Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

why did god create cancer?

1…6791112

Comments

  • #242
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well depends on what you mean by "bisexual"

    The male swan doesn't seem to have any interest in forming a mating relationship with female swans, even the one he has sex with. It does mate with the swan to produce a child, but it then raises the child with its male partner (raising children after being the ultimate purpose of sex and sexual orientation), and treats its male partner is a similar fashion to how heterosexual swans in mating partnerships interact.

    So while the swan is physical capable of having sex with a female to produce his child, there is a bit more to it than that. I'm not sure I would call the swan bisexual simply because it has sex with a female. Gay men have been known to have sex with women for the purpose of impregnating a surrogate mother, though many prefer to do this with a sperm donation, a facility not open to male swans unfortunately. :pac:

    Bisexual, to me, means having sex with 2 genders. It is not necessarily about forming long lasting attachment.

    However, I think that we will never reach any agreement on this kind of stuff because you view sexuality as some kind of identity where as I see it in terms of behaviour.

    If a guy has sex with other guys, even if it's just in prison when no women are around, then that makes him homosexual (excepting rape of course).

    If a guy doesn't have sex with other guys then he's not a homosexual, even if he wears Croc sandals and likes to watch 'Sex in the City'.

    If someone has sex with people of both genders then they are bisexual.

    So, in my view, it is about behaviour - and behaviour is a matter of choice.

    We all have inclinations for certain things (I'm avoiding using 'temptation' because I know you won't agree with the moral connotations of the word in regard to sexuality). Heck, in my mind's eye I like to imagine myself as a healthy eater and someone who is physically fit and exercises regularly - but my behaviour (which is a result of my choices) means that in reality I am an overweight slob who consumes junk food.

    Some people find themselves attracted towards men, some towards women, some towards both genders, some towards children, and some even towards animals or inanimate objects. We can argue forever about whether these attractions are caused by nature or nuture. The Christian position is that no-one should be judged for what tempts them - but that we are free moral agents who are responsible for our behaviour.


  • #243
    RealEstateKing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 432 ✭✭RealEstateKing


    If a guy has sex with other guys, even if it's just in prison when no women are around, then that makes him homosexual (excepting rape of course).

    Nope. In ther Kinsey Report (done in the 1950's) it was found that Somewhere around 37% of men will have a homosexual experience at some time in their lives. Are you saying all these men are gay?

    A homosexual is somebody who's primary sex drive derives from members of his own sex. Everybody else is just different degrees of straight, and most people have homosexual thoughts of some kind during their lives: Its just a question of whether they are comfortable enough with it to admit it or not.


  • #244
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Bisexual, to me, means having sex with 2 genders. It is not necessarily about forming long lasting attachment.

    Well I'm not quite sure what you mean.

    It is physically possible for me to have sex with a man, and gun to my head I probably would. Does that mean I'm homosexual or bisexual? I certainly wouldn't think so.

    The terms heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual don't make much sense outside the context of sexual orientation, and sexual orientation includes all aspects of sexual relationships, from simple sexual desire to long lasting "loving" relationships.

    I can have sex with a guy, but I certainly don't want to, at least not in terms of sexual desire. I am a heterosexual male, I want to have sex with women. I want to have relationships with women. I fall in romantic love with women.

    I may have sex with a man for a reason other than sexual desire, as a gay man may have sex with a woman for the purpose of producing a child, or a porn star may pretend to be enjoying sex with the same gender for money, but that doesn't imply sexual orientation.
    PDN wrote: »
    However, I think that we will never reach any agreement on this kind of stuff because you view sexuality as some kind of identity where as I see it in terms of behaviour.
    I'm not sure how you can divorce behavior from identity.

    Why do you think people behave the way they do if not because of who they are?
    PDN wrote: »
    If a guy has sex with other guys, even if it's just in prison when no women are around, then that makes him homosexual (excepting rape of course).
    That makes the term almost meaningless.

    Under that definition if a guy holds a gun to my head and says have sex with this man, that makes me a "homosexual", not because I have any sexual desire to have sex relations with other men rather than women, but because I have an strong evolutionary desire not to get shot in the head.

    I might find the entire experience deeply disgusting and traumatic, and I performed the act for reasons other than sexual desire, but to you I would still be a "homosexual" because I did it.

    The meaninglessness comes when one then compares me to a man who has strong romantic and sexual desire with a member of the same sex, and say we are the same (both "homosexuals")

    Not only is that using the term incorrectly (the term "homosexual" has almost exclusively, since its first usage in the late 19th century German psychiatry, been used to describe sexual orientation), as I said that make the term rather meaningless.
    PDN wrote: »
    We all have inclinations for certain things (I'm avoiding using 'temptation' because I know you won't agree with the moral connotations of the word in regard to sexuality). Heck, in my mind's eye I like to imagine myself as a healthy eater and someone who is physically fit and exercises regularly - but my behaviour (which is a result of my choices) means that in reality I am an overweight slob who consumes junk food.

