I was wondering if anyone who considers homosexuality a sin, could tell me what is wrong with it.
I'm talking in the sense of utilitarian morals. How does homosexual intercourse, or homosexual marriage, increase the suffering in the world?
Homosexuality
Moderator: Moderators
Post #171
1)
That link also says popular perception of the gay population is 30%, which isn't based on anything. There hasn't been a gay census, so there's nothing definitive. However, that does not mean a growing tolerance in place of hatred by more and more straight people makes for a growing population of gays. "There seems to be a lot of gays around" is not evidence. Before, most were closeted for fear of their life, and the state actively promoted Christianity and straight relationships, etc.
2)
3)
And why should people welcome all opinions equally?
[center]
[/center]
I personally don't care whether same sex attraction is wholly biological, partly biological, or randomly decided upon. I'll go wherever the majority of evidence points to. Right now, the evidence points to prenatal hormones by and large. There may be other factors as well. But I'm not going to entertain the possibility that a gay pride parade or rally will just make young people think "cool I wanna be gay too!" That's not how it works.
I'm also not going to believe that conversion therapy works either. No amount of football playing and manly activities and forced masturbation is going to make someone have straight thoughts. That sort of thing leads to broken marriages later. Liking men has nothing to do with how masculine you are. I don't look like Justin Bieber. I don't have a lisp. I don't dress in drag. There are actually sub cultures of the gay community that are quite a bit more rugged than I am to put it lightly. They like football, guns, beer, hunting, and NASCAR probably.
4)
5)
How about this segment from a National Geographic program?
[center][yt][/yt]
[/center]
6)
It might also be the case that childhood trauma affects one's sexual fetishes later in life. But no one is on a crusade to treat people who liked being spanked in the bedroom as disturbed. Even if it were the case that trauma could cause gayness, dealing with the trauma won't necessarily erase the attraction and there's no real need to do so. That said, I think everyone could stand to benefit from a good therapist even if they don't have mental issues or a troubled history.
7)
Her book is entitled: Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. That should tell you that she's approaching the topic from a point of view that homosexuality is harmful or unnatural and not that of neutrality. You have to establish why homosexuality is harmful and pointing to childhood trauma does not necessitate that it is. Rather than address the abuse, she's trying to "treat" the sexual orientation/preference.
If her solutions are anything like Joseph Nicolosi's, whose name was mentioned next to hers in this Wikipedia entry, then I would definitely say their solutions are unhealthy and harmful:
In any case telling troubled people to engage in activities they don't like, and telling them to go to a church full of, to put it mildly, bullshit ideas regarding sex, and parenting, etc ... telling them they just need a bunch of bro friends, and encouraging them to marry and have kids to see if that will help -- it's extremely unethical because it damn sure won't reverse their feelings. It's not fair for women for a man to come out later down the road in marriage to say he's gay. This therapy sets people up for that sort of thing. It's literally creating Ted Haggards.
Now if people want to subject themselves to that, I can't condemn their voluntary choice, but I can certainly have an opinion on the harmful effects of that choice. And of course, if people, such as young adults and children are forced into this, or into a torturous regimen -- that is defacto harmful.
8)
Maybe you could elucidate for me how an article on epigenetics means that tolerating homosexuality leads to a future humanity that can't reproduce. This is an enormous leap in logic.
Help me understand what the hell you're talking about because I have yet to see any rational basis indicating homosexuality could be potentially harmful for society -- outside of rape or unsafe sex. But unsafe sex is a risk undertaken by any number of consenting people. Rape is forced, that's why is immoral.
-
That link explains that 10% has been a traditional estimate in the US. The poll I posted was a Gallup poll which tends to be conservative. The statistics they cite is based off of people who self identify as LGBT persons. It would not include people who aren't honest with themselves.
That link also says popular perception of the gay population is 30%, which isn't based on anything. There hasn't been a gay census, so there's nothing definitive. However, that does not mean a growing tolerance in place of hatred by more and more straight people makes for a growing population of gays. "There seems to be a lot of gays around" is not evidence. Before, most were closeted for fear of their life, and the state actively promoted Christianity and straight relationships, etc.
