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…1213151718…22

Comments

  • #422
    Cantab.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Cantab.


    Wicknight wrote: »
    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....

    Incest does occur in the animal world. Right?


  • #423
    oisindoyle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 899 ✭✭✭oisindoyle


    Being gay IS NATURAL to a gay person.So stop with yer judgeing people and accept it .


  • #424
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    chozometroid wrote: »
    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.

    Why would God expect homosexuals to live their entire lives never having sex, something a heterosexual couple take for granted?

    Never having sex by the way has been linked to a string of emotional problems from depression to even suicide.


  • #425
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Cantab. wrote: »
    Incest does occur in the animal world. Right?

    Where you confused because I said "sister" ... the gay fruit fly doesn't have sex with his sister ... if that is what you took from that post you weren't following at all.

    The genetic material is in both of them. For it to survive it is not necessary that they both mate with other fruit flies. The genetic material can increase the chances of the sister mating while greatly decreasing the chances of the brother mating and still survive.


  • #426
    Cantab.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Cantab.


    oisindoyle wrote: »
    Being gay IS NATURAL to a gay person.So stop with yer judgeing people and accept it .

    I don't accept this. I accept that you think it's a perfectly morally acceptable activity, but I (and billions of others) don't. Get over yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    Cantab.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Cantab.


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Where you confused because I said "sister" ... the gay fruit fly doesn't have sex with his sister ... if that is what you took from that post you weren't following at all.

    The genetic material is in both of them. For it to survive it is not necessary that they both mate with other fruit flies. The genetic material can increase the chances of the sister mating while greatly decreasing the chances of the brother mating and still survive.

    And what about dogs having sex with its sister and other dogs of the same sex? I don't think I've ever heard of a lesbian dog.


  • #428
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Cantab. wrote: »
    And what about dogs having sex with its sister and other dogs of the same sex? I don't think I've ever heard of a lesbian dog.

    Again what you have or haven't heard about is rather irrelevant

    What is your obsession with dogs anyway? Fruit flies not sexy enough for you?


  • #429
    chozometroid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 626 ✭✭✭chozometroid


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Why would God expect homosexuals to live their entire lives never having sex, something a heterosexual couple take for granted?

    Never having sex by the way has been linked to a string of emotional problems from depression to even suicide.
    I actually said
    I mean, they like the same sex, so why should they even have to possibly choose the natural way to be?
    I did not mean "not having sex," rather, I mean not being homosexual.
    Yes, some homosexuals do become heterosexuals.
    I'm not gay, so I won't pretend I know what sort of desires or confusion a gay person feels, but.... I most certainly believe their homosexual tendency can be altered, like other lifestyle choices, addictions, weaknesses, desires.
    Of course, if you do not believe in God, it may seem meaningless to do so.


  • #430
    Cantab.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Cantab.


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Again what you have or haven't heard about is rather irrelevant

    What is your obsession with dogs anyway? Fruit flies not sexy enough for you?

    The point is that attempting to draw parallels to the animal world in an attempt to morally justify the homosexual act is flawed.


  • #431
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MatthewVII


    chozometroid wrote: »
    I actually said
    I did not mean "not having sex," rather, I mean not being homosexual.
    Yes, some homosexuals do become heterosexuals.
    I'm not gay, so I won't pretend I know what sort of desires or confusion a gay person feels, but.... I most certainly believe their homosexual tendency can be altered, like other lifestyle choices, addictions, weaknesses, desires.
    Of course, if you do not believe in God, it may seem meaningless to do so.

    I would argue that gay people can feign heterosexuality. There has been no evidence that assisted change (e.g. conversion therapy, reparative therapy) actually has any benefit.


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    chozometroid wrote: »
    I actually said
    I did not mean "not having sex," rather, I mean not being homosexual.

    That is not having sex. A homosexual no more wants to have sex with a member of an opposite sex than you want to have sex with the same sex.
    chozometroid wrote: »
    Yes, some homosexuals do become heterosexuals.
    I think that is called "bisexuality", or as I like to call them "lucky"
    chozometroid wrote: »
    I'm not gay, so I won't pretend I know what sort of desires or confusion a gay person feels, but.... I most certainly believe their homosexual tendency can be altered, like other lifestyle choices, addictions, weaknesses, desires.
    The evidence suggests otherwise.


  • #433
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Cantab. wrote: »
    attempting to draw parallels to the animal world in an attempt to morally justify the homosexual act is flawed.

