Topic split from Gay marriage thread

[Audie]

Audie: Guess I'm a sinner then.

Then join the crowd! Recognizing that is part of knowing to seek God's forgiveness. And that's just the sins we are aware of.

Personally, I don't expect non-Christians to adhere to my values. However, there are encouragements and discouragements in various laws and rules.

You don't say, Phillip. the foundation of Western civilization, the keystone of our society, not just for the U.S. but all of Europe is mostly, and always has been, Christianity. That's why with a keen eye, you can see examples of Judeo-Christian values, philosophy, and practices in almost every corner of the west. We divorce ourselves from such a rich heritage at our own peril when we do.

And Audie, you're a sinner? you don't say! unless you're an advanced AI developed by IBM, I'm pretty sure anyone with hands to type here is a human being, and is beautifully imperfect.

The issue with homosexuality that makes it a sin ( no more or no less than any other sin really) is that it is not ideal for the individual or the species, not in it's best interest.
Even from the biological POV, homosexuality is not ideal for the human species ( for obvious reasons).

I've seen hundreds of threads about homosexuality over the years. This is the part where the conversation between believers and non-believers can begin to crumble and deteriorate. Sometimes immediately to name calling.

That's why you have to post facts when you say this: to an unbeliever, telling them that homosexuality as a lifestyle may be dangerous is like telling anybody that water is dry, or fire is cold: it simply does not compute in their minds.

Luckily Rich has yet again answered the question whether homosexuality is as healthy as heterosexuality as a lifestyle:

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/h ... ality.html

Another one on homosexual parents,

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/h ... study.html

(Note: a lot of nonbelievers tend to mock the Regnerus Study. I personally, along with others, have found no errors in his research methodology. And can only conclude that the reasons for objection stem from what information was uncovered, rather than how it was discovered.)

What danger, to me, other than from some witch hunters of whatever religion coming
after me?

[PaulSacramento]

The issue with homosexuality that makes it a sin ( no more or no less than any other sin really) is that it is not ideal for the individual or the species, not in it's best interest.
Even from the biological POV, homosexuality is not ideal for the human species ( for obvious reasons).

Ah but this is not so at all.

No ideals get realized on this here earth.

It is not merely in the best interests, but sometimes the only thing
possible for some individuals.. Women who have been traumatized by men, say,

As for the species as a whole, the one that has so grotesquely and unsustainably
overpopulated our biosphere, I'd say what is best is a whole lot less reproduction.

As ro the health of individuals, gay sex is a whole lot safer, for women, than hetero is.

This is not a safety issue nor is it even a health and overpopulation ( overpopulation is a thread unto itself and the issue is population density and NOT over population) one.
Quite simply, sex is about reproduction (biologically speaking) and for the human species that is only naturally possible by heterosexual activity.
Genes will not be passed on to the next generation without heterosexual activity.
The drive to have sex is based on the biological drive to reproduce, to propagate the individual "selfish genes" into the next generation.
Evolutionary biology shows us this.

Being born homosexual is a biological disadvantage for the individual in question because his/her inclination for sex will not result in reproduction and the passing on genes into the next generation.
It impacts the human species individually and as a whole, in a negative manner.
Affecting even the natural selection process, unless one sees homosexuality as some sort of "check" by the evolutionary process to keep certain genes or combination of genes, from being passed on.

[Audie]

The issue with homosexuality that makes it a sin ( no more or no less than any other sin really) is that it is not ideal for the individual or the species, not in it's best interest.
Even from the biological POV, homosexuality is not ideal for the human species ( for obvious reasons).

Ah but this is not so at all.

No ideals get realized on this here earth.

It is not merely in the best interests, but sometimes the only thing
possible for some individuals.. Women who have been traumatized by men, say,

As for the species as a whole, the one that has so grotesquely and unsustainably
overpopulated our biosphere, I'd say what is best is a whole lot less reproduction.

As ro the health of individuals, gay sex is a whole lot safer, for women, than hetero is.

This is not a safety issue nor is it even a health

Im not the one who raised health and safety as issues.

and overpopulation ( overpopulation is a thread unto itself and the issue is population density and NOT over population) one.

