OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Faith Issues => Topic started by: erracht on February 19, 2005, 11:01:38 AM

Title: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: erracht on February 19, 2005, 11:01:38 AM
What should we say when someone promoting the idea that homosexuality is natural claims that:

1) homosexuality is genetic

2) there are gay animals
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on February 19, 2005, 12:01:41 PM
1) Unproven? Or, if an evolutionist:  soon-to-fail mutation
2) Animals don't marry
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Asteriktos on February 19, 2005, 12:33:06 PM
I don't know that these answers are persuasive, but here's what I say if it comes up on internet discussions (if it comes up in real life I just ignore the conversation)...

Quote
1) homosexuality is genetic
First point out that this is not proven. But then say that even if this is true, what does it prove? Are all things that are "genetic" a good thing? Certain diseases which causes mental disabilities are "genetic," does that mean we should stop searching for a cure? The same type of argument can be used when people say something like "I was born that way".

Quote
2) there are gay animals
There are also animals who eat their mates after they have sex, and animals who eat their children. How much sense does it make for human beings to take our moral cues from dumb animals? I've been told that dolphins sometimes chase and then gang-rape female dolphins. Hey, if it's good enough for the animals... ? This type of logic doesn't get us very far.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: J on February 19, 2005, 12:43:41 PM
The evolution issue is a big one.  If homosexuality is genetically inherited, how was it propogated?  It would eventually weed itself out of the gene pool due to lack of procreation and thus continuance of said homosexual genetic data.  On the other hand, it could also be viewed as a malfunction.

The animal analogy that was offered was good, too.  Animals might engage in homosexual behavior.  They might also eat their own feces, engage in cannibalism, and reproduce with their siblings.  The habits of irrational beasts are not for rational ones to follow.  Now, if we could just stop killing one another, we'd be getting somewhere!
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: J on February 19, 2005, 12:50:07 PM
An afterthought...does anyone here actually know anyone who's homosexual?  I know of at least a couple of people, but as far as I can tell, no one I'm in contact with on a regular basis.  I guess what I'm getting at is that we don't want to lose sight of the fact that because a person's behavior is immoral according to the rules that we as Orthodox Christians govern ourselves by doesn't mean that we shun them and have nothing to do with them.  I have friends who drink too much, gamble and are also busy having sex in a non-religious context.  I guess what I'm trying to get at is the fact that we may view homosexuality as a sin, but let's not forget that many of us have friends who commit many other sins, perhaps more frequently, and let's not forget our own sins as well.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but all sins are equal in God's eyes, are they not?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Marjorie on February 19, 2005, 03:02:34 PM
An afterthought...does anyone here actually know anyone who's homosexual?

Yes, about half of my friends are gay, which is also why I dislike the approach of most people who, however, may be acting in good faith on this issue. You are entirely correct that we have to remember the personal dimension of this.

Marjorie
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: choirfiend on February 19, 2005, 03:53:19 PM
Same here--many of my friends and colleagues are gay. I've never found that my Orthodoxy makes me treat them any differently than anyone else--as my repitition whenever I'm compelled to find fault in someone else is that I am first among sinners. Whatever and however homosexual activity may be distancing the person from God, I am running full force from Him constantly.  Belief that active homosexual activity is sinful doesn't make loving a person any more difficult than loving anyone else who sins, including yourself.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: katherine 2001 on February 19, 2005, 07:31:46 PM
How about just saying that they will have to remain celebate.  Since sexual relations are only allowed in marriage and marriage can only take place between a male and a female, then they will have to remain celebate, just as heterosexuals who aren't married have to do. 

I agree with Marjorie and Choirfiend.  We all have our crosses to bear, and, IMHO, this would be one of the hardest crosses to bear.  They have to be celebate the rest of their lives and, also, they face rejection by other Christians, since some Christians want nothing to do with homosexuals.  Some people think that if a person is a homosexual, they are sexually active.  That is not the case, but there are many who don't seem to know that.  We need to help them in their struggle, just as we hope and need others to help us in our struggle. 
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Marjorie on February 19, 2005, 08:27:22 PM
Some people think that if a person is a homosexual, they are sexually active. That is not the case, but there are many who don't seem to know that. We need to help them in their struggle, just as we hope and need others to help us in our struggle.

Amen.

Marjorie
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Bogoliubtsy on February 19, 2005, 08:59:48 PM
Such a tough issue. Where I'm currently living, there are a great many homosexuals. A thriving arts community here seemed to open the door for them. Having homosexuals as friends and co-workers here has really forced me to examine the issue. My personal conclusion is this- most active homosexuals, for whatever reason, were born with their homosexual desires and feel as if they're lying to themselves , or are missing an integral part of themselves if they reject that desire. For them, I believe, being with a woman would be just as uncomfortable as me being with a man. With that in mind I approach the issue on two levels. The level of "theory" and the level of "reality". In theory, I believe they should remain single, but chances are I won't tell any of my gay friends this because it will usually only serve to isolate them further. In reality, when they ask me what I think of their lifestyle I usually say out of kindness "it's none of my business." Which, I suppose even from a Christian point of view, it isn't. I have too many of my own sins to deal with before I can start playing spiritual father or taking the moral high ground.

As for "gay marriage". It's an impossibility. The state can call it whatever it wishes, if it happens to be legalized. However, in the context of the Church, what they call "marriage" will of course never be the sacrament of marriage.  As far as arguments against gay marriage- I don't believe a real one exists outside of a religious framework. If you are discussing the issue with an atheist, or a secularized believer, no religious argument will hold water and it's not worth debating. That's why I believe the Orthodox Church shouldn't be a Church of "issues" like the Catholics seem to have become...always tackling a new social, moral, or ethical issue. It's like the "watering the leaves" analogy. All of this moral decline which we see represented through the issues of our day can only be solved on a spiritual level. The level that addresses the root of the problem and in fact "waters the root"...not the "leaves". The real problem is unbelief, and from the dead root of unbelief springs forth these rotten leaves.


EDIT:
For some reason when I was writing I thought the initial question was about gay marriage. oops. ha.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Fr. David on February 19, 2005, 11:12:29 PM
An afterthought...does anyone here actually know anyone who's homosexual?

I've been involved in theater since I was, oh, eight or so.  What do you think?   ;)

Quote
I guess what I'm trying to get at is the fact that we may view homosexuality as a sin, but let's not forget that many of us have friends who commit many other sins, perhaps more frequently, and let's not forget our own sins as well.

Good call.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: J on February 19, 2005, 11:28:36 PM
I was in theater all four years of high school.  I know exactly what you're talking about, hermano  ^-^
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on February 20, 2005, 12:07:09 AM
I've been involved in theater since I was, oh, eight or so. What do you think? ;)

 :laugh:  LOL!!!
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SetFree on February 20, 2005, 12:39:41 AM
As someone who is coming out of that lifestyle (have been prayerful and celibate for a year now), I must interject with an opinion coming from first-hand experience.  People are born that way in the sense that everyone is born with certain proclivities toward this or that.  I don't remember making a conscious choice toward that lifestyle, but I did choose to feed those proclivities and thus became a slave to them.  I would still be trapped in that life if it weren't for the Grace of Almighty God and the prayers of those who love both Him and me.  I still struggle, but I rely now upon God, who is the Author and the Finisher of my Faith.  He began a good work in me and He will be faithful to complete it unto the day of Jesus Christ.

We must never be moderate on this subject.  Obviously we must love and be loving, but we must not tolerate that behavior and must make it clear that it is wrong and there are eternal consequences for such behavior.  It won't be popular, but what is right so often isn't.

Love,
Adrian
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on February 20, 2005, 12:51:12 AM
Well, Adrian, I suppose you are right to say in one way that we can't tolerate this behaviour, but if someone is outside the Church, we can't force them to adapt to our norms. I think that what some of the others who have posted here are trying to say is that all of us have our passions and need to overcome them. Passions are passions. They aren't different because they're purple or green or homosexual or heterosexual. The other posters have just said "Who am I to judge others, when I am a slave to my own passions?" I think this is true. And even if we are not a slave to our passions, it still has not been given to us to judge others. But in one sense, I agree with what you have said completely.

I think it's wonderful that God is granting you his Grace in this struggle. Thanks for telling us about this, I think it's important for us to hear stories like this.

Bob
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SetFree on February 20, 2005, 10:31:43 AM
Pravo, sorry for not clarifying.  I meant within the Church.  I know we can't expect those outside the Church to conform to Her standards, but we must not tolerate such unrepentant behavior inside the Church for,"know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole batch."  I also think we should make it very clear to those entering the Church, that She has a standard of morality and such behavior needs to be repented of and they should seek guidance from the priest and remain faithful in prayer.  These are just my thoughts...I will just be beginning my Catechumenate in a few days, so maybe I am incorrect, but I think that not making this clear could be a stumbling block, for those, like myself, who through the Grace of God are leaving homosexuality behind them.

In Christ,
Adrian
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Sabbas on February 20, 2005, 09:26:55 PM
It saddens me that homosexuality is treated as natural or normal just as it saddens me that being sexually active outside marriage is treated as normal. I naturally agree that we should flee from judging but I think if homosexuals ask or others ask about what Christianity has to say about homosexuality we should let them know.
Particularly in St.Pauls Epistle to the Romans 2:
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SaintShenouti on February 21, 2005, 06:58:42 PM
I honestly think there is no such thing as a de facto "homosexual person."  I only believe there are confused people that fall for such temptations and are driven to believe themselves as homo.  There are those that claim it is genetic- they will never find their "gay gene."  Then there are those that claim homosexuals to be in a minority group, as something comparable to an ethnic minority.  That is rubbish, pure and simple.  A minority group is defined by its members having been born some way, and since gayness has yet to be proven genetic, those claims are false.  I agree with brother Sabbas.  We should never become so lax about such issues.  We should, however, be as St. John Chrysostom, who stood firmly against those who wished to pervert the way of truth.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on February 21, 2005, 08:12:46 PM
StShen,

I don't agree. I definitely think that there are the confused types out there that you mention, but there are also those for whom it is "programmed" into who they are, and they can't do anything about it, except to battle their passions like anyone else. 

Homosexuality is perfectly natural  in a fallen world.   There are plenty of things in the natural world that are in reality quite unnatural because of the fallen state of the world. 

I don't know why you're talking about being lax or permissive when it comes to homosexuality.  No one here is suggesting that practicing homosexuality should be encouraged or tolerated within the Church.  However, I have a lot of my own passions to deal with that are not homosexual in origin but passions nonetheless.  I don't see why I should be concerned with the speck that is in my brother's eye when I have to deal with this plank in my own eye.

Bob
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Ibrahim on February 21, 2005, 08:34:24 PM
1. Why can't gay people reproduce if it is genetic? That claim makes no sense.

2. Moneies eat poop. That's not right. People sodomize. That's not right.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SaintShenouti on February 21, 2005, 08:37:58 PM
I believe Ibrahim means "monkeys."  At any rate, this is true.  Did not God intend that mankind should be a superior form to that of animals?  Why should we denigrate our nature by comparing humans to animals?

Praboslavbob,

True, we are all sinners, but in matters of principle, we should stand of for truth.  That is the thought I intended to pose.

And, I'm not so sure what you mean by homosexuality being "perfectly natural in a fallen world" when such a sin has been present since the days of Noah.  Maybe the fallen world you refer to is the world after the fall of humanity from the first paradise.  In that case, the weakness of the world in modern times is no excuse for such behavior.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on February 21, 2005, 09:13:32 PM
Ibrahim and StShenouti, I don't think you understood my post.

Yes, by the fallen world, I mean the world that we live in and have lived in for thousands of years or perhaps longer because of the sin of Adam. It is the teaching of the Church, that, because of this, many things exist in nature that should not be the way that they are, but are nonetheless that way because of the death and defornation introduced into the world by man's sin.  Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is one  manifestation of this.    Another example is the way a female praying mantis will bite the head off of the male when they are reproducing.  Or the very fact that many animals eat other animals in order to live.

Of course we are called to something higher.  We are called to transcend this fallen naturalism and embrace and manifest what is truly natural, the Kingdom which is to come.  I'm not saying that there is an excuse for any kind of fallen behaviour.  My point is, why are you singling out homosexuality?  Rampant indiscriminate homosexual behaviour is wrong.  So is rampant indiscriminate heterosexual behaviour.  Of course, heterosexual behavoiur has a legitimate outlet, and homosexual behavour does not.  But then neither does cheating, killing, overeating, drunkeness, pride, etc. etc.

Ibrahim, there may well be other ways that homosexual behaviour can be innate rather than in the strict genetic sense.

Bob
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ania on February 22, 2005, 10:52:39 AM
"I'm sorry officer, but after I saw my hamster eat it's own young, I decided it might be a good idea too."
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: aurelia on February 22, 2005, 12:01:34 PM
This may sound odd, but some of the first grownups i remember meeting (of my mothers friends) were a pair of ex-priests who were gay. I live in a place where there is a section at the county clerks office to register partnerships.  Very liberal town, obvioulsly. I also work with a young man contemplating the priesthood who is also an active member of the university's Gay Rights group.  I havent even thought about asking him how he is dealing with this, but one would assume that if he is contemplating the priesthood he is inclined to be celibate..one follows, right? (hes Catholic)  I even think a guy I dated for a while was actually gay, or at least bi.  So I've known/do know lots of people.  Personally no, not my thang...


I do like this, the way you put it, very much. Of course we are called to something higher.  We are called to transcend this fallen naturalism and embrace and manifest what is truly natural, the Kingdom which is to come.  I'm not saying that there is an excuse for any kind of fallen behaviour.  My point is, why are you singling out homosexuality?  Rampant indiscriminate homosexual behaviour is wrong.  So is rampant indiscriminate heterosexual behaviour.  Of course, heterosexual behavoiur has a legitimate outlet, and homosexual behavour does not.  But then neither does cheating, killing, overeating, drunkeness, pride, etc. etc.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SaintShenouti on February 22, 2005, 05:39:55 PM
Aurelia, I have a problem with your equivocation of "rampant hetero behavior" and "homo behavior."  I don't care- once you start talking about homo, that's a whole other level of bad.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on February 22, 2005, 06:08:51 PM
Aurelia, I have a problem with your equivocation of "rampant hetero behavior" and "homo behavior." I don't care- once you start talking about homo, that's a whole other level of bad.

Maybe, but possibly not, at least depending on the attitude(s) of the person(s) involved. Are you prejudiced against homosexuals?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on February 22, 2005, 06:13:02 PM
I do like this, the way you put it, very much. .[/i]

Thanks! At least someone likes it.  :)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Orthodoxy on February 22, 2005, 07:15:31 PM
Hi everyone,

If they ever find the "gay gene" then you will see millions of gays jump off the abortion band wagon because then we will see abortion due to sexual orientation. ekke. Do the homosexuals really want to go there?

I think homosexuality is a sin that needs repenting of plain and simple. If someone asks that will be my answer. Does that mean I hate gays? No, it means I love them so much I wont lie to them.

SetFree,

Best wishes on your journey into Orthodoxy. God bless you.

In Christ,

Orthodoxy

Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on February 22, 2005, 07:38:01 PM
I think homosexuality is a sin that needs repenting of plain and simple.

Orthodoxy,

If by this you mean homosexual acts, then yes this is true.  If by this you mean simply BEING homosexual, then this is not a Christian attitude to have.   I think  "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a good standard to have in cases like this.

Bob
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Fr. George on February 22, 2005, 09:57:32 PM
I don't care- once you start talking about homo, that's a whole other level of bad.

A statement like "a whole other level of bad" goes against the teachings of the church regarding the nature of sin and how sinful acts affect our relationship with God.  All sins are equal in the eyes of God, for each one serves to separate us from Him.  The idea behind this is that, since God has no boundaries in space or time, sin attempts to separate us - period.  There is no "small separation" or "big separation" - just separation.

The only place where we see categorization (sp?) of sins is within the Church - where some sins affect the community more than others.  Therefore, the Church has different standards of how to correct that behavior.  But otherwise, in our relationship to God, all sins are equal - this is Orthodox theology.

So it stands to reason, sex outside of marriage in any form is sinful equally - whether it is homosexual or not.  The difference is that there is no chance of homosexual sex being part of marriage, versus heterosexual sex which can be.

Sorry for the ramble.  My apologies.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SouthSerb99 on February 22, 2005, 10:23:53 PM
I don't get it...

I thought in the eyes of our faith, all sin was treated equal.  Why is homosexual sin greater than heterosexual sin?  ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Lemko Rusyn on February 22, 2005, 11:38:53 PM
I thought in the eyes of our faith, all sin was treated equal. Why is homosexual sin greater than heterosexual sin? ??? ??? ???

Because sodomy is a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance.

By law, force, or whatever means necessary,
Stop homosexuality NOW!
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: TonyS on February 22, 2005, 11:55:55 PM


Because sodomy is a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance.

By law, force, or whatever means necessary,
Stop homosexuality NOW!

Well, it seems that this is an old RC notion.  Where does it come from?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: TonyS on February 23, 2005, 12:00:31 AM
Well I found this:

The four sins crying to heaven for vengeance are:
1. Wilful murder (Gen. 4)
2. The sin of Sodom (Gen. 18)
3. Oppression of the poor (Exod. 2)
4. Defrauding labourers of their wages (James 5)

here:
http://www.proecclesia.com/penny%20catechism/
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Lemko Rusyn on February 23, 2005, 12:15:43 AM
Well I found this:

The four sins crying to heaven for vengeance are:
1. Wilful murder (Gen. 4)
2. The sin of Sodom (Gen. 18)
3. Oppression of the poor (Exod. 2)
4. Defrauding labourers of their wages (James 5)

here:
http://www.proecclesia.com/penny%20catechism/


There y'all go, quoting the "pope's" so-called moral authority again...  :o
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: TonyS on February 23, 2005, 12:17:39 AM
There y'all go, quoting the "pope's" so-called moral authority again... :o

You mean...that is not what it is all about?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: bripat22 on February 23, 2005, 01:16:48 AM

So it stands to reason, sex outside of marriage in any form is sinful equally - whether it is homosexual or not. The difference is that there is no chance of homosexual sex being part of marriage, versus heterosexual sex which can be.

Sorry for the ramble. My apologies.

 So heterosexuals are allowed the loving companionship for life but for the gays, it's basically :  SORRY!

   Don't you see how many people find this completely nonsensical???
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Tallitot on February 23, 2005, 01:53:35 AM
Why aren't we up in arms about sins #3 and #4?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SetFree on February 23, 2005, 02:13:41 AM
Guys,
    The Church cannot keep sinners away and still call herself the Church, but, at the same time, neither should she tolerate sin of her members (in this case willful and unrepentant).  We should welcome all people, because Christ came to give all people Life, but we must let them know that they cannot continue willy-nilly in the sinful life they are leading.  I, as a former homosexual (and one who still struggles, but by the Grace of God am being delivered), must interject.  Being a homosexual isn't natural. 

Are gays born that way???  Yes, in the sense that they, like everyone else, are born mortal and have a proclivity toward sin.  What happens, and I can attest to this from my own life, is that we feel these passions and we choose to feed them.  We become enslaved to them and they rule us.  By the power of God, though, the chains of these passions can be broken.  How???  They must here the truth in love (Orthodoxy, you said it!).  And then, if they are wanting to change (there is the problem, they often have been blinded by the lies of Satan and don't want to give their precious slavery up.), they must begin to pray in earnest and seek help from a priest and get advice from a spiritual father.

BTW, Orthodoxy, you'll be happy to know that I started my catechumenate today.  My priest has given me a lot of reading, but I am excited and happy.

In Christ,
Adrian
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Lemko Rusyn on February 23, 2005, 02:15:32 AM
Why aren't we up in arms about sins #3 and #4?

That's why God made Democrats... so you don't have to worry about #3 & #4.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Nacho on February 23, 2005, 02:40:11 AM
This may be slightly off the subject but did anyone hear what the Roman Pope had to say about so called gay marriage in his new book?

Here is a snipet from Rueters:

"Homosexual marriages are part of "a new ideology of evil" that is insidiously threatening society, Pope John Paul says in a new book published Tuesday."
""It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man," he writes."

Also, here is the remark he made comparing abortion to the holocaust genocide that upset some whiney liberal jews.

"In "Memory and Identity," the Pope also calls abortion a "legal extermination" comparable to attempts to wipe out Jews and other groups in the 20th century."

What do you guys think, is the Pope off his rocker or is he a modern day prophet speaking truth into a lost demoralized world?




Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: aurelia on February 23, 2005, 08:31:13 AM
Aurelia, I have a problem with your equivocation of "rampant hetero behavior" and "homo behavior." I don't care- once you start talking about homo, that's a whole other level of bad.
I didnt make that post, i merely said i liked how that was put.  I personally don't like watching a hetero couple going at it in a mall any more that i would like to see a homosexual couple going at it at the mall.  And just because one doesnt like homosexuality, doesnt mean that it doesn't occur.  I'm not going to go bashing beople just because i dont care for the lifestyle myself. 
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SaintShenouti on February 23, 2005, 08:47:21 AM
I don't believe there is a such thing as a "homosexual person."  I prefer to call it a "temptation" that brings about an evil lifestyle.

As to the equality or inequality of sin, all sins are not equal.  True, they will all grant one a place in eternal damnation, but there are also varying levels of hell.  Surely, in our own weak judgments, would we place a murderer at the same level of damnation as that of a thief?  Just as there are varying rewards in heaven for the saints, there is a similar "heirarchy" for those in hell.  Which of us can say we have attained the same level of spirituality as Abba Anthony the Great?  Or how about Pope St. Cyril the VI of Alexandria?  Let us not fool ourselves.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Fr. George on February 23, 2005, 10:01:45 AM
So heterosexuals are allowed the loving companionship for life but for the gays, it's basically : SORRY!

 Don't you see how many people find this completely nonsensical???

I'm sorry if I failed to mention the following point, but here we go:
sex was instituted by God for procreation, with the added benefit of drawing us closer together in our bond.  Thus, the use of sex for non-procreative purposes is strongly condemned in the Scripture - in the OT, it even brings death.  The idea of having sex without the possibility of procreation violates the purpose for which it was instituted.  This means that masturbation, oral sex to its own end, and any other sex involving any other part of the body (to its own end) other than the intended ones is prohibited - both for hetero- and homo-sexuals. 

That's why homosexual sexual acts will never be condoned - because there is absolutely no possibility for procreation.  THe sacrament of marriage is one that requires the two communicants to be able to procreate with one another (at least in the ideal - we wont get into if one is sterile or something like that, thats a whole other ballgame).

Two homosexual people can have a long-time companionship of friendship and brother/sister-hood in Christ, but it can't involve "sleeping together" - that's all.  Pure minds and pure hearts must prevail - just as it must happen with a male and a female.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SaintShenouti on February 23, 2005, 12:13:35 PM
I still disagree with the notion of a person really having a "homosexual" nature.  I think it's just a form of brainwashing one's self into believe he/she is gay.  Remember, the APA used to list homosexuality as a type of disorder, and it was only politics that removed it from the list.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: penelope on February 23, 2005, 12:43:00 PM
I honestly think there is no such thing as a de facto "homosexual person." I only believe there are confused people that fall for such temptations and are driven to believe themselves as homo. There are those that claim it is genetic- they will never find their "gay gene."
Even if someone is homosexual because of experience or whatever else rather than genes, it doesn't change the fact that they are a "homosexual person".  It seems to me that there's (in general) a difference between male and female homosexuality.  It seems like male homosexuals are more likely to be just homosexual rather than bisexual, and that men are more likely to feel as if they've always been homosexual and that it has nothing to do with specific experiences, whereas a higher number of female homosexuals seem to feel that there are certain things that happened to them that influenced them in that direction.  Although I'm a little reticent to speak about it, I have my own experience with one common scenario.  I was badly abused by an old boyfriend for a period of about two years, which naturally cause a lot of psychological damage, including an instinctive fear of men in general.  A lesbian friend of mine was an immense help to me in the aftermath, and things just developed from there.  Of course, when I became Orthodox I got away from that, and in the time since I've recovered a lot from the issues I mentioned.  So you probably could have called me "confused" or whatever at the time, but if you were doing it condescendingly, you would have done me a lot more harm than good.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that a good bit of compassion can do a lot of good in these situations, because situations involving homosexuality are usually enormously painful already.  I think if most homosexuals could just snap their fingers and become "normal" they would.  But of course the real situation is a lot more intimidating than that.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SaintShenouti on February 23, 2005, 12:59:47 PM
Forgive my seeming insensitive, madame.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: penelope on February 23, 2005, 01:11:14 PM
*hugs*  :)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: PhosZoe on February 23, 2005, 03:56:43 PM
How to argue against "pro-gay"... Clarify that it is not the "state" of being homosexual that is the sin it is the "act" of homosexual sex that is the sin. The pro gay side needs to understand that you are not going to send your 700 club cronies out to lynch thier gay brethern. Parallel the act of gay sex to premarital sex. A sin is a sin is a sin.

Here's my 2 cents on the gay issue.

My sister is gay. Which is enough to make me unpopular amongst most conservative christians.  Yes, I struggle knowing that my sister is going straight into the pit. The only thing I can do for her is pray. I love her regardless of her sexuallity and the sexual acts she commits. I think everyone one of has friends, relatives and associates that are sinners.

I'm sorry to say, that until one has a gay relative you really don't understand what homosexuality is like (unless you are gay yourself). There are lots of ignorant stereotypes of gays and lesbians. For example, Homosexual does not equal pedophile. Pedophiles LIKE CHILDREN. Gays are not out to recruit straight people to thier lifestyle. As a matter of fact, most don't want anything to do with the words "conservative" and "christian". Use them in a sentence is enough to send them running and screaming the other way.  Not all gay men are hairdressers, florists or act effiminate. Not all lesbians have short hair and listen to Melissa Etheridge. If I were to show you a picture of my sister, I'm willing to wager my life savings that not a single person on this message board would ever guess that my sister is a lesbian.

At this point in time NOBODY knows what the exact cause of homosexuality is. There is not enough scienctific evidence to prove if it indeed the environment or genetics that cause homosexuality. Speaking from experience, if being gay were to come from the environment. I would be gay too, according to that guy who thinks Tinkee Winkee is gay. My sister and I were raised by the same crappy father and emotionally immature mother. Funny thing is, I'm straight and happily married. Hmm, I don't think the environment caused her to be gay? Could it be there are some biological reason why my sister is the way she is?

Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: bripat22 on February 23, 2005, 07:46:49 PM

, whereas a higher number of female homosexuals seem to feel that there are certain things that happened to them that influenced them in that direction. Although I'm a little reticent to speak about it, I have my own experience with one common scenario. I was badly abused by an old boyfriend for a period of about two years, which naturally cause a lot of psychological damage, including an instinctive fear of men in general. A lesbian friend of mine was an immense help to me in the aftermath, and things just developed from there. Of course, when I became Orthodox I got away from that, and in the time since I've recovered a lot from the issues I mentioned. So you probably could have called me "confused" or whatever at the time, but if you were doing it condescendingly, you would have done me a lot more harm than good. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a good bit of compassion can do a lot of good in these situations, because situations involving homosexuality are usually enormously painful already. I think if most homosexuals could just snap their fingers and become "normal" they would. But of course the real situation is a lot more intimidating than that.

 Penelope,
 
            It was VERY brave of you to tell of your personal experiences and thank you for your call for greater compassion!  But I do know many lesbians who were NEVER abused and NEVER treated badly by former boyfriends but do feel like they have been gay all their lives.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: penelope on February 24, 2005, 08:49:23 AM
But I do know many lesbians who were NEVER abused and NEVER treated badly by former boyfriends but do feel like they have been gay all their lives.
That's definitely true.  I just meant that, in my observation, more female homosexuals than male feel like some experience influenced them.  There are still a lot that don't, as you say.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on February 24, 2005, 03:28:00 PM


That's why God made Democrats... so you don't have to worry about #3 & #4.

I guess this is supposed to be funny? 
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: bripat22 on February 25, 2005, 12:49:08 AM


I guess this is supposed to be funny?

 It was supposed to be funny in an ironic way
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: PhosZoe on February 25, 2005, 09:46:29 AM
I think if most homosexuals could just snap their fingers and become "normal" they would. But of course the real situation is a lot more intimidating than that.

Thank you for sharing your experience Penelope, yes I firmly agree that there should be more compassion for gays and lesbians.  I isolated the quote above because it jumped out at me. As I mentioned in my reply (#48) My sister is gay. We have had the "what if you could take a magic pill and become straight" conversation. She said she would take it in a heartbeat. I don't think she is alone in thinking that, as when it comes down to it gay people don't WANT to be gay.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SaintShenouti on February 25, 2005, 11:25:08 AM
Quote
We have had the "what if you could take a magic pill and become straight" conversation. She said she would take it in a heartbeat. I don't think she is alone in thinking that, as when it comes down to it gay people don't WANT to be gay.

That is a very baffling concept to me.  I would dare say that since homosexuality is a temptation rather than an innate attraction (i.e. biological) that the instant-fix-pill statement is more of a sign of resignation to the sin than a resolve to battle.  It's like a smoker saying, 'Yeah, if I could give up smoking right now I would,' and then he/she walks outside and lights up right after.  It means nothing to have a desire to change without the struggle.  It is weakness.  I could understand if someone was athiest or of a liberal belief-system, but for an Orthodox Christian it's a whole other story.  Forgive me, but I still have a hard time believing homosexuality to be biological or uncontrollable.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SouthSerb99 on February 25, 2005, 12:24:42 PM
It's like a smoker saying, 'Yeah, if I could give up smoking right now I would,' and then he/she walks outside and lights up right after.  It means nothing to have a desire to change without the struggle.  It is weakness.  I could understand if someone was athiest or of a liberal belief-system, but for an Orthodox Christian it's a whole other story.  Forgive me, but I still have a hard time believing homosexuality to be biological or uncontrollable.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.  The smoking analogy is a very poor one.

First and foremost, smoking (up until the last 5-10) years was socially acceptable.  Furthermore, smokers have never had evangelical Christians chasing them around the country condemning them to hell at every turn. 

It has been a lot easier to be a smoker in our society than it has been to be a homosexual.  Up until recently, the incentive to quit smoking has been miniscule (remember all the Tobaco execs denying that smoking caused Cancer at the congressional hearings???) 

A person who didn't quit have never faced being treated as a societal pariah... as homosexuals are treated.

The incentive for homosexuals to "quit" is enormous.  Forget about the religious implications for a second (and the questions regarding salvation), but look to the earthly implications first.  If they could just "quit" being homosexual, they could enter the mainstream of society.  They would be accepted as "normal".

