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

Sexual Orientation

Options
12467…14

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    I'm not sure how the sexuality of the kids adoptive parents changes any tug of war situation if they break up - it's the same number of people involved?

    If a gay male couple use a surrogate what kind of rights is the surrogate mother going to have, is the state going to draw up legal watertight contracts that the surrogate renounces all legal rights to the child. If a lesbian couple are using a donor what rights is the donor going to have to their biological child. What rights is the child going to have as they grow older in terms of their biological parent. Like it or not there will be three people involved somewhere along the line.
    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Also what's this 3 person genetics thing?

    http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/bizarre/genetically-modfied-babies-born-in-us-559069.html

    I'll have a Natalie Portman with a dash of Audrey Hepburn and some Steve McQueen please. :D


  • Options
    #93
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Why does this not apply equally to the heterosexuals here? Why are they not eschewing bodily temptations in order to achieve a greater kind of love and fulfilment?

    Many are. For example no sex before marriage etc. There are many ways to eschew.


  • Options
    #94
    Robert ninja
    Registered Users Posts: 3,878 ✭✭✭Robert ninja


    JimiTime wrote: »
    All of our sexualities, gay or straight, are broken…

    Speak for yourself.


  • Options
    #95
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    prinz wrote: »
    Many are. For example no sex before marriage etc.
    But it's alright after marriage yeah? You'll allow yourself that temptation.

    It's not a temptation that some here would allow to homosexual people. No no no, they need to forgo sexual activity for their whole lives.


  • Options
    #96
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    doctoremma wrote: »
    But it's alright after marriage yeah? You'll allow yourself that temptation. It's not a temptation that some here would allow to homosexual people. No no no, they need to forgo sexual activity for their whole lives.

    Unless of course you never get actually married. Then what? Whatever you're going to plough ahead under the illusion that restrictions on sex are confined to homosexuality and so on, and so forth.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Zillah wrote: »

    There is no such thing as "the gay lifestyle", so he can't have had experiences "in it". He led his life and did things he did, it doesn't and shouldn't reflect on gay people generally, any more than it should reflect on people with the same coloured hair as him, or people who use the same internet browser. It is extremely disingenuous to use misleading and perjorative language in an article and then attach a disclaimer at the end, while leaving the offensive content in place.

    Well, he was living it. He considered it the 'gay lifestyle' based on his experience. I can't really say anything about it. As for there being 'No gay lifestyle', I can see where you are coming from, but there are many who don't agree with you. Wasn't it George Michael, when it came out about him with being with an old man in Hampstead Heath or something, said it was part of the gay culture? I think rather than falling over the terminologies, you should look at what is being said.
    I also don't buy his explanation to be honest. If he was referring to his experiences and his own behaviour he would have spoken about his own experiences and behaviour. Instead he presented the spectre of "the gay lifestyle", as if that was a thing. Imagine I went around talking about "the straight lifestyle". Would it make sense for me to use that term extensively and then note at the end "But of course I know that straight people are diverse and you can't group them together"?

    Tell me, as a matter of curiosity, do you know why he would think what he does in relation to the habits of homosexual men of his age? SonOfAdam seemed to empathise with what he was saying. So even though you yourself are not promiscuous, can you understand how other gay men could extract that such a promiscuous lifestyle in endemic in the homosexual community from their experiences?
    The elephant in the room here is that he thinks gay people are dirty, sinful and promiscuous and the ones who haven't found God stay that way. He just doesn't want to be that direct about it.

    I certainly didn't get that from his letter. What it said to me was that he is now defined by Christ rather than by his sexual desire. He is now choosing to follow Jesus and focus on him, letting himself be defined by the spirit rather than following his flesh and letting its desires and brokenness define him. Like Paul said, we nail our flesh to the cross with Jesus. He stated the freedom and liberation he felt when he 'came out', but is saying that there is a much greater freedom to be found. No doubt, there will be those who will reject his testimony as whatever. I think his goal though, is to appeal to people that are like he was, and let them know that there are people like him there, and that contrary to mans wisdoms, sexual desire is not the big deal its cracked up to be. Certainly not in contrast with the bigger picture, and the life and love one enters into with God. Do you have an issue with his message?


  • Options
    #98
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    doctoremma wrote: »
    He he, not sure what happened over the last couple of pages.

    My point was this. An argument I've seen here for why a homosexual should forgo their innate sexual desire for the same gender and not engage in homosexual acts is that they can find a greater good in the love of god, that actually this should be what everyone aspires to, far more fulfilling etc etc.