Is that a religious pov? it is stunningly unrealistic.

Quite simply, sex is about reproduction (biologically speaking) and for the human species that is only naturally possible by heterosexual activity.

That is one of its functions and appeals.

Genes will not be passed on to the next generation without heterosexual activity.
The drive to have sex is based on the biological drive to reproduce, to propagate the individual "selfish genes" into the next generation.
Evolutionary biology shows us this.

I have five years' university work in biology, so you can skip explaining such to me, save ya a few words. just sayin', no offense? I really dont want to get crosswise with you.

Being born homosexual is a biological disadvantage for the individual in question because his/her inclination for sex will not result in reproduction and the passing on genes into the next generation.

Well, that is not a prob. for that individual.

It impacts the human species individually and as a whole, in a negative manner.

Oh? you can demonstrate harm to the human species as a whole?

Affecting even the natural selection process, unless one sees homosexuality as some sort of "check" by the evolutionary process to keep certain genes or combination of genes, from being passed on

I dont see it that way, tho perhaps there's a "queer gene".

BTW you addressed maybe half of what I said

[PaulSacramento]

A queer gene would be considered a "defective gene" since it would result in non-reproduction.
Much like a gene that would make one sterile or unable to have sex.

As for overpopulation:

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/overp ... -of-a-myth

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opini ... .html?_r=0

http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... t-or-myth/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... f-concern/

[Hortator]

What danger

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/ab ... 006.086439

See the conclusions at the bottom.

[Jac3510]

Personally, I don't expect non-Christians to adhere to my values. However, there are encouragements and discouragements in various laws and rules. And so, if there are such laws that I see as bad for EVERYONE/for society, then I'm against them. If I see a law or regulation is positive for society, then I'm for it. One thing that I think would cool the ardor for same-sex marriage - as well as the big "to-do" over it - is simply do away with all benefits that the state ties to marriage. And do NOT license ministers and pastors. There should be no marriage license. Do people feel that their commitment to another person is only valid because of a legal document? Or do the desire "marriage" because they want to feel like whatever type of union is basically accepted by society? We're only to judge other Christians by Christian standards. The only other standards that really matter (other than God's), in society, are legal ones. Otherwise, one's opinions - even the collective opinions of millions - are irrelevant. And to the degree we have any say in who our leaders will be, what rulings and decisions they might make that impact us - these are truly the only reason our opinions really matter, as far as people being compelled to obey this or that.

I hear this a lot. I used to say it. But I don't think this is a very good solution at all. In the first place, states ought to be involved in marriage for exactly the same reason that marriage is a union between one man and one woman: the nature of what marriage is. Marriage is not simply the private commitment between two people to love each other forever. It is a public institution whereby society promotes growth and stabilization. The public has a vested interest in seeing people marry, have children, treat those children right, and stay together for the rest of their lives. When people get together outside of marriage, have children, and then break up, that is positively harmful to society.

So the net effect of saying the state should just get out of marriage is to harm society. That's a bad thing. It shouldn't be done, and Christians shouldn't push for it. I'm also concerned this approach just gives away the farm. If you are willing to let government get out of marriage, then you are basically saying that marriage is not a public institution at all, that it's nothing more than a religious commitment two people make with each other. But if that is your view, not only do I think it's wrong, but I think you would have to be honest and say that America has been wrong in even permitting it for the past two hundred years at the state level. You would literally have to say, if you want to be intellectually honest, that anyone who opts for a public "marriage" is doing wrong, because they themselves are redefining marriage. After all, if marriage is nothing more (or less) than a religious commitment, then to ask for state recognition would literally be to ask the state codify your religious views into law. And unless you believe in a theocracy, that's just inappropriate. That raises HUGE issues. You probably wouldn't feel comfortable with a Muslim asking the US government to codify Sharia law (no conspiracy arguments please about how that's already happening--the fact is, you wouldn't be comfortable with the idea, much less the reality). But now we're talking goose and gander. You can't claim a right for yourself you aren't going to extent to all. But if you view marriage as just a religious institution, that is exactly what you are doing right now. If, then, you really believe that, then to be intellectually honest, you're obligated to go get a legal divorce, as is every Christian who takes your stance.

