"The Bush adminstration has chosen Jerry Thacker, who has characterized AIDS as the 'gay plague,' to serve on the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV and AIDS. In his speaches and writings Thacker has described homosexuality as a 'death style' rather than a lifestyle and asserted that 'Christ can rescue the homosexual.'" His web site, which had used the term "gay plague" has since been changed to read just "plague."
Questions
Do gays even need "rescuing"?
Is it reasonable to expect those who do not believe in Christ to be helped by an approach that requires such a belief?
What kind of administration do we have that would put an "extremist ideologue who persecutes and demeans an entire class of people impacted by this disease"? (quote from David Smith)?
Isn't it reasonable to expect Thacker to favor a "Christ driven" solution to HIV and AIDS over one based on medical research and advice.
I find him and his appointment rather scarry. How about you? ****************************************************** 01-23-03, 11:23 AM GarColga When I saw the article in the paper this morning, that was my initial reaction too "this is scary"!
On reflection, I find it not so much scary as just plain creepy.
You know what? This is still America, at least it was the last time I checked! We survived 12 years of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, and we'll get through 4 years of this bellicose pinhead too. As a nation we are greater than the damage that can be done by the buffoons that drift through our political landscape.
But maybe I'm just whistling past the graveyard.
01-23-03, 12:07 PM Clerky07 Do gays even need "rescuing"? Well, let me think. It has been established that all people are sinners and in need of a Savior. So it can be safely assumed that gay people are sinners in need of rescuing, yes.
Is it reasonable to expect those who do not believe in Christ to be helped by an approach that requires such a belief? I suppose not, when you put it that way. Perhaps the whole point is not to sway them to believe in Christ, but to help them out of a situation that is believed to be harmful.
What kind of administration do we have that would put an "extremist ideologue who persecutes and demeans an entire class of people impacted by this disease"? (quote from David Smith)?
The way I'm reading your post, the whole point of having this guy is because he believes that HIV and AIDS are dangerous to the gay community. So to me, the point would be that by putting this guy on the Presidential Advisory Commission, is that it would help keep people aware of the problem. Or, maybe the President likes having a guy who is as like minded as he is. Which would mean he cares about this disease. That's the kind of administration I think would appoint such a guy.
Isn't it reasonable to expect Thacker to favor a "Christ driven" solution to HIV and AIDS over one based on medical research and advice.
Well, if he's asserted that 'Christ can rescue the homosexual' like you say, then yes, that's reasonable to expect that. You know, I do believe that Christ can save one out of this kind of lifestyle, as he can also save one from other things: smoking, drinking, etc. I'm not limiting Christ to homosexuality because no sin is greater than another. It would seem to me that he would have more success if he used a combination of medical research and Christ to make his claims.
I find him and his appointment rather scarry. How about you? Nah. What's wrong with improving a situation that you feel needs improving? At least Bush isn't having extra marital affairs and sitting on his hands doing nothing about the state of our country.
01-23-03, 12:36 PM GarColga Oh man! To think of homosexuality as just another 'bad habit' is almost unbelievable in this day and age. Don't you know any gay people, Clerky? At what point did you decide that you were a heterosexual? You never did, did you? You just are !
It's the same thing with homosexuality. The gays I know could no more imagine having heterosexual sex than you could imagine making love with a woman.
I also feel that after G.W. Bush's administration is over there will be plenty of moms and dads, children and widows who would have preferred a president that 'sat on his hands' and maybe diddled around a little.
01-23-03, 01:01 PM Elexina
quoteo gays even need "rescuing"?
No. Gays in general do not need rescuing. One only requires rescuing if one's life is in danger. Therefore, a gay person with AIDS might need rescuing, but then so would straight people with AIDS, so that 'gay' thing is not a factor.
quote:Is it reasonable to expect those who do not believe in Christ to be helped by an approach that requires such a belief?
No, absolutely not. Belief should not have to be a part of it at all.
quote:What kind of administration do we have that would put an "extremist ideologue who persecutes and demeans an entire class of people impacted by this disease"?
One that doesn't care about the welfare of its people.
quote:Isn't it reasonable to expect Thacker to favor a "Christ driven" solution to HIV and AIDS over one based on medical research and advice.
Yes.
quote: I find him and his appointment rather scarry. How about you?
I find a great deal about that administration rather scary. And Gar, thank you for your view. It's nice when people... see.
01-23-03, 01:25 PM stanbee Homosexuality appears to be a preference.
Seems like "handedness". Are you left or right handed?. Or even ambi-handed. Some cultures permit no lefthanded citizens as left hand was tabooed - used for wiping the anu: unclean.
The "Gay plague" existed for hundreds of years among African heteosexuals. "Wasting Disease". African lives were not important enough to the world to make issue. Poor people died miserable deaths.
In Biblical times the 12 tribes of Hebrews decreed homosexuality unforgiveble, pagan. Men who strictly preferred men were not fruitful, did not multiply and did not step up to their responsibility to nurture families and increase population. Perhaps easy sex distracted other men from "duty".
The world is populated. Many dying and unfed. Perhaps homosexulaity is a natural means for some to curb population without sacrificing important intimacy.
Homosexulaity is seen in other species and is a part of the gamut of sexual expression. Perhaps this variation is no longer the serious antitribal crime that it appeared in the sparseness of the desert. Maybe it is time to grow up and change antiquated ideas that engender hatred.
01-23-03, 02:19 PM Diarmait I know the question was more concerned with principles rather than politics, but according to this article Thacker has resigned/rejected the post.
01-23-03, 03:07 PM helpmate Even before 9/11, there has been an "in your face" quality of the Bush administration: basically, it seems they took a list and said if Clinton said one thing, we'll do the other. Environment, foreign policy, appointments. It's "we have god and the truth on our side, and the devil with the rest of 'em." And when it's not in your face, it's behind your back. Even those occasional issues that purport to be bipartisan -- education for example -- turn out to be words with no funding or real commitment behind them. Such an appointment is perfectly consistent with his record; but is, I'll admit, even more astounding than most. As to "saving" gays: no one but such a zealot believes homosexuality is a choice for any but a very small percentage....Protecting, maybe, but not saving.
01-23-03, 03:43 PM Diarmait The question of whether homosexuality is a natural desire or a conscious choice is irrelevant in Christianity. Everyone is called to live a celibate life outside of a marriage (which is capable of procreation). The idea of "Christ rescuing the homosexual" might be driven by an understanding that sexual intercourse is not the end to which all our life is ordered. Perhaps a homosexual person, struggling with the knowledge that homosexual acts are contrary to natural law, can find solace in Christ as the One who will help him remain chaste while on his journey to the Kingdom of God.
01-23-03, 04:01 PM DvdGStwrt The homo speaks
First let me say I will try to be as non-biased as possible with my reply. Though the subject is a touchy one.
Second. (To those who do not already know) HIV and Aids are not a Gay Plauge. It is a disease that crosses all racial, national, sexual orientations, genders, ages and groups and sub groups of people.
In Africa it is the number one killer of hetero sexual people.
Thus strike one against Mr. Thacker for not knowing his **** from a hole in the ground on the subject. Mad
This is about strike 13 for Bush and his Administration - We will not go there.... Mad (I will say that I DID NOT vote for the monkey in office - and he has lost my respect - and Lord forbid, my loyalty as the leader of my nation should have)
There is no 'Christ Driven' solution to HIV and AIDS, just as much as there is no 'Christ Driven' solution for heart disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzhemiers - et cetera ad nauseum...
Not until Christ returns and starts curing people should we be expecting Faith and God and Christ and Religion to cure us. It will take medicine, science and a good deal of research to find a cure for this and other diseases.
"Do gays even need "rescuing"?
From..... Fundementalists? - Yes. From..... Bigots? - Yes. From.... stupidity, fear and ignorance of others - Yes. From their life style? - No.
I think I have shown that I am a Christian, a God fearing individual who, although as queer as they get, I have a strong God Relationship.
As I stated, this is about Bush's 13th blunder - I do not like the man, not his administration. He claims Christianity as some sort of mantel, but in truth I know on a gut level the man is as evil as his fictious Evil empire.
