Homosexuality and Religion

[Saquist]

If Reiku feels the choice is beyond his control... Then it's true.
This is complicated choice Reiku, I can tell you it's not like turning a switch off. That's not the kind of control we're talking about....we're talking long range.

 

[ashura]

If Reiku feels the choice is beyond his control... Then it's true.
This is complicated choice Reiku, I can tell you it's not like turning a switch off. That's not the kind of control we're talking about....we're talking long range.

But it is a choice?

 

[Orleander]

Do any gay people feel its a choice? Or is it only straight people who tell gay people they chose to be gay?

 

[Saquist]

But it is a choice?

Oh yes. I can choose to feel nothing or choose to let go...
I mean are we truely slaves to our emotions. If so we're all in big trouble because anger and violence can be just as biological as homosexuality.

Yet last I checked we still have laws against man slaughter and murder. And while I'll not deal homosexuality such a serious blow...it's still about control. What you will find is the more often you take control the easier it is to excercise control.

Now that's my understanding and I don't expect anyone here to share it. It's based off of my personal expericence in life. I'm now 29. Control is a lot easier now. I don't just say and do anything I want. I think about it and then excercise a choice.

It's very mellowing.

P.S If someone where to tell me I had no choice. That I had to be the way I am that my future was laid out in such a way and could never be changed, I'd find that offensive. If we don't have a choice then we don't have anything. Options are a good thing not a bad thing. It's one thing to take away your own option it's quite another to have someone do for it you.

 

[Grantywanty]

Grantywanty we all know that it is possible to condition the human mind. We generally think of this a negative description. Yet conditioning happens in the armed forces, in school in church, while you're watching the TV or listening to your parents.

yes, you can condition the mind to think that homosexuality is bad. you can condition the mind to ignore the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature in animals that are not conditioned into this state.

Behavior is changable. That's a fact. Emotions are also changable. Some change what the like quite decisively between the ages of 19 and 25. (Women notably) but choice is also a very effective way to effect change.

Then you should be able to demostrate the changes I suggested.

I'm not attempting to force you to be hetrosexual. Only you could have that drive an motivation. I've dealt with a lot of people and animals and I've noticed with the right motivation you can do anything.

Then I hope you will challenge the conditioning that makes you see homosexuals as needing to change. We know exactly where this conditioning started in your life. given the visibility of the root of the problem it should be easier to get at than many homosexuals where there is no clear conditioning in their lives to make them homosexual. In fact they have been conditioned their whole childhoods to choose heterosexuality. Odd, huh?

I've been watch this "intresting" argument for sometime now. The main ingredient to the kettle is choice. Why would you chose to like vanila over chocolate if you know you like vanila better? That's the real question.

No one has said they like the other better. Of course it would be easier not to be different especially when religious and non-religious people see God given tendencies as evil.

What makes you think I am a homosexual, by the way?

Are you conditioned to assume that only people who are homosexual will dislike your reasoning and prejudice?

This should be a relatively easy conditioning to change.

 

[Grantywanty]

Oh yes. I can choose to feel nothing or choose to let go...
I mean are we truely slaves to our emotions. If so we're all in big trouble because anger and violence can be just as biological as homosexuality.

Funny, I feel anger but I have never been violent. I have no need to control my emotions to prevent this. Perhaps you are projecting your own psychology on others.

P.S If someone where to tell me I had no choice. That I had to be the way I am that my future was laid out in such a way and could never be changed, I'd find that offensive. If we don't have a choice then we don't have anything. Options are a good thing not a bad thing. It's one thing to take away your own option it's quite another to have someone do for it you

So you could choose to be a homosexual and enjoy homosexual sex, but you don't?
I can't say for sure i couldn't do this, but I know I could not choose to prefer sex with other men. I could not condition myself to want sex with men more than with women. But I guess you could.
You are so malleable. has it occured to you that other people may actually have built in preferences and that you think they are like you: a tabula rasa?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Grantywanty,

Yeah, well for me there are certain cheeses, like blue cheese, that I just hate and other people like. Do what you will with it, I do not want it. I did not choose this.

Then we are similar in that it depends on how it is cooked/prepared and/or presented. I won't even go as far as tasting blue cheese because it looks nasty, plus there are plenty of other cheeses which are more conventional.
But it doesn't mean I am going replace cheese with butter, and call it cheese.

Why is it flimsy? It is a taste issue. Something built into us.

"Taste", in the context of sexuality is in 'camp choice', wouldn't you agree?
Or you would have to accept any type of behavior as okay, palatable and unpalatable, because it is naturally built into the human software.

