homosexuality is NOT a sin

[icetiger300]

Hello, homosexuality and same sex marriage is not condemned and here's why.

These are not 100% accurate translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, they've been taken them out of their Scriptural and cultural context.

So, let"s put them back, and have a look"

Because they are basically repeating, I will just deal with the non murderous verse Leviticus 18:22.

That chapter starts off with God telling Moses to tell the Israelites to "not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."

It then goes on listing many various incestual restrictions, and then it tells not to have sex with a woman when she is having her period, then it tells not to have sex with your neighbors wife.

Then it takes a completely different turn, and tells not to give any of your children to be sacrificed to the Pagan god Molek.

After that, the restrictions of a mankind with mankind and sex with animals come in.

The reason for that is because back then in the culture God was referring to, the Pagans would start off their fertility ritual with a child sacrifice. What would follow was an orgy, where the women, but most of all the men, would have sex with anything and anybody. But they were very careful to do it in a way that would not impregnate anyone, that was only for the woman they were married to. So, they would have sex with animals and anal sex with Galli priests, and temple prostitutes.

They fully believed that what they were doing pleased their gods and goddesses. They believed that it would bring all forms of fertility to them and their land, but they were not homosexuals sexuality expressing their love and attraction for one another, the vast majority of them were not even homosexuals.

However, if you chose to ignore all of that, it is a fact that those two verses were only referring to men, and that means they could not refer to any and all homosexual sex for any reason.

One must factor in the cultural and Scriptural context. The Jews of that time, and in that culture did not know that a woman had a egg. They thought the the man's seed was like the seed of a plant, and the woman was (Like an incubator) just to be implanted with their seed. They also held increasing their numbers to the utmost importance. There are a few reasons for that, but the most crucial, was because they wanted to make their religion more dominant.

So, their reasons were based on their biological ignorance, and for the most part selfishness.

Given their belief they viewed any use of a man's seed other than for the attempt at procreation to be anything from uncleanliness, all the way up to murder.

Given this, it's not surprising that that would have an issue with a man having sex for any reason other than to procreate. However, if you take all of that into consideration, and the fact that they were coming into contact with cultures that embraced things like pederasty, and Pagan fertility orgies. It would be no surprise to see a lot of parts in the Old Testament (Torah) that strictly forbade men having any kind of sex other than sex to procreate.

But, in fact there are only 2 out of 23,145 verses in the Old Testament (Torah) that some state have to do with it directly forbidding men having sex with men. And, as I have pointed out, it is clearly backed up by the Scriptural and cultural context, that it was not any and all homosexual sex that was being condemned.

It is paganism.

I forgot to add this regarding Leviticus chapter 20...

If the focus of that murderous chapter was not surrounding Pagan idolatry, why would it start off with this?...

(Leviticus 20:1-5)

The Lord said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites: "Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek.A279;

With Romans:26-28 it is actually right there in the context of the scriptures that Paul was not referring to homosexuals. I think you would agree that just because someone engages in homosexual sex does not mean they are a hoimosexual.

Here is the context...

"Because of this, God gave them over"

Because of what? Here is what...

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God"s invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator"who is forever praised. Amen.

Now that is not Paul reffering to homosexuals, those people were Pagans engaging in idolatrous sex orgies.

Again...

The reason for that is because back then in the culture Paul was referring to, the Pagans would occasionally start off their fertility ritual with a child sacrifice. What would follow was an orgy, where the women, but most of all the men, would have sex with anything and anybody. But they were very careful to do it in a way that would not impregnate anyone, that was only for the woman they were married to. So, they would have sex with animals and anal sex with Galli priests, and temple prostitutes.

They fully believed that what they were doing pleased their gods and goddesses. They believed that it would bring all forms of fertility to them and their land, but they were not homosexuals sexuality expressing their love and attraction for one another, the vast majority of them were not even homosexuals.

The fact is that there was never any Greek or Hebrew words that were used in refrance to homosexuality used anywhere in the Scriptures, and there were words that would have left to question as to what the writer was reffering to. It is humans that have been equating aspects of Paganism with homosexuality, not the writers of the Scriptures or God. This is nothing new, things like this have been going on for as long as the Scriptures have existed.


Oh yeah. about "Sodom and Gomorrah".

Why is it that some of you have equated an angry mob threatening to gang rape some strangers in their city with homosexuality? Are you aware of the fact that not one Jew/Hebrew/Israelite in almost 4000 years ever taught that? They have always taught that the people of "Sodom" treated strangers and the needy sadistically at times, there are horrible stories regarding this in their teachings. Are you also aware of the fact that there is not one living Biblical Scholar that believes that homosexuality was the reason for their destruction? Even the Scriptures where Jesus and God describe the reasons, it was not due to homosexuality.

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus Christ condemns specific towns which reject His disciples to the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Matthew 10:14 "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

Matthew 11:23 "And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

These passages from Jesus show that hospitality was seen as a quality of righteousness in the ancient world.

Any city that proved inhospitable, was condemned to the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of the plain indeed treated visitors with cruelty, brutality, and viciousness.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 is a unique passage in that God Himself talks of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

This passage confirms the above allegations concerning Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of the plain were "overfed", indicating a wealth and abundance of food and resources.

They were "unconcerned", as Isaiah and Jeremiah both pointed to their arrogance, and "haughty and did detestable things", demonstrated in their treatment of the young girls and their treatment of God's angels.

They also refused to help the needy and the poor, an indication of the selfishness of the people.

If it would not have been for the intercession of the angels, Lot might have been counted amongst the Sodomites victims. And, the Angles would have most likely been killed.

I hope that clears up your confusion, and that you stop spreading lies and distortions that have caused nothing but harm and death to multi-millions of God's children and in His name worst of all.

