I like boys and don't know why.

[MrBug708]

I have no interest in boy-boy love, I just wanted to be the 50th post in this thread

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by TroyF
1) Saying it is a choice does not mean it is a conscious choice. It's like saying our favorite color is "hardwired" When you were a kid, did you sit down for 3 hours determining what color was the most pleasing to you? I have no doubt that a lot of it is genetic. I don't think it all is. Again, I cite the sociological evidence of entire cultures that are homosexual. Maybe they were all hardwired, I just don't buy it.

But you've made the point anyway. If it is not a conscious choice, how can they have any control over it?

As for your sociological evidence, how do you know that those cultures were not all hard wired to be homosexual? For example, native-americans as a whole cannot be color-blind and have a very weak tolerance for alcohol. Could that not be the case with a homosexual tendency as well? I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but it is a possibility.

2) What right do you have to tell someone not to quote The Bible? Let me say right off, I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality. However, a person who lives their lives by the word of God and The Bible has every right to use it to make their point. You may not think the point is valid and have every right to believe that. (as I said, I don't) There are some people who use the lines in The Bible as an excuse to hate. That's sad. There are other "Christians" who do believe those lines with all of their hearts, but treat gays better than many "non-Christians" do.

I was asking the question. If the answer is going to be directed to me, since I asked, then obviously they won't want to give something I would dismiss out of hand, correct? I don't believe in The Bible so quoting this or that passage is not going to have any effect whatsoever on my thinking. If it influences the thinking of another person, that is their right, obviously, but the effort will be wasted on me.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
I think it says we all secretly have the hots for you.
or something.

Queer.

[TroyF]

Astral,

I owed up to the possibility that those societies could have all been hard wired. I said I didn't believe they were. I think there is room for both explanations.

As for The Bible, strong faith is all a person needs to believe that way. It isn't about proving anything to you, it's about saying what your opinion is and having a reason for having that opinion. It's very easy to win a debate with someone when you simply disregard the main reasoning you know your opponent will use. It's the same thing as asking a Christian to explain the afterlife without using anything found in The Bible. You are asking the impossible.

As far as what's wrong with homosexuality disregarding religion? Every theory I've ever read has debunked these notions. The only thing wrong with homosexuality is the way people perceive homosexuals. That doesn't mean the Christians are wrong though. Discriminating against someone because they are gay? I'll be on your side of the debate in a <3beat. (I already agree with you, I just don't believe in disregarding their reasoning)

TroyF

[IMetTrentGreen]

i have no idea what causes homosexuality, but i do know that it isn't a choice. i'm leaning towards part genetics part environment

"<3beat"

thats totally gay, btw. approptiate though, for the thread

[TroyF]

Originally posted by IMetTrentGreen
i have no idea what causes homosexuality, but i do know that it isn't a choice. i'm leaning towards part genetics part environment

"<3beat"

thats totally gay, btw. approptiate though, for the thread

I care 100% nothing about what you think is gay.

TroyF

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Suicane75
What exactly is gay?

Andrew Dice Clay once said "I don't know gay or straight. Lemme tell ya. There are only two sexes. You suck dick or you don't. If you don't you are of no use to me."

Well that is a paraphrase. Scatter a few "fucks" in there, and you will probably have the actual quote.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by astralhaze
With this audience I am sure this will be a dead end, but why is there anything wrong with or, as Fritz terms it, "defective" with homosexuality?

I don't really see a need, in our society, to "correct" homosexuality. What is it we would be fixing? Two people of the same sex cannot have children. Two people of different sexes can. So, "correcting the defect" of homosexuality would lead to more people having kids. There are already too many people in this world. This isn't a "defect" that needs correcting. We can obviously sustain our species with a certain percentage of the population not procreating because they are either (a) are gay, or (b) never get the chance, for whatever reason (i.e., too much time spent at FOFC).

As for the religious aspects that might necessitate a "correction" in some people's eyes, I don't want to get too deeply into that subject, else this topic completely degenerate, but suffice to say that my take is this: God didn't take a "details oriented" role in the creation of the Bible, meaning that he didn't edit out the obvious (to me) human perspectives that are put forth as the "Word of God" on a variety of topics. Therefore, my reading of the Bible largely stops at a "in the spirit of God" reading, and not a literal reading. I honestly have a hard time with the idea that it's God's beliefs about homosexuality that are put forth in the Bible, as opposed to the beliefs of the humans through whom the Bible was written.

[Butter]

Originally posted by sabotai
I'm Bill McNeil on crack I like boys.

I miss Phil Hartman.

[Cuckoo]

Originally posted by astralhaze
If it influences the thinking of another person, that is their right, obviously, but the effort will be wasted on me.

Something tells me that every effort in this thread will be wasted. I see nothing wrong with a good discussion every now and again, but anyone who has actually been around this board for a while should know that minds are not going to be changed on issues such as this.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I don't really see a need, in our society, to "correct" homosexuality. What is it we would be fixing? Two people of the same sex cannot have children. Two people of different sexes can. So, "correcting the defect" of homosexuality would lead to more people having kids. There are already too many people in this world. This isn't a "defect" that needs correcting. We can obviously sustain our species with a certain percentage of the population not procreating because they are either (a) are gay, or (b) never get the chance, for whatever reason (i.e., too much time spent at FOFC).

As for the religious aspects that might necessitate a "correction" in some people's eyes, I don't want to get too deeply into that subject, else this topic completely degenerate, but suffice to say that my take is this: God didn't take a "details oriented" role in the creation of the Bible, meaning that he didn't edit out the obvious (to me) human perspectives that are put forth as the "Word of God" on a variety of topics. Therefore, my reading of the Bible largely stops at a "in the spirit of God" reading, and not a literal reading. I honestly have a hard time with the idea that it's God's beliefs about homosexuality that are put forth in the Bible, as opposed to the beliefs of the humans through whom the Bible was written.

Further, once you have decided that being gay is genetic and a "defect" - what's next - being black or hispanic or asian is a defect too? And don't say race is different - the whole premise of this line of discussion is that being gay is genetic just like race. What Fritz said is one of the most offensive things I've ever read on this board.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by John Galt
Further, once you have decided that being gay is genetic and a "defect" - what's next - being black or hispanic or asian is a defect too? And don't say race is different - the whole premise of this line of discussion is that being gay is genetic just like race. What Fritz said is one of the most offensive things I've ever read on this board.

I'm pretty sure there was a healthy dose of sarcasm in his comment - at least, that's how I read it.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
I'm pretty sure there was a healthy dose of sarcasm in his comment - at least, that's how I read it.

Maybe - if so then I take what I said. I tended to believe otherwise because Fritz has never taken to kindly to being gay (except with Subby).

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by John Galt
Maybe - if so then I take what I said. I tended to believe otherwise because Fritz has never taken to kindly to being gay (except with Subby).

pretty amazing, actually, that we got this far in a "gay" thread without mentioning Subby.

[sabotai]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
I miss Phil Hartman.

Me too.

[revrew]

Several points I'd like to bring up.

1. The editorializing of the scientist's report is completely bogus (unless there is additional info not stated in the quoted article that such editorializing was based on). The author concludes that the "choice" of homosexuality is disproven by this study. Yet this study doesn't even address that question. As I read the article, the findings are thus: "male brains exhibit measurable genetic differences from female brains." Frankly, no surprise there. But there is no mention of genetic studies in homosexually oriented samples, only male vs. female.

IF part of the study indicated "homosexually oriented individuals share the same genetic differences as members of the opposite sex", then the author's conclusion would be correct. But there is no mention of that in this article. IF you can evidence that people with genetically female minds are living in male bodies (or vice versa), then you've got a good case. But again, this article doesn't suggest they've found such an individual.

It would appear that this is a sad case of journalistic bias and irresponsibility.

