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 ♥

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

Post #81

Post by KCKID »

99percentatheism wrote:
KCKID wrote:
KCKID wrote:So, obedience to 'the will of God' and its many variations is dependent on the time that one happens to live in ...right?
East of Eden wrote:Not really, adultery was wrong on the OT and the NT, although the punishments were different.
If you're still participating East of Eden, where in scripture were the changes for the punishment for adultery made? Also, the Christian catch-cry is that God never changes so how could there have been a change?
When have two wrongs ever made a right in the Bible? We have Judah committing adultery with his daughter in law and he wasn't stoned. Nor she. Those wrongs weren't covered up.
My question was how, why and when were changes made to the OT commands and the penalties for breaking those commands when the Christian catch-cry is "God never changes ...i.e. God is the same today as yesterday and will remain so tomorrow." Clearly, this is a glaring contradiction as your Judah and his daughter-in-law reference indicates.

Besides the man who was ordered to be killed for gathering firewood on the Sabbath, are there ANY examples of "God's penalties" ever having been carried out? If not, why then did God give them in the first place? How seriously ARE we to take any of the 600-plus commands in the law books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. if "God" gave them - or some - only to revoke them later?

Or, am I thinking too much as usual?

99percentatheism
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3083
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:49 am

Post #82

Post by 99percentatheism »

KCKID wrote:
99percentatheism wrote:
KCKID wrote:
KCKID wrote:So, obedience to 'the will of God' and its many variations is dependent on the time that one happens to live in ...right?
East of Eden wrote:Not really, adultery was wrong on the OT and the NT, although the punishments were different.
If you're still participating East of Eden, where in scripture were the changes for the punishment for adultery made? Also, the Christian catch-cry is that God never changes so how could there have been a change?
When have two wrongs ever made a right in the Bible? We have Judah committing adultery with his daughter in law and he wasn't stoned. Nor she. Those wrongs weren't covered up.
My question was how, why and when were changes made to the OT commands and the penalties for breaking those commands when the Christian catch-cry is "God never changes ...i.e. God is the same today as yesterday and will remain so tomorrow." Clearly, this is a glaring contradiction as your Judah and his daughter-in-law reference indicates.

Besides the man who was ordered to be killed for gathering firewood on the Sabbath, are there ANY examples of "God's penalties" ever having been carried out? If not, why then did God give them in the first place? How seriously ARE we to take any of the 600-plus commands in the law books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. if "God" gave them - or some - only to revoke them later?

Or, am I thinking too much as usual?
It's very clear that Israel didn't follow God's commands all that often. That is why people like Moses needed to plea for their safety time and time again. We sometimes forget that salvation is not just a corporate offering but individual as well. I mean, when did Samson become a man of God? His behavior robbed him of that qualification until it changed. After his physical eyes were taken away and all of his "pride" in it. This wasn't God's fault, it was his willingness to engage in a lifestyle and a behavior that caused his physical and spiritual condition to get him to the place of depravity from which he was very lucky to be able to find his way out of. But notice that his story is not one of excuse making or the grasping of some kind of congenital condition for his sexuality and rebellion to to be excused away.

This is similar to the story of Ebenezer Scrooge. How many people look to his name as an epithet when history going forward from his "change in spirit and behavior" would have him be the kind of man most men should wish to be?

ten10ths
Banned
Banned
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:32 am

Re: Gay life vs. "homosexual" "acts"

Post #83

Post by ten10ths »

Haven wrote: 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?
Everyone has their own lifestyle. If someone doesn't like another's lifestyle, they shouldn't partake in it.
There's no reason that any one group of people should have less rights than another group when it comes to their sexuality. Saying so is rather silly I'd say

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Gay life vs. "homosexual" "acts"

Post #84

Post by shnarkle »

Haven wrote:
[color=darkred]WinePusher[/color] wrote: I don't consider anything about homosexuality to be immoral.
Although gay sex can't lead to procreation, it can increase the happiness and relational bond between couples who engage in it, which may have wider benefits to the human community in terms of increasing creativity, decreasing depression and crime, and strengthening families and marriages.

only about 8-10% of the global population is lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

Gay male sex can be safe with proper protection (HIV screening, condoms, etc.), and there is zero chance of HIV transmission within an exclusive monogamous relationship between two men.


