Sexual Orientation

PDN

PickledLime wrote: »

But there's a difference between loving disapproval, and flat out not letting them do it (and branding them sinners while they're at it).

So which posters here have advocated flat out not letting people engage in homosexual activities?

PickledLime

PDN wrote: »

So which posters here have advocated flat out not letting people engage in homosexual activities?

Not necessarily directed at anyone here, but it does happen.

I also said that they can be branded as 'sinners', which has been implied in this thread.

Benny_Cake

PDN wrote: »

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One can love and disaprove at the same time.

Apparently some posters in this thread think you can only love people if you
a) Enthusiastically approve of every aspect of their lifestyle.

or

b) Engage in sexual relations with them.

I don't know what it is about the topic of homosexuality, but every time it comes up on this forum it seems to breed hysteria, bad logic, and an inability to read simple English.

There is a plenty of hysteria and bad logic on both sides of this debate.

For what it's worth, I'd distinguish between some one who feels that all homosexuality activity is morally wrong, but leaves that up to the conscience of the person concerned, and those who feel that all homosexuality activity is wrong and that the State should effectively intervene to discourage it / stamp it out. While I'd disagree with both points of view, I can at least understand the first group as they aren't attempting to impose their personal moral position on others.

BTW georgyporgy, why should it be the role of public servants (ie; teachers) to instruct children in the Catholic faith? If Catholics feel that kids aren't getting an adequate faith formation they need to step up to the plate themselves and stop relying on other people to do it.

Snappy Smurf

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There is a plenty of hysteria and bad logic on both sides of this debate.

For what it's worth, I'd distinguish between some one who feels that all homosexuality activity is morally wrong, but leaves that up to the conscience of the person concerned, and those who feel that all homosexuality activity is wrong and that the State should effectively intervene to discourage it / stamp it out. While I'd disagree with both points of view, I can at least understand the first group as they aren't attempting to impose their personal moral position on others.

BTW georgyporgy, why should it be the role of public servants (ie; teachers) to instruct children in the Catholic faith? If Catholics feel that kids aren't getting an adequate faith formation they need to step up to the plate themselves and stop relying on other people to do it.

In Catholic schools, they're Catholic teachers, hired by the Church and in part paid for by the Church IIRC.

I think homosexuality should be kept hidden, out of public view. I wouldn't advocate bedroom police. The Church is free to teach the doctrine of the Church. The state should approve only heterosexual marriage. All other 'sexual relationships', whether they be hetero or homo, are informal and ought to have no standing in law. That would be my position.

Corkfeen

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There is a plenty of hysteria and bad logic on both sides of this debate.

For what it's worth, I'd distinguish between some one who feels that all homosexuality activity is morally wrong, but leaves that up to the conscience of the person concerned, and those who feel that all homosexuality activity is wrong and that the State should effectively intervene to discourage it / stamp it out. While I'd disagree with both points of view, I can at least understand the first group as they aren't attempting to impose their personal moral position on others.

BTW georgyporgy, why should it be the role of public servants (ie; teachers) to instruct children in the Catholic faith? If Catholics feel that kids aren't getting an adequate faith formation they need to step up to the plate themselves and stop relying on other people to do it.

In Catholic schools, they're Catholic teachers, hired by the Church and in part paid for by the Church IIRC.

I think homosexuality should be kept hidden, out of public view. I wouldn't advocate bedroom police. The Church is free to teach the doctrine of the Church. The state should approve only heterosexual marriage. All other 'sexual relationships', whether they be hetero or homo, are informal and ought to have no standing in law. That would be my position.

You think it should be hidden but the rest of Ireland doesn't concur. Care to respond to my other post?

Benny_Cake

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

In Catholic schools, they're Catholic teachers, hired by the Church and in part paid for by the Church IIRC.

I think homosexuality should be kept hidden, out of public view. I wouldn't advocate bedroom police. The Church is free to teach the doctrine of the Church. The state should approve only heterosexual marriage. All other 'sexual relationships', whether they be hetero or homo, are informal and ought to have no standing in law. That would be my position.

Not so, teachers salaries are paid in full, by the State. The State is also responsible for school inspections and so on.

Your position is that the church should be free to teach it's doctrine (which I agree with, although whether it should do so in state-funded schools is another matter). Why should the State not be free to provide a civil framework for the recognition of same-sex relationships then?

Snappy Smurf

Corkfeen wrote: »

You think it should be hidden but the rest of Ireland doesn't concur. Care to respond to my other post?