    Yes but that is because you like junk food.

    Plenty of people don't like junk food. But your analogy with homosexuality is like saying if you eat junk food you like junk food, the two things are the same. Which is nonsense. You can eat junk food while not enjoying it at all. There is a difference between someone who eats junk food and likes it and someone who eats junk food and doesn't like it. Naturally the person who doesn't like junk food will not go out of their way to eat it, but simply eating it doesn't automatically mean someone likes it.
    PDN wrote: »
    Some people find themselves attracted towards men, some towards women, some towards both genders, some towards children, and some even towards animals or inanimate objects.

    Very true. And the men who are attracted to other men are homosexuals, the men who are attracted to women are heterosexuals, the ones who are attracted to both genders are bisexual, the ones attracted to children are pedophiles etc etc.


  • #245
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    RealEstateKing wrote: »
    Nope. In ther Kinsey Report (done in the 1950's) it was found that Somewhere around 37% of men will have a homosexual experience at some time in their lives. Are you saying all these men are gay?

    A homosexual is somebody who's primary sex drive derives from members of his own sex. Everybody else is just different degrees of straight, and most people have homosexual thoughts of some kind during their lives: Its just a question of whether they are comfortable enough with it to admit it or not.

    There have been many reports done in the name of Kinsey, and a meta analysis shows that between 4 and 17% of men are primarily same sex attracted.

    The difficulty with names is that what one guy considers bisexual another will consider homosexual and its really up to each of us to define ourselves as we best can. What's the difference between a man who has sex with men and a homosexual? A metrosexual and a bisexual? The answer is who cares as its for each of us to decide for ourselves.


  • #246
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    PDN wrote: »

    So, in my view, it is about behaviour - and behaviour is a matter of choice.

    Thats the hoary old nature versus nurture argument in different clothes. You consider behaviour is definitely a matter of choice, whereas others disagree with you. Are you saying that, for them, sexual orientation is a matter of choice? And if they "choose" to be homosexual, does that cause you a problem?

    I am not sure you are right. The Cuckoo's parents lay their egg in another birds nest and then scarper. The egg hatches alongside other eggs and the cuckoo is brough up by foster parents and never sees his own parents. Yet, the cuckoo, at the appropriate age, picks himself up and flies to africa as do all other cuckoos, leaving his adopted parents and siblings behind. Nature, or nurture?


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sapien wrote: »
    Appropriately.

    I beg to differ, but your hatread towards me and The Living God are certainly not reciprocated, no matter how much you scream it is. I certainly don't hate you, or homosexual people. I have no problem saying that your sexual behaviour is sinful though. If that constitutes hatread in your head, then so be it, you've already abused another word, so why should I expect you to understand what hatread is. In fact, I predicted as much when Wolfsbane mentioned that there was a gay lobby looking to stop people being allowed to express a moral objection to homosexuality under the grounds of inciting hatread.
    jimitime wrote:
    Troubling indeed. Espeially since most seem to lack the understanding of what a phobia is, I doubt that they'd understand what hatread is.

    I suppose its inevitable.
    Racists, for decades, when the civil rights battle was being fought, resisted the term. The hurt and righteous indignance of those beleaguered minorities who suffered under institutional racism was funneled into the pronouncement of the word - racist. The racists could not conceive of themselves as being wrong; as being the unreasoning monsters all society now recognises them to have been. They could not countenance being the subject of a term so coterminous with irrational hatred and dangerous prejudice. A term uttered with such justifiable contempt.

    "I'm not a racist, but..."

    A phrase so assinine and self-defeating that it has entered the language as a trope - a futile attempt to deny prejudice even as it is expressed.

    Think.

    Indeed, all this shows is the reason for you vilifying those who don't share your enthusiasm for homosexuality. If it catches on (and its certainly on its way), you can take advantage of the ignorance of people. Its a great soundbyte to have, to spread your hatread of those who disagree with you. Its not even similar to racism, but thats not going to stop you.
    As I said, having a certain skin colour is not an action. A man having sex with another man is an action.
    Lazy? Try tired. Exhausted. Fed, entirely, up. With people like you, who want to have your hateful cake and eat it. You wish to be allowed traipse around with your preposterous opinions and judgements; but never to have levelled at you any assessment of yourselves and your insane, antisocial dogmas. We are sinners? Fine. You are homophobes. Quid pro quo.

    We are all sinners Sapien, some of us realise it, some don't. As for me being a homophobe, well I suppose I can see a time when society indeed judges me in such a manner for being a Christian, and having a Godly informed concience. But they hated Christ first. When that does eventually happen, I'll take solace in my Lord and Kings words:

    John 15.18
    18"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.


  • #248
    hairyheretic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,257 ✭✭✭hairyheretic


    PDN wrote: »
    However, I think that we will never reach any agreement on this kind of stuff because you view sexuality as some kind of identity where as I see it in terms of behaviour.