You won't do that, of course. And I hope you don't, because you know that marriage is more than just a religious commitment. It is equally a commitment to the public, to society. But we're talking in terms of intellectual honesty here, and so to be intellectually honest, I have to say that while I appreciate your motives in making this argument, in the end, I don't think it actually works out in practice.

[Audie]

A queer gene would be considered a "defective gene" since it would result in non-reproduction.
Much like a gene that would make one sterile or unable to have sex.

As for overpopulation:

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/overp ... -of-a-myth

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opini ... .html?_r=0

http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... t-or-myth/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... f-concern/

I wont bother playing dueling websites with you on overpopulation.

I suppose at the point that it becomes suffocatingly, perhaps fatally obvious to all,
those still around then can say, "Who knew?"


You did not address this nuance on "sin".

It is not merely in the best interests, but sometimes the only thing
possible for some individuals.. Women who have been traumatized by men, say,

[Philip]

In the first place, states ought to be involved in marriage for exactly the same reason that marriage is a union between one man and one woman: the nature of what marriage is. Marriage is not simply the private commitment between two people to love each other forever. It is a public institution whereby society promotes growth and stabilization.

Of COURSE, I agree with what the legal/public aspects of marriage SHOULD be. But the huge problem is, more and more, the tentacles of the state are used for negative things. And judges and courts most certainly do make many sad decisions as to which party or individuals are to take care of children, irrespective of whether the adults involved are married. And that's because no LAWS will prevent irresponsible people. And judges frequently don't have Godly values - or even values that view historic sensibilities concerning marriage as a thing to be respected.

The public has a vested interest in seeing people marry, have children, treat those children right, and stay together for the rest of their lives. When people get together outside of marriage, have children, and then break up, that is positively harmful to society.

Definitely! But so many within the public don't have personal values that match up with that ideal. AND they vote - and thus we end up with evermore bad leaders appointing evermore poor judges. So this Ozzie and Harriet world of good laws and wise leaders and judges from the past is not what we're presently seeing. And the very reason we are seeing bad decisions by politicians is they say their decisions reflect the will of the majority (or increasing vocal radical minority and progressives corporate heads). How many currently think a pastor doesn't have to marry anyone whom knocks on their door? More and more think so. And so those with such radical views will go after churches and their pastors legally, so as to bankrupt and destroy them.

Why do you think people whom don't see marriage as a sacred union put together by God want to be "married?" Because they need some validation that they are not abnormal, that they aren't weird, are just like everyone else. Gay people are often against ANY perceived denial of their rights - certainly if heterosexuals have them. And thus the lawsuits. And thus the demands for pastors to be legally compelled to marry ANYONE whom so wants to be married.

After all, if marriage is nothing more (or less) than a religious commitment, then to ask for state recognition would literally be to ask the state codify your religious views into law. And unless you believe in a theocracy, that's just inappropriate. That raises HUGE issues.

We have long ACCEPTED, even expected, the state to legally recognize marriage. But if we accept also that the state has a right to 1) define what marriage is; 2) To define every type entity that is entitled to it; 3) To define precisely who can and cannot officiate; 4) To define for every marriage official who they MUST marry, and whatever persons; To PUNISH all officials who are unwilling to fulfill what the state asserts they must, then the state effectively DOES codify what religious people can and cannot do. And that is trending heavily right NOW! And the back door to allowing the state rule over pastors' and ministers' sensibilities and convictions as to whom they will or won't marry, is if the state and federal courts declare themselves as the overseer of punitive measures if it's laws governing marriage officials are transgressed. A pastor denies a two gay people their legal right to be married by anyone legally designated to function over such unions in the public sphere, then the state or federal courts will decided the damages - perhaps ruinous. So, Jac, the state ALREADY is beginning to stick its nose into codifying what those of faith can, cannot and MUST do.

One caveat, I would not encourage the divorce between the states and their legal recognition of marriage - not YET. Of course, ultimately, the Supreme Court will decide this issue. And so we are back, once again, to what will hope for that elected leaders and those they appoint might do. If the states are allowed to legally go after pastors and minsters, I would say we might want to consider this. But those radically inclined will not want that divorce. People want the benefits AND they want to marginalize or ruin those who don't have their moral values - and the politicians will listen and act accordingly.