To say that gay sex "can" or "may" do something isn't saying much as it can also just as easily lead to unhappiness, increased depression and crime. Gay men tend to experience more depression and live shorter lives regardless of whether they're married. The problem with this idea that gay sex can strengthen marriages is that the word "marry" comes form a Latin word that means "to impregnate". With that in mind, gay sex serves no useful purpose to the original intent of marriage. However in our modern society marriage has in many cases ceased to serve as a legitimate means of reproduction so only those institutions which are sanctioning biological reproduction have an argument against it. I have yet to see one use it as a defense. If there arethen they should be able to retain that right, and be able to exclude anyone who isn't interested in this form of sanctioned procreation. There is no point in granting someone a right that they are incapable of performing in the first place.

If one takes the combined total of lesbian, gay and bisexuals in the world it still won't amount to 8%.

Anal sex is unhealthy even with screening, condoms etc. Semen deposited in the rectum has a deleterious effect on the immune system. It wears it down over time; it doesn't belong there. Two men with no evidence of HIV, and condoms can do enough damage to cause infection. The information provided by the Centers for Disease Control is presented without regard for religious doctrines. It is graphic and conclusive.

User avatar
Talishi
Guru
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:31 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Gay life vs. "homosexual" "acts"

Post #85

Post by Talishi »

shnarkle wrote: If one takes the combined total of lesbian, gay and bisexuals in the world it still won't amount to 8%.
If one takes the combined total of Americans it amounts to less than five percent of the world population. And yet many Americans think the universe revolves around them.
Thank you for playing Debating Christianity & Religion!

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Gay life vs. "homosexual" "acts"

Post #86

Post by shnarkle »

Talishi wrote:
shnarkle wrote: If one takes the combined total of lesbian, gay and bisexuals in the world it still won't amount to 8%.
If one takes the combined total of Americans it amounts to less than five percent of the world population. And yet many Americans think the universe revolves around them.
Evidently you haven't taken a good look at the night sky. This is actually easy to do. Try this: Go out tonight sometime between 10 pm and 4 am, and take a picture of the sky. You'll have to use a very slow shutter speed to do this. Then wait six months and do the exact same thing. With the exception of the stars that are below the southern horizon (in the winter), the night sky is exactly the same.

Do you understand the ramifications of this? Six months from now the earth and us on it are on the other side of the sun, right? So at night we should be looking at all of those stars that we couldn't see now because the sun was in our direct line of sight during the day. If you're having trouble visualizing this, make a model.

The point is that for this to be true means that all those stars that we know are hundreds of thousands of light years away from us must travel more than double that speed to get to the other side of the universe in order for us to see them in the exact same place. Therefore, it is inescapable that the universe is revolving around us.

When one factors in the fact that this solar system is traveling at over 66 thousand miles an hour in a galaxy that is moving over half a million miles an hour the speed those stars have to be traveling becomes exponentially higher.

Of course there's always the old analogy of the conductor releasing the train brake, causing some to ponder whether it the train that is moving or just simply the earth moving beneath it.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2104
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1356 times
Been thanked: 517 times

Re: Gay life vs. "homosexual" "acts"

Post #87

Post by benchwarmer »

shnarkle wrote:
Talishi wrote:
shnarkle wrote: If one takes the combined total of lesbian, gay and bisexuals in the world it still won't amount to 8%.
If one takes the combined total of Americans it amounts to less than five percent of the world population. And yet many Americans think the universe revolves around them.
Evidently you haven't taken a good look at the night sky. This is actually easy to do. Try this: Go out tonight sometime between 10 pm and 4 am, and take a picture of the sky. You'll have to use a very slow shutter speed to do this. Then wait six months and do the exact same thing. With the exception of the stars that are below the southern horizon (in the winter), the night sky is exactly the same.

Do you understand the ramifications of this? Six months from now the earth and us on it are on the other side of the sun, right? So at night we should be looking at all of those stars that we couldn't see now because the sun was in our direct line of sight during the day. If you're having trouble visualizing this, make a model.

The point is that for this to be true means that all those stars that we know are hundreds of thousands of light years away from us must travel more than double that speed to get to the other side of the universe in order for us to see them in the exact same place. Therefore, it is inescapable that the universe is revolving around us.