Correct if I'm wrong christians.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Metadian]

you need to back up what you claim with evidence that actually supports the claim you're making, and (2) you need to be charged with strong reason to challenge the professional expertise of the entire global medical community;

I pulled this first, because I think you’ll agree it is your main point. To which I will respond -- I have provided a great deal of facts/science/evidence regarding the LBGTQ community. I have never stated that gay people need to be straight – not once. I have simply shown that the LBGTQ community does have higher rates of everything I cited in my previous post. You want to suggest you can’t compare smokers to non smokers. That the only fair thing to say is yes smokers are less healthy than non smokers so now we need to focus on how can we improve the health of smokers. Or maybe we can rationalize things like since they are already smokers, it is actually more stressful for them to try to quit smoking than to just keep smoking. I’d call that junk science.

You cannot "cure" gay people into straight people's profile of mental health by pretending they're straight, or shrug off gender dysphoria as a harmful "misconception" someone has about their own sense of self. Conversion therapy, denying dysphoria, and "praying the gay away" are entirely failed projects and result in miserable/ill gay people, not happy straight people.

First, I find your “pray the gay away� an insult to my position and my faith. I never suggested the answer to those who struggle with same sex attraction lies simply in prayer. Second, and for the umpteenth time I do not think same sex unions are immoral because my Church says so or because I read it in a holy book. Once again – that is your false stereotype. I have insisted from the beginning we can know the wrongness of same sex unions based on the observation of the world we live in, by acknowledging the science/biology/shape/form/function/facts.

Also, and one more time . . . there are many examples of people who use to have a same sex attraction and say they no longer do, and or now have chosen to not act on those feelings because they know same sex relationships are wrong AND they are happier/healthier and now finally at peace.

Like, we literally had a case of psychosis in a young gay man last year because he had guilt from being in the closet and his parents were conservatives who neglected him emotionally because of their 'beliefs'.

Anyone gay or straight when raised by whack job emotionally absent parents are going to have issues, so I guess I’m not sure your point. Also, I would need a lot more information than that. I would need to understand why it was summed up like you put it – In other words, who determined that this man’s psychosis was the result of his parents conservative and emotional neglect? And was their neglect because he was gay or because they were whack? What was the extent of his parents’ behavior toward him? Did they themselves have mental health issues? Did they abandon/disown/shun him? Were they hypocrites in their beliefs and lifestyle? Did they neglect him prior to this? Did their bad parenting not start until he realized he was gay? What was his early childhood like? Was he ever abused? Was his Dad around much? Was his mother cold and overbearing? Did his parents have substance abuse problems? Did he have friends? Was he exposed to pornography at an early age? Was he on any medication? Had he actually ever talked to his parents about his feelings? Did he have any positive male role models in his life? I have a feeling his parents were always assholes, so don’t really know what you’re trying to say.

A sexual urge to have sex with bee hive can be unhealthy and dangerous in this sense, but as I cited earlier too, gay sexual attraction does not meet any criteria of mental illness. This is not an opinion, it is a medical fact fruit of expert consensus and the basis of mental healthcare.

Uuummm . . . this is the current belief yes, but this was not always the expert consensus or the basis of mental healthcare. It simply happens to be the soup de jour.

Your belief system does not define mental illness in our common social space, psychiatrists do

No, mine alone does not, however, whatever the popular belief system that has currently been adopted does – at least for however long that particular belief system remains the popular one. Everything in our culture is influenced by ideology, politics, and feelings. Research is interpreted accordingly as well as what is even given the attention to be researched in the first place.

and if you want to help remove stigma, you need to stop using terms incorrectly. What is wrong to you isn't necessarily unhealthy in real life, and you seem not to be aware of this distinction.

Ha, ha, ha . . . you might need to give the same lecture to the medical field. Doctors have prescribed birth control pills for years even though there are safer forms of birth control that aren’t classified as carcinogens. I’ve seen articles from medical professionals explaining how having sex prior to marriage can demonstrate sexual compatibility and allow for happier relationships, reducing medical opinion to something along the lines of it’s important to take the car for a test drive before purchasing. Demonstrating pretty much anything can be justified/rationalized by the medical profession, depending on one’s spin. Pornography use to be frowned upon, now you have doctors endorsing pornography as safe and healthy sexual outlet with even the capability of spicing up one’s sex life. So, forget the oppression and objectifying of porn. Forget the high rate of addiction to porn that can negatively affect a marriage. We need to hear about the benefits of porn to justify our human behavior so wala – we the medical professionals ran a few experiments to focus on the benefits. Porn can help get your heart rate up – boom! It’s a good thing! That’s what we call spin. Everything and anything is influenced by one’s worldview. So, what you see as right and good could simply be a product of spin.

Wanting your eyesight removed is not the same as feeling better with a lower voice

Seriously? Do you know the number of hormones a woman must take to obtain that lower voice because her body doesn’t naturally do that? Hormones that can have long term health risks, especially the earlier they are started. More and more the trend seems to be encouraging these practices in young children that claim to want to be the opposite sex. Also, these hormones are even capable of rendering a woman completely infertile and unable to have children – just ask the Russian swim team if you think the risks of the transitioning of a transsexual is without risk.

what you're really rejecting here is participating in their realization of their own happiness because their happiness contradicts your worldview.

Their happiness doesn’t contradict my worldview. My worldview desires happiness for them very much. My worldview acknowledges the fact that happiness can only be obtained when we live according to natural law. It is my worldview that their worldview (to live contrary to natural law) contradicts their own happiness.

[Metadian]

[Replying to post 51 by RightReason]

I’d call that junk science.

You prove my point. When a smoker stops smoking, they enjoy health benefits that make them more like non-smokers, because their behavior was stacking up smoke damage. Gay people are not like this, when they stop "gay behavior" (including stable same-sex relationships) or when they do more "straight behavior" (sometimes through torture and repression), they're miserable. The few examples of Westboro Baptist Church 'ex-gays' and other people complicit to the things you don't want me to compare you to doesn't change the actual bulk of happier humans. It also doesn't change the number of hate crimes, scams and ex-exgays in those groups.

