[Kazan]

Black Wolf: only 'owned' if you interpret it to mean that I should use emotion where it doesn't belong.

[Black Wolf]

I meant that it was funny, and that it was appropriate, and that it turned your own words against you in a beautifully orchestrated bit of posting.

That's owned enough for me

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Yes, indeed I have. They are very logical rants, totally devoid of any of that irrational emotion that has no place in such spheres of life.

Regardless of all ensuing malarky, I have to admit I very nearly pissed myself laughing at that

[Kazan]

oh i get it now.. sailed over my head at first

being annoyed with another person for their lack of reasoning is one of the places were emotion is appropriate

but you have to have a logical reason to be annoyed at them.

if you follow me

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Nuke
first id like to point out that the story of sodom and gamorah or however its spelled, is one of the most misinterpreted stories in the bible. its still the primary referance used for anti-gayness from the religious perspective. the story states that the people of the two cities are full of sin, yet in seems intentionally vauge about what those sins are. the part where the angry crowd was trying to "know" the angels, makes me think the people more or less wanted to wintess a miricle than get laid. it is the offering of the virgin daughters that tend to give people the idea that the story had anything to do with sexuality....  i find it appaling that certain versions of the bible replace the line "to know them" with "to have intercourse with them".... then you still have factors of language translation and any editing that may have occured durning cannonization.

First of all, it's not the primary reference - there are very clear passages concerning homosexual relations, but I'll get to those further down.

In Biblical Hebrew, the word "know" (l'da'at in the infinitive) means to have sexual intercourse. It is not just from this passage, but from many many others as well. If you want I can give you references, but suffice it to say for now that there are plenty of instances of "and what's-his-name knew what's-her-face, and she was with child".

Originally posted by Nuke
i also think it is wrong to label gay people as sinners. to call somone a sinner seems to be rather offensive to some people, gay christians for example. iirc the bible seems to say more about leaving judgments up to god than it does about being gay. if being gay was so bad you would find more referances to it in the bible, and in far less vauge context. it seems less sinfull to be gay, yet have an honest relationship, than it would to be a straight cheater. it seems also to be a violation of rights to deny people the right to an intimite relationship, simply on the grounds of homosexuality. the church saying its ok to be gay, so long as you dont have sex, seems rather unfair.

From where I stand, the Bible seems very clear on the issue. I refer you to the Wikipedia article (of all things! ) concerning the Bible and Homosexuality, to make your own decision.

Originally posted by Kazan
the catholic church sanctified homosexual marriages in the 3rd century.. and that's just a christian example - there are much much older examples of homosexuality and bisexuality being acceptable

Please don't use the words "Catholic Church" and "Christian" in the same sentence in an interchangable manner. It makes me sad. And shuddery.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Kazan
Yes trashman but that doesn't excuse the usag eof the word "sick"

Alzheimers is allso caused by a damaged gene as I recall. Don't we call is a sickness too?

I think the entymology of marriage might actually include a religious component or a specific heterosexual origin (can someone clarify the meaning of 'maritus' for me?), anyways.

Marriage was first a spiritual thing. It came from faith in god (gods) and as such from the begining was defined as a bond(community) between husband and wife.

Now personally I would like some other word to be used for gay marriages since by the very definiton it's not mariage anyway. Maby klong? Or garige?

[Kazan]

Sandwich the Catholic Church is a form of Christianity..
don't like it? too farking bad

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by aldo_14
There is no rape, murder or paedophile gene AFAIK.  So your comparison is surely moot.

EDIT; given that Maegs point related to the existance of a gene predelicting homosexuality

the point ain't moot.

you forget just as God gave us genes wiht possibiity of mutation and thus difference, he allso gave us free will with the possibility to choose both right and wrong.

Does that mean he wants us to do wrong?

[Stealth]

Originally posted by aldo_14


There is no rape, murder or paedophile gene AFAIK.  So your comparison is surely moot.

EDIT; given that Maegs point related to the existance of a gene predelicting homosexuality

Is it?  Think about it.

Scientists have discovered genes that they believe are responsible for Downs Syndrome.  Does that mean God meant for some people to never be able to live a normal life?  How about all the other mutations due to unnatural genes/chromosomes/etc.

I'm sure if you look at the baddest of the bad,  the obsessed murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc... that there's some genetic defect SOMEWHERE in them.  only reason no one's found it is because that's not as big as a "problem" or "issue" as it is with homsexuals.

[EtherShock]

*Resists urge to get into philosophical debate over the existence of free will.*

[Ace]

Originally posted by Sandwich

Please don't use the words "Catholic Church" and "Christian" in the same sentence in an interchangable manner. It makes me sad. And shuddery.

Funny, because the Catholic Church is the universal church descended straight from the disciples.

It's the body that interpreted the teachings for decades (or even a century in some cases) before they were written down into a finalized form, which led to the determined canon.

But then again, a true believer would state that only the un-corrupted truths were passed down into the canon. However, common sense dictates that the source material has been changed severely.

One thing you have to credit the Muslims for is Mohammad's insistence in not translating or changing his teachings.

* * *

"Free will" is a misconception. All things (minus the pink unicorn concept of an omniscient and omnipotent being) have a limited set of actions and reactions to stimulii.

The ability for humans to have a wide range of actions due to complex symbols and tool use simply make the overall pattern of behavior harder to see.

[Wild Fragaria]

Originally posted by TrashMan


Alzheimers is allso caused by a damaged gene as I recall. Don't we call is a sickness too?


I do not think you should compare apples to oranges -- a medical condition (Alzheimer's) and a human sexual pattern (homosexuality).  It will never make sense.

Alzheimer's a disease is the most common cause of dementia in older adults.  There are 4 genes thought to be responsible for the cause of the disease.  However, scientists still can't say genetic defect is to blame for causing Alzheimer's.  People with Down Syndrome do have a higher risk of getting the disease, but those patients get a lot of other diseases too.  So, please remember not to use Alzheimer's a genetic disease either.

[Kazan]

/agree Ace about free will

[Wild Fragaria]

Originally posted by Stealth


Is it?  Think about it.

Scientists have discovered genes that they believe are responsible for Downs Syndrome.  Does that mean God meant for some people to never be able to live a normal life?  How about all the other mutations due to unnatural genes/chromosomes/etc.

I'm sure if you look at the baddest of the bad,  the obsessed murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc... that there's some genetic defect SOMEWHERE in them.  only reason no one's found it is because that's not as big as a "problem" or "issue" as it is with homsexuals.

Your genetic meterials make you a human; How you learn and behave makes you who you are.

[SadisticSid]

You could say being overly tall is a disease; your metabolism is generally higher and as such you're less likely to live as long as people of average height. But I don't think all the 6'7"+s in the world see it that way - there's a definite plus in sex appeal, regardless of sex, for one. Branding homosexuality in the same way is equally silly.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stealth
Scientists have discovered genes that they believe are responsible for Downs Syndrome.  Does that mean God meant for some people to never be able to live a normal life?  How about all the other mutations due to unnatural genes/chromosomes/etc.

Well apart from the obvious answer that maybe their is no God it seems pretty likely that God must have intended that. With no evolution there is no need for God to have created mutation. So therefore no Down's Syndrome.
 Unless of course God wanted genetic mutations to occur.

Originally posted by Stealth
I'm sure if you look at the baddest of the bad,  the obsessed murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc... that there's some genetic defect SOMEWHERE in them.  only reason no one's found it is because that's not as big as a "problem" or "issue" as it is with homsexuals.

Are you seriously claiming that if you took someone with none of those genetic defects and physically and mentally abused them to near breaking point you could never ever turn them into a murderer, rapist or pedophile?



Incidentally when there was a discussion over homosexuality a year or so back you produced all kinds of spurious research to back your claim that there was no such thing as the "gay gene" and that homosexuality was 100% down to choice/nurture. Just out of interest why the change of heart?

Also if their is a "gay gene" which causes people who have it to be gay why is being gay a sin?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan


Alzheimers is allso caused by a damaged gene as I recall. Don't we call is a sickness too?

Altzheimers is provatively damaging to the individual, though.  That's the difference between genetic disorders or genetically inherited (be is causual or simply increased risk) and behvioural traits like sexuality.

Originally posted by TrashMan

Marriage was first a spiritual thing. It came from faith in god (gods) and as such from the begining was defined as a bond(community) between husband and wife.

Now personally I would like some other word to be used for gay marriages since by the very definiton it's not mariage anyway. Maby klong? Or garige?

Technically, marriage most likely came from human prehistory; as human children are born relatively helpless, they require parental care to survive.  It's probable that the concept of marriage arisen as a way of cementing this requirement through a social context, possibly due to intermingling of tribes (i.e. the threat that male parents might follow the instinct to 'spread' their seed with another genetically diverse population).  That latter part is of course conjecture, but i'm sure most anthropoligists would place the emergence of marriage as in institution within religion as occuring after the societal trait of dual parenting.

