Just for the record.
I never made any reference to one of Polycarp’s posts in this thread.
Please continue:
If you’d read my posts, which you are still apparently not doing you would have seen the following:
“I stand corrected on this one. I was applying slightly tighter definition of disease that only encompasses physical, biological dysfunction. By this mental illness could be a symptom of a disease, but not a disease itself.
I notice the commoner (and therefore more correct) definitions define it as anything disrupting or impairing function. Therefore mental illness is a disease, as is being shot. Mae culpa. “
It is obvious you are not even bothering to read my posts before attempting to argue against me, or for some reason are unable to understand them.
You didn’t do that actually. Allow me to walk you through it.
Gaspode “Any compulsive behaviour that results in criminal behaviour can be argued to be a mental illness! If homosexuality is assumed to be a crime and if it is assumed to be beyond the control of those committing the ‘crime’ then it becomes a mental illness. There is no black and white line here.”
(Bear in mind if you will all the ‘if’s in there. No intention to defame, insult etc is in evidence and certainly none was intended)
Hasture:“By this definition, you could only consider homosexuality a disease if you were going to try and claim that homosexuality is an impairment of normal functioning. “
Gaspode: “I would have to conclude that criminal behaviour makes it impossible to function normally in society.”
QED homosexuality is a disease if you accept that homosexuality is a crime.
You can argue all you like that the fact that it is a crime is only a social constraint (which it obviously is) but the facts remain.
Perhaps the Encyclopaedia Britannica can help with a definition.
“A more generally useful definition than either of the above is that a mental disorder is an illness with psychological or behavioral manifestations that occurs in an individual and that is associated either with a painful or distressing symptom, with impairment in one or more important areas of functioning, or with both.
Being a criminal is going to impair functioning. No judgements on whether this criminality is right or wrong, just or unjust. That’s the topic under discussion as near as I can decipher it: is God just if he declares homosexuality a crime and metes out punishment for it?
I would like to point out that several gay posters have described how being homosexual makes it difficult to function in society due discrimination, ridicule etc. Again this is obviously purely social and obviously wrong, but that is not relevant to my argument. This discrimination presumably impairs a homosexual’s ability to function normally. Several have also described it in various ways as distressing. Therefore the behavioural and psychological manifestations of homosexuality are (often) associated with painful or distressing symptoms and with impairment in one or more important areas of functioning. Granted this is only so if we accept that homosexuality is a crime and if society will not or cannot prevent discrimination and other anti-homosexual behaviour, but I have already demonstrated my reasoning behind saying that the hypothetical of the OP presupposes this.
By the above definition homosexuality is a mental disorder if (note the big ‘IF’) we accept it is a crime.
Can you show me where I have been ‘proven’ wrong please Hastur
OK lets get this quite straight Hastur. If you can trot out any instances where I have asserted anyone is mentally ill without making it quite clear that it is a hypothetical argument, held within the constraints of the hypothetical OP I will be more than willing to apologise. Every time I have said anything like that I have made sure it was prefaced with several ‘if’s etc.
It is regrettable if discussing this causes some people pain, and if someone is willing to say that this is causing them pain, or if you assert this then I will be happy to desist right now if you will open another thread where I can continue this, and where we can make it quite clear from the top that anyone who may be hurt shouldn’t continue.
The problem is Hastur that many things cause people pain. I have two friends who find the discussion of abortion traumatic, particularly if anyone suggests that it is wrong. Should we not debate abortion? This rapidly brings the number of meaningful topics of discussion down to zero. All we can really do is ask people who may be hurt by a topic under discussion to leave when it becomes distressing, and let them know when we are discussing said topic.
I must admit that I never really considered that people who were not entirely confident in their sexuality could be hurt accidentally by this, but can you honestly say Hastur that you would never discuss abortion for the reasons I have stated above?
Believe it or not yes. I just don’t think that the fact that someone is feeling pain is sufficient reason to stifle or censor a topic completely. Many people find discussions on rape distressing, yet we’ve had those. I’m sure some people find the gun ownership debate distressing, or drug abuse or the prospect of an Iraq/Israel nuclear exchange. Yet we discuss all these with impunity. Not because we don’t care but because they are relevant, stimulating, help us define who we are and for a host of other reasons.
Refuted it certainly has been, as evolution by natural selection was refuted, as tectonic plate theory was refuted and as the Solar centric system was refuted. Refuted is not proven wrong. If nothing was refuted there would be no debate.
