Then to you I repeat the question I asked spooge: where do you draw the line as far as what pleasures are “acceptable” for a G-d to request of its followers?
I am doing nothing of the sort. However, you and the others are trivializing the temptations and personal struggles that non-homosexuals face in their own lives by being completely unwilling to entertain the notion that they could be equal, in the mind of the tempted person, to the temptation of homosexual sex.
The line should be drawn at those activities which cause unwarranted harm to other human beings. All else is arbitrary and capricious. I realize that a deity, if he exists, has the right to make the rules as arbitrary as he likes. I, on the other hand, have the right to call him on it.
I take issue with that phrasing, though: “the temptation of homosexual sex.” Is it a “temptation” for you to have sex with your wife? No, it’s something you do as an expression of your love. Why, then, is it a “temptation” for, say, matt or Esprix to have sex with their SOs? Why is yours normal, but theirs a “temptation”? Do you see where the problem arises? There’s a disconnect in understanding, to my eyes.
Furthermore, I refuse to entertain the notion that a temptation to, say, steal, or consume alcohol to excess, is comparable in some way to physically expressing your love with your partner.
Lol, i love how people assume that if one has a problem with the way sex is viewed in this day and age one must be some bible thumping Christian. This is not the case with me, and marriage, IMO, is pretty much worthless. (except to get a nice tax break) If you love a person it doesnt matter if your married or unmarried.
Yes, i do believe that love is between two people (not three, not six, and certainly not everyone that has a large member, large breasts or is halfway decent looking) that is called lust. How each and every person justifies those actions by calling it love is up to them. Do i believe that love cannot exist between two guys, or two girls? sure, i can say that my love for my best friend exists(although platonic). I love my Father…and he is a man. Love should not be equated with Sex. Yet it almost always is. Shows you how advanced we are.
I judge whenever i want. If it bothers a person than perhaps i have hit my judgement on the head. and as for the lest you be judged yourself bit, well its going to happen if i judge or not.
Do i have a problem with Gays? No, do i have a problem with thier promiscuity? Yes, but the same can be said for the Hormone driven straights (and i would say thier are equal number too) If You cant learn moderation and control then go back to the trees…thats my 2 cents, quit dragging down those who are actually trying to further the Civility of the human race.
That just it- draw the “line”, not “lines”. Those pleasures heterosexuals may indulge in are fair game to homosexuals as well. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have, thanks to God, the same desire for companionship, appreciation for beauty, working plumbing, and sex drives, yet God (apparently) arbitrarily forbids one group and only that one group from acting on them.
I don’t think anyone’s said non-homosexuals are not tempted; but if you want me to see it as a wash, you’re going to have to provide temptations exclusive to non-homosexuals equal to that of homosexual sex (necessarily exclusive to homosexuals).
Something that tempts both doesn’t enter the equation- that includes things like the temptation to have sex with someone you find attractive or the temptation to cheat in a relationship. Who isn’t tempted like that?
So, simply because you can’t separate love and sex, means the rest of us have to follow your lead? Because apparently YOU are the one that has that problem, not your friend. There is love (what he & his family feel for each other) and there is sex (which he and his partners apparently share with each other and with non-partners).
Simply because you don’t care to share sex outside of your primary relationship does NOT mean that people who do, don’t love each other.
Let me put it this way - do you also somehow believe that no one else can use the value of c just because you didn’t invent the General Theory of Relativity? :rolleyes:
Then I guess your comments have no bearing on the OP, that more or less demanded an acceptance of the existence of God.
Umm, what makes you think I’m either Christian or Jewish? For the record I’m not. I am trying to stay within the grounds of the topic for this thread (ie the OP).
And what exactly leads you to believe I am straight?
People who wish to engage in child molestation or bestiality would say the same thing. Life’s not fair, what can I say.
I suspect it’s a lot off, particularly the non-gospel books of the NT. But that’s just my opinion, the OP was presented from a perspective of the Bible being ‘right on’.