Talk about a huge incentive to "quit", yet people such as PZ's sister are not "quitting".  That tells me that it might be a lot more than personal weakness.

Listen, I'm far from an authority on this (I'm not even sure what my opinion is), it just doesn't seem to make sense to me, that someone could just "quit" being homosexual.  I suppose they could be celibate, but does that mean they are no longer homosexual?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SaintShenouti on February 25, 2005, 12:55:26 PM
Quote
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. The smoking analogy is a very poor one.

I used smoking because it is a non-biological self-detrimental addiction, in which case is identical to homosexuality.

Quote
A person who didn't quit have never faced being treated as a societal pariah... as homosexuals are treated.

The societal pariah against homosexuality is a natural reaction to something unnatural. I am not speaking on behalf of hateful treatment towards gays, but rather society's negative conception of homosexuality.

Quote
The incentive for homosexuals to "quit" is enormous. Forget about the religious implications for a second (and the questions regarding salvation), but look to the earthly implications first. If they could just "quit" being homosexual, they could enter the mainstream of society. They would be accepted as "normal".

This, being an Orthodox Christian board, our collective ideal on such matters should be clear. The outside world, those that are not familiar with our church or what it means to be Orthodox, have a skewed understanding of truth and matters of right and wrong. There is no "right and wrong" for people any longer. The ACLU, feminists, and other liberal organizations keep feeding society rubbish that develops into a large gray mass for what is right or wrong. Things are not as clear cut as they used to be for society, but in Orthodoxy, we never change regardless of how the world changes.

Quote
Talk about a huge incentive to "quit", yet people such as PZ's sister are not "quitting". That tells me that it might be a lot more than personal weakness.

On the contrary, people now understand the implications of smoking quite cleary. The tobacco industry now is unabashedly telling youth and adults alike that it is an unhealthy carcinogenic habit. Why do we still see smokers smoking and new ones created? It's "the cool thing to do" with youth, and it's an uphill battle for veteran smokers with nicotene. This same scenario can be applied to homosexuality. Some youths may see it as a sort of modern counter-culture fad that is cool to be a part of, while the veteran gays may be caught in the web of addictive lust. Personal weakness maybe be just it, and by that I mean, the unwillingness of the individual to combat his or her tempatations.  I say this with all due respect to PZ.




Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SouthSerb99 on February 25, 2005, 01:11:50 PM
I used smoking because it is a non-biological self-detrimental addiction, in which case is identical to homosexuality.

This is just an opinion.  I'm not saying your wrong, but it's just an opinion (as is the biological argument).

The societal pariah against homosexuality is a natural reaction to something unnatural.  I am not speaking on behalf of hateful treatment towards gays, but rather society's negative conception of homosexuality.

Unfortunately, this is how it manifests itself.

This, being an Orthodox Christian board, our collective ideal on such matters should be clear.  The outside world, those that are not familiar with our church or what it means to be Orthodox, have a skewed understanding of truth and matters of right and wrong.  There is no "right and wrong" for people any longer.  The ACLU, feminists, and other liberal organizations keep feeding society rubbish that develops into a large gray mass for what is right or wrong.  Things are not as clear cut as they used to be for society, but in Orthodoxy, we never change regardless of how the world changes.

I think without question the Orthodox view of homosexual acts is clear.  I don't think that was the point of what I was saying.  My point was (and still is) that the smoking analogy isn't a good one.

On the contrary, people now understand the implications of smoking quite cleary.  The tobacco industry now is unabashedly telling youth and adults alike that it is an unhealthy carcinogenic habit.  Why do we still see smokers smoking and new ones created?  It's "the cool thing to do" with youth, and it's an uphill battle for veteran smokers with nicotene.  This same scenario can be applied to homosexuality.  Some youths may see it as a sort of modern counter-culture fad that is cool to be a part of, while the veteran gays may be caught in the web of addictive lust.  Personal weakness maybe be just it, and by that I mean, the unwillingness of the individual to combat his or her tempatations.  I say this with all due respect to PZ.

I disagree.  Smoking rates are on the huge decline (as a percentage of total population).  Once people started to truly realize how deadly smoking was, people started to quit. Furthermore, the social stiigma attached to smoking/smokers  increases everyday, and with it, the amount of smokers declines.

Societal pressures are reducing the amount of smokers, but societal pressures have NO effect on homosexuality.  To me, that signifies a distinct difference.  You think the connection between the two is clear, I don't.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SouthSerb99 on February 25, 2005, 01:29:24 PM
One last thing. 

Something SaintShenouti alluded to earlier with regard to the "ACLU, feminists... and other liberal groups" kind of comment.

I've read similar comments by many people here and I take exception to it (especially as it pertains to religious discussion).  Here's why...

All political affiliations aside, I think it is kind of silly to "label" certain groups as knowing what is right or wrong.

Sure, certain liberal groups have it wrong in the eyes of Orthodoxy on various issues (I'm sure you know them well). 

However, equally as many conservative group pervert the right and wrong just as bad (ie: treatment of the poor, racism, sexism etc...).

We are all sinners, so I chose not to cast the first stone.  Do I disagree with they ACLU on many issues?  Sure I do.

But when I talk to an ACLU member who tells me it is his dream to wipe out all poverty, hunger and homelessness, they look pretty darn good to me.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SaintShenouti on February 25, 2005, 01:48:27 PM
One thing I should have known from the beginning- not to argue with a lawyer :P

At any rate,

Quote
I disagree. Smoking rates are on the huge decline (as a percentage of total population). Once people started to truly realize how deadly smoking was, people started to quit. Furthermore, the social stiigma attached to smoking/smokers increases everyday, and with it, the amount of smokers declines.

I disagree on account that smoking has a negative effect on one's physical body, as opposed to homosexuality negative effect on the soul (the physical negativities to homosexuality can be applied to those of heterosexuality, making it an invalid argument). Therefore, due to the more immediate threat to one's well-being, smoking has been on the decline. People can see the negative effects of smoking. They cannot see the negative eternal effects of homosexuality, and are willing to risk mere social stigma (if it's even applicable in their area) for the indulgence of the sin. You go to places like Boston or Key West, it's more accepted than other scenes.

Quote
But when I talk to an ACLU member who tells me it is his dream to wipe out all poverty, hunger and homelessness, they look pretty darn good to me.

The goal may be a noble one, but if it's at the sacrifice of a free market system, then it's not worth it. Those liberal groups tend to have socialist agendas, and who wants that? There are plenty of working organizations in our society for those in need.

 
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: PhosZoe on February 25, 2005, 01:56:46 PM


That is a very baffling concept to me. I would dare say that since homosexuality is a temptation rather than an innate attraction (i.e. biological) that the instant-fix-pill statement is more of a sign of resignation to the sin than a resolve to battle. It's like a smoker saying, 'Yeah, if I could give up smoking right now I would,' and then he/she walks outside and lights up right after. It means nothing to have a desire to change without the struggle. It is weakness. I could understand if someone was athiest or of a liberal belief-system, but for an Orthodox Christian it's a whole other story. Forgive me, but I still have a hard time believing homosexuality to be biological or uncontrollable.

Let me ask you this... Would you choose to live a "lifestyle" in which you would live in fear of someone beating you up, getting fired from your job or being chased out of town because of a certain "impulse" you have. Yes, Gays have lots of incentives to "quit". 
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SouthSerb99 on February 25, 2005, 03:10:07 PM
I don't post here to argue, I get enough of that on the job and at home!  ;)

The goal may be a noble one, but if it's at the sacrifice of a free market system, then it's not worth it.  Those liberal groups tend to have socialist agendas, and who wants that?

I couldn't disagree more, on moral, philosophical and religious grounds.  "Liberal groups", "socialist agenda", those are just catch phrases created to entice the lowest common denominator.  I've never understood why the right and left always have to be mutually exclusive.

ie- Why can't you have a strong social conscience and a good moral fabric at the same time?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Fr. David on February 25, 2005, 03:25:35 PM
"Liberal groups", "socialist agenda", those are just catch phrases created to entice the lowest common denominator. I've never understood why the right and left always have to be mutually exclusive.

ie- Why can't you have a strong social conscience and a good moral fabric at the same time?

Aw, yeah!  Preach it!  ;D
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on February 25, 2005, 04:02:12 PM
I couldn't disagree more, on moral, philosophical and religious grounds. "Liberal groups", "socialist agenda", those are just catch phrases created to entice the lowest common denominator. I've never understood why the right and left always have to be mutually exclusive.

ie- Why can't you have a strong social conscience and a good moral fabric at the same time?

Right on, brother!   O0
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SaintShenouti on February 25, 2005, 04:15:57 PM
Heheh, you guys are hilarious. I concede to Serb that indeed, it is possible for someone to combine "good moral fabric" and a "strong social conscience." No hard feelings.

Quote
Let me ask you this... Would you choose to live a "lifestyle" in which you would live in fear of someone beating you up, getting fired from your job or being chased out of town because of a certain "impulse" you have. Yes, Gays have lots of incentives to "quit".

Let's be honest- how often does any of that really happen? We're not living in dem olden days no more, hon. If it ever does, they've got the ACLU.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SouthSerb99 on February 25, 2005, 04:35:12 PM
Right on, brother!   O0

Finally a response by Bob... I've been waiting on challenging him to a "fish off"!!!!  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on February 26, 2005, 12:06:38 PM
Anytime, anywhere, my friend!    ;) :laugh:  :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on February 26, 2005, 12:08:58 PM
Heheh, you guys are hilarious. I concede to Serb that indeed, it is possible for someone to combine "good moral fabric" and a "strong social conscience." No hard feelings.

That's very sporting of you, StShenouti.  :)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SaintShenouti on February 26, 2005, 12:38:22 PM
Peace to the brothers :)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SouthSerb99 on February 26, 2005, 08:11:20 PM
Yes, peace to all my Orthodox brothers (and sisters... can't forget PZ).  ;)

Now... about that fishing challenge.... am I going to have to create a new thread? LOL :P
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Marjorie on February 26, 2005, 09:52:59 PM
It's also geographical re: whether it is socially dangerous or unbearable to be a homosexual. In the Northeast (where I live), unless you are a middle schooler, there is very little stigma. In the South, there's probably a lot more.

Marjorie
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Super Apostolic Bros. on December 01, 2009, 06:52:25 PM
The following posts were split from http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24665.0.html and merged with the above (older) thread


Homophobia is not an exclusively Christian phenomenon. Heorhji, in purely Darwinistic terms, homosexuality as we know it today is a guaranteed dead end for the the simple reason that same-sex couples can't procreate. I realize homosexuality was widespread way back when, but it's not them I'm talking about.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on December 01, 2009, 07:05:40 PM
homosexuality as we know it today
How is it known today that is so different from how we knew it 'way back when'?  I think the definition is pretty straight forward (how punny!) and simple-  people of the same sex are attracted to one another.

... same-sex couples can't procreate.
Which is why it's called a deathstyle rather than a lifestyle.
 
I realize homosexuality was widespread way back when, but it's not them I'm talking about.
Way back when? 
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 01, 2009, 07:07:34 PM
Homophobia is not an exclusively Christian phenomenon. Heorhji, in purely Darwinistic terms, homosexuality as we know it today is a guaranteed dead end for the the simple reason that same-sex couples can't procreate. I realize homosexuality was widespread way back when, but it's not them I'm talking about.

Homosexuals constitute a small minority (perhaps more than 1% of us but definitely not more than 10%), so it really does not matter at all whether they procreate or not.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Papist on December 01, 2009, 07:08:18 PM
it is Truth unadulterated by observation, subjectivity, or superstition.
Quid est veritas?

ars mathematica veritas est! ;)
You are such a nerd.. but then again so am I.  :)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Fr. George on December 01, 2009, 07:14:16 PM
it is Truth unadulterated by observation, subjectivity, or superstition.
Quid est veritas? 
ars mathematica veritas est! ;)

You need to get out more often (not on account of the Latin, but of the statement)! ;)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Papist on December 01, 2009, 07:36:45 PM
it is Truth unadulterated by observation, subjectivity, or superstition.
Quid est veritas? 
ars mathematica veritas est! ;)

You need to get out more often (not on account of the Latin, but of the statement)! ;)
Agreed.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 01, 2009, 07:59:09 PM
... same-sex couples can't procreate.
Which is why it's called a deathstyle rather than a lifestyle.
So is monasticism.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 01, 2009, 08:43:18 PM
Which is why it's called a deathstyle rather than a lifestyle.
I'm glad we're agreed that homosexuality is not a lifestyle.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 01, 2009, 09:17:47 PM
Which is why it's called a deathstyle rather than a lifestyle.
I'm glad we're agreed that homosexuality is not a lifestyle.

See, so far we've got concessions that homosexuals exist and that it's not just a lifestyle. I think we're making real progress here. ;)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 01, 2009, 09:28:49 PM
Which is why it's called a deathstyle rather than a lifestyle.
I'm glad we're agreed that homosexuality is not a lifestyle.

See, so far we've got concessions that homosexuals exist and that it's not just a lifestyle. I think we're making real progress here. ;)
On the one hand, I'm sorry that those two admissions can be considered progress. On the other hand, I'm glad that we've come at least that far.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on December 01, 2009, 10:24:03 PM
... same-sex couples can't procreate.
Which is why it's called a deathstyle rather than a lifestyle.
So is monasticism.
LOL!  :D  Check and mate; you got me on a technical, brother! 
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 01, 2009, 11:43:45 PM
Which is why it's called a deathstyle rather than a lifestyle.
I'm glad we're agreed that homosexuality is not a lifestyle.

See, so far we've got concessions that homosexuals exist and that it's not just a lifestyle. I think we're making real progress here. ;)
There is not a single study that proves that homosexuality is not a lifestyle.
http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/apbg.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From “Human Sexual Orientation:  The Biologic Theories Reappraised”

“there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory, just as there is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation. While all behavior must have an ultimate biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking.”

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/3/228
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find one study that conclusively proves that minute brain differences in the hypothalamus, midsagittal area of the anterior commissure, suprachiasmatic nucleus, and/or the gay gene cause homosexuality.  (Remember that LeVay’s studies, identifying minute brain changes in homosexuals, was discovered after postmortem exams of AIDS patients, very possibly prescribed immune therapies and antiviral meds.
(The CARE Act was enacted in 1990 to help poor and uninsured individuals with HIV/AIDS get primary care, support services and life-sustaining medications.)
-----------------------------------------------------------


Simone LeVay’s results, 1991, were never replicated.
--------------------------------------------------------

"Time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic' ... I did not."
quote from Simon LeVay in The Sexual Brain, p. 122.  (LeVay is the neuroanatomist who compiled the research that is frequently quoted to support the non-proven theory that homosexuality has a biological origin.)

Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Riddikulus on December 01, 2009, 11:46:27 PM
With regard to the topic question. From experience I would say that many Christians are quite pro-Jewish; Christian Zionists in particular. As for Christians being homophobic... While many attempt to cover their contempt for gays and lesbians with "hate the sin not the sinner" slogans, I believe - again from experience - that homophobia is still present in an awful lot of Christian circles; especially amongst fundamentalist thinkers.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 01, 2009, 11:59:04 PM
Which is why it's called a deathstyle rather than a lifestyle.
I'm glad we're agreed that homosexuality is not a lifestyle.

See, so far we've got concessions that homosexuals exist and that it's not just a lifestyle. I think we're making real progress here. ;)
There is not a single study that proves that homosexuality is not a lifestyle.
http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/apbg.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From “Human Sexual Orientation:  The Biologic Theories Reappraised”

“there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory, just as there is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation. While all behavior must have an ultimate biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking.”

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/3/228
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find one study that conclusively proves that minute brain differences in the hypothalamus, midsagittal area of the anterior commissure, suprachiasmatic nucleus, and/or the gay gene cause homosexuality.  (Remember that LeVay’s studies, identifying minute brain changes in homosexuals, was discovered after postmortem exams of AIDS patients, very possibly prescribed immune therapies and antiviral meds.
(The CARE Act was enacted in 1990 to help poor and uninsured individuals with HIV/AIDS get primary care, support services and life-sustaining medications.)
-----------------------------------------------------------


Simone LeVay’s results, 1991, were never replicated.
--------------------------------------------------------

"Time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic' ... I did not."
quote from Simon LeVay in The Sexual Brain, p. 122.  (LeVay is the neuroanatomist who compiled the research that is frequently quoted to support the non-proven theory that homosexuality has a biological origin.)



So much for progress.

Have you considered a phenotypical approach? Several twin studies have demonstrated a substantially higher correlation of sexuality between twins, even twins separated at birth, both monozygotic and dizygotic than between non-twin siblings or adoptive siblings. What's your explanation for these studies? The most sensible theory tends to be related to hormone levels during gestation. Granted, most these studies have focused on men; but, from personal experience I would argue that non-bisexual women are just sexually repressed, I can't count the number of times I've seen women who would claim to be 'grossed out' by the idea sober making out with their girlfriends after a couple drinks, not exactly something you see with men...not quite scientific research, but a rather common, reoccurring observation.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Mexican on December 02, 2009, 12:04:09 AM
The problem is that people do not differentiate between Christians (those coming from Apostolic Churches) and Protestants.

"Christian Zionists" are Protestants, Evangelicals, rejecters of the Apostolic faith. There's nothing as incompatible with Christianity as is Judaism. Judaism is the explicit rejection of Christ, whom we regard as Saviour and God.

It's not about Anti-Semitism. Jews are witnesses of Christ, we can't separate Christ from Judaism but at the same time Christ and Judaism are opposed to each other. We all know that as Christians it's forbidden for us to hate people because of their race. However, Judaism (and therefore Naturalism, Protestantism, Freemasonry, Secularism, Liberalism) must be rejected because of its instrinsic opposition to Christianity and the Christian nations.

There's a very good book about this, written by a Roman priest Fr.  Julio Meinvielle "The Jew in the Mystery of History". I don't know if there's an English version available. There's a version in Romanian and another one in Spanish.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on December 02, 2009, 12:07:37 AM
From experience I would say that many Christians are quite pro-Jewish; Christian Zionists
An oxymoron if ever there were one.  I think this is a uniquely Western and Protestant concept.  The Antiochians, who have intimate knowledge on the issue, caution against Zionism.

  Metropolitan Phillip-  (http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/PHILIPunity.php)

 "Archbishop Saliba was equally outspoken about events in the Middle East. He rejected terrorism, by Israelis or Palestinians, out of hand. But he made it clear that Orthodox Christianity also rejects the doctrine of 20th century Zionism, supported by a segment of modern evangelical Protestantism, that the people of Israel are destined to return to the Holy Land. Instead it accepts the traditional Christian view that the Christian Church is the New Israel.

Metropolitan Philip is comfortable with explaining why this is so, and in supporting the contention of the Christians of the Middle East that there is no biblical justification for the suffering and displacement that the Zionists of Israel have inflicted upon them. One of Metropolitan Philip's most familiar comments is that "God is no longer in the real estate business." He also has said, "My plea is that modern Protestant theologians and students of Scripture take a critical and objective look at how the Church has interpreted the Bible throughout history."

And, found on the Anitochian Website-  Who Is The New Israel  (http://www.antiochian.org/Orthodox_Church_Who_What_Where_Why/Who_Is_The_New_Israel.htm)

 "On May 14, 1948, thirty-eight people gathered in Tel Aviv to establish the modern state of Israel. The establishment of this state provided a cause of great rejoicing for the Jews who had waited and prayed for an opportunity to return to a land they believed rightfully belonged to them. For the Palestinian residents already living in this land as they had for centuries, the news was the
beginning of yet a new chapter in a history filled with tragedy, oppression, and struggle. Even before that fateful day, war and bloodshed had already begun to curse the Middle East as two peoples fought for control of the same land. "
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 02, 2009, 12:07:52 AM
Which is why it's called a deathstyle rather than a lifestyle.
I'm glad we're agreed that homosexuality is not a lifestyle.

See, so far we've got concessions that homosexuals exist and that it's not just a lifestyle. I think we're making real progress here. ;)
There is not a single study that proves that homosexuality is not a lifestyle.
http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/apbg.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From “Human Sexual Orientation:  The Biologic Theories Reappraised”

“there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory, just as there is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation. While all behavior must have an ultimate biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking.”

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/3/228
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find one study that conclusively proves that minute brain differences in the hypothalamus, midsagittal area of the anterior commissure, suprachiasmatic nucleus, and/or the gay gene cause homosexuality.  (Remember that LeVay’s studies, identifying minute brain changes in homosexuals, was discovered after postmortem exams of AIDS patients, very possibly prescribed immune therapies and antiviral meds.
(The CARE Act was enacted in 1990 to help poor and uninsured individuals with HIV/AIDS get primary care, support services and life-sustaining medications.)
-----------------------------------------------------------


Simone LeVay’s results, 1991, were never replicated.
--------------------------------------------------------

"Time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic' ... I did not."
quote from Simon LeVay in The Sexual Brain, p. 122.  (LeVay is the neuroanatomist who compiled the research that is frequently quoted to support the non-proven theory that homosexuality has a biological origin.)



So much for progress.

Have you considered a phenotypical approach? Several twin studies have demonstrated a substantially higher correlation of sexuality between twins, even twins separated at birth, both monozygotic and dizygotic than between non-twin siblings or adoptive siblings. What's your explanation for these studies? The most sensible theory tends to be related to hormone levels during gestation. Granted, most these studies have focused on men; but, from personal experience I would argue that non-bisexual women are just sexually repressed, I can't count the number of times I've seen women who would claim to be 'grossed out' by the idea sober making out with their girlfriends after a couple drinks, not exactly something you see with men...not quite scientific research, but a rather common, reoccurring observation.
LeVay, S. & Hamer, D. H. (1994). Evidence for a biological influence in male homosexuality. Scientific American, 50- 55.
LeVay and Hamer investigated and found two biological components for male homosexuality. LeVay's study consists of the human brain whereas, Hamer's is linked to genetics. LeVay's studied the INAH 3 and suggest that this region is smaller in gay men. Hamer studied gay twins and found that their X chromosome is inherited by the mother. Hamer's findings are quite interesting, but       he      did       not        study        heterosexual        brothers        to        see         if        they        also        inherited        the       mother's        X  chromosome         was           not        explored........OOOOPSEY!
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 02, 2009, 12:13:10 AM
Bailey & Pillard: Twins and Other Brothers
Bailey and Pillard studied pairs of brothers -- identical twins, non-identical twins, other biological brothers, and adoptive brothers -- where at least one was gay. At first glance, their findings looked like a pattern for homosexuality being genetically influenced. Identical twins were both homosexual 52% of the time; non-identical twins, 22%; other biological brothers, 9.2%; and adoptive brothers, 10.5%. A closer look reveals significant problems with a "born gay" conclusion to this study:
   •   "In order for such a study to be meaningful, you'd have to look at twins raised apart," says Anne Fausto Sterling, a biologist. The brothers in this study were raised together in their families.
   •   All the results were different from what one would expect if homosexuality was directly genetic:
   ◦   Because identical twin brothers share 100% of their genes overall, we would expect that if one was homosexual, the other would also be homosexual, 100% of the time. Instead, this study found that they were both homosexual only 52% of the time.
   ◦   Although completely unrelated genetically, adoptive brothers were more likely to both be gay than the biological brothers, who share half their genes! This piece of data prompted the journal Science to respond: "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families" (Vol. 262 Dec.24, 1993).
   ◦   If homosexuality were genetic, one would expect each number in the column "Results from the B & P study" to be identical to the corresponding number in the "Expectation if genetic" column. Each one is significantly different!
 
Both are Homosexual:
 
Shared genes
(overall)
Expectation
if genetic
Results from
B&P study
Identical twin brothers
100 %
100 %
52 %
Non-ident. twin brothers
 50 %
 50 %
22 %
Other biological brothers
 50 %
 50 %
 9 %
Adoptive brothers
   0 %
 1-4 %
11 %
   •   Finally, Bailey & Pillard did not use a random sample. The men in the study were recruited through advertisements in gay newspapers and magazines.  OOOOPS!

http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/apbg.htm
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 02, 2009, 12:22:40 AM
And as an annoying final point.....there are many theories for the formation of homosexual identity and none are proven.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:zkaj_EzM5CEJ:https://portfolio.du.edu/portfolio/getportfoliofile%3Fuid%3D14308+homosexuality+biological+proven+site:.edu&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari



Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 12:29:37 AM
Bailey & Pillard: Twins and Other Brothers
Bailey and Pillard studied pairs of brothers -- identical twins, non-identical twins, other biological brothers, and adoptive brothers -- where at least one was gay. At first glance, their findings looked like a pattern for homosexuality being genetically influenced. Identical twins were both homosexual 52% of the time; non-identical twins, 22%; other biological brothers, 9.2%; and adoptive brothers, 10.5%. A closer look reveals significant problems with a "born gay" conclusion to this study:
   •   "In order for such a study to be meaningful, you'd have to look at twins raised apart," says Anne Fausto Sterling, a biologist. The brothers in this study were raised together in their families.
   •   All the results were different from what one would expect if homosexuality was directly genetic:
   ◦   Because identical twin brothers share 100% of their genes overall, we would expect that if one was homosexual, the other would also be homosexual, 100% of the time. Instead, this study found that they were both homosexual only 52% of the time.
   ◦   Although completely unrelated genetically, adoptive brothers were more likely to both be gay than the biological brothers, who share half their genes! This piece of data prompted the journal Science to respond: "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families" (Vol. 262 Dec.24, 1993).
   ◦   If homosexuality were genetic, one would expect each number in the column "Results from the B & P study" to be identical to the corresponding number in the "Expectation if genetic" column. Each one is significantly different!
 
Both are Homosexual:
 
Shared genes 
(overall)
Expectation
if genetic
Results from 
B&P study
Identical twin brothers
100 %
100 %
52 %
Non-ident. twin brothers
 50 %
 50 %
22 %
Other biological brothers
 50 %
 50 %
 9 %
Adoptive brothers
   0 %
 1-4 %
11 %

I said a PHENOTYPICAL, not genetic, approach, consider it again in that light. ::)

Quote
   •   Finally, Bailey & Pillard did not use a random sample. The men in the study were recruited through advertisements in gay newspapers and magazines.  OOOOPS!
www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/apbg.htm


Yes, they found ONE gay person, then considered is siblings were also gay. To find a gay person, that approach makes sense. Come on now...
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 02, 2009, 12:35:06 AM
Clear sampling bias AND the subjects were paid to respond.    Did you find one study that conclusively proves that homosexuality is not a lifestyle?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Riddikulus on December 02, 2009, 01:24:41 AM
From experience I would say that many Christians are quite pro-Jewish; Christian Zionists
An oxymoron if ever there were one.  I think this is a uniquely Western and Protestant concept.  The Antiochians, who have intimate knowledge on the issue, caution against Zionism.
 

Indeed. However, in answer to the question, there are many Christians who are - rightly or wrongly - pro-Jewish Zionists; so "no" Christians aren't Anti-semetic. Some are very supportive of Israel. That we might disagree with their theology is another thing altogether.

And I wouldn't say that people who didn't hold to the Zionist view were anti-Semetic, anyway. I think it's more that since WW2 people are more senstive to being considered Anti-Semetic than they once were and it's getting to the point that if, as Christians, we say that we don't agree with Jews, we are accused of Anti-Semetism.

I'm not sure what we can do about the homophobia amongst Christians. One can only hope that by the Grace of God the homophobic learns to show more mercy and compassion. In the end, I suppose we can only hope to affect those around us by teaching them about God's love for all and hope that they never fall into the trap of hating another person for any reason. There's a good chance that homophobia will die out like so many other judgemental traits.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 01:38:23 AM
Clear sampling bias AND the subjects were paid to respond.

Ok, how do you propose going about finding a group of gay men for the study? Remember, for this study the control group has to be constituted of entirely gay men.

Quote
Did you find one study that conclusively proves that homosexuality is not a lifestyle?

You just posted one, the statistically significant correlation between monozygotic and dizygotic twins, compared with the statistically significant correlation between other siblings and adopted siblings, and combined with the notable divergence of the two sets strongly suggests not a genetic link to homosexuality, but a link between gestation and homosexuality. To repeat myself for a THIRD time, a PHENOTYPICAL link. I'm putting my money on hormone levels during pregnancy because of other dramatic influences from metabolism to muscle fiber development to facial features to fingerprints to personality that they have been demonstrated to have.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 02, 2009, 01:45:53 AM

I said a PHENOTYPICAL, not genetic, approach, consider it again in that light. ::)


Here is a 2008 phenotypical study on homosexuality that you requested.  Realize that phenotypes result from the expression of an organism’s genes....as in genetic.    ::)-responding to your rolling eyes-

From Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality
 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427196/

“A number of hypotheses have attempted to give an evolutionary explanation for the long-standing persistence of this trait, and for its asymmetric distribution in family lines; however a satisfactory understanding of the population genetics of male homosexuality is lacking at present.”

Did you find a study that proves that homosexuality is not a lifestyle?


Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Riddikulus on December 02, 2009, 02:04:24 AM

I said a PHENOTYPICAL, not genetic, approach, consider it again in that light. ::)


Here is a 2008 phenotypical study on homosexuality that you requested.  Realize that phenotypes result from the expression of an organism’s genes....as in genetic.    ::)-responding to your rolling eyes-

From Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality
 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427196/

“A number of hypotheses have attempted to give an evolutionary explanation for the long-standing persistence of this trait, and for its asymmetric distribution in family lines; however a satisfactory understanding of the population genetics of male homosexuality is lacking at present.”

Did you find a study that proves that homosexuality is not a lifestyle?

Does anyone know what the current view is about homosexual behaviour in non-human animals? They aren't making lifestyle choices, I would assume.  :-\
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on December 02, 2009, 02:35:47 AM
Here's an interesting test put together by PBS' "Frontline" entitled  "How Homophobic Are You?"  (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html).  I find it extremely biased in many ways.  One question asks, "Homosexual behavior should be against the law?"  How do they define 'behavior'? Do they mean 'marriage'? Another probable bias is that when you scroll down to the bottom, you'll see "What the Bible says."  Why just the Bible?  Why not Qur'an or some other sacred text?  Are Christian's being singled out here as 'probable' homophobes when Muslims are known to be uber-homophobic?  I think so.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Vlad on December 02, 2009, 03:00:39 AM
What does anti-Semetic and homophonbic mean? ???

It means your not politically correct enough for this world.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 02, 2009, 03:43:56 AM
Does anyone know what the current view is about homosexual behaviour in non-human animals? They aren't making lifestyle choices, I would assume.  :-\
Obviously they are.
I once caught a gay budgerigar whistling tunes from South Pacific.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Riddikulus on December 02, 2009, 03:49:22 AM
Does anyone know what the current view is about homosexual behaviour in non-human animals? They aren't making lifestyle choices, I would assume.  :-\
Obviously they are.
I once caught a gay budgerigar whistling tunes from South Pacific.