Please resubmit your specific question. It's a lot easier that way than sending me on a treasure hunt.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Not so, teachers salaries are paid in full, by the State. The State is also responsible for school inspections and so on.

Your position is that the church should be free to teach it's doctrine (which I agree with, although whether it should do so in state-funded schools is another matter). Why should the State not be free to provide a civil framework for the recognition of same-sex relationships then?

Catholic schools were set up by the Church - people and priests - as they wanted education for their kids, long before the state got round to providing it. People have very short memories.

If you don't want to send your kids to a Catholic Church then you should do what others have begun to do - set up your own.

Now, I happen to think that the Catholic schools are no longer fit for purpose because they've lost a real sense of Catholic ethos and mission, but that's a separate issue.

It's funny, because in once Catholic Ireland, now all grown up (but bankrupt with it, morally and financially) the powers that be are keen to throw off the shackles of Catholicism. But over in the UK, where they are smarter, they recognise the value of what they call 'faith schools'. Ireland needs to grow up - like it you agree!

Zombrex

Can I just clarify something (and this isn't a say something offensive so I can be offended request).

An awful lot of focus is on sexual lust when it comes to homosexuality. Do the regular Christian posters here accept that there is in fact a lot more to homosexuality than this, that gay people fall in love with members of the same sex the way heterosexuals fall in love with members of the opposite sex? That being gay is pretty much exactly the same as being straight, encompassing the same range of relationships, simply that the gender is changed.

Or to put it simply, that it is about far more than simply desire for sexual intercourse. I ask because I regularly detect on this forum a tendency to pretend otherwise, to focus purely on the sexual lust aspect of homosexuality, in order I suspect to make it seem that what a homosexual is giving up is not that big a deal.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Can I just clarify something (and this isn't a say something offensive so I can be offended request).

An awful lot of focus is on sexual lust when it comes to homosexuality. Do the regular Christian posters here accept that there is in fact a lot more to homosexuality than this, that gay people fall in love with members of the same sex the way heterosexuals fall in love with members of the opposite sex? That being gay is pretty much exactly the same as being straight, encompassing the same range of relationships, simply that the gender is changed.

Or to put it simply, that it is about far more than simply desire for sexual intercourse. I ask because I regularly detect on this forum a tendency to pretend otherwise, to focus purely on the sexual lust aspect of homosexuality, in order I suspect to make it seem that what a homosexual is giving up is not that big a deal.

Not so.

The usual Christian position is not that 'homosexuality' (as in an orientation) is sinful - but that homosexual activities are sinful.

Therefore, quite clearly, it is those who wish to argue against the usual Christian position who are making this all about sexual lust.

Corkfeen

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Please resubmit your specific question. It's a lot easier that way than sending me on a treasure hunt.



Catholic schools were set up by the Church - people and priests - as they wanted education for their kids, long before the state got round to providing it. People have very short memories.

If you don't want to send your kids to a Catholic Church then you should do what others have begun to do - set up your own.

Now, I happen to think that the Catholic schools are no longer fit for purpose because they've lost a real sense of Catholic ethos and mission, but that's a separate issue.

It's funny, because in once Catholic Ireland, now all grown up (but bankrupt with it, morally and financially) the powers that be are keen to throw off the shackles of Catholicism. But over in the UK, where they are smarter, they recognise the value of what they call 'faith schools'. Ireland needs to grow up - like it you agree!

This post in general...

Corkfeen wrote: »

I doubt parent's attitudes will change by the time their children are in secondary school and teacher's would be equally unwilling to teach it as they would in Primary schools..... You will simply eliminate every Catholic school in the country if you teach something that 99% of Irish people do not agree with. You want teenagers to be taught that coming out is wrong and that it is evil to give into their desire to be in relationship with someone they care about if they are of the same sex, that's going to do wonders for the mental health of young people...

Endorsing such indoctrination in the school system is entirely wrong and far more immoral. You're just a condemning a minority, this is in no way different to teaching anti-semitism or racism in the education system. If you really want your children to believe this, do it yourself as it is not the duty of schools to teach intolerance of any variety.

All support, for Catholic schools would go out the window if they started condemning homosexuality. (And yes, saying that it should remain hidden is not acceptable and rather risky for one's mental health, the suicide rates are bad enough as they are) Why should a student be taught a teaching as fact that not even their parent's believe in? There is no difference between teaching anti-semitism and racism, if you're really desperate to brainwash your teenagers with such views, why not teach them yourself?