    I recall seeing a news story in the last week or two that showed there are recognisable physical differences in the brains of hetrosexual and homsexual people.

    How do you feel that would impact on the identity / behaviour arguement?

    If you haven't seen the article in question I'll see if I can dig up a link.


  • #249
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I beg to differ, but your hatread towards me and The Living God are certainly not reciprocated, no matter how much you scream it is. I certainly don't hate you, or homosexual people. I have no problem saying that your sexual behaviour is sinful though. If that constitutes hatread in your head, then so be it, you've already abused another word, so why should I expect you to understand what hatread is. In fact, I predicted as much when Wolfsbane mentioned that there was a gay lobby looking to stop people being allowed to express a moral objection to homosexuality under the grounds of inciting hatread.



    I suppose its inevitable.



    Indeed, all this shows is the reason for you vilifying those who don't share your enthusiasm for homosexuality. If it catches on (and its certainly on its way), you can take advantage of the ignorance of people. Its a great soundbyte to have, to spread your hatread of those who disagree with you. Its not even similar to racism, but thats not going to stop you.
    As I said, having a certain skin colour is not an action. A man having sex with another man is an action.



    We are all sinners Sapien, some of us realise it, some don't. As for me being a homophobe, well I suppose I can see a time when society indeed judges me in such a manner for being a Christian, and having a Godly informed concience. But they hated Christ first. When that does eventually happen, I'll take solace in my Lord and Kings words:

    John 15.18
    18"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.

    Of course everyone is welcome to their views about right and wrong, it seems christians have a particular liking for saying homosexuality is wrong, but never expressing their opinions as to whether or not it is right, for example, for the pope to live the life of a king, in vast ornamental palaces, dressing in gold robes and living a luxurious lifestyle while his fello man dies of starvation?

    Or how about is it wrong that women are treated as second class citizend by the Roman CAtholic Church?

    As an outsider who does not belong to any religion or does not believe in god, it seems many christians seem obsessed with what they view as others sexual "sins" rater than focusing on other more important issues in their own house.


  • #250
    RealEstateKing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 432 ✭✭RealEstateKing


    As I said, having a certain skin colour is not an action. A man having sex with another man is an action.

    Yes, but anybody who knows anything about human beings knows full well that homosexuals cannot be changed or talked out of being homosexual. It is not something they choose to be. My best friend is a homosexual, and I watched him come to terms with it in his late teens, and it wasnt easy for him: I remember him saying "God I wish I was straight, it would be so much easier".

    As an action it hurts nobody, and is unchangeable, so whether you think it is sinful or not is irrelevant.

    And furthermore, nobody is trying to make a law to stop you expressing your late Bronze-Age opinions, they simply dont want such hateful opinions being taught to their children in schools. A certain percentage of any human population (Roughly 5%) will always be homsexuals. You might as well get used to it. Nobody is asking you to do it, or even to like the idea of it, but if you really are a Christian as you say, then you should try following the example of your "Lord and King", from what I've read, he was a pretty forgiving and tolerant guy.


  • #251
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    RealEstateKing wrote: »
    Yes, but anybody who knows anything about human beings knows full well that homosexuals cannot be changed or talked out of being homosexual. It is not something they choose to be. My best friend is a homosexual, and I watched him come to terms with it in his late teens, and it wasnt easy for him: I remember him saying "God I wish I was straight, it would be so much easier".

    As an action it hurts nobody, and is unchangeable, so whether you think it is sinful or not is irrelevant.

    I agree, it is irrelavent to those who are not christian.
    And furthermore, nobody is trying to make a law to stop you expressing your late Bronze-Age opinions, they simply dont want such hateful opinions being taught to their children in schools. A certain percentage of any human population (Roughly 5%) will always be homsexuals. You might as well get used to it. Nobody is asking you to do it, or even to like the idea of it, but if you really are a Christian as you say, then you should try following the example of your "Lord and King", from what I've read, he was a pretty forgiving and tolerant guy.

    Oh i give up:rolleyes: If you can be bothered, go back a few pages and start reading. I have expressed my tolerance of homosexuals, to gay marriage etc. In fact its not that I even think about it really. The only point I don't tolerate is the gay lobby which is trying to call my christian view an 'incitement to hatread'. Details of which you'll find in the previous postings. Though its probably easier just to point at me and shout 'Homophobe'!:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    auerillo wrote: »
    Of course everyone is welcome to their views about right and wrong, it seems christians have a particular liking for saying homosexuality is wrong,

    A particular liking? If i'm asked about my view on it, I'll give it. If I'm asked about my view on fornication, I'll give it! if I'm asked about my view on stealing, I'll give it! its not a 'particular liking', its that there seems to be a preoccupation with the subject from some quarters!
    but never expressing their opinions as to whether or not it is right, for example, for the pope to live the life of a king, in vast ornamental palaces, dressing in gold robes and living a luxurious lifestyle while his fello man dies of starvation?