[Jac3510]

Of course we're codifying religion. The religion we're codifying is leftism. But that doesn't mean we fight fire with fire, as if the proper response is to codify Christianity.

The proper response is not for the government to get out of marriage. If in the church/state relation, one entity is to retreat, it ought to be the church. Marriage is first a civil matter and second a sacred matter (here, in the technical sense of the term--I understand that, ultimately, the sacred/secular distinction doesn't hold). What I mean is that marriage has been redeemed by Christ in the Church and lifted, as it were, so that what is natural now points to a supernatural end. But if humans corrupt the natural, it doesn't follow that we should remove human government so that the supernatural end can be preserved, because then you're very much cutting off the branch you are sitting on.

No, if you want to make an argument that someone should get out of the marriage business, then tell that to churches. Tell pastors to stop marrying people. If two Christians want to have their marriage (which is a legal matter) blessed by their pastor, then they may do so. They can then say their marriage is true or pure or sacred or consecrated or whatever else word they want to use. That becomes a strictly private matter. But to ask society to give up on marriage because they've corrupted it and, in their corruption, they're creating an opportunity to oppress the church? No, that doesn't follow. Just tell the church to withdraw and to focus instead on the eternal.

As a closing analogy, this would be like telling the government to get out of the taxing business. Yes, they've corrupted the process and are abusing it. But it's obviously something a civil government must do. It's necessary to its proper function, even if the process has been corrupted. And yet, that same tax system can be used to oppress churches. You wouldn't tell the government to stop taxing anyone if they decided it was appropriate to take away tax-exempt status from the church if they didn't follow some social policy. You'd just tell the church to get out of the tax-exempt arena all together. Either stop filing any kind of paperwork as a specific corporate entity or file as a simple business, taxes be damned. And it's the same way in this case, I think.

[PaulSacramento]

A queer gene would be considered a "defective gene" since it would result in non-reproduction.
Much like a gene that would make one sterile or unable to have sex.

As for overpopulation:

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/overp ... -of-a-myth

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opini ... .html?_r=0

http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... t-or-myth/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... f-concern/

I wont bother playing dueling websites with you on overpopulation.

I suppose at the point that it becomes suffocatingly, perhaps fatally obvious to all,
those still around then can say, "Who knew?"


You did not address this nuance on "sin".

It is not merely in the best interests, but sometimes the only thing
possible for some individuals.. Women who have been traumatized by men, say,

Sin is not a nuance.
A sin is something done ( or thought of) that is against what is ideal for the person or species.
A women traumatized by a man ( or men) would still be sinning if she had a sexual relationship with another woman because it would not be what is ideal for her as a female homosapien ( created in God's image).
We are talking about sin here afterall.
I mean, we would not be justified in saying that a woman ( or man) would be justified in having sex with a child because He/she was traumatized by an adult would we?
Or justified having sex with an animal because he/she was traumatized by humans?

No, of course not.

[RickD]

Or having an abortion because she was raped...

A second, possibly worse sin, can't be justified because of another sin.

Or in simple terms, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Audie]

A queer gene would be considered a "defective gene" since it would result in non-reproduction.
Much like a gene that would make one sterile or unable to have sex.

As for overpopulation:

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/overp ... -of-a-myth

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opini ... .html?_r=0

http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... t-or-myth/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... f-concern/

I wont bother playing dueling websites with you on overpopulation.

I suppose at the point that it becomes suffocatingly, perhaps fatally obvious to all,
those still around then can say, "Who knew?"


You did not address this nuance on "sin".

It is not merely in the best interests, but sometimes the only thing
possible for some individuals.. Women who have been traumatized by men, say,

Sin is not a nuance.
A sin is something done ( or thought of) that is against what is ideal for the person or species.
A women traumatized by a man ( or men) would still be sinning if she had a sexual relationship with another woman because it would not be what is ideal for her as a female homosapien ( created in God's image).
We are talking about sin here afterall.
I mean, we would not be justified in saying that a woman ( or man) would be justified in having sex with a child because He/she was traumatized by an adult would we?
Or justified having sex with an animal because he/she was traumatized by humans?