As for whether I care if it comes off hostile and intolerant, I thought I’d made it quite clear in the post above that I don’t give a rats tit. If you choose to find my posting hostile or intolerant tough titties. If you find it erroneus be good enough to let me know why.
You have come across as hostile to several board members according to a current pit thread. Do you care? You come across as hostile to me right now, and particularly when you accuse me of demonising homosexuals for posting a hypothetical argument. Do you care? Is it relevant whether you care?
Well I doubt if that would stand up if someone were trying to win a slander case, but we’ll let it slide. The important point is that you are unable to provide me of one instance where I did this without making it very, very, very clear it was hypothetical and within the constraints of the OP. For about the millionth time, if you can find an instance of where I did this the please repost it and I will apologise. Calling someone homophobic for simply postulating that homosexuals could be described that way smacks of paranoia, lunacy and self loathing.
Nope, no more than every single Iraqi feels demonised by the nuclear war thread because it says they are guilty of starting a nuclear holocaust. It’s hypothetical. The word is in the dictionary and again
if you can find an instance of where I did not make this clear please repost it and I will apologise.
v. tr. cen·sored, cen·sor·ing, cen·sors. :To examine and expurgate.
ex·pur·gate : To remove erroneous, vulgar, obscene, or otherwise objectionable material from (a book, for example) before publication.
So Polycarp asking me to examine my posts and remove objectionable material before posting is indeed asking me to engage in censoring. My thoughts have not been censored because, as I said to Polycarp, I will do my damnedest to prevent them being so.
The above definition proves that my assertion that he was asking me to self-censor was indeed correct.
I suggest you check these definitions on dictionary.com, which you have said you have access to, before calling my usage into question again. It just wastes my time shooting down obviously erroneous statements like the above.
Thank god in this country at least I have various legal precedents protecting my right to think however I wish, as much as anyone may dislike it. I also work with scientists who have the intelligence to understand the concept of a line of reasoning and hypothetical speculation. All my friends also do. We have similar discussions to this frequently in the lunchroom at work and both gay and straight co-workers are happy to join in. Like I said they understand words like ‘hypothetical’ and ‘if’.
Even if this were not so what would this prove? Only 50 years ago in this country, in Great Britain and I suspect, in yours, anyone expressing the opinions on personal sexuality that you have done would have been subject to social exile and more than likely automatically sacked.
This makes social censorship a good thing does it?
I’m astounded that someone who openly admits to belonging to one of the most persecuted groups in the history of European culture would suggest that social censorship is a good thing. What the hell are you thinking Hastur?
Possible though I doubt you could find a cite to back you up. The reason why I won’t find much censorship on this board is I will not allow myself to be censored by the likes of you or Polycarp. There are doubtless others who have been bullied into not discussing these topics for fear of being branded homophobic by those hateful of any heterosexuals that will even consider that homosexuals are less than perfect.
And for the points I’ve outlined it is in this discussion.
Wrong, that it is a crime is subjective dependant on whether you accept the OP that “they must make the choice to be straight if they want to avoid God’s wrath. “
Or that “homosexuality is a choice and regard the act as a sin”
Or that “homosexuality-as-choice-and-sin”
All straight from the OP. The OP requires that homosexuality be a sin in this situation.
If you don’t accept the OP then there is no discussion for you here. Or to repost the statement I made that originally got you all fired up “One of the assumptions of the OP was that homosexuality was a crime under the law of God. You might dispute whether it is a crime, so might I, but the fact remains that is one of the assumptions we have to make”
Given that Dictionary.com, which you obviously respect, defines sin as “A transgression of a religious or moral law” I can justifiably call homosexuality a crime under the OP. You are free to argue semantics, but there is no factual or logical reason why I can’t do so.
Amen
“That everyone will agree that it is an offense against morality” is exactly what the Op does. It is quite clearly directed at “posters who feel that homosexuality is a choice and regard the act as a sin”.
It also requires that everyone accept that “homosexuals …. must make the choice to be straight if they want to avoid God’s wrath. “
If you don’t accept this then there is no argument for you here. You can’t dispute the very framework of a hypothetical discussion. That’s just arguing the toss.
Or as I clearly said right at the beginning “It just depends on the society and what laws it chooses to apply.”
What’s your point here Hastur? You are agreeing with something I have already posted quite clearly and more than once.
Give me a claim, I’ll support it or retract it. As for not using logic, can you point out something illogical here? If you can’t this is just another ad hominem attack.
Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Oxford dictionary are ad hominem beliefs? We’re in trouble.