    You will see plenty of such things on this forum. In fact, there is a minority of Catholics amongst the Christian posters. Maybe you are mixing up Catholic with Christian!


  • #253
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    auerillo wrote: »
    Of course everyone is welcome to their views about right and wrong, it seems christians have a particular liking for saying homosexuality is wrong, but never expressing their opinions as to whether or not it is right, for example, for the pope to live the life of a king, in vast ornamental palaces, dressing in gold robes and living a luxurious lifestyle while his fello man dies of starvation?

    Or how about is it wrong that women are treated as second class citizend by the Roman CAtholic Church?

    As an outsider who does not belong to any religion or does not believe in god, it seems many christians seem obsessed with what they view as others sexual "sins" rater than focusing on other more important issues in their own house.

    That comment is a some what unfair.

    Most Christian posters here are not Catholic, and a few, including Jimi, express a strong dislike (don't want to use the word "hate") for the position of the Pope and the practices of the Catholic church now and throughout history, a church they view as not representing Christianity.


  • #254
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Sapien said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    The issue is where does our sexuality come into this.

    It's not much of an issue. Your conviction that certain sexual orientations, if indulged, are sinful, is rejected by the state. The state recognises no moral or legal distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality. You may attempt to portray disputations on this count as subjective approaches to personal morality as much as you want, but the fact is that the logic that underpins these debates is so ineluctable that the state has determined to come down on one side - quite unambiguously.

    Deal.
    I agree: the State has unambigiously accepted homosexuality as a normal and acceptable passion and practice. As a citizen of a democratic country, I have to accept that even though I believe it will have bad consequences for society in general. I reserve the right to persuade, via my elected representatives, the State to think again.

    When they legalise paedophilia among consenting parties, I will likewise have to accept it, while seeking to democratically overturn it.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    The claim is often made that our sexuality is something we are born with, not a moral choice. I don't think it is an either/or thing, but in any case it is no justification for immorality. I may have been born with a quick temper, but it is sinful of me to allow that part of my fallen nature dominion over me. I may have been born with a high sex drive, making me vunerable to sexual lust in a way many others are not. That too is no justification for me sleeping with every woman I meet.
    Dreadfully weak, wolfsbane. So, reign in your temper and your libido. Living a life without sex is quite another order of sacrifice.
    Homosexuals need not live without sex: they have proven time and again how well they perform heterosexually by marrying and having children. They are not asked to be eunuchs. They are asked to reject their perverse passion as evil and seek the God-given means of sexual fulfilment.

    No excuse can be made for sin. This is me; this is the way I'm made, etc. fail to grasp that even our strongest desires may be faulty, malignant, unnatural, etc. We cannot just assume that our passions are right because they are strong.

    I've heard this excuse from alcoholics, gluttons, fornicators, homosexuals, paedophiles. No doubt they are caught in very powerful passions, passions they may have been genetically predisposed to; passions they may have been socially conditioned to; but passions they nevertheless gave into, embraced because they liked the pleasure more than they disliked the sin.

    It is all part of our in-built slavery to sin. Each one of us has individual manifestations of it, but all of us are responsible for how we deal with it.

    I don't mean to single out homosexuality as particularly wicked. There are many worse sins. But it is special in that it is unnatural; so it is particularly degrading rather than particularly wicked. That is shown by it being sent as a punishment to sinners, as well as being a sin in itself.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    "My mother made me a queer." "O, if I get her the wool, would she make me one too" is an old joke, but it points to a reality that was commonly observed - a disfunctional family leading to a disfunctional response in a child.
    You are free to credit discredited theories about the cause of homosexuality as much as you may wish, to bolster the smaller tenets of your religion, but don't expect the arising arguments to be entertained by those who bother to keep conversant in the science that pertains to the topic.
    They are only discredited by those who wish to normalise the patently abnormal. Scientists are just as vunerable to PC intimidation as the rest of society.

    Looking at the backgrounds of homosexuals I know, I find it remarkably in line with what I've written above. In my pastoral care I also found such failures in childhood nuturing a strong factor in sexual perversion.

    But as I said, neither nature nor nuture give excuse to immorality. What then is a homosexual, alcoholic, glutton, fornicator, paedophile to do? If they have tried to expunge their sinful passion but always failed?

    Each of us can overcome some sins in our life by the abilities God commonly gives to man. But none of us can overcome the real chains that bind us without God's immediate help by His Spirit. Unbelievers really have no hope of liberation from their evil passions - and attempts to do so without God lead to exchanging one sin for a worse. Christ must set you free. You need a Saviour - One who saves you from your sins, from both the penalty due them in eternity and their power over us in this life.

    To all who labour and are heavy-laden with sin, Christ calls:
    Matthew 11:28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

    John     8:34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.


  • #255
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Latest example of the gay agenda:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4205422.ece?Submitted=true


  • #256
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Latest example of the gay agenda:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4205422.ece?Submitted=true

    Er, did you read the article?