 :laugh:
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 02, 2009, 07:37:54 AM
What does anti-Semetic and homophonbic mean? ???

It means your not politically correct enough for this world.
While we're on the subject of semantics, what does "politically correct" mean?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: John of the North on December 02, 2009, 07:49:45 AM
What does anti-Semetic and homophonbic mean? ???

It means your not politically correct enough for this world.
While we're on the subject of semantics, what does "politically correct" mean?

PC, adj. Politically Correct. Political Correctness is avoidance of certain words judged to embody closedmindedness and prejudice (and ostracism of anyone who does). For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male. Thus, the only reason anyone would say 'm-nk-nd' is out of spite towards every womyn. Political Correctness is a wonderful thing; many people have it to be an excellent substitute for actually removing prejudice.

PC-USA, n. Politically Correct, USA. A church in which there is neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality, monotheism nor polytheism, orthodoxy nor heresy.

http://jonathanscorner.com/dictionary/dictionary12.html
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 02, 2009, 07:53:41 AM
What does anti-Semetic and homophonbic mean? ???

It means your not politically correct enough for this world.
While we're on the subject of semantics, what does "politically correct" mean?

PC, adj. Politically Correct. Political Correctness is avoidance of certain words judged to embody closedmindedness and prejudice (and ostracism of anyone who does). For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male. Thus, the only reason anyone would say 'm-nk-nd' is out of spite towards every womyn. Political Correctness is a wonderful thing; many people have it to be an excellent substitute for actually removing prejudice.

PC-USA, n. Politically Correct, USA. A church in which there is neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality, monotheism nor polytheism, orthodoxy nor heresy.

http://jonathanscorner.com/dictionary/dictionary12.html
Thank you, but I'm really more interested in what Vlad thinks it means.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: John of the North on December 02, 2009, 07:56:07 AM
What does anti-Semetic and homophonbic mean? ???

It means your not politically correct enough for this world.
While we're on the subject of semantics, what does "politically correct" mean?

PC, adj. Politically Correct. Political Correctness is avoidance of certain words judged to embody closedmindedness and prejudice (and ostracism of anyone who does). For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male. Thus, the only reason anyone would say 'm-nk-nd' is out of spite towards every womyn. Political Correctness is a wonderful thing; many people have it to be an excellent substitute for actually removing prejudice.

PC-USA, n. Politically Correct, USA. A church in which there is neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality, monotheism nor polytheism, orthodoxy nor heresy.

http://jonathanscorner.com/dictionary/dictionary12.html
Thank you, but I'm really more interested in what Vlad thinks it means.

You didn't specify who you wanted the definition from. Must be more specific next time. :)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 02, 2009, 08:02:48 AM
What does anti-Semetic and homophonbic mean? ???

It means your not politically correct enough for this world.
While we're on the subject of semantics, what does "politically correct" mean?

PC, adj. Politically Correct. Political Correctness is avoidance of certain words judged to embody closedmindedness and prejudice (and ostracism of anyone who does). For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male. Thus, the only reason anyone would say 'm-nk-nd' is out of spite towards every womyn. Political Correctness is a wonderful thing; many people have it to be an excellent substitute for actually removing prejudice.

PC-USA, n. Politically Correct, USA. A church in which there is neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality, monotheism nor polytheism, orthodoxy nor heresy.

http://jonathanscorner.com/dictionary/dictionary12.html
Thank you, but I'm really more interested in what Vlad thinks it means.

You didn't specify who you wanted the definition from. Must be more specific next time. :)
Yes, my bad.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 02, 2009, 08:11:12 AM
For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male.
Wouldn't be a problem if you all spoke God's language (Koine).
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GammaRay on December 02, 2009, 08:26:52 AM
"anti-Semitic" means "biased or prejudiced against the descendants of Shem; that is, the Jewish and Arabic peoples,"
Does that include St. James, St. Peter, St. Matthew, St. Magdalene, the Most Holy Theotokos (and so on...) too?

Quote
"homophobic" means "possessing an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality."
Is there also such thing as a "rational fear of homosexuals"? Are you a homophobic when you believe that homosexuality is not what humans are destined for?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 02, 2009, 08:45:52 AM
"anti-Semitic" means "biased or prejudiced against the descendants of Shem; that is, the Jewish and Arabic peoples,"
Does that include St. James, St. Peter, St. Matthew, St. Magdalene, the Most Holy Theotokos (and so on...) too?
Racism is never biased against individuals, only against the unnamed masses.

"homophobic" means "possessing an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality."
Is there also such thing as a "rational fear of homosexuals"? Are you a homophobic when you believe that homosexuality is not what humans are destined for?
There are rational fears. If someone points a gun to your head, it is normal to experience rational fear. Irrational fear occurs when there is no danger. And no, a belief that humans are not intended to be homosexuals is not an example of irrational fear. A belief that laws permitting gay marriage are going to destroy our society is irrational fear.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 02, 2009, 08:59:30 AM
ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20597.msg331850.html#msg331850


Orthodox position on Jews and their salvation

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,5655.0.html

Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 02, 2009, 09:36:21 AM
Racism is never biased against individuals, only against the unnamed masses.
Oh they're named...usually with pejoratives meant to insult and slur which the racist person claims are not meant as insults.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 02, 2009, 09:56:57 AM
Does anyone know what the current view is about homosexual behaviour in non-human animals? They aren't making lifestyle choices, I would assume.  :-\
From homosexual researcher Simon LeVay:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

Simon LeVay, Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996). Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999). pg. 207.
--------------------------------------------
If animals are homosexual because homosexuality is biological/natural,  then  coprophagy (poop eating) must also be completely natural. Since humans are animals, some might want to implement coprophagy into their “recycling plan”.
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/news/2005/feb/feb0514.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------

One can not read human motivations and sentiments into all animals’ sexual behavior.  The sexual behavior of animals is not a benchmark to determine that same-sex behavior in humans is natural/biological.  Animal and human cognition are not comparable.  Animals lack the ability to express all their feelings.   Consequently, they may demonstrate their feelings ambiguously.  

Animals will exhibit same-sex behavior with different motivations.  Male and female dogs exhibit same-sex behavior to show dominance in the social hierarchy.

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2002/6/02.06.01.x.html

Monkeys show same-sex behavior when fearful or excited about food.
 www.songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html.
Giraffes exhibit same-sex behavior with dominance, competition or greetings.  Many animals use same-sex  behavior as a social phenomenon to solve conflict.  Is it natural/biological for humans to solve conflict with same-sex behavior?  (Beware Afghans!  We are sending 30,000 additional troops. )  Many creatures often have same-sex with other species.  Does this make homosexual bestiality natural/biological for humans?
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Animal behavior is not a benchmark to decide what is “natural”/biological for humans.  Humans have a "benchmark" and it is found in the Holy Bible.





   
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 02, 2009, 10:02:50 AM
Racism is never biased against individuals, only against the unnamed masses.
Oh they're named...usually with pejoratives meant to insult and slur which the racist person claims are not meant as insults.
Good point.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GammaRay on December 02, 2009, 11:53:14 AM
Racism is never biased against individuals, only against the unnamed masses.
So a racist can hang out and admire people who he would -normally- reject because of their race?
By the way, I don't think that they should be called Jews. Maybe Israelites and Hebrews are better terms, since the word Jew is related to religion, isn't it?

"homophobic" means "possessing an irrational
There are rational fears. If someone points a gun to your head, it is normal to experience rational fear. Irrational fear occurs when there is no danger. And no, a belief that humans are not intended to be homosexuals is not an example of irrational fear. A belief that laws permitting gay marriage are going to destroy our society is irrational fear.
Oh, okay, that's nice. Therefore, if we count homosexuality as a natural sin or passion and treat it like we do with any other sin, is it gonna be alright?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Schultz on December 02, 2009, 11:59:56 AM
Racism is never biased against individuals, only against the unnamed masses.
So a racist can hang out and admire people who he would -normally- reject because of their race?
By the way, I don't think that they should be called Jews. Maybe Israelites and Hebrews are better terms, since the word Jew is related to religion, isn't it?

That's nice.  I'll continue to call a people whatever they want to be called.  It's basic etiquette.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 12:24:38 PM
For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male.
Wouldn't be a problem if you all spoke God's language (Koine).

The bias towards a masculine ending for non-gender-specific references makes that language unacceptable as well. ;)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 12:27:39 PM
Animal behavior is not a benchmark to decide what is “natural”/biological for humans.  Humans have a "benchmark" and it is found in the Holy Bible.

You can't be serious? I mean...really???


LMAO
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Schultz on December 02, 2009, 12:50:08 PM
For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male.
Wouldn't be a problem if you all spoke God's language (Koine).

The bias towards a masculine ending for non-gender-specific references makes that language unacceptable as well. ;)

Linguistically speaking, so-called "gender" endings in languages that have them have nothing to do with biological sex or social gender constructions.

Again, I'm VERY disappointed in you.  You should know this.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 12:59:34 PM
For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male.
Wouldn't be a problem if you all spoke God's language (Koine).

The bias towards a masculine ending for non-gender-specific references makes that language unacceptable as well. ;)

Yes, the fact that Persian has NO gender at all (everyone and everything is "it") has done wonders in Iran:
(http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg)
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 01:04:52 PM
For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male.
Wouldn't be a problem if you all spoke God's language (Koine).

The bias towards a masculine ending for non-gender-specific references makes that language unacceptable as well. ;)

Linguistically speaking, so-called "gender" endings in languages that have them have nothing to do with biological sex or social gender constructions.

Again, I'm VERY disappointed in you.  You should know this.

It has everything to do with social gender constructions, to the extreme point to genderizing inanimate objects. Or do you believe it was entirely random and a complete accident that most of the terms associated with the natural world are feminine and most of the terms associated with labour or war are masculine in most Indo-European languages (and, I would guess, other languages, though I'm not familiar enough with them to make such assertions).
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:05:03 PM
Animal behavior is not a benchmark to decide what is “natural”/biological for humans.  Humans have a "benchmark" and it is found in the Holy Bible.

You can't be serious? I mean...really???


LMAO

Animals kill without a regret.  Maybe we should follow their example....
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:05:53 PM
For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male.
Wouldn't be a problem if you all spoke God's language (Koine).

The bias towards a masculine ending for non-gender-specific references makes that language unacceptable as well. ;)

Linguistically speaking, so-called "gender" endings in languages that have them have nothing to do with biological sex or social gender constructions.

Again, I'm VERY disappointed in you.  You should know this.

It has everything to do with social gender constructions, to the extreme point to genderizing inanimate objects. Or do you believe it was entirely random and a complete accident that most of the terms associated with the natural world are feminine and most of the terms associated with labour or war are masculine in most Indo-European languages (and, I would guess, other languages, though I'm not familiar enough with them to make such assertions).

Beard and testicles are feminine in Hamito-Semitic. :o
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:09:24 PM
"anti-Semitic" means "biased or prejudiced against the descendants of Shem; that is, the Jewish and Arabic peoples,"
Does that include St. James, St. Peter, St. Matthew, St. Magdalene, the Most Holy Theotokos (and so on...) too?
Racism is never biased against individuals, only against the unnamed masses.

"homophobic" means "possessing an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality."
Is there also such thing as a "rational fear of homosexuals"? Are you a homophobic when you believe that homosexuality is not what humans are destined for?
There are rational fears. If someone points a gun to your head, it is normal to experience rational fear. Irrational fear occurs when there is no danger. And no, a belief that humans are not intended to be homosexuals is not an example of irrational fear. A belief that laws permitting gay marriage are going to destroy our society is irrational fear.

So still in denial about the failed social experiment in Scandinavia, are we?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 01:10:34 PM
For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male.
Wouldn't be a problem if you all spoke God's language (Koine).

The bias towards a masculine ending for non-gender-specific references makes that language unacceptable as well. ;)

Yes, the fact that Persian has NO gender at all (everyone and everything is "it") has done wonders in Iran:
(http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg)
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg

My qualms aren't with the Persian language, in fact I think it's a wonderful language, at least when not written in that nasty Arabic script. and I am confident that without Arab intervention, the Persians would today stand with the civilized peoples of the world...poor example.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:10:47 PM
For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male.
Wouldn't be a problem if you all spoke God's language (Koine).
Then why did He speak Aramaic when He came to pay us a visit?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 01:12:43 PM
"anti-Semitic" means "biased or prejudiced against the descendants of Shem; that is, the Jewish and Arabic peoples,"
Does that include St. James, St. Peter, St. Matthew, St. Magdalene, the Most Holy Theotokos (and so on...) too?
Racism is never biased against individuals, only against the unnamed masses.

"homophobic" means "possessing an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality."
Is there also such thing as a "rational fear of homosexuals"? Are you a homophobic when you believe that homosexuality is not what humans are destined for?
There are rational fears. If someone points a gun to your head, it is normal to experience rational fear. Irrational fear occurs when there is no danger. And no, a belief that humans are not intended to be homosexuals is not an example of irrational fear. A belief that laws permitting gay marriage are going to destroy our society is irrational fear.

So still in denial about the failed social experiment in Scandinavia, are we?

Scandinavia stands at the apex of western social evolution...I can only hope that one day the people of this Republic can become so enlightened.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:14:18 PM
For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male.
Wouldn't be a problem if you all spoke God's language (Koine).

The bias towards a masculine ending for non-gender-specific references makes that language unacceptable as well. ;)

Yes, the fact that Persian has NO gender at all (everyone and everything is "it") has done wonders in Iran:
(http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg)
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg

My qualms aren't with the Persian language, in fact I think it's a wonderful language, at least when not written in that nasty Arabic script. and I am confident that without Arab intervention, the Persians would today stand with the civilized peoples of the world...poor example.

Ah, always changing the rules when we are loosing the game.....

Btw, the Persians have always mootched their writing system off us taazii Semites, whether from the Babylonian cuneiform, the Aramaic script, or the Arabic alphabet.  Btw, the Persians stood with the civilized peoples of the world before and after the Arab, and then Muslim, conquest.

Btw, Turkish doesn't have gender either.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:15:05 PM
"anti-Semitic" means "biased or prejudiced against the descendants of Shem; that is, the Jewish and Arabic peoples,"
Does that include St. James, St. Peter, St. Matthew, St. Magdalene, the Most Holy Theotokos (and so on...) too?
Racism is never biased against individuals, only against the unnamed masses.

"homophobic" means "possessing an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality."
Is there also such thing as a "rational fear of homosexuals"? Are you a homophobic when you believe that homosexuality is not what humans are destined for?
There are rational fears. If someone points a gun to your head, it is normal to experience rational fear. Irrational fear occurs when there is no danger. And no, a belief that humans are not intended to be homosexuals is not an example of irrational fear. A belief that laws permitting gay marriage are going to destroy our society is irrational fear.

So still in denial about the failed social experiment in Scandinavia, are we?

Scandinavia stands at the apex of western social evolution...I can only hope that one day the people of this Republic can become so enlightened.
LOL.  So they can be forced in import a population, as they die out?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 01:15:10 PM
Animal behavior is not a benchmark to decide what is “natural”/biological for humans.  Humans have a "benchmark" and it is found in the Holy Bible.

You can't be serious? I mean...really???


LMAO

Intra-societal violence isn't as high as you'd lead us to believe, as for inter-societal violence, we just call it war and I don't really have a problem with it. Much of this killing is inter-species and I certainly engage in that kind of killing with no regret.
Animals kill without a regret.  Maybe we should follow their example....
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 01:16:57 PM
For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male.
Wouldn't be a problem if you all spoke God's language (Koine).

The bias towards a masculine ending for non-gender-specific references makes that language unacceptable as well. ;)

Yes, the fact that Persian has NO gender at all (everyone and everything is "it") has done wonders in Iran:
(http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg)
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg

My qualms aren't with the Persian language, in fact I think it's a wonderful language, at least when not written in that nasty Arabic script. and I am confident that without Arab intervention, the Persians would today stand with the civilized peoples of the world...poor example.

Ah, always changing the rules when we are loosing the game.....

Btw, the Persians have always mootched their writing system off us taazii Semites, whether from the Babylonian cuneiform, the Aramaic script, or the Arabic alphabet.  Btw, the Persians stood with the civilized peoples of the world before and after the Arab, and then Muslim, conquest.

Btw, Turkish doesn't have gender either.

And Turkey is amongst the most progressive countries of the Molsem world (not that that's saying a lot, but still).
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:17:37 PM
Stashko who is pleased.

Hey, I agreed with him...isn't that enough to earn your scorn as well??? ;D
Haha. I know the source of your scorn... Not too worried about it.  ;)

Damn, I'll have to try harder. ;)
Yeah Gic last time I made a reference to the child sexual abuse issue I repeatedly got called a "moron" even when i tried to apologize. (do yo think anti-semitism or homophobia played into that? hhmm...)

 Since you ain't a Semite, I doubt it.  :)

LOL.  Yeah, the proselyte problem.  I am familiar with it from the children of Jewish mixed marriages, when the children went Orthodox Jew and mom wasn't Jewish.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:18:45 PM
For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male.
Wouldn't be a problem if you all spoke God's language (Koine).

The bias towards a masculine ending for non-gender-specific references makes that language unacceptable as well. ;)

Yes, the fact that Persian has NO gender at all (everyone and everything is "it") has done wonders in Iran:
(http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg)
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg

My qualms aren't with the Persian language, in fact I think it's a wonderful language, at least when not written in that nasty Arabic script. and I am confident that without Arab intervention, the Persians would today stand with the civilized peoples of the world...poor example.

Ah, always changing the rules when we are loosing the game.....

Btw, the Persians have always mootched their writing system off us taazii Semites, whether from the Babylonian cuneiform, the Aramaic script, or the Arabic alphabet.  Btw, the Persians stood with the civilized peoples of the world before and after the Arab, and then Muslim, conquest.

Btw, Turkish doesn't have gender either.

And Turkey is amongst the most progressive countries of the Molsem world (not that that's saying a lot, but still).

I agree, they are quite adept at genocide, the progress of the 20th century as it put the theory of the 19th century into practice.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 01:19:20 PM
"anti-Semitic" means "biased or prejudiced against the descendants of Shem; that is, the Jewish and Arabic peoples,"
Does that include St. James, St. Peter, St. Matthew, St. Magdalene, the Most Holy Theotokos (and so on...) too?
Racism is never biased against individuals, only against the unnamed masses.

"homophobic" means "possessing an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality."
Is there also such thing as a "rational fear of homosexuals"? Are you a homophobic when you believe that homosexuality is not what humans are destined for?
There are rational fears. If someone points a gun to your head, it is normal to experience rational fear. Irrational fear occurs when there is no danger. And no, a belief that humans are not intended to be homosexuals is not an example of irrational fear. A belief that laws permitting gay marriage are going to destroy our society is irrational fear.

So still in denial about the failed social experiment in Scandinavia, are we?

Scandinavia stands at the apex of western social evolution...I can only hope that one day the people of this Republic can become so enlightened.
LOL.  So they can be forced in import a population, as they die out?

I wouldn't mind about 2/3rds of our populating dying out. Without the natural checks and balances to our population such as plague, starvation, constant tribal warfare, as was the case when humans evolved, we need to use our common sense and stop breeding like rabbits. I have long supported severe tax penalties for those who have more than two children.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 01:20:47 PM
For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male.
Wouldn't be a problem if you all spoke God's language (Koine).

The bias towards a masculine ending for non-gender-specific references makes that language unacceptable as well. ;)

Yes, the fact that Persian has NO gender at all (everyone and everything is "it") has done wonders in Iran:
(http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg)
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg

My qualms aren't with the Persian language, in fact I think it's a wonderful language, at least when not written in that nasty Arabic script. and I am confident that without Arab intervention, the Persians would today stand with the civilized peoples of the world...poor example.

Ah, always changing the rules when we are loosing the game.....

Btw, the Persians have always mootched their writing system off us taazii Semites, whether from the Babylonian cuneiform, the Aramaic script, or the Arabic alphabet.  Btw, the Persians stood with the civilized peoples of the world before and after the Arab, and then Muslim, conquest.

Btw, Turkish doesn't have gender either.

And Turkey is amongst the most progressive countries of the Molsem world (not that that's saying a lot, but still).

I agree, they are quite adept at genocide, the progress of the 20th century as it put the theory of the 19th century into practice.

What country that is anything today hasn't committed genocide at some point in its history? This ain't the 20th century anymore.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:20:57 PM
Like St. John Chrysostom who said in his Homily Against the Jews:

Quote
And why do I speak of the immorality that goes on [at Rosh Hashanah]? Are you not afraid that your wife may not come back from there after a demon has possessed her soul? Did you not hear in my previous discourse the argument which clearly proved to us that demons dwell in the very souls of the Jews and in places in which they gather? Tell me, then. How do you Judaizers have the boldness, after dancing with demons, to come back to the assembly of the apostles?

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/homily-ii.htm

Maybe he was a 'bad (or poorly practicing) Christian', but the Church seems to think he's ok:

Quote
The grace of your words illuminated the universe like a shining beacon. It amassed treasures of munificence in the world. It demonstrated the greatness of humility, teaching us by your own words; therefore, O Father John Chrysostom, intercede to Christ the Logos for the salvation of our souls.

http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=405

Hmmm...

We don't claim he's perfect - and neither am I, which is why I'm not taking your bait to judge St. John's words.  Nice try, though.

Hey! Only Greeki is allowed to pick and chose, and cherry pick, his "facts."
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 01:22:40 PM
Like St. John Chrysostom who said in his Homily Against the Jews:

Quote
And why do I speak of the immorality that goes on [at Rosh Hashanah]? Are you not afraid that your wife may not come back from there after a demon has possessed her soul? Did you not hear in my previous discourse the argument which clearly proved to us that demons dwell in the very souls of the Jews and in places in which they gather? Tell me, then. How do you Judaizers have the boldness, after dancing with demons, to come back to the assembly of the apostles?

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/homily-ii.htm

Maybe he was a 'bad (or poorly practicing) Christian', but the Church seems to think he's ok:

Quote
The grace of your words illuminated the universe like a shining beacon. It amassed treasures of munificence in the world. It demonstrated the greatness of humility, teaching us by your own words; therefore, O Father John Chrysostom, intercede to Christ the Logos for the salvation of our souls.

http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=405

Hmmm...

We don't claim he's perfect - and neither am I, which is why I'm not taking your bait to judge St. John's words.  Nice try, though.

Hey! Only Greeki is allowed to pick and chose, and cherry pick, his "facts."

At least I occasionally throw facts into my posts, maybe you should try it sometime?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:25:07 PM
For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male.
Wouldn't be a problem if you all spoke God's language (Koine).

The bias towards a masculine ending for non-gender-specific references makes that language unacceptable as well. ;)

Yes, the fact that Persian has NO gender at all (everyone and everything is "it") has done wonders in Iran:
(http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg)
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg

My qualms aren't with the Persian language, in fact I think it's a wonderful language, at least when not written in that nasty Arabic script. and I am confident that without Arab intervention, the Persians would today stand with the civilized peoples of the world...poor example.

Ah, always changing the rules when we are loosing the game.....

Btw, the Persians have always mootched their writing system off us taazii Semites, whether from the Babylonian cuneiform, the Aramaic script, or the Arabic alphabet.  Btw, the Persians stood with the civilized peoples of the world before and after the Arab, and then Muslim, conquest.

Btw, Turkish doesn't have gender either.

And Turkey is amongst the most progressive countries of the Molsem world (not that that's saying a lot, but still).

I agree, they are quite adept at genocide, the progress of the 20th century as it put the theory of the 19th century into practice.

What country that is anything today hasn't committed genocide at some point in its history? This ain't the 20th century anymore.

"But everyone does it."  Always a solid moral compass. ::)

The East Roman Empire, one of the differences between it and the present Greek state.

Yes, I know we have entered a new century, where all sorts of "progress" is underway...
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:25:59 PM
Like St. John Chrysostom who said in his Homily Against the Jews:

Quote
And why do I speak of the immorality that goes on [at Rosh Hashanah]? Are you not afraid that your wife may not come back from there after a demon has possessed her soul? Did you not hear in my previous discourse the argument which clearly proved to us that demons dwell in the very souls of the Jews and in places in which they gather? Tell me, then. How do you Judaizers have the boldness, after dancing with demons, to come back to the assembly of the apostles?

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/homily-ii.htm

Maybe he was a 'bad (or poorly practicing) Christian', but the Church seems to think he's ok:

Quote
The grace of your words illuminated the universe like a shining beacon. It amassed treasures of munificence in the world. It demonstrated the greatness of humility, teaching us by your own words; therefore, O Father John Chrysostom, intercede to Christ the Logos for the salvation of our souls.

http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=405

Hmmm...

We don't claim he's perfect - and neither am I, which is why I'm not taking your bait to judge St. John's words.  Nice try, though.

Hey! Only Greeki is allowed to pick and chose, and cherry pick, his "facts."

At least I occasionally throw facts into my posts, maybe you should try it sometime?

I always do.  Maybe your inability ever to refute one may have made you miss that.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 01:34:15 PM
For example, 'm-nk-nd' is deemed an inappropriate word to use to refer to all members of Homo sapiens, because the word 'm-n' (which originally did not specify gender) has come to sometimes mean a perbeing who is specifically male.
Wouldn't be a problem if you all spoke God's language (Koine).

The bias towards a masculine ending for non-gender-specific references makes that language unacceptable as well. ;)

Yes, the fact that Persian has NO gender at all (everyone and everything is "it") has done wonders in Iran:
(http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg)
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm~pix/a682~s192x384.jpg

My qualms aren't with the Persian language, in fact I think it's a wonderful language, at least when not written in that nasty Arabic script. and I am confident that without Arab intervention, the Persians would today stand with the civilized peoples of the world...poor example.

Ah, always changing the rules when we are loosing the game.....

Btw, the Persians have always mootched their writing system off us taazii Semites, whether from the Babylonian cuneiform, the Aramaic script, or the Arabic alphabet.  Btw, the Persians stood with the civilized peoples of the world before and after the Arab, and then Muslim, conquest.

Btw, Turkish doesn't have gender either.

And Turkey is amongst the most progressive countries of the Molsem world (not that that's saying a lot, but still).

I agree, they are quite adept at genocide, the progress of the 20th century as it put the theory of the 19th century into practice.

What country that is anything today hasn't committed genocide at some point in its history? This ain't the 20th century anymore.

"But everyone does it."  Always a solid moral compass. ::)

Yes, let's condemn the current generation because of what they grandparents and great grandparents did...that's a solid moral standard. ::)

Quote
The East Roman Empire, one of the differences between it and the present Greek state.

You're honestly not making that claim after the persecution of the Arians, Nestorians, and Monophosites...all of which tended to be prevalent amongst ethnic minorities within the Empire. You didn't honestly think it was doctrine that motivated the Emperor's councils, did you?

Quote
Yes, I know we have entered a new century, where all sorts of "progress" is underway...

There's a lot of room for improvement, but it is, without a doubt, the best time in the history of the world.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:36:54 PM
Christians anti-semitic and homophobic??? Please, say it ain't so! I would never have guessed in 2000 years. ;)

Maybe bad (or poorly practicing) Christians.  You know, that entire New Testament thing that speaks about love - it doesn't leave too much room for hate.  Just because the two of you don't accept it doesn't mean you have to over-generalize about imperfect Christians or mischaracterize our faith.

Like St. John Chrysostom who said in his Homily Against the Jews:

Quote
And why do I speak of the immorality that goes on [at Rosh Hashanah]? Are you not afraid that your wife may not come back from there after a demon has possessed her soul? Did you not hear in my previous discourse the argument which clearly proved to us that demons dwell in the very souls of the Jews and in places in which they gather? Tell me, then. How do you Judaizers have the boldness, after dancing with demons, to come back to the assembly of the apostles?

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/homily-ii.htm

Maybe he was a 'bad (or poorly practicing) Christian', but the Church seems to think he's ok:

Quote
The grace of your words illuminated the universe like a shining beacon. It amassed treasures of munificence in the world. It demonstrated the greatness of humility, teaching us by your own words; therefore, O Father John Chrysostom, intercede to Christ the Logos for the salvation of our souls.

http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=405

Hmmm...

Personally I'll take the words of a Saint over a person who puts his faith in 2+2 any day.

What an impoverished view of Mathematics you have, a lack of understand and appreciation for the theorems and proofs of theoretical mathematics is a most sad and unfortunate thing.

I remember a philosopher of religion who pointed out that those who demand that God be proved up front had no problem putting faith in mathematical equations that they had never done before.

I am funny that way. An Atheist is just someone who is so arrogant that they cant possibly conceive of anything being greater then they are.

I am a free sentient being, free to thing as I will, free to believe as I will, free from the despotism of the mind...I can think of nothing greater.

yes, evidently free from consequences and reality too it seems.

Its strange how atheists cannot acknowledge that the worst atrocities have happened under atheists. Take Stalin

Stalin may not have been a Christian, but he was not a true atheist, at least not in the sense of the enlightenment. He demanded worship, worship of the party, worship of the state, and, above all, worship of himself. No ideology, no philosophy, no system of beliefs can have any merit or redeeming grace without liberty.

And that would make him different from the "enlightenment" how?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/F%C3%AAte_de_la_Raison_1793.jpg)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/F%C3%AAte_de_la_Raison_1793.jpg


and Hitler as good examples.

Oh no...he's yours:

'National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity.... For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles then we should to be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest by God.'

-Adolf Hitler

You may not agree with all his theology, but he was a Christian. In fact, much of the theology you might find most distasteful comes down the line from Chrysostom.

So an atheist usuing Christian language to score propaganda points.  Not the first, wasn't the last.

I'll take what Christianity means, and Christian principles, from a confessing Christian, which Hitler turned out not to be.

Where's the quote from? Not that I doubt he said it, but when it comes politicians, audience matters. I don't see him calling himself a Christian there--I do see him trying to make the claim that Christianity and National Socialism aren't at odds so Christians can safely support him against the far worse third-parties (Bolshevists, Atheists, and criminals). Which makes him a politician, not a Christian.

LOL. Spot on!
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:40:20 PM
Like St. John Chrysostom who said in his Homily Against the Jews:

Quote
And why do I speak of the immorality that goes on [at Rosh Hashanah]? Are you not afraid that your wife may not come back from there after a demon has possessed her soul? Did you not hear in my previous discourse the argument which clearly proved to us that demons dwell in the very souls of the Jews and in places in which they gather? Tell me, then. How do you Judaizers have the boldness, after dancing with demons, to come back to the assembly of the apostles?

