Shinra Executive
Banned
*pontification time
*It's a fact for anyone who believes in Christ, which, I have all the sorrow in the world for you if you don't because Jesus is the Lord
Homophobia
- Thread starter Ohri-Jin
- Start date
- Tagged users None
*pontification time
*It's a fact for anyone who believes in Christ, which, I have all the sorrow in the world for you if you don't because Jesus is the Lord
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,168
- Location
- Wouldn't you like to know?
- Gil
- 594
- FFXIV
- Ilyena Frost
- FFXIV Server
- Lamia
This is beginning to go a bit off topic guys. Let's try and steer back to the original topic. Thanks.
Shinra Executive
Banned
Probably. It's my fault- the conversation went from homophobia to homosexuals to Godly morals lol.
My bad.
Shinra Exec is on the war path! 
Right but what I meant was I believed it was blasphemous to suggest he created them that way. There's no doubt people can develop to be gay but I believe our sexuality is a product of how we respond to our environment. There's tons of psychological study that suggests this is indeed the case only we're not really allowed to talk about it these days seeing as the tolerance campaign has gone into overdrive because of the punitive history homosexuals have suffered. I'm not going to call it a myth because that would be arrogant of me, but the whole from birth idea is unsubstantiated in my opinion. I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and tell gay people they were born that way because I think it's patronising, incorrect and potentially damaging. I think people should just be proud of the person they are.
...but some people are gay...and if you believe in God you believe he created everyone and everything...so therefore he created gay people...
Right but what I meant was I believed it was blasphemous to suggest he created them that way. There's no doubt people can develop to be gay but I believe our sexuality is a product of how we respond to our environment. There's tons of psychological study that suggests this is indeed the case only we're not really allowed to talk about it these days seeing as the tolerance campaign has gone into overdrive because of the punitive history homosexuals have suffered. I'm not going to call it a myth because that would be arrogant of me, but the whole from birth idea is unsubstantiated in my opinion. I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and tell gay people they were born that way because I think it's patronising, incorrect and potentially damaging. I think people should just be proud of the person they are.
Nope
Not putting you down Alex, as following the Ten Commandmentsis always something he wants us to do...to enter his kingdom:
(NRSV)Mark 16:16 "The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but
the one who does not believe will be condemned."
I just wanted to put that in, since I saw you say that. Being Christian, I'm
not here to judge people for their actions and the choices that they make in
their lives here on Earth. Of course, like anyone else, they may upset me or I
may find evil in them...it is just not my place to judge them. I'm not perfect
myself, and I've committed many sins here on Earth...but, by the grace of Jesus
I believe I am saved. I don't believe God necessarily CONDONES homosexuality
though, because in the Bible it is written:
(King James) Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with
womankind: it is an abomination."
I've never understood how people can be so indignant about love between two people of the same gender. Not to mention wielding the power to legislate against such love/attraction etc. It's weird the way people can have power over someone else's lifestyle when that lifestyle doesn't affect them in return. Bigotry is a pretty ugly thing and it's a whole lot worse when people hide behind a 2000 year old book written by human beings to validate their prejudice.
Shinra Executive
Banned
I've never understood how people can be so indifferent on the heterosexual mechanism of humans. There's two different ends here which you ignore because of that ultra-liberal, politically correct bias having your mind laboring under delusions.
It's essentially bigotry all it's own- you denounce people who hold to the self-evident bond of mankind.
1) Homosexuality exists in nature. Multiple species exhibit homosexual activities, including many mammals.
2) Gay men's and women's brain more closely resemble the brains of wo/men of the opposite sex. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html
""As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," [Dr. Qazi Rahman] said."
Science is coming closer and closer to the conclusion that a person is born gay.
Also the 2% statistic you quoted is incorrect. It's estimated that between 5 and 10% of the population is gay.
I'm under no delusions. The heterosexual mechanism you mention is a flawed argument. For it to have any validity we would have to assume that human beings only ever have sex for reproduction and never for pleasure. Obviously that isn't true for humans, neither is it true for many other species of animal(many animals take part in hetero and homosexual sex).
For this whole ridiculous debate to have any meaning we have to postulate that life has a purpose or more precisely that humanity has a purpose and by someone being homosexual they are disrupting this purpose. Obviously, judging by our current 100,000+ year tenure of this planet there seems to be little purpose to any form of life and therefore there is no true right or wrong.
Plus, I don't subscribe to any political ideology so I'm not what you would call 'politically correct' or 'liberal.' If I were to be labelled anything by anyone it would be a 'humanist' and even that is stretching it.
Shinra Executive
Banned
That's not really true in it's entirety. It is what I call a 'legal fiction', meaning that technically, it is observed, but it isn't really what you try to argue it as being.
Animals are carnal and do not exhibit discretion. Some are homosexual because they do not have any other opportunity to act on their sexuality- they settle for less and by extension get less- they do not take a part in their definitive role as being male and carrying on their species' legacy. Quite simply, animals are not in relationships for love, but for necessity.
Most 'examples' are animals in captivity, which sort of adds insult to injury in using that as a defense.
But it's not- it is a dead science. All you will see of it is hearsay and opinion.