    Why does this not apply equally to the heterosexuals here? Why are they not eschewing bodily temptations in order to achieve a greater kind of love and fulfilment?

    Especially when you consider that apparently....





    So why aren't the heterosexuals giving up their broken sexuality? Why is it only homosexuals that are entreated to do so?


    Those quotes you attributed to me weren't my quotes, they were the quotes of the letter I linked to.


  • Options
    #99
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    doctoremma wrote: »
    So why aren't the heterosexuals giving up their broken sexuality? Why is it only homosexuals that are entreated to do so?

    They are. For example, if someone's broken sexuality would them to promiscuity or unfaithfulness to their spouse then that needs to be given up in order to live as a follower of Christ.

    For some people that means voluntary celibacy, for others it means being faithful to one person within marriage.


  • Options
    #100
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    prinz wrote: »
    I don't know if I will or not, so I wouldn't guess at what anyone else is up to. I certainly don't think they've done anything that couldn't be forgiven for example. I've committed my own sexual sins so to speak in times gone by. So we're probably in the same boat.

    I'm not sure how i'd feel about that if i was one of your gay friends!
    You have me thinking here, i know a few very religious people but i've never really given much thought as to whether they find me in need of forgiveness. Now that i think of it, i'm sure they do, and it's a bit condescending........i think!! It's given me food for thought anyway:confused:
    prinz wrote: »
    If a gay male couple use a surrogate what kind of rights is the surrogate mother going to have, is the state going to draw up legal watertight contracts that the surrogate renounces all legal rights to the child. If a lesbian couple are using a donor what rights is the donor going to have to their biological child. What rights is the child going to have as they grow older in terms of their biological parent. Like it or not there will be three people involved somewhere along the line.



    http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/bizarre/genetically-modfied-babies-born-in-us-559069.html

    I'll have a Natalie Portman with a dash of Audrey Hepburn and some Steve McQueen please. :D

    Don't those very same issues arise with a straight couple?
    If the people raising the child aren't the biological parents then there are other people involved. The sexuality of any of those involved is a non issue for all intents and purposes.

    Also, cheers for the link and i wholeheartedly approve of your taste in women.....and men!:D


  • Options
    #101
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    I'm not sure how i'd feel about that if i was one of your gay friends!
    You have me thinking here, i know a few very religious people but i've never really given much thought as to whether they find me in need of forgiveness. Now that i think of it, i'm sure they do, and it's a bit condescending........i think!! It's given me food for thought anyway:confused:

    It's hardly condescending that Christians believe that we all need foriveness.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    PDN wrote: »
    It's hardly condescending that Christians believe that we all need foriveness.

    Ah, i'm not looking to cause offence or provoke a debate even - i was just thinking out loud. Condescending is probably the wrong word ,but if you are quietly going about your own business and harming no one, surely it is a bit insulting (maybe a better word) for anyone to think you need forgiveness for that?


  • Options
    #103
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    They are. For example, if someone's broken sexuality would them to promiscuity or unfaithfulness to their spouse then that needs to be given up in order to live as a follower of Christ.
    Understood.
    PDN wrote: »
    For some people that means voluntary celibacy, for others it means being faithful to one person within marriage.
    For homosexuals, that means celibacy. For heterosexuals, that means fidelity in a heterosexual relationship.

    This is what I'm seeing here, happy to be corrected or to further analyse...
    If a person thinks the homosexual life is sinful and that celibacy is the only way to ensure redemption, I have nothing to say about that (except, of course, I don't agree). If they are condemning people for their sinfulness, at least that's an honest approach.

    What I'm finding difficult to understand is the assertion that rejection of sexuality is somehow a "better" way in the eyes of god, while they themselves do not follow that rule. That smacks of hypocrisy.


  • Options
    #104
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Ah, i'm not looking to cause offence or provoke a debate even - i was just thinking out loud. Condescending is probably the wrong word ,but if you are quietly going about your own business and harming no one, surely it is a bit insulting (maybe a better word) for anyone to think you need forgiveness for that?

    If I ever come across anyone in human history (other than infants or the severely mentally retarded) who never harmed anyone else then I'll consider that point.