That’s a fine guideline for human societal co-existence, but what makes this a “G-dly” thing? Those are the compromises you make with your fellow man with the expectation of reciprocity. If one believes in G-d and expects some form of superior treatment from him, it’s certainly reaonable to expect some higher standard of devotion than that.
Or perhaps, being an all-knowing diety, it’s not arbitrary, it’s merely a standard that humans can’t comprehend. But that’s grist for a different mill.
Absolutely not. This discussion was intended to explain the religious point of view. Religiously, homosexual sex is a sin and heterosexual married sex is not.
But do you think that I don’t understand such temptation? Do you think I wasn’t attracted to my wife before we were married? You know I’m an Orthodox Jew, and you might be aware that husband and wife are forbidden to even touch when the wife is menstruating. Do you think it’s not a temptation for me to not be able to express my love that way for two weeks out of every month? Of course it is.
I’m not saying matt’s or Esprix’s feelings aren’t as normal as mine. However, religiously speaking, what’s sinful is an issue of temptation, and what’s not is not an issue of temptation.
Which is why I did not use such things as examples.
smaft:
As you say parenthetically…the arbitrariness could very well be apparent and not actual.
Well, you could use the examples I mentioned above to pldennison. But also, I think your premise is flawed. Not every heterosexual has the same temptations. Not every person has only one source of temptation in his life. Most people have multiple vices, of differing levels of desire.
I mean, homosexuals are (let’s generously assume) 10% of the population. So maybe 10% of the population is strongly tempted to homosexual sex, and 10% is strongly tempted to work on the Sabbath, and 10% is strongly tempted to eat pork, and 10% is strongly tempted to worship graven images, etc. And there might even be some overlap between the groups.
We humans are multi-faceted beings. We lead lives with many different aspects. Biblical religion deals with all of them, and all people have, in multiple ways, inclinations and desires that are not in accord with what the Bible proclaims.
Homosexuals, due to their recent political awakening, have become a group whose differences of desire with the Bible are well-known and understandable. But that doesn’t mean that the differences that others have are not significant. Temptation is a subjective issue, and to downplay the temptations of others is just as wrong as to downplay the temptations of a homosexual.
Gaspode, buddy! It is true I have made some assumptions about you(not unreasonable ones, based on what you have posted, but assumptions nonetheless).
But you simply must cease the homosexuality/crime-disease comparison. It just doesn’t play. We are not discussing criminals, nor child molestors.
Must stop Spooje?
Seriously though, I think you’re missing the whole point of my posts, so I’ll repeat what I said earlier.
To summarise, calling homosexuality a crime and/or mental illness is perfectly acceptable in light of the assumptions inherent in the OP and following posts.
To wit:
Homosexuality is a crime under Judaeo/Christian law!
Any compulsive behaviour that results in criminal behaviour can be argued to be a mental illness!
All posters seem to agree that homosexual sexual desires are compulsive!
QED homosexuality is both a disease and a mental illness and in this context can be readily likened to child molestation.
If you can find any flaws in my argument please point them out, until then I can’t see any reason why I must stop or why it “doesn’t play”.
Since you’ve used the word disease again I assume that you mean something other than a mental illness, which is what I have compared homosexuality to under the constraints of the OP. What exactly is it you mean by disease, and what in my arguments likens homosexuality to such a condition?
CMKeller, sorry about the lateness of my reply. I actually typed a reply this morning, then my system locked up.
BTW, sorry about the ‘G-d’ question. This was the first I’d heard about it. Please forgive mt ignorance.
I’m all for sacrificing something for the greater good, but I don’t think that’s what is being asked here. We are not talking about a pleasure but a drive, an instinct, and what is considered by many, a need.
I’m going to quote Ptahlis, because this sums it up for me.
This, to me, seems cruel. If I’m ever to believe in a supreme being, I would have to believe that being wasn’t cruel.