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/homily-ii.htm

Maybe he was a 'bad (or poorly practicing) Christian', but the Church seems to think he's ok:

Quote
The grace of your words illuminated the universe like a shining beacon. It amassed treasures of munificence in the world. It demonstrated the greatness of humility, teaching us by your own words; therefore, O Father John Chrysostom, intercede to Christ the Logos for the salvation of our souls.

http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=405

Hmmm...

We don't claim he's perfect - and neither am I, which is why I'm not taking your bait to judge St. John's words.  Nice try, though.

Oh...that's no fun, I really wanted someone to defend the line: 'the argument which clearly proved to us that demons dwell in the very souls of the Jews'. Gods know I've done it in the past. ;)

Oh well, it was worth a try. ;D

Then again, knowing this board, there might still be a taker out there. :)

I'll be your huckleberry.  :-*  I think that either a) St. John was talking about a particular group of Jews

Considering later Chrysostom says 'What greater evidence could there be that a man does not love our Lord than when he participates in the festival with those who slew Christ?', I think it's safe to assume he's talking about all the 'Christ-Killers', which apparently doesn't just mean a particular mob in the 1st century, but all subsequent Jews. Guess it's kinda like that whole blacks being sinful because they're apparently descendants of Cain (did skin pigmentation really diverge that quickly, or was it a divine curse?).

Now I know that it has been pointed out to you several times, that this "belief" sprung from Protestants diluting their Christianity with the "enlightenment" (which brought on the Atlantic slave trade), and has nothing to do with Apostolic Christianity.  Yet you still cling to it.....

Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:41:54 PM
but he was a Christian.
No he was not. The Founder of Christianity said: "By this all shall know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another".
At any rate, here are some more quotes of Mr. Hitler you may not know about from the book "Adolf Hitler", London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity <is> the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."
21st October, 1941, midday
"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....
"The decisive falsification of Jesus' <who he asserts many times was never a Jew> doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....
"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)


13th December, 1941, midnight
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... <here insults people who believe transubstantiation>....
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)

14th December, 1941, midday
"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....
"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner
"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)


Thanks for the facts George. I'm afraid Greeki will just go further into denial.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:45:36 PM
but he was a Christian.
No he was not. The Founder of Christianity said: "By this all shall know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another".
At any rate, here are some more quotes of Mr. Hitler you may not know about from the book "Adolf Hitler", London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity <is> the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."
21st October, 1941, midday
"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....
"The decisive falsification of Jesus' <who he asserts many times was never a Jew> doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....
"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)


13th December, 1941, midnight
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... <here insults people who believe transubstantiation>....
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)

14th December, 1941, midday
"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....
"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner
"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)


Oh YAY, a Hitler quotefest, it's just like watching the History Channel on OC.net. My Turn. ;)

Quote
    "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

    -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Thus, Protestantism will always stand up for the advancement of all Germans as such, as long as matters of inner purity or national deepening as well as German freedom are involved, since all these things have a firm foundation in its own being; but it combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)


My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God's truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity.

-Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 28 July 1922

In the Bible we find the text, 'That which is neither hot nor cold will I spew out of my mouth.' This utterance of the great Nazarene has kept its profound validity until the present day.

-Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich, 10 April 1923

It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God.

-Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 01 Aug. 1923

Except the Lord built the house they labour in vain.... The truth of that text was proved if one looks at the house of which the foundations were laid in 1918 and which since then has been in building.... The world will not help, the people must help itself. Its own strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it we may wage the battle of our life.... The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty-- of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us.... We are all proud that through God's powerful aid we have become once more true Germans.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in March 1933

Well, that's about enough, but one more one to show that he was continuing the Tradition of the Catholic Church:

Quote
The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were".... I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.

-Adolf Hitler, 26 April 1933

Hitler may not have been of the same Christian sect as you, but he was most certainly a follower of Christ.
....who was a Hebrew ("salvation is from the Jew"). Hardly a follower.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 01:50:00 PM
Oh no...he's yours:

'National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity.... For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles then we should to be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest by God.'

-Adolf Hitler

You may not agree with all his theology, but he was a Christian. In fact, much of the theology you might find most distasteful comes down the line from Chrysostom.

Where's the quote from? Not that I doubt he said it, but when it comes politicians, audience matters. I don't see him calling himself a Christian there--I do see him trying to make the claim that Christianity and National Socialism aren't at odds so Christians can safely support him against the far worse third-parties (Bolshevists, Atheists, and criminals). Which makes him a politician, not a Christian.

Sorry, missed that line in my quotefest ;)

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech at Koblenz, to the Germans of the Saar, 26 Aug. 1934

BTW, forgot to cite my source...I obviously got all these off the internet, I don't keep my personal hitler quotes file ;D

http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

But you're right, politicians always play to the crowd, but hitler had a Christian upbringing and, to the end, was convinced he was doing God's bidding. He was hardly an atheist by any definition.
According to the Orthodox Christian one, he was.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 01:56:24 PM
Christians anti-semitic and homophobic??? Please, say it ain't so! I would never have guessed in 2000 years. ;)

Maybe bad (or poorly practicing) Christians.  You know, that entire New Testament thing that speaks about love - it doesn't leave too much room for hate.  Just because the two of you don't accept it doesn't mean you have to over-generalize about imperfect Christians or mischaracterize our faith.

Like St. John Chrysostom who said in his Homily Against the Jews:

Quote
And why do I speak of the immorality that goes on [at Rosh Hashanah]? Are you not afraid that your wife may not come back from there after a demon has possessed her soul? Did you not hear in my previous discourse the argument which clearly proved to us that demons dwell in the very souls of the Jews and in places in which they gather? Tell me, then. How do you Judaizers have the boldness, after dancing with demons, to come back to the assembly of the apostles?

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/homily-ii.htm

Maybe he was a 'bad (or poorly practicing) Christian', but the Church seems to think he's ok:

Quote
The grace of your words illuminated the universe like a shining beacon. It amassed treasures of munificence in the world. It demonstrated the greatness of humility, teaching us by your own words; therefore, O Father John Chrysostom, intercede to Christ the Logos for the salvation of our souls.

http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=405

Hmmm...

Personally I'll take the words of a Saint over a person who puts his faith in 2+2 any day.

What an impoverished view of Mathematics you have, a lack of understand and appreciation for the theorems and proofs of theoretical mathematics is a most sad and unfortunate thing.

I remember a philosopher of religion who pointed out that those who demand that God be proved up front had no problem putting faith in mathematical equations that they had never done before.

I can not remember the last time I used a mathematical convention that I had not previously proved myself or at least read and understood the proof of why it works and is valid. But if it's any consolation, I share the disdain for those who would use mathematics and, yet, are unable to to provide proofs for the validity of their work.

Quote
Its strange how atheists cannot acknowledge that the worst atrocities have happened under atheists. Take Stalin

Stalin may not have been a Christian, but he was not a true atheist, at least not in the sense of the enlightenment. He demanded worship, worship of the party, worship of the state, and, above all, worship of himself. No ideology, no philosophy, no system of beliefs can have any merit or redeeming grace without liberty.

And that would make him different from the "enlightenment" how?

Liberty was a far more fundamental element of the enlightenment than even atheism (actually, true atheism was something of a side note to history until Darwin lifted the vale of ignorance from our eyes).

Quote
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/F%C3%AAte_de_la_Raison_1793.jpg)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/F%C3%AAte_de_la_Raison_1793.jpg

Reason, the only true goddess, the only deity worthy of veneration!

Quote
and Hitler as good examples.

Oh no...he's yours:

'National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity.... For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles then we should to be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest by God.'

-Adolf Hitler

You may not agree with all his theology, but he was a Christian. In fact, much of the theology you might find most distasteful comes down the line from Chrysostom.

So an atheist usuing Christian language to score propaganda points.  Not the first, wasn't the last.

Most debates have been around whether Hitler was a Christian, a pagan, or a spiritualist...but it's really only in anti-atheist propaganda that I've seen him called an 'atheist', which I have seen no evidence to support.

Quote
I'll take what Christianity means, and Christian principles, from a confessing Christian, which Hitler turned out not to be.

Like the Russian Tzars? Big step up. LOL
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 01:58:10 PM
Like St. John Chrysostom who said in his Homily Against the Jews:

Quote
And why do I speak of the immorality that goes on [at Rosh Hashanah]? Are you not afraid that your wife may not come back from there after a demon has possessed her soul? Did you not hear in my previous discourse the argument which clearly proved to us that demons dwell in the very souls of the Jews and in places in which they gather? Tell me, then. How do you Judaizers have the boldness, after dancing with demons, to come back to the assembly of the apostles?

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/homily-ii.htm

Maybe he was a 'bad (or poorly practicing) Christian', but the Church seems to think he's ok:

Quote
The grace of your words illuminated the universe like a shining beacon. It amassed treasures of munificence in the world. It demonstrated the greatness of humility, teaching us by your own words; therefore, O Father John Chrysostom, intercede to Christ the Logos for the salvation of our souls.

http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=405

Hmmm...

We don't claim he's perfect - and neither am I, which is why I'm not taking your bait to judge St. John's words.  Nice try, though.

Oh...that's no fun, I really wanted someone to defend the line: 'the argument which clearly proved to us that demons dwell in the very souls of the Jews'. Gods know I've done it in the past. ;)

Oh well, it was worth a try. ;D

Then again, knowing this board, there might still be a taker out there. :)

I'll be your huckleberry.  :-*  I think that either a) St. John was talking about a particular group of Jews

Considering later Chrysostom says 'What greater evidence could there be that a man does not love our Lord than when he participates in the festival with those who slew Christ?', I think it's safe to assume he's talking about all the 'Christ-Killers', which apparently doesn't just mean a particular mob in the 1st century, but all subsequent Jews. Guess it's kinda like that whole blacks being sinful because they're apparently descendants of Cain (did skin pigmentation really diverge that quickly, or was it a divine curse?).

Now I know that it has been pointed out to you several times, that this "belief" sprung from Protestants diluting their Christianity with the "enlightenment" (which brought on the Atlantic slave trade), and has nothing to do with Apostolic Christianity.  Yet you still cling to it.....

Never said it was, I was using this linguistic concept called analogy, mixed with a hint of sarcasm, ever heard of them?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 02:00:00 PM
....who was a Hebrew ("salvation is from the Jew"). Hardly a follower.

Oh, they took care of that, they just believed Jesus was an Aryan. But, in truth, it's all made up anyway, so what difference does it make? Adding one lie to the millions in religion is like adding a raindrop to a pond.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 02:24:38 PM
Christians anti-semitic and homophobic??? Please, say it ain't so! I would never have guessed in 2000 years. ;)

Maybe bad (or poorly practicing) Christians.  You know, that entire New Testament thing that speaks about love - it doesn't leave too much room for hate.  Just because the two of you don't accept it doesn't mean you have to over-generalize about imperfect Christians or mischaracterize our faith.

Like St. John Chrysostom who said in his Homily Against the Jews:

Quote
And why do I speak of the immorality that goes on [at Rosh Hashanah]? Are you not afraid that your wife may not come back from there after a demon has possessed her soul? Did you not hear in my previous discourse the argument which clearly proved to us that demons dwell in the very souls of the Jews and in places in which they gather? Tell me, then. How do you Judaizers have the boldness, after dancing with demons, to come back to the assembly of the apostles?

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/homily-ii.htm

Maybe he was a 'bad (or poorly practicing) Christian', but the Church seems to think he's ok:

Quote
The grace of your words illuminated the universe like a shining beacon. It amassed treasures of munificence in the world. It demonstrated the greatness of humility, teaching us by your own words; therefore, O Father John Chrysostom, intercede to Christ the Logos for the salvation of our souls.

http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=405

Hmmm...

Personally I'll take the words of a Saint over a person who puts his faith in 2+2 any day.

What an impoverished view of Mathematics you have, a lack of understand and appreciation for the theorems and proofs of theoretical mathematics is a most sad and unfortunate thing.

I remember a philosopher of religion who pointed out that those who demand that God be proved up front had no problem putting faith in mathematical equations that they had never done before.

I can not remember the last time I used a mathematical convention that I had not previously proved myself or at least read and understood the proof of why it works and is valid. But if it's any consolation, I share the disdain for those who would use mathematics and, yet, are unable to to provide proofs for the validity of their work.

Quote
Its strange how atheists cannot acknowledge that the worst atrocities have happened under atheists. Take Stalin

Stalin may not have been a Christian, but he was not a true atheist, at least not in the sense of the enlightenment. He demanded worship, worship of the party, worship of the state, and, above all, worship of himself. No ideology, no philosophy, no system of beliefs can have any merit or redeeming grace without liberty.

And that would make him different from the "enlightenment" how?

Liberty was a far more fundamental element of the enlightenment than even atheism (actually, true atheism was something of a side note to history until Darwin lifted the vale of ignorance from our eyes).

What is "True Atheism?" What Atheists don't do.


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/F%C3%AAte_de_la_Raison_1793.jpg)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/F%C3%AAte_de_la_Raison_1793.jpg

Reason, the only true goddess, the only deity worthy of veneration!

and that they did
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Cruikshank_-_The_Radical%27s_Arms.png)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Cruikshank_-_The_Radical%27s_Arms.png
Just in case you can't read the banner, it says ""No God! No Religion! No King! No Constitution!""

and Hitler as good examples.

Oh no...he's yours:

'National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity.... For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles then we should to be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest by God.'

-Adolf Hitler

You may not agree with all his theology, but he was a Christian. In fact, much of the theology you might find most distasteful comes down the line from Chrysostom.

So an atheist usuing Christian language to score propaganda points.  Not the first, wasn't the last.

Most debates have been around whether Hitler was a Christian, a pagan, or a spiritualist...but it's really only in anti-atheist propaganda that I've seen him called an 'atheist', which I have seen no evidence to support.

Could that be because the debate where he is a Christian, pagan, or spiritualist largely goes on in anti-Christian and anti-theist/deist/spiritual circles?

I'll take what Christianity means, and Christian principles, from a confessing Christian, which Hitler turned out not to be.

Like the Russian Tzars? Big step up. LOL

Yes, Hitler was much, much more effective in killing off the Jews (and others) than the Czar was.  Not to mention that the majority ended up in the East because they were expelled from the West.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 02:27:02 PM
Like St. John Chrysostom who said in his Homily Against the Jews:

Quote
And why do I speak of the immorality that goes on [at Rosh Hashanah]? Are you not afraid that your wife may not come back from there after a demon has possessed her soul? Did you not hear in my previous discourse the argument which clearly proved to us that demons dwell in the very souls of the Jews and in places in which they gather? Tell me, then. How do you Judaizers have the boldness, after dancing with demons, to come back to the assembly of the apostles?

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/homily-ii.htm

Maybe he was a 'bad (or poorly practicing) Christian', but the Church seems to think he's ok:

Quote
The grace of your words illuminated the universe like a shining beacon. It amassed treasures of munificence in the world. It demonstrated the greatness of humility, teaching us by your own words; therefore, O Father John Chrysostom, intercede to Christ the Logos for the salvation of our souls.

http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=405

Hmmm...

We don't claim he's perfect - and neither am I, which is why I'm not taking your bait to judge St. John's words.  Nice try, though.

Oh...that's no fun, I really wanted someone to defend the line: 'the argument which clearly proved to us that demons dwell in the very souls of the Jews'. Gods know I've done it in the past. ;)

Oh well, it was worth a try. ;D

Then again, knowing this board, there might still be a taker out there. :)

I'll be your huckleberry.  :-*  I think that either a) St. John was talking about a particular group of Jews

Considering later Chrysostom says 'What greater evidence could there be that a man does not love our Lord than when he participates in the festival with those who slew Christ?', I think it's safe to assume he's talking about all the 'Christ-Killers', which apparently doesn't just mean a particular mob in the 1st century, but all subsequent Jews. Guess it's kinda like that whole blacks being sinful because they're apparently descendants of Cain (did skin pigmentation really diverge that quickly, or was it a divine curse?).

Now I know that it has been pointed out to you several times, that this "belief" sprung from Protestants diluting their Christianity with the "enlightenment" (which brought on the Atlantic slave trade), and has nothing to do with Apostolic Christianity.  Yet you still cling to it.....

Never said it was, I was using this linguistic concept called analogy, mixed with a hint of sarcasm, ever heard of them?
False analogy. Sure, heard of it a lot in your posts.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2009, 02:27:59 PM
....who was a Hebrew ("salvation is from the Jew"). Hardly a follower.

Oh, they took care of that, they just believed Jesus was an Aryan. But, in truth, it's all made up anyway, so what difference does it make? Adding one lie to the millions in religion is like adding a raindrop to a pond.

another drop you contribute to the pond of atheism.....but why is the puddle yellow?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Super Apostolic Bros. on December 02, 2009, 02:44:18 PM
There's a lot of room for improvement, but it is, without a doubt, the best time in the history of the world.
How Leibnizian. Oh, the irony!
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 02:47:36 PM
What is "True Atheism?" What Atheists don't do.

I was referring to Atheism without a belief in a 'first cause' or something like that, which was common in 18th and early 19th century forms.

Quote
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/F%C3%AAte_de_la_Raison_1793.jpg)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/F%C3%AAte_de_la_Raison_1793.jpg

Reason, the only true goddess, the only deity worthy of veneration!

and that they did
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Cruikshank_-_The_Radical%27s_Arms.png)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Cruikshank_-_The_Radical%27s_Arms.png
Just in case you can't read the banner, it says ""No God! No Religion! No King! No Constitution!""

Propaganda posters, what a great argument...are these the things you're confusing for 'facts'? Just look at those evil proletariats, they should have remained content under the oppressive heel of their despot-king. There were a few extremes during the French Revolution, but, ultimately, it was necessary.

Quote
and Hitler as good examples.

Oh no...he's yours:

'National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity.... For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles then we should to be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest by God.'

-Adolf Hitler

You may not agree with all his theology, but he was a Christian. In fact, much of the theology you might find most distasteful comes down the line from Chrysostom.

So an atheist usuing Christian language to score propaganda points.  Not the first, wasn't the last.

Most debates have been around whether Hitler was a Christian, a pagan, or a spiritualist...but it's really only in anti-atheist propaganda that I've seen him called an 'atheist', which I have seen no evidence to support.

Could that be because the debate where he is a Christian, pagan, or spiritualist largely goes on in anti-Christian and anti-theist/deist/spiritual circles?

I'll take what Christianity means, and Christian principles, from a confessing Christian, which Hitler turned out not to be.

Like the Russian Tzars? Big step up. LOL

Yes, Hitler was much, much more effective in killing off the Jews (and others) than the Czar was.  Not to mention that the majority ended up in the East because they were expelled from the West.

But the Tzars were at a disadvantage, lacking the modern weapons of war and poison gas available to the Nazis. Not to mention they were terrible administrators. The fact that they killed fewer was due to incompetency, not intent.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 02:50:21 PM
There's a lot of room for improvement, but it is, without a doubt, the best time in the history of the world.
How Leibnizian. Oh, the irony!

It's not the optimal among all possible worlds, just the best we've seen yet. As science and technology advances so will our quality of life.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: John of the North on December 02, 2009, 02:55:01 PM
Propaganda posters, what a great argument...are these the things you're confusing for 'facts'? Just look at those evil proletariats, they should have remained content under the oppressive heel of their despot-king. There were a few extremes during the French Revolution, but, ultimately, it was necessary.

"There is no more Vendée, Republican citizens. It died beneath our free sword, with its women and its children. I have just buried it in the swamps and the woods of Savenay. Following the orders that you gave to me, I crushed the children beneath the horses' hooves, massacred the women who, those at least, will bear no more brigands. I do not have a single prisoner to reproach myself with. I have exterminated them all..." - General François Joseph Westermann

I would post pictures of the human skins....but I fear it is too graphic for the forum!
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Super Apostolic Bros. on December 02, 2009, 03:28:23 PM
There's a lot of room for improvement, but it is, without a doubt, the best time in the history of the world.
How Leibnizian. Oh, the irony!

It's not the optimal among all possible worlds, just the best we've seen yet. As science and technology advances so will our quality of life.
The idea was that Leibniz sidestepped the problem of evil by believing in both determinism and denying that evil "exists." Determinism isn't the sole domain of Calvinists, pre-Christian Greeks and East Asians as people like Hume demonstrate. So it doesn't matter that you don't consider this world the best of all possible ones; you have a common ground with Leibniz in numbers fetishism and dancing around the question/problem of evil.

Your faith ("faith," in this case meaning confidence that something you expect will happen will indeed happen) in technology is quaint, but besides the point. If we Christians are to answer for "our" homophobia and antisemitism, you also have to realize that the science that produced vaccines and medicines and Playstation 3's also produced nuclear weapons and other, more refined ways of killing people.

And I know you're going to say that video game makers and doctors didn't work on the Manhattan project nor were they students of Dr. Mengele. But all these people used science and technology, right? This, of course, is the same "logic" by which people like you condemn Christianity.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 03:57:42 PM
There's a lot of room for improvement, but it is, without a doubt, the best time in the history of the world.
How Leibnizian. Oh, the irony!

It's not the optimal among all possible worlds, just the best we've seen yet. As science and technology advances so will our quality of life.

The idea was that Leibniz sidestepped the problem of evil by believing in both determinism and denying that evil "exists." Determinism isn't the sole domain of Calvinists, pre-Christian Greeks and East Asians as people like Hume demonstrate. So it doesn't matter that you don't consider this world the best of all possible ones; you have a common ground with Leibniz in numbers fetishism and dancing around the question/problem of evil.

In a remote way, perhaps. I don't believe there is a 'question/problem of evil', certain behaviours are not conducive to the advancement and preservation of society and, hence, we have labeled them as 'evil'. And, as time advances, as our collective experience grows, we better understand what is conducive to the benefit of society and thus have a more thorough understanding of 'evil'. Evil is not some entity or metaphysical reality, it is simply a label for a large number of anti-social behaviours.

Quote
Your faith ("faith," in this case meaning confidence that something you expect will happen will indeed happen) in technology is quaint, but besides the point.

It's more hope than faith. I have faith in the consistency of the axioms of number theory, I have hope that humanity will continue to improve the world.

Quote
If we Christians are to answer for "our" homophobia and antisemitism, you also have to realize that the science that produced vaccines and medicines and Playstation 3's also produced nuclear weapons and other, more refined ways of killing people. And I know you're going to say that video game makers and doctors didn't work on the Manhattan project nor were they students of Dr. Mengele.

As someone who fully supported the development and deployment of nuclear weapons and as someone who thinks scientific research, including research into military technology, I don't really think we I have anything to defend. A nuclear bomb does not kill people by itself, it does not tell you to kill people, it does not even encourage you to kill people (if anything, it discourages it because of the ramifications)...it's nothing more than a glorified version of a club, it accomplishes the exact same thing, only on a larger scale. And Dr. Mengele's research was rather uninfluential, his frostbite research is the only thing that has shown any use and promise. And his research is suspect not because of the gruesome methods he used but because of failure to use proper control groups, lack of proper statistical analysis, and the poor quality of his research notes...these are of more concern to science than his methods. Science is amoral, it makes no judgments as to whether something is right or wrong, just whether or not it is objectively verifiable. His methods actually hurt his science due to the reservations his peers had at reproducing his results.

Quote
But all these people used science and technology, right? This, of course, is the same "logic" by which people like you condemn Christianity.

Though the abuses of those who have used religion to their ends is manifest, there are greater concerns with religion. It's one thing to claim to do something in the name of a religion, it's another thing for him to be officially venerated or honored by the religion in the light of his actions (which can be said of several Emperor and Tzar-saints in Christianity, or, say, Luther and Calvin amongst the Protestants, or Mohammad amongst the Moslems, or Moses and Joshua amongst the Jews). With science, we are capable of making use of one's research without condoning their means or their person, we can say 'he was truly evil, but we won't simply dismiss the knowledge gained' because science is amoral. Religion, which takes a moral stance, does not have this luxury; you cannot say that the work of Mohammad was good and useful, but his actions were evil, so we condemn him as an evil man, but give our lives over to the doctrine he developed and espoused. It is this concept of morality attached to an institution, often an absolute morality, that is the weakness of religion and what causes religion to be a danger to society.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 02, 2009, 03:58:29 PM
Which is why it's called a deathstyle rather than a lifestyle.
I'm glad we're agreed that homosexuality is not a lifestyle.

See, so far we've got concessions that homosexuals exist and that it's not just a lifestyle. I think we're making real progress here. ;)
There is not a single study that proves that homosexuality is not a lifestyle.
http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/apbg.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From “Human Sexual Orientation:  The Biologic Theories Reappraised”

“there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory, just as there is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation. While all behavior must have an ultimate biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking.”

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/3/228
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find one study that conclusively proves that minute brain differences in the hypothalamus, midsagittal area of the anterior commissure, suprachiasmatic nucleus, and/or the gay gene cause homosexuality.  (Remember that LeVay’s studies, identifying minute brain changes in homosexuals, was discovered after postmortem exams of AIDS patients, very possibly prescribed immune therapies and antiviral meds.
(The CARE Act was enacted in 1990 to help poor and uninsured individuals with HIV/AIDS get primary care, support services and life-sustaining medications.)
-----------------------------------------------------------


Simone LeVay’s results, 1991, were never replicated.
--------------------------------------------------------

"Time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic' ... I did not."
quote from Simon LeVay in The Sexual Brain, p. 122.  (LeVay is the neuroanatomist who compiled the research that is frequently quoted to support the non-proven theory that homosexuality has a biological origin.)



There is no doubt that homosexuality is NOT a monogenic trait, and it is very likely to be NOT a POLYgenic trait. Homosexuality is, most likely, multifactorial. But it is most certainly not a "lifestyle." Just ask people who are homosexual, - was there ever a MOMENT in their life when they MADE A CHOICE to be homosexual rather than heterosexual?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GammaRay on December 02, 2009, 04:21:19 PM
Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.


Animal behavior is not a benchmark to decide what is “natural”/biological for humans.  Humans have a "benchmark" and it is found in the Holy Bible.
You can't be serious? I mean...really???


LMAO
Uh. You can just replace the words Holy Bible with man-made morality. I can expand concerning the logical fallacy of appeal to nature, but ialmsary already did it in one sentence.


Does it matter if some (or most) Christians are anti-Semetic and homophobic? I thought it was about Orthodox Christianity, not her followers.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 02, 2009, 04:43:44 PM
Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice. In the former Soviet Union, homosexual relationships between men were a crime punisheable by at the very least 8 years in hard labor camps (if there were no aggravating circumstances). Yet, I knew people there who were gay and who had gay lovers. Of course, they did not advertise it to every stranger, given the circumstances they were living at. But their close friends knew.

The closest friend of my childhood, who is now a movie and TV celebrity and who was, back then, a very regular schoolboy with a very typical and regular Soviet family (mother - high school principal, father engineer), told his parents that he was gay and in love with a man when he was 15. The parents decided to "treat" him at a psychiatric hospital, telling all the people who knew their son (A.) that A. has chronic pneumonia. A. broke a window with his two bare fists (badly wounding himself) and jumped from the second floor, and literally crawled to his lover. A's parents finally understood that their son just was who he was, and never attempted to "treat" him again.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 04:49:15 PM
Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

Seriously? Even amongst the crowd I hang around, very sexually open, tolerant of any fetish you might have, perfectly accepting of gays...people will do some pretty outlandish things to get attention, but I don't think that's one of them.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Super Apostolic Bros. on December 02, 2009, 05:43:41 PM
There's a lot of room for improvement, but it is, without a doubt, the best time in the history of the world.
How Leibnizian. Oh, the irony!

It's not the optimal among all possible worlds, just the best we've seen yet. As science and technology advances so will our quality of life.

The idea was that Leibniz sidestepped the problem of evil by believing in both determinism and denying that evil "exists." Determinism isn't the sole domain of Calvinists, pre-Christian Greeks and East Asians as people like Hume demonstrate. So it doesn't matter that you don't consider this world the best of all possible ones; you have a common ground with Leibniz in numbers fetishism and dancing around the question/problem of evil.

In a remote way, perhaps. I don't believe there is a 'question/problem of evil', certain behaviours are not conducive to the advancement and preservation of society and, hence, we have labeled them as 'evil'. And, as time advances, as our collective experience grows, we better understand what is conducive to the benefit of society and thus have a more thorough understanding of 'evil'. Evil is not some entity or metaphysical reality, it is simply a label for a large number of anti-social behaviours.

Quote
Your faith ("faith," in this case meaning confidence that something you expect will happen will indeed happen) in technology is quaint, but besides the point.

It's more hope than faith. I have faith in the consistency of the axioms of number theory, I have hope that humanity will continue to improve the world.

Quote
If we Christians are to answer for "our" homophobia and antisemitism, you also have to realize that the science that produced vaccines and medicines and Playstation 3's also produced nuclear weapons and other, more refined ways of killing people. And I know you're going to say that video game makers and doctors didn't work on the Manhattan project nor were they students of Dr. Mengele.

As someone who fully supported the development and deployment of nuclear weapons and as someone who thinks scientific research, including research into military technology, I don't really think we I have anything to defend. A nuclear bomb does not kill people by itself, it does not tell you to kill people, it does not even encourage you to kill people (if anything, it discourages it because of the ramifications)...it's nothing more than a glorified version of a club, it accomplishes the exact same thing, only on a larger scale. And Dr. Mengele's research was rather uninfluential, his frostbite research is the only thing that has shown any use and promise. And his research is suspect not because of the gruesome methods he used but because of failure to use proper control groups, lack of proper statistical analysis, and the poor quality of his research notes...these are of more concern to science than his methods. Science is amoral, it makes no judgments as to whether something is right or wrong, just whether or not it is objectively verifiable. His methods actually hurt his science due to the reservations his peers had at reproducing his results.

Quote
But all these people used science and technology, right? This, of course, is the same "logic" by which people like you condemn Christianity.