And Jan, you are aware that there are individual animals that are homosexual. Some pair for life. These animals are not choosing their sexuality.

Here is a quote from scientist Simon Levay (himself a homosexual);

“ Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity. ”

And then, of course, there is the who cares issue.

Obviously lots of people care, from all over the world.

Jan.

 

[Grantywanty]

Then we are similar in that it depends on how it is cooked/prepared and/or presented. I won't even go as far as tasting blue cheese because it looks nasty, plus there are plenty of other cheeses which are more conventional.
But it doesn't mean I am going replace cheese with butter, and call it cheese.

I like Cheddar. It's a cheese (human).

"Taste", in the context of sexuality is in 'camp choice', wouldn't you agree?
Or you would have to accept any type of behavior as okay, palatable and unpalatable, because it is naturally built into the human software.

No I don't like where there are victims or others who are not allowed choice.



Here is a quote from scientist Simon Levay (himself a homosexual);

“ Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity. ”

I suggest reading Biological Exuberance which goes into the subject in depth and finds that it is not so uncommon. Also, uncommon but present. Not a choice and not a conditioned behavior.

Obviously lots of people care, from all over the world.

I think you know what I meant.

You can choose to see homosexual acts as evil ones or you can stop chosing to do that. It is up to you.
As it stands now you have a book that tells you these people are engaging in acts that if they don't renounce them they should suffer for eternity. Suffer for eternity. The people themselves say they are born that way, for the most part, and fall in love and devote themselves to people of the same sex roamantically and sexually.
Because a book tells you they are being bad, you think it is OK for these homosexuals to suffer for an infinite period of time.
To me this is very similar to people who assume that if earthly dictators think someone should be tortured then they deserve to be tortured.
I encourage you to meet some gay people, if you have not already. Sit down with them - find someone you like personally - and then decide as a human being if you think they should suffer for all time, not simply for a million years, but for an infinite number of years because they have sex with other people of the same sex. When there is a lull in the conversation, look them in the eyes, and think "yes, if he does not renouce gay sex, it is good that he suffers in hell for eternity."
If you can do that then you and I have so little in common there is really nothing to say about you and your loving God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Grantywanty,

I like Cheddar. It's a cheese (human).

mmmmm..... sweeeet...cheese..

No I don't like where there are victims or others who are not allowed choice.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this response.

I suggest reading Biological Exuberance which goes into the subject in depth and finds that it is not so uncommon. Also, uncommon but present. Not a choice and not a conditioned behavior.

After a quick surf, my first critism of 'Bruce Bagemihl" the author of the book is that he describes people who believe homosex to be sinful, or an abomination, as homophobes.

You can choose to see homosexual acts as evil ones or you can stop chosing to do that. It is up to you.

I don't think it is that simple.

As it stands now you have a book that tells you these people are engaging in acts that if they don't renounce them they should suffer for eternity. Suffer for eternity.

It is the same for whores, drunks, fornicators, blasphemers, etc..
Some would say we are actually in sufferation (born in sin) but due to our ignorance we think we are in enjoyment, and some would say this life is all we have (eternal) and as such there is no evidence of "beyond time".

The people themselves say they are born that way, for the most part, and fall in love and devote themselves to people of the same sex roamantically and sexually.

Do you think it could be possible that the "we are born that way" is an excuse to carry on their indulgance.
Sometimes you will hear blacks in the west, blame certain unpalatable behaviour on the fact that they were enslaved. While it is understandable, it could also be a convenient way to justify actions.

Because a book tells you they are being bad, you think it is OK for these homosexuals to suffer for an infinite period of time.

Personally I don't want any being to suffer, including myself. But if we bring suffering upon ourselves, what can we do.
I may enjoy 20 pints in the pub with my mates, but then I have to suffer the consequences of my actions, which must be exactly equal.
I think there is a lot more to this than you give credit.

To me this is very similar to people who assume that if earthly dictators think someone should be tortured then they deserve to be tortured.

It has nothing to do with that at all.

I encourage you to meet some gay people, if you have not already. Sit down with them - find someone you like personally - and then decide as a human being if you think they should suffer for all time, not simply for a million years, but for an infinite number of years because they have sex with other people of the same sex.

I am not in a position to decide or have an opinion what happens at the point of death, whatever does happen it must be correct for the soul.
If homosexuality is an abominable act, it doesn't matter what you, I, he or she says, that is what it is. The onus is on the individual to do something about that position. Of course they can say its all nonsense, it is up to them.

When there is a lull in the conversation, look them in the eyes, and think "yes, if he does not renouce gay sex, it is good that he suffers in hell for eternity."
If you can do that then you and I have so little in common there is really nothing to say about you and your loving God.