2)
Tolerance is not promotion. I tolerate hate groups, including Nazi gangs and Westboro Baptist Church, but I detest what those people stand for. Most Americans would probably feel the same way, all laws aside.Wissing wrote:You also mentioned "Is tolerance promotion? ... the law IMHO should be neutral...". I'm not really concerned with law when I ask if tolerance is promotion.
3)
Evidence is wanting on what exactly? On the biological determinants of same sex attraction? All you have done is present a variety of viewpoints, as if to teach the controversy and put little or scant evidence on an equal pedestal with an overwhelming majority of evidence.Wissing wrote:It just seems to me, so far, that the evidence is wanting, that the verdict is not out yet, and the issue is not clearly one sided. There is bias on both sides. People don't tolerate opposing opinion on this topic; instead, opinions are assumed to be fact.
And why should people welcome all opinions equally?
[center]
[/center]I personally don't care whether same sex attraction is wholly biological, partly biological, or randomly decided upon. I'll go wherever the majority of evidence points to. Right now, the evidence points to prenatal hormones by and large. There may be other factors as well. But I'm not going to entertain the possibility that a gay pride parade or rally will just make young people think "cool I wanna be gay too!" That's not how it works.
I'm also not going to believe that conversion therapy works either. No amount of football playing and manly activities and forced masturbation is going to make someone have straight thoughts. That sort of thing leads to broken marriages later. Liking men has nothing to do with how masculine you are. I don't look like Justin Bieber. I don't have a lisp. I don't dress in drag. There are actually sub cultures of the gay community that are quite a bit more rugged than I am to put it lightly. They like football, guns, beer, hunting, and NASCAR probably.
4)
This is generally how debate works. But if your opponent offers evidence that is stronger or if he points out problems with your sources, then you can't keep sticking to them.Wissing wrote:I've presented plenty of evidence... you dispute it, and provide your own. I see this going back and forth forever. If people are trying to maintain neutrality, they don't act like it.
5)
Well I am certainly no biologist. That video is part of a channel that talks about cool science facts on YouTube; it's quite popular. Also I trust Goat wouldn't be denying the reality of epigenetics. If Goat has a better command of biology than myself, I'd sure like to hear his take on epigenetics because I certainly haven't studied them.Wissing wrote:Darias, Goat has disputed your video. Goat, do you think that epigenetics itself is misinformation, or that just the video is misinformation?
How about this segment from a National Geographic program?
[center][yt][/yt]
[/center]
6)
While it could be possible that childhood trauma could have an affect on one's attraction for a certain gender or on one's sex-life later in life, Moberly does not simply suggest platonic male bonding to "remedy this." Read on further to see what I mean.Wissing wrote:The arguments above oppose 'reparative therapy' mostly on the grounds that it causes harm. However, I made the point that I'm not talking about *all* types of reparative therapy. Certainly, there are always wrong ways to go about something. I pointed out that the type of therapy presented by Moberly seems rather harmless, and has not been shown to cause harm. Shall we say that male bonding is psychologically harmful? That's all she means by reparative therapy.
It might also be the case that childhood trauma affects one's sexual fetishes later in life. But no one is on a crusade to treat people who liked being spanked in the bedroom as disturbed. Even if it were the case that trauma could cause gayness, dealing with the trauma won't necessarily erase the attraction and there's no real need to do so. That said, I think everyone could stand to benefit from a good therapist even if they don't have mental issues or a troubled history.