Ahh, no the only terminology I called into question was Spoojes use of mental disease, which I though too broad. It was in fact you and Polycarp who challenged my definitions of sin and censor.
Ah well, can’t argue with such strongly logical and factual material as that. It’s so well supported with quotes and cites.
What would you like a cite for, I’ll get it. Just say the word. I’ve already provided cites for necrophilia and bestiality being accepted in some cultures, and for mental disease being anything that causes distress or reduces function, as well as for sin being equitable with disease. I’ll provide anything else you like.
Yet despite this I am running rings around you while simultaneously trumping every hand. Not bad for an amputee.
I realize this is my first posting, but after wading through the long conceits, mangled peanuts, squished chocolate, mud, and mire, I have a few questions.
What is love?
From an linguistic [American English]point of view I would quote the Mirriam-Webster’s Collegiate dictionary:
love-1: Pronunciation: 'l&v
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lufu; akin to Old High German luba love, Old English lEof dear, Latin lubEre, libEre to please. Date: before 12th century
1 a: (1)strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child>
(2)attraction based on sexual desire;affection and tenderness felt by lovers
(3)affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates>; b: an assurance of love <give her my love>
2.warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea> 3 a :the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration baseball was his first love>; b: (1) : a beloved person : DARLING – often used as a term of endearment (2) British – used as an informal term of address
4 a : unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another: as(1) : the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2) : brotherly concern for others b : a person’s adoration of G-d
5 : a g-d or personification of love
6 : an amorous episode : LOVE AFFAIR
7 : the sexual embrace : COPULATION
8 : a score of zero (as in tennis)
9 capitalized, Christian Science : G-D
- in love : inspired by affection
love-2
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): loved; lov·ing
transitive senses
1 : to hold dear : CHERISH
2 a : to feel a lover’s passion, devotion, or tenderness for b (1) : CARESS (2) : to fondle amorously (3) : to copulate with
3 : to like or desire actively : take pleasure in <loved to play the violin>
4 : to thrive in <the rose loves sunlight> intransitive senses
: to feel affection or experience desire :
(Notice that the most used verb form of love is instransitive)
From a Biblical [Christian] standpoint I would say that G-d is love. Hold on to that thought- I will expound upon it in a minute.
Also from a Biblical [Christian] point of view I would quote 1 Corinthians 13 4-8(KJV) “Charity sufferth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vauteth not itself, is not puffed op, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seekeht not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believth all things, hoeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth…” In modern venacular that would translate (NLT), “Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance. Love will last forever.”
Scientifically, Love, like any other emotion or action, is a chemical reaction.
(I don’t know the athiest point of view, nor the Jewish point of view, nor any other view besides the ones I have mentioned.- If anyone wishes to expound, please do.)
The whole reason I am asking this question is because it seems [to me] that a big part of the homosexuality controversy [aside from the biological aspect] is whether or not same-sex relationships are of love or lust. Is sex the ultamite expression of love?
As someone already pointed out, it is unnatural to have sex with the same gender in that the whole purpose of sex is to procreate. But is it unnatural to love someone of your own gender to the point you wish to spend the rest your life with that person?
Ok, another question.
It seems [to me] that the most accepted concept that people who believe the Jewish/Christian
G-d exists adhere to is that He is one of love; yet overlook that because He is a G-d of love, He is also sovereign. G-d did not merely set rules about diet and ceremonial cleanliness because he could, he did it because he loves his people; it was for their own good. (Notice that the Jews were the cleanest and healthiest people.)
Anyway, I have many other questions, but I will save them for later.
*Please be easy on me; like I said- this is my first posting. ::::looks back over the discussion between ** Gaspode ** and ** Polycarp *:::::
–Kat–
Right, Snark.
Now you are comparing homosexuality to alcoholism and disease.
Well, spooje, there’s something you’re missing then. It isn’t a matter of just “believing”, that supreme being exists. Whether you like Him or Her or Them (regarding whatever religion) or not. And the laws are the laws whether you like them or not. Eternal life isn’t some game that Christians play, or Jews, and universal one-ness isn’t something that the Buddhists “conveniently” believe in.
Fact1.1: God exists.
Fact1a: God set down rules to live by.
Fact1b: If we wish to live in God’s grace, we abide by those rules.
You dispute fact 1 and then wonder why you also don’t agree with fact 1a and 1b. I dispute fact one and know that it is because I didn’t accept 1 as a fact that I don’t see 1a or 1b. But were I to accept 1 as a fact, the rest follow from that.
