Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
I see you looked right past the point. You were accused of taking something out of context. Were you not?
Is that not what you continually accuse me of? (Wheter the method is "slicing and dicing" or "paraphrasing" is irrelevant.) When I paraphrase, you'll accuse me of "not saying what you said." You focus on tearing down semantics rather than focusing on the points being made.
And yet, you don't feel you took anything out of context. You expect us to accept your paraphrase explanation of how it's NOT out of context? On the other hand, you don't afford me that same luxury. If I feel that I have not taken something out of context (I NEVER purposely take anything out of context), and I explain to you how it's not out of context...that doesn't stop you from levying the same tired accusations over and over.
So again, I ask you the NEXT time you accuse me of taking something out of context, think twice. I will gladly explain why it's NOT out of context, even though there's a high probably you won't listen.
You should put less effort into attacking argumentation style and more into the actual argument. Or better yet, more effort into folding...
Sabastian said:
First off, scientists are now finding that HIV was spreading in this country as early as the 1930's and 1940's. People just didn't know what it was so they treated it as tuberculosis or pneumonia. That's not even to take into account the spread of syphillis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, etc etc etc. Yes. HIV is a "gay" disease.
Second, HIV was originally a monkey virus that leapt to human beings in Africa, most likely due to the unsanitary butchering of monkeys that were sold for meat. Eventually it made it's way to the States. HIV did not just suddenly and magically appear out of the blue in 1981.
As I said earlier, educate yourself about the disease. You're doing a disservice to yourself by not doing so.
Sabastian said:
So since Homosexual relationships are not capable of reproduction, that should mean that infertile couples should not be allowed to marry, and neither should senior citizens for that matter.
And with regard to the natural family, there are people in this world who believe a "natural" family only consists of those of the same "race" or skin color. And they would argue with you just as vehemently on that point as you're arguing with me now.
Sabastian said:
You would have been in the minority 120 years ago when the Jim Crow Laws and in particular the Anti-Miscegenation laws, were written and passed into law. At least you've got a little bit of sense in you.
Joe DeFuria said:
First off, Sabastian made a serious error in stating that I said he was against interracial marriage when I explicitly stated that I was paraphrasing his comments, but taking them as if they were written 100 years ago and if we were arguing the morality of interracial marriage.
The whole point of doing that was a comparison between both wrongs. And I made that point very clear.
The fact that he doesn't understand what paraphrase is, or sarcasm is, doesn't lend well to his line of argumentation that I somehow misrepresented what he said.
And you're going to sit here and talk to me about arguing semantics? You of all people?
You're a funny one Joe.Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
Yup.
You of all people?
I know, it's probably a fruitless effort. But don't blame me for trying.
V3-
First I'd like to thank you for an interesting and civil discussion of issues that often lead quickly to flamewars.
That's fine. But we're not talking about what gets you thrown into hell, but rather what gets you thrown in jail. (Or, in this case, what relationships are supported by the state and society.) The goal of American public policy (or public policy in any non-theocratic state) cannot be to prevent citizens from going to hell.
Homosexuality was obviously of minor concern to the writers of the Bible (God, if you like); why is it the #1 concern of religious conservatives today? Particularly when they do such a terrible job (are, in fact, almost diametrically opposed) on the themes Jesus emphasized above all other (earthly) issues: compassion and sympathy for the poor and the powerless?
That's a perfectly rational interpretation of the trajectory and logical consequences of Jesus's coming. But AFAICT (and, I should confess, I've only read the Gospels and not the rest of the New Testament) it is not directly supported by the text of the Bible itself. The fact that there is no current Christian sect that interprets the Bible differently on this point (i.e. Christ's sacrifice of himself does not rescind the requirement to perform the prescribed animal and grain sacrifices) is due instead to the historical accident that, after a century or two of proliferating sects, all of Christianity was united under one centrally-imposed doctrine from the third or fourth century to the Great Schism in the eleventh century (and indeed the first fundamentally divergent doctrine didn't reappear until the Reformation in the sixteenth century).
Were it not for this fundamental accident of history (and for all the secular changes in society that have made animal sacrifice so anachronistic), there would definitely be Christian groups who claimed that you were guilty of mortal sin for not sacrificing a bull to God every year (or whatever it is). And theirs would seem to be a more accurate reading of the Bible than yours, AFAICT.