7)
How exactly does that quote counter my point? Do you know who else who has "Christian ideas that inform their views on homosexuality"? Fred Phelps. To be fair, the vast majority of Christians, whether hateful people or compassionate people, have doctrinal views that condemn homosexuality as unnatural, immoral, ungodly, or unhealthy. The fact that Moberly is a psychologist is not a plus; she knows just enough about Christian doctrine and just enough about therapy to be dangerous. She will be substituting dogma for help, impregnating religious ideas deep into the minds of her clients like something out of Inception.Wissing wrote:Darias, the source I provided did make several critical points against Moberly. However, if you read the psychology wiki, you'll find information
on Moberly that speaks to the contrary.The reason I provided that source was to show that ReligiousTolerance.org does not have very good sources for their information. Dead links, a comment by some guy named Ned posting on blogs... silly.Elizabeth Moberly is a British research psychologist and a theologian whose Christian ideas inform her views on homosexuality. During the early 1980s Moberly coined the term "reparative therapy."
Her book is entitled: Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. That should tell you that she's approaching the topic from a point of view that homosexuality is harmful or unnatural and not that of neutrality. You have to establish why homosexuality is harmful and pointing to childhood trauma does not necessitate that it is. Rather than address the abuse, she's trying to "treat" the sexual orientation/preference.
If her solutions are anything like Joseph Nicolosi's, whose name was mentioned next to hers in this Wikipedia entry, then I would definitely say their solutions are unhealthy and harmful:
Nicolosi later clarified that it's fine if men want to do things that are traditionally non masculine, so long as they have "appropriate masculine affirmation and support." But he's operating on the assumption that masculinity re-enforces straightness or that femininity makes one gay.Wikipedia: Reparative Therapy wrote:He should "(1) participate in sports activities, (2) avoid activities considered of interest to homosexuals, such [as] art museums, opera, symphonies, (3) avoid women unless it is for romantic contact, (4) increase time spent with heterosexual men in order to learn to mimic heterosexual male ways of walking, talking, and interacting with other heterosexual men, (5) Attend church and join a men’s church group, (6) attend reparative therapy group to discuss progress, or slips back into homosexuality, (7) become more assertive with women through flirting and dating, (8) begin heterosexual dating, (9) engage in heterosexual intercourse, (10) enter into heterosexual marriage, and (11) father children
In any case telling troubled people to engage in activities they don't like, and telling them to go to a church full of, to put it mildly, bullshit ideas regarding sex, and parenting, etc ... telling them they just need a bunch of bro friends, and encouraging them to marry and have kids to see if that will help -- it's extremely unethical because it damn sure won't reverse their feelings. It's not fair for women for a man to come out later down the road in marriage to say he's gay. This therapy sets people up for that sort of thing. It's literally creating Ted Haggards.
Now if people want to subject themselves to that, I can't condemn their voluntary choice, but I can certainly have an opinion on the harmful effects of that choice. And of course, if people, such as young adults and children are forced into this, or into a torturous regimen -- that is defacto harmful.
8)
Wissing you have this air of neutrality, which seems nice, but you're not coming at this topic from a neutral perspective in the least. You're looking for things that would indicate that homosexuality is harmful in some unknown way. And it's painful to the point of annoyance to see you sit here grasping at straws trying to figure out a way to make homosexuality wrong. Why are you holding out on some statistic to confirm your assumptions? What do you mean by harmful, and for who would it be harmful?Wissing wrote:However, it is very possible still, in my mind, after now 2 books and several articles by both sides, that it could be harmful in some unforseen way.
What would really be interesting is some raw data. Maybe like, an excel spreadsheet with nothing but numbers. Anyone know of where I might find something like that?
Maybe you could elucidate for me how an article on epigenetics means that tolerating homosexuality leads to a future humanity that can't reproduce. This is an enormous leap in logic.
Help me understand what the hell you're talking about because I have yet to see any rational basis indicating homosexuality could be potentially harmful for society -- outside of rape or unsafe sex. But unsafe sex is a risk undertaken by any number of consenting people. Rape is forced, that's why is immoral.
-
Post #172
*sigh*
I came here to figure out the 'choice' issue... I think I understand it slightly better because of what I have read.
That being said, I really don't think either of you are really paying attention to the points I've made.