Though the abuses of those who have used religion to their ends is manifest, there are greater concerns with religion. It's one thing to claim to do something in the name of a religion, it's another thing for him to be officially venerated or honored by the religion in the light of his actions (which can be said of several Emperor and Tzar-saints in Christianity, or, say, Luther and Calvin amongst the Protestants, or Mohammad amongst the Moslems, or Moses and Joshua amongst the Jews). With science, we are capable of making use of one's research without condoning their means or their person, we can say 'he was truly evil, but we won't simply dismiss the knowledge gained' because science is amoral. Religion, which takes a moral stance, does not have this luxury; you cannot say that the work of Mohammad was good and useful, but his actions were evil, so we condemn him as an evil man, but give our lives over to the doctrine he developed and espoused. It is this concept of morality attached to an institution, often an absolute morality, that is the weakness of religion and what causes religion to be a danger to society.
I will say nothing more on this other than you have yet again proven my point whilst explaining yourself away in a completely irrelevant fashion. *receives "moral relativism" card*
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 02, 2009, 05:49:40 PM
Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

Seriously? Even amongst the crowd I hang around, very sexually open, tolerant of any fetish you might have, perfectly accepting of gays...people will do some pretty outlandish things to get attention, but I don't think that's one of them.
Seriously?  Unless you are unemployed, you are spending much of your free time on OCnet with Christians.  What draws you to this site?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Shlomlokh on December 02, 2009, 05:50:58 PM
I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice. In the former Soviet Union, homosexual relationships between men were a crime punisheable by at the very least 8 years in hard labor camps (if there were no aggravating circumstances). Yet, I knew people there who were gay and who had gay lovers. Of course, they did not advertise it to every stranger, given the circumstances they were living at. But their close friends knew.

Of course they're going to say that. ::) Does what someone says make it true? Come on now! :)

A friend of mine from high school revealed to us our senior year that he was gay and was "born this way." Poppycock and rubbish, I say! :D I fail to see how it could be anything other than a learned trait. Why is it that homosexuality was undeniably a psychological problem 60 years ago, but now it had to be removed from a list of psychological problems due to pressurings of homosexual activists?

Perhaps if I get enough people together who think they are X-Men, that can be deemed a legitimate gene (the x-gene) that people are born with. After all, I'm saying that I'm born with it and never had a choice in the matter. After all, when faced with a life sentence or the death penalty, murderers and pedophiles often say that they were born this way and we should accept them as they are and not try to get them treatment.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 06:00:55 PM
Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

Seriously? Even amongst the crowd I hang around, very sexually open, tolerant of any fetish you might have, perfectly accepting of gays...people will do some pretty outlandish things to get attention, but I don't think that's one of them.
Seriously?  Unless you are unemployed, you are spending much of your free time on OCnet with Christians.  What draws you to this site?

I joined when at an Orthodox Seminary, believe it or not, there are actually a few people around here I like, so I've kinda stuck around. ;) Oh, and I'm at work right now. ;D
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Fr. George on December 02, 2009, 06:05:18 PM
I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 02, 2009, 06:54:17 PM
I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 02, 2009, 07:03:46 PM
I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice. In the former Soviet Union, homosexual relationships between men were a crime punisheable by at the very least 8 years in hard labor camps (if there were no aggravating circumstances). Yet, I knew people there who were gay and who had gay lovers. Of course, they did not advertise it to every stranger, given the circumstances they were living at. But their close friends knew.

Of course they're going to say that. ::) Does what someone says make it true? Come on now! :)

A friend of mine from high school revealed to us our senior year that he was gay and was "born this way." Poppycock and rubbish, I say! :D I fail to see how it could be anything other than a learned trait. Why is it that homosexuality was undeniably a psychological problem 60 years ago, but now it had to be removed from a list of psychological problems due to pressurings of homosexual activists?

Perhaps if I get enough people together who think they are X-Men, that can be deemed a legitimate gene (the x-gene) that people are born with. After all, I'm saying that I'm born with it and never had a choice in the matter. After all, when faced with a life sentence or the death penalty, murderers and pedophiles often say that they were born this way and we should accept them as they are and not try to get them treatment.

In Christ,
Andrew

I am kind of the opposite because I fail to see how "that" CAN be a "learned trait." How and where in the world could my friend A. "learn" to love a man, growing up in the former USSR, where you would go to jail for at least 8 years if you were caught having sex with a man? And mind you, there was ZERO of any "homosexual culture" in Kiev of the 1970-s - 1980-s - we never heard anything about gays, they were a deep dark underground, we could not see them in movies, hear about them on TV or radio, read about them in newspapers... Personally, I grew up "knowing" that homosexuals are extremely rare, that there is perhaps one homosexual out of a few million people, and that homosexuals are some sort of monsters, profoundly ill. When A., being an incredibly handsome and masculine youth, never dated girls, I thought, well, he is perhaps too picky, just still looking for the one he would really love. I was caught by a complete surprise when I learned that A. was in love with a man, and that there are several other young men, who are his friends, who are couples between themselves, and also two very attractive girls who were a couple. Again, that was in the early 1980's for goodness' sake... You can't probably imagine how very duifferent our entire life was back there and then, and yet...

And as far as murderers and pedophiles go - their actions most definitely harm other people. Nothing remotedly similar in the case of consensual homosexual adult relationships.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Riddikulus on December 02, 2009, 07:09:04 PM
I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?

And if homosexual partnering - and long term, life-time partnering at that - is part of the natural world, as some research suggests, what then?
I know that wiki isn't the best resource, but there are some interesting references on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 02, 2009, 07:16:58 PM
I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?
lust, boredom, impulsiveness, liberal indoctrination, recruitment, rebellion, peer pressure, and etc........

Why have 4 million Americans tried heroin?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 02, 2009, 07:28:25 PM
I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?

And if homosexual partnering - and long term, life-time partnering at that - is part of the natural world, as some research suggests, what then?
I know that wiki isn't the best resource, but there are some interesting references on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
See reply #129 and the article below about "homosexual partnering".
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/SSdivorcerisk.pdf

“The study found that gay male couples were 1.5 times as likely (or 50 percent more likely) to divorce as married opposite-sex
couples, while lesbian couples were 2.67 times as likely (167 percent more likely) to divorce as opposite-sex married couples
over a similar period of time.2 Even after controlling for demographic characteristics associated with increased risk of divorce,
male same-sex couples were 1.35 times as likely (35 percent more likely) to divorce, and lesbian couples were three times as
likely (200 percent more likely) to divorce as opposite-sex married couples.”
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 02, 2009, 07:39:23 PM
liberal indoctrination
So I'm guessing conservative indoctrination is okay. ::) Really, moronic statements like this just give the world further evidence against us.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Riddikulus on December 02, 2009, 07:44:56 PM
I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?

And if homosexual partnering - and long term, life-time partnering at that - is part of the natural world, as some research suggests, what then?
I know that wiki isn't the best resource, but there are some interesting references on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
See reply #129 and the article below about "homosexual partnering".
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/SSdivorcerisk.pdf

“The study found that gay male couples were 1.5 times as likely (or 50 percent more likely) to divorce as married opposite-sex
couples, while lesbian couples were 2.67 times as likely (167 percent more likely) to divorce as opposite-sex married couples
over a similar period of time.2 Even after controlling for demographic characteristics associated with increased risk of divorce,
male same-sex couples were 1.35 times as likely (35 percent more likely) to divorce, and lesbian couples were three times as
likely (200 percent more likely) to divorce as opposite-sex married couples.”

Yes, but bringing up statistics regarding fidelity doesn't answer my question regarding the implication of natural homosexual behaviour in non-human animals. The appalling rate of divorce and partner changing of heterosexual couples isn't an argument against heterosexual sex. Statistics don't take into account the reasons behind the breakups. However, long-term, life-long homosexual partnering happens.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 02, 2009, 07:51:29 PM
lust,

Ok, if you have lust, that's not a conscience decision, that's a natural biological reaction.

Quote
boredom, impulsiveness, liberal indoctrination, recruitment, rebellion, peer pressure, and etc........

Why have 4 million Americans tried heroin?

Those are all good reason to try heroine, not good reasons to have homosexual sex. If you friends says, 'I scored some black tar, want to get high', then it would seem quite reasonable to say, 'sure, hook me up'. But if the same (guy) friend say, 'hey, want to go have sex'...couldn't quite see myself saying, 'sure, hook me up'.

Isn't this intuitively obvious? Does it really need to be explained?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 02, 2009, 08:04:31 PM
I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?

And if homosexual partnering - and long term, life-time partnering at that - is part of the natural world, as some research suggests, what then?
I know that wiki isn't the best resource, but there are some interesting references on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
See reply #129 and the article below about "homosexual partnering".
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/SSdivorcerisk.pdf

“The study found that gay male couples were 1.5 times as likely (or 50 percent more likely) to divorce as married opposite-sex
couples, while lesbian couples were 2.67 times as likely (167 percent more likely) to divorce as opposite-sex married couples
over a similar period of time.2 Even after controlling for demographic characteristics associated with increased risk of divorce,
male same-sex couples were 1.35 times as likely (35 percent more likely) to divorce, and lesbian couples were three times as
likely (200 percent more likely) to divorce as opposite-sex married couples.”

Yes, but bringing up statistics regarding fidelity doesn't answer my question regarding the implication of natural homosexual behaviour in non-human animals. The appalling rate of divorce and partner changing of heterosexual couples isn't an argument against heterosexual sex. Statistics don't take into account the reasons behind the breakups. However, long-term, life-long homosexual partnering happens.
See reply #129 on this thread.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 02, 2009, 08:24:09 PM
lust,

Ok, if you have lust, that's not a conscience decision, that's a natural biological reaction.

Quote
boredom, impulsiveness, liberal indoctrination, recruitment, rebellion, peer pressure, and etc........

Why have 4 million Americans tried heroin?

Those are all good reason to try heroine, not good reasons to have homosexual sex. If you friends says, 'I scored some black tar, want to get high', then it would seem quite reasonable to say, 'sure, hook me up'. But if the same (guy) friend say, 'hey, want to go have sex'...couldn't quite see myself saying, 'sure, hook me up'.

Isn't this intuitively obvious? Does it really need to be explained?
No.  (Having) Sex is one of the primary forces that drives all thoughts, emotions and behavior. (Freud)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 02, 2009, 08:30:29 PM
lust,

Ok, if you have lust, that's not a conscience decision, that's a natural biological reaction.

Quote
boredom, impulsiveness, liberal indoctrination, recruitment, rebellion, peer pressure, and etc........

Why have 4 million Americans tried heroin?

Those are all good reason to try heroine, not good reasons to have homosexual sex. If you friends says, 'I scored some black tar, want to get high', then it would seem quite reasonable to say, 'sure, hook me up'. But if the same (guy) friend say, 'hey, want to go have sex'...couldn't quite see myself saying, 'sure, hook me up'.

Isn't this intuitively obvious? Does it really need to be explained?
No.  (Having) Sex is one of the primary forces that drives all thoughts, emotions and behavior. (Freud)
Hmm. Sex drive is natural biology. Are you saying that homosexuals have a natural biological impulse to have sex with members of the same gender?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 02, 2009, 08:43:48 PM
lust,

Ok, if you have lust, that's not a conscience decision, that's a natural biological reaction.

Quote
boredom, impulsiveness, liberal indoctrination, recruitment, rebellion, peer pressure, and etc........

Why have 4 million Americans tried heroin?

Those are all good reason to try heroine, not good reasons to have homosexual sex. If you friends says, 'I scored some black tar, want to get high', then it would seem quite reasonable to say, 'sure, hook me up'. But if the same (guy) friend say, 'hey, want to go have sex'...couldn't quite see myself saying, 'sure, hook me up'.

Isn't this intuitively obvious? Does it really need to be explained?
No.  (Having) Sex is one of the primary forces that drives all thoughts, emotions and behavior. (Freud)
Hmm. Sex drive is natural biology. Are you saying that homosexuals have a natural biological impulse to have sex with members of the same gender?
Nice try...no cigar.  Reread all my posts especially the posted research results. 
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Riddikulus on December 02, 2009, 09:30:21 PM
Does anyone know what the current view is about homosexual behaviour in non-human animals? They aren't making lifestyle choices, I would assume.  :-\
From homosexual researcher Simon LeVay:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

Simon LeVay, Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996). Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999). pg. 207.
--------------------------------------------
If animals are homosexual because homosexuality is biological/natural,  then  coprophagy (poop eating) must also be completely natural. Since humans are animals, some might want to implement coprophagy into their “recycling plan”.
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/news/2005/feb/feb0514.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------

One can not read human motivations and sentiments into all animals’ sexual behavior.  The sexual behavior of animals is not a benchmark to determine that same-sex behavior in humans is natural/biological.  Animal and human cognition are not comparable.  Animals lack the ability to express all their feelings.   Consequently, they may demonstrate their feelings ambiguously.  

Animals will exhibit same-sex behavior with different motivations.  Male and female dogs exhibit same-sex behavior to show dominance in the social hierarchy.

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2002/6/02.06.01.x.html

Monkeys show same-sex behavior when fearful or excited about food.
 www.songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html.
Giraffes exhibit same-sex behavior with dominance, competition or greetings.  Many animals use same-sex  behavior as a social phenomenon to solve conflict.  Is it natural/biological for humans to solve conflict with same-sex behavior?  (Beware Afghans!  We are sending 30,000 additional troops. )  Many creatures often have same-sex with other species.  Does this make homosexual bestiality natural/biological for humans?
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Animal behavior is not a benchmark to decide what is “natural”/biological for humans.  Humans have a "benchmark" and it is found in the Holy Bible.

Then the thrust of your argument is, if I understand you correctly, that homosexual behaviour in humans is not the result of any kind of natural partnering urge, but a decision made by humans; a lifestyle choice - whereas in non-human animals it is a natural occurrence?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 02, 2009, 10:35:24 PM
Here is my argument:  There is not conclusive proof that there is a biological basis for homosexuality in humans.   

Another argument:  Romans 1:16-32

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
 17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
 24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
 26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
 28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Riddikulus on December 02, 2009, 10:41:19 PM
Here is my argument:  There is not conclusive proof that there is a biological basis for homosexuality in humans. 

And yet there is a biological basis for homosexuality in non-human animals?

Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 02, 2009, 10:59:04 PM
Read post #129 again.  Animal behaviors that appear to be sexual may be shows of dominance, greetings, and ways to end conflict.   

It is very kind of you to worry about the real furries' behaviors, but animals don't have souls. ;)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Riddikulus on December 02, 2009, 11:06:48 PM
Read post #129 again.  Animal behaviors that appear to be sexual may be shows of dominance, greetings, and ways to end conflict.   

It is very kind of you to worry about the real furries' behaviors, but animals don't have souls. ;)


I've read post #129. Unless, I'm missing something - and that's a possibility - it doesn't answer my question; especially when there appears to be conflicting views on the topic.

And once sarcasm in the form of non sequiturs enter a conversation, it's time for me to call it quits. Thanks for your time.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Asteriktos on December 03, 2009, 12:50:29 AM
Quote
Animal behaviors that appear to be sexual may be shows of dominance, greetings, and ways to end conflict. 

Darn, do humans do this to? If so, I'm missing out. Sexual relations as a form of greetings... can't say I've ever experienced that... but it'd be a nice change  ;D
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Tallitot on December 03, 2009, 01:12:00 AM
A follower of Christ is anyone who considers himself a Christian. For a spear-chucker like GiC any Christian needed to make a rhetorical point will do.

I personally view I John, the Sermon on the Mount and the Epistles as basic guidelines for Christian behaviour. That doesn't mean everyone will, given the practical difficulty of following them....

Why do you refer to GiC as a "spear chucker"? Maybe you should google the term before you use it.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 03, 2009, 05:25:25 AM
Here is my argument:  There is not conclusive proof that there is a biological basis for homosexuality in humans.   

Another argument:  Romans 1:16-32
I think using Scripture to attempt to prove there is no biological basis for homosexuality is an ignorant argument and the height of homophobia. Why are you trying so hard to prove homosexuals don't exist? Does their existence make you uncomfortable?

Besides, if you're going to argue from Scripture, then argue from Scripture. Don't just post Scripture and expect me to interpret it the same way you do. Such a practice has caused 30,000 Protestant denominations.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 03, 2009, 09:21:34 AM
Come on everyone, lets all side hug.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 03, 2009, 11:02:42 AM
lust,

Ok, if you have lust, that's not a conscience decision, that's a natural biological reaction.

Quote
boredom, impulsiveness, liberal indoctrination, recruitment, rebellion, peer pressure, and etc........

Why have 4 million Americans tried heroin?

Those are all good reason to try heroine, not good reasons to have homosexual sex. If you friends says, 'I scored some black tar, want to get high', then it would seem quite reasonable to say, 'sure, hook me up'. But if the same (guy) friend say, 'hey, want to go have sex'...couldn't quite see myself saying, 'sure, hook me up'.

Isn't this intuitively obvious? Does it really need to be explained?
No.  (Having) Sex is one of the primary forces that drives all thoughts, emotions and behavior. (Freud)
Hmm. Sex drive is natural biology. Are you saying that homosexuals have a natural biological impulse to have sex with members of the same gender?

No, I think she is saying they are unnatural.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 03, 2009, 11:04:39 AM
I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?
Forbidden fruit.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Papist on December 03, 2009, 11:47:20 AM
I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?
Forbidden fruit.
Wait, are you saying that people choose to be attracted to members of the same sex or choose to act on this attraction?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 03, 2009, 12:46:00 PM
I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?
lust, boredom, impulsiveness, liberal indoctrination, recruitment, rebellion, peer pressure, and etc........

Why have 4 million Americans tried heroin?

But why did my friend A. "chose" to become a homosexual when he was growing up in the former USSR? There was no peer pressure - the opposite; no liberal indoctrination - the opposite...
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 03, 2009, 12:46:37 PM
I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?
Forbidden fruit.

Why did I not choose it then?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 03, 2009, 01:00:26 PM
lust,

Ok, if you have lust, that's not a conscience decision, that's a natural biological reaction.

Quote
boredom, impulsiveness, liberal indoctrination, recruitment, rebellion, peer pressure, and etc........

Why have 4 million Americans tried heroin?

Those are all good reason to try heroine, not good reasons to have homosexual sex. If you friends says, 'I scored some black tar, want to get high', then it would seem quite reasonable to say, 'sure, hook me up'. But if the same (guy) friend say, 'hey, want to go have sex'...couldn't quite see myself saying, 'sure, hook me up'.

Isn't this intuitively obvious? Does it really need to be explained?
No.  (Having) Sex is one of the primary forces that drives all thoughts, emotions and behavior. (Freud)

So it is not intuitively obvious to you? AH! Now I understand what's going on here...carry on.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Fr. George on December 03, 2009, 01:01:22 PM
I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?  

1. Caution: the unreliability of self-report does not necessarily mean someone is voluntarily lying; they may merely not know the truth.

2. I don't know why anyone would choose certain death over eternal life - but we all seem to do that a whole lot in our lives on Earth.  I won't attempt to explain homosexual attraction - I haven't studied the issue enough to.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Rosehip on December 03, 2009, 02:10:36 PM
I know people who grew up far from any gay communities and with likely zero to little of any sort of "indocrination" and turns out, they are gay.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Riddikulus on December 03, 2009, 05:39:24 PM
Come on everyone, lets all side hug.

 :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 03, 2009, 05:53:24 PM
I know people who grew up far from any gay communities and with likely zero to little of any sort of "indocrination" and turns out, they are gay.

I know such people, too. Again, like I said, in the former USSR where gay sex was a criminal offense punishable by at the very least 8 yers of hard labor camps, and where the prevailing (and official!) notion was that homosexuality is extremely rare and a terrible, grave disease so that homosexuals must be subjected to insulin shock in psychiatric wards etc. - some people WERE gay. My closest childhood friend grew up as gay as they come. Some of my family members are gay. SO, WHATEVER it is, it's NOT "boredom, lust, indoctrination" etc. These people suffer, and, placed in the society that looks down on homosexuality, sometimes pretend to be who they are not, and poison many lives of many people who are near them...
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 03, 2009, 07:05:50 PM
Here is my argument:  There is not conclusive proof that there is a biological basis for homosexuality in humans.  

Another argument:  Romans 1:16-32
I think using Scripture to attempt to prove there is no biological basis for homosexuality is an ignorant argument and the height of homophobia. Why are you trying so hard to prove homosexuals don't exist? Does their existence make you uncomfortable?

Besides, if you're going to argue from Scripture, then argue from Scripture. Don't just post Scripture and expect me to interpret it the same way you do. Such a practice has caused 30,000 Protestant denominations.
"using Scripture to attempt to prove there is no biological basis for homosexuality is an ignorant argument"

The Othodox Study Bible-New Testament and Psalms states that homosexuality is unnatural, shameful, and unacceptable to God.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orthodox Study Bible- New Testament and Psalms (Romans 1: 26-32  pages 339-340)

26      For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.  For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
 27     Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28     And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind to do those things which are not fitting;
29     being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
30     backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31     undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
32     who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
________________________________________________________________
Romans 1:26, 27  Error means delusion.  Paul, and the rest of Scripture, is clear. To claim that homosexuality is natural or an “alternative life-style” is delusion.  Rather, it is unnatural, shameful, and unacceptable to God.

Romans 1:29  Sex, of course, is not evil, for it is a gift of God.  But sex outside of marriage is immoral, for it violates God’s law.

Romans 1:32  God will also judge those who approve of unrighteousness.  All humanity (even the ungodly) knows God’s righteousness through creation (v. 20) and conscience (2:14,15).  While those who excuse themselves may form an unrighteous brotherhood with the vices, all will know they are deserving of death at the final judgment.


Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 03, 2009, 07:14:44 PM
I had no idea that the footnotes of the Orthodox Study Bible had become dogma in the Orthodox Church...I guess a lot has changed since I left.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on December 03, 2009, 07:19:24 PM
I had no idea that the footnotes of the Orthodox Study Bible had become dogma in the Orthodox Church...I guess a lot has changed since I left.

You must of missed the great Council of Nashville (I think that is where the publisher is HQed).  The Orthodox Study Bible footnotes were recognised as Holy Tradition.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 03, 2009, 08:29:16 PM
"using Scripture to attempt to prove there is no biological basis for homosexuality is an ignorant argument"

The Othodox Study Bible-New Testament and Psalms states that homosexuality is unnatural, shameful, and unacceptable to God.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orthodox Study Bible- New Testament and Psalms (Romans 1: 26-32  pages 339-340)

Romans 1:26, 27  Error means delusion.  Paul, and the rest of Scripture, is clear. To claim that homosexuality is natural or an “alternative life-style” is delusion.  Rather, it is unnatural, shameful, and unacceptable to God.

Romans 1:29  Sex, of course, is not evil, for it is a gift of God.  But sex outside of marriage is immoral, for it violates God’s law.

Romans 1:32  God will also judge those who approve of unrighteousness.  All humanity (even the ungodly) knows God’s righteousness through creation (v. 20) and conscience (2:14,15).  While those who excuse themselves may form an unrighteous brotherhood with the vices, all will know they are deserving of death at the final judgment.
That's nice. Are you going to make your own argument yet, or should I just leaf through my bookshelf and get it over with?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 04, 2009, 01:34:32 AM
The ultimate argument:

(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6303/wbcsign.png)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: augustin717 on December 04, 2009, 02:20:24 AM
"The Orthodox Study Bible" is almost a contradiction in terms. The whole idea sounds so Protestant.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 04, 2009, 02:24:15 AM
"The Orthodox Study Bible" is almost a contradiction in terms. The whole idea sounds so Protestant.
Why?  The Orthodox don't read their Bibles?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on December 04, 2009, 02:25:50 AM
The ultimate argument:

(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6303/wbcsign.png)

And once again, Ozgeorge demonstrates the ultimate Straw Man argument. ::)

Selam
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on December 04, 2009, 02:31:20 AM
"using Scripture to attempt to prove there is no biological basis for homosexuality is an ignorant argument"

The Othodox Study Bible-New Testament and Psalms states that homosexuality is unnatural, shameful, and unacceptable to God.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orthodox Study Bible- New Testament and Psalms (Romans 1: 26-32  pages 339-340)

Romans 1:26, 27  Error means delusion.  Paul, and the rest of Scripture, is clear. To claim that homosexuality is natural or an “alternative life-style” is delusion.  Rather, it is unnatural, shameful, and unacceptable to God.

Romans 1:29  Sex, of course, is not evil, for it is a gift of God.  But sex outside of marriage is immoral, for it violates God’s law.

Romans 1:32 God will also judge those who approve of unrighteousness.  All humanity (even the ungodly) knows God’s righteousness through creation (v. 20) and conscience (2:14,15).  While those who excuse themselves may form an unrighteous brotherhood with the vices, all will know they are deserving of death at the final judgment.
That's nice. Are you going to make your own argument yet, or should I just leaf through my bookshelf and get it over with?

Well, with respect, Orthodox Christians don't rely on their own subjective understanding. We accept and submit to the teachings of Holy Scripture and the Teachings and Tradition of the Holy Orthodox Church. Ms. Hoorah's "own argument" is simply a defense of Orthodox Truth, which frees her from the trappings of subjectivity and reletavism that so easily ensnare those who rely solely on mortal rationale and materialistic science.

Selam
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: augustin717 on December 04, 2009, 02:38:05 AM
"The Orthodox Study Bible" is almost a contradiction in terms. The whole idea sounds so Protestant.
Why?  The Orthodox don't read their Bibles?
Not really. We were taught that reading&explaining the Bible was for the clergy in the context of the services of the church, not other contexts.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 04, 2009, 02:40:41 AM
"The Orthodox Study Bible" is almost a contradiction in terms. The whole idea sounds so Protestant.
Why?  The Orthodox don't read their Bibles?
Not really. We were taught that reading&explaining the Bible was for the clergy in the context of the services of the church, not other contexts.
Who taught you this?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: augustin717 on December 04, 2009, 03:03:51 AM
The local clergy.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 04, 2009, 03:08:08 AM
The ultimate argument:

(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6303/wbcsign.png)

And once again, Ozgeorge demonstrates the ultimate Straw Man argument. ::)

Selam

Does he? I thought he was having a bit of fun.
Trying to put some fun in fundamentalism.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: minasoliman on December 04, 2009, 03:14:45 AM
This is an interesting struggle.  I watched a documentary on how Christians justify homosexual behavior is not a sin.  That was very interesting to watch.  While I'm not convinced by their arguments, I must say it's no wonder why the Anglican church went in the direction they did, and I recommend that those who want to be serious about this debate within the Christian community to go watch it.  The whole idea is a reinterpretation of the Bible where it analyzes Greek definitions of what is considered translated as "homosexual" and seems to argue that these are not what was meant.  In those days, they argue, it seems that homosexual behavior was associated with some sort of "prostitution" and not an honest love within the confines of what they practice today as gay marriage.  The weakness behind this argument, imo, is that there was never an instant in Christian history that allowed "gay marriage."  How come?

The other argument:  suppose there is a gay gene, or suppose there is "natural" occurrences.  I don't think that changes the moral sphere.  Sooner or later, we find that a lot of human behavior which is associated with "sin" under Christian definition may tend to originate from multifactorial processes, including some sort of genetic predisposition.  So then what?  Well, that's where struggle comes along.  Who knows what that "thorn in the flesh" might have been?  Many think it's a metaphor for people's most stinging sin affecting their spiritual lives.  Can that be because people find it natural to succumb to it, unnatural to fight it?  And yet, maybe you don't want to be type of person?  Maybe you feel like you didn't "choose" it, and you wish it was a choice.  Doesn't that sound familiar:

Quote from: Romans 7 (NKJV)
14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

I think it's very clear, natural or unnatural, we are called as Christians to transcend nature through Christ.  But I am no one to lay hate upon one person's "natural tendencies" over another.  I look at that person, and I think to myself, I am no different than you, struggling from my own tendencies too.  Does God hate me too as many fundamentalist Christians claim that God would hate fags?  Pure disgrace, and I think it's not the homosexuals' faults that homosexuality is so free even among Christian denominations, it's the homophobia from so-called Christians that cause this, the lack of sympathy and empathy and love.  Many leave Christianity altogether because of this hypocrisy, and many who love Christ and wish to continue to worship Him without this hypocrisy find themselves to have to justify this specific behavior, because surely the God of Love does not represent the homophobic Christians who continue to preach homosexuality as sin and homosexuals as God-hated.

This is my two cents.  Back to study.

God bless.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on December 04, 2009, 03:40:03 AM
Is there an unwritten forum rule that we must have one "Gay" thread a week?

And once we've exhausted this topic, are we going to explore whether or not there is a prostitution gene, or a gossip gene, or a "makes outrageous and ridiculous claims during parish council sessions" gene?  ::)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: SolEX01 on December 04, 2009, 03:48:34 AM
Is there an unwritten forum rule that we must have one "Gay" thread a week?

And once we've exhausted this topic, are we going to explore whether or not there is a prostitution gene, or a gossip gene, or a "makes outrageous and ridiculous claims during parish council sessions" gene?  ::)

How about exploring the "lacks sympathy, emphathy and love" gene?   ???
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on December 04, 2009, 04:04:46 AM
The ultimate argument:

(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6303/wbcsign.png)

And once again, Ozgeorge demonstrates the ultimate Straw Man argument. ::)

Selam

Does he? I thought he was having a bit of fun.
Trying to put some fun in fundamentalism.

Oh, don't worry, you're ALWAYS fun Ozgeorge. ;)

Selam
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Riddikulus on December 04, 2009, 04:09:33 AM
The ultimate argument:

(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6303/wbcsign.png)

And once again, Ozgeorge demonstrates the ultimate Straw Man argument. ::)

Selam

Does he? I thought he was having a bit of fun.
Trying to put some fun in fundamentalism.

 :laugh:
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on December 04, 2009, 04:25:50 AM
This is an interesting struggle.  I watched a documentary on how Christians justify homosexual behavior is not a sin.  That was very interesting to watch.  While I'm not convinced by their arguments, I must say it's no wonder why the Anglican church went in the direction they did, and I recommend that those who want to be serious about this debate within the Christian community to go watch it.  The whole idea is a reinterpretation of the Bible where it analyzes Greek definitions of what is considered translated as "homosexual" and seems to argue that these are not what was meant.  In those days, they argue, it seems that homosexual behavior was associated with some sort of "prostitution" and not an honest love within the confines of what they practice today as gay marriage.  The weakness behind this argument, imo, is that there was never an instant in Christian history that allowed "gay marriage."  How come?

The other argument:  suppose there is a gay gene, or suppose there is "natural" occurrences.  I don't think that changes the moral sphere.  Sooner or later, we find that a lot of human behavior which is associated with "sin" under Christian definition may tend to originate from multifactorial processes, including some sort of genetic predisposition.  So then what?  Well, that's where struggle comes along.  Who knows what that "thorn in the flesh" might have been?  Many think it's a metaphor for people's most stinging sin affecting their spiritual lives.  Can that be because people find it natural to succumb to it, unnatural to fight it?  And yet, maybe you don't want to be type of person?  Maybe you feel like you didn't "choose" it, and you wish it was a choice.  Doesn't that sound familiar:

Quote from: Romans 7 (NKJV)
14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

I think it's very clear, natural or unnatural, we are called as Christians to transcend nature through Christ.  But I am no one to lay hate upon one person's "natural tendencies" over another.  I look at that person, and I think to myself, I am no different than you, struggling from my own tendencies too.  Does God hate me too as many fundamentalist Christians claim that God would hate fags?  Pure disgrace, and I think it's not the homosexuals' faults that homosexuality is so free even among Christian denominations, it's the homophobia from so-called Christians that cause this, the lack of sympathy and empathy and love.  Many leave Christianity altogether because of this hypocrisy, and many who love Christ and wish to continue to worship Him without this hypocrisy find themselves to have to justify this specific behavior, because surely the God of Love does not represent the homophobic Christians who continue to preach homosexuality as sin and homosexuals as God-hated.