Undoubtedly our society today has much better hygiene than that of the Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years. However, Christians today do not observe any of the very specific hygienic rules set out in Leviticus. For instance, the prohibition on eating non-kosher food (i.e. no pork, no shellfish, no mixing milk and meat, and animals must be slaughtered according to specific rules). The rules on menstruating women are similarly detailed: not only are they not to be touched by any men, but after their period, the women are to cleanse themselves through immersion in communal ritual bath, called a mikvah.
Taking the rules on kosher food as an example, there were undoubtedly sound public health concerns behind them: pork, in particular, was subject to dangerous parasites and other food-borne diseases in those days, so the notion that pork was unclean food had a legitimate hygienic component that no longer makes sense in today's society. But rules are rules: God said to Moses "no pigs". Even if today's pork is just as hygienic as beef, by your notion that Christians are still bound to observe the hygienic laws of Leviticus, eating the Easter ham is as sure to land you in the lake of fire as hot gay buttsex.
The explanation I've heard is that the story of Jesus and the hand-washing Pharisees (great band name, BTW) is what releases Christians from all the hygiene rules. (See Matthew 15.) To me this is a dubious argument, as Jesus's issue with the Pharisees is that they have invented new rules which did not come from God but only from tradition--and indeed, the Jewish tradition of ritual hand-washing before meals does not come from Leviticus or anywhere else in the Torah. Yes, he goes on to say that what makes one unclean is what comes out of your mouth not what goes in; but while that might then remove the rules on unclean food, it doesn't speak directly to menstruating women.
Be that as it may, it's obvious why the Leviticus rules have been removed, by hook or by crook, from contemporary Christian ethics. They were formulated to govern the Israelites wandering in the desert, a social situations worlds away from that in Anatolia a few centuries after Christ (when and where the rough outlines of Christian doctrine were sketched in after a couple centuries of wildly divergent proto-Christian sects), much less the contemporary Western world. (Of course this doesn't stop Orthodox Jews from following the laws of Leviticus, minus those involving the priesthood.) It's as you write with regard to hygiene: the old rules are outdated. That's not a theological explanation, of course, but theology will inevitably change to adapt to the times: as it did in the early days of the Church with respect to eating pork, as it did 150-200 years ago with respect to slavery, and as it will in the near future with respect to homosexuality.
Leviticus does deal with moral issues, after a fashion; and certainly with deep socialogical issues. Christ dealt with the same issues rather differently. (Saying the standard was "raised" is putting a value judgement on the change; certainly Christ took a different approach.)
Take the passage you're referencing. According to Christ, by having lustful thoughts, you are committing adultery in your heart. Christ talks a bit more about "sexual immorality," but this is the only time he defines it. To me, I think if you're going to interpret the bit about clean and unclean as saying, "forget about all those nitpicky rules in Leviticus having to do with purity; what's important is to be pure of spirit and not hypocritical", then you should similarly interpret this passage as saying, "forget about all those nitpicky rules in Leviticus about who you can and can't sleep with; what's important is that your heart is not driven by lust, but that you have sex out of love instead." Of course such an interpretation never had a chance in the society of the early church, and thus never became Christian doctrine. But it's a perfectly valid reading of the text.
Individual believers don't, of course. But societal trends obviously do influence doctrine.
Same with any church that condones ham, if you're taking a literalist view of "what the Bible says". If you read into the intent and symbolism of the Bible a bit, you're just as likely to get homosexuality off the hook as you are many other things which, like ham, are not held to be sinful by any Christian doctrine today.
Put it this way: if you knew nothing of modern Christian doctrine, and were simply given the Bible and told: "you have as long as you want to read this book and think about it to eventually develop a theological doctrine and system of ethics based on what you conclude its teachings are," it is extremely unlikely you would come up with anything resembling current Christian doctrine. And assuming what you came up with was not so literalist as to incorporate an unchanged version of the Leviticus law code directly into your ethical system (and there is plenty of reason to be found in the Bible itself not to do that), then it would probably not include homosexuality among its sins.
First I'd like to thank you for an interesting and civil discussion of issues that often lead quickly to flamewars.