I think you miss the whole point, and maybe you are using this as a reason to justify your lack of belief from what you describe as my "loving God".
Which may not be much different from the individual who says my act is justified because I was born this way, or because I am here due to the result of slavery.
Maybe, maybe not.

Jan.

 

[Grantywanty]

mmmmm..... sweeeet...cheese..

Their you go. But I know women who like blue cheese. Shall I tell them this is a choice.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this response.

two adult homosexuals: no victims.

After a quick surf, my first critism of 'Bruce Bagemihl" the author of the book is that he describes people who believe homosex to be sinful, or an abomination, as homophobes.

But that has nothing to do with science. He is a scientist and has done the most thorough gathering of research on animals and homosexuality.

I don't think it is that simple.

Tell it to Saquist.

Do you think it could be possible that the "we are born that way" is an excuse to carry on their indulgance.

No. They could indulge in the hetero acts. I know some personally and well. Why would they bother? In some places they are beaten. Some have shit put on their windows and in their cars. Many go through years of wishing they were not gay. This theory of yours is something to make you feel better about an institutionalized hate.

I think there is a lot more to this than you give credit.

Such as?

It has nothing to do with that at all.

It is exactly the same. They also say they brought it on themselves. A look at the history of Chili and Argentina, where I might add the church often said the students and leftists etc. deserved to get tortured, and see if the way people speak is not the same.

I am not in a position to decide or have an opinion what happens at the point of death, whatever does happen it must be correct for the soul.
If homosexuality is an abominable act, it doesn't matter what you, I, he or she says, that is what it is. The onus is on the individual to do something about that position. Of course they can say its all nonsense, it is up to them.

So you agree that they should be tortured for all time. You approve of this punishment. You call it correct for the soul.

I think you miss the whole point, and maybe you are using this as a reason to justify your lack of belief from what you describe as my "loving God".
Which may not be much different from the individual who says my act is justified because I was born this way, or because I am here due to the result of slavery.

yes, I don't believe in your God, that is not a loving God. I do believe in God, but not in one that would put someone in Hell for all time. I also know gays, most of whom do not deserve anything but kind treatment.

Why would you emphasize the blacks who say this rather than the whites who are still racist. Or the whites who pointed out that in the Bible God tells people how they should treat their slaves and does not prohibit slavery. This omission on your god's part caused untold suffering for millions. If only he had thought for one second to say that there should be no slaves. But no, he actually tells people how to treat their slaves, making it rather clear that it is OK to have them.

On the issue of homosexuals he makes a few remarks. I guess he simply did not have time to say that owning slaves is evil.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Because most of know how some homosexuals become homosexuals. There are far to many kids that have been taken advantage of by another man...who apparently aren't necessarily homosexuals themselves if you can even comprehend that. The child is naturally confused his behavior is dicatated not by himself but by another.

Most won't tell you but sexual abuse is rampant in society. That's no wonder. Sex is being used to sell everything from cloths, food to kleenx...Kids are gettin the knowledge to early.

I just found a picture message on my 15 year old cousin's phone. He's just 15. He's not old enough to know the impact of viewing pornographic material. I didn't know and most kids don't know. But they do it because it's popular they do it because it's exciting and they know nothing of the responsibilty that's involved.

Homosexualty essential has no purpose whether you believe in God or evolution. That would seem to be the common denominator. The only conideration is what do I want to have sex with. Child, Man, Woman, animal, self. Let the record show that in some countries all four of these categories have been checked marked.

This doesn't address the difference between one adult having sex with another adult who consents, and raping an innocent child.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Grantywanty,

But that has nothing to do with science. He is a scientist and has done the most thorough gathering of research on animals and homosexuality.

But from the get-go he sounds irrational, spouting what appears to be blatant untruths. How do you know his whole thesis isn't tinged with untruth?

Do you think it could be possible that the "we are born that way" is an excuse to carry on their indulgance.

No. They could indulge in the hetero acts. I know some personally and well. Why would they bother?

Okay.

In some places they are beaten. Some have shit put on their windows and in their cars. Many go through years of wishing they were not gay.

So basically you're saying they cannot help their homosexual instincts.
This is what i don't understand.

This theory of yours is something to make you feel better about an institutionalized hate.

Its not a theory, it is a question, based on understanding my own self. My position is that I cannot understand their actions, and I make no judgments on them.

Because a book tells you they are being bad, you think it is OK for these homosexuals to suffer for an infinite period of time.

I think there is a lot more to this than you give credit.

Such as?