Teachers have no choice but to teach in Catholic schools and parents don't have much of a choice either, the majority of the Irish people do not have any objections to homosexuality. But you think that state schools (funded by the public) should be pushing homophobic stances that religions hold because they used to be funded by them...

Your proposal will only set the education system back and is only abusing the power of teachers. We were stuck with a Catholic education system, that does not give free reign to push views upon the youth. You are free to push the views upon your own child unfortunately, but to extend that to an education system that is funded by the public will not and should not happen. It would be an exploitation of a schooling system that is in dire need of change. If such an effort was made, they would cease to be RCC schools fairly lively as public support for them would dwindle to a greater degree than it currently has.

Snappy Smurf

Originally Posted by Corkfeen
I doubt parent's attitudes will change by the time their children are in secondary school and teacher's would be equally unwilling to teach it as they would in Primary schools..... You will simply eliminate every Catholic school in the country if you teach something that 99% of Irish people do not agree with. You want teenagers to be taught that coming out is wrong and that it is evil to give into their desire to be in relationship with someone they care about if they are of the same sex, that's going to do wonders for the mental health of young people...

Endorsing such indoctrination in the school system is entirely wrong and far more immoral. You're just a condemning a minority, this is in no way different to teaching anti-semitism or racism in the education system. If you really want your children to believe this, do it yourself as it is not the duty of schools to teach intolerance of any variety.

Howl on sweetheart - let's get something straight - there are Catholic schools which are maintained by the Church. Usually a bishop or priest will be in charge and all the staff are Catholic. Well at least in Ulster there is the CCMS. I am not sure how things are done in the south but anyway, the point is, these aren't 'state schools' - they are Catholic schools. So if you want alternatives, you're gonna have to get busy.

You call it coming out, I call it labeling. The Church would discourage youths from labeling themselves. Like branding themselves. The Christian understanding is radically different from the world's understanding, it's like poles apart. The world sells a lie to try to make it all better whereas the Church offers the truth about the human person, broken but loved by God and called to love. If teaching young people to engage the homosexual lifestyle was actually producing more hurt and more pain and more despair, then wouldn't that be cruel? That is the position of the Church and so the Church is keen for the truth to prevail because people, not ideology, are what matters.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

This is a manifestly incorrect statement. There are measureable differences in brain structures between gay and straight men, there is a lot of genetic evidence, studies between twins support a biological disposition and tons of other physical characteristics that only manifest statistically (but relevantly).

Not that your point has any relevance to what I was saying even if you weren't completely wrong.



I know you need to toe the Christian-condemnation line here but this doesn't really have anything to do with what I am saying about judging people based on the actions of others.

Show me anything you have that shows that sexuality is biologically determined from birth or that there is a gene that determines sexuality.

There's been nothing demonstrated as far as I can tell that shows this.

Oh, and in terms of your claims about judging, this sin is no greater and no lesser than any other sin as far as Christianity is concerned. My sin before God makes me about as guilty as your sins. Thankfully, Jesus Christ came to rescue us if we only will repent and believe in Him, much as the man in Jimi's article has done.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Not so.

The usual Christian position is not that 'homosexuality' (as in an orientation) is sinful - but that homosexual activities are sinful.

Therefore, quite clearly, it is those who wish to argue against the usual Christian position who are making this all about sexual lust.

What is the sinful aspect isn't really the issue of my question. Rather how homosexuality as a state someone is in is viewed.

For example I had a discussion with you about homosexuality a few months ago where the notion that a homosexual man could fall in romantic love with another man, the way a heterosexual couple would, seemed totally alien to you (you kept comparing what I was talking about to loving your son or brother and saying you saw no issue with that).

So I'm not asking what you take issue with, I'm asking do you understand what homosexuality actually is.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

For example I had a discussion with you about homosexuality a few months ago where the notion that a homosexual man could fall in romantic love with another man, the way a heterosexual couple would, seemed totally alien to you (you kept comparing what I was talking about to loving your son or brother and saying you saw no issue with that).

That's rather an example of how you misquote and misrepresent others. I don't believe I ever suggested such a concept was alien to me. I shared my opinion that romantic love, if not accompanied by sexual activity, is no different from familial love in terms of Christian morality.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Show me anything you have that shows that sexuality is biologically determined from birth or that there is a gene that determines sexuality.

There's been nothing demonstrated as far as I can tell that shows this.

Oh, and in terms of your claims about judging, this sin is no greater and no lesser than any other sin as far as Christianity is concerned. My sin before God makes me about as guilty as your sins. Thankfully, Jesus Christ came to rescue us if we only will repent and believe in Him, much as the man in Jimi's article has done.

There is no one factor that determines sexual orientation, but the reality that there is a genetic part to sexual orientation has been known since the 70s. Statistical studies on related couples demonstrates that a genetic link increases the odds someone will be homosexual, but does not alone determine this.

Of course even if there were no genetic factor that doesn't mean it is a choice either. Developmental factors are also known to play a role in sexual orientation and you don't have any control over those either.

Of course the fact that the vast majority of gay people will tell you they didn't choose to be gay should also be a hint :pac:

Actor

Benny_Cake wrote: »

For what it's worth, I'd distinguish between some one who feels that all homosexuality activity is morally wrong, but leaves that up to the conscience of the person concerned, and those who feel that all homosexuality activity is wrong and that the State should effectively intervene to discourage it / stamp it out. While I'd disagree with both points of view, I can at least understand the first group as they aren't attempting to impose their personal moral position on others.

That homosexuality is sinful isn't a "point of view". It's a moral truth that has been thought through by brains much bigger than yours I can tell you.

philologos

Zombrex: Show me some studies that show that sexuality is biologically determined from birth. I'm more than happy to consider them, but I'm very sure that there is no concrete evidence to show this.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I don't believe I ever suggested such a concept was alien to me.

Well ya did. Here specifically

If you take away the sex then surely "homosexual commitment" simply means a non-sexual commitment between two people of the same gender? The love between a father and a son for example.

Nothing to do with "in terms of Christian morality", you discussed the example of homosexuals in love with a father loving his son. We had a long discussion about these being two different types of love, which at some point for some reason included an example of a woman sharing ice cream with her dog. But initially the concept of romantic love between homosexuals appeared alien to you, certainly if you thought it was equivalent to the love between a father and son or between two friends of the same sex who minded each other such as nuns.

PDN wrote: »

I shared my opinion that romantic love, if not accompanied by sexual activity, is no different from familial love in terms of Christian morality.

Do you agree though that they different types of love, different states of emotional connection? And that homosexuals fall in love with each other the same way that heterosexuals do?

I'm happy if you do, in my experience though a lot of Christians don't, viewing homosexuality as nothing more than a state of desiring sexual intercourse and nothing more.

Benny_Cake

Actor wrote: »

That homosexuality is sinful isn't a "point of view". It's a moral truth that has been thought through by brains much bigger than yours I can tell you.

Yes, it is a point of view. And if someone says that not all homosexual relations (as opposed to homosexuality) are sinful, that is also a point of view. If people didn't come to different conclusions regarding the morality of relationships, then there would be no discussion. I'm sure someone with your superior intellectual capacity realises that though.

Actor

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you agree though that they different types of love, different states of emotional connection? And that homosexuals fall in love with each other the same way that heterosexuals do?

The sexual chemistry just isn't there. It isn't designed that way. Sure, you can attempt to emulate the reproductive act till the cows come home, but it will get you nowhere.

Homosexuality is a distortion of Platonic love AFAIC.

Actor

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Yes, it is a point of view. And if someone says that not all homosexual relations (as opposed to homosexuality) are sinful, that is also a point of view. If people didn't come to different conclusions regarding the morality of relationships, then there would be no discussion. I'm sure someone with your superior intellectual capacity realises that though.

So you don't believe in objective truth then?

Nodin

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

...................

I think homosexuality should be kept hidden, out of public view. I wouldn't advocate bedroom police. The Church is free to teach the doctrine of the Church. The state should approve only heterosexual marriage. All other 'sexual relationships', whether they be hetero or homo, are informal and ought to have no standing in law. That would be my position.

...what you advocate for homosexuality somewhat echoes the position the catholic church found itself in times past. And, indeed, many protestant churches. Surely we don't want to turn the clock back?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: Show me some studies that show that sexuality is biologically determined from birth.

Sexuality is not biologically determined from birth, so that would be a bit difficult (did you not read what I just wrote).

There is though a genetic element to sexual orientation. Genes play a role, but do not act as the sole determination of sexual orientation. Environment also plays a role.

Or to put it another way, just because you have gene X doesn't mean you will be gay, though it does mean you are more likely to be.

If you are looking for studies that this is the case here is one

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071107170741.htm

though frankly if you Google it you will find hundreds.

philologos

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Yes, it is a point of view. And if someone says that not all homosexual relations (as opposed to homosexuality) are sinful, that is also a point of view. If people didn't come to different conclusions regarding the morality of relationships, then there would be no discussion. I'm sure someone with your superior intellectual capacity realises that though.