V3 said:
That's fine. But we're not talking about what gets you thrown into hell, but rather what gets you thrown in jail. (Or, in this case, what relationships are supported by the state and society.) The goal of American public policy (or public policy in any non-theocratic state) cannot be to prevent citizens from going to hell.
Homosexuality was obviously of minor concern to the writers of the Bible (God, if you like); why is it the #1 concern of religious conservatives today? Particularly when they do such a terrible job (are, in fact, almost diametrically opposed) on the themes Jesus emphasized above all other (earthly) issues: compassion and sympathy for the poor and the powerless?
That's a perfectly rational interpretation of the trajectory and logical consequences of Jesus's coming. But AFAICT (and, I should confess, I've only read the Gospels and not the rest of the New Testament) it is not directly supported by the text of the Bible itself. The fact that there is no current Christian sect that interprets the Bible differently on this point (i.e. Christ's sacrifice of himself does not rescind the requirement to perform the prescribed animal and grain sacrifices) is due instead to the historical accident that, after a century or two of proliferating sects, all of Christianity was united under one centrally-imposed doctrine from the third or fourth century to the Great Schism in the eleventh century (and indeed the first fundamentally divergent doctrine didn't reappear until the Reformation in the sixteenth century).
Were it not for this fundamental accident of history (and for all the secular changes in society that have made animal sacrifice so anachronistic), there would definitely be Christian groups who claimed that you were guilty of mortal sin for not sacrificing a bull to God every year (or whatever it is). And theirs would seem to be a more accurate reading of the Bible than yours, AFAICT.
Undoubtedly our society today has much better hygiene than that of the Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years. However, Christians today do not observe any of the very specific hygienic rules set out in Leviticus. For instance, the prohibition on eating non-kosher food (i.e. no pork, no shellfish, no mixing milk and meat, and animals must be slaughtered according to specific rules). The rules on menstruating women are similarly detailed: not only are they not to be touched by any men, but after their period, the women are to cleanse themselves through immersion in communal ritual bath, called a mikvah.
Taking the rules on kosher food as an example, there were undoubtedly sound public health concerns behind them: pork, in particular, was subject to dangerous parasites and other food-borne diseases in those days, so the notion that pork was unclean food had a legitimate hygienic component that no longer makes sense in today's society. But rules are rules: God said to Moses "no pigs". Even if today's pork is just as hygienic as beef, by your notion that Christians are still bound to observe the hygienic laws of Leviticus, eating the Easter ham is as sure to land you in the lake of fire as hot gay buttsex.
The explanation I've heard is that the story of Jesus and the hand-washing Pharisees (great band name, BTW) is what releases Christians from all the hygiene rules. (See Matthew 15.) To me this is a dubious argument, as Jesus's issue with the Pharisees is that they have invented new rules which did not come from God but only from tradition--and indeed, the Jewish tradition of ritual hand-washing before meals does not come from Leviticus or anywhere else in the Torah. Yes, he goes on to say that what makes one unclean is what comes out of your mouth not what goes in; but while that might then remove the rules on unclean food, it doesn't speak directly to menstruating women.
Be that as it may, it's obvious why the Leviticus rules have been removed, by hook or by crook, from contemporary Christian ethics. They were formulated to govern the Israelites wandering in the desert, a social situations worlds away from that in Anatolia a few centuries after Christ (when and where the rough outlines of Christian doctrine were sketched in after a couple centuries of wildly divergent proto-Christian sects), much less the contemporary Western world. (Of course this doesn't stop Orthodox Jews from following the laws of Leviticus, minus those involving the priesthood.) It's as you write with regard to hygiene: the old rules are outdated. That's not a theological explanation, of course, but theology will inevitably change to adapt to the times: as it did in the early days of the Church with respect to eating pork, as it did 150-200 years ago with respect to slavery, and as it will in the near future with respect to homosexuality.
Leviticus does deal with moral issues, after a fashion; and certainly with deep socialogical issues. Christ dealt with the same issues rather differently. (Saying the standard was "raised" is putting a value judgement on the change; certainly Christ took a different approach.)