Same for porn, which you mention below. It's not a worldview - treating non-heterosexual/reproductive sexual desire like it's a perversion, god forbid a literal "vice" like smoking, and loading masturbation, eroticism, open relationships, etc, with arbitrary negative value judgments that you think are written in "nature", is not the actual way to go. "Unnatural" sexual acts aren't inherently addictive or toxic, and I don't think you get to decide your own sexological facts either. Even Christians have admitted in studies that they masturbate as much as non-Christians, just feel more guilty about it. And gays in Abrahamic faiths are literally less happy. They're not more self-loving, they're measurably more self-hating; this is one group of people I consider 'liberates' off religion.

I have a feeling his parents were always assholes, so don’t really know what you’re trying to say.

Yes those things were taken into account. Well, that it's not an only case. Gay marginalization and stigmatization are mostly by right-wing/religious communities (obsessed with 'nature' and 'sex' to impose their will on other people) has an actual impact in LGBT youth, and who deals with the aftermath - therapists. A lot of subconscious "dirt" (guilt) shows up in psychosis, and you'd be surprised of the extra workload that self-denying religious people entail when they happen not to be like what their parents believe is "natural" or "good".

Homophobia still exists, telling a child that they're "wrong" for wanting a loving, healthy relationship with the same sex - and later trying to steer their life for them - is a form of emotionally abusing children. Also denying them an education where one shrugs off scientific consensus like any worldview's interpretation is as good as any other (an empty relativism, since you later praise your own preformed belief as "Truth"). Fitting fact to belief is fundamentally uncritical and anti-scientific.

Seriously? Do you know the number of hormones a woman must take to obtain that lower voice because her body doesn’t naturally do that? Hormones that can have long term health risks, especially the earlier they are started. More and more the trend seems to be encouraging these practices in young children that claim to want to be the opposite sex. Also, these hormones are even capable of rendering a woman completely infertile and unable to have children – just ask the Russian swim team if you think the risks of the transitioning of a transsexual is without risk.

Good they're a man, then. And yes I know. I have completed my education in endocrinology as well. The basic principles of bioethics in medicine include autonomy, meaning you nor me decide for other people what to do with their genitals with a paternalistic attitude about their future reproductive options. Not being suicidal from gender dysphoria is more important for a lot of people than having biological children, and many trans people are good parents who adopt or have their other partner carry. Not having children isn't also the worst tragedy in the world, either.

On the trans children thing, I told you that I disapprove of this, but not because of what you said, because of actual scientific evidence that the "regret" rate is very high because GID of childhood is not well correlated to GID of the adult. The adults one, I looked it up, has an actual figure under 2%. The reason for people pushing for it is not to sterilize children but because starting HRT before puberty, ie avoiding the wrong puberty, has spectacularly good results in some cases. I don't believe it justifies the practice, and I would generally argue against it, but it's also true. Evidence exists for both points we support and points we don't.

Their happiness doesn’t contradict my worldview. My worldview desires happiness for them very much. My worldview acknowledges the fact that happiness can only be obtained when we live according to natural law. It is my worldview that their worldview (to live contrary to natural law) contradicts their own happiness.

Yes, but your worldview needs to re-define their own happiness, and so the contradiction is more about your thought, and less about theirs. The vast majority of trans people die trans and are happier after a transition-oriented healthcare. If even at that point you're still arguing that they've lived a false happiness so "it wasn't worth it"... it speaks on its own.

That’s what we call spin. Everything and anything is influenced by one’s worldview. So, what you see as right and good could simply be a product of spin.

Studies about LGBT and trans victimization and quality of life are a "spin" but misinterpretations of cherry-picked data and ideologically-aligned anecdote, with a "read of nature", is good epistemology.

That's not debating, that's proselytizing. With all respect, if that's what it's like, I don't think we're actually "debating" anything.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Metadian]

You prove my point. When a smoker stops smoking, they enjoy health benefits that make them more like non-smokers, because their behavior was stacking up smoke damage.

That isn’t even close to my argument.

Gay people are not like this, when they stop "gay behavior" (including stable same-sex relationships) or when they do more "straight behavior" (sometimes through torture and repression), they're miserable.

Project much? That’s like saying a heterosexual who does not have an active sex life is miserable. That’s nonsense. One’s peace/happiness is not the achievement of orgasm. Considering there are tons of single non sexually active human beings and even non sexually active married human beings, your argument majorly misses the mark.

And please stop suggesting I support or am suggesting torture. I would expect others who have disordered sexual attraction (pedophilia, incestual, zoophilia, etc) to not act on their sexual urges. I would never torture them, but also wouldn’t agree recommending they not fulfill their desires is repression of their sexuality.

Same for porn, which you mention below. It's not a worldview - treating non-heterosexual/reproductive sexual desire like it's a perversion

Of course it is. It is sex not properly ordered. It’s also dehumanizing, objectifying, insulting, oppressive, and rude.

Is it perverted to find other human beings sexually attractive? Of course not. However it would be a perversion of sex to sleep with someone else’s wife. It would be a perversion to sleep with one’s father. It would be perverted to sleep with the family dog.

god forbid a literal "vice" like smoking

You missed the point entirely. I wasn’t comparing homosexuality to smoking. I was actually demonstrating with smoking as an example how you think we ought to measure the physical and emotional well being of homosexuals – it was funny really.

and loading masturbation, eroticism, open relationships, etc, with arbitrary negative value judgments that you think are written in "nature"

Actually, there are arguments showing those things are in fact contrary to the natural moral order and do not bring man true/authentic human fulfillment/happiness, and peace. Like I said before, we can know from this world we live in what is good/right vs. what is wrong/bad. They aren’t really judgments – more like acknowledgment.