Also, Darias, if you had read the references at the bottom of the page on the religioustolerance.org site that I posted, you would have realized right then why I had posted it, and not tried to use that site to make a point.
It's getting to where I feel obligated to reply just to defend myself... that's silly. That's not why I'm here, and I'm realizing it. I'm here to figure things out. I feel that I have put far more effort into this discussion than either of you. I actually made 2 separate trips to the library. I quoted authors and the dates and titles of their publications... verses the unreferenced quotes I see all the time from others. The best you've given me is the Balthazart article. I acknowledge that is a good article. But that's the only one.
Daniel, I posted at noon today, on my lunch break, and already you and Darias have both replied with page-long responses. I can't imagine that you're really put any time into researching and validating the information you've presented. If you'll remember, when I first paused for evidence, it took me a week. Meanwhile, you went on calling somebody Hitler in my absence.
And you come at me with this obligation:
Daniel, I simply do not have the background for this. I went to school for other things. Remember when I said this?
I'm intentionally leaning towards the opposite stance as you both, precisely because you argue so vehemently. That's just something I tend to do, I suppose. If you were hard-core anti-gay, I'd probly be taking the other side.
Forgive me for the long post. I mean no disrespect, but I feel that is not a shared sentiment. I will be taking a break to do some more reading on the topic of family, and what makes it tick, and why it might be important in our culture. If you're still here in a few weeks, I'd love to continue.
I came here to figure out the 'choice' issue... I think I understand it slightly better because of what I have read.
That being said, I really don't think either of you are really paying attention to the points I've made.
No amount of football playing and manly activities and forced masturbation is going to make someone have straight thoughts.
Don't worry, they're not. Here's what I got out of it: the object that is being repaired is not "the gay person, of his gayness", but "the lack of relationship with a strong male figure".If her solutions are anything like Joseph Nicolosi's...
Also, Darias, if you had read the references at the bottom of the page on the religioustolerance.org site that I posted, you would have realized right then why I had posted it, and not tried to use that site to make a point.
It's getting to where I feel obligated to reply just to defend myself... that's silly. That's not why I'm here, and I'm realizing it. I'm here to figure things out. I feel that I have put far more effort into this discussion than either of you. I actually made 2 separate trips to the library. I quoted authors and the dates and titles of their publications... verses the unreferenced quotes I see all the time from others. The best you've given me is the Balthazart article. I acknowledge that is a good article. But that's the only one.
Daniel, I posted at noon today, on my lunch break, and already you and Darias have both replied with page-long responses. I can't imagine that you're really put any time into researching and validating the information you've presented. If you'll remember, when I first paused for evidence, it took me a week. Meanwhile, you went on calling somebody Hitler in my absence.
And you come at me with this obligation:
lets deal with it in this manner
1. List potential problems with toleration of LGBT individuals
2. We address each issue line by line.
Daniel, I simply do not have the background for this. I went to school for other things. Remember when I said this?
I stand by that. I claim that I myself am, in fact, your lesser when it comes to this topic. I claim that, since I have not specialized in this topic, I lean on the information of those I trust, and of long-standing precedent, rather than brand new research from sources I can't verify. But I back that up by actually doing research anyway, just to be diligent, despite my belief that research is nothing without personal experience.I still haven't said anything about legislation. We're not talking about the government. We're talking about whether people generally accept this or not. Like I said, I'm all for change, but I think we ought to be careful. This is something that could revolutionize the way families operate, how kids are raised... it's not likely to show an effect for many generations. It's a big puzzle - I don't claim to know whether or not it will be harmful. Instead I claim that no matter how much research you do, you're not gonna know either. I haven't specialized in the liberal arts; any research I do will be biased, and I'm sure anybody on here can one-up me on anything I may find. It's not that precedent is absolute truth; it's that precedent is all I've got. My parents both have masters degrees in Journalism from an accredited university. They've done their research on this topic. They spent many years, in fact, doing just that. Nothing I can do is gonna be better than that. So yes, I'm being naïve, uneducated, and ignorant, and taking their word for it.