Take the passage you're referencing. According to Christ, by having lustful thoughts, you are committing adultery in your heart. Christ talks a bit more about "sexual immorality," but this is the only time he defines it. To me, I think if you're going to interpret the bit about clean and unclean as saying, "forget about all those nitpicky rules in Leviticus having to do with purity; what's important is to be pure of spirit and not hypocritical", then you should similarly interpret this passage as saying, "forget about all those nitpicky rules in Leviticus about who you can and can't sleep with; what's important is that your heart is not driven by lust, but that you have sex out of love instead." Of course such an interpretation never had a chance in the society of the early church, and thus never became Christian doctrine. But it's a perfectly valid reading of the text.
Individual believers don't, of course. But societal trends obviously do influence doctrine.
Same with any church that condones ham, if you're taking a literalist view of "what the Bible says". If you read into the intent and symbolism of the Bible a bit, you're just as likely to get homosexuality off the hook as you are many other things which, like ham, are not held to be sinful by any Christian doctrine today.
Put it this way: if you knew nothing of modern Christian doctrine, and were simply given the Bible and told: "you have as long as you want to read this book and think about it to eventually develop a theological doctrine and system of ethics based on what you conclude its teachings are," it is extremely unlikely you would come up with anything resembling current Christian doctrine. And assuming what you came up with was not so literalist as to incorporate an unchanged version of the Leviticus law code directly into your ethical system (and there is plenty of reason to be found in the Bible itself not to do that), then it would probably not include homosexuality among its sins.
Sabastian said:
1) It is a statistical fact that homosexual men are more sexually promiscuous than heterosexual couples. It is also a statistical fact that lesbians are far less sexually promiscuous than heterosexual couples. Could this have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that men are biologically wired to be more sexually promiscuous than women?
2) Imagine if there were no such thing as marriage. Society did not expect, much less demand, that couples should stay together for life, raise a family together, etc. There was no cultural value put on lasting monogamous relationships; the only reason not to "cheat" on a lover (except, without an existing social contract that forbids sleeping around, there is no sense in which sleeping with someone else is "cheating") would be because you had no desire to or out of pure concern for their feelings. Do you think that, just maybe, heterosexuals would be more promiscuous under those circumstances?
What about if society actively disapproved of heterosexual relationships altogether, and discriminated against couples living together, spending time doing romantic things in public together, or declaring their love for each other. Might that, just perhaps, result in fewer lasting, committed relationships and maybe more hookups based only on sex?
High 5-HIAA
Newcomer
Hurrah for Canada!
As for homosexual acts not being "natural", well that's just not accurate - only someone with a distinct ignorance of the natural world and the behavior of our closest relatives would claim such a thing.
To whit, the Bonobo, also known as the Pygmy Chimpanzee. A great Ape, and one of the two closest living relatives of homo sapiens. Interesting social structure for sure, and full of absolutely rampant homosexual contact, in the wild.
Here's a couple of quotes quote from Scientific American March 1995, the first thing I found on short notice:
"The bonobos most typical sexual pattern is genito-genital rubbing between adult females. One female bonobo facing another clings with arms and legs to a partner that, standing on both hands and feet, lifts her off the ground. The two females then rub their genital swellings laterally
together, emitting grins and squeals that probably reflect orgasmic
experiences."
"Male bonobos may engage in pseudocopulation. Standing back to back, one male briefly rubs his scrotum against the buttocks of another. They also practice so-called penis-fencing, in which two males hang face to face
from a branch while rubbing their erect penises together."
This or analogous types of behavior have been observed in a number of other primates, mammals, and birds. A great deal of this is undoubtedly an outgrowth of the more complex social structures and dominance interactions that we see in the more intelligent animals.
As for homosexual acts not being "natural", well that's just not accurate - only someone with a distinct ignorance of the natural world and the behavior of our closest relatives would claim such a thing.
To whit, the Bonobo, also known as the Pygmy Chimpanzee. A great Ape, and one of the two closest living relatives of homo sapiens. Interesting social structure for sure, and full of absolutely rampant homosexual contact, in the wild.
Here's a couple of quotes quote from Scientific American March 1995, the first thing I found on short notice:
"The bonobos most typical sexual pattern is genito-genital rubbing between adult females. One female bonobo facing another clings with arms and legs to a partner that, standing on both hands and feet, lifts her off the ground. The two females then rub their genital swellings laterally
together, emitting grins and squeals that probably reflect orgasmic
experiences."
"Male bonobos may engage in pseudocopulation. Standing back to back, one male briefly rubs his scrotum against the buttocks of another. They also practice so-called penis-fencing, in which two males hang face to face
from a branch while rubbing their erect penises together."