His stupidity in his apointments to offices reflects that he is not right in the head. (this is not the first stupid appointment made by Bush JR)
Thacker is far from the right man to serve - he obviously doesn't possess even the layman's understanding of AIDS & HIV - this is common enough information which one can find on the WWW - failing that, ones doctor can produce booklets and information that state the facts.
The continued used of God, Christ and my religion to degrade, persecute, demean and otherwise harm others really works my nerves. Those who use a religious brand of Faith to do their dirty bigoted deeds are lower than a worms belly and are not worth the powder and lead it would take to blow them to Hell.
This is, of course, my opinon.
David
01-23-03, 06:31 PM vedere Jerry Thacker has declined the position. Both Mr. and Mrs. Thacker are HIV positive. Hiv was transmitted to him through his wife, who contracted it in a blood transfusion. At least this is what ABC has reported on the ABC Evening News.
It is highly doubtful that Thacker is ignorant about HIV, or about AIDS.
01-23-03, 07:13 PM GarColga Sorry, but as far as I can tell Jerry Thacker is an ignorant man. This is from a blurb on his book "When AIDS Comes Home":
"Jerry Thacker presents his story, the story of a Christian family suddenly struck by the AIDS virus. He relates their fears, their struggles, and their hopes for the future, attacking the common stereotypes of AIDS victims and calling upon Christians to respond mercifully and with grace".
He wants mercy and grace, yet he has the effrontery to characterize AIDS as the 'gay plague', implying that gays somehow 'deserve what they got'. He clearly is not extending mercy and grace to others. Just because he has the virus doesn't mean he understands anything.
01-23-03, 07:36 PM vedere
quote:Originally posted by GarColga: He wants mercy and grace, yet he has the effrontery to characterize AIDS as the 'gay plague', implying that gays somehow 'deserve what they got'. He clearly is not extending mercy and grace to others. Just because he has the virus doesn't mean he understands anything.
How do you NOT know that he has it because of his seemingly lack of mercy for others? God is not a respector of people.
This is not a judgment call on my part. Only God sees and knows our innermost thoughts and our hearts.
In the Bible, was not Miriam, Moses' sister, struck with leprosy by God because she passed judgement on Moses' wife? Only Miriam was afflicted,even though Aaron had also spoken out against his Cushite sister-in-law. Numbers 12:1-12
Even in that case of racism, were not the principles the same as in this issue?
01-23-03, 07:57 PM GarColga
quote:Originally posted by vedere: [How do you NOT know that he has it because of his seemingly lack of mercy for others? God is not a respector of people.
OK you lost me.
01-23-03, 09:06 PM Enzo Oh, gosh, this is what you call your basic Greco-Roman Cluster-Foxtrot.
May I weigh in on this muddle?
Nobody claiming a "Christ-centered" solution for anything today is going to get one whiff of respect in secular politics. To do so, while it may reflect the beliefs of the person in question, does not serve any purpose other than to inflame.
The basic cause of all this, especially the vast gulf between mainstream Christians and the homosexual community, is the quite innocent-appearing theological mistake born of the Protestant Reformation that concupiscence is sin.
If one believes this, then one must attempt to help a homosexual to rid him or her self of the temptation to homosexuality. As most of you realize, it's not looking even remotely likely that homosexuality is something chosen in the vast majority of cases. It's vitally important for the fundamentalist camp to maintain that homosexuality is something decided upon, so that God is not involved in making someone a homosexual, and that person can be fully cured, i,e, the tendency to homosexuality can be fully erased, for only then is the sin gone.
I think this is total bunk. It's one more reason I'm Catholic, and not some flavor of Protestantism.
David, I'm curious about something:
How do you personally explain the attitude of Christianity toward homosexual acts? I assume that you have an opinion on this subject, I'd be interested to hear it. I'm not talking about any modern raving fundamentalists, I'm thinking more about what is recorded as being the words of Paul in the Christian Bible.
01-23-03, 10:07 PM Minnesota Enzo
I would like to follow your reasoning, but am not sure what you mean by "The basic cause of all this." What "this" are you referring to?
01-23-03, 11:10 PM Enzo Minn:
This = poor understanding and relations between "Mainstream Christians" and "The Gay Community".
"Mainstream Christians" is my term for the lowest common denominator Protestantism which is so very popular nationwide right now, and which can be heard on "Christian" radio each and every night, coast to coast.
01-23-03, 11:22 PM Mike121 If one believes this, then one must attempt to help a homosexual to rid him or her self of the temptation to homosexuality. As most of you realize, it's not looking even remotely likely that homosexuality is something chosen in the vast majority of cases. It's vitally important for the fundamentalist camp to maintain that homosexuality is something decided upon, so that God is not involved in making someone a homosexual, and that person can be fully cured, i,e, the tendency to homosexuality can be fully erased, for only then is the sin gone.
I think this is total bunk. It's one more reason I'm Catholic, and not some flavor of Protestantism.
Enzo,
I agree with what you’ve said in the paragraph above. But the statement that follows, “I think this is total bunk. It's one more reason I'm Catholic…” reeks of ignorance and stereotyping. There are far more protestants than you imagine who understand gays and the difficulties they endure and receive them with the same grace with which God receives us all – warts, blemishes, faults and all.
I have had a number of gay friends in my lifetime and some have discussed their sexuality openly with me because they knew I would neither judge nor shun them. I have a brother-in-law who at the age of 46 chose to “come out” to me out of dozens of family members who were closer in relation because as he put it, “I knew you would love me no matter what.”
I have never brought this up in my past posts (I abhor religious grandstanding) and the only reason I am doing so now is to remind you of something I think you already know. Be careful not to assume things about people you do not know. Labeling and stereotyping is for the small-minded and I from what I’ve read of your posts I don’t believe you fit that category.
01-23-03, 11:49 PM Minnesota Enzo
That's what I suspected; however, when your "this" (poor understanding and relations between "Mainstream Christians" and "The Gay Community) is inserted into your statement it makes for an odd conclusion.
The basic cause of all [the] poor understanding and relations between "Mainstream Christians" and "The Gay Community",[i] especially the vast gulf between mainstream Christians and the homosexual community, is the quite innocent-appearing theological mistake born of the Protestant Reformation that concupiscence is sin.
Are you asserting that because Protestants view lust as a sin this is why they have a problem accepting homosexuality? That they would blithely overlook such lustful desires in themselves (heterosexuals) yet pick it out as something unique to homosexuals? That they see homosexuality as a sin not because it involves same sex partners, but because these partners lust for each other---as if heterosexuals don't lust?
01-24-03, 05:33 AM tsaeb On a positive note (surprisingly, there is one), Bush may not have wanted someone who could say, "Been there, done that." The candidate's story is a peculiar one, and what he might have said and done, I suspect, would have also been peculiar, which in political speak means, interesting or, more importantly, groundbreaking. A results-oriented approach sometimes overlooks sensitivity on the part of leadership.
Would I have chosen this candidate? No, I am not that "bad."
01-24-03, 05:54 AM vedere Gar,
My question was merely in saying that God is not a respecter of people. He struck Miriam, the sister of Moses and a prophetess among her people, with leprpsy because of prejudice.
What makes you believe that God does not afflict His own people when they bear the same attitude as Miriam?
01-24-03, 10:18 AM Diarmait Enzo,
Perhaps the fundamentalists aren't just looking at "temptation as sin" when they try to persuade homosexuals to change. Undoubtedly, the mere inclination to homosexuality must, to some, be sinful in itself. However, I'm not sure that is the case for the majority.
Here is another spin: One of the arguments given by homosexuals when confronted with the Catholic position of chastity is that homosexuals should not be forced to abstain from sexual relations merely because they have a different inclination. In effect, the call to chastity requires one part of the population to forego the sort of love found in heterosexual marriage. The answer to this reply, by those who advocate the "change" view, is to help homosexuals to enjoy married love by aiding them in switching from homo to hetero.