  • Options
    #105
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    My sexual orientation is straight - that doean't mean i can just decide i want to have sex with that woman over there, i need her permision.
    Adults are in a position to grant or deny that permision to other adults - their gender is unimportant. A man can decide to have sex with another man if he so chooses, same for a woman.
    A child can not make that decision - so there is the difference. CONSENT
    Sex is sex, rape is rape, whether it is a man a woman or a child.
    Yes, there is a difference - as I said. Both are wicked perversions of God's gift of sex, but one is by consent and the other by force or abusive seduction of those not capable of an adult choice.

    Heterosexual sex also has its perversions - sex outside of marriage, in all its forms.

    We may choose to engage in perverted sex or not. Choosing to do so does not make it right. It is wilful disobedience to our Creator.

    *******************************************************************
    1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.


  • Options
    #106
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    davidgrn wrote: »
    Wolfsbane you are right. Paedophiles and gay people are sexual sinners and are exactly the same. God will punish us.

    Feel better?
    Please point out where I said paedophiles and gay people 'are exactly the same'.

    When the red mist clears, you will find I said no such thing. Have another read, dispassionately this time.


    ********************************************************************
    1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.


  • Options
    #107
    twinQuins
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,199 ✭✭✭twinQuins


    prinz wrote: »
    If a gay male couple use a surrogate what kind of rights is the surrogate mother going to have

    The same rights the surrogate mother would have if they weren't gay. Surrogacy and adoption are not unique to gay couples, this is a red herring.


  • Options
    #108
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    PDN wrote: »
    If I ever come across anyone in human history (other than infants or the severely mentally retarded) who never harmed anyone else then I'll consider that point.

    You don't need to come across someone who has never harmed anyone. They could have harmed all sorts but been forgiven, from that point on they lived a quite life harming no one.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Yes, there is a difference - as I said. Both are wicked perversions of God's gift of sex, but one is by consent and the other by force or abusive seduction of those not capable of an adult choice.

    Heterosexual sex also has its perversions - sex outside of marriage, in all its forms.

    We may choose to engage in perverted sex or not. Choosing to do so does not make it right. It is wilful disobedience to our Creator.

    ******************************************************************

    Do you really believe this stuff?


  • Options
    #109
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    You don't need to come across someone who has never harmed anyone. They could have harmed all sorts but been forgiven, from that point on they lived a quite life harming no one.

    In that case, having been forgiven, they evidently did need forgiveness then. :confused:


  • Options
    #110
    Ciaran0
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Ciaran0


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Do you really believe this stuff?

    Bizarre isn't it.


  • Options
    #111
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Wolfsbane, I wonder if this thing about orientation is a bit of a red herring, Whether it's a choice or not isn't the issue.
    The issue is that your religious conviction is that it's wrong and you want this enshrined in law.
    The thing is, thats a theocracy, they never end well.
    Morality and legality are two different things, something being legal doesn't make it compulsory. Something being illegal dose however make that thing forbidden. To justifies such a restriction you have to prove harm, quoting the bible may convince you that hell fire is the end result of one choice but not convince everyone, unless it's going to harm you then thats their choice. You can't stop the wicked going to Babylon.

    Where did I say I wanted homosexuality enshrined in law as immoral? Did I not say I wanted civil and religious liberty for them and me enshrined in law?

    ************************************************************************
    1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    PDN wrote: »
    In that case, having been forgiven, they evidently did need forgiveness then. :confused:

    No my point is from that point on they live as a happy gay couple. Do they still need to be forgiven for merely being gay? Can you really think it's a sin to love somebody?


  • Options
    #113
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Where did I say I wanted homosexuality enshrined in law as immoral? Did I not say I wanted civil and religious liberty for them and me enshrined in law?
    Is your civil and religious liberty NOT enshrined in law? Which parts would you like to see formalised in law?


  • Options
    #114
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Your god doesn't want me, not bothered- but I don't want your gods law encroaching on civil law


  • Options
    #115
    Ciaran0
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Ciaran0


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    We may choose to engage in perverted sex or not. Choosing to do so does not make it right. It is wilful disobedience to our Creator.

    Do you really believe that when God was creating us all, he said "Right I'll make one in every ten people gay. But I'll also make sexual acts between gay people a sin. That'll show them how much I love them!"


  • Options
    #116
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    No my point is from that point on they live as a happy gay couple. Do they still need to be forgiven for merely being gay? Can you really think it's a sin to love somebody?

    No, I don't think it is a sin to love somebody. I do, however, think it is a sin to have sexual intercourse with certain people. In my case, for example, as a married man, it would be a sin to engage in sexual intercourse with any of the 7 billion people to whom I'm not married..