2. Recognizing that the changing of minds is rarely possible on this board, I submit the following perspective, not argument:

First accepting a biblical mindview, it is no surprise to me that human genetics may have been corrupted by The Fall. For example, I would not be surprised if my genetic makeup is partially responsible for the surge of hormones I personally experience when confronted with an attractive woman other than my wife. One could say, I suppose, that I am "genetically predisposed to sexually desire many different women." Yet, I do not consider bigamy or adultery to be morally acceptable -- genetically predisposed to it or not. The fact that I am so tempted may be beyond my control, but how I act on those temptations is a matter of choice. I consider homosexuality to be no different than adultery or bigamy or even premarital heterosexual sex - that is, regardless of the cause or source of the temptation, outside a divinely created plan for human sexuality.

That some, Christians included (some would say especially), have made homosexuals the recipient of disproportionate derision is a disservice to both the message of the Bible and Christianity. In that I was once guilty of premarital sex ("fornication") only furthers the truth that I am no more holy or morally superior to those that have engaged in homosexuality. But just as I would encourage unmarried lovers or adulturous lovers to seek conformity to God's design by reserving sex to the bounds of marriage, I would likewise encourage homosexual lovers to reserve sex for the bounds of heterosexual marriage. Additionally, I can no more support the position of those that declare "Homosexuality is OK" than I can those that declare "Adultery is OK" or "Bigamy is OK" or "Casual sex is OK" or "Beastiality is OK" or etc, etc.

I have sympathy for those that must deal with homosexual temptations (just as I have shared sympathy for those that struggle with heterosexual temptations), but on sympathy alone I cannot condone giving in to those temptations. Forgive, sure. Emotionally support, befriend, love, sure. Condone as acceptable, no.

[Cuckoo]

As always, very well said revrew. It's nice to see you around here, something that's becomming far too rare lately.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by revrew

I have sympathy for those that must deal with homosexual temptations (just as I have shared sympathy for those that struggle with heterosexual temptations), but on sympathy alone I cannot condone giving in to those temptations. Forgive, sure. Emotionally support, befriend, love, sure. Condone as acceptable, no.

As always, revrew, I respect your opinions and arguments because I know they come from a good place. I think your argument is sound if you accept the premise that God's plan is to have heterosexual relationships (a point which is very open to debate). If, however, God planned to have all sorts of relationships (heterosexual, homosexual, relations with the transgendered, etc.), then wouldn't be a Christian obligation to fight for the right for gay marriage?

My point is that while many on this board (including yourself) have seemingly reached what they consider a middle ground: It is OK to be gay, but one should resist the temptation of having homosexual sex. I think this effectively sentences gays (and transgendered people) to a life of a monk/nun. Solitude and a lack of physical intimacy isolate them in a way that is cruel and in my uneducated view, un-Christian. I find it impossible to conceive of a world where a creator would deny a large segment of the population any hope for intimacy and love. I'm fine with the perspective that you can condemn pre-marital sex and homosexual sex, but when gays aren't afforded the opportunity to marry, I find the result to be unsatisfactory. It is easy for those who are not gay to essentially say, "those are the breaks," but the result is intolerable to me.

[revrew]

Originally posted by John Galt
As always, revrew, I respect your opinions and arguments because I know they come from a good place.

Thanks, I appreciate the affirmation. I broke down your last post here, not because I want to "point-for-point" refute it, but because I'd like to respond to the individual questions you brought up...

I think your argument is sound if you accept the premise that God's plan is to have heterosexual relationships (a point which is very open to debate)..

My premise begins with a biblical basis for determining God's plan. Though I have heard others attempt to reach another conclusion, I have never yet heard any truly reasonable evidence to the contrary. The Bible itself (if it is to be taken as authoritative--something which, of course, is debatable) is clear on it.

If, however, God planned to have all sorts of relationships then wouldn't be a Christian obligation to fight for the right for gay marriage?.

Yes. Yes it would. But that "if" negates the rest of the statement for those that hold to the Bible as authoritative for determining truth.