Boiled down, Gaspode’s argument seems to be that the idea that homosexual orientation not being a choice therefore somehow implies compulsiveness in behavior.
I assert the distinction between urge (which makes no judgment over controllability, and generally implies that it is controllable unless modified by a term stating otherwise) and compulsion, which is beyond control. These are terms which distinguish between the ability to choose whether to act out a predisposition in overt behavior and the lack of that choice. Gaspode apparently rejects that distinction on the basis of how he reads a dictionary definition of the terms. He further rejects my suggestion that his argument depends on the transfer of terms between distinct separate usages of the terms.
I suggest a strong distinction between the universe of ideas, in which anything goes, and the universe of ad hominem remarks, where offensiveness can be taken. Gaspode seems to feel that any remark, no matter how hurtful to members in its implications, which is not strictly a personal putdown, is acceptable. Nor does he give a “rat’s tit” (direct quote) about how others may feel. In other words, my saying “Gaspode is an idiot” would be contrary to board policy, but “Gaspode’s posts compare unfavorably to the rantings of a lunatic” would be a valid statement of opinion, and his taking offense at the latter statement would be unjustifiable censorship.
I assert that Christianity includes a number of points of view regarding the topic under discussion, that I and other Christians with whom I am acquainted do not hold the homophobic point of view, and that numerous denominations (which can be validated by web searches) have gone on record with the stance I and the others hold. I conclude from this that a generic statement about “what Christians think” that claims they espouse the homophobic attitude is therefore invalid. For some reason the logic of this statement escapes Gaspode.
I further maintain that assertions about the views of Christians might well be left to the Christians concerned, not asserted, apparently dogmatically, by someone who insists he is not one. This is, apparently, another case of censorship in his eyes.
I challenge him to state his motivations in pursuing this line of inquiry, since it is one not contemplated by the OP, which set up an inoffensive analogy between an allergy and liking for peanuts and the sexual orientation question, and asks, in effect, what God is responsible for. He maintains that it is implied by the OP, and that his arguments are with reference to the OP.
In short, any argument which refutes his view is invalid on the basis of how he reads the dictionary and applies logic (improperly, in my view). To me, this sounds strangely like the last few fundamentalists to make assertions based on how they read the Bible.
I see no point in pursuing this line of inquiry further. Under Gaspodian logic, he has won. The presumption I have that almost nobody else agrees with his logical sequences doesn’t seem to be applicable to his system. I welcome disagreements with this from third parties, since I can well accept the possibility that I am wrong. In their absence, I’m done with this waste of time.
Vanilla wrote:
Comparing, yes, in that it may be partly genetic, just like the other diseases/problems are genetic.
Equating, no.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. On all points, including the pointlessness of ‘debating’ him when he isn’t really debating.
Can we please stop with the strawman on this one at least Polycarp. As I have stated several times my argument is ‘that sexual desires are compulsive, not taking part in sexual acts.’ I’ve stated this in direct rebuttal of exactly this same assertion posted above. You are just being obstinate in continuing to imply that I ever said anything else.
Having cleared that!
Watch carefully now, my hands never leave my sleaves.
Homosexual desires are compulsive (Compulsive: resulting from or relating to an irresistible urge)
[1]Homosexual desires result from or relate to an irresistible urge* (Resist : try to prevent by action or argument)
Homosexual desires result from or relate to an urge that cannot be prevented by action or argument. (urge: verb (with obj. and usu. Infinitive) encourage someone to continue or succeed in something: he could hear her voice urging him on. )
- Homosexual desires result from or relate to something which encourages them to continue.* (desire: strong sexual feeling or appetite)
Homosexual feelings or appetites result from or relate to something which encourages them to continue. (encourage: help or stimulate (an activity, state, or view) to develop.
Homosexual feelings or appetites result from or relate to something which stimulates the state of having homosexual feelings or appetites to continue)
Are you disputing that something continually stimulates homosexual desires and encourages them to continue. I sure know something continually stimulates my sexual desires and encourages them to continue.
I can keep going with the definitions if you like until we end up with one sentence three pages long consisting of single syllable words which even you can’t dispute. The end result will still mean “Homosexual desires are compulsive” according to the Oxford dictionary. No possibility of changing definitions halfway through, no implications necessary. Pure simple usage of the English language.
You can run this one round the yards all day Polycarp, but you’re not going to get a saddle on it.