    The ad appears to have been pulled because viewers objected to two men kissing in an ad featuring children.

    How is that the "gay agenda", it seems to be the anti-gay agenda, "Down with this sort of thing" as Father Ted would say.

    And by the way using terms like "gay agenda" doesn't do the argument that you aren't homophobic any favors.


  • #257
    Sapien
    Closed Accounts Posts: 997 ✭✭✭Sapien


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    When they legalise paedophilia among consenting parties, I will likewise have to accept it, while seeking to democratically overturn it.
    I shall leave you here, wolfsbane, on the fringes of reason. I must remember that you are, after all, a creationist, and likely able to bring yourself to believe anything.


  • #258
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Er, did you read the article?
    Rather my thoughts as well. I mean, believing that you can promote a "gay agenda" by means of a family-oriented message written with a certain brand of creamy salad dressing really does reside well past any sense of reason I'm familiar with. I'd imagine that even JC, our resident Electric Monk, would have trouble believing that.

    Weird.


  • #259
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I agree: the State has unambigiously accepted homosexuality as a normal and acceptable passion and practice.

    That is because the State recognizes the right of consenting adults to carry out practices that don't harm them.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    As a citizen of a democratic country, I have to accept that even though I believe it will have bad consequences for society in general.
    Believing that practicing homosexual will have "bad consequences" for society in general (I assume you mean not just the homosexuals) would certainly fall under what I would consider an irrational fear (ie homophobia).

    There is little evidence that legalised and accepted homosexual as part of society has a detrimental effect on society (beyond the persecution faced by homosexuals themselves from those threatened by this), and plenty of evidence that making homosexuality illegal does has a detrimental effect on society.

    So this would be an example of the facts getting in the way of the propaganda based on religious conviction.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    When they legalise paedophilia among consenting parties, I will likewise have to accept it, while seeking to democratically overturn it.
    This constant need you guys have to try and link pedophilia with homosexuality does get rather tiresome. Psychological and biological studies have separated the two philia's for years, I really don't understand why you guys can't.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Homosexuals need not live without sex: they have proven time and again how well they perform heterosexually by marrying and having children.
    Depends on what you mean by "well"

    Homosexuals certain have married and had children with women, often when forced to accept societal norms by family, friends or pressure from society itself.

    There is strong links between this and depression and suicide, as ultimately forcing oneself into an unnatural and unhappy relationship (ie a homosexual man marrying and having children with a woman) puts great stress on that person (as I'm sure any heterosexual man can imagine having to live a homosexual life would).

    While you may believe that such activity is saving the souls of homosexuals, it is also driving them sad depressed lives that all to often result is the taking of ones own life.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    But it is special in that it is unnatural; so it is particularly degrading rather than particularly wicked. That is shown by it being sent as a punishment to sinners, as well as being a sin in itself.

    As has been explained homosexuality is not unnatural at all, it is found throughout nature and has various biological reasons for existing in nature.

    Again it is very hard to take the claim that you are not expressing an irrational fear of homosexuality seriously when you seem perfectly happy to make such unsupported and incorrect jumps in logic, from that your holy book, written 2000 years ago in very sloppy language (men "lying" with other men) and apply that out to assertions about biology and nature.

    As you guys have no trouble stating when trying to defend the mistakes in the Bible (such as the inaccurate description of pi), the Bible isn't supposed to be a science book. So why are you using it as such when it comes to issues such as homosexuality?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    They are only discredited by those who wish to normalise the patently abnormal.
    That is your excuse for everything these days Wolfsbane. :rolleyes:

    Anything that demonstrates that you are wrong or inaccurate must be some evil conspiracy.

    If one gets down to that level of mud slinging, the charge could equally be made that the people who denounce homosexuality based on religious teaching are just bigots wishing to stigmatize, outlaw and persecute homosexuals, probably because of their own latent and confusing homosexual desires.

    I doubt many of you would entertain that idea that seriously, so why do you expect people to believe that anything, and apparently everything, that contradicts you is based on faked assessment for an agenda?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Scientists are just as vunerable to PC intimidation as the rest of society.
    Scientists maybe, but science isn't, something you would understand if you had been listening to posts about science on the Creationists thread. One of the central pillars of science, unlike religion and Creationism, is that the results are divorced from the scientists who compiled them, their personal feelings included.

    I appreciate that if you only immerse yourself in Creationism, where the personal opinions and conclusions of the individual Creationists are basically the "science", this concept will be foreign to you. But really it has been explained to you enough times by now that you really should understand it.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Looking at the backgrounds of homosexuals I know, I find it remarkably in line with what I've written above. In my pastoral care I also found such failures in childhood nuturing a strong factor in sexual perversion.

    It is interesting you mention that.