I don't know if this is the motivation, but it makes more sense to me than simply stating that the inclination itself is sinful. Of course, I don't understand much of fundamentalist "doctrine," so perhaps I'm giving too much "benefit of the doubt."
01-24-03, 11:46 AM Elexina Hallelujah, the man has abdicated his throne. As you are all aware (and this brought a great big goofy smile to my face when I read it), Jerry Thacker has withdrawn his nomination from the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS ( full article here ).
I find it interesting that a lot of his gay-hating marks were deleted from his website once he was nominated...
Perhaps Mr. Thacker knows a thing or two about AIDS, as he is HIV positive, but he obviously knows squat about homosexuality. I'm not saying it's essential to understand gay people in order to be on an AIDS committee (AIDS is not solely a gay problem, we all know that) but I don't think someone so hateful and angry and misinformed has a place in our government.
Whoops! What am I saying? We've got a whole administration full of hateful angry misinformed ranters.
Enzo, I think that what you said makes a lot of sense. I can see, now, why so many people are unwilling to view homosexuality as anything but a choice. And David. David David David. Wow. I feel just the same about the current state of things! (no surprise there) He really does look like a monkey, doesn't he?
quote: Originally posted by Diarmait: One of the arguments given by homosexuals when confronted with the Catholic position of chastity is that homosexuals should not be forced to abstain from sexual relations merely because they have a different inclination.
Part of the problem might be that gay people cannot remain chaste until marriage because they cannot marry.
quote: ...those who advocate the "change" view, is to help homosexuals to enjoy married love by aiding them in switching from homo to hetero.
I guess "they" don't understand that homosexual love is just as beautiful and just as rewarding as hetero-love, hmmm?
Anyway, I feel like singing: ding dong, the jerk is dead, the wicked jerk, la la la... That’s one point for our side, anyway.
01-24-03, 12:47 PM helpmate A smart person (and a fair person) would wait to see how he does his job and then render a judgment.
The bush administration is all about symbolism: when his handlers feel they have him tuned enough to let him speak, bush is always in front of some helpful list of words to let us know what he's talking about. (The "made in the usa" pretend boxes recently was especially moving, with the real boxes in front of him having had the "made in china" covered over with tape.) It's about saying stuff but not necessarily doing stuff. So when they trot out a right-wing religious bigot, they are clearly sending a message to someone, with the next election in mind. So even before he took the job, had he done so, it's more than fair to question the nature of the appointment.
01-24-03, 01:13 PM Diarmait Elexina, this is going to get me in trouble, but here goes:
quote:Part of the problem might be that gay people cannot remain chaste until marriage because they cannot marry.
This is true, but even if the "law" were changed to allow homosexuals to "marry," such a union would not truly be a marriage in the traditional sense of the term.
quote:I guess "they" don't understand that homosexual love is just as beautiful and just as rewarding as hetero-love, hmmm?
First, I want to reassert that I am not of the camp that advocates changing gay to not-gay. I am, however, of the camp which says homosexual actions are contrary to natural law. Further, are you sure homo love is "just as beautiful and just as rewarding as hetero-love?" It seems to me that there are various ends to sexual intercourse - procreation, pleasure, and mutual self-giving. I can't see that mutual self-giving is present in homosexual (or contraceptive, for that matter) intercourse since one or both are saying "I'll give you everything, except myself and my ability to generate children and the concomitant responsibilities which will bind us together."
01-24-03, 01:25 PM Elexina Diarmait, you're not in trouble for speaking your opinion, don't worry. I may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean you don't get to say it. That said...
"Traditional." Whenever I hear that word, my eyelids begin to twitch. You are right, it would not be a marriage in the "traditional" sense of the term, but it would be a marriage none-the-less.
quote:Further, are you sure homo love is "just as beautiful and just as rewarding as hetero-love?"
Yes, I am sure. I am very sure.
quote:I can't see that mutual self-giving is present in homosexual (...) intercourse since one or both are saying "I'll give you everything, except myself and my ability to generate children and the concomitant responsibilities which will bind us together."
You can't see it because you've never experienced it, but a homosexual is every bit as capable of completely giving himself to his partner as is a heterosexual. They are just as capable of sharing responsibilities, of loving and caring and of raising children. And while a homosexual couple cannot have a child of their own, there are other ways to have children. There are heterosexual couples out there who are unable to have children of their own. Children are not the defining aspect of marriage. Not anymore. If it were so, I'd be three months pregnant! I understand that you think it is contrary to natural law, but take a look at nature! Most species practice homosexuality. That's natural.
01-24-03, 04:32 PM Diarmait
quote:If it were so, I'd be three months pregnant!
Congratulations on your marriage?
quote:There are heterosexual couples out there who are unable to have children of their own.
Yes, but they don't put anything in the way of conception.
quote:I understand that you think it is contrary to natural law, but take a look at nature! Most species practice homosexuality. That's natural.
By natural law I mean a "rule of reason, promulgated by God in man's nature, whereby man can discern how he should act." See CHARLES RICE, 50 QUESTIONS ON THE NATURAL LAW 51 (Ignatius Press rev. ed. 1999). This is a different rule than how animals act in nature. In fact, inasmuch as it takes an intellect (rule of reason) for natural law to be instilled, brute animals are excluded.
01-24-03, 07:45 PM babthrower My understanding is the the Roman Catholics don't think being a homosexual is sinful; but homosexual acts are sinful.
So: I guess that means if you aren't attracted to the opposite sex you should be celibate.
Kinda tough.
Do some Protestants think that merely being homosexual is a sin? How can that be, if I just am homosexual? Born that way, imprinted, whatever?
I mean, speaking as a hetero, suppose someone declared being a hetero is a sin? What am I supposed to do?
And what if someone says 'it's okay for you to be a hetero, but the only sex you can have is homosexual (i.e. same-sex sex)?
But I don't want it! I'm hetero!
Does that mean if I don't want to be sinful I have to be (gulp!) celibate?
01-24-03, 08:14 PM Diarmait
quoteoes that mean if I don't want to be sinful I have to be (gulp!) celibate?
Yep.
01-24-03, 08:46 PM Minnesota As I see it, being homosexual is like being born left-handed. Nobody asks for it, just as no one asks to be born heterosexual or right-handed, yet according to some Christians, "tough s***." Wouldn't it be sweet if your religion came out and damned millions of people in the world and fomented all kinds of discrimination simply because they insist on using their sinistral hand. In fact, the Christian religion does favor the right hand over the left (as do other religions), so this isn't as far fetched as one may imagine. From. http://www.anythingleft-handed.co.uk/lefty_myths.html#religion
[i]Christianity is strongly based toward the right hand. It is the right hand that gives the blessing and make the sign of the cross.
On one count, the bible contains over 100 favorable reference to the right-hand and 25 unfavorable references to the left-hand. E.g.: The right hand of the lord doeth valiantly, the right hand of the lord is exalted (Psalm 118 vv15,16)
The left hand does worst in the parable of the sheep and goats. The sheep are set on Christ's right hand and the goats on the left. Those on the right inherit the kingdom of god while those on the let depart into everlasting fire.
The situation is much the same in Judaism and Islam. In Islam, the left hand and everything associated with it is seen as unclean. This stems from the Middle Eastern custom of using the left-hand and water instead of toilet paper.
Let's send all those lefties to hell. Put 'em right next to the homosexuals and wait for the sparks to fly. Do ya suppose that a left handed homosexual would have to suffer double in hell, maybe be assigned to permanent KP, or listening to Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart for 24/7.
01-25-03, 10:29 AM DvdGStwrt
quote:Originally posted by Diarmait:
This is true, but even if the "law" were changed to allow homosexuals to "marry," such a union would not truly be a marriage in the traditional sense of the term.
Perhaps then it is high time we change our mind on what marriage is.
It is more than just an ability to procreate - If this was the case then those who are barren/sterile wouldn't be allowed to marry.
There are many gay people out there who are in in life time, committed relationships - They live and work and play and are monogamus to the bitter end. Some have even taken on the rigours of child raising via adoption or in many lesbian cases, through artificial insemination.
