Gay life vs. "homosexual" "acts"

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Haven
Guru
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
Location: Tremonton, Utah
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 52 times
Contact:

Gay life vs. "homosexual" "acts"

Post #1

Post by Haven »

Many anti-gay fundamentalist Christians oppose equal rights for the lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) community on the basis that sexual acts between members of the same sex are immoral according to Christian scripture and teaching. These individuals often equate queer identities with those sexual acts, and use that connection to argue in favor of denying LGB people equal protection under the law.

While I dispute that the Bible condemns same-sex sex, for the sake of this discussion I will accept the premise that they is wrong under Christianity.

That aside, homosexuality, and, more broadly, gay life, is so much more than what we do in the bedroom. One's sexuality impacts her/his relationships (obviously), social activities, choice of friends, civil rights, (and often) appearance, voice, and other external characteristics. These have nothing to do with sexual acts, but are all part of gay (and straight!) experiences.

Debate question: Is gay life all about "homosexual" "acts?" Is there more to the LGB experience than sex? Should LGB people have fewer rights because some conservative Christians don't like gay sex?
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #61

Post by Danmark »

East of Eden wrote:
Danmark wrote: East of Eden wrote:
Haven wrote:
Under your own assumptions, how is that rational? If a creator god exists, he/she/it created gay people to be gay.
He didn't create them gay, that happened in the fall, just as many other human negative pathologies.
Why would he/she/it then command them not to pursue the relationships that he/she/it designed them to want?
He didn't design them to want that, any more than He designed cancer or alcoholism.
I find this "fall" excuse just about the biggest and most illogical contrivance imaginable. This version of the 'Christian' excuse theology says that God created everything, BUT he isn't responsible for his creation because of 'the fall.'
He gave us free will, and Adam and Eve misused theirs, just as you misuse yours. Or would you rather we have been robots, forced to obey?
It's unadulterated horsefeathers invented to get this mythical, non existent all knowing all powerful 'god' off the hook for what he created. Somehow this 'fall' nonsense resulted in 5 or 10% of people being born into same sex preference.
Actually about 2-3%.
But the other 90 to 95% are not affected by this 'fall.'
Huh? They are equally lost, short of faith in Christ's atoning death on the cross.
I wonder how much codswallop like this can be swallowed before it is thrown up as the vomit it is.
Debate is better than name-calling. Amazing what some get away with here.
Calling your philosophy, AKA 'theology,' 'vomit' is not 'name calling.' It is a colorful description that accurately defines your claims about this disgusting belief that justifies the torture and killing of a man to 'atone' for evil while at the same time continues to attempt to justify calling people you disagree with 'perverts.'

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #62

Post by East of Eden »

Danmark wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Danmark wrote: East of Eden wrote:
Haven wrote:
Under your own assumptions, how is that rational? If a creator god exists, he/she/it created gay people to be gay.
He didn't create them gay, that happened in the fall, just as many other human negative pathologies.
Why would he/she/it then command them not to pursue the relationships that he/she/it designed them to want?
He didn't design them to want that, any more than He designed cancer or alcoholism.
I find this "fall" excuse just about the biggest and most illogical contrivance imaginable. This version of the 'Christian' excuse theology says that God created everything, BUT he isn't responsible for his creation because of 'the fall.'
He gave us free will, and Adam and Eve misused theirs, just as you misuse yours. Or would you rather we have been robots, forced to obey?
It's unadulterated horsefeathers invented to get this mythical, non existent all knowing all powerful 'god' off the hook for what he created. Somehow this 'fall' nonsense resulted in 5 or 10% of people being born into same sex preference.
Actually about 2-3%.
But the other 90 to 95% are not affected by this 'fall.'
Huh? They are equally lost, short of faith in Christ's atoning death on the cross.
I wonder how much codswallop like this can be swallowed before it is thrown up as the vomit it is.
Debate is better than name-calling. Amazing what some get away with here.
Calling your philosophy, AKA 'theology,' 'vomit' is not 'name calling.'
It certainly is, and you are insulting several billion Christians. My ideas about sodomy are nothing new, they have been considered normal in the church for 2,000 years.
]It is a colorful description that accurately defines your claims about this disgusting belief
Do I get to call the gay agenda 'disgusting' and 'vomit'?
that justifies the torture and killing of a man to 'atone' for evil while at the same time continues to attempt to justify calling people you disagree with 'perverts.'
I don't mean it as an insult but in the fullest sense of the word:

"Perversion is a type of human behavior that deviates from that which is understood to be orthodox or normal. Although the term perversion can refer to a variety of forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are considered particularly abnormal, repulsive or obsessive."

