Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

Cantab. · 20-01-2009 06:12PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm missing them, but the articles themselves seem to show no statistics for homosexual families. Without that comparison, you have no evidence that your assertion is true. Now, perhaps the citations attached to those articles do address that question, but the few I attempted to access were not available to my university as they were books rather than peer reviewed papers.

A homosexual "family". Now there's a contradiction in terms.

Of course next you'll be advocating using children as guineau pigs until you collate enough data that allows you to peform statistical over-fitting.

kiffer · 20-01-2009 06:49PM

Cantab. wrote: »

A homosexual "family". Now there's a contradiction in terms.

Harsh, you might not like non-traditional families but you don't have to be a jerk about it.
Frankly the currently "traditional" 1 Man+1 wife+2.4(or 7!) children is not the best situation in my opinion!
The ideal situation is the extended family with grandparents, uncles/aunts and cousins all living in one big house... If you're not leaving with at least 3 generations under one roof you're not a real family in my books!

You kids and your new fangled families... Single widower can't raise his children on his own... (Especialy not with the help of another man...)

No support unless your a married couple eh?

Of course next you'll be advocating using children as guineau pigs until you collate enough data that allows you to peform statistical over-fitting.

Yes, that's clearly the next step, followed quickly by testing cosmetics and putting them to work in coal mines.

MatthewVII · 20-01-2009 06:50PM

Cantab. wrote: »

A homosexual "family". Now there's a contradiction in terms.

family - noun
parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not

parent - noun
a father or a mother/one who begets or nurtures and raises a child

where's the contradiction?

AtomicHorror · 20-01-2009 07:43PM

Cantab. wrote: »

A homosexual "family". Now there's a contradiction in terms.

Where? You're just a big ol' ball of bitter aren't you? Want a hug? I promise it won't be sexual thing.*

Cantab. wrote: »

Of course next you'll be advocating using children as guineau pigs until you collate enough data that allows you to peform statistical over-fitting.

You mean like the way we collect statistics on genetics, ethnicity, social status, height, weight, intelligence, autistic spectrum status, education, behaviour, drug efficacy and safety, favourite ice cream flavour, pepsi or coke...

Yeah, I can see how actually looking to see whether non-traditional family structures cause harm is just unethical. I'd put an eyerollie in there but I don't like them any more than I like your laughably thoughtless posts.

Still waiting for the study data showing the damage caused by homosexual parents. Anyone?

*not a promise

robindch · 20-01-2009 07:58PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Where? You're just a big ol' ball of bitter aren't you? Want a hug? I promise it won't be sexual thing.*

Oh, you naughty thing you

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Still waiting for the study data showing the damage caused by homosexual parents. Anyone?

The American Psychological Association which represents around 150,000 professional, evidence-based psychologists resident in the USA, adopted the following position in 2004:

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

From which:

APA wrote:

Although exposure to prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation may cause acute distress (Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 2003), there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002).

The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997).

Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support.

Looks like the only significant danger to the kids of homosexual parents is from our old friends, prejudice and discrimination.

philologos · 20-01-2009 08:12PM

I didn't suggest there was damage in having homosexual parents, but I do think that heterosexual parents are ultimately better for a child.

AtomicHorror · 20-01-2009 08:23PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't suggest there was damage in having homosexual parents, but I do think that heterosexual parents are ultimately better for a child.

What's the difference between there being mild "damage" or "harm" and the parents being in some vague way "less good"? Your assertion is that there is some difference, right? It sorta sounds like you're gonna turn this into a semantic thing here now. The bottom line from the APA seems to be that there's just no discernible difference between the kids raised by heterosexual couples and those raised by homosexual couples. So whatever you call it- difference, damage, harm or just vaguely better/worse- it just doesn't seem to be backed up by observation.

I must take a look at those references.

Zombrex · 20-01-2009 08:32PM

Cantab. wrote: »

A homosexual "family". Now there's a contradiction in terms.

Of course next you'll be advocating using children as guineau pigs until you collate enough data that allows you to peform statistical over-fitting.

It is kinda hard to take what you are saying that serious Cantab when you seem to be completely ignoring what people are saying

Given that you don't really appear to be coming from this issue from a Christian perspective (you seem to dislike homosexuality far more than a Christian should if they based their views purely on the Bible), one has to wonder where exactly you are coming from and why you seem so resistant to any ideas of accepting homosexuality

wolfsbane · 20-01-2009 08:51PM

AtomicHorror said:

Now what you do have is non-homophobics calling homosexuality a sin or immoral because the Bible says so, but that's not the same as being homophobic, that's just outsourcing your reasoning process to a book.

I appreciate your acknowledgement of that.

Accepting an authority against your better judgement.

But it is not against my better judgment - without God's word I would be unable to assess homosexuality's moral value. I certainly would not judge it wholesome; at best I would be dubious about it.

