Evidence for God from Science

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.

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

PaulSacramento wrote:

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.

Honestly Audie, I don't even know how to address this...

Are you arguing against the notion of "sin" ?
If so that is one thing.
Are you arguing that homosexuality is a sin? because that is another.

As for:

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

I am not arguing for anything.
I am stating that because of something negative a person is not justified to resort to another things that is negative.


Now, IF you want to argue that ( that it is better for a person to be in a good homosexual relationship than in a bad heterosexual one) then that is fine.
I agree that, IF there are ONLY two choices and those are:
Be in a bad heterosexual relationship or be in a good homosexual one.
That it would be best to be in a homosexual one then, yes I agree.
BUT and this is a big BUT:
Don't you find it of some concern that the type of relationship ( in this case homosexual) is "OK" ONLY BECAUSE the other option is Bad?
Sort of the lesser of two ills?
I mean, if someone came to you and said that you have but two choices of how to eat:
Forced fed with a high percentage of chance that you will gag and choke ( but still eat) or:
Drink only liquids that will satisfy your need to eat BUT will not allow you to be active at all and you must be totally immobilized.

They are choices and neither is good, nor would they ever be viewed as good BUT under the circumstances one MAy be better than the other.

Now, the above is NOT a comparison to heterosexualoitu and homosexuality, especially since eating is a necessity and sex is NOT, but the example illustrates that just because a 1 choice is better than the other, it doesn't make it a good choice.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Fine, disregard sin.
Even though we are in a moral and ethics subforum and you disregarding something doesn't make it invalid or non-existent.

Still less does an unsubstantiatable claim that such a thing has any substance other than in the imagination.

Look at it from the viewpoint biology

The human race is if anything succeeding far too well at reproducing.
From a biological pov, a little brake on that is well in order.

ALSO, I do not go with the collectivist thinking that individuality must be
suppressed for the presumed good of all, as envisaged be social engineers
and their claimed scientific and moral justification.

How about something radical like, leave people the heck alone if they are doing
no harm?

.

PaulSacramento wrote:Fine, disregard sin.
Even though we are in a moral and ethics subforum and you disregarding something doesn't make it invalid or non-existent.

Audie wrote:The human race is if anything succeeding far too well at reproducing.
From a biological pov, a little brake on that is well in order.

How about something radical like, leave people the heck alone if they are doing
no harm?

RickD wrote:Audie,

All sin is harming somebody.

Just because you may think it's harming nobody else, that doesn't justify it.

Hortator wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Fine, disregard sin.
Even though we are in a moral and ethics subforum and you disregarding something doesn't make it invalid or non-existent.

We are also in the philosophy forums. However, this is technically Audie's topic (not made by her, but given to her, but whatevs) so whichever direction she wants to go is up to her (with the obvious exception of rules)

Audie wrote:The human race is if anything succeeding far too well at reproducing.
From a biological pov, a little brake on that is well in order.

Details, por favor. Are you saying we are reproducing too well based on your 6 years of biology education, the consensus of scientists, or some other basis? Also describe this "little brake", because it sounds nebulous regarding a very private matter. And that could be bad.

I see that there is every opportunity to play dueling websites on, say, global warming,
or overpopulation.

I dont care to do so.

I suppose part of my take on it is coming from a very overpopulated part of the world.
There is also what just seems so stunningly obvious I dont know how people manage
even for ideological reasons to deny it.

But Im not in a mood to try to convince anyone here, if they want to claim otherwise.

As for "private", yes, some things are, but I've mentioned my situation in life, its not a big secret.

However, you are a point or two off compass with that. The "brake" I referred to
is just about fewer people reproducing, which I take to be a good thing.

How about something radical like, leave people the heck alone if they are doing
no harm?

Well and good. But we will still show the research that demonstrates they are harming themselves and their partner(s), so yes, they are technically harming others. But consent is the rule of the day. Consent is love. Consent is life.

Sure, and we could play dueling websites on that too. "They" are a big diverse group
with many differing circumstances.

Not included in your "they are harming themselves" is any consideration of, say, a woman
who is psychologically incapable of allowing herself to be touched by a man, owing to traumatic abuse.

Many such people can find that a loving relationship with another woman provides for
powerful emotional / psychological needs. That certainly falls outside the "harming others" thing.

crochet1949 wrote:There are Lots of ways of showing love outside of the physical.

A woman who's experienced traumatic abuse and won't let a man touch her -- certainly needs emotional and psychological support from others.

A sexual relationship isn't a 'cure' for Anything. People tend to confuse 'lust' with 'love'. And the thought Is that it's okay to follow through on an Attraction with Action. Sometimes love is shown More by what we're willing to Not follow through on.

Marriage is the Only setting in which sexual touch is allowed -- to show love to a person who is Already loved for who they are as the unique person God has made them. Men and women are uniquely made to be Able to fulfill each others needs in marriage.

God knows that people / We need boundaries / guidelines to live by to feel secure. But He doesn't Force anyone to follow them -- and there Are consequences when we Don't follow them.