Wikipedia

Is the term 'sexual perversion' also off-limits?
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #63

Post by Danmark »

East of Eden wrote: ... and you are insulting several billion Christians. My ideas about sodomy are nothing new, they have been considered normal in the church for 2,000 years.

Do I get to call the gay agenda 'disgusting' and 'vomit'?

I don't mean it as an insult but in the fullest sense of the word:

"Perversion is a type of human behavior that deviates from that which is understood to be orthodox or normal. Although the term perversion can refer to a variety of forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are considered particularly abnormal, repulsive or obsessive."
No, how could calling someone 'perverted' possibly be considered an insult?

You called PEOPLE 'perverted.' I called a philosophy/theology 'vomit.'

Glorifying the torture and killing of Jesus, a human being' by calling it a necessary 'atonement' is worse than 'vomit.' It is certainly immoral by any objective standard. These beliefs may be 'traditional' in some circles, but that does not mean that they call for an immoral God to justify them. It is precisely because of the hatred of homosexuals and the justification of blood sacrifice that many people reject this absurd, literal interpretation of much of scripture and the Pauline blasphemies in particular. I am proud to be in the group of people that hold logic, reason and true, objective morality in higher esteem than those who say, "I believe because it is 'tradition' and "I believe in God no matter what he says."

That these 'traditions' are used to deny respect and equal rights to others because you call them 'perverted' is an abominable belief only justified by the irrationality of your religion.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #64

Post by East of Eden »

Danmark wrote:
East of Eden wrote: ... and you are insulting several billion Christians. My ideas about sodomy are nothing new, they have been considered normal in the church for 2,000 years.

Do I get to call the gay agenda 'disgusting' and 'vomit'?

I don't mean it as an insult but in the fullest sense of the word:

"Perversion is a type of human behavior that deviates from that which is understood to be orthodox or normal. Although the term perversion can refer to a variety of forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are considered particularly abnormal, repulsive or obsessive."
No, how could calling someone 'perverted' possibly be considered an insult?

You called PEOPLE 'perverted.'
No, I called their acts that, 'their perversion'. People can change, an act is not a person. That word comes from the Bible, or are you against quoting that now?

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Romans 1:26-27).
I called a philosophy/theology 'vomit.'

Glorifying the torture and killing of Jesus, a human being' by calling it a necessary 'atonement' is worse than 'vomit.' It is certainly immoral by any objective standard. These beliefs may be 'traditional' in some circles, but that does not mean that they call for an immoral God to justify them. It is precisely because of the hatred of homosexuals
I don't hate gays any more than I hate alcoholics. You seem to have lots of hatred of Christians.
and the justification of blood sacrifice that many people reject this absurd, literal interpretation of much of scripture and the Pauline blasphemies in particular.
Nothing new about people rejecting God, it's been around since Eve thought she knew better. The NT calls it the broad road that leads to destruction.
I am proud to be in the group of people that hold logic, reason and true, objective morality in higher esteem than those who say, "I believe because it is 'tradition' and "I believe in God no matter what he says."
Again, I reject your simplistic caricature. You honestly think people are Christians because of those things?
That these 'traditions' are used to deny respect and equal rights to others because you call them 'perverted' is an abominable belief only justified by the irrationality of your religion.
More name calling. We disagree, I don't think rights should be granted based on what the Bible, not to mention human reason, calls 'perversion'.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

KCKID
Guru
Posts: 1534
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:29 pm
Location: Townsville, Australia

Post #65

Post by KCKID »

Hey, I just received an email prompt that this thread has been reactivated. So, here I am, always ready to 'fight for the cause' . . . :D
master_blaster wrote: Well, I'm homosexual and often am left with similar questions. When i hear someone rant about how the sex act is evil/immoral/weird/disgusting, i'm just really confused because it seems like massive overreaction. When someone concedes that people are likely born gay but then finish with "but the sex act is still a choice of course", it's like they're desperately clinging to a way to condemn homosexuality still.