  • Options
    #117
    Ciaran0
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Ciaran0


    PDN wrote: »
    No, I don't think it is a sin to love somebody. I do, however, think it is a sin to have sexual intercourse with certain people. In my case, for example, as a married man, it would be a sin to engage in sexual intercourse with any of the 7 billion people to whom I'm not married..

    Would it be wrong to assume you also think it's a sin for two loving, consenting adults of the same sex to have sexual intercourse?


  • Options
    #118
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Ciaran0 wrote: »
    Bizarre isn't it.

    Moderator Warning
    I would suggest that you try actually entering into discussion or debate.

    Just posting and saying that, as a non-Christian, you think Christians beliefs are stupid is nothing more than trolling.

    Please consider this informal warning as your one and only Get Out of Jail Free card.


  • Options
    #119
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    PDN wrote: »
    No, I don't think it is a sin to love somebody. I do, however, think it is a sin to have sexual intercourse with certain people. In my case, for example, as a married man, it would be a sin to engage in sexual intercourse with any of the 7 billion people to whom I'm not married..

    I have to say i'm glad i don't share your views, they seem extremely restrictive.
    I assume it's down to the whole sex is for making babies school of thought?
    If you or your wife were infertile say, no chance of ever procreating, would sex be off the cards altogether?


  • Options
    #120
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Ciaran0 wrote: »
    Would it be wrong to assume you also think it's a sin for two loving, consenting adults of the same sex to have sexual intercourse?

    No, it would not be wrong at all. According to biblical teaching that is a sin, just as much as if two loving, consenting adults of opposite sexes (if not married to each other) have sexual intercourse.

    Christians also believe it is a sin for people to pray to idols.

    Jews and Muslims also think it is a sin to eat a bacon sandwich.

    We may or may not agree with each religion's opinion of what constitutes a sin. However, I have the good manners to respect the beliefs of the Jew and Muslim and not to pick pointless arguments by trolling about bacon sandwiches in the Islam Forum.

    If I want to become a Muslim or a Jew then that would involve adopting their rules. Since I have no desire to convert to either of those religions, it isn't really any of my business whether they have a bit of a thing against bacon.

    Just so long as they don't interefere with my right to eat a bacon sandwich if i choose.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Zillah said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    God did not make us selfish or vicious or lazy or - or any other sinful thing we just do because we are that way. We became that when Adam fell. We are all born just naturally heading off in our own way, not God's.

    That applies to sexual orientation too. God made Adam and Eve heterosexual. After the Fall, sexually perverted desires came in as well. Men and women became dissatisfied with their husband/wife and looked for heterosexual excitement in others. Some find it is homosexual rather than heterosexual activity they desire. Others find it is with children or animals. Others find their desires crossing several of these. All sinful departures from the origin sexual natural God gave men and women.

    So the "I was born this way" is no defence. At best it establishes how depraved we are even without society's pressures.
    Right; so your position is and always has been "Anything other than monogamous heterosexuality is wrong and perverted".
    Correct.
    Paedophilia being defined as an orientation really has nothing to do with it, this thread is basically just a soapbox for you.
    I thought it was an interesting development in secular thinking, and one that had implications for the common homosexual defence.

    If you are asserting that I have no interest in the psychology as such, you are right.
    Also, if you're so convinced that heterosexuality is the natural order as defined by God, how do you explain the widely documented examples of homosexuality in animals? They are not moral creatures and could not be subject to moral failings, they simply execute their natures as God designed them. Isn't it strange that we and animals behave in such similar ways, even though we are fundamentally - supposedly - different classes of creatures?
    I'm not sure sexual preference for homosexuality has been demonstrated in animals. Obtaining sexual relief by unnatural means is a different matter. Humans in prison or in other deprived conditions may resort to homosexual behaviour - and quit it when heterosexual opportunities resume.

    In any case, the animal kingdom is also fallen - not morally, but in operation. Predation was not the created norm. Neither was sexual perversion.
    You also mentioned original sin. While we're on the topic, I'd like to note that I find it really strange that God would design reality in such a way that a disobedient act from a pair of humans would have an impact so pervasive, wide-spread and possessing such longevity.
    Since we are all their children, and the biosphere was under their authority, all fell with them. Why God allows it to go on so long is His business. He has a plan to redeem a people for Himself, and a timetable for doing it.

    If you were running the universe, no doubt you would do it differently. But consider the possibility that the One who made the universe just might know better than you.

    ******************************************************************
    1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement