LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Yes, that sums it up.

It was an honor

Yep.

Without God, everything turns to Hell.

Just great..

edited 5th Dec '12 9:23:40 AM by Matues

See, I think it'd more logical for a place devoid of the source of all life and energy to be cold and dark, like in the Norse myths.

Of course, from a Pantheist point of view (which is the theological position I consider least likely to be wrong) God comprises all reality, so a place without It by definition does not exist.

Not that the Universe as a whole is likely to care about sin or morals anyway.

Anyway, It's good to know that Starship thinks he has a better idea of if Homosexuality is a choice or not than the Homosexuals themselves.

Because we must all be lying or deluded.

Wonderful to know.

Matues, that's not really a good representation of my views, nor is it fair. I'm saying that homosexuals and their supporters (collectively) have a set of assumptions that clash with mine. It's not really different from those who think they have a better idea of the Bible and Christianity than us Christians ourselves and that we are deluded or lying.

It is a fact of life that when discussing certain topics we can't all be right. I have my beliefs. You have yours.

And at The End, one of us will be proven wrong and the other vindicated. Until that time, we'll live our lives as we each deem fit.

It was an honor

Let's not resort to taking cheap shots. If you want to pick apart Starship’s logic then get in line make a coherent argument rather than taking a cheap shot at him.

edited 5th Dec '12 9:35:15 AM by Silasw

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

It was an honor

If Homosexuality is a choice, then I must be wrong.

In order for me to continue saying that I am right, I must be either A) Lying or B) Deluded or otherwise incorrect.

I once likely acted as If I knew the bible better than most Christians, because I was once a very devout Christian and read the Bible extensively. I no longer do so because I think I do not properly understand the Bible as they do.

I am not making a cheap shot. I am making a statement.

If I wanted to make a cheap shot, I'd pull up the bible and start pointing out "discrepancies". IN ALL CAPS. AND BOLD.

But that's inane, annoying and rude so I won't.

edited 5th Dec '12 9:54:11 AM by Matues

I should probably point out here that I actually agree with you and think that Starship is wrong, I spend so much time defending him because.. frack if I know.

However, making a statement that Starship is wrong because gay people are gay and thus know better than him (while right) doesn’t add anything to the discussion. If you want to add to the discussion then find some scientific article stating that homosexuality is not a choice, then Starship can go find one saying that it is and we can have a nice long discussion about the merits of the articles and more. But just saying Starship is wrong doesn’t get us anywhere.

Edit: Also you said that Starship must think you are lying or deluded, in your original post you (for some reason) didn't provide the option that Starship might just think you are incorrect, that's what made it a cheap shot. You spoke for him and acted as if must be calling you either a liar or deluded (which you could then get offended about) when he was doing no such thing (he simply believes you are incorrect).

edited 5th Dec '12 10:06:46 AM by Silasw

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Gee, thanks Silasw.

In my opinion, we don't really argue facts on these threads. Most of us are too mature and intelligent to just ignore facts and go "la-la I can't hear you."

The sticking point is the assumptions we make based on those facts. We all agree the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, as it is written. But...is that what was originally meant? Is the Bible even true? Does it matter?

We don't argue that science generally agrees being gay isn't a choice. But does that mean you can't defy homosexuality? Should you have to?

I think it's a danger to say "Show me facts," as a blanket statement because the facts don't necessarily equate to conclusions. They are necessary for making valid conclusions, but they aren't a conclusion in and of themselves.

edited 5th Dec '12 10:05:59 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

The Bible never says homosexuality is a sin. It says you shouldn't fuck temple prostitutes as a form of worship. These are not at all the same thing.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

@Starship, in actuality I probably defend you so often because everyone else in this debate has dozens of people to back them up when they are misconstrued/misunderstood, while you don't, and I feel no matter how wrong or absurd someone's beliefs are they still deserve to not be misrepresented/have their words twisted.

O come on, this is the internet, you should know by now that making a statement like that is just begin for some to say "actually no we don't" like .

edited 5th Dec '12 10:13:18 AM by Silasw

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

I apologize for putting words in your mouth.

I was angry.

Thank you Silasw, for pointing that out.

edited 5th Dec '12 10:16:19 AM by Matues

I can't help but picture Starship as Hitomi.

THAT'S FORBIDDEN LOVE!

.

Made of Forum Win? Yes, I believe it is.

It was an honor

Accurate post is accurate.

Attractions aren't learned behaviors, though. They're programmed in you. Being attracted to someone isn't like wanting to eat a truckload of food, it's like wanting to eat. You can't get rid of it.

You missed the point. He was asking you to prove that you have the ability to choose your orientation. Choosing not to attempt to prove it provides only the absence of proof.

If it were possible to will yourself to be attracted to someone, either one of us could will ourselves to be attracted to this.◊ But we can't.

edited 5th Dec '12 1:56:53 PM by Haldo

‽‽‽‽ ^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.

The whole "can't control attraction, thus it must be okay" is not a sound argument. I mean, antisocial personality disorder isn't a choice either, but that doesn't mean it's suddenly okay to just run with the remorseless sociopath ball wherever it goes.

Arguing that homosexuality is okay must come from its own merit and lack of negative consequence. This is easy enough to do to the extent that anyone will actually listen, even within the context of the documents that supposedly condemn it and aren't binding to state law anyway.

edited 5th Dec '12 2:11:24 PM by Pykrete

That's not what I was arguing. Sins are choices. They are acts that are committed, not states of being. So, if something isn't a choice, then it can't be a sin.

You can argue all you want about whether it's okay to be gay, but if it's not an act, it's not a sin.

edited 5th Dec '12 2:14:06 PM by Haldo

‽‽‽‽ ^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.

Fair enough, but it's not exactly a useful position to argue from either.

What, "homosexuality is by definition not a sin"? That's kind of important to this conversation.

‽‽‽‽ ^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.

@Elfive: The Bible doesn't give the description of hell you're thinking of. Look up Word of Dante.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

It's more a pedantic caveat that still puts it in the same mental shelf as a dangerous disorder and doesn't actually help anyone.

edited 5th Dec '12 2:31:15 PM by Pykrete

I don't think I did. I was simply saying that refusal to choose a given option is not indicative that there are no options and I cannot choose.

But as Matues pointed out, my viewpoint is I judge people more on acts, than attractions. An adulterer who never committed adultery is not an adulterer, even if he loathes his wife and is madly in love with bff's wife.

It was an honor

The difference between condemning homosexuality and condemning homosexual acts is the difference between condemning someone's sex life and condemning their existence. I find this difference to be important.

But a homosexual who never commits any homosexual acts is still a homosexual. And yet, you say that homosexuality (which is simply being solely attracted to your own sex) is a sin. Even though that's not an act.

Good point, Eggman.

edited 5th Dec '12 2:42:17 PM by Haldo

‽‽‽‽ ^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.

I personally don't think antisocial personality disorder is a problem because it's "not okay", or somehow immoral (I personally don't really believe in the inherent morality of almost anything). I think it's a problem because by definition criminals with antisocial personalities have such potential to be dangerous, and because attempts at rehabiltation will almost certainly fail (or tremendously backfire) due to the disorder's very nature. Thus, because of the harm they're capable of, to society and others, these kinds of individuals simply cannot be allowed to run free. It doesn't have anything to do with them somehow being "bad people".