This or analogous types of behavior have been observed in a number of other primates, mammals, and birds. A great deal of this is undoubtedly an outgrowth of the more complex social structures and dominance interactions that we see in the more intelligent animals.
Dave H,
Yes, thank you too for the same.
Homosexuality, is of lower concern compare to something like abortion, high rate of divorces and remarriage is more concerning than homosexuality, so its not #1 concern. I am sure homosexual knows that the message from the Church is, that homosexual act is a mortal sin. That should be enough. That message also only extent to Christians who have homosexual tendency. Other homosexual that are not Christian, they first have to worry about converting, before worrying about their homosexual tendency.
You have to know, the Bible comes from the Church. Christian aren't like Judaism or Muslim, where the believe is base on their respective book. For Christians the Church comes first, than the Bible. Christ didn't write books like Moses or Prophet Mohammad, to start the Church. To spread the good news, Christ start with his twelve disciples, the disciples observed his good works, and they do the same, and teach other to do the same, that's how the Church is build and continue today. These all done through spoken words and good works.
So, you aren't actually meant to give the Bible to non Christians, and tell them to read it, to know everything about being Christians. But non Christian who want to convert are thought the foundation of Christian believe, through spoken words and good works. These are Sacred Traditions.
The Church's Sacred Traditions are where the Bible came from, so only the Church has the correct interpretation of the Bible and the teaching of Christ
You can try reading this bit.
Hebrew 8:1 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 8:2 a minister in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle that the Lord, not man, set up. 8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. So this one too had to have something to offer. 8:4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 8:5 The place where they serve is a pattern and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary, just as Moses was warned by God as he was about to complete the tabernacle. For he says, "See that you make everything according to the example shown to you on the mountain." 8:6 But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises.
8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, no one would have looked for a second one. 8:8 But showing its fault, God says to them,
"Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
8:9 "It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord.
8:10 "For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.
8:11 "And there will be no need at all for each one to teach his countryman or each one to teach his brother saying, 'Know the Lord,' since they will all know me, from the least to the greatest.
8:12 "For I will be merciful toward their evil deeds, and their sins I will remember no longer."
8:13 When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.
The eating pork, you already know. Slavery was abolished by our society not the Church. Its true, the Church would not have abolish it. Slave that had converted to Christians are still asked to be slave, and continue to serve his/her master. The Church don't teach the Slave to revolt. But master that had converted to Christian are asked to set their slaves free.
You don't have sex because you love someone. You only have sex to procreate, making baby, and that to be done out of love and not lust, and after marriage as well.
I know your point, should read the bit before that.
5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 5:19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do this will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
So after reading that passage, you need to ask which law has fullfill its purposed. And like I said earlier, that's for the Church to teach.
That's why Christ didn't write books, he build the Church to save people. The Bible is only part of the Church.
Yes, thank you too for the same.
Homosexuality, is of lower concern compare to something like abortion, high rate of divorces and remarriage is more concerning than homosexuality, so its not #1 concern. I am sure homosexual knows that the message from the Church is, that homosexual act is a mortal sin. That should be enough. That message also only extent to Christians who have homosexual tendency. Other homosexual that are not Christian, they first have to worry about converting, before worrying about their homosexual tendency.
You have to know, the Bible comes from the Church. Christian aren't like Judaism or Muslim, where the believe is base on their respective book. For Christians the Church comes first, than the Bible. Christ didn't write books like Moses or Prophet Mohammad, to start the Church. To spread the good news, Christ start with his twelve disciples, the disciples observed his good works, and they do the same, and teach other to do the same, that's how the Church is build and continue today. These all done through spoken words and good works.
So, you aren't actually meant to give the Bible to non Christians, and tell them to read it, to know everything about being Christians. But non Christian who want to convert are thought the foundation of Christian believe, through spoken words and good works. These are Sacred Traditions.
The Church's Sacred Traditions are where the Bible came from, so only the Church has the correct interpretation of the Bible and the teaching of Christ
You can try reading this bit.
Hebrew 8:1 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 8:2 a minister in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle that the Lord, not man, set up. 8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. So this one too had to have something to offer. 8:4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 8:5 The place where they serve is a pattern and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary, just as Moses was warned by God as he was about to complete the tabernacle. For he says, "See that you make everything according to the example shown to you on the mountain." 8:6 But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises.