My point is that while many on this board (including yourself) have seemingly reached what they consider a middle ground: It is OK to be gay, but one should resist the temptation of having homosexual sex. I think this effectively sentences gays (and transgendered people) to a life of a monk/nun. Solitude and a lack of physical intimacy isolate them in a way that is cruel and in my uneducated view, un-Christian. I find it impossible to conceive of a world where a creator would deny a large segment of the population any hope for intimacy and love.

I don't like to think of this as a middle ground. It isn't in any way an attempt at a compromise. But perhaps that's semantics...

I really appreciate the vulnerability and thoughtfulness of the statements "solitude and lack of physical intimacy isolate" and "large segment of the population any hope for intimacy and love." Very good points at the heart of the matter.

Again, knowing that I'm not going to change minds, I believe that the Creator has a way for bringing intimacy, love, and fulfillment to those with homosexual temptations. All of those things (save the physical part), I believe, can be found in abundance in relationship with the Creator himself. The desire to be fully known, unconditionally accepted, affirmed, supported, made secure, and so forth can be found in God himself. As for the physical aspect, I also believe that though it may be incredibly difficult (for which I can offer little assurance) a person whose life is submitted to perfect love (God's) can also find a change of heart in him, and that a healthy chastity or even healthy heterosexuality is possible.

Though I have little more to offer than my own beliefs and the examples of men and women who have successfully and happily found that change of heart, I believe that a man or woman that looks to homosexual relationships to fulfill that need for intimacy and love is accepting a lesser fulfillment, a less-satisfying imitation, than could be found in relationship with God.

*****

I think I've said all on this I care to. I've tried to maintain a peaceful spirit and state what, I believe, are views representative of the Christian faith, expressed the way God desires. But I recognize that I, too, can be too easily pulled into a war of words, and think it best if I bow out of this discussion. If there are those that would like to continue this discussion in PM, I will. But I do not think I will be returning to this thread. Thanks again for your affirmation of my attempts at being a reasonable peacemaker, and I wish you all will find the highest love you can possibly find.

[dawgfan]

To expand upon John Galt's points:

revrew equates homosexual sex with adultery, bigamy, premarital sex, bestiality, etc., i.e. that they may be genetically-driven "desires" or "urges", but ones that a moral person should avoid.

One of the primary 'drives' in humans is sex. Not every person feels this drive to the same extent, and for a rare few that drive is almost non-existent, but for most there is a strong desire to have sex. In revrew's views, heterosexuals still have an option to engage in sex provided it occurs within a marriage.

The problem here in equating homosexuality with adultery, bigamy and premarital sex is that homosexuals don't have that option of 'moral sex'. If we believe that gays are gay because they fantasize about, lust for and find attractive those of the same gender and do not find the opposite gender sexually attractive, then that leaves homosexuals with no opportunity to engage in satisfying sex under this moral perspective.

Knowing a number of gays and reading the accounts of many more, I see no reason to dispute the notion that most people who identify as "gay" are at best not interested in and at worst revolted by the idea of having sex with someone of the opposite gender, and lust for/fantasize about those of the same gender.

While Fritz may categorize homosexuality as a 'defect' (and in a strict reproductive biological sense he would be correct) this 'defect' in my view is not something that in an ideal world causes anyone any harm. In our non-ideal world, it can cause a lot of harm for those who are gay, as it subjects them to a great deal of confusion, scorn and even hate for feelings they are innate to who they are.

[Cuckoo]

Originally posted by revrew
Again, knowing that I'm not going to change minds, I believe that the Creator has a way for bringing intimacy, love, and fulfillment to those with homosexual temptations. All of those things (save the physical part), I believe, can be found in abundance in relationship with the Creator himself. The desire to be fully known, unconditionally accepted, affirmed, supported, made secure, and so forth can be found in God himself. As for the physical aspect, I also believe that though it may be incredibly difficult (for which I can offer little assurance) a person whose life is submitted to perfect love (God's) can also find a change of heart in him, and that a healthy chastity or even healthy heterosexuality is possible.