No, of course not.

I did not state or imply that sin is a nuance. Nor did I recognize or accept the concept.
You missed the nuance of my putting it in quotation marks.

As for ideals, you are speaking of something impossible to achieve.

Perhaps ideal for you would be to be 6 ft 1, 190 lbs of steel hard muscle. You are, like Popeye, what you are, and work with that. Sub optimum, like everyone else.


"We" are not talking about "sin". You are. I am not.

I am speaking of things of which I have some considerable knowledge and personal involvement, something you do not have, just the cultic view to which you choose to subscribe holds that "sin" is a valid concept, and that certain things are "sins".

it is not merely in the best interests, but sometimes the only thing
possible for some individuals.. Women who have been traumatized by men, say

You did not address this, merely denied it, and then went off into a ridiculous over the top
comparison to child molestation and bestiality, with Ardy tossing in infanticide.

[PaulSacramento]

Audie,
Ideal exist.
A triangle has 3 sides.
A square has 4.
Humans are heterosexual beings that can only reproduce naturally via heterosexual activity.
It's a biological fact.
The biological ideal for a human is heterosexuality.
That is a biological fact.

I can understand and sympathize with the emotional argument BUt that is not relevant at this point in the discussion.

You can't make that statement that I don't have any knowledge of this discussion, you don't know me, nor my history or family history, at all.


As for this:

You did not address this, merely denied it, and then went off into a ridiculous over the top
comparison to child molestation and bestiality, with Ardy tossing in infanticide.

I responded in kind to your argument about abuse.
You suggested that a person may be justified to turn to same-sex relationships because of abuse during other-sex relationships.
I pointed out that, that line of reasoning is flawed and gave some examples.
These were NOT comparison, but examples of the line of reasoning that you were suggesting is a valid one.


And we are talking about sin because YOU asked me to address the nuance on "sin".

[Audie]

Audie,
Ideal exist.

depends on what the meaning of the word is is, I suppose.

ideal
existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality.

A triangle has 3 sides.
A square has 4.

this is not deep.

Humans are heterosexual beings that can only reproduce naturally via heterosexual activity.
It's a biological fact.

Irrelevant.

The biological ideal for a human is heterosexuality.
That is a biological fact.

This is a statement of metpahysical "facts" not in evidence, and has nothing
whatever to d

o with the needs of any given individual.

I can understand and sympathize with the emotional argument BUt that is not relevant at this point in the discussion.

What is your argument? That any form of sex is only for reproduction and anything else is "sin"?

Your cult says so, I do not agree. You have no basis other than your reading of the bible.





As for this:

You did not address this, merely denied it, and then went off into a ridiculous over the top
comparison to child molestation and bestiality, with Ardy tossing in infanticide.

I responded in kind to your argument about abuse.
You suggested that a person may be justified to turn to same-sex relationships because of abuse during other-sex relationships.

Absolutely not. I neither stated nor implied in any way anything about "justification".
The use of that word is pure cant on your part.

I pointed out that, that line of reasoning is flawed and gave some examples.

There is no flaw and I was not even "reasoning". I do not accept the existence of "sin" the existence of which you cannot demonstrate; I do not accept that it is "ideal" for a woman to either be denied human sexual contact, or forced into acts she finds violently
repulsive and impossible to perform..

Why does the word "Taliban" come to mind?

These were NOT comparison, but examples of the line of reasoning that you were suggesting is a valid one.

I've done nothing of the sort. and your denial that you are making a comparison is ridiculous.

And we are talking about sin because YOU asked me to address the nuance on "sin".

Next time I will remember not to use just quotation marks, but specify something like

"sin", ie, a cult-concept with no demonstrable basis in reality, by which people who will can apply a one-size-fits-all self defining ideal to all.


If you feel that those who are emotionally incapable of having heterosexual relations
should ideally be forded into celibacy, or forced into heterosexual activity because it is ideal for the species, you have something really wrong with you. I hope not.

[Byblos]

Your cult says so, I do not agree. You have no basis other than your reading of the bible.

Evidently you are not familiar with the concept of natural law. I would highly recommend that you get familiar with it (whatever my recommendation is worth to you).