,

"Unnatural" sexual acts aren't inherently addictive or toxic

Actually there is evidence they are. Mounds of evidence on how addictive porn/masturbation/fetishes can be highly addictive and lots of evidence showing how harmful (toxix) this can be to a relationship or marriage and even interfere with the person’s career.

, and I don't think you get to decide your own sexological facts either

I’m basing my conclusion on what can be observed and what can be shown. Unlike many who base their decisions on what they “feel�.

. Even Christians have admitted in studies that they masturbate as much as non-Christians, just feel more guilty about it

What does that have to do with something being right or wrong or good or bad for man?

And gays in Abrahamic faiths are literally less happy. They're not more self-loving, they're measurably more self-hating; this is one group of people I consider 'liberates' off religion.

Of course they are because these faiths often torture or kill people for being gay. It is certainly my opinion that any religion or non religious group can screw up and really miss the mark.

Yes those things were taken into account. Well, that it's not an only case. Gay marginalization and stigmatization are mostly by right-wing/religious communities

This might be true, but be careful, not all conservative or religious groups are guilty of this and some non religious are.

has an actual impact in LGBT youth, and who deals with the aftermath - therapists.

Yes, of course marginalization and stigmatization are horrible things and can cause others great harm, but don’t mistake differing of opinion as marginalization and stigmatization. If I advise my friend that I think it’s wrong for her to cheat on her husband and have an affair am I guilty of making her feel marginalized? She might “feel� like I am. She might be in a loveless marriage and believe her affair is justified, but she might argue that my position about her behavior makes her feel bad. Even though my intent was not to make her feel bad – on the contrary – was an attempt to help her find something that will bring her long term happiness and peace and that does not lie in an adulterous affair.

A lot of subconscious "dirt" (guilt) shows up in psychosis, and you'd be surprised of the extra workload that self-denying religious people entail when they happen not to be like what their parents believe is "natural" or "good".

Sure. But how do you determine if what the individual feels guilty about is because they know or believe their behavior is wrong or how do you determine how much of their psychosis is due to the unhappiness or unfulfillment in their current state? Not being influenced by their parents, rather by what they thought something might make them feel and by what it actually does. Please tell me the therapist doesn’t hear ‘religious parent’ and come to his diagnosis. Also, how much is about how the individual sees the parent vs. how the parent may actually be? One comment from a loving parent about concern for her child’s well being can be interpreted as hostile if the individual is already feeling guilty/bad about something. And would we be surprised then if the individual turns around and blames his parents for being overbearing or messing up his life? Lots to consider.

Homophobia still exists

I agree, but I think the word is often misused. Just because a person thinks homosexual acts are wrong does not make them homophobic. It simply means their opinion differs from yours.

, telling a child that they're "wrong" for wanting a loving, healthy relationship with the same sex - and later trying to steer their life for them - is a form of emotionally abusing children.

Lovely little straw man you set up there. I would never tell a child they are wrong for wanting to love or be loved. It’s what we all want. I wouldn’t even tell them they are wrong for having a same sex attraction. We typically don’t have tons of control over who/what we are attracted to. But I would tell them to act on this particular attraction would be disordered and a disordered relationship could never be healthy. I would tell them the feelings they are having aren’t necessarily their fault, but what they choose to do with those feelings could be. You would do the same thing if it was something you believe in. We just differ on this particular topic. But if your child told you he was in love with his brother and they wanted to take their relationship to a sexual level, would you tell him he was wrong? And if you did, would it be a form of emotional abuse? #Love is love.

Also denying them an education where one shrugs off scientific consensus like any worldview's interpretation is as good as any other

I apologize if that is how what I said came across. I do not shrug off scientific consensus. I’m actually amazed however at how much scientific consensus is shrugged off when it comes to well pretty much anything sexual. Yes, anal sex is high risk sexual behavior agreed upon by all, but what do they know . . . Yes, study after study shows casual sex and one night stands often make (especially girls) more unhappy than happy, but screw the consensus. . . .

I was merely pointing out we are all influenced by ideology, politics, worldview -- yes, even our medical professionals and one needs to keep that in mind.

The basic principles of bioethics in medicine include autonomy, meaning you nor me decide for other people what to do with their genitals

I would think any good doctor should be able to know what our genitals are for – in fact, I would rarely think a PHD necessary for this.

Not being suicidal from gender dysphoria is more important for a lot of people than having biological children, and many trans people are good parents who adopt or have their other partner carry. Not having children isn't also the worst tragedy in the world, either.

Wow! Way to miss the point! The point is you actually claimed everything that is typically done in gender reassignment does not have its own long list of health consequences. I tried to show those a 50 year old who insists he is a 5 year old, dresses and acts like a 5 year old, and insist others treat him like a 5 year old is not any different than a man insisting he is a woman or a woman insisting he is a man and yet the first we have no trouble labeling a psychological disorder and the second we celebrate and encourage. The woman who purposely causes herself to go blind we think terrible and sad, but the man who wants to castrate himself, we celebrate and encourage. Anything having to do with sex gets a pass in this world – odd.

Quote:
Their happiness doesn’t contradict my worldview. My worldview desires happiness for them very much. My worldview acknowledges the fact that happiness can only be obtained when we live according to natural law. It is my worldview that their worldview (to live contrary to natural law) contradicts their own happiness.

Yes, but your worldview needs to re-define their own happiness, and so the contradiction is more about your thought, and less about theirs.

I’m not re-defining happiness anymore than a person saying pedophilia is wrong and acknowledging a pedophile could never obtain happiness despite the fact he thinks he could is.

[Metadian]

[Replying to post 53 by RightReason]

However it would be a perversion of sex to sleep with someone else’s wife.

...? If the three are okay with it, you calling it a perversion for two consensual adults really surprises me.