    I agree.

    But do you understand (now at least) that homosexuality occurs naturally and can fit quite nicely into an evolutionary frame work?


  • #434
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Cantab. wrote: »
    Is "natural selection" some universal truth that's accepted throughout the scientific community?

    It's accepted as one of the main process behind evolution, even by creationists. I don't know what you mean by it being a universal truth, I was just explaining why we think homosexuality persists in various species since you seemed to question the sense of that.
    Cantab. wrote: »
    It seems like a premature version of the utopian "final theory" that Einstein envisaged.

    In biology, it more or less is.
    Cantab. wrote: »
    I suppose next you'll try to claim that paedophilic sexual tendencies come under this "kin selection" idea too?

    Hard to say- I rather doubt it. Much more likely it is a vestigial behaviour that persists due to a genetic connection to something that does have a benefit. Perhaps even homosexuality.
    Cantab. wrote: »
    The homosexual act itself is disgusting AFAIC.

    Don't you think maybe your morals are being skewed by prejudice? It sure looks like it. Confirmation bias. Finding something distasteful is pretty irrelevant. Humans are irrational.

    On the incest thing- you're quite right that we can't simply point to nature and say "it's natural and thus it's morally okay". We just use this point to counter the rather tiresome "it's not natural" argument. Nature has squat to do with morals, but so the argument goes. Morality is based on consequence. Homosexuality has no more harmful consequences than heterosexuality, so calling it immoral makes no sense.


  • #435
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Wicknight wrote: »

    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)

    This is very interesting.
    2 questions wick,
    Is there a such genetic material in fruit flies? A gay gene as it were? Or something else?

    And does the slutty sister thing apply to humans? Purely from a scientific perspective y'understand.


  • #436
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    chozometroid wrote: »
    I most certainly believe their homosexual tendency can be altered, like other lifestyle choices, addictions, weaknesses, desires.

    What's the basis of that belief? Last I checked, psychologists disagree completely.


  • #437
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Cantab. wrote: »

    The homosexual act itself is disgusting AFAIC.

    I used to feel the same about Lemon Meringue pie, until I tried it, now I love it. Chicken Korma I thought I would like, I didn't however.

    Which way around was it for you?


  • #438
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    chozometroid wrote: »
    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.

    Christians are the only ones who believe in original sin. qed.


  • #439
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    oisindoyle wrote: »
    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

    Part of following Christianity means accepting moral teachings on homosexuality and other issues. Personally I think that people who don't even adhere to my faith insisting that the Church change what God has commanded for all mankind to lead their lives (and this applies to a lot more than just this) just doesn't wash.

    As for people being born gay or not, I'll wait for the science to be conclusive on it. However it isn't relevant to whether or not it is indeed sinful. A sin, being that it falls short of God's standards for our lives. We all have to root out sins in our lives if we want to accept God's plan for our lives.

    So arguably one could also say that it is pointless for people who don't adhere to Christianity to be discussing it's moral precepts. However, I for one welcome open discussion, however demands for changing the Bible are just a bit haughty.

    I personally have had to reject certain things that I did, and I continue to seek out my sins and seek God's way for my life too. Christianity is an invitation to follow the way of Jesus and the prophets, it is up to you to determine if you are willing.


  • #440
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Personally I don't care whether Christianity teaches homosexuality is a sin or not. I only care when laws which we all must obey, Christian and non-Christian alike are based purely upon Christian teachings without any other justification.


  • #441
    chozometroid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 626 ✭✭✭chozometroid


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    What's the basis of that belief? Last I checked, psychologists disagree completely.

    Psychologists are actually wrong quite often. My wife has a BA in Psychology, so I'm familiar with the ideas.

    I said: "I most certainly believe their homosexual tendency can be altered, like other lifestyle choices, addictions, weaknesses, desires."

    What all these have in common is that they are put in place through conditioning. Homosexuality is no different. There was some point when the attraction to the same sex was put in place. I'm straight, but through conditioning, I could view the opposite sex as less and less appealing, and the same sex as more appealing. You can be conditioned by your environment and by your own thoughts, and how you entertain those thoughts.
    Just as people can dislike certain foods after a while, and like other foods they never did before, they can also change their desire toward other things.

    Genes may create some tendencies which are later played upon by the environment to produce a character trait, but this does not mean they always create absolute unchangeable traits, as a gene does not map directly to a specific trait.