Your ‘logic’ is fallacious and flawed. The American Psychological Association removed homosexuality as a mental disorder in the early 1970’s.
Homosexual desires are not complusive anymore than heterosexual desires are. To compare homosexuality to child molestation with no cites to back you up is slanderous and vile. You will only find cites from those who have something to gain from keeping gay people in subjugation without legal protections. Scientists and doctors have seen for almost thirty years that homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality, barring the mental anguish and trauma they are put through by people like you who wish to demonize them.
Judeo Christian law. Such rubbish.
I find anyone who refuses to consider the concept that the Bible may have been tampered with countless times over the past 2000+ years to be either naive or willingly blind.
And even if it has the slightest chance of being true, what place do you have laying judgement and casting aspersions.
Under your faith, are not all people sinners working towards redemption and grace? Is it not a mortal sin to have the arrogance to judge others?
What do you stand to gain from your vile condemnations? Does it give you joy, or some kind of pleasure to sit in self righteous judgement of people who wish to live in peace and tolerance?
Hastur you either didn’t bother to read what I wrote, or didn’t understand it and I know which it is.
I’ll repeat
Notice the big ‘If’ there right at the beginning? That’s how logical argument works. If the basis is incorrect the conclusion is irrelevant. I never mentioned the American Psychological Association, I’m applying my argument to the conditions enforced by the OP.
I couldn’t agree more, and since everyone seems in agreement that heterosexual desires are compulsive we have no issue here.
It appears you didn’t read what I wrote and appear to be simply ranting rather than arguing from any sort of logic or fact. You want cites that "rape, cross-dressing, self-mutilation, trans-genderification, bestiality, necrophilia and child-molestation” have all been considered acceptable behaviour and criminal acts in one or more societies in human history. I can get them if you really want them, but I’m surprised you really need to be informed of this. Had you read my posts rather than jumping in apparently looking for a fight you might have realised that within the framework of the OP and my line of argument these are all the sites I need to draw this comparison. If you see a flaw in this please point it out to me.
Huh? You really can’t follow a logical line of argument can you. The only cites I can find that the ancient Greeks practiced child molestation will be from “those who have something to gain from keeping gay people in subjugation without legal protections”? Please explain this, I’m confused.
And your point is? Has anyone disputed this somewhere? If not why do you bother bringing it up? What bearing does this have on the reasoning underlying the proscription of homosexual relations in Judaeo/Christian scriptures? I’m sure this relates to the topic under discussion somewhere but you sure haven’t explained it.
And you are a petty minded, ignorant, bleeding heart, dandelion sniffing, knee-jerk reactionary without an ounce of common sense and likely suffering from a serious chemical imbalance in addition to your obvious inability to reason or apparently to read.
Exactly how, pray tell, have I ‘demonized’ gays?
What exactly leads you to believe that I am not homosexual, aside of course from your blinkered pig-ignorance and stifled lefty upbringing. Your refusal to accept that not everyone in this universe can be pigeonholed as either ‘downtrodden minority to be protected by the likes of me’, ‘those who hold my own self-righteous beliefs’ and ‘those whom I can attack without any attempt at manners or intelligence because they disagree with me’ is depressingly ignorant and obtuse.
Of course you won’t be able to answer that because the semi-congealed mush between your ears is incapable of understanding any more than the standard pre-digested rhetoric you’ve obviously subscribed to your entire life. This is a debate you cretin! I am trying to “establish” a “line of argument”. Even a basic intelligence, which you obviously lack, should tell you that requires certain parameters to be set and assumptions made. If you were able to reason or read effectively you would have noticed little give-away lines like :
“One of the assumptions of the OP”
“You might dispute whether it is a crime, so might I”
“one of the assumptions we have to make”
“is assumed to be a crime”
“if it is assumed to be beyond the control”
“the OP assumed that homosexuality is illegal”
“can be argued to be a mental illness”
I realise by this stage that you’re a bit slow and incapable of dealing with new ideas that fail to reinforce your belief in your role as defender of modern liberal thinking, but I have no intention of letting your handicap placate me into allowing you to hurl abuse at me unchallenged.