Loosely using "perversion" is more dangerous than loosely using "homophobia". And at this point, as I'll show below, you're just throwing around your (atypically judgmental) opinion.

Like I said before, we can know from this world we live in what is good/right vs. what is wrong/bad. They aren’t really judgments – more like acknowledgment.

Maybe you think you can know by repeating that you know it. I'm unpersuaded.

Actually there is evidence they are. Mounds of evidence on how addictive porn/masturbation/fetishes can be highly addictive and lots of evidence showing how harmful (toxix) this can be to a relationship or marriage and even interfere with the person’s career.

People can be addicted to coffee or sugar, it doesn't mean drinking any amount of coffee or consuming any amount of sugar is a perversion of nature and that to truly allow our ~brothers~ to be happy we have to participate in the dishonest stigmatization of coffee drinking and sugar.

What does that have to do with something being right or wrong or good or bad for man?

It shows Christianity is indeed (1) stricto sensu homophobic and (2) bad for it for gay people - basically it dismantles the corollaries of your worldview.

I’m basing my conclusion on what can be observed and what can be shown. Unlike many who base their decisions on what they “feel�.

You're not.

Even though my intent was not to make her feel bad – on the contrary – was an attempt to help her find something that will bring her long term happiness and peace and that does not lie in an adulterous affair.

Some advice are bad. And some people who think they're giving well-meant advice are just sanctimonious.

Sure. But how do you determine if what the individual feels guilty about is because they know or believe their behavior is wrong or how do you determine how much of their psychosis is due to the unhappiness or unfulfillment in their current state?

You get a degree in medicine and you use the scientific method properly.

But I would tell them to act on this particular attraction would be disordered and a disordered relationship could never be healthy. I would tell them the feelings they are having aren’t necessarily their fault, but what they choose to do with those feelings could be.

Well, this is basically why I oppose home-teaching, you can as I said before, shrug off science and any basic sense of reality. If you tell your kid that a same-sex relationship can never be healthy (scientific claim), you're lying, it's like saying an opposite-sex relationship can't be. Lying to your children about things that imply their emotional well-being is child abuse. You believing it, or wanting it to be true, doesn't make it so. Just because you think your child won't be happy -because you define their happiness out of your usage of the word- doesn't mean they can't be.

If you said that children can't be truly happy after getting vaccines because it's not the natural order of health to use artificial injections, I think you should have your children taken away from you. This scenario makes about much sense to people outside of your worldview as your opinion on gay sex, and is as solid epistemically.

Yes, anal sex is high risk sexual behavior agreed upon by all, but what do they know . . . Yes, study after study shows casual sex and one night stands often make (especially girls) more unhappy than happy, but screw the consensus. . . .

Anal sex having more relative risk than vaginal sex does not mean that anal sex is unhealthy itself, that same sex relationships are unhealthy, or anything else you're forcing it to mean to fit belief to theory. If you kiss someone with herpes you get herpes that doesn't mean kissing is unsanitary. That's why doctors hand out information and condoms and not a sermon. And to debunk your fuzzy logic again, the more you force the STD non-argument the more you're saying women should just raise their kids as lesbians. It's "healthier" (in your language).

I would think any good doctor should be able to know what our genitals are for – in fact, I would rarely think a PHD necessary for this.

Having sex is something people usually do with them. Urinating is another thing. Females give birth through it, unless nature is stupid that day in which case they get a C-sec. Beyond that, any scientist knows that teleological language is unscientific sophistry... and you're two centuries late to this. Everything you say is either wrong or unsubstantiated at this point.

Living beings are not "for anything", their parts have no goals, they have functions - things a system is optimized for. Morality is a product of biology, not the other way around, and science certainly doesn't state we're "designed". I already explained to you before with many examples that homosexual behavior and non-reproductive sexual behavior are perfectly natural by any sensible definition of the word 'natural'. You address nothing of what I say, you just state your opinion back. That is not debating.

Anything having to do with sex gets a pass in this world – odd.

It's the literal opposite - sexual minorities are the most discriminated groups of people in the world save for Western societies, but there's a lot of way to go. Likewise understanding of sexuality and non-doctrinal attitudes towards it are really hard to get over in a sex-negative culture. Which, studies show, your religious brothers are mostly to blame for - preach to them about leaving gay people alone and not marginalizing or stigmatizing them for no reason. And speaking about odd things, know the other violently homophobic group of people? Well, another group obsessed with "natural obviousnesses" - racist Neonazis, asking for racial and sexual hygiene. Old narratives said with new words.

As I told you before, if all believing you're a bird or a 5 year old means is that you join an ornithology club or wear a diaper... it doesn't hurt anybody, I don't care for judgmental third parties, and neither do diagnostics. That you do doesn't mean you can appropriate a diagnosis for 'unhealthy', much less if it's based in a doctrinal baseless worldview that has no understanding of empiric observation or logical deduction.

I’m not re-defining happiness anymore than a person saying pedophilia is wrong and acknowledging a pedophile could never obtain happiness despite the fact he thinks he could is.

The treatment for non-offending paraphilic disorders (including zoophilia and pedophila; incestuous attraction is not necessarily a "paraphilia") is treating the distress the person has. The problem with non-consensual sex is that it hurts someone. The attraction is not the problem, and the DSM-V does not list "paraphilia" (=perversion) as an actual mental disorder, because it does not meet any scientific, objective, neutral criteria. Fantasies do not hurt anybody, for instance. So again, you're very late if you think anyone who actually has studied the subject matter gives credit to your 'perversion' theory. It is doctrine, opinion, nothing more.

This has also absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Gay sex is as consensual as straight sex -or adult incestuous sex- because adults are involved, and I'm sure you're aware of this. If you don't want me to make "far-fetched" analogies of your comparisons, I ask back that you don't compare things when the points you're comparing do not hold. Especially, since you keep distancing yourself from not-so-loving Christians, I note that homosexuality has a history of being compared to pedophilia by real bigots, so maybe that's an homophobic dogwhistle we'd be better off avoiding in the future.