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    chozometroid wrote: »
    Psychologists are actually wrong quite often.

    Yes, but on psychological issues they tend to be right more often than people with no psychological training.
    chozometroid wrote: »
    My wife has a BA in Psychology, so I'm familiar with the ideas.

    No offence, but a BA or BSc doesn't make an expert in the biology or psychology of sexual orientation. In fact, a whole bunch of PhDs don't make one. As a field of study, sexuality is still packed with quite fundamental open questions.
    chozometroid wrote: »
    I said: "I most certainly believe their homosexual tendency can be altered, like other lifestyle choices, addictions, weaknesses, desires."

    What all these have in common is that they are put in place through conditioning.

    Addictions seem to have a genetic component as well as (obviously) environmental components. Homosexuality seems to follow suit. Conditioning would not be the correct term. There is a potentiating genetic component and there are complex developmental influences.
    chozometroid wrote: »
    Homosexuality is no different. There was some point when the attraction to the same sex was put in place. I'm straight, but through conditioning, I could view the opposite sex as less and less appealing, and the same sex as more appealing.

    Are you talking about aversion therapy or do you have something else in mind? Once your sexuality is well-established any kind of conditioning would certainly be very emotionally harmful, assuming the conditioning even worked beyond being a superficial aversive suppression of one behaviour in favour of another. Efforts to "cure" homosexuality by conditioning during the 60s had a low success rate and the concept is very unpopular today. It's regarded as largely useless unless your goal is to psychologically damage your patient. Aversion therapy for homosexuality is generally condemned by psychiatric associations if not banned outright in many countries.

    If it's conversion therapy you're talking about, it's never been shown to be effective in trials.
    chozometroid wrote: »
    Genes may create some tendencies which are later played upon by the environment to produce a character trait, but this does not mean they always create absolute unchangeable traits, as a gene does not map directly to a specific trait.

    Certainly not in this case it seems, however the picture is not at all clear.


  • #443
    chozometroid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 626 ✭✭✭chozometroid


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Yes, but on psychological issues they tend to be right more often than people with no psychological training.

    No offence, but a BA or BSc doesn't make an expert in the biology or psychology of sexual orientation. In fact, a whole bunch of PhDs don't make one. As a field of study, sexuality is still packed with quite fundamental open questions.

    Addictions seem to have a genetic component as well as (obviously) environmental components. Homosexuality seems to follow suit. Conditioning would not be the correct term. There is a potentiating genetic component and there are complex developmental influences.
    Okay.
    Are you talking about aversion therapy or do you have something else in mind? Once your sexuality is well-established any kind of conditioning would certainly be very emotionally harmful, assuming the conditioning even worked beyond being a superficial aversive suppression of one behaviour in favour of another. Efforts to "cure" homosexuality by conditioning during the 60s had a low success rate and the concept is very unpopular today. It's regarded as largely useless unless your goal is to psychologically damage your patient. Aversion therapy for homosexuality is generally condemned by psychiatric associations if not banned outright in many countries.

    If it's conversion therapy you're talking about, it's never been shown to be effective in trials.



    Certainly not in this case it seems, however the picture is not at all clear.
    Superficial aversive suppression of one behavior in favor of another? The extent to which it is superficial could not possibly be measured, could it? As for methods more instrusive into the mind, I'm not aware of all conditioning methods and I do accept that there may be plenty of them that cause damage.

    I guess here is where we part ways, because my religious beliefs have me thinking that conversion therapy alone is in no way a substitute for God's healing and ability to break people free from any earthly bondage. I know what you are getting at with the "once it's well-established" point, because the human mind is not a computer system, but this is only a concern when a person tries to solve life's problems alone. Man would like to think he is in control, and can put trust solely in man, but this is simply pride at work.
    Nothing is too great for God.


  • #444
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    chozometroid wrote: »
    The extent to which it is superficial could not possibly be measured, could it?

    What I mean is that the subject will still be homosexual, but will not behave as such because he or she has come to associate homosexual thought patterns and actions with negative stimuli. That would probably not be difficult for a psychiatrist to determine.
    chozometroid wrote: »
    I guess here is where we part ways, because my religious beliefs have me thinking that conversion therapy alone is in no way a substitute for God's healing and ability to break people free from any earthly bondage.

