|
Post by Thores on Aug 4, 2003 14:42:48 GMT -5
In nature, homosexual animals do not exist. I know someone is going to come up with a bogus story that they do. I'm pretty sure that you won't believe me in this respect, but my friend has a male cat that has sex with other male cats. I'm failry sure I can trust my friend, as he's a very honest person. Also, although this is kind of a stretch, I have another friend who's female dog likes to hump legs. Including mine.
|
|
|
Post by Leviathan918 on Aug 4, 2003 15:30:35 GMT -5
I believe what you are saying, but this is the kind of story I expected. I know that it happens, but it's not the same thing. When an animal is "in heat", it needs to have sex with something. While that male cat would normally have sex with a female cat, it will also have sex with male cats, simply to get rid of that mode it is in.
The same goes for that female dog (and that isn't a stretch, it only proves the point.). It wants to get rid of that urge, and so uses a person's leg. It isn't something that it wants to do, but because there is no other way, that is what is selects. Sorry, but your friend's cat and that dog are not homosexual, they just need to have sex with something. (And you may want to discourage your friend's dog from doing that.)
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Aug 4, 2003 15:35:28 GMT -5
*points ever so kindly to the rebuttal to Mr. Leviathan's original post, hoping the fellow takes notice*
|
|
|
Post by Leviathan918 on Aug 4, 2003 15:45:41 GMT -5
sorry, didn't notice your post
EDIT: We have rules against double-posting- the only excuse for double-posting is if you go over the character limit. Please do not do this in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Leviathan918 on Aug 6, 2003 19:50:27 GMT -5
Well, I have to applaud your argument. It's too bad though, because despite your wonderfully constructed response, it's invalid.
Why? Well let me explain... (I'll space it out for you to understand better)
1.) The website in question states "God Hates f*gs".
2.) Second, the forum question is "Is homosexuality a sin?"
Now, note the two key words GOD and SIN.
"Sin", by the Webster's Dictionary definition is: The breaking of a religious law, moral or principal, esp. through a willful act.
We ALL know who God is, or for your sake, who he is supposed to be.
Now earlier you made three distinct statements. Let me quote them though for you to look at again.
Remember those? By now you know where I'm going, right?
Now, as an aethiest, you reject the idea that there is any form of deity. So, you're right, you can't argue that "God Hates f*gs". You also can't argue against it. In fact, you can't say anything on matters of God. If you don't believe in it, you can't argue one way or another. That's first.
Second, seeing as you reject any forms of religion based morality, you lost your ability to debate on the issue of sin. Since sin is the breaking or religious moral code, and you don't believe in it, you can't speak one way or the other.
I'll debate the third quote with you. As you know, in at least 13 states, sodomy is still prohibited. Now, since these are man-imposed, and not God-imposed laws, man obviously had the thought to ban this type of act. So in man's Earthly wisdom, he banned it. You can dispute God's laws all you like, but you can't dispute the fact that man at some time or another found a basis to prohibit this activity. Also, don't respond to me saying that any of the laws were lifted. I know that. Lots of laws are lifted when enough people without common sense complain. That's the danger of uneducated, uninformed mob rule, and stupid people in large numbers. The argument is that men of the government found a reason outside of the religious basis (separation of church and state) to ban homosexual acts.
So sorry, but you lost your right to answer any questions on the topics of God, Sin, or anything regarding the religious or moral codes. Good try though.
(Oh, and by the way, you may want to check your own character assassinations.)
And Drenz, don't let people like Sleepy put you down. Just keep fighting based on what you know. Let them call it what they want. You know what you're talking about.
Now to answer the original question.
No, being a homosexual is not a sin. Being born, or suffering something to trigger being, a homosexual is not a sin in itself. It does not break any of the covenant to uphold God's law. The person was born that way, and God knows their predisposition. God extends an undying love for all people. However, while here on earth we are meant to endure hardships. For some, these hardships could range anywhere from retardation or serious defects, to something as simple as asthma. We all suffer. But we are all called to use this suffering positively. "To offer it up", so to speak. For homosexuals, their burden in life is their own sexual deviation. However, they are called by God to practice chastity and not to indulge in their urge to have sex with anyone of the same sex, the same as unmarried heterosexual couples are called to chastity before getting married.