I was going to post something quite similar to this in response to you John. I know that this doesn't offer much of an answer to the problem that you posed, but I can tell you that a large number of people who consider themselves Christians (including revrew obviously) don't look at that situation and say "Those are the breaks." I think that true Christians recognize the incredible difficulty in living the kind of life the Bible commands. I also think that true Christians recognize that everyone sins, and that no one can live a perfect life. For those that do believe, however, this is not a reason to fail to try.

I had a friend in college who was raised quite strictly within the Christian faith. He confided in me that he believed himself to be a homosexual and asked what I recommended that he do. To be honest, I had no idea what to tell him. I wish I could have asked revrew.

What I did tell him was that he had to make a decision based upon his beliefs about what is best for his life. I don't know how much of homosexual feelings are decided by genetics or environment, but I do know that regardless of predisposition, one can decide how to live their life whether that be a contented existence or a troubled one. My friend decided that his faith was more important to him than his sexual feelings. He married a woman who was well aware of all this. In all likelihood, he struggles with it every day of his life in much the same way heterosexuals struggle with other temptations in life. He is, though, a very happy person in his relationship with his wife and with God.

Obviously, I can't begin to understand his situation because I've never had to squelch feelings so much a part of me. (unless you count quitting smoking )

The reason that I said earlier that threads like these will never change anyone's minds is because I just believe that you either have faith in a value system that forbids homosexuality or you don't. It's really that simple.

Upon reflection, I'll say that the one thing I ignored was that threads like these can offer the opportunity for us all to see everyone's position on these issues and respect them regardless of our feelings towards them.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by dawgfan
While Fritz may categorize homosexuality as a 'defect' (and in a strict reproductive biological sense he would be correct).

Just to expand a bit further on this point, this would also rule out male-female anal sex, oral sex, and sex with the use of contraceptives. If the argument against homosexuality is that it does not contribute to reproduction, then you would have to rule those others out as well. At least the Catholic church is consistent in this regard.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Cuckoo
Upon reflection, I'll say that the one thing I ignored was that threads like these can offer the opportunity for us all to see everyone's position on these issues and respect them regardless of our feelings towards them.

Indeed. I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised that the level of discourse has remained as high as it has.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Just to expand a bit further on this point, this would also rule out male-female anal sex, oral sex, and sex with the use of contraceptives. If the argument against homosexuality is that it does not contribute to reproduction, then you would have to rule those others out as well. At least the Catholic church is consistent in this regard.

Just to be clear, I wasn't making a value judgement here. As I've stated repeatedly, I have no problems with homosexuals or homosexual sex. What people choose to do in their own bedrooms is their business, so long as it's consensual.

Your statement is correct obviously - from a biological point of view, anal sex and oral sex do not adhere to the prime reproductive urge. If a heterosexual person has no interest in intercourse and only engages in oral and/or anal sex, that would be considered a biological defect - those genes are not being passed along to another generation. In these instances using the term 'defect' should not be construed as a value judgement, but rather acknowledging that from a genetic point of view this is a set of genes that is not predisposed to reproduce.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Just to expand a bit further on this point, this would also rule out male-female anal sex, oral sex, and sex with the use of contraceptives.

Nah, those are just bonuses to male female reproduction in a relationship.

[CamEdwards]

FYI,

I'm interviewing Mike Haley with Exodus International, followed by Nathanial Batchelder with the Oklahoma Peace House on this issue right now.

You can listen at ktok.com.

/gratuitious plug

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
You won't convince this audience. One time we went through this I cited double blind separated twin studies (ie twins who were separated at birth by adoption) that showed separated twins were more likely to have the same sexual orientation, but no one cared.

If being gay was a choice, go hump a man tonight (Marmels don't count).

Been down this road before. It doesn't matter what the temptation is, be it for men or for women.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Been down this road before. It doesn't matter what the temptation is, be it for men or for women.

And as I said above - unfortunately this leaves gays with no hope of physical intimacy and love since they can't marry. Temptation is easy to condemn when gays aren't afforded any avenue to pursue their desires while straights can have their cake and eat it too.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by John Galt
And as I said above - unfortunately this leaves gays with no hope of physical intimacy and love since they can't marry. Temptation is easy to condemn when gays aren't afforded any avenue to pursue their desires while straights can have their cake and eat it too.

