Sexuality

Originally posted by knightmeister
So you agree that anything written on the subject would have been based on an incomplete understanding and tainted by the value systems of that time and culture.

Yes, just as it is now.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If I may use your metaphor?

Your stance seems to be "we know benches exist but because chairs exist and tables exist then the bench must be one of those , it cannot be both or non specific. It cannot be a bench that likes other benches because that would be wrong. Chairs must like tables as well and they cannot like other chairs"

I do not seek reedom of expression are outlawed. In facist thinking there are no greys , only certainty.

I think you are very confused about my analogy. Let me re-explain it. You and epi seem to think that the existence of unisexuals threatens the legitimacy of the definitions of 'male' and 'female'. But this conclusion does not seem to follow. It would be analogous to claim that chairs and tables do not exist because of the discovery of a bench. Why can't the bench be seen as a combo-design and the unisexual as a deformity?

I simply say that in amongst these chairs and tables exist a lot of benches and we need to recognise this as the case and stop pretending that benches don't exist or are "wrong".

Indeed, you are confused.

If we don't accept the benches then our thinking is almost facist and totalitarian where difference and freedom of expression are outlawed. In facist thinking there are no greys , only certainty.

You are an idiot.

EDIT: May I just re-emphasise this point. Homosexuals and unisexuals are not the same. I am sure there are many gay men who refuse to consider themselves as an intermediate sex or as a woman in a man's body.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I have not speculated that it was genetics , merely that it may well have biological causes. The evidence seesm to be that hormonal imbalances in the womb might be the cause. There is some evidence that homosexuality is not merely a "phase" or "lifestyle choice". This perception will I believe be seen by future generations as redundant and discriminatory.

The point is irrelevant. Biology is not a source of morality. Whether homosexuality has biological causes does not matter.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I agree with you in that I think God [b] does want us to grow and learn. However, the Bible also states that there are some things man was not meant to know---that are in God's realm only, so to speak---and it could be that the "reason" why He declared homosexuality a sin is in that realm.[/b]

God did not declare homosexuality a sin. People did.

God, on the other hand, seems to have created hermaphrodites. If one is a hermaphrodite, then what? Do you sin which ever way you go?

Sexuality itself is not the sin. It is what you do that is the sin. The mere act of homosexuality is not a sin, your scores-of-centuries old text notwithstanding.

God did not write the Bible. God may have been the inspiration for it, but what is written is limited to the time and place that it is written for. It's time to acknowledge the facts that exist in the present era and not pretend that they don't because of 'faith' or 'It's not the Word of God'.

I'm a Christian, but a 21st century Christian. I cannot ignore the idiocies and illogic of beliefs past. You and others may wish to, and that's fine; I will still say "No. That cannot be."

Originally posted by Badwater
.... It is what you do that is the sin. The mere act of homosexuality is not a sin, ...."

I must be reading this the wrong way because it appears contradictory. What exactly are you trying to say here ?

Originally posted by Conrau K
The point is irrelevant. Biology is not a source of morality. Whether homosexuality has biological causes does not matter.

It is relevant because some biological drives are so embedded in our brains that they cannot be overridden purely by an act of choice. For example , if you choose to hold your breath and kill yourself you cannot do it because your brain is hardwired to make you breath and keep you alive. You have no choice.

Sexuality and sexual drives are known to be very primitive and deep drives with the psyche. The Bible implies that homosexual drives are sinful but the problem is that if those drives are so strong that they cannot be overridden by choice or free will then it is not moral to condemn those drives because no alternative is possible for the individual.

Your heterosexuality is not your "choice" anymore than you chose to have two legs. You can do nothing about it. To have an essential part of your biological make up declared and "abomination" would be very disconcerting for you. You would feel you were condemned for just being who you are. You might feel it to be unfair of God considering you did not choose such a state of affairs.

The question is whether sexuality fits into the catagory of behaviours that are hardwired or developed by socialisation. A propensity for violence or theft can be corrected by behavioural programs as they are not neccesarily innate characteristics. Evidence on Sexuality shows that sexual identity could well be hardwired in the womb.

This makes the biological side of things relevant to the morality of sexuality. How would you like it if the Bible condemned blinking as an abominable sin? How would you feel? Could you stop yourself blinking by choosing to? Would it be a "moral" request to ask you to do so?

Do you have a theory as to what causes homsexuality?

Originally posted by Badwater
God did not declare homosexuality a sin. People did.

God, on the other hand, seems to have created hermaphrodites. If one is a hermaphrodite, then what? Do you sin which ever way you go?

Sexuality itself is not the sin. It is what you do that is the sin. The mere act of homosexuality is not a sin, your scores-of-centuries old text notwithstanding.

...[text shortened]... . You and others may wish to, and that's fine; I will still say "No. That cannot be."

If one is a hermaphrodite, then what? Do you sin which ever way you go? ------badwater=============

Stop asking awkward questions , you will start making people think....and we don't want that now do we.....😀

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think you are very confused about my analogy. Let me re-explain it. You and epi seem to think that the existence of unisexuals threatens the legitimacy of the definitions of 'male' and 'female'. But this conclusion does not seem to follow. It would be analogous to claim that chairs and tables do not exist because of the discovery of a bench. Why can't th ...[text shortened]... ho refuse to consider themselves as an intermediate sex or as a woman in a man's body.

It would be analogous to claim that chairs and tables do not exist because of the discovery of a bench. Why can't the bench be seen as a combo-design and the unisexual as a deformity? ======================conrau=========

Chairs and tables exist , no-one is denying this. What we are saying is that it is not only chairs and tables that exist. The bench could be seen as a combo design and the unisexual could be seen as a "deformity".