This is my two cents.  Back to study.

God bless.

Well, for the most part I agree with you. I was with you when you talked about struggling against what seems or feels natural. In a fallen world, sin feels natural. Yet we are called to struggle against it. In the light of this reality, all of us must humbly acknowledge our own sin first and foremost, struggling against it without self-righteously condemning the specific sins of others with which we personally may not be tempted.

Where we depart is when you say, "...homophobic Christians who continue to preach homosexuality as sin and homosexuals as God-hated." Those who preach homosexuality as sin are not necessarily "homophobic," nor do they necessarily preach that homosexuals are "God-hated." Just because a few misguided fundamentalists erroneously preach that homosexuals are hated by God does not mean that Orthodox Christians should bow to the "homophobia" propaganda.

Homosexuality is a sin, promiscuity is a sin, beastiality is a sin, adultery is a sin, fornication is a sin, pedophelia is a sin, polygamy is a sin... PERIOD. As individuals, we may each feel a certain proclivity towards any one of these sins, but we must not justify or rationalize our depraved inclinations. Instead, we must STRUGGLE against them and strive to overcome them by the grace of God and the power of the Cross. And we shall never be victorious over sin as long as we deny that sin is in fact SIN.

Selam  
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: minasoliman on December 04, 2009, 05:10:54 AM
Gebre,

I'm sorry if I confused you with what I wrote.  What you quoted is not something meant as if I would personally say it, but rather I was attempting to write what Christians who justify homosexuality do say.

I agree with you that not all who say homosexuality is wrong is necessarily homophobic.

God bless.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Tallitot on December 04, 2009, 05:15:00 AM
Is there an unwritten forum rule that we must have one "Gay" thread a week?

And once we've exhausted this topic, are we going to explore whether or not there is a prostitution gene, or a gossip gene, or a "makes outrageous and ridiculous claims during parish council sessions" gene?  ::)

Don't be silly. It's so much easier to wring one's hands over someone else's sins. Looking at your own sins takes all the fun out of it.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: prodromas on December 04, 2009, 05:17:16 AM
Hey guys, I have had a little break from the forum and sadly its threads like this that are the reason.
I'm pretty sure Christ didn't say "love thy neighbor (but not if they are gay)"
This anachronistic attitude that sexuality was such a separate and definable concept over 200 years ago is non existent.
I think this is an absolute non-issue since it is a personal matter for each and every Christian to bear and it is between them, their spiritual father and God. If "gay" threads are going to exist why not "masturbation threads" or "I just stared at that girls cleavage in class" threads.

I'm sorry for coming out of hibernation with this diatribe but it just makes me sad that this is still even discussed. Making it such a separated issue forces for it to be put in the limelight and discussed in such inappropriate ways. Hopefully the next time I sin I won't be cast away from confession or the Eucharist.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 04, 2009, 09:17:08 AM
I think it's very clear, natural or unnatural, we are called as Christians to transcend nature through Christ.

Absolutely, but for some of us this transcending can be done in the context of marriage OR in the context of celibacy; for others, it is SAID to be possible ONLY in the context of celibacy. And the latter presumes that the group on whom celibacy is imposed (homosexuals) will BY DEFINITION (made by whom, and based on what evidence, other than lines from Scripture interpreted according to the conventional majority prejudicial views?) do something horrible if they marry with one another.

But I am no one to lay hate upon one person's "natural tendencies" over another.

Me too, and I very passionately believe that no one can, be him a bishop or a patriarch or even a council of bishops and patriarchs - it is simply impossible. That belief of mine annuls all claims, made by whoever and on whatever ground, tha gays cannot marry because their sex is "unnatural" and thus wrong.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: DavidH on December 04, 2009, 10:20:54 AM


Homosexuality is a sin, promiscuity is a sin, beastiality is a sin, adultery is a sin, fornication is a sin, pedophelia is a sin, polygamy is a sin... PERIOD. As individuals, we may each feel a certain proclivity towards any one of these sins, but we must not justify or rationalize our depraved inclinations. Instead, we must STRUGGLE against them and strive to overcome them by the grace of God and the power of the Cross. And we shall never be victorious over sin as long as we deny that sin is in fact SIN.

Selam  


Great summary, Gebre! There may or may not be a "gay gene" or genes for other sins, there is a fallen nature we must all struggle against. We must love the sinner enough to hate the sin that binds him. And hate the "judgment gene" that sometimes afflicts those who accept the Church's teaching on right and wrong... of course, Pharisee fever is an airborne virus that seems able to afflict anyone holding any position whatsoever whether they are religious or not.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2009, 10:43:22 AM
The ultimate argument:

(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6303/wbcsign.png)

And once again, Ozgeorge demonstrates the ultimate Straw Man argument. ::)

Selam

Does he? I thought he was having a bit of fun.
Trying to put some fun in fundamentalism.
....but just putting in the mental...
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 04, 2009, 10:48:05 AM
The ultimate argument:

(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6303/wbcsign.png)

And once again, Ozgeorge demonstrates the ultimate Straw Man argument. ::)

Selam

Does he? I thought he was having a bit of fun.
Trying to put some fun in fundamentalism.
....but just putting in the mental...
LOL! I'll pay that one!
But I now am wondering what the modulus is if that's the argument.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: BoredMeeting on December 04, 2009, 11:08:10 AM
And once we've exhausted this topic, are we going to explore whether or not there is a prostitution gene, or a gossip gene, or a "makes outrageous and ridiculous claims during parish council sessions" gene?  ::)

I was about to ask if genetics provide some sort of automatic forgiveness for certain sinful behaviors.

With the right genome mapping, we could find a cause, and therefore an excuse, for any sin and make guilt, confession, and penance a thing of the past!
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 04, 2009, 11:30:06 AM
And once we've exhausted this topic, are we going to explore whether or not there is a prostitution gene, or a gossip gene, or a "makes outrageous and ridiculous claims during parish council sessions" gene?  ::)

I was about to ask if genetics provide some sort of automatic forgiveness for certain sinful behaviors.

With the right genome mapping, we could find a cause, and therefore an excuse, for any sin and make guilt, confession, and penance a thing of the past!

What an interesting approach: define something as "sinful" absolutely arbitrarily, and then ask, whether genetics excuses what you arbitrarily define as sin just like murder, adultery, theft...

Genetics certainly does not excuse engaging in usury (which very sinful and which we all do, including our clergy).
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Feanor on December 04, 2009, 11:46:31 AM
I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 04, 2009, 11:51:41 AM
I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

The Church should finally recognize it. What you and I recognize or not matters only as much as we actively persuade the Church to overcome old bigotry and to change Her position on gay marriage. May the Lord help Her, and us.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: DavidH on December 04, 2009, 11:56:18 AM
I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

Just curious: Would you say the same for a long-term loving relationship between a brother and sister? Or are there relationships which seem incredibly fulfilling between the partners which are still morally wrong? This isn't just a hypothetical, I know of a couple like this.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Feanor on December 04, 2009, 12:50:15 PM
I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

Just curious: Would you say the same for a long-term loving relationship between a brother and sister? Or are there relationships which seem incredibly fulfilling between the partners which are still morally wrong? This isn't just a hypothetical, I know of a couple like this.

We have a knee-jerk reaction to incest, immediately thinking of it as gross, wrong, disgusting, etc. If we think harder about this, it becomes obvious why incestuous couples certainly should not reproduce, as incest often leads to genetic flaws in the offspring. For this reason I also believe that people with genetic issues which are likely to be passed-on should not have children. However, real love between two consenting adults who happen to be related... it's a different issue. In the case of reproduction, it is morally wrong for them to reproduce, for the genetic reasons and the consequences it would incur upon the child. However, if reproduction is outside the equation, it's different. I'm uncomfortable about it. I could never think of my sister that way. The idea makes me cringe. However, I can appreciate the inherent goodness and beauty which shines forth from all real love. When two people genuinely love each other, and are experiencing the miracle of freely-given mutual love, I see no reason to condemn. Love is love. When love genuinely occurs, it should be celebrated, never condemned. Love is mysterious, but never wrong.

Please understand the distinction between love and physical lust. I'm talking about the former and not the latter.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Feanor on December 04, 2009, 12:51:14 PM
I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

The Church should finally recognize it. What you and I recognize or not matters only as much as we actively persuade the Church to overcome old bigotry and to change Her position on gay marriage. May the Lord help Her, and us.

In Christ's name, amen.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: DavidH on December 04, 2009, 01:22:34 PM
I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

The Church should finally recognize it. What you and I recognize or not matters only as much as we actively persuade the Church to overcome old bigotry and to change Her position on gay marriage. May the Lord help Her, and us.

I am trying to understand your position rather than simply being argumentative so here is my question:

If the Scriptures clearly tell us to love one another and even approve of loving friendships (e.g. David and Jonathan),
And the Scriptures clearly tell us that sexualizing certain relationships is wrong (e.g. incest and homosexuality),
And the Scriptures are God's revelation of how we ought to live,
And the Church is the authorized interpreter of those Scriptures with an unbroken tradition that does not allow these sort of relationships,
By what authority can we justify them?

 A person who holds the traditional CAN be bigoted if he singles out certain sins for special dissapproval but holding the traditional view seems to me to be the only way to be faithful to God's revelation of His will.
 Of course, people can and do disagree with the authority of the Scriptures and the Church but does that not place our opinions outside of both?
 

In Christ's name, amen.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Fr. George on December 04, 2009, 01:24:58 PM
I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.  

If you are Christ, then that's up to you.  If not, I wouldn't suggest it.

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

Yes.  But it is not necessarily marriage.

The Church should finally recognize it. What you and I recognize or not matters only as much as we actively persuade the Church to overcome old bigotry and to change Her position on gay marriage. May the Lord help Her, and us.  

Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: minasoliman on December 04, 2009, 01:26:44 PM
I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

I don't think one needs marriage to have real and genuine love between two people.  Aren't we to love our neighbors as ourselves?  This is a Christian duty, not a thing born out of marriage.  Yes, marriage has that concept, but I think many agree that marriage is what allows for eros love to exist between two.

When one argues that homosexuality is a sin, one is not saying you're not allowed to love one another.  By all means, if a union between ANY two strengthens one's "storge, philia, and agape" then I support such a union.  But I think those who are arguing on the position that homosexual acts are sins are saying that the "eros" is wrong.

I think it's very clear, natural or unnatural, we are called as Christians to transcend nature through Christ.

Absolutely, but for some of us this transcending can be done in the context of marriage OR in the context of celibacy; for others, it is SAID to be possible ONLY in the context of celibacy. And the latter presumes that the group on whom celibacy is imposed (homosexuals) will BY DEFINITION (made by whom, and based on what evidence, other than lines from Scripture interpreted according to the conventional majority prejudicial views?) do something horrible if they marry with one another.

Well, I don't know whether celibacy is imposed upon homosexuals.  If however two homosexual people can unite and help one another obtain theosis and aid in avoiding the eros of one another, then I don't mind them in unity.  Perhaps, the Church should consecrate such unions then.  Are churches that do have gay marriages (like the Anglican Church) saying that eros is not allowed within such a marriage?  That would be interesting, and would probably lead me to say, why are we then condemning them?

There are also communal ways of reaching theosis.  To have a partner, whether it be a sibling or a friend, not just a spouse, can help too.

Quote
But I am no one to lay hate upon one person's "natural tendencies" over another.

Me too, and I very passionately believe that no one can, be him a bishop or a patriarch or even a council of bishops and patriarchs - it is simply impossible. That belief of mine annuls all claims, made by whoever and on whatever ground, tha gays cannot marry because their sex is "unnatural" and thus wrong.

I can't really say that just because I love them doesn't mean I can't say it's wrong.  I'm saying I can't judge you because I also do wrong things.

Let's look at polygamy for instance.  Is it a choice?  Well, many animal kingdoms have harems.  It seems to be natural for some men in the world.  Perhaps, that's why men "cheat" on their wives sometimes.  And I'm sure these men don't want to, but it happens.  Maybe women also feel the same sometimes, that they can't just have one male partner in a relationship.  Why then do we allow exclusivity in marriage when we can ease people's natural inclinations (which is moral in other religions like Islam and Mormonism and existed in the Old Testament) to marry more than one.  One day, this may be socially acceptable, but many of us here don't find it as such.  Why is this logically unacceptable, and somehow homosexuality is logically moral for others?  I feel there's emotional arguments in play here, not consistency.

More importantly, I think this is hammered out enough.  Perhaps, we should look at the arguments of other churches that argue that homosexuality is not a sin.  I think those are more interesting to talk about.  This is the documentary I watched that I was talking about where Christians take a "pro-gay" interpretation of verses in the Bible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04AVRslVRbY

I'd like to read arguments about these nine videos.

God bless.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: minasoliman on December 04, 2009, 01:31:29 PM
I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

Just curious: Would you say the same for a long-term loving relationship between a brother and sister? Or are there relationships which seem incredibly fulfilling between the partners which are still morally wrong? This isn't just a hypothetical, I know of a couple like this.

We have a knee-jerk reaction to incest, immediately thinking of it as gross, wrong, disgusting, etc. If we think harder about this, it becomes obvious why incestuous couples certainly should not reproduce, as incest often leads to genetic flaws in the offspring. For this reason I also believe that people with genetic issues which are likely to be passed-on should not have children. However, real love between two consenting adults who happen to be related... it's a different issue. In the case of reproduction, it is morally wrong for them to reproduce, for the genetic reasons and the consequences it would incur upon the child. However, if reproduction is outside the equation, it's different. I'm uncomfortable about it. I could never think of my sister that way. The idea makes me cringe. However, I can appreciate the inherent goodness and beauty which shines forth from all real love. When two people genuinely love each other, and are experiencing the miracle of freely-given mutual love, I see no reason to condemn. Love is love. When love genuinely occurs, it should be celebrated, never condemned. Love is mysterious, but never wrong.

Please understand the distinction between love and physical lust. I'm talking about the former and not the latter.

So there's then nothing morally wrong of marriage between siblings in your opinion?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 04, 2009, 01:53:36 PM
Let's look at polygamy for instance.  Is it a choice?  Well, many animal kingdoms have harems.  It seems to be natural for some men in the world.  Perhaps, that's why men "cheat" on their wives sometimes.  And I'm sure these men don't want to, but it happens.  Maybe women also feel the same sometimes, that they can't just have one male partner in a relationship.  Why then do we allow exclusivity in marriage when we can ease people's natural inclinations (which is moral in other religions like Islam and Mormonism and existed in the Old Testament) to marry more than one.  One day, this may be socially acceptable, but many of us here don't find it as such.  Why is this logically unacceptable, and somehow homosexuality is logically moral for others?  I feel there's emotional arguments in play here, not consistency.

What's wrong with plural marriage (other than the fact that marriage, in and of itself, is an utterly absurd idea, if people love each other, why would they have to be kept together by the operation of law...but must be addressed because it has been used as a club for an egotistical social majority to bash social minorities and a basis of state-sponsored discrimination)?

But, more to the point, why should anyone care what consenting adults are doing with their genitals? This meddling in other people's personal lives just seems like the ultimate absurdity.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Fr. George on December 04, 2009, 01:59:08 PM
But, more to the point, why should anyone care what consenting adults are doing with their genitals? This meddling in other people's personal lives just seems like the ultimate absurdity.

Ahh, another supporter of incest.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: minasoliman on December 04, 2009, 02:03:36 PM
Let's look at polygamy for instance.  Is it a choice?  Well, many animal kingdoms have harems.  It seems to be natural for some men in the world.  Perhaps, that's why men "cheat" on their wives sometimes.  And I'm sure these men don't want to, but it happens.  Maybe women also feel the same sometimes, that they can't just have one male partner in a relationship.  Why then do we allow exclusivity in marriage when we can ease people's natural inclinations (which is moral in other religions like Islam and Mormonism and existed in the Old Testament) to marry more than one.  One day, this may be socially acceptable, but many of us here don't find it as such.  Why is this logically unacceptable, and somehow homosexuality is logically moral for others?  I feel there's emotional arguments in play here, not consistency.

What's wrong with plural marriage (other than the fact that marriage, in and of itself, is an utterly absurd idea, if people love each other, why would they have to be kept together by the operation of law...but must be addressed because it has been used as a club for an egotistical social majority to bash social minorities and a basis of state-sponsored discrimination)?

But, more to the point, why should anyone care what consenting adults are doing with their genitals? This meddling in other people's personal lives just seems like the ultimate absurdity.

Marriage is a religious institution.  I agree that outside of religion, marriage is an absurd concept.

The meddling is also absurd.  But in a religion that allows such "meddling" only between one's consent with a caring priest, then that's their business.  But yes, outside the father of confession relationship (or staretz relationship), then you're right.

Which is why I think we should focus the discussion on what Christianity teaches exactly.

BTW, the Biblical arguments in the link I sent before start in part 3/9 of the video (the Lev. 20:13 argument).

God bless.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2009, 02:05:10 PM
I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

Just curious: Would you say the same for a long-term loving relationship between a brother and sister? Or are there relationships which seem incredibly fulfilling between the partners which are still morally wrong? This isn't just a hypothetical, I know of a couple like this.

We have a knee-jerk reaction to incest, immediately thinking of it as gross, wrong, disgusting, etc. If we think harder about this, it becomes obvious why incestuous couples certainly should not reproduce, as incest often leads to genetic flaws in the offspring. For this reason I also believe that people with genetic issues which are likely to be passed-on should not have children. However, real love between two consenting adults who happen to be related... it's a different issue. In the case of reproduction, it is morally wrong for them to reproduce, for the genetic reasons and the consequences it would incur upon the child. However, if reproduction is outside the equation, it's different. I'm uncomfortable about it. I could never think of my sister that way. The idea makes me cringe. However, I can appreciate the inherent goodness and beauty which shines forth from all real love. When two people genuinely love each other, and are experiencing the miracle of freely-given mutual love, I see no reason to condemn. Love is love. When love genuinely occurs, it should be celebrated, never condemned. Love is mysterious, but never wrong.

Please understand the distinction between love and physical lust. I'm talking about the former and not the latter.

No, you are not.

Since you have played the emotional card, I will play mine: my older son has been diagonosed with a congenital degenerative kidney disease (and now may be diagnoses with a form of enemia as well now), which he inherited from his mother.  I have many reasons to second guess my marrying her, but this isn't one of them.  If I had known that he would have the disease, I still would have had him.  Btw, what do you think of Sara Palin having her kid,  was that "immoral," Herr Doktor Mengele? (Yeah, I know, Goodwin. Deal with it).

Let's assume that Jaycee Dugard's children
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE57Q5L420090827
are wonderfully human beings and their mother loves them.  Are we therefore to conclude that kidnapping and rape is beautiful and wholly good?

I'm sure that you are saying "that's not the same..." Yes, it is: the same "all's well that ends well" excuse to validate anything and everything that meets a euphemeral and superficial judgement of "beautiful and wholly good."

Or let's say that Tiger Woods and his mistress(es) lasted for 20 years (such things do happen: I remember a case that lasted 60 years!)  Should we say that was "beautiful and wholly good?"  Why not?

I knew someone who married 9 times and his last wife, whom he told me he "finally got it right" was the mother of his first wife.  So his son had a grandmother as his stepmother and an aunt as his stepsister, and was the stepbrother of his mother.  No question of genetic problems there.  So should we celebrate this triumph of true love in the end?

So many vile things are done in the name of "love."  Your anecdotes do not change that.

Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2009, 02:08:18 PM
I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?
Forbidden fruit.
Wait, are you saying that people choose to be attracted to members of the same sex or choose to act on this attraction?
I am thinking more of those who act on what is chic.  And yes, such people exist.  And not rare.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 04, 2009, 02:10:12 PM
Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2009, 02:11:57 PM
I had no idea that the footnotes of the Orthodox Study Bible had become dogma in the Orthodox Church...I guess a lot has changed since I left.

You must of missed the great Council of Nashville (I think that is where the publisher is HQed).  The Orthodox Study Bible footnotes were recognised as Holy Tradition.

Indeed they are, and accepted as such by many Orthodox.  More than most of what I have seen posted by Greeki and yourself on this topic.  Certainly more than John Boswell.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2009, 02:12:48 PM
Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

I forgot: the uber-evolutionist never sees children in the icon of marriage.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2009, 02:15:18 PM
"The Orthodox Study Bible" is almost a contradiction in terms. The whole idea sounds so Protestant.
Why?  The Orthodox don't read their Bibles?
Not really. We were taught that reading&explaining the Bible was for the clergy in the context of the services of the church, not other contexts.
I am afraid that you were taught wrong: many of the Fathers speak of the literate faithful who could afford the Scriptures (for most of the history of the Church, a distinct minority) had a moral duty to do so and read it.  The illiterate memorized.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 04, 2009, 02:16:55 PM
Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2009, 02:18:21 PM
Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.

And what are you going to do for the millions who never find their mate?  Mandate marriage? (don't laugh: it has been done and legislated).
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Papist on December 04, 2009, 02:20:32 PM
Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.
Just to add some insight to this conversation: I have seen a greater sin, telling homosexuals that that's just the way they are and encouraging them to live a homosexual life style. I have watched it destroy the lives of hundreds of men that suffer from Same Sex Attraction. The gay life is a downward spiral.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 04, 2009, 02:28:06 PM
Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.
Just to add some insight to this conversation: I have seen a greater sin, telling homosexuals that that's just the way they are and encouraging them to live a homosexual life style. I have watched it destroy the lives of hundreds of men that suffer from Same Sex Attraction. The gay life is a downward spiral.

That, as you should have noticed, I NEVER did. I am very much, very strongly for gay MARRIAGE blessed by the Church - monogamous, committed, lifelong, sacramental. Just to have homosexual relationships is not marriage and that's no different from me and some gal to whom I am not married to have sex.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2009, 02:35:25 PM
Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.
Just to add some insight to this conversation: I have seen a greater sin, telling homosexuals that that's just the way they are and encouraging them to live a homosexual life style. I have watched it destroy the lives of hundreds of men that suffer from Same Sex Attraction. The gay life is a downward spiral.

God loves you the way you are, but He loves you too much to leave you the way you are.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 04, 2009, 02:42:45 PM
Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.
Just to add some insight to this conversation: I have seen a greater sin, telling homosexuals that that's just the way they are and encouraging them to live a homosexual life style. I have watched it destroy the lives of hundreds of men that suffer from Same Sex Attraction. The gay life is a downward spiral.

God loves you the way you are, but He loves you too much to leave you the way you are.

And if you are gay, you CAN CHANGE the way you are (selfish, sinful, self-absorbed, self-aggrandazing etc.etc.etc.) ONLY in context of celibacy. That's what we say - and WHY? The worst argument I heard was actually from you (and I hope you were joking): that if we allow homosexuals to have their sex, pretty soon they will recruit everyone into their lifestyle and the human race will become extinct. Other arguments (which I heard, directly or indirectly, from the Orthodox clergy) sound a bit more rational, but are in fact as absurd: (1) because sex is "right" only when the key fits the keyhole (er, do they know that in most women their erogenous zone is not even in the "keyhole?), and (2) because sex is "right" only when it is between the two opposites, and a man and a man cannot be two opposites, and neither can be a woman and a woman. I don't understand any of that.

Oh, and one more argument, also from an Orthodox clergyman: because gays always use each other to satisfy their lust. That's why they have sex. Great argument.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: augustin717 on December 04, 2009, 02:49:13 PM
"The Orthodox Study Bible" is almost a contradiction in terms. The whole idea sounds so Protestant.
Why?  The Orthodox don't read their Bibles?

Not really. We were taught that reading&explaining the Bible was for the clergy in the context of the services of the church, not other contexts.
I am afraid that you were taught wrong: many of the Fathers speak of the literate faithful who could afford the Scriptures (for most of the history of the Church, a distinct minority) had a moral duty to do so and read it.  The illiterate memorized.

Well, I don't know. Our people-my grandparents, for instance- were told to not even touch the Bible. It was strictly the priest's business. They were threatened that, for instance-their hands will start shaking if they touched the bible. We  have a saying: "Incense is the priest's concern/business" (Grija popii de tamaie).
This is just to give a glimpse of a more traditional sort of Orthodoxy, unlike the one with Orthodox Study Bibles which, I think, is primarily meant to lure Protestants in. It is funny though, that -and I stand corrected here- to my knowledge, there is no Orthodox Study Bible in Serbia, in Greece, in Bulgaria, in Romania, in Russia, but there is one in America.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Salpy on December 04, 2009, 02:58:32 PM
Well, I don't know. Our people-my grandparents, for instance- were told to not even touch the Bible. It was strictly the priest's business. They were threatened that, for instance-their hands will start shaking if they touched the bible. We  have a saying: "Incense is the priest's concern/business" (Grija popii de tamaie).
This is just to give a glimpse of a more traditional sort of Orthodoxy, .

That's not traditional Orthodoxy.  I don't know what that is, but it's not traditional Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Fr. George on December 04, 2009, 02:58:48 PM
There is something to be said for caution - reading the scripture without any guidance can be a dangerous thing spiritually.  However, history has witnessed ages when many of the lay faithful were very knowledgeable about the faith through study, discussion, etc.  That's why there were riots over dogma, and popular dissent with decisions of false synods.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: minasoliman on December 04, 2009, 03:03:36 PM
Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.
Just to add some insight to this conversation: I have seen a greater sin, telling homosexuals that that's just the way they are and encouraging them to live a homosexual life style. I have watched it destroy the lives of hundreds of men that suffer from Same Sex Attraction. The gay life is a downward spiral.

God loves you the way you are, but He loves you too much to leave you the way you are.

And if you are gay, you CAN CHANGE the way you are (selfish, sinful, self-absorbed, self-aggrandazing etc.etc.etc.) ONLY in context of celibacy. That's what we say - and WHY? The worst argument I heard was actually from you (and I hope you were joking): that if we allow homosexuals to have their sex, pretty soon they will recruit everyone into their lifestyle and the human race will become extinct. Other arguments (which I heard, directly or indirectly, from the Orthodox clergy) sound a bit more rational, but are in fact as absurd: (1) because sex is "right" only when the key fits the keyhole (er, do they know that in most women their erogenous zone is not even in the "keyhole?), and (2) because sex is "right" only when it is between the two opposites, and a man and a man cannot be two opposites, and neither can be a woman and a woman. I don't understand any of that.

Oh, and one more argument, also from an Orthodox clergyman: because gays always use each other to satisfy their lust. That's why they have sex. Great argument.

I agree with you here, that these arguments are absurd in a way.  But the only argument I personally hold on to is who says what is right and what is wrong?  I simply listen to the arguments of the pro-gay group and also find them to be not so much as they are absurd, but inconsistent, because these same arguments can be used on any other morally questionable issue.  (reminds me of watching "Thank You For Smoking" where the father teaches the son, that you can't prove that you're right, but rather you can prove that the other side is wrong.)

It is therefore this moral relativism outside of Christianity that I then find myself to accept Christian teachings because I believe in the truth of Christianity.  If it is a Christian teaching that homosexuality is wrong, then I personally submit.

(btw, next Scriptural argument made in the videos start in part 6/9)

God bless.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 04, 2009, 03:07:34 PM
Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

I forgot: the uber-evolutionist never sees children in the icon of marriage.

I had just assumed that you didn't believe the Trinity was an authoritarian hierarchical structure. But I see you've converted to Arianism...forgive my assumption that you followed Nicene Christianity, I should have asked first.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: augustin717 on December 04, 2009, 03:17:12 PM
Quote
That's not traditional Orthodoxy.  I don't know what that is, but it's not traditional Orthodoxy
.
It's just the way Orthodoxy has been taught and practiced in many corners of the world up to the present day. I don't have any specific data, but I assume things should have not been that different in the vilayet of Van or the slopes of the Caucasus mountains.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Salpy on December 04, 2009, 03:21:02 PM
As Fr. George pointed out above, the Church has always had the faithful approach the scriptures with caution and guidance.  I think we've seen from the Protestant "just me and the Bible" approach that deriving your faith from your own interpretation of scripture can lead to heresy.

However, when I wrote what I did above, I was thinking of a Chalcedonian Desert Father, Abba Gelasius, who put a leather Bible in a church so that anyone could read it.  That would have been in the fifth century.  As Fr. George said, the faithful have traditionally been encouraged to be knowledgeable about the faith through study, discussion, etc.

The extreme attitude of not allowing the faithful to touch the Bible is just not supported by the examples of early Church Fathers.  At least not that I know of.  It's an extreme position, just as the Protestant approach is an extreme in the other direction.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2009, 03:24:32 PM
Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.
Just to add some insight to this conversation: I have seen a greater sin, telling homosexuals that that's just the way they are and encouraging them to live a homosexual life style. I have watched it destroy the lives of hundreds of men that suffer from Same Sex Attraction. The gay life is a downward spiral.

God loves you the way you are, but He loves you too much to leave you the way you are.

And if you are gay, you CAN CHANGE the way you are (selfish, sinful, self-absorbed, self-aggrandazing etc.etc.etc.) ONLY in context of celibacy.

And this is different from you being heterosexual and single how?

Quote
That's what we say - and WHY? The worst argument I heard was actually from you (and I hope you were joking): that if we allow homosexuals to have their sex, pretty soon they will recruit everyone into their lifestyle and the human race will become extinct.

Can you quote me?

Quote
Other arguments (which I heard, directly or indirectly, from the Orthodox clergy) sound a bit more rational, but are in fact as absurd: (1) because sex is "right" only when the key fits the keyhole (er, do they know that in most women their erogenous zone is not even in the "keyhole?),

But it has got to go into the keyhole from time to time to open her womb.

Quote
and (2) because sex is "right" only when it is between the two opposites, and a man and a man cannot be two opposites, and neither can be a woman and a woman. I don't understand any of that.

That they can't be complimentary? No, they can't at the level we are talking about.

Quote
Oh, and one more argument, also from an Orthodox clergyman: because gays always use each other to satisfy their lust. That's why they have sex. Great argument.

well, they never can have it with each other to have children, which is part of the icon.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2009, 03:34:19 PM
Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

I forgot: the uber-evolutionist never sees children in the icon of marriage.