Let me put on my fundamentalist Christian hat for a minute and say "gays can marry... they just can't marry a person of their own sex." If you are like a majority of Christians, you can't change what's a sin just because you want to be able to engage in sinful behavior.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Let me put on my fundamentalist Christian hat for a minute and say "gays can marry... they just can't marry a person of their own sex." If you are like a majority of Christians, you can't change what's a sin just because you want to be able to engage in sinful behavior.

My point is that the so called consistent standard doesn't end the debate (as SD believes), it opens new questions. Remember he is using this to say even if being gay is genetic, they should resist temptation. I say that the combination of the two factors (genetic and lack of marriage) mean solitude, loneliness, and suffering for gays. To just say, that's the way it goes (or "those are the breaks" as I said above) is cruel.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
I say that the combination of the two factors (genetic and lack of marriage) mean solitude, loneliness, and suffering for gays. To just say, that's the way it goes (or "those are the breaks" as I said above) is cruel.

I say not necessarily. I have a good friend (www.allenlevi.com) who is in his mid-40's and single. There is NO WAY you can categorize Levi's life as one of "solitude, loneliness, and suffering." He has one of the most full, rich and fulfilling lives of anyone I know. He is celebate, and he doesn't date.

A life truly enriched by a vibrant relationship with Christ (such as Allen's) is full, whether married, single, tempted toward sex with the opposite sex, or tempted toward sex with the same sex.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I say not necessarily. I have a good friend (www.allenlevi.com) who is in his mid-40's and single. There is NO WAY you can categorize Levi's life as one of "solitude, loneliness, and suffering." He has one of the most full, rich and fulfilling lives of anyone I know. He is celebate, and he doesn't date.

A life truly enriched by a vibrant relationship with Christ (such as Allen's) is full, whether married, single, tempted toward sex with the opposite sex, or tempted toward sex with the same sex.

It may very well be for some - ie monks, nuns, and priests. The fact that gays have no choice but to become virtual monks and nuns (but not priests) means a great many will find no love in their lives and never know real intimacy. That is a basic part of human life and to condemn other people for finding it is just wrong, IMO.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
It may very well be for some - ie monks, nuns, and priests. The fact that gays have no choice but to become virtual monks and nuns (but not priests) means a great many will find no love in their lives and never know real intimacy. That is a basic part of human life and to condemn other people for finding it is just wrong, IMO.

...but it appeared that your point was that adhering to the Biblical standard forces all of those who never marry or have sex with a person with the same sex to have a lonely, miserable existence. My point is that it doesn't. Just because SOME may live a lonely, miserable existence doesn't make it cruel. SOME married heterosexuals will live a lonely, miserable existence. Some married homosexuals will live a lonely, miserable existence. Some homosexuals in monogamous homosexual relationships will have a lonely, miserable existence. Some homosexuals in sexual relationships wiht multiple partners will live a lonely, miserable existence. Etc. Etc. Etc. That is that person's choice.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by John Galt
It may very well be for some - ie monks, nuns, and priests. The fact that gays have no choice but to become virtual monks and nuns (but not priests) means a great many will find no love in their lives and never know real intimacy. That is a basic part of human life and to condemn other people for finding it is just wrong, IMO.

John,

Gays do have a choice. They have a choice not to believe in a religion that says the act of sex with a person of the same sex, or sex with a person outside of marriage is a sin. If they choose to believe in that religion, they should at least try to abide by its guidelines.

[Butter]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Gays do have a choice. They have a choice not to believe in a religion that says the act of sex with a person of the same sex, or sex with a person outside of marriage is a sin. If they choose to believe in that religion, they should at least try to abide by its guidelines.

So, how many "fundamentalist Christians" on here had sex before or outside of marriage?

