lunatic, then I'm proud to be one.

dannyp · Oct 14, 2003, 03:17 am

Uh you guys are straying from the point of the post, and i never got a reply from you section 8. FA, hes not a lunatic for his beliefs.. thats just as justifiable as anyone calling you a lunatic for yours.

Please excuse my verbal misuse of political correctness, he can alternatively be written as she as well :p but here let me reiterate what i said since there was no acknowledgement that anyone read it:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I also should point out the nature of conservitive people. No matter how much a liberal person pushes facts in their face, the conservative will always refute to the things that have worked in the past and hold on to values that are more consistant. Heterosexuality is the epitome of sexual stability. Without this stability [eventually] we will not be able to reproduce if everyone decides to go homosexual, so why in a conservatives mindset would anyone even consider this as a possibility? So they have to call it a sin, and there is plenty to back it up in the bible. On the other hand a liberal would view the persons personal inflection towards their sexuality as important as a conservative would value his ideals.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

this sort of deals with you two's differing viewpoints. minus the Bible part, and minus the sin part.

Although we should get back to the topic in full.

Fallen Angel · Oct 14, 2003, 03:50 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,)
FA, please outline the criteria, and why gay parents wouldn't make good parents. If supporting equality makes me a lunatic, then I'm proud to be one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

How many times do I have to spell it out to you Section 8, a child to grow properly needs both sexes infuence on their life.
Whether Gays make good parents or not from a caring perspective is not really an important issue.
How can you support equality in this, you must be sick in the head or something.

xm.bretton · Oct 14, 2003, 04:22 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,)
How is homosexuality innatural, it's just the way someone is born. I don't see how disgusting that is, it's not like they're having sex. How is raising their children not right?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

if your body tells you something is right, or it needs something, does it make it right?

for example: a person addicted to heroin would think he needs the heroin, his body would also crave this heroin. this person could have been a child born addicted to heroin. does this mean that heroin is natural for this person?

I'm not saying its their own fault... but people are born with physical errors and mental errors... I'm sure they can be born with emotional errors.

if it were natural: we would be able to reproduce without the other sex.

dannyp · Oct 14, 2003, 03:30 pm

some boys grow up physically attracted to men.. never really finding women sexually appealing. obviously that sort of behavior is really foreign to you. But why can't the gay person be able to express his/her homosexual behavior? Technically how will that threaten you? Just because its different? Its not like the gay couple will be able to breed or anything. Its just that couples personal life and identity. Why won't you accept that? exactly for the reasons I stated in my last 2 posts.

In addition to that, say for example, that the gay couple did decide to raise a child. Does this mean that there will be no maternal figure? not necessarily because a lot of gay couples have one man with a very feminine nature. I know some girls that are more manly than some men, and vice versa.

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?

I am not attracted to men, and I'm happy to know that they aren't attracted to me. But I am considerate of their lifestyle, and I do not downgrade them because of it, its their life.

Sodfather · Oct 14, 2003, 05:41 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,)
And how is homosexuality not a sin? compaired to what? the bible? you just said the bible wasn't fact and should be never considered so.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That is the most logical point made throughout this whole thread: it shows how Section is whipping up replies without putting any thought into them at all. I mean, you bash the Bible and state how its reliablity is poor, without anything to back it up of course; and then no more than a line down do you go on to use one of its principles to make your point - so sloppy and careless.

Oct 14, 2003, 03:17 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
dannyp projects himself Posts: 130	Uh you guys are straying from the point of the post, and i never got a reply from you section 8. FA, hes not a lunatic for his beliefs.. thats just as justifiable as anyone calling you a lunatic for yours. Please excuse my verbal misuse of political correctness, he can alternatively be written as she as well :p but here let me reiterate what i said since there was no acknowledgement that anyone read it: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I also should point out the nature of conservitive people. No matter how much a liberal person pushes facts in their face, the conservative will always refute to the things that have worked in the past and hold on to values that are more consistant. Heterosexuality is the epitome of sexual stability. Without this stability [eventually] we will not be able to reproduce if everyone decides to go homosexual, so why in a conservatives mindset would anyone even consider this as a possibility? So they have to call it a sin, and there is plenty to back it up in the bible. On the other hand a liberal would view the persons personal inflection towards their sexuality as important as a conservative would value his ideals.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> this sort of deals with you two's differing viewpoints. minus the Bible part, and minus the sin part. Although we should get back to the topic in full. projectdp.com :: thinktankforums.com

Oct 14, 2003, 03:50 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,) FA, please outline the criteria, and why gay parents wouldn't make good parents. If supporting equality makes me a lunatic, then I'm proud to be one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> How many times do I have to spell it out to you Section 8, a child to grow properly needs both sexes infuence on their life. Whether Gays make good parents or not from a caring perspective is not really an important issue. How can you support equality in this, you must be sick in the head or something.