As a personal impression, to me it just doesn't say a lot that the best argument against sex you don't quite like is saying that it's "on some level" like raping children. Just, is it necessary to go there to make the point you're trying to make? Even if you think today mainstream society is too liberal, it's a leap and I really fail to see how this is an argumentation tactic and not a proselytizing (or worse, incendiary, but I'm trying to be charitable) one.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Metadian]

Quote:
However it would be a perversion of sex to sleep with someone else’s wife.

...? If the three are okay with it, you calling it a perversion for two consensual adults really surprises me.

Of course it surprises you because you don’t believe in moral truth. You think truth is whatever we want it to be. That is actually a self contradicting illogical conclusion, but many are in denial of moral truth when it is convenient for them to be.

Of course adultery is a perverted form of love. It is harmful, deceptive, and not caring about your spouse’s best interest.

Loosely using "perversion" is more dangerous than loosely using "homophobia"

The definition of perversion:
.
1. the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.

2. sexual behavior or desire that is considered abnormal or unacceptable

I would say adultery fits both of those definitions. I would also say everything I have mentioned so far in my posts as being perversions have met this definition as well.
.

Quote:
Like I said before, we can know from this world we live in what is good/right vs. what is wrong/bad. They aren’t really judgments – more like acknowledgment.

Maybe you think you can know by repeating that you know it. I'm unpersuaded.

Unpersuaded that we can know what is right/good/bad/wrong from the world we live in? Or unpersuaded that I have made the correct discovery? There is a difference and I fear you aren’t even willing to acknowledge the first, even though it is how man operates on a daily basis and isn’t really up for argument.

Quote:
Actually there is evidence they are. Mounds of evidence on how addictive porn/masturbation/fetishes can be highly addictive and lots of evidence showing how harmful (toxix) this can be to a relationship or marriage and even interfere with the person’s career.

People can be addicted to coffee or sugar, it doesn't mean drinking any amount of coffee or consuming any amount of sugar is a perversion of nature and that to truly allow our ~brothers~ to be happy we have to participate in the dishonest stigmatization of coffee drinking and sugar.

Your analogy fails. No one is saying anything sexual is a perversion, but it would be dishonest to suggest nothing is. I’m sure we all would agree if one consumes a reasonable amount of sugar, that is normal and fine. If someone is sniffing 10 pounds of sugar thru their nose every day, we would call that disordered or a perversion.

Quote:
I’m basing my conclusion on what can be observed and what can be shown. Unlike many who base their decisions on what they “feel�.

You're not.

Yes, I am. It is via observation of man and his relationship with this world, through acknowledging biology, science, shape, form, function, logic, and reason that we can conclude what is right/good vs. wrong/bad.

Some advice are bad. And some people who think they're giving well-meant advice are just sanctimonious.

Absolutely, and this includes advice from individuals with PHD’s or those who for one reason or another rationalize their choice to dismiss what they know to be right. Sometimes even the most educated can get it wrong.

Quote:
Sure. But how do you determine if what the individual feels guilty about is because they know or believe their behavior is wrong or how do you determine how much of their psychosis is due to the unhappiness or unfulfillment in their current state?

You get a degree in medicine and you use the scientific method properly.

How do you know what you were taught in earning your degree was solid fact? The medical profession on many occasions gets it wrong. My mother was advised by her doctor to take hormone replacement therapy prior to menopause. She took HRT for over 10 years, then she developed breast cancer. Oops! The medial professionals said. We were wrong about that. We have now discovered a link between HRT and breast cancer. My husband was on the books to go in for chemo after having testicular cancer. We decided to be our own patient advocate and discovered for the type of cancer he had there was no significant difference between those who followed up with chemo and those that did not. Why did so many doctors recommend he go thru chemo? Because that is what they had been taught and the best they could tell us was it might give us ‘peace of mind’ (that sounds like something you would criticize me for saying – and yet that is what the medical doctors were basing their advise on). We refused the chemo. We conceived a son the following month. If my husband had had the chemo we would not have had our son. I’m not dissing doctors or the medical profession. It is full on wonderful, life saving individuals, but anyone who looks on the medical field and things like ‘standard practice’ and protocol without looking into specifics on their own and not being afraid to question the ‘current medical practice’ if they see discrepancies then they are simply contributing to continually discussing and leaving the conversation open, even when we are convinced what we are doing is right. To really help others, especially when it comes to complicated things like medical treatment for transgenders, it is best to not just continue doing something because it has become the current adopted practice.

Well, this is basically why I oppose home-teaching, you can as I said before, shrug off science and any basic sense of reality.

I’m doing the opposite and it is actually ill informed of you to oppose home schooling. The statistics on how home schooled children fair compared to those not homeschooled supports the opposite of your suggestion. This demonstrates another example of me doing something based on evidence and you because it’s what you feel or think.

I particularly enjoyed reading the last comment I bolded.

The home-educated typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests.

Homeschool students score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents’ level of formal education or their family’s household income.

Whether homeschool parents were ever certified teachers is not related to their children’s academic achievement.

Home-educated students typically score above average on the SAT and ACT tests that colleges consider for admissions.


The home-educated are doing well, typically above average, on measures of social, emotional, and psychological development. Research measures include peer interaction, self-concept, leadership skills, family cohesion, participation in community service, and self-esteem.

Homeschool students are regularly engaged in social and educational activities outside their homes and with people other than their nuclear-family members. They are commonly involved in activities such as field trips, scouting, 4-H, political drives, church ministry, sports teams, and community volunteer work.

Adults who were home educated are more politically tolerant than the public schooled in the limited research done so far.

https://www.nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/

If you tell your kid that a same-sex relationship can never be healthy (scientific claim), you're lying,

No – and I have evidence – some I have already mentioned -- supporting my position.

You believing it, or wanting it to be true, doesn't make it so. Just because you think your child won't be happy -because you define their happiness out of your usage of the word- doesn't mean they can't be.

You believing it, or wanting it to be true, doesn’t make it so. Just because you think your child will be happy – because you define their happiness out of your usage of the word – doesn’t mean they will be. The statistics show otherwise.

Anal sex having more relative risk than vaginal sex does not mean that anal sex is unhealthy itself

That actually IS what it means. The vagina stretches, produces its own natural lubrication, making it more conducive to having a penis inserted into it. The rectum does none of this, causing it to tear or rip making it likely to harbor bacteria and spread disease.

If you kiss someone with herpes you get herpes that doesn't mean kissing is unsanitary.

Not a good analogy because there are natural differences between a vagina and an anus.

they have functions - things a system is optimized for.

Yes, thank you for acknowledging this. It is what I have been saying all along and exactly then how we can know what is right/good/in man’s best interest vs. what is wrong or harmful.

I already explained to you before with many examples that homosexual behavior and non-reproductive sexual behavior are perfectly natural by any sensible definition of the word 'natural'. You address nothing of what I say

I addressed everything you said. My argument isn’t about what is natural in the sense of what can occur in nature. Marijuana is natural – that doesn’t mean getting stoned every day is right/good or in man’s best interest. I don’t think you understand what is meant by natural law.

As I told you before, if all believing you're a bird or a 5 year old means is that you join an ornithology club or wear a diaper... it doesn't hurt anybody,

I call BS. If it were your daughter or friend you wouldn’t just right off their psychological disorder to “well if it doesn’t hurt anyone�. You would want to get them the help they need. And you would not allow them to truly believe they were a bird. In fact, if you had a young child observing some person that thought they were a bird, you would explain to your child that they think they are a bird, but they really aren’t. You would not explain to your child, well they think they are a bird, so they in fact are a bird.

Your attitude reminds me of a quote from G.K. Chesterton:

“The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face. We shall fight for visible prodigies as if they were invisible. We shall look on the impossible grass and the skies with a strange courage. We shall be of those who have seen and yet have believed.�

you don't compare things when the points you're comparing do not hold.

The same reasons we could use to explain why bestiality is wrong is the very same reasons we could use to explain why homosexual unions are wrong. The “consenting adults� argument is tired. A person in love with a dog could easily demonstrate that the dog wants to be with him as much as he wants to be with the dog. This could be both observed and measured. The man could say he and the dog don’t only have sex – it is about so much more than that. They are each others best friend. They comfort one another. They love each other and they want to grow old together. But the truth is a man having sex with a dog is a perversion of sex in the same way a person having sex with someone of the same sex is a perversion. If you want to adopt the “live and let live� attitude “as long as no one gets hurt� have at it. But people are getting hurt via deception of reality. They deserve authentic love and peace which can never be obtained living contrary to the natural moral order.

Like I said, most people live and operate according to this truth on a daily basis. We usually have no problem saying what we think is right and good. It usually doesn’t bother us until we hear someone else say it and it differs from what we think. We then get all defensive and tend to say illogical statements like, “what is true for you, is not necessarily what is true for me.� Is that true? LOL!

Might have to let you have the last word -- as we are simply repeating ourselves at this point. We'll see if I can resist the temptation. If I can, thanks for the conversation. I appreciate it. It was fun.

[Bust Nak]

The definition of perversion:
.
1. the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.

2. sexual behavior or desire that is considered abnormal or unacceptable

I would say adultery fits both of those definitions. I would also say everything I have mentioned so far in my posts as being perversions have met this definition as well.

There is no debating the first definition with you, you are treating the "original course... of what was first intended" as some sort of presupposition.

The second definition however is inherently subjective. What you considered considered abnormal or unacceptable isn't considered abnormal or unacceptable by someone else.

I’m sure we all would agree if one consumes a reasonable amount of sugar, that is normal and fine. If someone is sniffing 10 pounds of sugar thru their nose every day, we would call that disordered or a perversion.

Right, and yet there you are telling to convince us that any amount of gay sex is a perversion.

Yes, I am. It is via observation of man and his relationship with this world, through acknowledging biology, science, shape, form, function, logic, and reason that we can conclude what is right/good vs. wrong/bad.

How are you crossing the is/ought gap?

I addressed everything you said. My argument isn’t about what is natural in the sense of what can occur in nature. Marijuana is natural – that doesn’t mean getting stoned every day is right/good or in man’s best interest. I don’t think you understand what is meant by natural law.

And yet there you are, concluding that homosexual sex is immoral because it is unnatural.

The same reasons we could use to explain why bestiality is wrong is the very same reasons we could use to explain why homosexual unions are wrong. The “consenting adults� argument is tired.

But that IS the one reason we use to explain why bestiality is wrong.

[Metadian]

I agree RightReason, I don't think there's much more for us to exchange, I just wish you were more willing to regard your own thoughts as such and reflect on them and their contingencies. Comparing gay sex to bestiality as "questionable consent" doesn't exactly help the cause either.

However I do want to address an important paradigmatic point:

How do you know what you were taught in earning your degree was solid fact? The medical profession on many occasions gets it wrong. My mother was advised by her doctor to take hormone replacement therapy prior to menopause. She took HRT for over 10 years, then she developed breast cancer. Oops! The medial professionals said. We were wrong about that. We have now discovered a link between HRT and breast cancer. My husband was on the books to go in for chemo after having testicular cancer. We decided to be our own patient advocate and discovered for the type of cancer he had there was no significant difference between those who followed up with chemo and those that did not. Why did so many doctors recommend he go thru chemo? Because that is what they had been taught and the best they could tell us was it might give us ‘peace of mind’ (that sounds like something you would criticize me for saying – and yet that is what the medical doctors were basing their advise on). We refused the chemo. We conceived a son the following month. If my husband had had the chemo we would not have had our son. I’m not dissing doctors or the medical profession. It is full on wonderful, life saving individuals, but anyone who looks on the medical field and things like ‘standard practice’ and protocol without looking into specifics on their own and not being afraid to question the ‘current medical practice’ if they see discrepancies then they are simply contributing to continually discussing and leaving the conversation open, even when we are convinced what we are doing is right. To really help others, especially when it comes to complicated things like medical treatment for transgenders, it is best to not just continue doing something because it has become the current adopted practice.