You can assert all you like Polycarp, that’s not a logical rebuttal, the definitions form the Oxford have been posted. However since your basic premise that “Gaspode’s argument seems to be that the idea that homosexual orientation not being a choice therefore somehow implies compulsiveness in behavior.” is a blatant strawman and in direct contradiction to what I have posted several times it hardly matters.
Not how I read a dictionary Polycarp. I just substitute the terms as I go along and come out with the same sense. However since your basic premise that “Gaspode’s argument seems to be that the idea that homosexual orientation not being a choice therefore somehow implies compulsiveness in behavior.” is a blatant strawman and in direct contradiction to what I have posted several times it hardly matters.
I just substitute the terms as I go along and come out with the same sense. However since your basic premise that “Gaspode’s argument seems to be that the idea that homosexual orientation not being a choice therefore somehow implies compulsiveness in behaviour.” is a blatant strawman and in direct contradiction to what I have posted several times it hardly matters.
“maintaining “it’s been proved; nobody disagrees with me” is the same sort of childishness you misinterpreted my statements as being – “I’ll ignore anybody who disagrees.”
I never at any stage of course even suggested that nobody disagrees with me.
[/quote]
“on your inference they certainly should have been compulsively moved to ravish me in the middle of RTFirefly’s living room.”
This despite my previously posting
“sexual desires are compulsive, not taking part in sexual acts. Since a desire is a mental/emotional thing …… I must be talking about mental/emotional behaviour”
[/quote]
“And if you don’t find the idea that they can choose whether to commit a particular sex act or not obvious, then you’re implying that they, unlike the rest of us, are compulsive in the clinical sense.”
Again this is directly contradictory to what I posted prior to his saying asserting this:
“sexual desires are compulsive, not taking part in sexual acts. Since a desire is a mental/emotional thing …… I must be talking about mental/emotional behaviour”
[/quote]
[/quote]
“Every gay person on this board and every one I have seen reflect on their state in print has asserted vehemently that it was not a choice. If you disagree, the onus is on you to prove they all were in error.”
And again I had previously posted exactly the opposite viewpoint:
“Let’s just say for the here and now sexuality is beyond the control of the vast majority of human beings.”
[/quote]
[/quote]
“I further maintain that assertions about the views of Christians might well be left to the Christians concerned, not asserted, apparently dogmatically, by someone who insists he is not one.”
After my having posted quite clearly:
“Can you show me where exactly I even alluded to what people of your faith might or might not believe?
You are yet again refusing to accept what is written in plain English, and asserting I am making an “attempt to prove that people of my belief system actually hold views opposite to mine.”
Well you stated the case strongly enough, now back it up. Show me one place where I stated anything about what Christians believe (I assume you’re a Christian)?”
[/quote]
[/quote]
“Gaspode’s argument seems to be that the idea that homosexual orientation not being a choice therefore somehow implies compulsiveness in behaviour.”
This one was particularly annoying and particularly blatant since by this stage I had posted no less than 5 times that “sexual desires are compulsive, not taking part in sexual acts. Since a desire is a mental/emotional thing …… I must be talking about mental/emotional behaviour”
[/quote]
I don’t know why you bother with these strawmen, Polycarp. Simply by reposting what I have said prior to your using them it becomes painfully obvious that you are attributing thoughts, words and motivations to me that are not only not in evidence, but actually in direct contradiction to posts that you must have read. Again this shows the total strength of your argument, you are reduced to caricaturing me and putting words in my mouth because you are unable to logically argue against what has actually been posted. When you do it as blatently as this it becomes clear to all what you are doing.
I am genuinely disappointed Polycarp. Your performance in other threads lets me know you are capable of so much better than this. I have never, for example, known you to resort to a strawman argument before, yet here you do so several times so blatantly that it is obvious to all.
As I said, I think you leapt into this one without considering what was actually posted in order to prove how liberal you are. With no means of logically objecting to what I had posted, and no factual rebuttal possible you should have withdrawn peacefully. Instead you were forced to resort to poor debating techniques. At least you still have the good graces to admit you may be wrong.
Good debating you Polycarp, I’m sure we’ll cross swords again.
Hastur.
I won’t say it’s been good debating with you, it hasn’t.
These legitimate queries were directed at you:
You make no attempt to address them and can only come up with ‘he’s not debating’ in response.
Well the questions are there Hastur. Doubtless they make you uncomfortable, doubtless they make you question may things, yet they are essentially the same questions that you directed at me and which I was confident enough in my own beliefs, behaviour and lifestyle to respond to. That you are unable to do so tells me all I need to know about you Hastur.
