The CIVIL continuation of the gay/bi/lesbian thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by D*I*S_Frontman, Dec 18, 2003.

  1. D*I*S_Frontman macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Location:
    Lombard, IL
    #1
    I just tried to add my $.02 to the gay thread and Arn just shut it down for getting a bit out of hand. Actually, I was quite amazed how long it maintained a civil tone until just the last few posts. Can we continue here and agree to disagree?

    ______


    Ok, to begin with, I am a conservative Evangelical Christian. I believe that the Bible is inspired, Jesus really rose from the dead, the whole enchilada. I hope that doesn't disqualify my observations out of hand for most of you here.

    The nature vs. nurture argument for homosexuality is a morally and religiously charged one, as it begs the questions: if innate, how can it be wrong? If not innate, what causes it?

    Anyway, this is what I have arrived at on this subject:

    1) NATURE vs. NURTURE--Despite what many in the Evangelical Christian camp might say, I think it is patently obvious that a great deal of homosexual tendencies are biologically determined. I have seen the brain studies which show the portion of the brian wired for gender idenity altered in male homosexuals. To argue that "God would never make anyone that way" is unnecessary and disingenuous. Obviously He did allow some to be born this way.

    2) WHO DOES A BIOLOGICAL PREDISPOSITION TO HOMOSEXUALITY JIVE WITH STRONG ANTIHOMOSEXUAL RHETORIC OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS? Biblically this is much easier to reconcile than the machinations of my fellow Evangelicals would indicate. According to the Old and New Testaments, mankind is plagued with sin. This spiritual character defect is common to every person alive, but the manifestations of it vary widely. There are those who compulsively steal, or have addictions to alcohol, or pedophilia, or are violent, the list goes on and on. In many cases these compulsions can be innate and be genetically predetermined. And please don't be upset with me for implicating homosexuality with these other issues--I am just using examples of innate behavioral programming that might run counter to "societal norms." In fact, there are a host of heterosexual deviances that could fit into this category as well. My point is that having an innate desire or instinct does not in and of itself justify a behavior. If so, no kleptomaniac could be held morally accountable for their actions ("Hey, don't blame me! I am just actualizing my natural personhood by stealing your stuff! Can't help it--and why should I? I was born this way.")

    To have an instinctive attraction to the same sex is likely determined in many cases without any choice of the person or any intervening environmental factors (i.e., nurture). But exhibiting what our society considers the corresponding homosexual behaviors is environmental, adaptive and within the realm of free choice of the person. And deciding NOT to express an innate hardwired desire does not automatically doom a person to an unfulfilled life, agony, frustration, or any other such nonsense. It decisively points you in a direction, but doesn't drag you hopelessly down the path.

    3) THE PROPER EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO HOMOSEXUALITY--Without a doubt Jesus would be hanging out in gay bars if he were here today, and not just to rail on people for their lifestyles, either. He would reach out in love to those society deems unlovable or offensive and build relationships. Th big problem with my fellow Conservative Christians is to forget this and focus on judging the lifestyle. Anti-homosexual bigotry would end very quickly if every conservative Evangelical had at least one gay friend--a real friend, not just a tolken gay acquaintance. That requires an inner spiritual and personal strength many of us seem to lack, however. I think the next generation of Christians will be much better at this than the last one.

    4) THE "PROPER" HOMOSEXUAL RESPONSE TO PEOPLE WITH ANTIHOMOSEXUALITY VIEWS--I believe it is both unrealistic and unfair for the homosexual community to make univeral acceptance of the lifestyle its chief aim, as seems to have been the case in the past. If it is a deeply and sincerely held religious view that the practice is morally wrong, you will never convince people it isn't. I hope you find love and validation of your worth and personhood from us, but you can't expect to find acceptance for your behavior in this regard. Our faith does not permit it. The "PC thought police" ethic of trying to coerce some sort of validation from us and shaming us for refusing to offer it is simply counterproductive.

    Having said that, I think the proper response to antihomosexuaity should be pragmatic advocacy of your rights under the law. Except for religious institutions which uphold these beliefs, no other corporate entity should ever be permitted to discriminate on this basis. The rights of a gay partner to be with a dying loved one in a hospital should be vigorously fought for. Governmental programs should all reflect this as well, as it is my opinion that homosexuals tend to pay a per capita disproportionaltely LARGER share of taxes than the average straight person (two income families, no children, etc.). From a governmental standpoint you should be completely free to pursue your "happiness" in a manner unfettered by bigotry.