And I think that about sums up all that Hastur is likely to have to add to the debate vis the OP. Not exactly witty, well thought out, reasoned or intelligent, but at least it’s…… nope can’t think of one positive thing to say about that banal little attempt at belittling the religious and ethical beliefs of others. Hastur you truly are a Philistine lacking in any form of tact or grace.
That really clinches it, you didn’t even read this thread before wading in did you, you clown? Does this look familiar:
If it does look familiar what exactly was the point of your last statement? The only thing I can think of is to try to reinforce your own pathetically inadequate sense of self-importance by attempting to demonstrate how broad minded you are. Correct me if I’m wrong.
WTF? It appears you didn’t even read the OP! If it doesn’t have the slightest chance of being true then what bearing does anything you have to say in this post have on my line of reasoning. You truly are an insufferable dolt. Try reading next time, you might learn something, though I doubt it.
And if you can give me even one example of where I did either of those things prior to this post I won’t even expect an apology, you ill mannered lout.
[/quote]
Under your faith
[/quote]
And what faith might that be Hasturd? Do your whiney hypocritical beliefs give you the ability to gaze into men’s souls over the internet? Or are you just another obnoxious jerk with serious questions regarding his morality making baseless assumptions about people you’ve never met so you can justify your pathetic belief system. Take your time answering.
FWIW, in my belief no, but I assume that’s meant to be an attempt at a hypothetical question that you stuffed up because of the stupid assumption you made earlier.
See above
By God you truly are an obnoxious, self-righteous, hypocritical and ill-informed maggot aren’t you? I’ll just repeat, show me one instance where I made a ‘vile-condemantion’ and I won’t even expect an apology. Try reading what is written, not what you wish to read to justify your own self-centred moralistic views.
I assume you mean the kind of peace and tolerance you’ve just displayed, you impotent, whiney judgemental little creep.
Try getting a handle on an argument before you weigh in next time you irritating maggot, and you might not look like such a hypocritical fool.
The concepts ‘hypothetical situation’ ‘line of reasoning’ and ‘framework for discussion’ obviously elude your feeble intellect! But the so, I suspect, do the concepts cat, mat, bunny and toilet paper.
Dolt.
Spooje if this ‘thing’ is your hero you have serious social problems.
Ok, what say we all take a step back here. Gaspode, I must question you.
Are you just playing Devil’s Advocate or arguing a position you believe in? If you are playing Devil’s Advocate, we can stop here. You wrote this in response to Hastur
But you wrote this earlier:
I need clarification on your veiws. I have seen no one but you state that homosexual desires were compulsive, and no one but you state that heterosexual desires were compulsive.(unless I missed something, if so, I apologize in advance)
On the Gay Bashing thread in this forum, Goboy made a comment pertinent to this subject, which I cannot do better for a post here than to copy my response verbatim:
I should add that Goboy, accepting my point, pointed out that he himself does not engage in Wild Monkey Sex. (That would be Esprix – see his MPSIMS posts on how he whiles away the weary hours in San Diego. ;)) However, he commented that he reserves the right to decide how and when he will enjoy sex, and it’s nobody else’s business.
I could not agree more. I hope I stressed strongly enough that to me the issue is not whether “homosexuality is sinful” but whether I or anyone else has a right to judge how another person feels and acts on those feelings. Which gets us into Jodi’s Judgmentalism thread – this post is turning into a mass of crosslinks.
And, quite simply, the fact that a Jewish or Greek Christian writer used a term does not mean that that term had the meaning to him it has at the opening of the 21st century. Or Chaim would be flying off to Jerusalem with five golden Logitech mouses, presumably with their drivers, to sacrifice them at an altar in Shiloh, as is called for in Judges. [Note to the Grammar Police: it is my understanding that the plural of “cursor-controlling computer peripheral device” is not mice, any more than the proper past tense of the verb for “to hit a fly ball” is flew rather than flied.]