If it were possible to marry, I an my partner would be the first one at the altar - and I firmly believe that we would hold those vows sacred until 'death do us part'.
We live like a married couple, we even wear rings to signfy our devotion and loyalty to each other. Many comment and ask the name of my Wife - LOL They are often confused and shocked when I state a man's name.
The concept of marriage should be reviewed and take into consideration that two people cleaving to one another (a union of mind & spirit) transcends gender, race, religious practise, even age (I know several couples where one is in their 20's while the other is in their 40's)
David
01-25-03, 09:44 PM Enzo Weighing in again:
On "bashing" certain Protestant sects: Yes.
Why? Well, look, it's become an article of faith in many Churches that homosexuality is a "choice". Without even going into current medical knowledge, the very idea that a person could voluntarily "choose" the object of sexual interest is, to borrow a word from Minn., "asinine".
Why must these sects, then, do such things? My answer is, like it is concerning most problems in Christianity, that the majority of people who consider themselves "Christian" is this place and time actually believe something which is not Christianity. They, in fact, have got fundamental aspects of the thing very wrong.
Not everyone, and obviously, since the sects disagree with each other on so many topics, thee are many different kinds of error.
But, to make my point again, it is one aspect of the Reformation that the original Protestant movement and Catholicism broke on the issue of temptation being a sin. You can read about this fight in the Canons of Trent.
What are the practical ramifications? Well, if being homosexual is a sin, and God made homosexual people, then God would be making sin. So, what some sects do is insist that homosexual tendencies are a free choice of each individual and God is therefore off the hook.
There's no need for such special pleading in harmonizing homosexual desire with Christianity. I believe that God made people with an infinite variety of different personalities and problems. Minn. made an excellent comparison to handed-ness. I myself am subject to temptation which other people I know are not. God did that, not me. Shoot, even the most hard-core fundamentalist knows the social wisdom that alcoholism appears to be an inherited trait. That's a special temptation that some people have to bear.
Every theist should have to deal with the fact that God gave each person a specific, personal set of strengths and weaknesses. Saying that homosexuality is a "choice" is just one way of avoiding that.
I think every Christian should examine the theology of whatever group they are associated with as concerns temptation and sin. I also think every theist should examine the theology of other theist groups. Me, I'm working my way through the Koran. Anybody have any advice or insight? I have a Suni (sp?) friend who advises me some.
01-26-03, 03:35 AM vedere
quote:Originally posted by Elexina: I understand that you think it is contrary to natural law, but take a look at nature! Most species practice homosexuality. That's natural.
Elexina, Can you back this claim with some facts?
Within my community are farms that raise cows, sheep, llamas and chickens. There are also herds of wild deer roaming the area. Raccoons, skunks, coyotes, wild turkeys, and various birds are common to this neighborhood. As a teenager, my family bred dogs, and I know people who breed horses. I have never seen what you claim to be natural among the species. Lifelong farmers have said the opposite of your statement.
It is a fact that roosters, bulls,and rams cannot be kept together because the males will fight each other for domain. This is also true of wildlife according to the wildlife organizations to which I belong.
01-26-03, 07:51 AM Katanya2000
quote:Originally posted by vedere: Elexina, Can you back this claim with some facts?
There have been other studies which I've seen, but unfortunately I can't seem to sift through all the porn in the search engines to locate it. Maybe Minn and Gar, The Search Kings can help.
01-26-03, 08:50 AM GarColga "Research has already documented homosexuality in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, insects and other animals worldwide, including instances of life-long homosexual bonding in species that show no evidence of heterosexual bonding for life".
"Surveying all forms of non-reproductive sexuality -- and in some species the majority of individuals never have heterosexual intercourse in their lives -- Bagemihl shows that the idea that animals engage in sexual activity simply for the sake of reproduction is an absurd distortion of nature, an attempt to force the facts to fit the narrow template of the human heterosexual family".
From a review of 'Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity' by Bruce Bagemihl.
01-26-03, 09:05 AM Mike121 Comparing the sexual behaviors of humans with that of other mammals as a means of explaining homosexuality is a very thin argument IMHO. Not only do other mammals operate purely on impulse, observing their impulses may or may not give us any substantive data on how their brains process sexual stimuli.
For example, how many owners of male dogs have suffered the embarrassment of introducing a friend to their dog only to have the dog rear up on his hind legs, wrap his front paws around the person’s thigh and…well, you know. (I’ll bet Aire can relate to this!) “Aha! Some male dogs want to breed with humans!” Horsefeathers. Purely misguided, impulsive behavior.
Here’s one for the books. As you may have read in David’s fun post I have a dog and two cats. Maggie, the dog, is a small Bishon mix – about 12 pounds. Our cats are both over 10 pounds, so the three are roughly the same size. When Maggie was younger (she’s almost 17 now) she used to playfully chase the cats around the house. (She never laid a tooth on one of them – it was just play). On the rare occasion that she caught one, she would – get this – mount the cat and…well, you know. And Maggie is a female. Of course we yelled, “Maggie! No!”, both laughing and somewhat disgusted. “Aha! Some female dogs want to mate with cats!” Monkey muffins. Again, misguided behavior driven by impulse.
All sorts of impulses affect humans. The difference is that we’re intelligent enough to recognize them as impulses.
01-26-03, 09:20 AM GarColga
quote:Originally posted by Mike121: Comparing the sexual behaviors of humans with that of other mammals as a means of explaining homosexuality is a very thin argument IMHO.
Not as thin as this very skinny straw man you have built! I don't think anyone has attempted to explain homosexuality by comparing sexual behaviors of humans with animals.
01-26-03, 09:27 AM Mike121
quote:Originally posted by GarColga: I don't think anyone has attempted to explain homosexuality by comparing sexual behaviors of humans with animals.
Then you haven't been listening (or reading).
01-26-03, 09:43 AM Airedale For example, how many owners of male dogs have suffered the embarrassment of introducing a friend to their dog only to have the dog rear up on his hind legs, wrap his front paws around the person’s thigh and…well, you know. (I’ll bet Aire can relate to this!)
Ohhhh, yeah. Eek Big Grin Eek One doesn't live long amongst canines....
In the book Kanzi (1994), there's an insightful paragraph in the preface comparing bonobos to humans(p. xi):
"Exposure to people and language does not turn an ape into a human being, but it does result in an ape that can remove itself much further from the exigencies of the moment and reflect in greater depth on the possible consequences of its potential various actions. Such an ape can understand the intentions of others as expressed through language, though the nonlinguistic expression of intent must match the linguistic one or the words will be ignored."
When it comes to rational adults and sexuality, what I find is we have a God-given ability to see "the big picture" and comprehend what consequences may result from said actions. Call it the "powers of imagination" or whatever, but we can preface an act of sexuality by analyzing, considering, pondering, approving, censuring, transcending our thought life. An idea to copulate doesn't pop into our heads and two seconds later we execute said thought, regardless of circumstances or partner.
"However, unlike humans, bonobos do not grasp the relationship inherent between sexual activity and reproduction. Therefore, they are freed from understanding anything other than the immediate consequences of their sexual expression." (p. 109)
When Maggie grabs the cat or my two male littermate Airedales hump each other, they are acting in the existential now with no deeper consideration than "I'm excited and this feels good." And while we might laugh and say we know teenagers with about the same I.Q., the fact is human sexuality is intrinsically tied to a sense of responsibility (we are accountable to ??) and self-control.
Even serial rapists do not act spontaneously as do animals.
While I may visit someone's home who has a dog desiring to give me an "amorous" hump, his owner will not imitate his canine's carpe dieum outlook (or would that be carpe gamba?). Humans have, by contrast to animals, an "eternal" perspective.
Coram deo, Aire Cool
[God] has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. ~ Eccles. 3:11 [This message was edited by Airedale on 01-26-03 at 09:53 AM.]
01-26-03, 10:13 AM Minnesota Mike
Gar said "I don't think anyone has attempted to explain homosexuality by comparing sexual behaviors of humans with animals." Note the "explain. . . by comparing." In the preceding posts human and animal homosexual sexuality is compared, but it is not used to explain human homosexuality. I think this is a salient point.