Originally posted by TrashMan


the point ain't moot.

you forget just as God gave us genes wiht possibiity of mutation and thus difference, he allso gave us free will with the possibility to choose both right and wrong.

Does that mean he wants us to do wrong?

If you're arguing that genes are responsible for behaviour, then evidently so - if you consider homosexuality wrong.  If your considering it as learned behaviour, then the definition of 'wrong' is based entirely on personal prejudice and it also rules out any definition of being a 'sickness'.

Originally posted by Stealth


Is it?  Think about it.

Scientists have discovered genes that they believe are responsible for Downs Syndrome.  Does that mean God meant for some people to never be able to live a normal life?  How about all the other mutations due to unnatural genes/chromosomes/etc.

I'm sure if you look at the baddest of the bad,  the obsessed murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc... that there's some genetic defect SOMEWHERE in them.  only reason no one's found it is because that's not as big as a "problem" or "issue" as it is with homsexuals.

Downs syndrome and the like, as I said before, are provatively damaging. We can prove them as being defects with the normal operation of the human body.  Unless you clasify it as a mental defect - which is sheer bigotry as no qualified pyschiatrist does - it's not comparable.

AFAIK I know there is not, nor has ever been a genetic cause for serious crime.  There have been studies, and to the best of my knowledge they have always determined crime to be due more to environment than any genetic factor.

The danger is that you are implicitly suggesting eugenics, and furthermore I hope you're not intentionally equating homosexuality to that sort of crime (although I would be amused as it's sort of relevant to the very first post of this topic, if you read the link).

[Stealth]

Originally posted by aldo_14

Downs syndrome and the like, as I said before, are provatively damaging. We can prove them as being defects with the normal operation of the human body.  Unless you clasify it as a mental defect - which is sheer bigotry as no qualified pyschiatrist does - it's not comparable.

AFAIK I know there is not, nor has ever been a genetic cause for serious crime.  There have been studies, and to the best of my knowledge they have always determined crime to be due more to environment than any genetic factor.

The danger is that you are implicitly suggesting eugenics, and furthermore I hope you're not intentionally equating homosexuality to that sort of crime (although I would be amused as it's sort of relevant to the very first post of this topic, if you read the link).

i used downs syndrome to get you to see that you can't say that just because someone's born a certain way, that God "endorses" it

this has moved off anything "relevant to the very first post of this topic"... it's become another "homosexuality" discussion

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Stealth


i used downs syndrome to get you to see that you can't say that just because someone's born a certain way, that God "endorses" it

this has moved off anything "relevant to the very first post of this topic"... it's become another "homosexuality" discussion

Down's Syndrome isn't a valid comparator as it's known to be damaging (i.e. correctly qualifiable as an illness) with measurable learning and physical disabilities.

We're talking about the validity of behaviour, after all.  Not physical form  If you want to compare something to homosexuality, I guess it needs to be behavioural and known to be genetic. Comparing to a serious crime, or to a known disease, is like comparing apples to oranges.  Of course, if you view mankind as created by God, then surely anything determined by that design would be Gods' will?

I mean, AFAIK there's nothing in the Bible that says God deliberately makes people born to be sinful.

EDIT; I think it is relevant when people are saying homosexuals are 'sick' and drawing implicit comparisons to either severe illness or serious crimes.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Altzheimers is provatively damaging to the individual, though.  That's the difference between genetic disorders or genetically inherited (be is causual or simply increased risk) and behvioural traits like sexuality.

Oh..I dunno.

How would you call a biological "quirk" that prevents an individual from functioning "normally" in all areas?

If you're arguing that genes are responsible for behaviour, then evidently so - if you consider homosexuality wrong.  If your considering it as learned behaviour, then the definition of 'wrong' is based entirely on personal prejudice and it also rules out any definition of being a 'sickness'.

I don't think it's a learned behavior. The sorrounding might have some influennce, but I belive ti's negligable. After all, I think most homosexuals come from normal families and inviroments..

And I don't thinks sexual attraction is something you can learn, since it's a biological process in the first place...

Like chemichal reacton to pheromones for instance.

Downs syndrome and the like, as I said before, are provatively damaging. We can prove them as being defects with the normal operation of the human body.  Unless you clasify it as a mental defect - which is sheer bigotry as no qualified pyschiatrist does - it's not comparable.

Question is - is the body functioning normally? Like I said, sexual attraction is a biological process. For someone to be attracted to the same sex SOMETHING has to working wrong.