Good bye.
Not true. So not true.
I have debated abortion and many other topics.
You have ignored a great deal of what I have had to say, which has been cogent and dealt with the issues at hand, and you have completely ignored most of my posts and then claimed I ignored your points.
You know nothing about me, as you’ve demonstrated you know NOTHING about what it is to be gay. You do not substantiate your posts and expect ad hominem to be accepted as fact and truth.
Your posts are a great deal of sound and fury signifying NOTHING.
By your narrow definitions, heterosexuality is also compulsive and beyond their control. You dismiss and criticize without having any thought that you are projecting your foibles on Polycarp, myself, and anyone else who disagrees with you.
I only pray that goodbye was more sincere than your posts.
- It isn’t a fact. At least not as I, or more importantly, the American Heritage Dictionary, define fact.(in this case, something that has been objectively verified or something having a real, demonstrable existence) It could well be true, and it could well be hogwash. So a personal, subjective belief is very much at issue.
1.a If 1.1 is not fact, 1a and 1b cannot be facts, since they are dependent on 1.1. May be true, may be a fairy tale.
Even if I accept that God exists, and that God did set down rules to live by, I still would have hard time believing that the book(The Bible, which claims that large section of the population are beneath contempt by a simple fact of their being) accurately reflected those rules. I personally beleive, as I have stated before, that a lot of stuff that made it in to the Bible that reflected only the prejudice and personal baggage of the writer(man).
If God exists, he/she may well have kicked some serious butt when these writers passed on the other side. It will be a while before any of us know for sure.
OK. I am going to say this one more time and then I am going to bow out from this thread.
If we “know” that God exists we must accept the morality He lays out or face the consequences. This is not “ignorant”. This is not “stupid.” It is a religious belief.
I don’t understand what is so hard to see about this. spooje, you and I are going to hell and are sinning just as much as the practicing homosexuals.
To us, the religious people are wasting time and mental effort in believing in a non-existant god.
Now, there are three possibilities. They are right. We are right. Neither of us are right. You are condemning them because you think you are right. They are condemning whoever because they thing they are right. I think you are both driving me crazy. 
I don’t recall condeming anyone. (of course, I have been a little cranky last couple of days) I apologize for giving that impression. I, too, will bow out of this thread.
Whisper, welcome to the SDMB. You’ll have to raise those questions probably in another thread. We’ve a handful here.
I think the “mental illness” misunderstanding has gotten far too out of hand. The line drawn in the past two pages has been on the issue of pure semantics and has regrettably left the original question in the dust. In fact, it seems to me that the two sides are arguing different points, each lowering to personal assaults since the debate volleys are missing target.
All debate about the debate aside, Gaspode has adopted the constraints of the OP for argumentative purposes as I originally intended. I regret that this is still misunderstood. That the “compulsion” and “crime” issues have muddled the original question is disheartening. That each side devolved from that point on just plain sucks.
To perhaps clarify the intention of the OP, which was indeed directed at the homosexual-intolerant side of Christianity, I wished for responses so that I could learn the logic used by those who accept the Bible and Christianity as both anti-homosexual AND a personal ideology in regards to the choice issue. As such, I was hoping everyone who posted would at least wear that side’s hat.
BTW, I based the (admittedly fault-ridden) analogy on the disease diverticulosis, which necessitates that those afflicted refrain from eating nuts or seeds. I hadn’t realized the peanuts/penis connection :D; I was actually trying to avoid using “seed” in the analogy, as in “let’s say God says I’m not allowed to eat (swallow) seeds.” That would have been a little too much.
Basically, I was asking the more conservative side if God made folks homosexual OR if God made folks heterosexual and there was something else that made them homosexual. The reason I asked is that I find that if the former is true, then it would not follow that homosexuality could be a punishable sin. If the latter is true, which seems to be the held position in the conservative Christian (to name one) camp, then I want to know what is viewed to be the cause of homosexuality. Perhaps in this one question I asked far more than originally planned.
The main answers so far have been basically: God didn’t make us hetero- OR homosexual. He laid down the rules of what is right (hetero) and what is wrong (homo), gave us an appetite for sex, and left us to choose whether to sate that appetite with men or women.
Counters to this statement have been:
- God doesn’t exist, so the question is irrelevant.
- The Bible is fuzzy in the gay area, so the question is irrelevant.
- Homosexuality’s classification as illegal/sin/just plain wrong is a cultural phenomenon; God has nothing to do with it.
Is this right so far?