Kat
"There have been other studies which I've seen, but unfortunatly I can't seem to sift through all the porn in the earch engines to locate it. Maybe Minn and Gar, The Search Kings can help." "Sift through all the porn"? Gee, do we have to? Big Grin
01-26-03, 11:55 AM Mike121 Minn,
Good point. Poor wording on my part.
Gar,
I stand corrected.
01-26-03, 11:57 AM DvdGStwrt
quote:Originally posted by Diarmait:
quoteoes that mean if I don't want to be sinful I have to be (gulp!) celibate?
Yep.
Here is another paradox:
Thou shalt not lie. For a homosexual to be in a heterosexual relationship they are being false to themself and to the one they are in the relationship with.
So it is ok to lie in this instance?
David
01-26-03, 12:01 PM Diarmait Remember, I don't subscribe to the "need to change" theory. According to the Catholic Church, a person who has homosexual attractions is called to a life of chastity. So, no, I don't think lying is the right option.
01-26-03, 07:53 PM mahal
quote:Originally posted by Diarmait: Remember, I don't subscribe to the "need to change" theory. According to the Catholic Church, a person who has homosexual attractions is called to a life of chastity. So, no, I don't think lying is the right option.
Interesting. Is this why many priests are homosexual?
01-26-03, 09:00 PM EBknowsBUBBA Having looked at the posts on this subject, I may be a little late to the party but I do have some thoughts.
When it comes to the Bible and the subject of sex, I have always noticed it comes down especially hard on homosexuality. There was a time in the Old Testament God comanded the homosexuals be killed. Though in modern day times we do not do that practice, I feel it does clearly show how God feels on this issue.
All things considered, I ask this. How does a person who is a practicing Christain and also a practicing homosexual, come to terms with God on this? While I do believe homosexuality is a forgiveable sin, I have never read anything in the Bible where God put his stamp of approval on the practice.
But let's also remember that homosexuality is not the only sin where the subject of sex is concerned. While many homosexuals say they were born the way they are, it can be said heterosexuals are born the way they are as well. Sins associated with the heterosexual lifestyle such as sex between unmarried people and sex with someone other than their marriage partner. When we think about it, these practices are no better than the sin of homosexuality.
Sin is sin in God's eyes regardless of the nature of it.
01-26-03, 09:06 PM vedere Actually, mahal, what Diarmait has written is correct. The Catholic Church is not the only church to call homosexual people to a life of chastity and celibacy. The Baptist Church, The Assembly of God congregations, the Wesleyan churches, and others, have stated the same Biblically based position as the Catholic Church on this issue.
Priests are called to a life of celibacy. A homosexual man may believe that by joining the priesthood and taking the vow of chastity, he will not be lead into a homosexual lifestyle. It is a preventative measure. This is not to say that he will mot have the sexual impulse or temptation. He is to turn away from such.
Realize that single, divorced, and widowed people are also called to be celibate.
01-26-03, 09:19 PM Minnesota "Realize that single, divorced, and widowed people are also called to be celibate." Don't you mean TOLD? Isn't "called" just a euphemism, or am I missing something here?
01-26-03, 10:25 PM mahal Well, I mentioned the concept of gay priests for two reasons:
1) Many pedophile priests prefered boys 2) Many of those priests visiting inmates in prisons are visiting males and receiving favors (this from my own personal experience visiting the same prisons--among inmates, this is well-known)
Notice that I don't have anything against being a priest, against being homosexual, or against prison inmates (who are simply paying a debt properly).
What I find interesting is the secret life some (probably a small percentage) of priests are living, which is definitely not celebate.
01-26-03, 11:29 PM Enzo Minn:
What's the difference between "called" and "told", as you see it?
01-27-03, 06:55 AM Elexina Well... where to start? I have been out of the Pool for a few days so I've missed a bit. First of all, thank you to all who posted examples of gay animals. Mahal, I am sure you know this, but just because a priest is gay does not mean he is going to molest boys, or anyone, and just because a pedophile focuses on boys does not necessarily make him gay. It just makes him sick in the head. Enzo, it seems to me that when one is "called" to do something, they are urged or asked, that a particular path is suggested to them. When one is "told" it is more of a demand without much leeway.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
My question was merely in saying that God is not a respecter of people. He struck Miriam, the sister of Moses and a prophetess among her people, with leprpsy because of prejudice.
What makes you believe that God does not afflict His own people when they bear the same attitude as Miriam? *************************** 01-24-03, 05:54 AM vedere Christ And The "Gay Plague." (80 Replies) Gar,
My question was merely in saying that God is not a respecter of people. He struck Miriam, the sister of Moses and a prophetess among her people, with leprpsy because of prejudice.
What makes you believe that God does not afflict His own people when they bear the same attitude as Miriam?
01-24-03, 10:18 AM Diarmait Enzo,
Perhaps the fundamentalists aren't just looking at "temptation as sin" when they try to persuade homosexuals to change. Undoubtedly, the mere inclination to homosexuality must, to some, be sinful in itself. However, I'm not sure that is the case for the majority.
Here is another spin: One of the arguments given by homosexuals when confronted with the Catholic position of chastity is that homosexuals should not be forced to abstain from sexual relations merely because they have a different inclination. In effect, the call to chastity requires one part of the population to forego the sort of love found in heterosexual marriage. The answer to this reply, by those who advocate the "change" view, is to help homosexuals to enjoy married love by aiding them in switching from homo to hetero.
I don't know if this is the motivation, but it makes more sense to me than simply stating that the inclination itself is sinful. Of course, I don't understand much of fundamentalist "doctrine," so perhaps I'm giving too much "benefit of the doubt."
01-24-03, 11:46 AM Elexina Hallelujah, the man has abdicated his throne. As you are all aware (and this brought a great big goofy smile to my face when I read it), Jerry Thacker has withdrawn his nomination from the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS ( full article here ).
I find it interesting that a lot of his gay-hating marks were deleted from his website once he was nominated...
Perhaps Mr. Thacker knows a thing or two about AIDS, as he is HIV positive, but he obviously knows squat about homosexuality. I'm not saying it's essential to understand gay people in order to be on an AIDS committee (AIDS is not solely a gay problem, we all know that) but I don't think someone so hateful and angry and misinformed has a place in our government.
Whoops! What am I saying? We've got a whole administration full of hateful angry misinformed ranters.
Enzo, I think that what you said makes a lot of sense. I can see, now, why so many people are unwilling to view homosexuality as anything but a choice. And David. David David David. Wow. I feel just the same about the current state of things! (no surprise there) He really does look like a monkey, doesn't he?
quote: Originally posted by Diarmait: One of the arguments given by homosexuals when confronted with the Catholic position of chastity is that homosexuals should not be forced to abstain from sexual relations merely because they have a different inclination.
Part of the problem might be that gay people cannot remain chaste until marriage because they cannot marry.
quote: ...those who advocate the "change" view, is to help homosexuals to enjoy married love by aiding them in switching from homo to hetero.
I guess "they" don't understand that homosexual love is just as beautiful and just as rewarding as hetero-love, hmmm?
Anyway, I feel like singing: ding dong, the jerk is dead, the wicked jerk, la la la... That’s one point for our side, anyway.
01-24-03, 12:47 PM helpmate A smart person (and a fair person) would wait to see how he does his job and then render a judgment.
The bush administration is all about symbolism: when his handlers feel they have him tuned enough to let him speak, bush is always in front of some helpful list of words to let us know what he's talking about. (The "made in the usa" pretend boxes recently was especially moving, with the real boxes in front of him having had the "made in china" covered over with tape.) It's about saying stuff but not necessarily doing stuff. So when they trot out a right-wing religious bigot, they are clearly sending a message to someone, with the next election in mind. So even before he took the job, had he done so, it's more than fair to question the nature of the appointment.
01-24-03, 01:13 PM Diarmait Elexina, this is going to get me in trouble, but here goes:
quote:Part of the problem might be that gay people cannot remain chaste until marriage because they cannot marry.