However , associating "deformity" with sin is a dangerous area. If you had a deformed arm would it be sinful? If we are saying that any person whose sexuality deviates from the norm is not to be allowed to be a priest or is to have their sexuality labelled as "sinful" then is this not discrimination? How does the church justify this when other organisations would be hauled over the coals for infringing discrimination acts?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes, just as it is now.

What? Surely you must realise that we are living in an age when more is understood about sexuality and gender than ever before?

We are 100's times more informed than those who wrote the scripture on this. We may be living in a hedonistic and materialistic age but we know lots more about brain/foetal development. LOTS more.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think you are very confused about my analogy. Let me re-explain it. You and epi seem to think that the existence of unisexuals threatens the legitimacy of the definitions of 'male' and 'female'. But this conclusion does not seem to follow. It would be analogous to claim that chairs and tables do not exist because of the discovery of a bench. Why can't th ...[text shortened]... ho refuse to consider themselves as an intermediate sex or as a woman in a man's body.

You are an idiot.

EDIT: May I just re-emphasise this point. Homosexuals and unisexuals are not the same. I am sure there are many gay men who refuse to consider themselves as an intermediate sex or as a woman in a man's body.

---------------------Conrau----------------------------


I am suprised to see you resort to such a simple retort. Plainly I am not an idiot and neither are you. I am simply inviting you to have a discussion into this complex issue and you seem to want to reduce it down to blacks and whites.

You are in need of some serious reading on this subject. I used to think like you in many ways but the scientific evidence eventually caught up. Once you understand what drives sexuality your mind will automatically become more open. I'm sorry if this sounds patronising but it's obvious you haven't researched the subject.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It is relevant because some biological drives are so embedded in our brains that they cannot be overridden purely by an act of choice. For example , if you choose to hold your breath and kill yourself you cannot do it because your brain is hardwired to make you breath and keep you alive. You have no choice.

Sexuality and sexual drives are known to ...[text shortened]... al" request to ask you to do so?

Do you have a theory as to what causes homsexuality?

But again, as pedophilia and a host of other sexual behaviours would probably also be biological, and "hardwired into the brain", then do you concede that pedophilia is moral?

Originally posted by knightmeister
However , associating "deformity" with sin is a dangerous area. If you had a deformed arm would it be sinful? If we are saying that any person whose sexuality deviates from the norm is not to be allowed to be a priest or is to have their sexuality labelled as "sinful" then is this not discrimination? How does the church justify this when other organisations would be hauled over the coals for infringing discrimination acts?[/b]

However , associating "deformity" with sin is a dangerous area. If you had a deformed arm would it be sinful? If we are saying that any person whose sexuality deviates from the norm is not to be allowed to be a priest or is to have their sexuality labelled as "sinful" then is this not discrimination? How does the church justify this when other organisations would be hauled over the coals for infringing discrimination acts?

But the purpose of the analogy is not to show that homosexuality is a deformity and thus a sin. You seem utterly confused on this. My point is to show that the existence of unisexuals does not problematise male/female categories. We can identify a man just as we can a bench; we can identify a woman just as we can a chair. The existence of a neuter category (a bench or a unisexual) does not invalidate those categories.

Originally posted by knightmeister

We are 100's times more informed than those who wrote the scripture on this. We may be living in a hedonistic and materialistic age but we know lots more about brain/foetal development. LOTS more.

True. But there is no consensus as to whether brain/foetal development has any connection with sexual orientation.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You are an idiot.

EDIT: May I just re-emphasise this point. Homosexuals and unisexuals are not the same. I am sure there are many gay men who refuse to consider themselves as an intermediate sex or as a woman in a man's body.

---------------------Conrau----------------------------


I am suprised to see you resort to such a simple retort. Pla ...[text shortened]... n. I'm sorry if this sounds patronising but it's obvious you haven't researched the subject.

This argument is incredibly frustrating. You label anyone who disagrees with you as a homophobe and anyone who believes in moral absolutes you dismiss as fascist. I think those generalisations are intellectually lazy. People can object to homosexual practices yet still interact amicably with homosexuals. Indeed, a homosexual could object to homosexual practices, choosing celibacy for himself instead. He could hardly be described as a homophobe. A person may also reduce moral issues to 'black and white' and not be a totalitarian. He may respect the freedom of his opponents and eschew any form of coercion.

You then have the hubris to patronise me and tell me to check up on recent scientific literature. This is despite the fact that, as I have explained multiple times, biology does not offer any sort of moral code. Many behaviours, which you no doubt would see as heinously immoral, have biological origins. There is scientific litertature that indicates that a lack of seratonin can result in aggressive and violent behaviour, yet no one would accept that gratuitious violence is a moral good. So whether or not homosexuality is biological is totally irrelevant. I do not really care what science says about homosexuality.

Originally posted by Conrau K
This argument is incredibly frustrating. You label anyone who disagrees with you as a homophobe and anyone who believes in moral absolutes you dismiss as fascist. I think those generalisations are intellectually lazy. People can object to homosexual practices yet still interact amicably with homosexuals. Indeed, a homosexual could object to homosexual pract ...[text shortened]... biological is totally irrelevant. I do not really care what science says about homosexuality.

You label anyone who disagrees with you as a homophobe and anyone who believes in moral absolutes you dismiss as fascist.
-------------conrau---------------

I don't remember saying you were a homophobe. I didn't say you were a fascist either. I simply commented on some of the thinking styles that can emerge from thinking in absolute terms.