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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

1…1112141617…22

Comments

  • #392
    chozometroid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 626 ✭✭✭chozometroid


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Can you provide any evidence of this at all? The research on sexual orientation suggests that choice is not a factor.

    The research is done with the usual "anti-God" glasses on. They are looking for a "non-choice" cause, and they think they see it in the shapes of the clouds.


  • #393
    Cantab.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Cantab.


    studiorat wrote: »
    Yeah, Yeah we know and so is eating lobster...

    So is stealing btw...http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58435165&postcount=19

    I use Linux.

    And btw, it was "leaked" deliberately.


  • #394
    Cantab.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Cantab.


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Can you provide any evidence of this at all? The research on sexual orientation suggests that choice is not a factor.

    So "suggests" is now fact?

    The Catholic Church says homosexual acts are sinful. That's all the fact I need.


  • #395
    schween
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 444 ✭✭schween


    Cantab. wrote: »
    The Catholic Church says homosexual acts are sinful. That's all the fact I need.

    LOL


  • #396
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    First and only unofficial warning, Schween.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Indeed I do - that's what makes it so serious an offence when it is illegitimate.

    I see, but it's not an serious offence. It's as simple as that not even an not so serious offence. And neither is it your place to judge.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I agree - promiscuity degrades all who participate. So does one act of fornication.

    Wrong again. It's perfectly possible to have a valid and lasting relationship without being married. Or to be more specific without a religious marriage. Maybe you could illustrate the difference between a monogamous married couple and the same un-married couple and why one is moral and one immoral and more importantly in what way does it degrade the un-married couple.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    So you are saying one can't have fornication with lots of people, as that harms both parties; but fornicating with one party is harmless? Is it the changing of partner that is harmful? Is your position on good sexual practice practically the same as the Christian's - one partner, till dead do us part?

    You're catching on. I'm saying promiscuity is bad because eventually it will more than likely harm one or other party. Fornication, (sex outside of marriage) is perfectly fine as long as it's not promiscuous. Oops and adulterous, nearly forgot that one eh!
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Let me see if I follow your logic; I do not respect the rights of homosexuals because I say homosexuality is wrong; but you do respect the rights of fornicators/promiscuous even when you say it is bad? Care to point to the difference?

    Gladly. I respect the validity of homosexual relationships, you don't. I respect the validity of a sexually active hetro-sexual relationship outside of marriage, you don't. You refer to it as fornication.
    The only thing we seem to have in common is we both regard promiscuity as a bad idea. Myself, because I believe it is bad for the individual. You, because of a supernatural entity's warning to a group of nomads a couple of thousand years ago. Huge difference you'll agree.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Yes, homosexuality is indeed not just a practice, but a way of life. So it's not just a series of sinful acts, but a sinful way of thinking.

    Yes, but you still respect the right of a homosexual to practice their homosexuality. I would like to point out to you that homosexual acts (not inclinations) are what are addressed in Scripture Your reference to a sinful way of thinking only serves to illustrate your own personal bias.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The Bible makes a distinction usually, though the broad term porneia can cover sexual sin in general.

    Indeed it does. And you would seem to pick and choose which of these Porneia is if fact a sin and which is not. How convenient for you.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    As above, you have explained your position, but you have not said why I wrong to condemn homosexuality but you are right to condemn fornication.

    I'm not condemning anything, it's not my place. Neither is it yours for that matter. I'm stating that I think, (me), that promiscuity is a bad idea. You are saying that a homosexual relationship is immoral, therefore you are mistaken.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Homosexuality is a choice made by the individual at the subconscious level, a sinful response to their circumstances.

    Utter rubbish, sin is a rebellion in the human heart against the holiness of God. If the choice is at a subconscious level then it cannot be a sin. Unless of course you subscribe to the belief that no free will remained in man after the fall.

    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Seems to me a good indication that homosexuality is immoral - it is emotionally harmful to the individual, often physically harmful also, and history seems to indicate that societies where it is rife are in terminal decline.