Incorrect. http://www.livescience.com/1125-homosexual-animals-closet.html http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/F/200115938.html http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
Pretty sure all the sources I've just quoted completely disagree with you on every point in that sentence. It's being studied, and it is based on observation.
Shinra Executive
Banned
Your sources make use of the words 'phenomenon' or 'mystery'. They are not scientific experiments or inductive explorations (except for one, which leaves no real conclusion to the contrary of heterosexuality), they are simply observations and summaries based on inquiry and bias. You would do well to discern the difference- sources are not created equal.
Check the definition of phenomenon and remember that you used the word.
I can't resist though, I'll post it for you.
[h=2]phe·nom·e·non[/h] [fi-nom-uh-non, -nuh n] Show IPA
noun, plural phe·nom·e·na [-nuh] Show IPA , or especially for 3, phe·nom·e·nons. 1. a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature.
Thank you and good night.
I can't resist though, I'll post it for you.
[h=2]phe·nom·e·non[/h] [fi-nom-uh-non, -nuh n] Show IPA
noun, plural phe·nom·e·na [-nuh] Show IPA , or especially for 3, phe·nom·e·nons. 1. a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature.
Thank you and good night.
Shinra Executive
Banned
What you see isn't always what is, and labeling something a phenomenon does not magically change what is. Suffice it to say, the term is very unscientific- it is a fancy word for describing 'I don't know'.
So you're debating whether trained scientists actually saw what they saw, implicitly accusing them of either being inept or of lying, despite their being published in scientific journals and reports. Must be nice and cozy in that bubble of epistemic closure.
The bottom line is that as more and more scientific studies come out, the flimsy premise of homosexuality being not "natural" is being eroded away. Religion, as per usual, is on the wrong side of progress, holding on to outdated ideas that do not jive with observable science and perpetuating old stereotypes. Homophobia is one of the outcomes of this.
The bottom line is that as more and more scientific studies come out, the flimsy premise of homosexuality being not "natural" is being eroded away. Religion, as per usual, is on the wrong side of progress, holding on to outdated ideas that do not jive with observable science and perpetuating old stereotypes. Homophobia is one of the outcomes of this.
Shinra Executive
Banned
For one, Christianity is not ever going to go away. The simple fact that a cult circa 1st century turned into a worldwide religion means that it is unstoppable. The entire empire of Rome could not stop lowly martyrs. Part of it's doctrine, actually, is that mankind has no choice but to hinge on it because it is simply superior both in insight and morality. That is precisely what perpetuates it.
Secondly, where is this so called scientific progress? I'm telling you, there is none. It is nothing more then inquiry. What you are laboring under is a delusion- you need to open your eyes to what really goes on in the scientific realm rather then just taking everything for granted.
When is science not science? When a religious adherent's beliefs are thrown into question.
I don't expect Christianity to "go away" any time soon. It generates far too much money and holds far too much sway over people for it to just disappear. But being powerful and being correct are two vastly different things. Science is continually proving religion wrong, from Galileo and Copernicus to the flat earth concept. This will simply be the next domino to fall, and one of the basic argument that engenders homophobia will go by the wayside, to be looked upon in scorn by future generations.
I don't expect Christianity to "go away" any time soon. It generates far too much money and holds far too much sway over people for it to just disappear. But being powerful and being correct are two vastly different things. Science is continually proving religion wrong, from Galileo and Copernicus to the flat earth concept. This will simply be the next domino to fall, and one of the basic argument that engenders homophobia will go by the wayside, to be looked upon in scorn by future generations.
Shinra Executive
Banned
As a Catholic, I see Christianity, accordingly, in a very Catholic way. What Protestants and Baptists do is their own thing, but my church is Apostolic and swears by a consistency of the Spirit. In other words, my church is on a constant crusade- it is not going to concede to any notion that is secular, and it in fact combats what it deems unChristian.
I can go ahead and tell you that money has little to do with it. Money is rather after the fact- the faith exists alone. The Church has been around for almost two thousand years., it is near ancient, and is very archaic in it's beliefs and practices.
There is nothing in science that has swayed the Church. In the time of Darwin, the Church simply told the masses not to take Genesis literally. It does not labor under fanaticism despite the odd history it has had in the deep past.
If Christianity disappears, I can promise you it will not go with out dire consequence. Secular people look at religion as a fairy tale, but it is in fact a force to be reckoned with. One does not simply discount God.
As someone who grew up in the Catholic church, they're all pretty much the same. Iconoclasm, transubstantiation, infant baptism are all just wallpaper. The structure is essentially the same.
This has nothing to do with secularism vs. religion, really. It has to do with correct and incorrect. If the scientific data showed that there was no perceivable difference between the anatomical structure of the brain in a homosexual person and a heterosexual person, then the church would likely be right. However, it shows there is a difference, thus homosexuality isn't a choice, thus the church is wrong because observable, falsifiable data disagree with the church's stance.
This has nothing to do with secularism vs. religion, really. It has to do with correct and incorrect. If the scientific data showed that there was no perceivable difference between the anatomical structure of the brain in a homosexual person and a heterosexual person, then the church would likely be right. However, it shows there is a difference, thus homosexuality isn't a choice, thus the church is wrong because observable, falsifiable data disagree with the church's stance.