It is a point of view, as are all worldviews and philosophies.

However, if the Bible is God's inspired word, and if God has revealed Himself to us through it, surely this text can give us a glimpse into the mind of God on this issue?

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

It is a point of view, as are all worldviews and philosophies.

However, if the Bible is God's inspired word, and if God has revealed Himself to us through it, surely this text can give us a glimpse into the mind of God on this issue?

Considering the fact that there is an estimated 38,000 different churches, I don't really think clarity of message is going to be culled from there.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

It is a point of view, as are all worldviews and philosophies.

However, if the Bible is God's inspired word, and if God has revealed Himself to us through it, surely this text can give us a glimpse into the mind of God on this issue?

And surely if this is just nonsense made up by some ancient priests and kings who didn't like the idea of homosexuality and decided to say their god doesn't either as a way of justify this, then millions of gay people across the world purposefully avoid the rewards of a loving committed romantic relationship with each other for no valid reason.

Certainly it would have been nice if, in either case, reason for why people shouldn't do this had been given. At least it would be possible to see if we understand and agree with them without having to necessarily believe the source. But I guess mysterious ways and all that jazz

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Well ya did. Here specifically



Nothing to do with "in terms of Christian morality", you discussed the example of homosexuals in love with a father loving his son. We had a long discussion about these being two different types of love, which at some point for some reason included an example of a woman sharing ice cream with her dog. But initially the concept of romantic love between homosexuals appeared alien to you, certainly if you thought it was equivalent to the love between a father and son or between two friends of the same sex who minded each other such as nuns.

Dishonest quote-mining. That entire discussion was in the context of a discussion in the Christianity Forum on Christian morality and homosexuality.

It is this kind of thing that makes any discussion with you next to impossible.

Do you agree though that they different types of love, different states of emotional connection?

Of course I do. The love you feel for a friend is different from the love you feel for God, or for a brother, or for a spouse. Nobody pretended otherwise.

My point then, as now, is that in terms of Christian morality (the subject of that thread and this one) there is no difference if there is no sexual element.

And that homosexuals fall in love with each other the same way that heterosexuals do?

I don't believe anyone 'falls' in love. That is mystical clap-trap for teenagers who sigh over pictures of Justin Bieber.

We are attracted by various people, and we make choices. In our better choices we unselfishly choose to love others.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Dishonest quote-mining. That entire discussion was in the context of a discussion in the Christianity Forum on Christian morality and homosexuality.

Groan. What you wrote and the "context" you wrote it in PDN is there for anyone to read. I've zero interest in trying to prove you meant something a particular way when you will simple claim you didn't over and over, that seems an exercise in futility particular when the context should be clear to anyone on the first read through.

PDN wrote: »

Of course I do. The love you feel for a friend is different from the love you feel for God, or for a brother, or for a spouse. Nobody pretended otherwise.

My point then, as now, is that in terms of Christian morality (the subject of that thread and this one) there is no difference if there is no sexual element.

Great. Just to clarify, you agree that the specific type of love you feel for your spouse is something homosexual couples can share and this is different to other types of love that might exists between two members of the same sex (such as a father and son, or two nuns caring for each other).

PDN wrote: »

I don't believe anyone 'falls' in love. That is mystical clap-trap for teenagers who sigh over pictures of Justin Bieber.

We are attracted by various people, and we make choices. In our better choices we unselfishly choose to love others.

Ok, well that is nonsense, you don't choose who you fall in love with. But some what off topic so I'll leave my response to the original "Great" comment. :pac:

One Christian down, lets see what the others think.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Great. Just to clarify, you accept that the specific type of love you feel for your spouse is something homosexual couples share.

No, I don't think it is. Because the love I and my wife share has been strengthened and deepened through the giving and receiving of sexual intimacy in a relationship conducted within the context of a marriage that glorifies God and is ordered according to the Creator's guidance and leading.

However, I certainly think that homosexual couples share a similar love to each other as do many heterosexual couples, married or otherwise.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Zombrex wrote: »

Great. Just to clarify, you accept that the specific type of love you feel for your spouse is something homosexual couples share.

No, I don't think it is. Because the love I and my wife share has been strengthened and deepened through the giving and receiving of sexual intimacy in a relationship conducted within the context of a marriage that glorifies God and is ordered according to the Creator's guidance and leading.

However, I certainly think that homosexual couples share a similar love to each other as do many heterosexual couples, married or otherwise.

Close enough.