But the Bible shows me that it is contrary to God's will and His order, so is morallly, physically and emotionally harmful. The Bible enables an informed judgement.

Zombrex · 20-01-2009 09:03PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

But it is not against my better judgment - without God's word I would be unable to assess homosexuality's moral value. I certainly would not judge it wholesome; at best I would be dubious about it.

But the Bible shows me that it is contrary to God's will and His order, so is morallly, physically and emotionally harmful. The Bible enables an informed judgement.

The Bible confirms what you already believed to be true, that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong?

wolfsbane · 20-01-2009 09:04PM

oisindoyle wrote: »

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

Same for the paedophile - so your NATURAL argument is bogus, unless you want us to stop judging them.

The moral issue is not what is natural, but what is RIGHT. God condemns homosexuality as a perversion of His gift of sexuality, therefore it is WRONG.

MatthewVII · 20-01-2009 09:05PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

I appreciate your acknowledgement of that.

But it is not against my better judgment - without God's word I would be unable to assess homosexuality's moral value. I certainly would not judge it wholesome; at best I would be dubious about it.

But the Bible shows me that it is contrary to God's will and His order, so is morallly, physically and emotionally harmful. The Bible enables an informed judgement.

No, the Bible gives you a one-sided argument which has no logical basis. The bible behaves like a dictator - it gives orders which show no reason and demands that you accept it without question. Those who don't accept it are burned in an eternal lake of fire.

Logic - people deserve rights. Homosexuals are people, equal to heterosexuals in every way, hence they deserve rights

Illogic (if that's a word, i doubt it) - Homosexuals are sinful! Don't trust your head, just believe it cos I say it!

Zombrex · 20-01-2009 09:06PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

The moral issue is not what is natural, but what is RIGHT. God condemns homosexuality as a perversion of His gift of sexuality, therefore it is WRONG.

One would have thought God would want people to happy.

Or that he wouldn't have placed homosexuality in nature in the first place ...

MatthewVII · 20-01-2009 09:07PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Same for the paedophile - so your NATURAL argument is bogus, unless you want us to stop judging them.

I am SICK of christians equating homosexuality and paedophilia. For the record:

Homosexuality - between two consenting adults. no one is harmed

Paedophilia - forced on a child by an adult. a child is harmed. This is why paedophilia is illegal and homosexuality is not. Whether or not is natural is irrelevant, it is unacceptable

Now stop drawing downright hateful parallels

wolfsbane · 20-01-2009 09:09PM

Wicknight wrote: »

The Bible confirms what you already believed to be true, that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong?

No, I said I was unable to make a moral judgment beforehand.

AH thought I had made a positive judgement on homsexuality, but had to overide it when I followed the Bible. I pointed out that was not so.

Zombrex · 20-01-2009 09:13PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I said I was unable to make a moral judgment beforehand.

Yes but then how do you know God is right on this issue then? If you don't agree with God why do you accept he is right. Or believe he can't be wrong.

If you cannot confirm God's views, on this issue or any other, with your own how do you assess anything about the correctness of God's position.

Or put it another way, if you simply accept what God says without confirming it yourself, how would you tell if God was ever wrong?

wolfsbane wrote: »

AH thought I had made a positive judgement on homsexuality, but had to overide it when I followed the Bible. I pointed out that was not so.

The point still stands.

You couldn't make a judgement and then this was overridden when you followed the Bible.

MatthewVII · 20-01-2009 09:20PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but then how do you know God is right on this issue then? If you don't agree with God why do you accept he is right. Or believe he can't be wrong.

If you cannot confirm God's views, on this issue or any other, with your own how do you assess anything about the correctness of God's position.

Or put it another way, if you simply accept what God says without confirming it yourself, how would you tell if God was ever wrong?

Totally agree. A system which doesn't accept questioning and which is completely intolerant of contradiction is extremely dangerous to society.

wolfsbane · 20-01-2009 09:31PM

MatthewVII wrote: »

No, the Bible gives you a one-sided argument which has no logical basis. The bible behaves like a dictator - it gives orders which show no reason and demands that you accept it without question. Those who don't accept it are burned in an eternal lake of fire.

Logic - people deserve rights. Homosexuals are people, equal to heterosexuals in every way, hence they deserve rights

Illogic (if that's a word, i doubt it) - Homosexuals are sinful! Don't trust your head, just believe it cos I say it!

I agree the Bible position on homosexuality is not based on logic. It is based on absolute knowledge. The Creator of man, the One who designed his sexuality, knows all there is to know about it. He says homosexuality is a defective operation of our sexuality.

Logic tells us nothing about human rights. Morality tells us, and we apply that logically. If our morality is good and our logic is sound, then we get a happy outcome. If our morality is bad, then the best of logic only makes matters worse.