    Failures in childhood unfortunately often lead to young adults believing that it is their fault that their parents did not nurture them, or that they grew up in a broken or dysfunctional home. This is not a rational response, but an emotional one, and therefore unfortunately difficult to reason out of. My friend is a social worker who did some time with children from difficult families, and even as they get old and say to themselves that they know what happened to them wasn't their fault, blaming oneself and self-loathing unfortunately still manifest well into adulthood. It is natural human response to seek love and a feeling of worth from those around us particularly are parents and if this isn't coming then unfortunately it is a natural human response to form a lower sense of self and a low sense of worth.

    The conclusion I would draw from this, that you would no doubt reject, is that in young life people suffering from this are drawn to societal organizations that confirm to themselves that yes it is actually your fault, or that yes there is actually something wrong with them.

    Humans have a rather perverse need to place blame on themselves even for situations that are often out of their own control, such as absent fathers. If only we had done something different, if only we weren't such a bad boy/girl, daddy wouldn't have left. That kind of thing.

    A religion like Christianity, which ultimately teaches the wickedness of humans, and the need to do something about this wickedness, can appear to make sense to people who find themselves in these situations. It confirms to them what their emotionally unstable subconsciousness is saying. Subconsciously the message is yes it is your fault, you are to blame, now this is what you must do to make up for that.

    Naturally, given the 10-15% of society are homosexual, and given the stigma of homosexuality in society even to this day, this becomes a double whammy factor for homosexuals facing guilt over their own sexuality and any abandonment that it triggered in their family or friends. Not only are any problems in childhood the persons fault, but equally being gay is their fault as well. They are to blame.

    While I would like to think that your ministry wouldn't take advantage of people who would clearly have self worth issues due to these factors, unfortunately my experience suggests the opposite. Teaching a vunerable and emotionally unstable person that yes they are in fact a wicked sinner is highly irresponsible in my view, but I suppose to you it is simply teaching "the truth".
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Each of us can overcome some sins in our life by the abilities God commonly gives to man. But none of us can overcome the real chains that bind us without God's immediate help by His Spirit

    Well that is a nice little self fulfilling assertion. If someone doesn't "overcome" their homosexuality obviously they weren't trying that hard.

    Again the blame is put back on them. Not only is it the fault of your wicked self that you are gay, but it is your fault for not curing yourself of being gay by doing what ever voodoo required to get God's spirit to cure you.

    It becomes a downward spiral where homosexuals, even the ones who genuinely wish to "cure" themselves and no longer have sexual desire towards men, end up banging their heads against a brick wall.

    Given that there seems to be no proper demonstration that a person can actually "cure" themselves of being gay, they either end up in a situation of delusion or denial, pretending to be cured and pretending to lead a socially acceptable life, or they end up in a self-shame spiral where they blame themselves for being unable to "accept God" and be cured due to their own wickedness.

    You couple that with the teaching that they are gay in the first place because they are wicked and it is not hard to see how this leads to sever self loathing, depression, and unfortunately suicide in some cases.


  • #260
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Er, did you read the article?

    The ad appears to have been pulled because viewers objected to two men kissing in an ad featuring children.

    How is that the "gay agenda", it seems to be the anti-gay agenda, "Down with this sort of thing" as Father Ted would say.

    And by the way using terms like "gay agenda" doesn't do the argument that you aren't homophobic any favors.
    1. I meant the ad itself was a gay agenda, not the pulling of it, nor the comments on it. The comments, last count, seemed to be in favour of the ad, BTW.

    2. It is homophobic to suggest gays or their supporters might have an agenda? All interest groups have agendas, as far as I've experienced.

    Are You saying the gays shouldn't/don't? Are you Christophobic when you suggest Christians have an agenda in seeking alternatives to evolution to be taught along side it in schools?


  • #261
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    This constant need you guys have to try and link pedophilia with homosexuality does get rather tiresome. Psychological and biological studies have separated the two philia's for years, I really don't understand why you guys can't.
    Just a quickie for tonight:
    I wasn't linking the two - just using an example of how I must accept whatever democracy throws up. Paedophilia remains a crime, similar to how society not so long ago viewed homosexuality, so I used it.

    I'm not saying homosexuals are paedophiles: many of them are, but it is not intrinsic to the condition as far as I'm aware.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I'm not saying homosexuals are paedophiles: many of them are, but it is not intrinsic to the condition as far as I'm aware.
    What a truly pitiable thing to say.


  • #263
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    1. I meant the ad itself was a gay agenda, not the pulling of it, nor the comments on it.

    Ok you have lost me...

    How is an ad trying to associate the product with the sales pitch of traditional New York deli taste in your own kitchen part of the "gay agenda"?

    Should the surly New York deli man have been a surly New York deli woman?

    Would that have made you less uncomfortable?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The comments, last count, seemed to be in favour of the ad, BTW.
    The comments, at last count, seemed to be opposed to the nonsense of objecting to an ad like this, BTW

    The phrase "knee jerk reaction" springs to mind.