    I see you are also taking indications of morality from outside of the Bible too, well it's a step on the road to recovery anyway. However, let's not jump the gun here.
    Now that we are clearly outside of the biblical realm and into historical facts, it's time to back up your statement.

    So let's see, "history seems to indicate that societies where it (homosexuality) is rife are in terminal decline". We'll skip the are/were clause, obviously this is terra incognito for you. So what usually happens is you back-up that statement with some facts.

    Now, History seems to indicate that societies where homosexuality is rife are in terminal decline. This can be shown on examination of...

    Homosexuality and rife in the same sentence, I love it...
    Lock up your sons!


  • #398
    oisindoyle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 899 ✭✭✭oisindoyle


    I kind of sick to death of hearing people say homosexuality is a choice .The next obvious question from a homoto a hetro is "when did you choose to be a hetro"?The answer usually back is "I didnt choose to be hetrosexual,its natural "blah dee blah........
    Well homosexuals do not choose to be gay either,they ARE GAY.
    The simple fact of the matter is this ,hetrosexual people have NO CLUE what its like ,to be gay .They have no concept of it and have no right to comment on homosexuals since THEY ARE hetrosexual...........


  • #399
    Cantab.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Cantab.


    schween wrote: »
    LOL

    Of course you know better than the Catholic Church.


  • #400
    Cantab.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Cantab.


    oisindoyle wrote: »
    I kind of sick to death of hearing people say homosexuality is a choice .The next obvious question from a homoto a hetro is "when did you choose to be a hetro"?The answer usually back is "I didnt choose to be hetrosexual,its natural "blah dee blah........
    Well homosexuals do not choose to be gay either,they ARE GAY.
    The simple fact of the matter is this ,hetrosexual people have NO CLUE what its like ,to be gay .They have no concept of it and have no right to comment on homosexuals since THEY ARE hetrosexual...........

    I've yet to see a dog (for example) that's 100% homosexual. You might get the odd one that gets confused and sniffs around the wrong hole, but they eventually come around and figure it out -- after all the survival of their genes are at stake. The most basic of instincts.

    And since when are people "born" homosexuals? I find this argument far from compelling.


  • #401
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    People are born with sin.


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Cantab. wrote: »
    The Catholic Church says homosexual acts are sinful. That's all the fact I need. ..

    So you'll ignore facts to the contrary based on the teachings of a church. Bit pointless turning up on a debate board then so.
    Cantab. wrote: »
    I've yet to see a dog (for example) that's 100% homosexual. You might get the odd one that gets confused and sniffs around the wrong hole, but they eventually come around and figure it out -- after all the survival of their genes are at stake. The most basic of instincts..

    And of course theres no hatred of homosexuals on your part at all, I presume.
    Cantab. wrote: »
    And since when are people "born" homosexuals? I find this argument far from compelling.

    Well, thats been the conclusion of a great deal of scientific research into the matter.
    Boston wrote: »
    People are born with sin.

    O yes, "original sin" isn't it? Remarkable how the sins of the fathers etc is normally considered not to be passed down except in that rather convenient instance. And doesnt the idea of original sin rely on their being Adam, Eve and the garden of Eden....?


  • #403
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Cantab. wrote: »
    I've yet to see a dog (for example) that's 100% homosexual. You might get the odd one that gets confused and sniffs around the wrong hole, but they eventually come around and figure it out -- after all the survival of their genes are at stake. The most basic of instincts.

    And since when are people "born" homosexuals? I find this argument far from compelling.

    Last I heard dogs only had one hole, when you say come around do you mean they kiss?

    If you find the argument far from compelling you should explain why. Really, we won't laugh.


  • #404
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Boston wrote: »
    People are born with sin.

    Nope, only Christians apparently.


  • #405
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Cantab. wrote: »
    So "suggests" is now fact?

    I don't state things as facts when the picture is unclear, hence the "suggests". But my opinion is based on evidence, incomplete as it is. What do you have?
    Cantab. wrote: »
    The Catholic Church says homosexual acts are sinful. That's all the fact I need.

    I'd say your method saves a whole lot of thinking time.