This is true, but even if the "law" were changed to allow homosexuals to "marry," such a union would not truly be a marriage in the traditional sense of the term.
quote:I guess "they" don't understand that homosexual love is just as beautiful and just as rewarding as hetero-love, hmmm?
First, I want to reassert that I am not of the camp that advocates changing gay to not-gay. I am, however, of the camp which says homosexual actions are contrary to natural law. Further, are you sure homo love is "just as beautiful and just as rewarding as hetero-love?" It seems to me that there are various ends to sexual intercourse - procreation, pleasure, and mutual self-giving. I can't see that mutual self-giving is present in homosexual (or contraceptive, for that matter) intercourse since one or both are saying "I'll give you everything, except myself and my ability to generate children and the concomitant responsibilities which will bind us together."
01-24-03, 01:25 PM Elexina Diarmait, you're not in trouble for speaking your opinion, don't worry. I may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean you don't get to say it. That said...
"Traditional." Whenever I hear that word, my eyelids begin to twitch. You are right, it would not be a marriage in the "traditional" sense of the term, but it would be a marriage none-the-less.
quote:Further, are you sure homo love is "just as beautiful and just as rewarding as hetero-love?"
Yes, I am sure. I am very sure.
quote:I can't see that mutual self-giving is present in homosexual (...) intercourse since one or both are saying "I'll give you everything, except myself and my ability to generate children and the concomitant responsibilities which will bind us together."
You can't see it because you've never experienced it, but a homosexual is every bit as capable of completely giving himself to his partner as is a heterosexual. They are just as capable of sharing responsibilities, of loving and caring and of raising children. And while a homosexual couple cannot have a child of their own, there are other ways to have children. There are heterosexual couples out there who are unable to have children of their own. Children are not the defining aspect of marriage. Not anymore. If it were so, I'd be three months pregnant! I understand that you think it is contrary to natural law, but take a look at nature! Most species practice homosexuality. That's natural.
01-24-03, 04:32 PM Diarmait
quote:If it were so, I'd be three months pregnant!
Congratulations on your marriage?
quote:There are heterosexual couples out there who are unable to have children of their own.
Yes, but they don't put anything in the way of conception.
quote:I understand that you think it is contrary to natural law, but take a look at nature! Most species practice homosexuality. That's natural.
By natural law I mean a "rule of reason, promulgated by God in man's nature, whereby man can discern how he should act." See CHARLES RICE, 50 QUESTIONS ON THE NATURAL LAW 51 (Ignatius Press rev. ed. 1999). This is a different rule than how animals act in nature. In fact, inasmuch as it takes an intellect (rule of reason) for natural law to be instilled, brute animals are excluded.
01-24-03, 07:45 PM babthrower My understanding is the the Roman Catholics don't think being a homosexual is sinful; but homosexual acts are sinful.
So: I guess that means if you aren't attracted to the opposite sex you should be celibate.
Kinda tough.
Do some Protestants think that merely being homosexual is a sin? How can that be, if I just am homosexual? Born that way, imprinted, whatever?
I mean, speaking as a hetero, suppose someone declared being a hetero is a sin? What am I supposed to do?
And what if someone says 'it's okay for you to be a hetero, but the only sex you can have is homosexual (i.e. same-sex sex)?
But I don't want it! I'm hetero!
Does that mean if I don't want to be sinful I have to be (gulp!) celibate?
01-24-03, 08:14 PM Diarmait
quoteoes that mean if I don't want to be sinful I have to be (gulp!) celibate?
Yep.
01-24-03, 08:46 PM Minnesota As I see it, being homosexual is like being born left-handed. Nobody asks for it, just as no one asks to be born heterosexual or right-handed, yet according to some Christians, "tough s***." Wouldn't it be sweet if your religion came out and damned millions of people in the world and fomented all kinds of discrimination simply because they insist on using their sinistral hand. In fact, the Christian religion does favor the right hand over the left (as do other religions), so this isn't as far fetched as one may imagine. From. http://www.anythingleft-handed.co.uk/lefty_myths.html#religion
Christianity is strongly based toward the right hand. It is the right hand that gives the blessing and make the sign of the cross.
On one count, the bible contains over 100 favorable reference to the right-hand and 25 unfavorable references to the left-hand. E.g.: The right hand of the lord doeth valiantly, the right hand of the lord is exalted (Psalm 118 vv15,16)
The left hand does worst in the parable of the sheep and goats. The sheep are set on Christ's right hand and the goats on the left. Those on the right inherit the kingdom of god while those on the let depart into everlasting fire.
The situation is much the same in Judaism and Islam. In Islam, the left hand and everything associated with it is seen as unclean. This stems from the Middle Eastern custom of using the left-hand and water instead of toilet paper.
Let's send all those lefties to hell. Put 'em right next to the homosexuals and wait for the sparks to fly. Do ya suppose that a left handed homosexual would have to suffer double in hell, maybe be assigned to permanent KP, or listening to Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart for 24/7.
01-25-03, 10:29 AM DvdGStwrt
quote:Originally posted by Diarmait:
This is true, but even if the "law" were changed to allow homosexuals to "marry," such a union would not truly be a marriage in the traditional sense of the term.
Perhaps then it is high time we change our mind on what marriage is.
It is more than just an ability to procreate - If this was the case then those who are barren/sterile wouldn't be allowed to marry.
There are many gay people out there who are in in life time, committed relationships - They live and work and play and are monogamus to the bitter end. Some have even taken on the rigours of child raising via adoption or in many lesbian cases, through artificial insemination.
If it were possible to marry, I an my partner would be the first one at the altar - and I firmly believe that we would hold those vows sacred until 'death do us part'.
We live like a married couple, we even wear rings to signfy our devotion and loyalty to each other. Many comment and ask the name of my Wife - LOL They are often confused and shocked when I state a man's name.
The concept of marriage should be reviewed and take into consideration that two people cleaving to one another (a union of mind & spirit) transcends gender, race, religious practise, even age (I know several couples where one is in their 20's while the other is in their 40's)
David
01-25-03, 09:44 PM Enzo Weighing in again:
On "bashing" certain Protestant sects: Yes.
Why? Well, look, it's become an article of faith in many Churches that homosexuality is a "choice". Without even going into current medical knowledge, the very idea that a person could voluntarily "choose" the object of sexual interest is, to borrow a word from Minn., "asinine".
Why must these sects, then, do such things? My answer is, like it is concerning most problems in Christianity, that the majority of people who consider themselves "Christian" is this place and time actually believe something which is not Christianity. They, in fact, have got fundamental aspects of the thing very wrong.
Not everyone, and obviously, since the sects disagree with each other on so many topics, thee are many different kinds of error.
But, to make my point again, it is one aspect of the Reformation that the original Protestant movement and Catholicism broke on the issue of temptation being a sin. You can read about this fight in the Canons of Trent.
What are the practical ramifications? Well, if being homosexual is a sin, and God made homosexual people, then God would be making sin. So, what some sects do is insist that homosexual tendencies are a free choice of each individual and God is therefore off the hook.
There's no need for such special pleading in harmonizing homosexual desire with Christianity. I believe that God made people with an infinite variety of different personalities and problems. Minn. made an excellent comparison to handed-ness. I myself am subject to temptation which other people I know are not. God did that, not me. Shoot, even the most hard-core fundamentalist knows the social wisdom that alcoholism appears to be an inherited trait. That's a special temptation that some people have to bear.
Every theist should have to deal with the fact that God gave each person a specific, personal set of strengths and weaknesses. Saying that homosexuality is a "choice" is just one way of avoiding that.
I think every Christian should examine the theology of whatever group they are associated with as concerns temptation and sin. I also think every theist should examine the theology of other theist groups. Me, I'm working my way through the Koran. Anybody have any advice or insight? I have a Suni (sp?) friend who advises me some.
01-26-03, 03:35 AM vedere
quote:Originally posted by Elexina: I understand that you think it is contrary to natural law, but take a look at nature! Most species practice homosexuality. That's natural.