The real sin for homosexuals is engaging in their desires. This is backed up in several points in the Bible. (I'll site the Bible passages for reference-this way you can all look them up.)
Romans Chapter 1: Verses 24-27-32 (The part about practicing homosexuals starts at 27, but start at 24, cause if gives a little intro.)
"Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. ..."
1 Corinthians Chapter 6: Verses 9-10
"Do not be deceived; neither fornificators nor idolators nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals...will inherit the kingdom of God."
Also look at 1 Timothy, Chapter 1, Verses 3-11. Sorry, but I can't type this one out.
By the way, here is the full passage to shoot down what Sleepy said before regarding Matthew 5:28. This is the full passage starting there. (See, omission gets you nowhere...)
"But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna."
True, Jesus is saying anyone who looks on lustfully at a woman is committing adultery. So in our world today this does apply to homosexuals. However, there is a difference. Anyone looking on lustfully desires adultery. This is a venial sin. Its severity is not that grave. It can be confessed and wiped clean. Engaging in the act, is grave- a mortal sin. These endanger the soul. Though it can be confessed, if the person is not truly sorry, it doesn't get forgiven. Jesus is urging the crowd however, not to look on with lust, and to try to the best of their ability to avoid any sinful activity in this matter. Hence, better dismemberment than d**nation. Better to avoid lustful watching or practice than be d**ned for practicing.
Well, there's your answer. I hope I've helped to clear up the misconceptions about the difference between being a homosexual (not a sin), and practicing homosexuality in any form (sin!), rather than to convelude issues, add pointless and invalid insights, and to create misunderstanding by drawing attention away from the actual answers.
You have your answers...
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Aug 6, 2003 22:51:30 GMT -5
You use "invalid" incorrectly too. An invalid argument means the form of the argument is incorrect- in the case of a deductive argument, that all the premises being true doesn't make the conclusion necessarily true.
All of which are part of a philosophy of religion discussion which I am quite capable of participating in (being my major and all, you know).
Your definition, though an accurate one, is not an *EXCLUSIVE* definition. Sin can also mean "an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible" (Merriam-Webster). Your definition argument thus fails because it was never explicitly defined as such in the beginning. In fact, the opening statement by Shiguru is "So, what do you think about this website and homosexuality?"
Actually, I would very much like a theist to tell me what god is supposed to be someday. Sadly, a coherent, complete definition is something quite lacking.
Atheism does not necessarily mean an outright claim that god(s) do not exist. Atheism in its basic form is the lack of belief that god(s) exist. There is a difference.
Secondly, the website promotes homosexually as immoral. I am more than able to argue against this as it touches on the issue of morality.
An epistemology and philosophy of religion class is something you need to take sometime. I suppose I can explain epistemology to you if you care to begin a "Does god exist?" thread.
In addition, one can argue within the context of a religion if an issue is supported or not. Perhaps you've noticed me provide Bible verses for anything I claim the Bible says?
Laws do not make something moral or immoral. Slavery was once legal according to "man's Earthly wisdom", and a basis was found to support this activity, including the Bible.
Secondly, pointing out that the sodomy laws being lifted contradicts your argument. Laws change. Does that mean whether an action is moral or immoral changes with them? If yes, then morality is subjective (in which case you lose the ability to argue here, period), and if no then your argument fails.
Good try attempting to point out a contradiction in my argument, but it didn't work. In addition, you still have yet to address the previous arguments and points I raised. Perhaps you'll do this in your next post.
Yes, far be it from me to ask Drenz to provide arguments and evidence to back up his claims, considering that such is the point of a debates section.