[The Afoci]

I dislike the Bible as a backing for this. When I studied the Bible in college, the main thing my teacher taught us was that it was written by men and probably altered numerous times by people who interjected their own ideas. I believe that faith should be more based on what you see as good and moral and not that of men who told the stories that had been passed on many times prior. Gods word can change as it passes from one hand to another. That is how cults are formed, because someone skews part of it and alters it to form a new meaning that wasn't originally intended.

I still believe a lot of the ideas brought in from the Bible, but the fact that many still believe Mary was a virgin (someone who hasn't had sex) is very odd considering the fact that the Bible states in a few places the possiblity of older siblings. The truth, IMHO, is that the word virgin there is meant as a woman of purity, thus telling a good story. That is how most of this stuff was passed on before it was wrote down.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
So, how many "fundamentalist Christians" on here had sex before or outside of marriage?

You know the answer to that. Sinning, recognizing that one has fallen short in the eyes of God, asking for forgiveness, and making a sincere effort not to sin is a little different than simply celebrating a sin and pretending it's not.

A better question would have been "how many fundamentalist Christians have attempted to explain why premarital sex (or adultery) isn't a sin?"

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
So, how many "fundamentalist Christians" on here had sex before or outside of marriage?

Well, I've stated before my dislike of the term "Christian." That being said, I'll assuming you were lumping me into that category. I, for one, can tell you that the first time I had sex was on my wedding night. That being said, EVERYONE sins. Just because someone hasn't slipped up in this area doesn't mean that they have no right to comment on it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
You know the answer to that. Sinning, recognizing that one has fallen short in the eyes of God, asking for forgiveness, and making a sincere effort not to sin is a little different than simply celebrating a sin and pretending it's not.

A better question would have been "how many fundamentalist Christians have attempted to explain why premarital sex (or adultery) isn't a sin?"

Dola--Cam beat me to it, and said it better. I'm trying to get work done and participate in this discussion at the same time. I fear that I'm not doing either one particularly well right now.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by The Afoci
I dislike the Bible as a backing for this. When I studied the Bible in college, the main thing my teacher taught us was that it was written by men and probably altered numerous times by people who interjected their own ideas. I believe that faith should be more based on what you see as good and moral and not that of men who told the stories that had been passed on many times prior. Gods word can change as it passes from one hand to another. That is how cults are formed, because someone skews part of it and alters it to form a new meaning that wasn't originally intended.

I still believe a lot of the ideas brought in from the Bible, but the fact that many still believe Mary was a virgin (someone who hasn't had sex) is very odd considering the fact that the Bible states in a few places the possiblity of older siblings. The truth, IMHO, is that the word virgin there is meant as a woman of purity, thus telling a good story. That is how most of this stuff was passed on before it was wrote down.

Dola,

I think at heart this has to become a theological argument. It boils down to "do you believe homosexual acts are sinful?" If you do, then it doesn't matter if homosexuality is genetic or not. You can, as a human being with free will, choose to fight against your natural impulses in order to not sin.

If you don't believe homosexual acts are sinful, then it doesn't matter if homosexuality is genetic or not. You're okay with God regardless.

[The Afoci]

That is true Cam, I tend to believe that the story tellers disliked homosexuals just because and added it in.

That is why I dislike faith that is based soley on a book. I tend to believe that many things in the Bible were there to keep the peace and safety amongst an uneducated public.

[John Galt]

I've cited this before, but in support of your belief, The Afoci, here is a basic discussion of the key passages in the Bible:

http://www.whosoever.org/bible/

[The Afoci]

JG, Everytime I see your sig, I know what I am doing that night. Big Lewboski.

Thanks, I will check that out.

[Butter]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
You know the answer to that. Sinning, recognizing that one has fallen short in the eyes of God, asking for forgiveness, and making a sincere effort not to sin is a little different than simply celebrating a sin and pretending it's not.