I had just assumed that you didn't believe the Trinity was an authoritarian hierarchical structure. But I see you've converted to Arianism...forgive my assumption that you followed Nicene Christianity, I should have asked first.
Since you cannot speak as an authority of Nicene Christianity, or any Christianity for that matter, you aren't making any sense, but I'll ask you anyways: what are you talking about?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 04, 2009, 03:50:19 PM
Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

I forgot: the uber-evolutionist never sees children in the icon of marriage.

I had just assumed that you didn't believe the Trinity was an authoritarian hierarchical structure. But I see you've converted to Arianism...forgive my assumption that you followed Nicene Christianity, I should have asked first.
Since you cannot speak as an authority of Nicene Christianity, or any Christianity for that matter, you aren't making any sense, but I'll ask you anyways: what are you talking about?

Oh, despite my rejection of it, I'm sure I'm still more knowledgeable on the history of Christian doctrine than you are. Apostasy doesn't entail forgetting what you knew, it's just the ability to see it in a different light...often a more objective one.

But my point is that your analogy doesn't fit the Nicene doctrines of the Trinity.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2009, 04:03:34 PM
Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

I forgot: the uber-evolutionist never sees children in the icon of marriage.

I had just assumed that you didn't believe the Trinity was an authoritarian hierarchical structure. But I see you've converted to Arianism...forgive my assumption that you followed Nicene Christianity, I should have asked first.
Since you cannot speak as an authority of Nicene Christianity, or any Christianity for that matter, you aren't making any sense, but I'll ask you anyways: what are you talking about?

Oh, despite my rejection of it, I'm sure I'm still more knowledgeable on the history of Christian doctrine than you are.

Yes, a chip on the shoulder always improves the eyesight. ::)

No, I'm quite sure you would lose that bet.


Quote
Apostasy doesn't entail forgetting what you knew, it's just the ability to see it in a different light...often a more objective one.

or not.


Quote
But my point is that your analogy doesn't fit the Nicene doctrines of the Trinity.

The Fathers have made the analogy of the yoking of the couple to the yoking of the Persons of the Holy Trinity.  The woman has the same nature of the man as she processed out of his side, as the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father, and the child has the same nature as the father, as he is begotten the same way the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.

Hence "Let US make man in Our Image....MALE and FEMALE He made them."
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2009, 04:35:09 PM
Quote
That's not traditional Orthodoxy.  I don't know what that is, but it's not traditional Orthodoxy
.
It's just the way Orthodoxy has been taught and practiced in many corners of the world up to the present day. I don't have any specific data, but I assume things should have not been that different in the vilayet of Van or the slopes of the Caucasus mountains.


Ironically, the attitude doesn't show up in Orthodoxy until the arrival of the Protestants.

Patriarchate Dositheus of Jerusalem wrote the introdoucion of the Bibilia de la Bucuresti 1688, the first full Bible in Romanian (if you can, read the introduction, it speaks of the importance of the Bible in the vernacular, even so much as using Wulfinas as an example!).  When Athanasius was consecrated to the see of Sibiu (which he betrayed into the hands of the Vatican), Dositheus wrote a number of instructions: Although he forbids the DL in Romania (which Saguna says was because no authorized translation existed) he insists that the scripture reading and the sermon (which he says must be at every service) must be in the language the congregation speaks, and all interpretation must be in conformity with the Fathers.

The Orthodox in Transylvania had been playing the Vatican's favorites, the Hapsburgs, against the Calvinist Princes of Transylvania.  The hiearchy had accepted the Calvinist terms, which, ironically, required a Protestant catechism to be used by all the Faithful (ironic in that isn't sola scriptura) as a modus vivendi against the forces for submission to the Vatican.
http://books.google.ro/books?id=ZhjZAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 04, 2009, 04:37:40 PM
Quote
And if you are gay, you CAN CHANGE the way you are (selfish, sinful, self-absorbed, self-aggrandazing etc.etc.etc.) ONLY in context of celibacy.

And this is different from you being heterosexual and single how?

That's a rhetorical question. If I am straight and signle, and I meet someone whom I love and who loves me, I go ahead and marry, with the Church's blessing, sacramentally, for life. *OR* I choose to pursue my theosis in the state of celibacy. Isn't THAT different?


Quote
That's what we say - and WHY? The worst argument I heard was actually from you (and I hope you were joking): that if we allow homosexuals to have their sex, pretty soon they will recruit everyone into their lifestyle and the human race will become extinct.

Can you quote me?

If that was not you, I apologize. If it was you, then, again, I am sure you were joking.


Quote
Other arguments (which I heard, directly or indirectly, from the Orthodox clergy) sound a bit more rational, but are in fact as absurd: (1) because sex is "right" only when the key fits the keyhole (er, do they know that in most women their erogenous zone is not even in the "keyhole?),

But it has got to go into the keyhole from time to time to open her womb.

Yes, but in the case of St. John of Kronshtadt it did not, and the Church did not object. In the case of women without a womb (after hysterectomy), it can go in the keyhole all the time without opening any womb (cause there is nothing to open), and the Church, again, does not object...


Quote
and (2) because sex is "right" only when it is between the two opposites, and a man and a man cannot be two opposites, and neither can be a woman and a woman. I don't understand any of that.

That they can't be complimentary? No, they can't at the level we are talking about.

Many of them are. Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas, apparently, were. Jean Marais and Jean Cocteau, apparently, were.

Quote
Quote
Oh, and one more argument, also from an Orthodox clergyman: because gays always use each other to satisfy their lust. That's why they have sex. Great argument.


well, they never can have it with each other to have children, which is part of the icon.

And a man and his womb-lacking wife can never have it with each other to have children, either.

P.S. Dear mods, I am sorry, I am completely confused with the quotes - please fix, if possible. Thank you.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Fr. George on December 04, 2009, 04:58:57 PM
And a man and his womb-lacking wife can never have it with each other to have children, either.

But she did have the possibility at one time with him.  It can't be said the other way.

I don't even know why I or anyone else is bothering.  You have shown that you're not going to change your position, and others that they are not going to change theirs.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2009, 05:00:13 PM
And if you are gay, you CAN CHANGE the way you are (selfish, sinful, self-absorbed, self-aggrandazing etc.etc.etc.) ONLY in context of celibacy.

And this is different from you being heterosexual and single how?

That's a rhetorical question. If I am straight and signle, and I meet someone whom I love and who loves me, I go ahead and marry, with the Church's blessing, sacramentally, for life. *OR* I choose to pursue my theosis in the state of celibacy. Isn't THAT different?

No, it is not rhetorical.  Many who look do not find.

Quote
That's what we say - and WHY? The worst argument I heard was actually from you (and I hope you were joking): that if we allow homosexuals to have their sex, pretty soon they will recruit everyone into their lifestyle and the human race will become extinct.

Can you quote me?

If that was not you, I apologize. If it was you, then, again, I am sure you were joking.


You don't have to be sorry:I just can't respond without knowing exactly what was said.  Homosexuality does fail Kant's moral imperative this way.

Other arguments (which I heard, directly or indirectly, from the Orthodox clergy) sound a bit more rational, but are in fact as absurd: (1) because sex is "right" only when the key fits the keyhole (er, do they know that in most women their erogenous zone is not even in the "keyhole?),

But it has got to go into the keyhole from time to time to open her womb.

Yes, but in the case of St. John of Kronshtadt it did not, and the Church did not object.

Those who don't (and it is not universal) often are the same ones who say marriage is only for procreation.  I can't justify others' inconsistencies.



In the case of women without a womb (after hysterectomy), it can go in the keyhole all the time without opening any womb (cause there is nothing to open), and the Church, again, does not object...


Some do, but they are wrong.  St. John Chrysostom talks about childless couple, and affirms, as does the Church, that they are still a couple.

and (2) because sex is "right" only when it is between the two opposites, and a man and a man cannot be two opposites, and neither can be a woman and a woman. I don't understand any of that.

That they can't be complimentary? No, they can't at the level we are talking about.

Many of them are. Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas, apparently, were. Jean Marais and Jean Cocteau, apparently, were.

Role playing doesn't cut it.

Oh, and one more argument, also from an Orthodox clergyman: because gays always use each other to satisfy their lust. That's why they have sex. Great argument.


well, they never can have it with each other to have children, which is part of the icon.

And a man and his womb-lacking wife can never have it with each other to have children, either.

Plenty of wives with wombs do not have children, for whatever reason.  The exception that makes the rule. Homosexual "unions" know no such exception.

Quote
P.S. Dear mods, I am sorry, I am completely confused with the quotes - please fix, if possible. Thank you.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 04, 2009, 06:28:03 PM


Many of them are. Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas, apparently, were. Jean Marais and Jean Cocteau, apparently, were.

Role playing doesn't cut it.

Why are YOU so sure it was role playing? Have you asked THEM?

You see, that's the whole point of my position in this issue... We, heterosexuals, presume that we KNOW something about homosexuals. We presume that we KNOW that they cannot be truly complimentary because they aren't like the key and the keyhole, and we presume that we KNOW that they just pretend, role-play...

Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on December 04, 2009, 06:59:03 PM
Gebre,

I'm sorry if I confused you with what I wrote.  What you quoted is not something meant as if I would personally say it, but rather I was attempting to write what Christians who justify homosexuality do say.

I agree with you that not all who say homosexuality is wrong is necessarily homophobic.

God bless.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks for the clarification.

God bless you as well.

Selam
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2009, 07:32:49 PM


Many of them are. Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas, apparently, were. Jean Marais and Jean Cocteau, apparently, were.

Role playing doesn't cut it.

Why are YOU so sure it was role playing? Have you asked THEM?

Except for Marais, who I remember as a kid in La belle et la bete, they were dead before I was talking or even born. So no.

Quote
You see, that's the whole point of my position in this issue... We, heterosexuals, presume that we KNOW something about homosexuals. We presume that we KNOW that they cannot be truly complimentary because they aren't like the key and the keyhole, and we presume that we KNOW that they just pretend, role-play...

Actually just because I don't know the couples you name, doesn't mean I don't know any.  And yes, even the HOMOSEXUALS see it as role playing, and call it as such.  And yes, we know that they cannot be truly complimentary as male and female were made to be.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 04, 2009, 07:42:36 PM


Many of them are. Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas, apparently, were. Jean Marais and Jean Cocteau, apparently, were.

Role playing doesn't cut it.

Why are YOU so sure it was role playing? Have you asked THEM?

Except for Marais, who I remember as a kid in La belle et la bete, they were dead before I was talking or even born. So no.

Quote
You see, that's the whole point of my position in this issue... We, heterosexuals, presume that we KNOW something about homosexuals. We presume that we KNOW that they cannot be truly complimentary because they aren't like the key and the keyhole, and we presume that we KNOW that they just pretend, role-play...

Actually just because I don't know the couples you name, doesn't mean I don't know any.  And yes, even the HOMOSEXUALS see it as role playing, and call it as such.  And yes, we know that they cannot be truly complimentary as male and female were made to be.

I heard exactly the opposite from some gays that I know. One man who is in a very committed, monogamous relationship with a man told me that for him, it's exactly like for a member of any committed monogamous heterosexual couple. He met his love when he was in his 20-s, now he is in his 50-s and he says that there is no one else in the world for him. He calls his partner "wife," and his partner calls him "husband." He says that everything written in Shakespeare's Sonnet 130 ("My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun...") precisely applies to what he feels about his partner.  
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Fr. George on December 04, 2009, 07:52:50 PM
I heard exactly the opposite from some gays that I know. One man who is in a very committed, monogamous relationship with a man told me that for him, it's exactly like for a member of any committed monogamous heterosexual couple.

Your bringing this up is a bit hypocritical, considering your general point that we as heterosexuals cannot know what it is to be homosexual/in a homosexual relationship.  Same criticism applies here.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: DavidH on December 04, 2009, 08:52:32 PM
It seems like this would be a simple issue for an Orthodox Christian:
Holy Scripture is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
Holy Tradition is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
The Church is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

Agreeing with these teachings makes one a faithful disciple of Christ, the Church, Scripture and Tradition; disagreement places one's opinions outside of Christ the Church, Scripture and Tradition.

I understand when someone outside of the Christianity does not agree with the sources of teaching authority within the Faith but it is strange when Christians allow emotion to form their opinions to the point they no longer accept or understand even the ABC's of Christian moral teaching on sexuality.

As believers we are to renew our minds by allowing our opinions to be formed by the Christian revelation rather than by popular culture and feelings, are we not?



 
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2009, 09:22:35 PM
I heard exactly the opposite from some gays that I know. One man who is in a very committed, monogamous relationship with a man told me that for him, it's exactly like for a member of any committed monogamous heterosexual couple.

Your bringing this up is a bit hypocritical, considering your general point that we as heterosexuals cannot know what it is to be homosexual/in a homosexual relationship.  Same criticism applies here.

LOL.  Touché.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: minasoliman on December 05, 2009, 02:46:27 AM
Okay...

I'll address the scriptural rebuttals by what seems to be mostly from Anglican church theologians from the video I linked.

Lev. 20:13:  Many things were abominations, like eating shrimp, eating rabbits, wearing linen and wool together, or putting two seeds of different species in the same soil.  Abominations were things that were "anti-ritualistic" not innately immoral.  These were "holiness codes" trying to help people reach a certain level of spirituality.  Context is also key.  It was considered man's seed was all there is to require growth of life in procreation and women were just the incubators.  Therefore, it wasn't the act of homosexuality itself condemned, but the spilling of seed that results from such acts, just as Onan was condemned to death even within a heterosexual relationship so that he can avoid making her pregnant.

Genesis story of Sodom & Gomorrah:  Sodom made illegal the hospitality law of the Hebrews because they didn't want share their wealth of their community.  Lot being a faithful Hebrew became hospitable to the two angels, but because they broke the law, the Sodomite authorities demanded that these men come out and be punished and humiliated by gang-rape "Sodomy."  Gangraping in the form of sodomy was a form of humiliation (which is also wrong), not some sort of norm from the community, and that this was prevalent in other societies besides Sodom and Gomorrah.  It wasn't the "Sodomy" that was condemned, but the greed and inhospitality in those communities, just as one of a different race goes into an area of inhospitable bigots.

Romans 1:26:  When Paul says "natural and unnatural," he was talking about what is "customary and uncustomary" of the Jews.  When he saw such acts in the Greek world, he associated these acts with worshiping the wrong god.  So Paul could not contemplate the monogamous relationships that exists today, and since time changes (used to accept polygamy and somewhat concubines, then anti-polygamy, so now gay marriages).  In addition there were no Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words for the word "homosexuality" because such a concept was not even fathomed by people at the time.

These seem to be the main arguments by pro-gay Christians.  Assuming there's some truth in what they say about the OT verses, it seems to me that the NT verse seems to be a stretch, and they were on the verge of saying Paul was wrong.  So it seems that verse does condemn homosexuality.  But on a scholarly basis, how does one answer these?

God bless.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 06, 2009, 12:08:08 AM
I heard exactly the opposite from some gays that I know. One man who is in a very committed, monogamous relationship with a man told me that for him, it's exactly like for a member of any committed monogamous heterosexual couple.

Your bringing this up is a bit hypocritical, considering your general point that we as heterosexuals cannot know what it is to be homosexual/in a homosexual relationship.  Same criticism applies here.

We cannot know, but at least we can hear from them, listen. Everything that I heard (directly or indirectly) from the Orthodox clergy does not go even that far.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 06, 2009, 12:11:58 AM
Arguments from beauty, aesthetics...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cci9-G1PrxE&feature=related

And so many of these single-sex female couples in the world of arts, literature... Lesya Ukrayinka and Ol'ha Kobylyans'ka - two amazing writers, playwrights, poets in the 1880's- 1900's Ukraine (Kobylyans'ka in what was back then the "Austian" part of my homeland and Lesya Ukrayinka (real name Larisa Petrivna Kosach) in what was back then the "Russian" part)...
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 06, 2009, 12:40:00 AM
It seems like this would be a simple issue for an Orthodox Christian:
Holy Scripture is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
Holy Tradition is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
The Church is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

Agreeing with these teachings makes one a faithful disciple of Christ, the Church, Scripture and Tradition; disagreement places one's opinions outside of Christ the Church, Scripture and Tradition.

I understand when someone outside of the Christianity does not agree with the sources of teaching authority within the Faith but it is strange when Christians allow emotion to form their opinions to the point they no longer accept or understand even the ABC's of Christian moral teaching on sexuality.

As believers we are to renew our minds by allowing our opinions to be formed by the Christian revelation rather than by popular culture and feelings, are we not?



 

The thing is, we betray Christian revelation for the sake of the popular culture every single day and hour and minute of our lives. We use credit cards. That's partaking in usury. Usury is forbidden by Scripture. There is no way around it.

Our clergy thus betrays Christian revelation all the time. And the same clergy tells us, look, the Church in Her infinite wisdom decided that gay sex is bad.

I am not saying that the Church is not wise. I am not, actually, saying that She should reconsider our views on usury - but I cannot say I don't hope She will (absolutely unrealistic as it is). I hate usury and I hate myself for partaking in it.

But, similarly, I hate myself for yielding to the view that whatever the Church says right now is the ultimate truth. I know I should not yield to this view, with all my respect and adoration due to the Church. The thing is, I, too, am the Church. And I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage. Usury was held unanimously as a sinful practice for quite some time by the Church (I'd say, rightly), but now no one even recalls it. Homosexual marriage is held as impossible and sinful for quite some time, to (in my humle opinion, UNrightly), - so maybe in time it will not be something that people will even recall, just like no one recalls right now how fircely the Church opposed usury?   
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on December 06, 2009, 12:50:39 AM
I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage.

What about the physical damage that male homosexual intercourse does on their bodies over the course of their lives, even within the context of this "loving" relationship?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 06, 2009, 12:51:12 AM
And a man and his womb-lacking wife can never have it with each other to have children, either.

But she did have the possibility at one time with him.  It can't be said the other way.

I don't even know why I or anyone else is bothering.  You have shown that you're not going to change your position, and others that they are not going to change theirs.

No, if a woman lacks her womb and a man wants to marry her, the Church will not forbid that. Right?

I don't know either, Father, why you are "bothering." I hope it is because you are a good young man and something good is telling you that the issue is a lot more complicated that what you are used to think (or not think) it is.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Heorhij on December 06, 2009, 12:52:52 AM
I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage.

What about the physical damage that male homosexual intercourse on their bodies over the course of their lives, even within the context of this "loving" relationship?

There is none. Male gay couples know how to avoid it. There are gay couples who live as couples for decades and are in perfect health, just like heterosexual couples.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 06, 2009, 01:04:49 AM
Alveus,
Here is an article written by a physician about the health problems caused by gay sex.

The Health Risks of Gay Sex-written by John Diggs, M.D. (an Internal Medicine Physician) 
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: DavidH on December 06, 2009, 01:23:44 AM
It seems like this would be a simple issue for an Orthodox Christian:
Holy Scripture is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
Holy Tradition is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
The Church is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

Agreeing with these teachings makes one a faithful disciple of Christ, the Church, Scripture and Tradition; disagreement places one's opinions outside of Christ the Church, Scripture and Tradition.

I understand when someone outside of the Christianity does not agree with the sources of teaching authority within the Faith but it is strange when Christians allow emotion to form their opinions to the point they no longer accept or understand even the ABC's of Christian moral teaching on sexuality.

As believers we are to renew our minds by allowing our opinions to be formed by the Christian revelation rather than by popular culture and feelings, are we not?



 

The thing is, we betray Christian revelation for the sake of the popular culture every single day and hour and minute of our lives. We use credit cards. That's partaking in usury. Usury is forbidden by Scripture. There is no way around it.

Our clergy thus betrays Christian revelation all the time. And the same clergy tells us, look, the Church in Her infinite wisdom decided that gay sex is bad.

I am not saying that the Church is not wise. I am not, actually, saying that She should reconsider our views on usury - but I cannot say I don't hope She will (absolutely unrealistic as it is). I hate usury and I hate myself for partaking in it.

But, similarly, I hate myself for yielding to the view that whatever the Church says right now is the ultimate truth. I know I should not yield to this view, with all my respect and adoration due to the Church. The thing is, I, too, am the Church. And I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage. Usury was held unanimously as a sinful practice for quite some time by the Church (I'd say, rightly), but now no one even recalls it. Homosexual marriage is held as impossible and sinful for quite some time, to (in my humle opinion, UNrightly), - so maybe in time it will not be something that people will even recall, just like no one recalls right now how fircely the Church opposed usury?   

A lot of critics of the Church would have you and I believe she has changed this teaching concerning usury in order to sow moral confusion on other issues but the essence of the teaching has remained the same even if historical coinditions have changed. Before the rise of capital economies in the 16th and 17th centuries, usury was virtually always an exorbitant rate of interest charged on loans that enslaved the borrower. With the rise of capital economies, you could lend your money to someone who in turn could make money and thus you charged interest. Renting out the money effectively. We still need to watch out for "usurious" or unfair rates of interest but in modern economies money works differently. It's an easy charge to answer and there are plenty of sources available to study the Christian answer more in depth.
Homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, adultery etc. are still perversions and lusts according to Scripture, the Holy Fathers, and all the saints. Opposing that sort of consensus takes one's views outside of the Church because it is not just what the Church is saying right now but what She has been saying since the beginning.   
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2009, 01:33:00 AM
Arguments from beauty, aesthetics...
....yes, the arteest community where everything vile (e.g. Mapplethorpe) congregates and becomes fashionable.

You have heard that appearances can be deceiving, no?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 06, 2009, 01:43:55 AM
The thing is, I, too, am the Church.
I think you may be stretching this idea a bit too far, though.  The faithful do constitute the Church, thus making our Spirit-filled discernment relevant, but there is such thing as consensus.  If your point of view goes against the consensus belief regarding what our Apostolic Tradition teaches, then I would call your point of view into question.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2009, 01:55:29 AM
It seems like this would be a simple issue for an Orthodox Christian:
Holy Scripture is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
Holy Tradition is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
The Church is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

Agreeing with these teachings makes one a faithful disciple of Christ, the Church, Scripture and Tradition; disagreement places one's opinions outside of Christ the Church, Scripture and Tradition.

I understand when someone outside of the Christianity does not agree with the sources of teaching authority within the Faith but it is strange when Christians allow emotion to form their opinions to the point they no longer accept or understand even the ABC's of Christian moral teaching on sexuality.

As believers we are to renew our minds by allowing our opinions to be formed by the Christian revelation rather than by popular culture and feelings, are we not?



 

The thing is, we betray Christian revelation for the sake of the popular culture every single day and hour and minute of our lives. We use credit cards. That's partaking in usury. Usury is forbidden by Scripture. There is no way around it.

Our clergy thus betrays Christian revelation all the time. And the same clergy tells us, look, the Church in Her infinite wisdom decided that gay sex is bad.

I am not saying that the Church is not wise. I am not, actually, saying that She should reconsider our views on usury - but I cannot say I don't hope She will (absolutely unrealistic as it is). I hate usury and I hate myself for partaking in it.

But, similarly, I hate myself for yielding to the view that whatever the Church says right now is the ultimate truth. I know I should not yield to this view, with all my respect and adoration due to the Church. The thing is, I, too, am the Church. And I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage. Usury was held unanimously as a sinful practice for quite some time by the Church (I'd say, rightly), but now no one even recalls it. Homosexual marriage is held as impossible and sinful for quite some time, to (in my humle opinion, UNrightly), - so maybe in time it will not be something that people will even recall, just like no one recalls right now how fircely the Church opposed usury?   

A lot of critics of the Church would have you and I believe she has changed this teaching concerning usury in order to sow moral confusion on other issues but the essence of the teaching has remained the same even if historical coinditions have changed. Before the rise of capital economies in the 16th and 17th centuries, usury was virtually always an exorbitant rate of interest charged on loans that enslaved the borrower. With the rise of capital economies, you could lend your money to someone who in turn could make money and thus you charged interest. Renting out the money effectively. We still need to watch out for "usurious" or unfair rates of interest but in modern economies money works differently. It's an easy charge to answer and there are plenty of sources available to study the Christian answer more in depth.
Homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, adultery etc. are still perversions and lusts according to Scripture, the Holy Fathers, and all the saints. Opposing that sort of consensus takes one's views outside of the Church because it is not just what the Church is saying right now but what She has been saying since the beginning.   

Just to chime in a little bit about the difference with capitalism: another is the very idea of money.  During the Middle Ages money had not gotten away from the idea of inherent value of coinage, i.e. a coin derives its value from the metal in it.  Coins were still weighed.  Only around the time of the shift of coinage to face value, which the rise of capitalism made possible, can we begin to speak of interest, rather than usury.  Roman Palestine, in many ways, was NOT a cash economy.  As you said, Christian analysis of the differences are widely available.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: minasoliman on December 06, 2009, 02:02:56 AM
I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality

Heorhij,

To be honest, I don't know how you "know" there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.  Outside the context of Christianity, I don't know whether homosexuality is right or wrong.

You also mention MONOGAMOUS.  How do you know that polygamy is wrong?  Because again, I don't know. 

But what I do know is that Christianity has a certain moral code, and I believe changes or confusion in the moral code sounds somewhat dangerous, at least to the faith, to my faith.  I've told a Catholic nun before who also held to the idea that homosexuality is morally correct (to which I proceeded to tell her you contradict your own Pope), if that was true, if homosexuality can be found without any inconsistencies or holes in one's argument that homosexuality is morally correct, to be honest, I would either cease to be a Christian or I would remain a Christian if it was found in history that there were inconsistencies or false premises underlying a certain moral conduct.

God bless.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2009, 02:09:10 AM
And a man and his womb-lacking wife can never have it with each other to have children, either.

But she did have the possibility at one time with him.  It can't be said the other way.

I don't even know why I or anyone else is bothering.  You have shown that you're not going to change your position, and others that they are not going to change theirs.

No, if a woman lacks her womb and a man wants to marry her, the Church will not forbid that. Right?

Your point?  That because a man lacks a womb another man can "marry" him?

Were God to fully redeem the couple in this life, the woman would have a womb.  The pathic "spouse" would not.  But then again, if God fully redeemed them in this life, the same sex attraction wouldn't be there and it would be a moot point.  The attraction of husband and wife would remain in our heterosexual couple.


Quote
I don't know either, Father, why you are "bothering." I hope it is because you are a good young man and something good is telling you that the issue is a lot more complicated that what you are used to think (or not think) it is.
No, on the issue of same sex marriage, it is quite simple indeed.  Even my 6 year old son sponstaneous saw that: when he saw the rush to SF city hall on the news in 2004, he asked me what they were doing.  I said "getting married."  He replied, "they can't get married: they're two boys."
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2009, 02:16:19 AM
I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage.

What about the physical damage that male homosexual intercourse on their bodies over the course of their lives, even within the context of this "loving" relationship?

There is none. Male gay couples know how to avoid it.

I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality

Absolutely nothing wrong with it, and yet its practioners have to know how to avoid the damages of practising it.  How very odd.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: DavidH on December 06, 2009, 02:16:32 AM
Thank you, ialmistry, for the additional info on usury. It helped me to clarify my thinking a little more, too.
I am also glad that Heorhij brought up the point about theosis. Theosis is why the Church is so unyielding in its moral code. It can only effectively be sought by those who are daily repenting of their sins. If someone is practicing a lifestyle which has been revealed as sinful but calls it a virtue then that process is short-circuited and all that is left is prelest. As Christians we pray for them and try to speak the truth in love without judging harshly because it is art of the Great Commission to call all to repentance (including ourselves). As the Proverbs say, "An open rebuke is better than hidden love."
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: minasoliman on December 06, 2009, 02:17:53 AM
No, on the issue of same sex marriage, it is quite simple indeed.  Even my 6 year old son sponstaneous saw that: when he saw the rush to SF city hall on the news in 2004, he asked me what they were doing.  I said "getting married."  He replied, "they can't get married: they're two boys."

Isa, to be honest though, would your son have known that without teaching him gender differences or without influencing his mind when he grows up and sees only heterosexual relationships, especially that of his parents?  I would wonder what the first impression of children raised by homosexual couples would be.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: minasoliman on December 06, 2009, 02:22:15 AM
Okay...

I'll address the scriptural rebuttals by what seems to be mostly from Anglican church theologians from the video I linked.

Lev. 20:13:  Many things were abominations, like eating shrimp, eating rabbits, wearing linen and wool together, or putting two seeds of different species in the same soil.  Abominations were things that were "anti-ritualistic" not innately immoral.  These were "holiness codes" trying to help people reach a certain level of spirituality.  Context is also key.  It was considered man's seed was all there is to require growth of life in procreation and women were just the incubators.  Therefore, it wasn't the act of homosexuality itself condemned, but the spilling of seed that results from such acts, just as Onan was condemned to death even within a heterosexual relationship so that he can avoid making her pregnant.

Genesis story of Sodom & Gomorrah:  Sodom made illegal the hospitality law of the Hebrews because they didn't want share their wealth of their community.  Lot being a faithful Hebrew became hospitable to the two angels, but because they broke the law, the Sodomite authorities demanded that these men come out and be punished and humiliated by gang-rape "Sodomy."  Gangraping in the form of sodomy was a form of humiliation (which is also wrong), not some sort of norm from the community, and that this was prevalent in other societies besides Sodom and Gomorrah.  It wasn't the "Sodomy" that was condemned, but the greed and inhospitality in those communities, just as one of a different race goes into an area of inhospitable bigots.

Romans 1:26:  When Paul says "natural and unnatural," he was talking about what is "customary and uncustomary" of the Jews.  When he saw such acts in the Greek world, he associated these acts with worshiping the wrong god.  So Paul could not contemplate the monogamous relationships that exists today, and since time changes (used to accept polygamy and somewhat concubines, then anti-polygamy, so now gay marriages).  In addition there were no Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words for the word "homosexuality" because such a concept was not even fathomed by people at the time.

These seem to be the main arguments by pro-gay Christians.  Assuming there's some truth in what they say about the OT verses, it seems to me that the NT verse seems to be a stretch, and they were on the verge of saying Paul was wrong.  So it seems that verse does condemn homosexuality.  But on a scholarly basis, how does one answer these?

God bless.

Any Bible scholars like to comment on these rebuttals?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2009, 02:26:07 AM
Arguments from beauty, aesthetics...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cci9-G1PrxE&feature=related

And so many of these single-sex female couples in the world of arts, literature... Lesya Ukrayinka and Ol'ha Kobylyans'ka - two amazing writers, playwrights, poets in the 1880's- 1900's Ukraine (Kobylyans'ka in what was back then the "Austian" part of my homeland

Correction: Kobylyanska was born and died in Bucovina, my ex-wife's homeland of Romania.  It did have a large Slavic population, but they were overwhelmingly Ruthenians/Rusyn.  It wasn't Ukrainian until Khrushchev.

Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2009, 02:50:22 AM
Okay...

I'll address the scriptural rebuttals by what seems to be mostly from Anglican church theologians from the video I linked.

Lev. 20:13:  Many things were abominations, like eating shrimp, eating rabbits, wearing linen and wool together, or putting two seeds of different species in the same soil.  Abominations were things that were "anti-ritualistic" not innately immoral.  These were "holiness codes" trying to help people reach a certain level of spirituality.  Context is also key.  It was considered man's seed was all there is to require growth of life in procreation and women were just the incubators.  Therefore, it wasn't the act of homosexuality itself condemned, but the spilling of seed that results from such acts, just as Onan was condemned to death even within a heterosexual relationship so that he can avoid making her pregnant.

Genesis story of Sodom & Gomorrah:  Sodom made illegal the hospitality law of the Hebrews because they didn't want share their wealth of their community.  Lot being a faithful Hebrew became hospitable to the two angels, but because they broke the law, the Sodomite authorities demanded that these men come out and be punished and humiliated by gang-rape "Sodomy."  Gangraping in the form of sodomy was a form of humiliation (which is also wrong), not some sort of norm from the community, and that this was prevalent in other societies besides Sodom and Gomorrah.  It wasn't the "Sodomy" that was condemned, but the greed and inhospitality in those communities, just as one of a different race goes into an area of inhospitable bigots.

Romans 1:26:  When Paul says "natural and unnatural," he was talking about what is "customary and uncustomary" of the Jews.  When he saw such acts in the Greek world, he associated these acts with worshiping the wrong god.  So Paul could not contemplate the monogamous relationships that exists today, and since time changes (used to accept polygamy and somewhat concubines, then anti-polygamy, so now gay marriages).  In addition there were no Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words for the word "homosexuality" because such a concept was not even fathomed by people at the time.

These seem to be the main arguments by pro-gay Christians.  Assuming there's some truth in what they say about the OT verses, it seems to me that the NT verse seems to be a stretch, and they were on the verge of saying Paul was wrong.  So it seems that verse does condemn homosexuality.  But on a scholarly basis, how does one answer these?

God bless.

Any Bible scholars like to comment on these rebuttals?

I wasn't, but since you asked.

I don't recall anyone being stoned to death for eating rabbits.  The "anti-ritualist" issue were marked as pertaining to the Hebrews: if a gentile ate a rabbit, it wasn't a problem.  Things like incest, adultery, homosexuality etc. were immoral and not only so for the Hebrews, but for the gentiles as well.  Witnesss the interactions of the patriarchs with the gentile rulers over the formers' wives.  Onan's problem was that he took Tamar but refused to sleep with her to raise up children for his brother. Since she was married to him, she could not have another man to do his duty (witness what Judah says when it is found out that she is pregnant), hence he was thereby preventing children ever coming for his brother.  Typical example of pleasure divorced from responsibilty.

The Sodomites themselves identify Lot as an alien.  If hospitality was the issue, they would have dealt with Lot previously on the issue.  Since Lot was wealthy, as Genesis tells us, if wealth was the issue he would have offered that rather than his daughters. No, the story makes quite clear that the Sodomites take offense at being judged by Lot for their sexual choices.

The words in Hebrew, Aramaic (and for that matter Arabic), Greek etc. lump all sorts of variations of sexual immorality into one lump sum of sin.  I find nothing in St. Paul that approves of polygamy, concubines, or of course gay marriages: he is quite emphatically supporting monogamy, which he could more than contemplate (e.g. his urging to remain monogamous even after the death of the spouse).  St. Paul, a GREEK name btw, was born and grew in the gentile Greek town of Tarsus.  He was not a Hebrew hick from the stix of Palestine.  He was well aware of what went on in the Greek world.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: minasoliman on December 06, 2009, 03:06:10 AM
Okay...

I'll address the scriptural rebuttals by what seems to be mostly from Anglican church theologians from the video I linked.

Lev. 20:13:  Many things were abominations, like eating shrimp, eating rabbits, wearing linen and wool together, or putting two seeds of different species in the same soil.  Abominations were things that were "anti-ritualistic" not innately immoral.  These were "holiness codes" trying to help people reach a certain level of spirituality.  Context is also key.  It was considered man's seed was all there is to require growth of life in procreation and women were just the incubators.  Therefore, it wasn't the act of homosexuality itself condemned, but the spilling of seed that results from such acts, just as Onan was condemned to death even within a heterosexual relationship so that he can avoid making her pregnant.

Genesis story of Sodom & Gomorrah:  Sodom made illegal the hospitality law of the Hebrews because they didn't want share their wealth of their community.  Lot being a faithful Hebrew became hospitable to the two angels, but because they broke the law, the Sodomite authorities demanded that these men come out and be punished and humiliated by gang-rape "Sodomy."  Gangraping in the form of sodomy was a form of humiliation (which is also wrong), not some sort of norm from the community, and that this was prevalent in other societies besides Sodom and Gomorrah.  It wasn't the "Sodomy" that was condemned, but the greed and inhospitality in those communities, just as one of a different race goes into an area of inhospitable bigots.

Romans 1:26:  When Paul says "natural and unnatural," he was talking about what is "customary and uncustomary" of the Jews.  When he saw such acts in the Greek world, he associated these acts with worshiping the wrong god.  So Paul could not contemplate the monogamous relationships that exists today, and since time changes (used to accept polygamy and somewhat concubines, then anti-polygamy, so now gay marriages).  In addition there were no Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words for the word "homosexuality" because such a concept was not even fathomed by people at the time.

These seem to be the main arguments by pro-gay Christians.  Assuming there's some truth in what they say about the OT verses, it seems to me that the NT verse seems to be a stretch, and they were on the verge of saying Paul was wrong.  So it seems that verse does condemn homosexuality.  But on a scholarly basis, how does one answer these?

God bless.

Any Bible scholars like to comment on these rebuttals?

I wasn't, but since you asked.

I don't recall anyone being stoned to death for eating rabbits.  The "anti-ritualist" issue were marked as pertaining to the Hebrews: if a gentile ate a rabbit, it wasn't a problem.  Things like incest, adultery, homosexuality etc. were immoral and not only so for the Hebrews, but for the gentiles as well.  Witnesss the interactions of the patriarchs with the gentile rulers over the formers' wives.  Onan's problem was that he took Tamar but refused to sleep with her to raise up children for his brother. Since she was married to him, she could not have another man to do his duty (witness what Judah says when it is found out that she is pregnant), hence he was thereby preventing children ever coming for his brother.  Typical example of pleasure divorced from responsibilty.

The Sodomites themselves identify Lot as an alien.  If hospitality was the issue, they would have dealt with Lot previously on the issue.  Since Lot was wealthy, as Genesis tells us, if wealth was the issue he would have offered that rather than his daughters. No, the story makes quite clear that the Sodomites take offense at being judged by Lot for their sexual choices.

The words in Hebrew, Aramaic (and for that matter Arabic), Greek etc. lump all sorts of variations of sexual immorality into one lump sum of sin.  I find nothing in St. Paul that approves of polygamy, concubines, or of course gay marriages: he is quite emphatically supporting monogamy, which he could more than contemplate (e.g. his urging to remain monogamous even after the death of the spouse).  St. Paul, a GREEK name btw, was born and grew in the gentile Greek town of Tarsus.  He was not a Hebrew hick from the stix of Palestine.  He was well aware of what went on in the Greek world.

I would say those are quite plausible arguments.  I wonder if anyone knows what the "devil's advocate" position against these arguments might be.

I too also wondered about why Lot offered his daughters if it was inhospitality.  As Adrian Monk would say, it doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Salpy on December 06, 2009, 04:15:00 AM
I too also wondered about why Lot offered his daughters if it was inhospitality.  As Adrian Monk would say, it doesn't make sense.

The lack of hospitality argument is also inconsistent with what Jude 7 says about the two cities.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2009, 10:15:32 AM
I too also wondered about why Lot offered his daughters if it was inhospitality.  As Adrian Monk would say, it doesn't make sense.

The lack of hospitality argument is also inconsistent with what Jude 7 says about the two cities.

Really Salpy!  taking the interpretation of the Lord's brother over that of the enlightened modern Biblical scholar. Why, St. Jude never even went to seminary.... :o
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Asteriktos on December 06, 2009, 01:14:09 PM
I too also wondered about why Lot offered his daughters if it was inhospitality.  As Adrian Monk would say, it doesn't make sense.

The lack of hospitality argument is also inconsistent with what Jude 7 says about the two cities.

I would agree that the hospitality interpretation is a stretch, though I have to ask, which Jude 7 are you using? The version that includes a phrase about "going after strange flesh," or the one that omits that phrase and just mentions "perversion"?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: minasoliman on December 06, 2009, 04:34:28 PM
I too also wondered about why Lot offered his daughters if it was inhospitality.  As Adrian Monk would say, it doesn't make sense.

The lack of hospitality argument is also inconsistent with what Jude 7 says about the two cities.

I would agree that the hospitality interpretation is a stretch, though I have to ask, which Jude 7 are you using? The version that includes a phrase about "going after strange flesh," or the one that omits that phrase and just mentions "perversion"?

Either way it sounds like Jude was talking about something sexual.

Lot offering daughters, Jude's quote; I think those are both excellent arguments.

I'm going to play devil's advocate on this one, and see where this goes.  The first thing that came to my mind when talking about inhospitality was Christ who sent his disciples two by two, where He said:

Quote from: Matthew 10
14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!
Quote from: Luke 10
10 But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you.’ 12 But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city.

A clear case of inhospitality?  Was Christ comparing the inhospitable towns the Apostles went through to some sort of Sodomite inhospitality?

PS Just an aside, did Jude believe the fallen angels fell for carnal reasons?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: DavidH on December 06, 2009, 04:57:43 PM
The commentary I have on this verse is from both Oecumenius (6th century) and Clement of Alexandria (3rd century):
"The unnatural lust in which the Sodomites indulged was homosexuality, which is wrong because it cannot lead to procreation. Jude mentions them in order to point out that if God destroyed them , regardless of their earlier state of blessedness, how will He spare us if we act in an ungodly and lustful way? However well-disposed and kind He may be toward us, He is still the righteous God, and because of His righteousness He does not spare those who have sinned against Him... It is worth noting here that Jude does not spare us the details of these people's sin, which he attributes to the fact that they are deluded by a kind of dreaming. Those who do such things have lost there powers of reason and act as if they were sleepwalkers, stumbling from one thing to another." (Oecumenius, COMMENTARY ON JUDE)

And Clement: "These deluded people imagine that their lusts and terrible desires are good and pay no attention to what is truly good and beyond all good." (ADUMBRATIONS)

No mention of hospitality being the problem. The problem for these writers is the unnatural sin itself and the delusion of calling homosexuality good (BTW, I think calling any other similar sin such as adultery or fornication good would be a similar delusion in the eyes of our Tradition).
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Salpy on December 06, 2009, 05:40:35 PM

PS Just an aside, did Jude believe the fallen angels fell for carnal reasons?

It's possible.  Starting in verse 14, he begins quoting from the Book of Enoch, so he obviously had been reading that text.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Asteriktos on December 06, 2009, 06:00:10 PM
Quote
Either way it sounds like Jude was talking about something sexual.

I was under the impression that we were discussing homosexuality, in which case what I brought up would seem to be important... did Jude consider the sin to be homosexuality, or some other sexual sin?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: minasoliman on December 06, 2009, 06:05:02 PM
Quote
Either way it sounds like Jude was talking about something sexual.

I was under the impression that we were discussing homosexuality, in which case what I brought up would seem to be important... did Jude consider the sin to be homosexuality, or some other sexual sin?

I would say Jude may have implied it.  What other sexual sin can we deduce from the story in Genesis?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Asteriktos on December 06, 2009, 06:07:28 PM
Quote
Either way it sounds like Jude was talking about something sexual.

I was under the impression that we were discussing homosexuality, in which case what I brought up would seem to be important... did Jude consider the sin to be homosexuality, or some other sexual sin?

I would say Jude may have implied it.  What other sexual sin can we deduce from the story in Genesis?

Perhaps attempted (or intended) gang rape. If it was homosexuality, or sodomy, why wouldn't Jude just say that, rather than confusing things by talking about "strange flesh"?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: minasoliman on December 06, 2009, 06:10:44 PM
Quote
Either way it sounds like Jude was talking about something sexual.

I was under the impression that we were discussing homosexuality, in which case what I brought up would seem to be important... did Jude consider the sin to be homosexuality, or some other sexual sin?

I would say Jude may have implied it.  What other sexual sin can we deduce from the story in Genesis?

Perhaps attempted (or intended) gang rape. If it was homosexuality, or sodomy, why wouldn't Jude just say that, rather than confusing things by talking about "strange flesh"?

The word "strange" I'm assuming the translator looked at the Greek word and thought something is unnatural.  If it was gang rape, I don't think that sounds like "strange flesh" but more like "violently taking flesh" or something along those lines.  Strange would sound like perversion, like sodomy or homosexuality.

Perhaps someone who knows Greek can help us on this one.  But I don't think "strange flesh" fit with gang raping.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: DavidH on December 06, 2009, 06:15:14 PM
It means "other flesh" The word is eteras as in heterodox meaning "other-dox"
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GammaRay on December 10, 2009, 06:32:11 PM
It is very kind of you to worry about the real furries' behaviors, but animals don't have souls. ;)
They do. They just do not have the ability to go any furtherer and reason like humans, since they're not made in the image of God.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 10, 2009, 09:52:08 PM
^^My feeble brain can only comprehend that humans posses a soul with essence and energy, but non-humans posses only an “energy” thingee. 

St. Gregory Palamas-"Therefore since the soul of animals has only energy, it dies with the body. By contrast, the soul of man has not only energy but also essence: 'The soul possesses life not only as an activity, but also essentially, since it lives in its own right... For that reason, when the body passes away, the soul does not perish with it."
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Tallitot on December 10, 2009, 10:23:42 PM
I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage.

What about the physical damage that male homosexual intercourse does on their bodies over the course of their lives, even within the context of this "loving" relationship?
Such as what? I take much better care of myself since I've been in a relationship and am healtier.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GammaRay on December 11, 2009, 07:36:04 AM
^^My feeble brain can only comprehend that humans posses a soul with essence and energy, but non-humans posses only an “energy” thingee. 

St. Gregory Palamas-"Therefore since the soul of animals has only energy, it dies with the body. By contrast, the soul of man has not only energy but also essence: 'The soul possesses life not only as an activity, but also essentially, since it lives in its own right... For that reason, when the body passes away, the soul does not perish with it."
The way you said earlier was as if you didn't believe in that kind of soul either though. :P

Anyway, since homosexuality can also be natural, why can't one say the same about the rest passions? Maybe one has some sort of hormone overdose (?!) and gets lusty every so often. Maybe someone else will put the blame of being lazy to his/her genes.
After all, this is not the 7th Day yet; it's the 6th - uncomplete and imperfect.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 11, 2009, 09:02:32 AM
I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage.

What about the physical damage that male homosexual intercourse does on their bodies over the course of their lives, even within the context of this "loving" relationship?
Such as what? I take much better care of myself since I've been in a relationship and am healtier.
Here is the information that you requested.

Potential medical complications of anal sex (STDs not included)

anal fissures
anal and/or rectal erosion
acute or chronic proctitis
rectal prolapse
anorectal abscess
exacerbated hemorrhoids
anal and/or rectal cancer
fecal impaction
loss of anal sphincter control with risk of permanent fecal incontinence
urethritis
pyelonephritis
cystitis
bacterial prostatitis
phimosis
intestinal parasitic infections

Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Asteriktos on December 11, 2009, 03:38:31 PM
ms.hoorah

So I take it you disagree with what Jack Morin said in his book Anal Pleasure and Health? He argues that anal sex is not only safe, but will make you a healthier person.   ;D

(http://store.babeland.com/photos/1300500-a.jpg)

This is not to say that I agree with Mr. Morin, I just wouldn't go as far as you seem to be going.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Rosehip on December 11, 2009, 03:47:19 PM
I ended up with a couple of the most serious items on that list without ever having engaged in anal sex and by doing my utmost to follow all biblical commands for sexual purity. :'(
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 11, 2009, 04:09:42 PM
Quote
Either way it sounds like Jude was talking about something sexual.

I was under the impression that we were discussing homosexuality, in which case what I brought up would seem to be important... did Jude consider the sin to be homosexuality, or some other sexual sin?

I would say Jude may have implied it.  What other sexual sin can we deduce from the story in Genesis?

Perhaps attempted (or intended) gang rape. If it was homosexuality, or sodomy, why wouldn't Jude just say that, rather than confusing things by talking about "strange flesh"?
He says ἐκπορνεύω "out of fornication/uttterly unchaste," and "strange flesh."  What other flesh is mentioned that they wanted in Sodom?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Asteriktos on December 11, 2009, 04:11:48 PM
Quote
What other flesh is mentioned that they wanted in Sodom?

So you agree that their sin was not homosexuality, but wanting to forcibly engage in sexual relations with angels?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 11, 2009, 05:21:01 PM
ms.hoorah

So I take it you disagree with what Jack Morin said in his book Anal Pleasure and Health? He argues that anal sex is not only safe, but will make you a healthier person.   ;D

(http://store.babeland.com/photos/1300500-a.jpg)

This is not to say that I agree with Mr. Morin, I just wouldn't go as far as you seem to be going.
Oooooooh...so that’s what that book is about.  I thought this book was about colon cleansing programs. ;) The following stinky photo is probably in that book. (I wanted to post that emoticon with the tongue hanging out, but it was waaaaaay too close to this photo.)  
 
Inappropriately gross picture edited out.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 11, 2009, 05:40:42 PM
ms.hoorah

So I take it you disagree with what Jack Morin said in his book Anal Pleasure and Health? He argues that anal sex is not only safe, but will make you a healthier person.   ;D

This is not to say that I agree with Mr. Morin, I just wouldn't go as far as you seem to be going.
"I just wouldn't go as far......"
Search the medical literature. You will find all of these potential complications with anal sex.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Asteriktos on December 11, 2009, 05:42:23 PM
I just threw up. Literally.  Ok, it happened because of the new meds my doctor put me on yesterday, but still, that picture didn't help!

Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ms.hoorah on December 11, 2009, 05:50:51 PM
I just threw up. Literally.  Ok, it happened because of the new meds my doctor put me on yesterday, but still, that picture didn't help!
Hope you feel better soon. (seriously)

So.....Santa shouldn't leave any colon cleansing products under your tree, eh?  ;)   I was going to say...."Why would anyone voluntarily use this junk?" Then I remembered we were discussing gay sex.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 11, 2009, 05:51:41 PM
Quote
What other flesh is mentioned that they wanted in Sodom?

So you agree that their sin was not homosexuality, but wanting to forcibly engage in sexual relations with angels?
whom they mistook for men (bodiless powers don't have flesh).
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Asteriktos on December 12, 2009, 12:45:50 PM
Quote
What other flesh is mentioned that they wanted in Sodom?

So you agree that their sin was not homosexuality, but wanting to forcibly engage in sexual relations with angels?
whom they mistook for men (bodiless powers don't have flesh).

Good point.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Asteriktos on December 12, 2009, 12:49:01 PM
ms.hoorah

So I take it you disagree with what Jack Morin said in his book Anal Pleasure and Health? He argues that anal sex is not only safe, but will make you a healthier person.   ;D

This is not to say that I agree with Mr. Morin, I just wouldn't go as far as you seem to be going.
"I just wouldn't go as far......"
Search the medical literature. You will find all of these potential complications with anal sex.


Well, some of the issues I knew about or assumed. I was curious about the "anal and/or rectal cancer" though... can someone really get cancer from anal sex?  Also, what I meant by "not going as far" is that I am not completely against anal sex. It has it's dangers, especially if you aren't taking precautions, but it also has it's positives as well. Er, at least for a wicked heathen like me it does ;)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Rosehip on December 12, 2009, 01:02:46 PM
Quote
I was curious about the "anal and/or rectal cancer" though...


I'm not a medical professional, but have unfortunate experience with this. Doctors have asked me (which I thought silly) "Why did you get cancer? Did you engage in anal sex?" (Maddening because I've never had sex period. Much less anal sex.  ::)) So, yes, there is an established link in the medical world between this activity and this particular form of cancer.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 12, 2009, 03:15:58 PM
Just a note to let you all know that we have had posters share their concerns about the graphic nature of some of the most recent posts on this thread, so please be careful of this.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Tallitot on December 12, 2009, 03:22:37 PM
I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage.

What about the physical damage that male homosexual intercourse on their bodies over the course of their lives, even within the context of this "loving" relationship?

There is none. Male gay couples know how to avoid it.

I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality

Absolutely nothing wrong with it, and yet its practioners have to know how to avoid the damages of practising it.  How very odd.

And some women die in child birth. How very odd.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Tallitot on December 12, 2009, 03:30:00 PM
Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

YOMANK! :D
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Asteriktos on December 12, 2009, 04:04:20 PM
Just a note to let you all know that we have had posters share their concerns about the graphic nature of some of the most recent posts on this thread, so please be careful of this.

Sorry about that! Will be more careful in the future  :)
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 12, 2009, 06:19:46 PM
Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

YOMANK! :D

I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage.

What about the physical damage that male homosexual intercourse on their bodies over the course of their lives, even within the context of this "loving" relationship?

There is none. Male gay couples know how to avoid it.

I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality

Absolutely nothing wrong with it, and yet its practioners have to know how to avoid the damages of practising it.  How very odd.

And some women die in child birth. How very odd.

No, unfortunately not.  But I see, like any supporter of gay "marriage" the link of marriage to children is lost on you.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Tallitot on December 12, 2009, 07:10:18 PM
Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

YOMANK! :D

I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage.

What about the physical damage that male homosexual intercourse on their bodies over the course of their lives, even within the context of this "loving" relationship?

There is none. Male gay couples know how to avoid it.

I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality

Absolutely nothing wrong with it, and yet its practioners have to know how to avoid the damages of practising it.  How very odd.

And some women die in child birth. How very odd.

No, unfortunately not.  But I see, like any supporter of gay "marriage" the link of marriage to children is lost on you.
I beg to differ, women do die in childbirth-I've seen it happen.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 12, 2009, 07:12:09 PM
Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

YOMANK! :D

I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage.

What about the physical damage that male homosexual intercourse on their bodies over the course of their lives, even within the context of this "loving" relationship?

There is none. Male gay couples know how to avoid it.

I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality

Absolutely nothing wrong with it, and yet its practioners have to know how to avoid the damages of practising it.  How very odd.

And some women die in child birth. How very odd.

No, unfortunately not.  But I see, like any supporter of gay "marriage" the link of marriage to children is lost on you.
I beg to differ, women do die in childbirth-I've seen it happen.
I was refering to it not being odd, just unfortunate.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 13, 2009, 03:38:25 AM
Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

YOMANK! :D
???  Is this an acronym for something?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: seko on December 21, 2009, 09:22:19 PM
Hello My Brothers in Christ. Check this out. Comment rate and subscribe to Arvonp! http://bit.ly/6RSOZS
I support them. A good group against Homosexuality. Go subscribe to them and rate they're videos 5 stars. Also go check out the Real Christmas Music Video.



DISCLAIMER:  Many may find the content of the linked video objectionable.  Viewer discretion is therefore advised.  - PtA
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Tallitot on December 21, 2009, 11:05:07 PM
Hello My Brothers in Christ. Check this out. Comment rate and subscribe to Arvonp! http://bit.ly/6RSOZS
I support them. A good group against Homosexuality. Go subscribe to them and rate they're videos 5 stars. Also go check out the Real Christmas Music Video.

Wow, we're supposed to approve of a video showing underage boys in sexually provocative manner? Oy vey!
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Riddikulus on December 21, 2009, 11:10:08 PM
What the heck!!?

edit - should clarify "What the heck!!" refers to the video, not Tallitot's comments.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Tallitot on December 21, 2009, 11:11:08 PM
YOMANK! :D
???  Is this an acronym for something?

YOMANK= "you owe me a new keyboard";ie you're post made me laugh while i had i a mouthful of coffee and it squirted all over my keyboard



Fixed quote tag  - PtA
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 21, 2009, 11:14:37 PM
YOMANK= "you owe me a new keyboard";ie you're post made me laugh while i had i a mouthful of coffee and it squirted all over my keyboard
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on December 22, 2009, 12:04:36 AM
Hello My Brothers in Christ. Check this out. Comment rate and subscribe to Arvonp! http://bit.ly/6RSOZS
I support them. A good group against Homosexuality. Go subscribe to them and rate they're videos 5 stars. Also go check out the Real Christmas Music Video.

Wow, we're supposed to approve of a video showing underage boys in sexually provocative manner? Oy vey!

Yeah. That video was pretty disturbing.

Selam
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 22, 2009, 01:05:31 PM
Hello My Brothers in Christ. Check this out. Comment rate and subscribe to Arvonp! http://bit.ly/6RSOZS
I support them. A good group against Homosexuality. Go subscribe to them and rate they're videos 5 stars. Also go check out the Real Christmas Music Video.



DISCLAIMER:  Many may find the content of the linked video objectionable.  Viewer discretion is therefore advised.  - PtA

So what exactly is the message they're trying to get across? Don't be homosexual, be a pedophile? Is this Arvonp guy associated with NAMBLA or something?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Fr. George on December 22, 2009, 01:08:48 PM
Hello My Brothers in Christ. Check this out. Comment rate and subscribe to Arvonp! http://bit.ly/6RSOZS
I support them. A good group against Homosexuality. Go subscribe to them and rate they're videos 5 stars. Also go check out the Real Christmas Music Video.

That video is a juvenile attempt at bigotry (at best).  It's not even clever enough for me to be offended by it.  It's a very poor attempt at social commentary.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Fr. George on December 22, 2009, 01:10:05 PM
So what exactly is the message they're trying to get across? Don't be homosexual, be a pedophile?

Considering the level of humor displayed, this may indeed be it.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 22, 2009, 03:17:40 PM
Hello My Brothers in Christ. Check this out. Comment rate and subscribe to Arvonp! http://bit.ly/6RSOZS
I support them. A good group against Homosexuality. Go subscribe to them and rate they're videos 5 stars. Also go check out the Real Christmas Music Video.



DISCLAIMER:  Many may find the content of the linked video objectionable.  Viewer discretion is therefore advised.  - PtA

So what exactly is the message they're trying to get across? Don't be homosexual, be a pedophile? Is this Arvonp guy associated with NAMBLA or something?

Is it pedophilia if they are juveniles?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Tallitot on December 22, 2009, 03:26:42 PM
Hello My Brothers in Christ. Check this out. Comment rate and subscribe to Arvonp! http://bit.ly/6RSOZS
I support them. A good group against Homosexuality. Go subscribe to them and rate they're videos 5 stars. Also go check out the Real Christmas Music Video.



DISCLAIMER:  Many may find the content of the linked video objectionable.  Viewer discretion is therefore advised.  - PtA

So what exactly is the message they're trying to get across? Don't be homosexual, be a pedophile? Is this Arvonp guy associated with NAMBLA or something?

Is it pedophilia if they are juveniles?
Who else would want to see a vid of two boys acting in sexually provactice manner?
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: ialmisry on December 22, 2009, 03:34:45 PM
Hello My Brothers in Christ. Check this out. Comment rate and subscribe to Arvonp! http://bit.ly/6RSOZS
I support them. A good group against Homosexuality. Go subscribe to them and rate they're videos 5 stars. Also go check out the Real Christmas Music Video.



DISCLAIMER:  Many may find the content of the linked video objectionable.  Viewer discretion is therefore advised.  - PtA

So what exactly is the message they're trying to get across? Don't be homosexual, be a pedophile? Is this Arvonp guy associated with NAMBLA or something?

Is it pedophilia if they are juveniles?
Who else would want to see a vid of two boys acting in sexually provactice manner?

It struck me as the juvenile attempt of juveniles at social action.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Tallitot on December 22, 2009, 03:37:14 PM
We'll just have to disagree.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: GiC on December 22, 2009, 03:43:00 PM
Hello My Brothers in Christ. Check this out. Comment rate and subscribe to Arvonp! http://bit.ly/6RSOZS
I support them. A good group against Homosexuality. Go subscribe to them and rate they're videos 5 stars. Also go check out the Real Christmas Music Video.



DISCLAIMER:  Many may find the content of the linked video objectionable.  Viewer discretion is therefore advised.  - PtA

So what exactly is the message they're trying to get across? Don't be homosexual, be a pedophile? Is this Arvonp guy associated with NAMBLA or something?

Is it pedophilia if they are juveniles?

If it's being put online for general consumption...yes.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on January 07, 2010, 03:11:39 AM
Hello My Brothers in Christ. Check this out. Comment rate and subscribe to Arvonp! http://bit.ly/6RSOZS
I support them. A good group against Homosexuality. Go subscribe to them and rate they're videos 5 stars. Also go check out the Real Christmas Music Video.

Welcome to the forum, and thank you for the strange link!
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 07, 2010, 04:04:08 AM

can someone really get cancer from anal sex?

Not really in any different of a fashion from how women get cervical cancer from various STD's. So resultant simply from anal sex aside from STD's? No.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 07, 2010, 04:07:39 AM
Hello My Brothers in Christ. Check this out. Comment rate and subscribe to Arvonp! http://bit.ly/6RSOZS
I support them. A good group against Homosexuality. Go subscribe to them and rate they're videos 5 stars. Also go check out the Real Christmas Music Video.



DISCLAIMER:  Many may find the content of the linked video objectionable.  Viewer discretion is therefore advised.  - PtA

Watched it. I don't support them. I voted no on Prop 8.
Title: Re: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 07, 2010, 04:12:46 AM
I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage.

What about the physical damage that male homosexual intercourse does on their bodies over the course of their lives, even within the context of this "loving" relationship?
Such as what? I take much better care of myself since I've been in a relationship and am healtier.
Here is the information that you requested.

Potential medical complications of anal sex (STDs not included)

anal fissures
anal and/or rectal erosion
acute or chronic proctitis
rectal prolapse
anorectal abscess
exacerbated hemorrhoids
anal and/or rectal cancer
fecal impaction
loss of anal sphincter control with risk of permanent fecal incontinence
urethritis
pyelonephritis
cystitis
bacterial prostatitis
phimosis
intestinal parasitic infections



First, would you please cite your source?

Second, I know quite a lot of male-male couples who regularly have anal sex, and the only problem I've ever heard of occurring in this entire list are anal fissures, and at that it appears that they are quite rare. Like occur 1/1000 times or something like that. You make it sound about 100x more dramatic than I've actually experienced it to be.