True enough, I suppose, but you asked us what we thought would be reasonable lines to draw as regards a deity. I can’t imagine that the concept of “reasonable” is that much different in the heavenly realsm or whatever. And, certainly, you can understand why nonbelievers would be aghast at the concept of a deity who would create someone homosexual then make homosexual sex against the rules to see who can withstand it and who can’t.
Anyway, I hope you see the reverse is true as well: If one does not believe in a deity, any line drawn beyond the one I mention seems a bit silly.
It certainly is.
OK–now imagine the rules say that you’re never allowed to touch your wife again. Although, frankly, I’m not all that tempted to touch my wife when she’s menstruating, but I don’t have to give it two weeks, either.
But don’t you see the difference? The second group is not told they can never work–they’re told they cannot work one day out of seven. The third group is not told they cannot ever eat, or even that they cannot eat foods they like–they’re told they cannot eat one food. But homosexuals are told they can never have sex, unless they have it with someone they do not love and are not married to. I can’t see why you conflate those degrees of “temptation,” because to me they are self-evidently not equivalent.
A small quibble: I never said I didn’t have Wild Monkey Sex
at all, just not with different partners every night. With my Sweet Babboo, however, it’s rock me, Dr. Zaius!
I think people need to lay off Esprix. In every gay-related thread, there is someone commenting on Esprix’s wild times in San Diego. Esprix is dedicated to safe sex, the tricking is consensual, and he is giving other men at least a little affection and comfort in a lonely world.
If you really wish to obey God’s sexual dictates as laid out in the Bible, then yes, you have to have sex only in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage, and per Paul’s comments in Romans, you should have sex only to procreate and never for fun or affection, because that’s a sin. The Bible is very clear on the subject, and no amount of exegesis or special pleading will get you of the hook.
Now if you have even one brain cell in your head, you will realize that the Bible is just a book like any other, spouting a bunch of ideas that might have been fine for a
male-dominated desert tribe 3000 years ago. I like to think we have gained a deeper understanding of human psychology in
the intervening millennia, just as we know now that thunder isn’t caused by Yahweh’s wrath. Human sexuality is complex, and as long as a relationship is between consenting adults,
then it’s fine. After all, are straight people really all that threatened by gay folk? Are straights going to turn gay just because they see gay couples in public? Do you really think that gay people are evil because they love members of the same gender? Just get used to the idea that being different is a delightful piece of the mosaic of humanity, and not a thing to be hated just because it doesn’t float your particular boat.
Ah, don’t worry about it. It comes up from time to time, I guess you just missed it last time it did. I, myself, am somewhat surprised that pldennison seemed so indignant about it in my defense.
But you fail to realize that all temptations are things that people are driven to do, that they feel they need. Temptation is in the mind of the tempted. It may be different triggers, but it’s the same combination of adrenaline, dopamine, endorphins, whatever…that generates the desire, the craving. It seems different to an outsider, but inside the head, it really isn’t…it’s the same choice between one’s physical or mental desires, cravings, instincts and one’s desire to find favor in G-d’s eyes.
pldennison:
Well, of course, but the OP presupposed the existence of the deity.
I figured you were going to mention that. However, the difference is one of duration, not one of strength of temptation.
Off-topic…just for the record, it’s not two full weeks of menstruation. The Jewish law is that the couple must wait a full week after the last sighting of blood (and then immerse in a Mikvah-pool) before resuming relations.
Please re-read your post more carefully. In dealing with groups two and three, you are saying that their temptation isn’t “never”, and then for the first group (the homosexuals), you say “never…unless.” Allow me to restate the other groups’ issues in the way that would have been more proper for you to state it in your paragraph above:
“The second group is told they can never engage in a trade, unless they are willing to accept one-seventh less revenue and risk losing customers to those who do work on the Sabbath. The third group is told they can never eat, unless they eat something they do not like.”