    The idea that anyone would object to this ad like this on the grounds of it being homo-erotic is rather ridiculous, and says more about the person viewing the ad than the ad itself or any "gay agenda"

    This kind of nonsense reminds me of the Washington civil servant who got fired for using the word "niggardly" in front of a black woman.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    It is homophobic to suggest gays or their supporters might have an agenda?
    Yes, considering "gays and their supporters" make up approx 10%-15% of worlds population, the view that 800 million people share a common agenda simply because they share the same sexual orientation is irrational fear bordering on delusional paranoia.

    At least the "atheist scientists" you rant about controlling the world's science dissemination have an already establish method of communication and an established community, thus making the idea that they might possibly communicate a shared goal some what plausible (if one ignores all the other problems with that idea).

    How would you even plausibly suggest that "gays" would even form a common agenda even if they wanted to?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    All interest groups have agendas, as far as I've experienced.
    The worlds population of homosexuals aren't an "interest group"

    Is there a heterosexual "agenda" as well? Should I be going to meetings or something?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Are You saying the gays shouldn't/don't?
    Shouldn't don't what?

    I don't view "gays" as a single block of people with shared opinions or social/political outlook.

    You make it sound like they are a union or something :rolleyes:
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Are you Christophobic when you suggest Christians have an agenda in seeking alternatives to evolution to be taught along side it in schools?

    I don't suggest Christians have an agenda in seeking alternatives to evolution. As has already been pointed out to many many times the vast vast vast majority of Christians have absolutely no issue with evolution or it's teaching in schools (something you should perhaps ponder when considering the correctness of your cause).

    Creationists on the the other hand do, but then a Creationist is defined in the first place as someone who does have a problem with theories like evolution, so saying that they do is simply stating a fact.


  • #264
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Just a quickie for tonight:
    I wasn't linking the two - just using an example of how I must accept whatever democracy throws up. Paedophilia remains a crime, similar to how society not so long ago viewed homosexuality, so I used it.
    Society never viewed homosexuality "similarly" to pedophilia.

    That is like saying society used to view women voting the same way they view shooting someone in the face today. :rolleyes:
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I'm not saying homosexuals are paedophiles: many of them are, but it is not intrinsic to the condition as far as I'm aware.

    What are you talking about? None of them are.

    If you are a pedophile you aren't, by definition, a homosexual.

    Do you actually understand what either of those words actually mean?


  • #265
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Just a quickie for tonight:
    I wasn't linking the two - just using an example of how I must accept whatever democracy throws up. Paedophilia remains a crime, similar to how society not so long ago viewed homosexuality, so I used it.
    Society never viewed homosexuality "similarly" to pedophilia.

    That is like saying society used to view women voting the same way they view shooting someone in the face today.
    I'm old enough to remember homosexual practices being prosecuted. Homsexuality was viewed by society as both a mental disorder and a crime, just as paedophilia is today. Christians considered it a sin and a crime.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    I'm not saying homosexuals are paedophiles: many of them are, but it is not intrinsic to the condition as far as I'm aware.
    What are you talking about? None of them are.

    If you are a pedophile you aren't, by definition, a homosexual.

    Do you actually understand what either of those words actually mean?
    Was Allen Ginsberg a homosexual or a paedophile, or both?
    http://web.archive.org/web/20061018211729/http://www.ijn.com/archive/2002+arch/062102.htm#story8

    There can be no doubt that man/boy sex formed a big part of homosexuality down the ages. But obviously not exclusively.

    You may have been thinking of paedophilia as being concerned with prepubsent children? Certainly there is a distinction here, with 'true' paedophiles only interested in such children. I'm not suggesting homosexuals are in that catagory.

    It is just that the homosexual has the same defence of his nature as does the true paedophile - this is how they are, this is the sexuality they always had, at least from their first sexual awakening.

    If it is a valid defence for one, it must be for the other.


  • #266
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Wicknight said:

    I'm old enough to remember homosexual practices being prosecuted. Homsexuality was viewed by society as both a mental disorder and a crime, just as paedophilia is today. Christians considered it a sin and a crime.

    The distinction between the two is quite astoundingly obvious. Capacity to consent. Unless our philosophy on that changes (which is a separate issue), our legal views on paedophilia will not change. Homosexuality is not by any means the slippery slope.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Was Allen Ginsberg a homosexual or a paedophile, or both?
    http://web.archive.org/web/20061018211729/http://www.ijn.com/archive/2002+arch/062102.htm#story8

    There can be no doubt that man/boy sex formed a big part of homosexuality down the ages. But obviously not exclusively.

    What percentage of child sexual abuse cases are homosexual versus heterosexual? Does it matter? Both sexualities have that element to them and the extent condemns neither. Similarly, most rapists are heterosexual, does this condemn heterosexuals?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    You may have been thinking of paedophilia as being concerned with prepubsent children? Certainly there is a distinction here, with 'true' paedophiles only interested in such children. I'm not suggesting homosexuals are in that catagory.