  • #406
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    You are mistaken then. Sexual desire is common to mankind, but where it is directed is a choice informed by relationships and opportunities. Some of those are problematic and a wrong choice is made in reaction to them.

    Does it say that in the Bible? :confused:


  • #407
    oisindoyle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 899 ✭✭✭oisindoyle


    Cantab. wrote: »
    I've yet to see a dog (for example) that's 100% homosexual. You might get the odd one that gets confused and sniffs around the wrong hole, but they eventually come around and figure it out -- after all the survival of their genes are at stake. The most basic of instincts.

    And since when are people "born" homosexuals? I find this argument far from compelling.
    Well there are homosexual animals thats a fact .As for your comment "since when are people born homosexual",well i take it youre not homosexual so it doesnt apply to you the does it.


  • #408
    Cantab.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Cantab.


    Nodin wrote: »
    So you'll ignore facts to the contrary based on the teachings of a church. Bit pointless turning up on a debate board then so.
    Oh really? What facts are these?
    Nodin wrote: »
    And of course theres no hatred of homosexuals on your part at all, I presume.
    I love all humans by virtue of their miraculous existence.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Well, thats been the conclusion of a great deal of scientific research into the matter.
    Oh really? 100% conclusive evidence? An accepted medical fact throughout the medical world?


  • #409
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Cantab. wrote: »
    I've yet to see a dog (for example) that's 100% homosexual.

    I would imagine there is a lot you have yet to see Cantab, that doesn't realy mean much.

    Homosexuality has been well studied in the animal kingdom.
    Cantab. wrote: »
    You might get the odd one that gets confused and sniffs around the wrong hole, but they eventually come around and figure it out -- after all the survival of their genes are at stake. The most basic of instincts.
    Homosexuality has been demonstrated to increase the survival of genetic information.

    I'll give you a minute to get your noodle round that one before I explain it better :pac:
    Cantab. wrote: »
    And since when are people "born" homosexuals?

    Since the moment they are born I would imagine ...


  • #410
    Cantab.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Cantab.


    oisindoyle wrote: »
    Well there are homosexual animals thats a fact .

    What animals are born homosexual and spend their lives going after the same sex, thereby obliterating any chance of perpetuating their genes?


  • #411
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Cantab. wrote: »
    The Catholic Church says homosexual acts are sinful.

    Indeed and it does. Did you read the tread title?


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    Cantab.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Cantab.


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Homosexuality has been demonstrated to increase the survival of genetic information.

    I'll give you a minute to get your noodle round that one before I explain it better :pac:

    Please explain this one to me. Seeing as you seem to understand it "better".


  • #413
    oisindoyle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 899 ✭✭✭oisindoyle


    Its really pointless for a hetrosexual person to say "that people are not born gay"...A hetro wouldnt know because it doesnt apply to them ,so button it .YOU HAVE NO CLUE on the matter


  • #414
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Cantab. wrote: »
    Please explain this one to me. Seeing as you seem to understand it "better".

    Kin selection. We are driven to protect our genes, but we share 25% of our genes with our nieces and nephews also. It's been hypothesised that a person could make a reproductive gain by being a dedicated nanny/protector within the family unit. Preserving the survival of say 4-5 of the offspring of our kin is a net reproductive gain in terms of genes. It's more work than straight reproduction, but if there are other advantages to homosexuality (or the tendency towards it) it will be positively selected by natural selection.


  • #415
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Cantab. wrote: »
    Please explain this one to me. Seeing as you seem to understand it "better".

    Certainly

    It has been known for a while that in some species of animals homosexuality is quite common. This provided quite a puzzle for biologists because they believed, as you apparently do, that homosexuality has a negative effect on the propagation of genetic material and as such should never have lasted long in an evolutionary environment.

    That was until they found out something quite interesting.

    If you are a homosexual fruit fly you stand a quite small chance of mating and your genetic material surviving very long. But you sister has an extraordinarily high chance.

    The same genetic material that causes you to be a gay fruit fly causes your sister to be very fertile and a bit of a slut (in fruit fly terms)

    So while your version of the genetic material doesn't make it very far this is more than compensated by your sisters and the genetic material propagates throughout the species.