    What makes you think any such "healing" is needed? Homosexuals are mentally healthy and happy.
    chozometroid wrote: »
    I know what you are getting at with the "once it's well-established" point, because the human mind is not a computer system, but this is only a concern when a person tries to solve life's problems alone. Man would like to think he is in control, and can put trust solely in man, but this is simply pride at work.
    Nothing is too great for God.

    How can you possibly know that? I'm sure you believe it, but people really believe all sorts of stuff. That's why evidence is so valuable.


  • #445
    chozometroid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 626 ✭✭✭chozometroid


    What makes you think any such "healing" is needed? Homosexuals are mentally healthy and happy.
    Healing is needed only if they want to end their homosexual ways. If they don't want to, then okay.

    How can you possibly know that? I'm sure you believe it, but people really believe all sorts of stuff. That's why evidence is so valuable.
    There is evidence in abundace for God, but this isn't the place for a creation/evolution/Jesus Christ/archaelogical evidence/fossil record debate.
    He has made many differences in my life, so the evidence is there on a personal level.
    So with this evidence, the understanding of His plan, and a personal relationship with Him; it results in faith in Him and the knowledge that He is capable of anything.


  • #446
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    What's the basis of that belief? Last I checked, psychologists disagree completely.

    Hm, but if I brought up psychological research which says that children are better raised in a family with a mother and a father (i.e this is the optimal family unit for a child's development), you would attempt to refute that also surely?


  • #447
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Cantab. wrote: »
    Oh really? What facts are these??

    Any, I'd imagine. It was a rather blanket statement......
    The Catholic Church says homosexual acts are sinful. That's all the fact I need.

    ....doesn't leave much room for debate, does it?
    Cantab. wrote: »
    I love all humans by virtue of their miraculous existence.

    You chose a very odd metaphor to refer to persons you love, in any sense of that word.
    Cantab. wrote: »
    Oh really? 100% conclusive evidence? An accepted medical fact throughout the medical world?

    Nothing is ever 100%. Its as close as its going to get however. Not that theres any point in getting into that, as you've autmatically rejected anything I or others might come up with.
    Cantab. wrote: »
    suppose next you'll try to claim that paedophilic sexual tendencies come under this "kin selection" idea too??

    Dear o dear......the false comparsion....
    Cantab. wrote: »
    The homosexual act itself is disgusting AFAIC.

    ....and so to the subjective 'disgust' at the 'plumbing'....
    Cantab. wrote: »
    Oh great. Incest occurs in the wild. Therefore it must be grand amongst humans.

    .....and another classic false comparison.
    Cantab. wrote: »
    I don't think I've ever heard of a lesbian dog.

    And that means they don't exist?
    Cantab. wrote: »
    The point is that attempting to draw parallels to the animal world in an attempt to morally justify the homosexual act is flawed.

    It shows that its not "unnatural" and that its not a "life style choice".


  • #448
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Hm, but if I brought up psychological research which says that children are better raised in a family with a mother and a father (i.e this is the optimal family unit for a child's development), you would attempt to refute that also surely?

    Hmm, a homosexual relationship can't produce children. So the children raised by homosexual couples are either going to be adopted or come from a broken home with only a single biological parent caring for them full time. So the question you should really ask is whether growing up in foster care or with only single parent support is better than having two loving caring parents in a same sex relationship.


  • #449
    Ruskie4Rent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,088 ✭✭✭Ruskie4Rent


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Hm, but if I brought up psychological research which says that children are better raised in a family with a mother and a father (i.e this is the optimal family unit for a child's development), you would attempt to refute that also surely?

    I think you're blind to the fact that kids can have messed up developments even with the 'optimal family unit'.

    Do you even have this psycholigical research, or is you bringing it up purely hypothetical?
    And if you do, what flaw in the childs development do you think would be as a result from having same sex parents?

    They only negative result, that i can see, from growing up with same sex parents is maybe being bullied by close minded peers.


  • #450
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MatthewVII


    Ruskie4Rent wrote: »
    They only negative result, that i can see, from growing up with same sex parents is maybe being bullied by close minded peers.

    And this bullying is caused and perpetuated by the ancient christian idea that homosexuality is deviant and wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Hm, but if I brought up psychological research which says that children are better raised in a family with a mother and a father (i.e this is the optimal family unit for a child's development), you would attempt to refute that also surely?

    Children are better off raised in a family unit of a mother and a father.

    That is not though the same as saying that children will be servilely damaged by not being raised in a family of a mother and a father.


Advertisement