Elexina, Can you back this claim with some facts?
Within my community are farms that raise cows, sheep, llamas and chickens. There are also herds of wild deer roaming the area. Raccoons, skunks, coyotes, wild turkeys, and various birds are common to this neighborhood. As a teenager, my family bred dogs, and I know people who breed horses. I have never seen what you claim to be natural among the species. Lifelong farmers have said the opposite of your statement.
It is a fact that roosters, bulls,and rams cannot be kept together because the males will fight each other for domain. This is also true of wildlife according to the wildlife organizations to which I belong.
01-26-03, 07:51 AM Katanya2000
quote:Originally posted by vedere: Elexina, Can you back this claim with some facts?
There have been other studies which I've seen, but unfortunately I can't seem to sift through all the porn in the search engines to locate it. Maybe Minn and Gar, The Search Kings can help.
01-26-03, 08:50 AM GarColga "Research has already documented homosexuality in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, insects and other animals worldwide, including instances of life-long homosexual bonding in species that show no evidence of heterosexual bonding for life".
"Surveying all forms of non-reproductive sexuality -- and in some species the majority of individuals never have heterosexual intercourse in their lives -- Bagemihl shows that the idea that animals engage in sexual activity simply for the sake of reproduction is an absurd distortion of nature, an attempt to force the facts to fit the narrow template of the human heterosexual family".
From a review of 'Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity' by Bruce Bagemihl.
01-26-03, 09:05 AM Mike121 Comparing the sexual behaviors of humans with that of other mammals as a means of explaining homosexuality is a very thin argument IMHO. Not only do other mammals operate purely on impulse, observing their impulses may or may not give us any substantive data on how their brains process sexual stimuli.
For example, how many owners of male dogs have suffered the embarrassment of introducing a friend to their dog only to have the dog rear up on his hind legs, wrap his front paws around the person’s thigh and…well, you know. (I’ll bet Aire can relate to this!) “Aha! Some male dogs want to breed with humans!” Horsefeathers. Purely misguided, impulsive behavior.
Here’s one for the books. As you may have read in David’s fun post I have a dog and two cats. Maggie, the dog, is a small Bishon mix – about 12 pounds. Our cats are both over 10 pounds, so the three are roughly the same size. When Maggie was younger (she’s almost 17 now) she used to playfully chase the cats around the house. (She never laid a tooth on one of them – it was just play). On the rare occasion that she caught one, she would – get this – mount the cat and…well, you know. And Maggie is a female. Of course we yelled, “Maggie! No!”, both laughing and somewhat disgusted. “Aha! Some female dogs want to mate with cats!” Monkey muffins. Again, misguided behavior driven by impulse.
All sorts of impulses affect humans. The difference is that we’re intelligent enough to recognize them as impulses.
01-26-03, 09:20 AM GarColga
quote:Originally posted by Mike121: Comparing the sexual behaviors of humans with that of other mammals as a means of explaining homosexuality is a very thin argument IMHO.
Not as thin as this very skinny straw man you have built! I don't think anyone has attempted to explain homosexuality by comparing sexual behaviors of humans with animals.
01-26-03, 09:27 AM Mike121
quote:Originally posted by GarColga: I don't think anyone has attempted to explain homosexuality by comparing sexual behaviors of humans with animals.
Then you haven't been listening (or reading).
01-26-03, 09:43 AM Airedale For example, how many owners of male dogs have suffered the embarrassment of introducing a friend to their dog only to have the dog rear up on his hind legs, wrap his front paws around the person’s thigh and…well, you know. (I’ll bet Aire can relate to this!)
Ohhhh, yeah. Eek Big Grin Eek One doesn't live long amongst canines....
In the book Kanzi (1994), there's an insightful paragraph in the preface comparing bonobos to humans(p. xi):
"Exposure to people and language does not turn an ape into a human being, but it does result in an ape that can remove itself much further from the exigencies of the moment and reflect in greater depth on the possible consequences of its potential various actions. Such an ape can understand the intentions of others as expressed through language, though the nonlinguistic expression of intent must match the linguistic one or the words will be ignored."
When it comes to rational adults and sexuality, what I find is we have a God-given ability to see "the big picture" and comprehend what consequences may result from said actions. Call it the "powers of imagination" or whatever, but we can preface an act of sexuality by analyzing, considering, pondering, approving, censuring, transcending our thought life. An idea to copulate doesn't pop into our heads and two seconds later we execute said thought, regardless of circumstances or partner.
"However, unlike humans, bonobos do not grasp the relationship inherent between sexual activity and reproduction. Therefore, they are freed from understanding anything other than the immediate consequences of their sexual expression." (p. 109)
When Maggie grabs the cat or my two male littermate Airedales hump each other, they are acting in the existential now with no deeper consideration than "I'm excited and this feels good." And while we might laugh and say we know teenagers with about the same I.Q., the fact is human sexuality is intrinsically tied to a sense of responsibility (we are accountable to ??) and self-control.
Even serial rapists do not act spontaneously as do animals.
While I may visit someone's home who has a dog desiring to give me an "amorous" hump, his owner will not imitate his canine's carpe dieum outlook (or would that be carpe gamba?). Humans have, by contrast to animals, an "eternal" perspective.
Coram deo, Aire Cool
[God] has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. ~ Eccles. 3:11 [This message was edited by Airedale on 01-26-03 at 09:53 AM.]
01-26-03, 10:13 AM Minnesota Mike
Gar said "I don't think anyone has attempted to explain homosexuality by comparing sexual behaviors of humans with animals." Note the "explain. . . by comparing." In the preceding posts human and animal homosexual sexuality is compared, but it is not used to explain human homosexuality. I think this is a salient point.
Kat
"There have been other studies which I've seen, but unfortunatly I can't seem to sift through all the porn in the earch engines to locate it. Maybe Minn and Gar, The Search Kings can help." "Sift through all the porn"? Gee, do we have to? Big Grin
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
I stand corrected. ******************************* 01-26-03, 11:55 AM Mike121 Minn,
Good point. Poor wording on my part.
Gar,
I stand corrected.
01-26-03, 11:57 AM DvdGStwrt
quote:Originally posted by Diarmait:
quoteoes that mean if I don't want to be sinful I have to be (gulp!) celibate?
Yep.
Here is another paradox:
Thou shalt not lie. For a homosexual to be in a heterosexual relationship they are being false to themself and to the one they are in the relationship with.
So it is ok to lie in this instance?
David
01-26-03, 12:01 PM Diarmait Remember, I don't subscribe to the "need to change" theory. According to the Catholic Church, a person who has homosexual attractions is called to a life of chastity. So, no, I don't think lying is the right option.
01-26-03, 07:53 PM mahal
quote:Originally posted by Diarmait: Remember, I don't subscribe to the "need to change" theory. According to the Catholic Church, a person who has homosexual attractions is called to a life of chastity. So, no, I don't think lying is the right option.
Interesting. Is this why many priests are homosexual?
01-26-03, 09:00 PM EBknowsBUBBA Having looked at the posts on this subject, I may be a little late to the party but I do have some thoughts.
When it comes to the Bible and the subject of sex, I have always noticed it comes down especially hard on homosexuality. There was a time in the Old Testament God comanded the homosexuals be killed. Though in modern day times we do not do that practice, I feel it does clearly show how God feels on this issue.
All things considered, I ask this. How does a person who is a practicing Christain and also a practicing homosexual, come to terms with God on this? While I do believe homosexuality is a forgiveable sin, I have never read anything in the Bible where God put his stamp of approval on the practice.
But let's also remember that homosexuality is not the only sin where the subject of sex is concerned. While many homosexuals say they were born the way they are, it can be said heterosexuals are born the way they are as well. Sins associated with the heterosexual lifestyle such as sex between unmarried people and sex with someone other than their marriage partner. When we think about it, these practices are no better than the sin of homosexuality.
Sin is sin in God's eyes regardless of the nature of it.