    Well, I hope I have been civil. This was not intended to be a flame-bait thread or post. Just another opinion.

    Bart
     
  2. idkew macrumors 68020

    idkew

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Location:
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
    #2
    The CIVIL continuation of the gay/bi/lesbian thread


    hehe... an oxymoron.

    just as people can never be civil when talking about guns.
     
  3. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #3
    It's interesting that the romantic side of gay relationships, love, which is the foundation of any true relationship (gay or straight), is completely ignored by those who find the "lifestyle" "unhealthy". Claiming that lust or sex are the basis for same-sex relationships is irresponsible in my opinion. You are ignoring most of the aspects of the relationship, to focus on the one aspect that many straight people are the least comfortable with. Kudos to those who are able to see past this propoganda.

    A gay couple that is together merely for sex is as sad as a heterosexual couple that is together for that same reason. But I know no such couples, on either side. Sex is a healthy aspect of a loving partnership, but a fairly insignifigant part in the grand scheme of things. Two people can be in a perfectly healthy partnership without having sex, if one is unable for instance. It's perhaps easier to identify people as gay if you focus on the physical interaction (which, incidentally, is nothing like you've heard), rather than the less-easily defined affection, romance, and love that are the true bond.

    I find it highly offensive that people would demean my relationship with my partner by suggesting that it is sexual in nature, or that the desired result is sexual gratification. The purpose of our relationship is to love and be loved, to share our lives with each other, to be each others' best friends, and to be each other's life companions. If you can derive sex from that, I think you have some issues.

    paul
     
  4. jxyama macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #4
    paul,

    well stated. i am straight, not homophobic but what you put down is a very good point a lot of us probably miss.

    i think one of the problems is the use of the word "lifestyle." i've always thought it's a strange choice of a word in this circumstances...
     
  5. jxyama macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #5
    Re: The CIVIL continuation of the gay/bi/lesbian thread

    well, some of the behavioral things you mentioned (stealing, violence...) are either not very biological (stealing) or actually harms others (pedophile). i'm not flaming you, but i don't think you can use those as a comparison to homosexuality.

    also, exhibition of personal (genetic) disposition might as well be environmental, but if straight people are allowed a range of such expression in public, i see no reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to do the same, especially if we were to agree that the sexual orientation, at its inherent core, is predominantly genetically determined.
     
  6. D*I*S_Frontman thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Location:
    Lombard, IL
    #6
    paulwhannel,

    You've NEVER been acquainted with relationships built on merely sex, either hetero or homosexual? Yikes! I didn't think a person could leave a public high school without seeing dozens of examples of this.

    I read some of the last posts on the closed thread and I agree that no permanent loving relationship is based solely on sex, and any implication that homosexuals are motivated only by raw sexual gratification is completely unfair. Anybody would be offended at such a generalization. To typify all of homosexuality in this light certainly IS propagandistic, I agree. There is a casual sex community in the homosexual camp, but it is only a subset of the whole. The sensational nature of it inflames some people's sensitivities, but percentage-wise it probably falls in line with the "guy-on-the-make"womanizing that occurs in regular heterosexual society. The AIDS issue just makes it that much more tragic for the gay community.
     
  7. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #7
    Re: The CIVIL continuation of the gay/bi/lesbian thread

    I don't think 'spiritual and personal strength' has anything to do with it. People believe in some things so fiercely that they don't/can't challenge that belief. Belief can be a powerful tool, but when it closes off aspects of the world around you, it can be very dangerous. It's better to have an idea, ideas are a lot easier to change then beliefs.

    I wouldn't say I was a homophobe but one of my friends in university came out, and I caught myself begining to freak. Luckily I spent a moment or two to think about it. I quickly realized that this meant very little in the way it affected our relationship, her personality, or the way I judged her character. In that moment I changed too; and I think for the better because I had learned something about myself.
     
  8. D*I*S_Frontman thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Location:
    Lombard, IL
    #8
    jxyama,

    I wouldn't characterize your comments as "flaming." Conversation and disagreement, yes. Flaming, no. I appreciate your view.

    ARN, don't shut this one down yet, ok? If conflicting opinions were always expressed this way, we wouldn't need moderators.