Yes, technically homosexual acts are a choice. So I should go thru life alone and suppress my feelings forever, and not so much as jerk off either? How many heteros never partake in premarital/extramarital sex or use birth control? The hypocrisy is staggering. I fail to see the big deal either. The sex act is so minor. Whether i act on those attractions, i like being gay because as you say, there's a lot more to it than that. I love guys and love being open about it. It feels amazing.
East of Eden wrote:From a Christian perspective (which I realize you may not care about), those with same-sex feelings are in the same situation as a single heterosexual or a married man in a bad, sexless marriage, i.e. they aren't to act on those feelings.
Is a single heterosexual 'forced' to remain single? Did a married man in a bad, sexless marriage arrive at this situation by being 'forced' into it? Is he 'forced' to remain in this situation? The latter, according to the Bible, perhaps. But, how are those examples in any way similar to a homosexual person who is 'forced' into life-long abstinence as long as they follow the teachings of mainstream Christianity?
East of Eden wrote:I'm not being a hypocrite here, when I married at 30 I was a virgin. My wife appreciates that.
But, that's you. Not everybody is you. Moreover, no one 'forced' you to remain a virgin for the rest of your life. You eventually chose to marry and, I assume, are not a virgin now .... ;)
East of Eden wrote:It is always possible to do the will of God.
Ah, 'the will of God' cliche. Let's see, 'the will of God' commands that I stone to death adulterers, disobedient children, girls who are not virgins before they marry*, idolaters, both the person AND the animal involved in bestiality, those who profane the Sabbath, oh ...the list is so long. Is this 'the will of God' or do we rather cherry-pick the 'will of God' commands that are more civilized and palatable?

* How would this have been determined and then reported? Also, what if the male was not a virgin? Hmmm . . .
Last edited by KCKID on Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #66

Post by East of Eden »

KCKID wrote: Hey, I just received an email prompt that this thread has been reactivated. So, here I am, always ready to 'fight for the cause' . . . :D
master_blaster wrote: Well, I'm homosexual and often am left with similar questions. When i hear someone rant about how the sex act is evil/immoral/weird/disgusting, i'm just really confused because it seems like massive overreaction. When someone concedes that people are likely born gay but then finish with "but the sex act is still a choice of course", it's like they're desperately clinging to a way to condemn homosexuality still.

Yes, technically homosexual acts are a choice. So I should go thru life alone and suppress my feelings forever, and not so much as jerk off either? How many heteros never partake in premarital/extramarital sex or use birth control? The hypocrisy is staggering. I fail to see the big deal either. The sex act is so minor. Whether i act on those attractions, i like being gay because as you say, there's a lot more to it than that. I love guys and love being open about it. It feels amazing.
East of Eden wrote:From a Christian perspective (which I realize you may not care about), those with same-sex feelings are in the same situation as a single heterosexual or a married man in a bad, sexless marriage, i.e. they aren't to act on those feelings.
Is a single heterosexual 'forced' to remain single? Did a married man in a bad, sexless marriage arrive at this situation by being 'forced' into it? Is he 'forced' to remain in this situation? The latter, according to the Bible, perhaps. But, how are those examples in any way similar to a homosexual person who is 'forced' into life-long abstinence as long as they follow the teachings of mainstream Christianity?
East of Eden wrote:I'm not being a hypocrite here, when I married at 30 I was a virgin. My wife appreciates that.
But, that's you. Not everybody is you. Moreover, no one 'forced' you to remain a virgin for the rest of your life. You eventually chose to marry and, I assume, are not a virgin now .... ;)
East of Eden wrote:It is always possible to do the will of God.
Ah, 'the will of God' cliche. Let's see, 'the will of God' commands that I stone to death adulterers, disobedient children, girls who are not virgins before they marry, idolaters, both the person AND the animal involved in bestiality, those who profane the Sabbath, oh ...the list is so long. Is this 'the will of God' or do we rather cherry-pick the 'will of God' commands that are more civilized and palatable?
If we were bronze-age members of the theocracy of Israel you might have a point. The will of God would be not to commit adultery, for example, to incur such punishment.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