When one factors in the fact that this solar system is traveling at over 66 thousand miles an hour in a galaxy that is moving over half a million miles an hour the speed those stars have to be traveling becomes exponentially higher.

Of course there's always the old analogy of the conductor releasing the train brake, causing some to ponder whether it the train that is moving or just simply the earth moving beneath it.
The only thing evident here is that you are using a simplistic 2 dimensional thought experiment rather than the actual 3 dimensional reality of how the earth is tilted and how it rotates around the sun.

This link provides some insight:

http://www.space.com/10821-night-sky-ch ... asons.html

More answers are readily available via google search.

How we've segued from the OP to astronomy is a little baffling, but I guess we do like to argue about anything :)

User avatar
Hector Barbosa
Apprentice
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Scandinavia/UK

Re: Gay life vs. "homosexual" "acts"

Post #88

Post by Hector Barbosa »

Hayven wrote: 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?
Hmm..a lot of interesting questions and points there. I very much agree with you that gay life and homosexual acts is not the same, any more than regular life is just sexual acts. Of cause gays just like any others do plenty more things than what is found outside of the bedroom.

However they would not likely be labelled "gay" or "homosexual" if they did not do sexual acts. So I think its obvious there is a sexual connection in this label.

I do not understand how you can argue that the Bible does not condemn same sex marriage. I think it is very clear that it does, and I would not be tough to find evidence of that, but I am sure you have read those. So I would be curious how you would define these scriptures differently.

Is gay life all about "homosexual" acts? No of cause not, but by definition homosexuality implies same sex-acts or desire for same-sex acts (attraction).
Is there more to LGB experience than sex? Both yes and no. Of cause again LGB's experience something other than sex, but being LGB's ARE terms to define a specific kind of sexuality, so it does imply sex. Would you call yourself a football player if you did not play football or a painter if you didn't paint?

Should LGB's have fewer rights because conservative Christians don't like gay sex? No of cause not, human rights has nothing to do with sexuality or what kind of sex you like.

That said, there has been a lot of debates about if LGB's should be allowed to marry or not.
But honestly what is the point? This argument is rarely heard in Europe because you can do the same things while not being married as being married.

So why do US LGB's care so much about marriage rights? What's the point? Why would they care?

I can only think of 3 reason's
1. Because marriages can give tax benefits some places.
2. Because marriage gives a social status and accept some places.
3. To upset religious people.

Marriage has traditionally been a religious tradition.
Now you may argue that there is a God and that none of the current religious texts come from God, and so God would have no objection to or may even want LGB's to marry. But it is tough to see how this argument can hold within the older religions, especially the abrahamic religions.

If the argument to marry as rights is just about status, or money then the real issue really has nothing to do with marriage as a institution, but rather social acceptance of this type of relationship.

So the only way I can really see a moral argument for LGB's to marry, would be if they create new religions and scriptures and reject the in my opinion already flawed religions.

If we conclude there is a God, then God has not prevented LGB practice, and that I think is the greatest argument that there is no way to justify LGB's having less legal rights than others in anything, even if LGB's may lack moral reason for institutions like marriage.

steellord123
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 6:24 am

Re: Gay life vs. "homosexual" "acts"

Post #89

Post by steellord123 »

Hector Barbosa wrote:
Hayven wrote: 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?
Hmm..a lot of interesting questions and points there. I very much agree with you that gay life and homosexual acts is not the same, any more than regular life is just sexual acts. Of cause gays just like any others do plenty more things than what is found outside of the bedroom.

However they would not likely be labelled "gay" or "homosexual" if they did not do sexual acts. So I think its obvious there is a sexual connection in this label.

I do not understand how you can argue that the Bible does not condemn same sex marriage. I think it is very clear that it does, and I would not be tough to find evidence of that, but I am sure you have read those. So I would be curious how you would define these scriptures differently.

Is gay life all about "homosexual" acts? No of cause not, but by definition homosexuality implies same sex-acts or desire for same-sex acts (attraction).
Is there more to LGB experience than sex? Both yes and no. Of cause again LGB's experience something other than sex, but being LGB's ARE terms to define a specific kind of sexuality, so it does imply sex. Would you call yourself a football player if you did not play football or a painter if you didn't paint?