8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, no one would have looked for a second one. 8:8 But showing its fault, God says to them,
"Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
8:9 "It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord.
8:10 "For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.
8:11 "And there will be no need at all for each one to teach his countryman or each one to teach his brother saying, 'Know the Lord,' since they will all know me, from the least to the greatest.
8:12 "For I will be merciful toward their evil deeds, and their sins I will remember no longer."
8:13 When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.
The eating pork, you already know. Slavery was abolished by our society not the Church. Its true, the Church would not have abolish it. Slave that had converted to Christians are still asked to be slave, and continue to serve his/her master. The Church don't teach the Slave to revolt. But master that had converted to Christian are asked to set their slaves free.
You don't have sex because you love someone. You only have sex to procreate, making baby, and that to be done out of love and not lust, and after marriage as well.
I know your point, should read the bit before that.
5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 5:19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do this will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
So after reading that passage, you need to ask which law has fullfill its purposed. And like I said earlier, that's for the Church to teach.
That's why Christ didn't write books, he build the Church to save people. The Bible is only part of the Church.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
High 5-HIAA said:
Only someone with a distinct ignorance of sexual reproduction would claim that homosexual relationship can result in the natural birth of a child based on the combined genetic make-up of the individuals in question.
In other words: "natural" doesn't have to be defined as "occurrances found in nature." (Edit: so when someone claimes homosexuality "isn't natural", don't assume you know what they are asserting.)
Some apes / monkeys also kill their own too (children included), seemingly as a display of power. I guess because that's "natural", that should be accepted practice in the Human race as well...
Cannibalism is also practiced in the remote sections of Polynesia. It's obviously natural since it developed outside of modern society.
I demand the constitutional right to eat my enemies.
I demand the constitutional right to eat my enemies.
Silent_One
Newcomer
Joe wrote:
Dave H wrote:
".....the fact that men are biologically wired to be more sexually promiscuous than women" ? Thats a fact? Women don't have this "biological wiring" for promiscuity? So men are just hornier? Or women don't get horny? Sorry, don't buy it. The difference between mankind and the animals is that humans have more gray matter between the ears and can resist biological urges if they are taught reasons to do so. This is what is supposed to make us civilized. Both males and females can have urges for sex for pleasures sake but society has taught certain values that can encourage or discourage certain behaviors. Indeed your other parts of your post acknowledges as much.
.
Don't forget Lions - male lions will kill the female's cubs when the male overtakes the pride.
Dave H wrote:
".....the fact that men are biologically wired to be more sexually promiscuous than women" ? Thats a fact? Women don't have this "biological wiring" for promiscuity? So men are just hornier? Or women don't get horny? Sorry, don't buy it. The difference between mankind and the animals is that humans have more gray matter between the ears and can resist biological urges if they are taught reasons to do so. This is what is supposed to make us civilized. Both males and females can have urges for sex for pleasures sake but society has taught certain values that can encourage or discourage certain behaviors. Indeed your other parts of your post acknowledges as much.
.
Joe DeFuria said:
Well then we need a definition of what's natural and what isn't. But
, that's not possible is it? Society always seems to change what is natural and what isn't. To whit, I give you a Georgia Judge who forbade a French Man from marrying a Black Woman, in 1869:The Judge said:
We would find such a supposition laughable today, and yet this was supported as scientifically, theologically, and societally valid morales to have at the time. What wonders progress makes eh?
So as I stated earlier, 'natural' has been up for reinterpretation many times. So before anyone can state that homosexuality is not 'natural' or should not be 'practiced,' maybe they need a thorough examination of history.
Oh and btw, High 5-HIAA did not state that homosexual couples could have kids. Where'd you get that little tidbit? And please lets not get on the "Natural is defined by the ability to have kids" route. Or the "Sex is only for procreation!" route (This was used by V3, not you Joe). Because we all know that that would make senior couples and the infertile most unnatural pairings. And lets also not get on the semantical argument that senior couples and the infertile are heterosexually inclined towards procreation because the point remains that they simply cannot procreate.
So if natural is defined by the ability to have kids, and sex is only for procreation, then you have millions of people shit out of luck.