    As far as my examples go. I can think of one in particular--double Y males. They tend to be much more violent that genetically normal men. But not every single YY male is on death row for murder and not every violent criminal has two Y chromosomes. I have heard that a huge percentage are YY (something like 50%, but I don't remember the source so I can't be sure) but not all.

    Life is a discovery of just who we are (as wound up in our DNA) and who we will choose to be (directed by our choices and will). We are steered but not dragged down that predestined path. That's really all I was saying with that.
     
  9. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #9
    Yes, I know of people on both sides that engage in casual sex, however I guess I just don't see that in a relationship aspect. I don't know two people that live together, call each other "partner" or "spouse" or "signifigant other", and are together for sexual gratification only. Most casual sex comes in the form of one-night stands, and there are also "****-buddies", or friends-with-benefits as they're sometimes known. So, I guess the latter are a form of relationship, but again nothing like the loving, nurturing relationships that gay couples profess and claim to have. And that's a big thing for me, I don't understand why people, gay OR straight, would claim to be partners-spouse-whatever if they were just sleeping together-- I mean, at that point, you're almost suggesting ulterior motivation. Does that bring us to the Gay Agenda? lol... i'm not even going to touch that little piece of misinformation...

    paul
     
  10. jxyama macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #10
    DIS_frontman:

    actually, thanks, and i appreciate your thoughts as well. personal beliefs (religion) are just as important as genetics, i think, just because we are not born to live governed by the DNA. in that sense, i may not agree with your view but i do appreciate the sharing of it.

    the reality is such that there are both religious (some fanatic, i know you are not, frontman - you are devout and that's different from being a fanatic) and homosexual people... the historical precedents seem to favor one and perhaps things are slowly changing to accomodate the other. i hope this thread does not get un-civil. no side is right or wrong, imo, and people with different beliefs and opinions do not mean to be personal about it when there's a disagreement.

    i didn't follow the original thread, but i do think everyone benefits from a calm sharing of thoughts and opinions - not a contest to see who can prove oneself right or prove others wrong...
     
  11. Macco macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    #11
    Re: The CIVIL continuation of the gay/bi/lesbian thread

    First of all, thanks Frontman for continuing this thread (though I'm not sure that this is permitted, since you're basically overriding Arn's decision). But this is certainly a conversation that needs to be had.

    Kudos to you for asking yourself those tough questions. I'm serious. Most people who are conservative religious types (and I don't mean to generalize, but from what I've seen it's usually true) would not have had the courage to question what has been the accepted view on homosexuality for centuries.

    Good, good...

    But your next point is where I would begin to disagree.

    Of course, I'm not "upset" with you for "implicating homosexuality" with stealing, pedophilia, or violence. I just think it's inaccurate. I can't say that I understand your argument at this point. You say that these activities are "innate and be genetically predetermined." Regardless of whether or not everyone thinks that the inclination to commit theft is genetic, we can all agree that stealing is (at least most of the time) wrong. Can we blame the thief for the theft? I think so. At the very least, we should encourage them not to steal. Should we encourage gay people not to be gay? No, and from what you say elsewhere, I think you'd agree with me. So not only is what you say in that paragraph wrong, it's also inconsistent with what you say elsewhere and doesn't make much sense.

    Deciding never to express one's homosexuality means never being honest with oneself or society and never being able to fall in love. So it's not really much of an option for most people.

    I absolutely agree with you on this one. Although the whole idea of "what would Jesus do?" is sorta iffy under any circumstances, I think you're probably right. But I'm somewhat skeptical about the next generation being better at this. I can't say that I see much of a change in conservative religions in favor of acceptance of homosexuality, but if there ever is a change, it will certainly happen because of people like you.

    There cannot be any compromise of the goal of universal acceptance. Repeat that to yourself a few times. There is no alternative to full equality, and nothing short of that can be accepted. It's not unfair to demand that people treat us fairly. It's human.

    Perhaps we will never convince everyone that homosexuality is not wrong. And perhaps, as you say, we will never "find acceptance" for our "behavior." But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, in the hope of convincing future generations if this generation is immovable.
    You claim that your faith does not permit you to accept homosexuality as morally correct. How is it, then, that people reading the same bible can come to different conclusions? It's not your faith that prevents you from acceptance. It's you. If you choose to change your mind, you can change your mind. Only, you don't want to stray too far from your religion's traditional beliefs. It's understandable, but regrettable.
     
  12. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #12
    Personally, i don't demand acceptance. i hope for it, and i long for it... mostly for all of the other gay people out there that will go through the same torments that i did, but may not be as strong. What i do demand is equal rights under the law. i don't care if you "disagree" with my homosexuality (which is, in my opinion, akin to disagreeing with someone's hair color), but i do ask that you agree on my right to live my life as i see fit. and that does not involve forcing myself into a self-hating heterosexual relationship that is detrimental to myself, my wife, and any children that are produced.

    the reason that gay people are so passionate about acceptance, quite simply, is that acceptance = legal rights. and legal rights are all we can ask for without imposing on your rights to "disagree". but legal rights, specifically a denial of them, is a very personal thing, and i don't think it's fair to ask that we not take it personally.

    paul
     
  13. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #13
    I'm Roman Catholic. The Church teaches that homosexuality is fine, but acting upon the homosexuality is a sin because it cannot not result in procreation. This puts it in the same vein as using contraception in a heterosexual relationship, which is generally not very frowned upon today.

    In the end, it doesn't matter if I agree with this or not, because what someone does with their sexuality is their decision alone. And since I'm straight and am guilty of the same "sin" (with girls, to be clear ;) ), I'm in no position to go about telling people what they do is right or wrong. And even if I were chaste, only God has the authority to judge others.

    People do as they will, have their own relationship with their religion and make their own choices.

    If someone wants to call homosexuality a "choice," then they must call heterosexuality a "choice" as well.

    And then they have to ask themselves: "did I choose to be straight?"

    I know I didn't.
     
  14. D*I*S_Frontman thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Location:
    Lombard, IL
    #14


    We seem to have a terminology issue with the word "acceptance." Equality does not equal acceptance. I am for equality under the law. Demanding "acceptance" as in some ascension to the idea that the behavior is morally right is what I am talking about. That is not reasonable to expect. Political Correctness is and should not be a requirement. I should be permitted to have freedom to hold my own thoughts on the matter, and even express them in a free press if I like. If the tables were turned, you would want the right to hold your beliefs without the condescending thought poilce telling you your opinions were dangerous, backwards, or better yet, "heterophobic."



    Well, sort of. One of the most important tenets of conservative Christianity is the trustworthyness of the Bible. An in-depth analysis of the passages in both the Old and New Testaments which directly address homosexual activities are not ambiguous. No matter what translation of the Scriptures you read, if you consult the original texts in their original languages in concert with sound archaeology and a knowledge of the customs of the times, you can arrive at a good grasp of the original intent of the author. In that light, the practice of homosexual activities is expressly forbidden in both the Torah and the New Testament.

    Yes, indeed there are other forms of Christianity that view the Bible in a different light and therefore come to different conclusions on this issue. More liberal views of the authorty of Scripture yield more permissive interpretations and stress the general themes of unconditional love and the universiality of the human condition over the specific mandates of Scripture itself. The original intent of the author is not as relevant as a contemporary reading of the sayings of the Bible.

    I am personally convinced of the validity of Scripture as divinely inspired. Therefore, in that understanding it is not open for revisionist interpretations and I am compelled to take the position I hold.

    It has little to do with church traditions. I am not bound by any particular denomination in my faith. I believe I will be held accountable myself for my actions, and that the Bible will be the benchmark I will be judged by. Therefore, what it says in truth is of utmost importance to me.

    I am sorry if you find that regrettable. At least know that it gives me no excuse or permission whatsoever to express bigotry toward any homosexual, even though it condemns the practice itself without apology.
     
  15. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #15
    D*I*S_Frontman, you are not correct. reading the original texts and translations, in context, shows many problems with the verses that condemn homosexuality. as a baptist minister who has studied scripture for decades points out. Read this and this.

    Also, if we're going to get into bible commandments, specifically regarding sexuality and marriage, read this. It may be a parody site, but it is entirely accurate.

    paul
     
  16. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #16
    Who says? I've had civil conversations about guns. Just don't talk about automatics when you have a bunch of revolver people around. :p
     
  17. ExoticFish macrumors 6502a

    ExoticFish

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    The inner depths of madness, aka Kent, OH
    #17
    I'm not homophobic by any means. i've had lots of gay friends. in fact, my sister is gay and i love her just the same. but to bring up the Christian aspect again because it's something that intrieges (sp?) me a great deal. i call myself a Christian although i should be better about it. but that's exactly my point. according to the Bible EVERYONE sins all the d*mn (oops ;) ) time. if i stop and think about it i sin more times a day than i could count with all my digits and i'm still reading the Bible and have yet to read about everything that is a sin. so according to the Bible is being a homosexual a sin? yes, i've read it. so do i think a homosexual person is any less sinfull than the priest at the church i used to go to who bad-mouthed homosexuals all the time? nope. by bad-mouthing homosexuals he's sinning himself by having hatred for his fellow man.

    a lot a religious people seem to get into uproars about issues when they themselves are often probably being less of a christian than the people they are off bad mouthing. basically it doesn't matter what you are or how you live, as long as you try to be the best person you can possible be and look to God and accept Jesus as your personal savior.

    my $0.02
     
  18. D*I*S_Frontman thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Location:
    Lombard, IL
    #18
    Thanks for the link, paulwhannel. I read quite a bit of the material. BTW, if you type "homosexual" and "bible" in any search engine, you can pull up score and scores of web sites devoted to this new interpretation by scholars of various ability levels.

    My language in college was ancient Greek, first Homeric, then Koine. I am not convinced of the arguments which bend over backwards to contradict the traditional interpretation. It seems to me to be more honest to just say that you don't believe the Bible to be divinely inspired and inerrant and therefore can read a more modern ethic into it rather than try to invent a new meaning from what is there by casting doubt on greek word translation that has two millenia of history to back it up.

    When I was in class we occasionally used secondary research when examining passages. The universal conclusion we arrived at was that any scholarship done after 1900 was basically worthless because it was pregnant with agenda. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was not uncommon for scholars to be absolutely fluent in Hebrew, Latin and Greek by age 12, and the scholarship from that period was more focused on discovering objective "Truth" (they thought there was such a thing back then and that superceded all other concerns) than to prove any particualr point.

    But you are free to believe whatever you want. I doubt if I had conclusive, irrefutable proof that you'd buy it anyway because you have a personal stake in the matter. I don't. My family would be tickled pink if I took the more liberal interpretation, and if I would have brought home a male date in college, my mom would have probably been proud of my "broad-mindedness." I have no animosity whatsoever for any gay person. I am only concerned with obeying God in truth. My studies have lead me to these conclusions on this issue, and that information is useful to me in the sense that I can use it to love and minister to people more effectively.

    ..and this is all very far afield from the original "nature vs, nurture" question from the original thread.
     
  19. ExoticFish macrumors 6502a

    ExoticFish

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    The inner depths of madness, aka Kent, OH
    #19
    wow, i missed the links and such when i started writing my post. i'm really interested in reading them. i'll get to them when i get home from work.
     
  20. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #20
    Up until around 5th grade, I was homophobic. Then I found out someone that I knew was gay. I thought about it for a bit, and came to realize that if heterosexual people didn't choose to be heterosexual, then homosexual people didn't choose to be homosexual. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone any more than heterosexuality(due to the lack of a risk of pregnancy, it may even hurt people less), so just because it's different, doesn't mean it's wrong. Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.
     
  21. voicegy macrumors 65816

    voicegy

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    Sandy Eggo - MacRumors Member since 1-1-2002
    #21
    Keeping within the context

    Thought this would be a good place to put the original link to this discussion, for historical reference, before it was closed:

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=50551&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

    And a quote from the original poster of the topic, our respectful buddy themadchemist, which was what he was he was asking about when he started the thread:

    "Do you feel that there were formative events in your life that promoted your sexuality?

    "If you do think it's genetic, then I was wondering about some lineage data. Are there others in your family who are homosexual?

    "As many people as can answer this question, I think the more informative it would be...Let's not make this another debate over the so-called "ethical issue" of homosexuality. This is purely a question about its development, about whether it's genetic or a product of childhood experiences or, as I would imagine, a little bit of both."

    Given the above, let's continue. :)
     
  22. voicegy macrumors 65816

    voicegy

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    Sandy Eggo - MacRumors Member since 1-1-2002
    #22
    I've said my bit on the previous, closed thread regarding the topic at hand, but I thought of something to add that I recently came across as rather fascinating.

    I don't have a moment right now to search for a possible link, but recently it came to my attention that a survey was conducted where it was discovered that in a surprising number of families that have two sons, the younger of the two was homosexual.

    Scientific? Probably not. Always true? No, of course not. Interesting in itself? Perhaps...my parents had two sons, and I am the younger brother. That intrigued me. Then I started thinking about other homosexual friends of mine, and there were many instances of them being the younger son.

    Something, perhaps, to add to your discovery process, themadchemist?
     
  23. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #23
    First I'd like to say that I support anyone who takes a serious examination of their beliefs/opinions. I feel it's best to examine something before forming an opinion, too often in this world people react without serious thought on the issue at hand. But with regards to your statment above; if you have formed your opinion and feel that you can defend it, then why start this thread at all?

    If you are looking to challenge your beliefs I also think that's a good idea, but you may be going about it the wrong way. Your opinion on this subject stems from your understanding of the Bible which you stated you belive "the whole enchilada" Does this mean you believe the punsihments as well? If we used those guidelines we'd still have slavery and daily stonings on the street corner. I don't know about you but that's not the kind of world I want to live in. So maybe you should re-examine the foundation of your beliefs, and look outside the Bible for a different view. I'm not saying it will change your faith, but it might give you new perspective.

    As an example I read several 'religious' books on Taoism, Zen, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. and books like The Story of B in an examination of my faith. Some like the Taoist books I never agreed with, but they helped me to discover things. Other books like The Story of B really opened my eyes to different thinking.

    So if you want to challange your stance homosexuality (or challange it in others) I don't think you'll find the answer here. Most people need to reflect on these issues which doesn't happen here very often.

    BTW there are many levels of 'acceptance' but one thing is certain. If you try to shame homosexuals or change their ways, or support laws that limit the freedoms of homosexuals that heterosexuals can enjoy, then it's not acceptance at all.
     
  24. D*I*S_Frontman thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Location:
    Lombard, IL
    #24
    [/QUOTE] if you have formed your opinion and feel that you can defend it, then why start this thread at all?



    I was just continuing the previous thread and adding my opinion with regard to the nature vs. nurture question.




    To believe in the "whole enchilada" does not require one to believe that the Law of Moses of the Old Testament Hebrews is fully in effect today. For an Evangelical Christian the Law and its mandates are fullfilled fully in Jesus' sacrifice on the cross and are no longer in effect. Therefore we have specific scriptural directives not to follow those old rules of animal sacrifice, dietary restrictions, or capital punishment for a host of minor offenses. And while slavery was a present reality in those times, the Book of Philemon in the New Testament in a way subversively undermines the institution by Paul's exhortation for a slave's master to receive his runaway slave as a brother and not a a slave due to his recent conversion to Christianity. In fact, early in colonial American history slave holders initially forbade slaves from embracing Christianity for fear that they might have to free a slave once he was a fellow believer (they eventually found other ways to justify the wicked institution once Christianity was widespread among slaves). For the record, Roman slavery and slavery in America pre-Civil War were nothing alike, our version being much more severe and dehumanizing. A Roman slave had roughly the legal staus of an underage minor son; a slave in the antebellum South, on the other hand, had the legal staus not much better than that of cattle.



    I agree. Legal rights, freedom from harrassment and protection under the law are a requirement. I never want my rights infringed upon, so I must fully respect and defend yours--in so doing I am indirectly defending my own. Moral and/or emotional validation for homosexual behavior is not a requirement, however, and calling it "wrong" is not the equivalent of a "hate crime."
     
  25. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #25
    Ok I can understand that then. To me it's not much of a debate. Every homosexual person I know (which I admit isn't a lot, but I know a few) was not adpoted and raised by homosexual couples or parents. In fact my female friend (that I talked about earlier) has come out to everyone except her father. He is so opposed to homosexuality that she fears his wrath and the loss of his love that she hides it from him. Obviously this man did not 'nurture' homosexual behavior in his child, and maybe that's why it took her so long to figure out that she was gay.

    Alright then, is it the only the New Testament where the laws of God should be derived? If so what does the New Testament say about homosexuality?


    YES!! I completely agree that no rights should be infringed upon. What I'm saying is the morality behind the laws made for a society that reflects many religious views should not be based on religion. They should be based on preventing harm to other persons, property, or personal liberty. Sound good?

    The one exception I have to the above is that when you call homosexuality "wrong" do you mean it in a universal everybody-should-know-this sense? Because that's the kind of thinking that does lead to hate crime. You could say homosexuality is wrong for me, but imposing your feeling that it's wrong on others infringes on their personal liberty.

    BTW thanks for the response I hope I haven't offended you. My questions may come off as blunt, but I'm limited for time on these forums.
     

Share This Page