    It appears quite likely now that homosexuality arises in nature as a secondary result of genetic material that provide some primary phenotype in some and homosexuality in others. Homosexuality itself does not need to increase the chances that the genetic material will be passed on so long as the primary phenotype does and compensates for the homosexuality.


  • #416
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Kin selection. We are driven to protect our genes, but we share 25% of our genes with our nieces and nephews also. It's been hypothesised that a person could make a reproductive gain by being a dedicated nanny/protector within the family unit. Preserving the survival of say 4-5 of the offspring of our kin is a net reproductive gain in terms of genes. It's more work than straight reproduction, but if there are other advantages to homosexuality (or the tendency towards it) it will be positively selected by natural selection.

    Oh for crying out loud, you stole all my thunder!!! :pac:

    well my post was better than yours ... grumble ... grumble ...


  • #417
    Cantab.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Cantab.


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Kin selection. We are driven to protect our genes, but we share 25% of our genes with our nieces and nephews also. It's been hypothesised that a person could make a reproductive gain by being a dedicated nanny/protector within the family unit. Preserving the survival of say 4-5 of the offspring of our kin is a net reproductive gain in terms of genes. It's more work than straight reproduction, but if there are other advantages to homosexuality (or the tendency towards it) it will be positively selected by natural selection.

    Is "natural selection" some universal truth that's accepted throughout the scientific community? It seems like a premature version of the utopian "final theory" that Einstein envisaged.

    I suppose next you'll try to claim that paedophilic sexual tendencies come under this "kin selection" idea too?

    The homosexual act itself is disgusting AFAIC.


  • #418
    Cantab.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Cantab.


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Certainly

    It has been known for a while that in some species of animals homosexuality is quite common. This provided quite a puzzle for biologists because they believed, as you apparently do, that homosexuality has a negative effect on the propagation of genetic material and as such should never have lasted long in an evolutionary environment.

    That was until they found out something quite interesting.

    If you are a homosexual fruit fly you stand a quite small chance of mating and your genetic material surviving very long. But you sister has an extraordinarily high chance.

    The same genetic material that causes you to be a gay fruit fly causes your sister to be very fertile and a bit of a slut (in fruit fly terms)

    So while your version of the genetic material doesn't make it very far this is more than compensated by your sisters and the genetic material propagates throughout the species.

    It appears quite likely now that homosexuality arises in nature as a secondary result of genetic material that provide some primary phenotype in some and homosexuality in others. Homosexuality itself does not need to increase the chances that the genetic material will be passed on so long as the primary phenotype does and compensates for the homosexuality.

    Oh great. Incest occurs in the wild. Therefore it must be grand amongst humans.


  • #419
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Cantab. wrote: »
    The homosexual act itself is disgusting AFAIC.

    I find it disgusting to imagine giving a man oral sex. It turns my stomach to think about it.

    Of course if a Kelly Brooke wants to give me oral sex I'm all for that.

    I certainly don't object to the act of a woman giving me, a man, oral sex simply because I find the idea of me giving a another man oral sex disgusting. I imagine she doesn't find it disgusting, and I certainly don't think there is anything wrong with her because of that.


  • #420
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Cantab. wrote: »
    Oh great. Incest occurs in the wild. Therefore it must be grand amongst humans.

    Incest? :confused:

    Ok, I'm going to assume you didn't actually read my post there.

    I'm beginning to understand why you keep claiming you have never heard of this and that....


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    chozometroid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 626 ✭✭✭chozometroid


    studiorat wrote: »
    Nope, only Christians apparently.

    Not believing in God doesn't make you free from sin, just ignorant of it.
    Even an atheist has to admit that they are not a perfect moral agent.

    Anyways, homosexuals do have a choice, but of course no one thinks it's fair for that choice to be an option. I mean, they like the same sex, so why should they even have to possibly choose the natural way to be?
    Oh right, they shouldn't have to because they are homosexual, and that's okay, because some human with perfect judgement said it should be.


Advertisement