For a start you credit the book as the reason for the thinking that the act is perverse. This is not the case, not from my perspective anyway. I do not need a book to tell me that torturing helpless beings is perverse (not that I am equating the two acts).
You take for granted that the act is without consequences, and that "God" personally punishes the actors for no good reason.
You insinuate that there will be no end to the consequences.

It is exactly the same. They also say they brought it on themselves. A look at the history of Chili and Argentina, where I might add the church often said the students and leftists etc. deserved to get tortured, and see if the way people speak is not the same.

You are lumping together the mere opinions of men and the universal order of things. They are not in the same category by any stretch of the imagination.

So you agree that they should be tortured for all time. You approve of this punishment. You call it correct for the soul.

Firstly, let's not play this game. I have already stated my position with regard the suffering of ANY creature.
I can only assume that what happens is what is meant to happen, my opinon on laws cannot alter them, be they universal or societal.
In every scripture homosexuality is condemed. Why is that?

You call it correct for the soul.

Well tell me, do you know if you had a previous life?
Do you know why you are here?
Do you have any contol over anything to do with your actual life, other than day to day existence?

yes, I don't believe in your God, that is not a loving God.

How do you know?
By your own standard of what "a loving God" is?

I do believe in God, but not in one that would put someone in Hell for all time. I also know gays, most of whom do not deserve anything but kind treatment.

Why do you assume that God personally intervenes in everyones life, where is the scriptoral evidence?
What if the act is abominable for real, but is not understood as such, despite the clear warning in scriptures? You must realise there are many activities we can take pleasure in, but is not good, but because we get pleasure from them, we choose to justify them so we can continue.
And "all time" can only mean till the end of life, so to go to hell is just another state of being, not that you will be the same person (you are now) able to understand why you are there.
For all we know, this may be a hell, it certainly is for some souls.

On the issue of homosexuals he makes a few remarks. I guess he simply did not have time to say that owning slaves is evil.

Owning slaves is not evil, how you treat them determines good or evil I would have thought.

Jan.

 

[shichimenshyo]

Do any gay people feel its a choice? Or is it only straight people who tell gay people they chose to be gay?

I dont know a single gay person who said they just chose to be gay.

 

[nova900]

Owning slaves is not evil, how you treat them determines good or evil I would have thought.

Jan.

It is evil if it's against their will!
How many of those slaves in the OT were willing slaves??

 

[maxg]

What I find interesting is that Christians point to Leviticus to show that homosexuality is a sin but have no problems ignoring other prohibitions (such as eating shell fish). Even though the penalty for lying with another man is stoning, that penalty is no greater than what is pronounced for picking up sticks on the Sabbath or being rebellious towards your father.

Here is an interesting analysis of the prohibition against homosexuality in Leviticus by Rabbi Jacob Milgrom (from http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html):

Of course it does (Leviticus) 18: 22; 20: 13), but the prohibition is severely limited. First, it is addressed only to Israel, not to other nations. Second, compliance with this law is a condition for residing in the Holy Land, but is irrelevant outside it (see the closing exhortation, 18: 24-30). Third, it is limited to men; lesbianism is not prohibited. Thus it is incorrect to apply this prohibition on a universal scale.

Moreover, as pointed out by my erstwhile student, Dr. David Stewart, both occurences of the prohibition (18: 22; 20: 13) contain the phrase "as one lies with a woman" (lit. "lyings a woman"), an idiom used only for illicit heterosexual unions. Thus one could argue that carnal relations are forbidden only if their correlated heterosexual unions would be in these lists. For example, the Bible lists the following prohibited relations: nephew-aunt, grandfather-granddaughter, and stepmother-stepson. Thus, according to this theory, nephew-uncle, grandfather-grandson, and stepfather-stepson are also forbidden. This implies that the homosexual prohibition does not cover all male-male liaisons, but only those within the limited circle of family. However, homosexual relations with unrelated males are neither prohibited nor penalized. Admittedly, more than two occurrences of the phrase "as one lies with a woman" (Gen. 49: 4; Lev. 20: 13)[mishkevey משכבי -RGSC] are needed before accepting this argument as definitive.

As I mentioned above, in the entire list of forbidden sexual unions, there is no prohibition against lesbianism. Can it be that lesbianism did not exist in ancient times or that Scripture was unaware of its existence? Lesbianism existed and flourished, as attested in an old (pre-Israelite) Babylonian omen text (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 4, 194: XXIV 33') and in the work of the lesbian poet Sappho (born c. 612 BCE, during the time of the First Temple), who came from the island of Lesbos (hence "lesbian"). But, in the eyes of the Bible, there is a fundamental difference between the homosexual acts of men and women: in lesbianism there is no spilling of seed. Thus life is not symbolically lost, and it is for that reason, in my opinion, that lesbianism is not prohibited in the Bible.