Should LGB's have fewer rights because conservative Christians don't like gay sex? No of cause not, human rights has nothing to do with sexuality or what kind of sex you like.

That said, there has been a lot of debates about if LGB's should be allowed to marry or not.
But honestly what is the point? This argument is rarely heard in Europe because you can do the same things while not being married as being married.

So why do US LGB's care so much about marriage rights? What's the point? Why would they care?

I can only think of 3 reason's
1. Because marriages can give tax benefits some places.
2. Because marriage gives a social status and accept some places.
3. To upset religious people.

Marriage has traditionally been a religious tradition.
Now you may argue that there is a God and that none of the current religious texts come from God, and so God would have no objection to or may even want LGB's to marry. But it is tough to see how this argument can hold within the older religions, especially the abrahamic religions.

If the argument to marry as rights is just about status, or money then the real issue really has nothing to do with marriage as a institution, but rather social acceptance of this type of relationship.

So the only way I can really see a moral argument for LGB's to marry, would be if they create new religions and scriptures and reject the in my opinion already flawed religions.

If we conclude there is a God, then God has not prevented LGB practice, and that I think is the greatest argument that there is no way to justify LGB's having less legal rights than others in anything, even if LGB's may lack moral reason for institutions like marriage.
It's strange that you seem to get the reasons they would want to marry, but miss so much of specifics. In the US there's over 1000 rights tied to marriage and until the supreme court the news was full of outrages such as denied hospital visitation, child custody, inheritance, court testimony, immigration. There's so many reasons in fact that pissing off the religious would be way down the list

I agree though that the constant attempt to distinguish between gay identity and gay acts isn't going to win many over. Generally, the same who condemn gay acts condemn the identity just as much. And almost all homosexual men are sexually active, so this religious position isn't going to placate them either. It isn't like quitting smoking. Given that humans think about sex more than food, it's more like quitting food for them

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Gay life vs. "homosexual" "acts"

Post #90

Post by shnarkle »

benchwarmer wrote:
shnarkle wrote:
Talishi wrote:
shnarkle wrote: If one takes the combined total of lesbian, gay and bisexuals in the world it still won't amount to 8%.
If one takes the combined total of Americans it amounts to less than five percent of the world population. And yet many Americans think the universe revolves around them.
Evidently you haven't taken a good look at the night sky. This is actually easy to do. Try this: Go out tonight sometime between 10 pm and 4 am, and take a picture of the sky. You'll have to use a very slow shutter speed to do this. Then wait six months and do the exact same thing. With the exception of the stars that are below the southern horizon (in the winter), the night sky is exactly the same.

Do you understand the ramifications of this? Six months from now the earth and us on it are on the other side of the sun, right? So at night we should be looking at all of those stars that we couldn't see now because the sun was in our direct line of sight during the day. If you're having trouble visualizing this, make a model.

The point is that for this to be true means that all those stars that we know are hundreds of thousands of light years away from us must travel more than double that speed to get to the other side of the universe in order for us to see them in the exact same place. Therefore, it is inescapable that the universe is revolving around us.

When one factors in the fact that this solar system is traveling at over 66 thousand miles an hour in a galaxy that is moving over half a million miles an hour the speed those stars have to be traveling becomes exponentially higher.

Of course there's always the old analogy of the conductor releasing the train brake, causing some to ponder whether it the train that is moving or just simply the earth moving beneath it

The only thing evident here is that you are using a simplistic 2 dimensional thought experiment rather than the actual 3 dimensional reality of how the earth is tilted and how it rotates around the sun.
Sometimes evidence can be misleading. The fact is that I'm bored out of my mind and felt like spinning a little yarn to see if anyone was paying contention... but thanks for the links. Most people have never bothered to look up into the night sky for more than a few minutes. They don't know what's up there. Sometimes I even start thinking that it's just a bunch of little holes in a big black backdrop a few miles up.

This link provides some insight:

http://www.space.com/10821-night-sky-ch ... asons.html

More answers are readily available via google search.

How we've segued from the OP to astronomy is a little baffling, but I guess we do like to argue about anything :)[/quote]

At the moment I'd have to agree, which is to say your argument is false. ; )

Post Reply