    It is just that the homosexual has the same defence of his nature as does the true paedophile - this is how they are, this is the sexuality they always had, at least from their first sexual awakening.

    If it is a valid defence for one, it must be for the other.

    With the once again the very obvious distinction being that one is a compulsion to do something that is morally wrong, whereas the other is not. Nature can be used as a defence for psychopathy, but it does not excuse the act of murder. It can be used as a defence for pedophilia, but not child abuse. Nature is a defence for homosexuality, but we do not need it to defend homosexual acts, as there is nothing to defend. There is no observable harm.


  • #267
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Wicknight said:

    I'm old enough to remember homosexual practices being prosecuted. Homsexuality was viewed by society as both a mental disorder and a crime, just as paedophilia is today. Christians considered it a sin and a crime.

    Again that is like saying society used to view women voting in the same way they now view a person shooting another person in the face, simply because they were both crimes.

    Which is ridiculous to the extreme.

    Simply because two things are a crime doesn't mean they are viewed in a similar light or with similar severity.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Was Allen Ginsberg a homosexual or a paedophile, or both?
    http://web.archive.org/web/20061018211729/http://www.ijn.com/archive/2002+arch/062102.htm#story8
    He was a paedophile.

    Again, did you actually read the article you linked to?

    "Pedophilia is defined as a sexual preference or an addiction in which children are the preferred sexual object."

    If Ginsberg's preferred sexual object were not in fact pre-pubescent children, but sexually mature men, he would have been a homosexual.

    You seem to be making the classic, and some what tiresome in this day and age, of thinking that if a pedophile is attracted to a child of the same gender as him or her that means they are a homosexual.

    That is not the case.

    A paedophile is neither a homosexual or a heterosexual, the are aroused not by the sexual gender of the child, but by the youth of the child. That is why they are termed paedophiles in the first place, because they are by definition attracted to children who have not yet developed sexual features.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    There can be no doubt that man/boy sex formed a big part of homosexuality down the ages.
    Only if one doesn't understand what the word homosexual means.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    You may have been thinking of paedophilia as being concerned with prepubsent children? Certainly there is a distinction here, with 'true' paedophiles only interested in such children. I'm not suggesting homosexuals are in that catagory.

    What is a "true" pedophile?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    It is just that the homosexual has the same defence of his nature as does the true paedophile - this is how they are, this is the sexuality they always had, at least from their first sexual awakening.

    That isn't the defense of homosexual behaviour.

    The defense of homosexual behaviour is that is concerns two consenting adults. Pedophilia behaviour ("true" or otherwise :rolleyes:), by definition, doesn't. It concerns at one end a person who the state recognizes as being too young to understand or consent to the sexual or romantic situation they are placed in.

    Whether the pedophile has this sexual orientation due to genetics or environment is irrelevant to that issue.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    If it is a valid defence for one, it must be for the other.

    It isn't for either.


  • #268
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    wolfsbane wrote: »

    I'm not saying homosexuals are paedophiles: many of them are, but it is not intrinsic to the condition as far as I'm aware.

    I'm sorry wolfsbane, but you really don't have a leg to stand on with this statement. Please tell me this is not what you believe!


  • #269
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    It is just that the homosexual has the same defence of his nature as does the true paedophile - this is how they are, this is the sexuality they always had, at least from their first sexual awakening.

    If it is a valid defence for one, it must be for the other.

    If you took "homosexual" out of that sentence and put "heterosexual" in would it actual make a difference?
    The answer is no because what you have written is not a defence of their nature (the hetero/homosexual or the pedophile), but the reason for their nature (the difference being a defence tells you why they should be allowed to do it, not just why they do it).


  • #270
    Fighting Irish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,062 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    I'm not gay so i don't really care about what you said, but do you really think
    homosexuality is a choice?

    PDN wrote: »
    He didn't. Not a single child was ever born a Nazi. To be a Nazi or a member of the Taliban is a human choice. The same applies to homosexuality although I certainly reject any implication that homosexuality is akin to Nazism.

    As for many of the other things you mention, Wicknight is correct that much of it is due to the Fall and to man's sinfulness, but I believe much of it is as a consequence rather than a punishment.

    I guess some diseases and viruses may well have mutated and evolved in conditions that have been shaped by human behaviour. AIDS may only became a problem for humans, for example, because of humans slaughtering large amounts of monkeys. It seems reasonable to me that viruses may once have served a benign purpose in an overall ecosystem.

    I'm pretty sure that arthritis and cancer could have been eradicated by now if we spent as much on research that we do on developing weapons or PS3 games. Instead we pump our air full of pollution, eat processed foods etc. and then blame God when people get sick.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Fighting Irish wrote: »
    I'm not gay so i don't really care about what you said, but do you really think
    homosexuality is a choice?

    Yes. Homosexuality, by which I mean homosexual acts, are a choice.

    Inclination or orientation, which some posters want to discuss, is IMHO more of a psychological than a theological debate.


Advertisement