I'm intentionally leaning towards the opposite stance as you both, precisely because you argue so vehemently. That's just something I tend to do, I suppose. If you were hard-core anti-gay, I'd probly be taking the other side.
Forgive me for the long post. I mean no disrespect, but I feel that is not a shared sentiment. I will be taking a break to do some more reading on the topic of family, and what makes it tick, and why it might be important in our culture. If you're still here in a few weeks, I'd love to continue.
Post #173
None of us here are experts on biology that I am aware of. All we can do is appeal to expert opinions and data -- and the only way to do that without committing the appeal to authority fallacy is to insure that the experts we cite are experts in the field being discussed. I wouldn't quote Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, on matters of philosophy, and I wouldn't seek a theologian to explain a biological function.Wissing wrote:I stand by that. I claim that I myself am, in fact, your lesser when it comes to this topic. I claim that, since I have not specialized in this topic, I lean on the information of those I trust, and of long-standing precedent, rather than brand new research from sources I can't verify. But I back that up by actually doing research anyway, just to be diligent, despite my belief that research is nothing without personal experience.
I would also be careful as to put so much weight onto a minority of experts who disagree with a consensus of data. That may not mean they are wrong, but the only way we can arrive at the truth is to follow reason and evidence.
I personally have not found the things you have posted very convincing... and believe it or not -- it's not cause I fancy men. It's because you don't have a strong case.
Then you would be committing the same Golden Means fallacy that Sam Harris, famous atheist and neuroscientist often does, when he discusses topics of morality.Wissing wrote:I'm intentionally leaning towards the opposite stance as you both, precisely because you argue so vehemently. That's just something I tend to do, I suppose. If you were hard-core anti-gay, I'd probly be taking the other side.
Noting one's passion about a subject does not discredit them. Just because we're really interested in this discussion does not mean, we must be wrong and that the truth is "somewhere in between." If one guy insists that 2 plus 2 is 22 and the other person corrects him -- the truth is not somewhere between 4 and 22.
In fact I wouldn't really be that interested in replying were it not for your insistence that homosexuality could still be harmful somehow even if there is no evidence to validate your concern. No matter what the topic is, if reason and evidence do not support our intuitions or assumptions or beliefs, we are not justified in holding those views until further evidence becomes available. We can only say I don't know or the evidence indicates "this", so this is the position I will take for now.
I apologize if my posts have seemed impatient, but I can get frustrated and to the point. I try not to be insulting, but if I come across as somewhat irritated, that is just my style. I think Daniel has more patience than I do, but I guess that depends what the topic is about.Wissing wrote:Forgive me for the long post. I mean no disrespect, but I feel that is not a shared sentiment. I will be taking a break to do some more reading on the topic of family, and what makes it tick, and why it might be important in our culture. If you're still here in a few weeks, I'd love to continue.
Post #176
[Replying to post 172 by DanieltheDragon]
It's the same guy that sings stuff on South Park. On an unrelated note, this is how country music sounds to me, and I've lived in the south all my life lol.
It's the same guy that sings stuff on South Park. On an unrelated note, this is how country music sounds to me, and I've lived in the south all my life lol.
Post #177
That about summarizes the extent to which we agree...No matter what the topic is, if reason and evidence do not support our intuitions or assumptions or beliefs, we are not justified in holding those views until further evidence becomes available. We can only say I don't know
And that about summarizes the extent to which we disagree.or the evidence indicates "this", so this is the position I will take for now.
Ok srsly this time... 2 weeks at least. Gotta take a break and do something constructive
Re: Homosexuality
Post #178[Replying to post 1 by razovor]
By current standards there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. By biblical standards it is sin because it is against the purpose and will of God. Paul refers to it as putting aside the "function" of sex. This is not only a biblical truth, but a biological one as well.