KCKID
Guru
Posts: 1534
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:29 pm
Location: Townsville, Australia

Post #67

Post by KCKID »

East of Eden wrote:
KCKID wrote: Hey, I just received an email prompt that this thread has been reactivated. So, here I am, always ready to 'fight for the cause' . . . :D
master_blaster wrote: Well, I'm homosexual and often am left with similar questions. When i hear someone rant about how the sex act is evil/immoral/weird/disgusting, i'm just really confused because it seems like massive overreaction. When someone concedes that people are likely born gay but then finish with "but the sex act is still a choice of course", it's like they're desperately clinging to a way to condemn homosexuality still.

Yes, technically homosexual acts are a choice. So I should go thru life alone and suppress my feelings forever, and not so much as jerk off either? How many heteros never partake in premarital/extramarital sex or use birth control? The hypocrisy is staggering. I fail to see the big deal either. The sex act is so minor. Whether i act on those attractions, i like being gay because as you say, there's a lot more to it than that. I love guys and love being open about it. It feels amazing.
East of Eden wrote:From a Christian perspective (which I realize you may not care about), those with same-sex feelings are in the same situation as a single heterosexual or a married man in a bad, sexless marriage, i.e. they aren't to act on those feelings.
Is a single heterosexual 'forced' to remain single? Did a married man in a bad, sexless marriage arrive at this situation by being 'forced' into it? Is he 'forced' to remain in this situation? The latter, according to the Bible, perhaps. But, how are those examples in any way similar to a homosexual person who is 'forced' into life-long abstinence as long as they follow the teachings of mainstream Christianity?
East of Eden wrote:I'm not being a hypocrite here, when I married at 30 I was a virgin. My wife appreciates that.
But, that's you. Not everybody is you. Moreover, no one 'forced' you to remain a virgin for the rest of your life. You eventually chose to marry and, I assume, are not a virgin now .... ;)
East of Eden wrote:It is always possible to do the will of God.
Ah, 'the will of God' cliche. Let's see, 'the will of God' commands that I stone to death adulterers, disobedient children, girls who are not virgins before they marry, idolaters, both the person AND the animal involved in bestiality, those who profane the Sabbath, oh ...the list is so long. Is this 'the will of God' or do we rather cherry-pick the 'will of God' commands that are more civilized and palatable?
If we were bronze-age members of the theocracy of Israel you might have a point. The will of God would be not to commit adultery, for example, to incur such punishment.
So, obedience to 'the will of God' and its many variations is dependent on the time that one happens to live in ...right?

Well, okay . . .

User avatar
Haven
Guru
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
Location: Tremonton, Utah
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 52 times
Contact:

Post #68

Post by Haven »

[color=brown]East of Eden[/color] wrote: Was Jesus alone and miserable?


I don't know, he's been dead for nearly 2,000 years and left no records behind.

[color=orange]East of Eden[/color] wrote:I wasn't when I was single.


Two things:

1) For the vast majority of people, loneliness is miserable. That's why people seek out partners.

2) You had the option of getting married. According to your worldview, I can't, simply because I happened to be born gay. There is no empirical evidence that same-sex relationships are harmful, and so no rational reason to prohibit them. So, how is prohibiting them anything more than blatant bigotry?

[color=green]E of E[/color] wrote:
I reject your caricature of the Bible.


It's not a caricature, but an accurate representation of the age, authorship, and content of the Bible. You base your homophobia on an ancient book full of absurdities and contradictions, and I rightly categorized the folly of that position.

[color=olive]E of E[/color] wrote:
He didn't create them gay, that happened in the fall, just as many other human negative pathologies.


This is absurd for several reasons:

1) The Christian god is said to be the creator of all things. Presumably, that includes gay people. "The fall" is irrelevant to this.