Heterosexuals, homosexuals, bi-sexuals, paedophiles, all sorts of sexual types have rights. We are agreed that where those practices involve consenting adults, there is a right to practice them, and for the practicioners not to suffer civil sanctions as a consequence.

But what some of you seem to be arguing is that they have a right not to be challenged as to the morality of their sexuality.

That is the road to atheistic fascism. For that right to be enforced, most of the major religions would have to be banned. Christianity, Islam, Judaism all teach, and are obliged to teach by their foundational scriptures, the immorality of homosexuality.

wolfsbane · 20-01-2009 09:35PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but then how do you know God is right on this issue then? If you don't agree with God why do you accept he is right. Or believe he can't be wrong.

If you cannot confirm God's views, on this issue or any other, with your own how do you assess anything about the correctness of God's position.

Or put it another way, if you simply accept what God says without confirming it yourself, how would you tell if God was ever wrong?

The point still stands.

You couldn't make a judgement and then this was overridden when you followed the Bible.

One recognises the Truth when God reveals it. One just knows it to be true. But that knowledge is confirmed by one's experience of God throughout life - seeing His promises fulfilled, His power revealed in mercies and deliverances, etc.

That's why the Christian can be sure.

MatthewVII · 20-01-2009 09:43PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree the Bible position on homosexuality is not based on logic. It is based on absolute knowledge. The Creator of man, the One who designed his sexuality, knows all there is to know about it. He says homosexuality is a defective operation of our sexuality.

Then why should those who don't believe that he is an absolute authority still have to suffer sanctions against them from those who do?

wolfsbane wrote:

Logic tells us nothing about human rights. Morality tells us, and we apply that logically. If our morality is good and our logic is sound, then we get a happy outcome. If our morality is bad, then the best of logic only makes matters worse.

What you have said makes no sense. Ethics come from the observation that humans are created equally and deserve equal rights. Morality is a vague and can be easily adapted to suit the desires of those advocating them.

wolfsbane wrote:

But what some of you seem to be arguing is that they have a right not to be challenged as to the morality of their sexuality.

You've hit the nail on the head. This is EXACTLY what I'm saying. They have a right to be left alone and allowed to follow their paths without being disturbed. I would say that Christians seem to think they have a right not to be challenged as to the morality of their beliefs which are harmful to others

wolfsbane wrote:

That is the road to atheistic fascism. For that right to be enforced, most of the major religions would have to be banned.

They wouldn't have to be banned. Only their teachings should be removed from any form of domestic law and be replaced by models based on logic.
Religion is something personal and it should stay that way.

Zombrex · 20-01-2009 09:43PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

One just knows it to be true.

You "just know"? Are you serious?

wolfsbane wrote: »

But that knowledge is confirmed by one's experience of God throughout life - seeing His promises fulfilled, His power revealed in mercies and deliverances, etc.

That's why the Christian can be sure.

It has been confirmed to you through your experience of life that homosexuality is morally wrong?

wolfsbane · 20-01-2009 09:43PM

MatthewVII wrote: »

Totally agree. A system which doesn't accept questioning and which is completely intolerant of contradiction is extremely dangerous to society.

If by intolerant you mean persecuting the contradictors, you would be right.

But I think you mean confidently rejecting the contradictor's arguments - and that makes you the danger to society. You consider belief in any absolute truth - which characterises most religions - to be extremely dangerous to society. The Soviets did so too, and the gulags and psychiatric hospitals were used to remove the danger.

What do you recommend to remove this extremely dangerous element from society?

Zombrex · 20-01-2009 09:46PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

If by intolerant you mean persecuting the contradictors, you would be right.

But I think you mean confidently rejecting the contradictor's arguments - and that makes you the danger to society. You consider belief in any absolute truth - which characterises most religions - to be extremely dangerous to society. The Soviets did so too, and the gulags and psychiatric hospitals were used to remove the danger.

What do you recommend to remove this extremely dangerous element from society?

I think what he means is that people who subscribe to moral and ethical frameworks because they "just know" they are true (which seems like an admission that there is nothing rational behind the position at all) are a problem.

I'm not quite sure I would go so far as work camps and gulags. But I do think the occasional pointing and mocking is in order.

MatthewVII · 20-01-2009 09:47PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I think you mean confidently rejecting the contradictor's arguments - and that makes you the danger to society. You consider belief in any absolute truth - which characterises most religions - to be extremely dangerous to society. The Soviets did so too, and the gulags and psychiatric hospitals were used to remove the danger.

What do you recommend to remove this extremely dangerous element from society?

I believe in absolute truth which can be observed in society. Such truths include equality, human rights, freedom etc.

Religions aren't based on ABSOLUTE truths. They are based on edicts which have no ethical basis and are touted as absolute truths. The acceptance of these as truths is the danger.