Exactly, science is not based on tradition or dogmatism, it is based on cumulative evidence. Getting things wrong is how we learn for the future. Centuries of LGBT brutalization, mistreatment and psychiatrization is how we got to making gay/trans people genuinely better cared for today.

You keep doing this thing where you operate between all/nothing false dichotomies - since not all sex can be right/natural, no amount of non-reproductive sex can be, since HRT is linked to cancer, etc...

As an example, reality looks a bit more like this:

*HRT which contains only estrogen is carcinogenic for endometrial cancer.
*HRT which contains estrogen and progestagen is not carcinogenic for endometrial cancer.
*HRT is NOT carcinogenic for breast cancer, but fuels cancers that are already developing and can really change life expectancy if they aren't caught early.
*HRT is NOT carcinogenic for ovary cancer (it is a protective factor, because it prevents ovulation, like pregnancies, which reduces the number of scars in the ovary tissue).

"HRT" just means hormone replacement therapy, but it dosn't specify which hormone(s) (estrogen, progestagens or androgens) it means. Hormones have lots of indications, and though cancer is a big word, so should be "depression". Early menopause without HRT does not only result in loss of bone density (and a fragility hip fracture should also be a big word, because a non-negligible amount of people have very reduced quality of life and life expectancy afterwards, especially if they contract pneumonia while in bed).

What doctors do is not pick one study that fits OUR worldview and what WE want to believe, or think is morally right, to preach to our patients. We have agreed that is unethical. Instead, we offer the cumulative experience that is empirically validated and allow our patients to make informed choices, in general (because everything has exceptions, sometimes psychiatrists have to contravene someone's will if they're incapacitated to want things or understand things because of their diseases, or if they're going to be violent or self-violent).

Most trans people choose to transition EVEN when their ideas align a lot with what you're expressing here, which says a lot about the topic. For instance look at the point this woman makes (the entire interview is interesting but I linked to a particular reply about what I tried to explain before).

This does not mean I'm "amoral" as you have pegged me to be. I am not a theist, but I'm not a moral relativist at all. I just don't agree with what you think is wrong, though, AND also I'm not politically authoritarian, which means that I'm more lax than you in how we should let people commit mistakes. Even then, it barely applies in this case, because transition is the best treatment in at least 98% of adult cases after decades of experience.

And I'm not sure if those people told you, but not taking chemo could've just resulted in a very bleak outcome if the chemo was a good call for the cancer type/stage your husband was in - the general advice can't be to be skeptic of oncologists. Chemo doesn't stop men from having children because criotherapy exists, they can freeze sperm. If you couldn't afford it and had to make the decision it's an entirely different deal. Where I live it's included in social security as are most fertility treatments for couples who want children but can't have them (which by the way includes lesbians).

[RightReason]

Sad and scary . . .

http://ht.ly/aWsw30hGZiz

[marco]

Of course adultery is a perverted form of love. It is harmful, deceptive, and not caring about your spouse’s best interest.

Loving someone who is not your spouse is hardly perverted; it may be the most natural thing in the world.

Adultery may be harmful; it may not be. It may be deceptive; it may not be; it may have nothing at all to do with a spouse's best interest but may be in someone's best interest. The Church used to insist that spouse remained married to spouse, however hard that was on one partner. I think the problem is that people forget about being kind to other humans and pay great attention to religious rules. The church has imposed a great burden of guilt and sadness and no doubt has driven good people to take their own lives, believing they are sinners and finding no other escape. In this regard the church is evil.


It is an absurdity in modern times to regard homosexual acts, far less homosexuality itself, as a sin. That is a few steps away from throwing homosexuals from high buildings or taking brilliant people like Wilde or Turing and punishing them for something that is not society's business.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 59 by marco]

Loving someone who is not your spouse is hardly perverted; it may be the most natural thing in the world.

Am I the only one who uses perverted correctly? The definition . . .

perverted: having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state.

In this sense – adultery is a perversion of the marriage.

Adultery is always wrong. I can be compassionate toward someone who might have felt trapped in a bad marriage. Or I can sympathize with those with extenuating circumstances, but this does not change the truth that adultery is always wrong. And I disagree that it is not always harmful. It is. Even if both parties seem to think it is not. It is harmful to the institution of marriage and the individual whether he realizes it or not.

It is an absurdity in modern times to regard homosexual acts, far less homosexuality itself, as a sin.

Funny, I see the complete opposite. Would you consider it wrong for man to have sex with an animal? If so, why? Please do not use the ‘consenting adult’ argument. We can determine whether an animal is consenting or being harmed. We see the love between humans and animals all the time. We can tell when an animal feels comfortable with another human being and when he doesn’t. Many people consider animals part of their families and love them very much. So, why not be permitted to take that love to a sexual nature? Who are we to say such is not right/good? The situation can bring a great deal of pleasure/happiness to both parties.

That is a few steps away from throwing homosexuals from high buildings

Wow! Not even close. I assume you think stealing is wrong? Am I to accuse you then of being a few steps away from throwing anyone who has been caught stealing from high buildings?

It is your comments that I see as absurdity in modern times. Mine, however are based on science, biology, form, shape, function, reason, and logic. Yours appear to amount to emotional plea, strawman argument, slippery slope exaggerated outcome , etc. . . unless you had something more?