We all know, however, that pre-marital sex is treated pretty lightly by many self-proclaimed religious people (not necessarily religious leaders, but normal church-going folks), while homosexuality is not. So, where IS the thread attempting to explain why pre-marital sex is not a sin? I'm sure many of the people railing against homosexuality have practiced pre-marital sex, mostly unapologetically. Sure, you can ask forgiveness later, but couldn't you do the same as a homosexual?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
...but it appeared that your point was that adhering to the Biblical standard forces all of those who never marry or have sex with a person with the same sex to have a lonely, miserable existence. My point is that it doesn't. Just because SOME may live a lonely, miserable existence doesn't make it cruel. SOME married heterosexuals will live a lonely, miserable existence. Some married homosexuals will live a lonely, miserable existence. Some homosexuals in monogamous homosexual relationships will have a lonely, miserable existence. Some homosexuals in sexual relationships wiht multiple partners will live a lonely, miserable existence. Etc. Etc. Etc. That is that person's choice.

This is a line of argument often used by conservatives in many contexts (affirmative action, gay rights, welfare, etc.). It essentially says there are people in every group who are suffering/happy so therefore everyone within that group has the capability to suffer/be happy. This generalization technique is logically fallicious and ignores the real affects to your worldview. Yes, it is POSSIBLE for some gays to find a happy life, but a much greater number will suffer under your perspective of the world. You can blame them for their "choice," but don't pretend your view doesn't have REAL consequences for people.

(And just so I don't hear more right/left wing nonsense on this issue - liberals usually make a different logical fallacy in these cases by assuming a natural state of egalitarianism and not recognizing that every worldview creates some inequality and suffering).

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by John Galt
I've cited this before, but in support of your belief, The Afoci, here is a basic discussion of the key passages in the Bible:

http://www.whosoever.org/bible/

Amazing that an online magazine for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Christians has theological arguments supporting the idea that homosexual acts aren't sinful.

I guess I don't understand what we're arguing here. You say that Christianity forces gays to live lonely lives free from any real intimacy, but yet you point out a portion of Christianity where homosexuals can live under the welcoming arms of a God that doesn't see any sin in their behavior. If we're going to get into an argument over who's theology is "more correct", then I'm gonna back out of this argument, and we can have a discussion about this after we die (unless you don't believe in the afterlife, which opens up a whole new can of worms ).

[clintl]

Basically, this debate is just another manifestation of the old religion vs. science conflict that arisen repeatedly over the centuries. And in the end, science always wins, because science has a reliable method for discovering the truth, while religion has little more than assumptions that can't be tested. Most religions will eventually acquiesce to the inevitable conclusions, and incorporate a more tolerant view of homosexuality into their doctrines.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
We all know, however, that pre-marital sex is treated pretty lightly by many self-proclaimed religious people (not necessarily religious leaders, but normal church-going folks), while homosexuality is not. So, where IS the thread attempting to explain why pre-marital sex is not a sin? I'm sure many of the people railing against homosexuality have practiced pre-marital sex, mostly unapologetically. Sure, you can ask forgiveness later, but couldn't you do the same as a homosexual?

Probably, but you don't see people who unapologetically practice premarital sex hold a parade to celebrate it.

Actually, I don't know how many church goers you know, but here in the Bible belt, I think the vast majority of church-goers do see premarital sex as a serious problem, albeit one that can be dealt with in the home. That there is no public discourse or debate on whether or not pre-marital sex is a sin doesn't mean it's not important to people.

And I'm curious how you can state "I'm sure many of the people railing against homosexuality have practiced pre-marital sex, mostly unapologetically." That sounds awfully omniscient to me. I wouldn't assume to be sure of anything like that. Confession and repentence doesn't happen in public in this country, so how you can be sure people are doing anything without apologizing to God is a bit of a stretch for me.

[clintl]

A point I forgot to add, in rebuttal to Fritz and others. If homosexuality is genetic variation, that does not necessarily mean that it's a defect. It could just as easily be a natural evolutionary variation that serves as a population control mechanism. Which, considering how prolific humans have become at increasing their population, might be a very good thing biologically.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Probably, but you don't see people who unapologetically practice premarital sex hold a parade to celebrate it.

Then what would you call college?