And don't worry, this extremely dangerous element is fading away as people realise it is incompatible with a truly compassionate society

wolfsbane · 20-01-2009 09:48PM

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
One just knows it to be true.
You "just know"? Are you serious?

Perfectly. It is the nature of spiritual revelation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But that knowledge is confirmed by one's experience of God throughout life - seeing His promises fulfilled, His power revealed in mercies and deliverances, etc.

That's why the Christian can be sure.
It has been confirmed to you through your experience of life that homosexuality is morally wrong?

No, it has been confirmed to me through my experience of life that God is trustworthy. Therefore I know homosexuality is morally wrong, because He said so.

MatthewVII · 20-01-2009 09:53PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, it has been confirmed to me through my experience of life that God is trustworthy. Therefore I know homosexuality is morally wrong, because He said so.

I wonder if that kind of 'proof' is good enough for homosexuals?

wolfsbane · 20-01-2009 10:01PM

MatthewVII wrote: »

I believe in absolute truth which can be observed in society. Such truths include equality, human rights, freedom etc.

Religions aren't based on ABSOLUTE truths. They are based on edicts which have no ethical basis and are touted as absolute truths. The acceptance of these as truths is the danger.

And don't worry, this extremely dangerous element is fading away as people realise it is incompatible with a truly compassionate society

I think you will find your absolute truths are based on personal preferences, as far as reasoning goes. You can say the same for mine, since you do not know the truth about where the Bible came from.

Indeed, from your worldview, there can be no absolute truths, only personal opinions. My opinion that the universe was created by God, yours that it is self-existent or whatever. There is nothing in the material world that tells you Man has the right to live but animals may be killed for food.

You make up the story, the rationale.

As to religion passing away in the face of a compassionate society - don't let western liberalism blind you to the reality of what is going on in the world regarding the growth of religions, nor the cruelty western liberalism is capable of, eg. eugenics.

wolfsbane · 20-01-2009 10:02PM

MatthewVII wrote: »

I wonder if that kind of 'proof' is good enough for homosexuals?

It certainly is; many homosexuals have heard it and been converted and delivered from their perverted lifestyle.

Zombrex · 20-01-2009 10:04PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Perfectly. It is the nature of spiritual revelation.

That is probably why "spiritual revelation" is not exactly well regarded as a form of learning or discovery.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, it has been confirmed to me through my experience of life that God is trustworthy.

Yes but didn't you already "know" that already. It is hardly surprising that your life appears to confirm something you already just knew was true.

By the very existence of the "spiritual revelation" you have lost the ability to judge objectively how trust worthy God is in the first place.

Take this example

A young boy wakes up one morning just knowing that the old man down the read always tells the truth.

That day he walks passed him on his way to school and asks him how will the weather be today. The old man looks and smiles and says it will be warm and bright. The boy smiles back, confident that what he has told him will turn out to be true. It turns out to be a warm and bright day, and on the way home the young boy thinks to himself that how amazing the old man is

The next day again he walks passed the old man and smiles, "How will the weather be today?". The man smiles back, "Will be bright this morning but wet in the evening". The boy tips his cap and walk on to school. On the way home the young boy ponders for a moment that it never rained, despite the old man claiming it would. But this doesn't trouble him for long, he knows he always tells the truth. As he gets home he pass two boys playing water pistols and you notice both of them splashing either other. Ah ha! he proclaims. How clever of the old man. It will be a wet day for them alright he chuckles to himself. He thinks for a minute how silly he was to let a small bit of doubt enter his mind by thinking the old man might have got it wrong.

The next day he walks passed him again. "Will be windy today" he says. And sure enough as he walks home from school the wind starts to pick up slightly. Again, the young boy is amazed that the old man always tells the truth.

Now, notice something in that story. The old man was wrong. He said it would rain but it didn't. But the boy in the story cannot reach that conclusion because he has already determine that he just knows the old man will always tell the truth. So his mind searches out an explanation, no matter how strained, to fit within the vague generalities of what the old man said and finds in one of possibly dozens of places he could have looked.

To say that you just knew that God was always right, and then confirmed this for yourself is nonsense because the original position is going to bias wildly any assessment you make about how right you were in the first place, just as the boy's mind searches around for some way to make the old man's predictions fit what he has said so that the original position still holds.

MatthewVII · 20-01-2009 10:06PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to religion passing away in the face of a compassionate society - don't let western liberalism blind you to the reality of what is going on in the world regarding the growth of religions, nor the cruelty western liberalism is capable of, eg. eugenics.

What about the cruelty that hardline conservative religiosity is capable of, e.g. the Crusades, Magdalene Laundries?

No harm, I guess you can trample on the rights of whoever you want so long as you can justify it by quoting a book.

Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

Comments