Oct 14, 2003, 04:22 am	#18 (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,) How is homosexuality innatural, it's just the way someone is born. I don't see how disgusting that is, it's not like they're having sex. How is raising their children not right?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> if your body tells you something is right, or it needs something, does it make it right? for example: a person addicted to heroin would think he needs the heroin, his body would also crave this heroin. this person could have been a child born addicted to heroin. does this mean that heroin is natural for this person? I'm not saying its their own fault... but people are born with physical errors and mental errors... I'm sure they can be born with emotional errors. if it were natural: we would be able to reproduce without the other sex. xm.bretton xhalation.com

Oct 14, 2003, 03:30 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
dannyp projects himself Posts: 130	some boys grow up physically attracted to men.. never really finding women sexually appealing. obviously that sort of behavior is really foreign to you. But why can't the gay person be able to express his/her homosexual behavior? Technically how will that threaten you? Just because its different? Its not like the gay couple will be able to breed or anything. Its just that couples personal life and identity. Why won't you accept that? exactly for the reasons I stated in my last 2 posts. In addition to that, say for example, that the gay couple did decide to raise a child. Does this mean that there will be no maternal figure? not necessarily because a lot of gay couples have one man with a very feminine nature. I know some girls that are more manly than some men, and vice versa. 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? I am not attracted to men, and I'm happy to know that they aren't attracted to me. But I am considerate of their lifestyle, and I do not downgrade them because of it, its their life. projectdp.com :: thinktankforums.com

Oct 14, 2003, 05:41 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,) And how is homosexuality not a sin? compaired to what? the bible? you just said the bible wasn't fact and should be never considered so.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That is the most logical point made throughout this whole thread: it shows how Section is whipping up replies without putting any thought into them at all. I mean, you bash the Bible and state how its reliablity is poor, without anything to back it up of course; and then no more than a line down do you go on to use one of its principles to make your point - so sloppy and careless.

Oct 13, 2003, 01:00 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
fog Sedimentary Rock Posts: 6	A rather conservative Christian friend of mine (I'm also Christian, but consider myself more 'liberal' in my beliefs) was talking about how he doesn't really have a problem with people who are gay; they're sinners, he insists, but everyone is a sinner. First, I assume you can see a distinction in the types of sin -- we're all sinners in the sense that we're not perfect, we're all selfish, or what have you. But the type of sin that he implies homosexuals engage strikes me as different -- they're sinners because they're doing something bad. So this makes me wonder... Do you consider homosexuality wrong (from a religious standpoint), and why? I don't, for the reason that I believe for something to be a sin, it requires an 'overt act' -- you have to actaully do something. You could argue that actually engaging in gay activities was an overt act, but I have a problem with that also. You're not really harming anyone else by being gay. (Assuming, of course, that those involved were willing. But the same is true for heterosexuals...) Furthermore, if God "created you in his image," how can you possibly be a sinner for a trait you have no control over? But I think a lot of people who have religious objections to homosexuality find basis for it in the Bible. This I find disturbing; the Bible has numerous passages that are essentially antisemetic in nature. Do Christians hate Jews because the Bible says so? As a Christian, I can say I certainly don't -- they're a sister religion on which we're based. Why is homosexuality any different? It really makes no sense to say "Because the Bible says so." I'm interested in seeing what others think, though. Try to stick to the religious aspect of it, though; I'm not as interested in your personal opinions or sexual orientation. (I think you can hate gays but have no objection to them religiously, or you could be gay but think it's a religious sin. Personal opinion and religious beliefs don't seem too related in this case.)

Oct 13, 2003, 03:22 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	The bible should not be considered fact, because it's not proven and it never will be. On homosexuality, it isn't a sin. There is no reason to believe that a loving gay couple can not make good parents. They're are just attracted to different things. No one is the same, and if there is a God, I'm sure he would encourage homosexuality, if you feel that way.

Oct 13, 2003, 09:33 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Sodfather, what proof is their that children need a mother and father figure. Also describe mother and father figure, as it's left to much open to interpretation.

Oct 13, 2003, 11:54 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	Homosexuality has its place in society, but should not be even considered a lawful alternative to a natural man + woman relationship. A child sometimes gets scared and sleeps with the parents. For a kid to crawl between two homosexual men, especially if that kid is a boy is revolting to say the least. I don't agree with Lesbians raising children either. I know gay's are very considerate people, but raising children in their lifestyle is not right.

Oct 14, 2003, 12:09 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	How is homosexuality innatural, it's just the way someone is born. I don't see how disgusting that is, it's not like they're having sex. How is raising their children not right?

Oct 14, 2003, 12:20 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	For a society to thrive and function properly its basic unit the family, man+woman+ child(s) must be adherred to as the only way of bringing up a kid, above everything else.

Oct 14, 2003, 12:22 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	I don't believe in forcing conformity FA, you have yet to post why the traditional family must be adherred to. Also in a family with same gender parents the children would be tought to be more tolerant of others behaviors.

Oct 14, 2003, 12:30 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	You are forcing your own brand of conformity but Section 8, its called Political Correctness, 'tolerate this or I'll report you for sexism'. I explained in my last post that Homosexual familys are not right for society, because they degrade the natural relationship that is a family between a man and a woman and children.

Oct 14, 2003, 12:35 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Ha! How about I'm trying to allow humans basic human rights, if you want to call it political correctness than I'm fine with it. Why do they degrade the family? The only difference is their gender, keep in mind that not all families have to meet your criteria in order to function properly.

Oct 14, 2003, 12:46 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	My criteria as you call it, is what most people agree with, its only lunatics like you who promote alternatives to the natural family as aceptable that will agree with you.

Oct 14, 2003, 12:59 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	FA, please outline the criteria, and why gay parents wouldn't make good parents. If supporting equality makes me a lunatic, then I'm proud to be one.