As far as evidence of harm due to homosexual behavior, one can check out the Centers for Disease Control websites which contain some quite graphic examples of the deleterious effects of sodomy on the human body. There are some homosexual websites and magazines that also go into graphic detail on the precautions one should take if pursuing a gay lifestyle.
I spent about a year working for two homosexuals who both came down with full blown AIDS. This was a direct result of their lifestyle choices, and the effects were absolutely devastating to their respective families as well as anyone who knew them for any length of time. They were both very nice, kind, loving, individuals with a lot going for them, but to see what it did to them and their families was horrific.
I also rented a room to a homosexual a few years later and he eventually had such significant damage to his sphincter that he no longer had control over his bowels. This isn't just a homosexual problem, the same problems can hit heterosexuals as well when they engage in the same behavior.
This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The problems are widespread and truly tragic, e.g. Homosexuals tend to live shorter lives. They tend to succumb to drug addiction in greater numbers(proportionately), etc.
By current standards there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. By biblical standards it is sin because it is against the purpose and will of God. Paul refers to it as putting aside the "function" of sex. This is not only a biblical truth, but a biological one as well.
As far as evidence of harm due to homosexual behavior, one can check out the Centers for Disease Control websites which contain some quite graphic examples of the deleterious effects of sodomy on the human body. There are some homosexual websites and magazines that also go into graphic detail on the precautions one should take if pursuing a gay lifestyle.
I spent about a year working for two homosexuals who both came down with full blown AIDS. This was a direct result of their lifestyle choices, and the effects were absolutely devastating to their respective families as well as anyone who knew them for any length of time. They were both very nice, kind, loving, individuals with a lot going for them, but to see what it did to them and their families was horrific.
I also rented a room to a homosexual a few years later and he eventually had such significant damage to his sphincter that he no longer had control over his bowels. This isn't just a homosexual problem, the same problems can hit heterosexuals as well when they engage in the same behavior.
This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The problems are widespread and truly tragic, e.g. Homosexuals tend to live shorter lives. They tend to succumb to drug addiction in greater numbers(proportionately), etc.
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Homosexuality
Post #179[Replying to post 175 by shnarkle]
All of your anecdotes are falling into a correlation causation fallacy.
All of your anecdotes are falling into a correlation causation fallacy.
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Homosexuality
Post #180.
shnarkle wrote: [Replying to post 1 by razovor]
As far as evidence of harm due to homosexual behavior, one can check out the Centers for Disease Control websites which contain some quite graphic examples of the deleterious effects of sodomy on the human body. There are some homosexual websites and magazines that also go into graphic detail on the precautions one should take if pursuing a gay lifestyle.
My wife's sister got HIV when she lost her virginity to her first husband. HIV/AIDS is tragic and sad it is not caused by homosexuality.I spent about a year working for two homosexuals who both came down with full blown AIDS. This was a direct result of their lifestyle choices, and the effects were absolutely devastating to their respective families as well as anyone who knew them for any length of time. They were both very nice, kind, loving, individuals with a lot going for them, but to see what it did to them and their families was horrific.
I also rented a room to a homosexual a few years later and he eventually had such significant damage to his sphincter that he no longer had control over his bowels. This isn't just a homosexual problem, the same problems can hit heterosexuals as well when they engage in the same behavior.
Most people who participate in Anal sex are heterosexuals not homosexuals
Homosexuality consists of same sex behavior including men AND WOMEN. Why do theists always ignore female same sex relations?
drug addiction has widely been linked to familial abandonment and depression(linked to bullying, oppression, and abandonment)This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The problems are widespread and truly tragic, e.g. Homosexuals tend to live shorter lives. They tend to succumb to drug addiction in greater numbers(proportionately), etc
Homosexuality doesn't cause addiction or shorter lifespans. It just so happens to correlate because homosexuals tend to get disowned,fired,bullied, etc. when they are open of their preference. This negative environment can cause higher rates of suicide and drug use.
Avg. lifespan is shorter more likely as a result of a higher than average suicide rate amongst teens. Not because of sexual preference.