First, knowing which Bible translation you used would be nice. I cross-referenced the verses with several translations, and in quite a few it doesn't translate as "practicing homosexual", but simply "homosexual". My NIV Bible also uses the word "perverts" and "sexually immoral" in such.
In addition, the lusts towards the same sex are listed as "shameful" and "degrading". This is not the kind of language we'd expect from something that "does not break any of the covenant to uphold God's law".
There is no difference. Jesus outright states that they aren't ONLY desiring that sin, they are COMMITTING it too.
Actually, your entire argument against me is a poor attempt to ignore the arguments and points I raised against you originally (why you didn't bother to note the other definitions of sin in the dictionary is beyond me, but you can't simply state one definition is in effect on an ambiguous term and assume everyone will follow). In addition, your religious arguments only work if you show that the premise "God exists" is true, which is not entirely germane to the conversation- thus the reason I asked for non-theistic arguments against homosexuality. Unless you wish to go into a discussion over the existence of your god (in which case I will kindly ask you to begin a new thread, and begin with a coherent, complete definition of what you are defending, backed up by arguments and evidence), then I recommend sticking with addressing the points I raised.
|
|
|
Post by Forbidden on Aug 7, 2003 3:46:15 GMT -5
I can say that site is sick and all, but that's obvious. The thing I don't understand is, if that person hates "f*gs" so much, why does he work on a gay site for 7 years? 7 years, endlessly talking about gay people. You know what I think? I think the creator of that site is gay himself. He wouldn't care so much about gay people if he wasn't, and obviously not make a site about them.
Edit: And by the way, I have nothig against gay people. It's obvious that there are gay people even here at the RPG Town, but I don't mind. I'm sure most of the people here don't mind aswell. Isn't this nice.
|
|
Pat
RPG Townie
Posts: 254
|
Post by Pat on Aug 7, 2003 11:43:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Forbidden on Aug 8, 2003 2:48:31 GMT -5
Sigh... the things people do with their life. Isn't it sad?
|
|
|
Post by Nuno on Aug 10, 2003 17:36:07 GMT -5
I don't like neither God hates gays or God hates gay haters. Both of them, don't have open minds. Basicly I don't like religions. -_-
EDIT: By the way, homosexuallity amound animals is a common nature. Saw a BBC program the other day.
|
|
LueyFubar
RPG Townie
Hitler bad, Fubar Good
Posts: 508
|
Post by LueyFubar on Sept 4, 2003 7:33:39 GMT -5
Freedom of expression is good, but It can go too far, and it's almost allways Christians fault. I'm not blaming Christians in general, just extremists.
No doubt you'll have heard on the news about the Vicker/minister/christian leader who killed a doctor and his bodyguard for carrying out abortions. Others in his field are also recieving death threats.
About Homosexuality, I don't believe in 'sins'. Sins are a way to get us to Act how the early Christians want us to act. I'm Semi-Homophobic, and I wouldn't support gay writes; But at the end of the day, they're not hurting anyone, they'll do it anyway and they're happy.
PS: What kind of chanels you getting Zeeph?
|
|
Fredbez
RPG Townie
Satanist 0wnage
Posts: 694
|
Post by Fredbez on Sept 4, 2003 15:29:18 GMT -5
well I'm for gay rights
It seems to me if we weren't meant to be gay we would never have the desire
so being gay must have some purpose
|
|
|
Post by TranceRolin on Sept 6, 2003 19:43:07 GMT -5
Some good reading for anyone interested in the whole morality and sin arguements . . . "Problems of Moral Philosophy". It's actually a faster read than one would think . . .
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Sept 7, 2003 0:04:37 GMT -5
By who?
|
|
|
Post by TranceRolin on Sept 7, 2003 0:27:44 GMT -5
Paul W. Taylor. He assembled it, but it's got quite a few pieces from several professors and other . . . I'll just say people =P Problems of Moral Philosophy An Introduction to Ethics Paul W. Taylor You want a publisher?
|
|