2) The Christian god is said to be omnipotent. From this and (1), it logically follows that he both allows and causes people to be born gay.

3) If the second Genesis creation myth is to be taken literally, the Biblical god orchestrated "the fall," making him responsible for it. In addition, Revelation 13:8 implies that the Christian god intentionally caused "the fall." From this, it follows that even if gayness is a product of the fall, the Biblical god is still its author, and the injustice of homophobia remains.

4) There is no empirical evidence that being gay is a "negative pathology." To say it's pathological is to beg the question for your worldview, which is fallacious.

[color=darkblue]E of E[/color] wrote:
He didn't design them to want that, any more than He designed cancer or alcoholism.


Cancer and alcoholism are both demonstrably harmful. Homosexuality isn't, so comparing it to cancer and alcoholism is disingenuous at best.
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 7954
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Post #69

Post by Wootah »

:warning: Moderator Final Warning
Is the term 'sexual perversion' also off-limits?
I can use 'abomination' like God said in the Bible if you prefer.

Hi East of Eden,

This is a civil debate forum because we want people from different beliefs to be able to interact and discuss those beliefs in a safe place. You need to consider others in your choice of words.

Words like abomination or pervert are ad hominems.

This means that to use a word like perversion you need to justify it first and think whether you still need to use it second.

This goes for words like, evil, homophobe, racist, bigot, leftie, socialist, communist, fox news watcher and so on.

When we say this is a civil debating forum we hope that our members extend that civility first to the person they are debating against.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

Looking for head to head debates, especially on contradictions or the Trinity. PM me your topic.

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Edit preferences to remove all the fluff: ucp.php?i=ucp_prefs&mode=view

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #70

Post by East of Eden »

KCKID wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
KCKID wrote: Hey, I just received an email prompt that this thread has been reactivated. So, here I am, always ready to 'fight for the cause' . . . :D
master_blaster wrote: Well, I'm homosexual and often am left with similar questions. When i hear someone rant about how the sex act is evil/immoral/weird/disgusting, i'm just really confused because it seems like massive overreaction. When someone concedes that people are likely born gay but then finish with "but the sex act is still a choice of course", it's like they're desperately clinging to a way to condemn homosexuality still.

Yes, technically homosexual acts are a choice. So I should go thru life alone and suppress my feelings forever, and not so much as jerk off either? How many heteros never partake in premarital/extramarital sex or use birth control? The hypocrisy is staggering. I fail to see the big deal either. The sex act is so minor. Whether i act on those attractions, i like being gay because as you say, there's a lot more to it than that. I love guys and love being open about it. It feels amazing.
East of Eden wrote:From a Christian perspective (which I realize you may not care about), those with same-sex feelings are in the same situation as a single heterosexual or a married man in a bad, sexless marriage, i.e. they aren't to act on those feelings.
Is a single heterosexual 'forced' to remain single? Did a married man in a bad, sexless marriage arrive at this situation by being 'forced' into it? Is he 'forced' to remain in this situation? The latter, according to the Bible, perhaps. But, how are those examples in any way similar to a homosexual person who is 'forced' into life-long abstinence as long as they follow the teachings of mainstream Christianity?
East of Eden wrote:I'm not being a hypocrite here, when I married at 30 I was a virgin. My wife appreciates that.
But, that's you. Not everybody is you. Moreover, no one 'forced' you to remain a virgin for the rest of your life. You eventually chose to marry and, I assume, are not a virgin now .... ;)
East of Eden wrote:It is always possible to do the will of God.
Ah, 'the will of God' cliche. Let's see, 'the will of God' commands that I stone to death adulterers, disobedient children, girls who are not virgins before they marry, idolaters, both the person AND the animal involved in bestiality, those who profane the Sabbath, oh ...the list is so long. Is this 'the will of God' or do we rather cherry-pick the 'will of God' commands that are more civilized and palatable?
If we were bronze-age members of the theocracy of Israel you might have a point. The will of God would be not to commit adultery, for example, to incur such punishment.
So, obedience to 'the will of God' and its many variations is dependent on the time that one happens to live in ...right?


Not really, adultery was wrong on the OT and the NT, although the punishments were different.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

Post Reply