Thus, from the Bible, we can infer the following: the female half of the world's homosexual population, lesbians, are not mentioned. Over ninety-nine percent of the remaining gays, namely non-Jews, are not addressed. This leaves the small number of Jewish gay men subject to this prohibition. To those who argue that the Bible enjoins homosexuality, a careful reading of the source text offers a fundamentally different view. While the Bible never applauds homosexuality, neither does it prohibit most people from engaging in it.

The traditional Talmudic analysis of these prohibition from Leviticus also found that it only applied to sexual encounters with males over the age of 9, which is why (some years later) Maimonides had to propose a seperate law to punish those who have sex with boys under the age of 9 (since THAT'S NOT SINFUL according to Leviticus).

Maimonides proposed rule was that:

If both [partners] are adults, they are punishable by stoning. . . . If he is a minor aged nine years and one day, or older [i.e., between the ages of nine and thirteen], the adult who has connection with him, is punishable by stoning, while the minor is exempt. If the minor is nine years old, or less, both are exempt. It behooves the court, however, to have the adult flogged for disobedience, inasmuch as he has lain with a male, even though with one less than nine years of age

So, according to the Bible, it's less of a sin to have sex with a 7 year old boy than with an adult male. Personally, I'll stick to a secular moral code.

 

[ashura]

The traditional Talmudic analysis of these prohibition from Leviticus also found that it only applied to sexual encounters with males over the age of 9, which is why (some years later) Maimonides had to propose a seperate law to punish those who have sex with boys under the age of 9 (since THAT'S NOT SINFUL according to Leviticus).

Heh! What an interesting situation. Is a sin always a sin, or only until some part of the Bible declares it to be so?

Wouldn't that be the ultimate joke? If God was real, took all his Christians to heaven, and then stuck his metaphysical tongue at them and declared they were all conned because breathing was a sin and tossed them all into hell.

 

[Saquist]

yes, you can condition the mind to think that homosexuality is bad. you can condition the mind to ignore the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature in animals that are not conditioned into this state.

Well Grantwanty that's true you can condition either way.
However you're wrong animals are just as conditioned as humans are. Their conditioning is societal and that the purpose some animals take to using homosexuality. It's never in a gentle manner it's used in the animal kingdom to enforce dominance. We know hetrosexuality can be used this way as well but it has a deeper meaning to progress the species.

Then I hope you will challenge the conditioning that makes you see homosexuals as needing to change. We know exactly where this conditioning started in your life. given the visibility of the root of the problem it should be easier to get at than many homosexuals where there is no clear conditioning in their lives to make them homosexual. In fact they have been conditioned their whole childhoods to choose heterosexuality. Odd, huh?

Personaly Grantwanty, No. I don't wish to have sex with men. And I see no reason to pursue the behavior either considering it inappropriate for the marriage arrangement. It wouldn't enrich my life and therefore would serve no logical purpose.

Knowing what I know why would I want to experience that?

No one has said they like the other better. Of course it would be easier not to be different especially when religious and non-religious people see God given tendencies as evil.

That I sense is meant to be a slight toward God by means of a purposeful miscomprehension. That's okay Grantwanty. You may take whatever position you deem correct. But I must do the same. Knowing would the defining difference. Knowing that God is not responisble allows me address other concerns in life. That's another choice. It's a choice allows me to make a choice.

I think the problem is that we're looking for a way to restrict our choices. DNA, God did it. These are choices too. It's a choice that allows us the comfort to be what we have already become. If that is your choice then the choice was made for you when you relinquished to right to make a choice.

What makes you think I am a homosexual, by the way?

I haven't made any determination on your sexuality.

Are you conditioned to assume that only people who are homosexual will dislike your reasoning and prejudice?

Far from it. And at least no less than for you to assume the reasoning is anti-gay in nature.

This should be a relatively easy conditioning to change.

How so?

 

[Saquist]

This doesn't address the difference between one adult having sex with another adult who consents, and raping an innocent child.

Your right it doesn't. It wasn't meant to.
Yet how do we judge consent? We've made the decision for adults and children. This is another set of societal rules. Homosexuality used to be one of those societal rules too. In some countries there is no such thing as statutory rape only consentual.

 

[Reiku]

Well if it's any constallation, i think you made the right choice saquist. Defo.

 

[Saquist]

Do you know about that sexuality scale? I think it's called the Kinsey Scale.
Do you think it applies to you?