01-26-03, 09:06 PM vedere Actually, mahal, what Diarmait has written is correct. The Catholic Church is not the only church to call homosexual people to a life of chastity and celibacy. The Baptist Church, The Assembly of God congregations, the Wesleyan churches, and others, have stated the same Biblically based position as the Catholic Church on this issue.
Priests are called to a life of celibacy. A homosexual man may believe that by joining the priesthood and taking the vow of chastity, he will not be lead into a homosexual lifestyle. It is a preventative measure. This is not to say that he will mot have the sexual impulse or temptation. He is to turn away from such.
Realize that single, divorced, and widowed people are also called to be celibate.
01-26-03, 09:19 PM Minnesota "Realize that single, divorced, and widowed people are also called to be celibate." Don't you mean TOLD? Isn't "called" just a euphemism, or am I missing something here?
01-26-03, 10:25 PM mahal Well, I mentioned the concept of gay priests for two reasons:
1) Many pedophile priests prefered boys 2) Many of those priests visiting inmates in prisons are visiting males and receiving favors (this from my own personal experience visiting the same prisons--among inmates, this is well-known)
Notice that I don't have anything against being a priest, against being homosexual, or against prison inmates (who are simply paying a debt properly).
What I find interesting is the secret life some (probably a small percentage) of priests are living, which is definitely not celebate.
01-26-03, 11:29 PM Enzo Minn:
What's the difference between "called" and "told", as you see it?
01-27-03, 06:55 AM Elexina Well... where to start? I have been out of the Pool for a few days so I've missed a bit. First of all, thank you to all who posted examples of gay animals. Mahal, I am sure you know this, but just because a priest is gay does not mean he is going to molest boys, or anyone, and just because a pedophile focuses on boys does not necessarily make him gay. It just makes him sick in the head. Enzo, it seems to me that when one is "called" to do something, they are urged or asked, that a particular path is suggested to them. When one is "told" it is more of a demand without much leeway.
01-27-03, 11:17 AM Mike121
quote:Originally posted by Elexina: First of all, thank you to all who posted examples of gay animals.
Gay animals?
I can’t bring myself to let this pass without comment.
Using dogs as an example, in my post above I mentioned male dogs that will hump (sorry – a rather crude term) a person’s leg and a female dog that humps cats. I have a friend who owns a male Maltese that has a favorite stuffed animal that he chews, drags around the house, and…you guessed it…humps on a regular basis. The excitement of meeting a new person, chasing a cat, or “killing” a favorite stuffed animal elicits this behavior (in addition to the scent of a female in season). In the wild dogs are social animals and live in packs. Since there are no people or cats or stuffed animals around (or cooperative females), when males are excited they will hump each other. Domesticated male dogs also exhibit this behavior as Aire mentioned above. Are some dogs “homosexual” or merely humping whatever is available when excited? The answer seems pretty obvious.
From Gar’s post above:
“…Bagemihl shows that the idea that animals engage in sexual activity simply for the sake of reproduction is an absurd distortion of nature, an attempt to force the facts to fit the narrow template of the human heterosexual family".
Who says animals engage in sexual activity simply for the sake of reproduction? The whole premise is absurd. It presupposes that (a) animals are aware of sex; “I’m a boy, she’s a girl” and (b) that animals are cognizant of the reasons for their behavior; “I perform this act in order to procreate as opposed to that act which I perform for pleasure.”
The “we see homosexuality in nature so it must be natural” argument is so weak as to be non-existent. Animals engage in sexual congress driven by instinctive impulse. They don’t know what they are doing or why – which is why a dog will hump a person’s leg or a stuffed animal. Consequently, the sexual impulses of animals can be easily misdirected and whatever the direction it is as meaningless as the activity. An animal that can neither interpret urges or impulses nor “figure out” what to do about them may stumble onto a number of inefficacious outlets for the urges either in addition to or in place of mating. It is inevitable that some attempts to satisfy the impulses will occur with animals of the same sex within that species and/or social group. This is not an indication that they are “gay”. It merely underscores the fact that they are animals with strong urges and very limited intelligence.
Any comparison to human sexuality is ludicrous.
(P.S. – my comments do reflect an attitude toward gay people. What I am saying is that this particular argument lacks any merit.)
01-27-03, 11:57 AM Mike121 Correction: my last should read "my comments do not reflect an attitude toward gay people."
01-27-03, 01:52 PM Katanya2000 Mike,
I think you, and perhaps others are missing the significance of the studies concerning gay animals.
The issue is this: In the sheep (and other animals) whose sexual preference was for other same-sex partners only, they discovered that the brain structure for the regular sheep was different than that of the gay sheep.
It doesn't matter what monkeys do and dogs do. What is important is that they have linked homosexual behaviors in these sheep directly to differnces in their brains.
Meaning...the sheep were born with the predisposition to be gay.
It is possible that the predisposition to homosexuality in humans may also be linked to a differing brain structure. It's a little bit more difficult to research this, since it requires dissecting the brain determine if there is a difference.
Anyway...the POINT is,
If people are BORN gay, then it refutes the argument that homosexuality is a CHOICE, which many Christians claim. I won't go into any of the other possible implications (such as God doesn't make mistakes so he must have a purpose for gay people too) because I am in no position to debate these points.
Does it make more sense why these studies were used in this argument?
01-27-03, 03:58 PM Mike121 Kat,
I understand your point, honestly. And the article on the sheep was interesting. The problem is that it provides nothing substantive.
“It was not clear whether the differences were related to the disease or to sexual preferences.” This tells us nothing.
“Researchers looked at sheep in an attempt to understand the biological basis of sexual behaviours.” They don’t yet understand the biological basis.
“The researchers believe sheep could help provide clues about human sexuality.” Could provide clues…extremely vague.
Professor Charles Roselli said: "While we realise that sexuality is more complex in humans than reproductive behaviours in sheep, this model will help illuminate the basic principles that apply to all mammals, and may be helpful in understanding the biology of human behaviours as well." May be helpful. At this point they have no idea.
“There has been conflicting evidence on whether biology might underpin homosexuality to some extent.”
We don’t know why some animals exhibit some same-sex behaviors. We’re searching for clues.[i] And since animals cannot answer questions like people, we may never know. We don’t know for certain whether homosexuality in humans is rooted in biology and if so to what extent. And we most certainly do not know whether any connection can be found between the two, the substantial psychological differences between humans and animals notwithstanding.
[i]"Interestingly, this bundle of neurons is smaller in ewes and in rams with same-sex preferences than it is in rams that prefer ewes," said lead researcher Dr Kay Larkin.
"We also determined that the volume of the sexually dimorphic area is approximately the same in rams that prefer rams as it is in ewes."
This evidence is correlative, not causative. It looks like the physical evidence may provide clues to behavior, but it’s far from conclusive.
All in all, Kat, the evidence is still too weak to make a case of any kind; nature, nuture, homosexual animals, yada, yada, yada. There may well be a biological basis for homosexuality. In fact, I’d be surprised if there was not. But we really don’t know anything at this point. I understand the argument. I just don’t believe it has legs.
01-27-03, 07:54 PM The Real Pac Shady This is my humble opinion, I intend it only to be used for discussion, and for giving people a few things to think about, NOT for fights or anything, so please DO NOT HATE ME!!! Ok, I'll shut up now.
For those who say that people just ARE homosexual, and they're just BORN homosexual, virtually all the gay and lesbian people I know TURNED that way for some reason or another, that is to say I don't know anyone who just WAS gay from birth. Whether it be because of abuse or because of a bad relationship or whatever, people change. I know of a man who was once 100% straight until he was abused by a police officer at 13, that was when he changed his sexual preference. Not to say all cases are like this, it's just an example.
In my opinion, homosexuality tends to be a form of lust gone from bad to worse. Homosexuals claim to only be able to "love" those of the same sex. Love in this context is made (and GIVEN) by God alone for male-female relationships, not male-male or female-female or male-chiwaua or whatever. False love (and we have ALL come across that in one form or another in our life numerous times!) and love made impure by lust seeks certain 'criteria', usually in the form of "a girl with huge brests," "a guy with 12" under his belt," or in the case of homosexuality "someone who is the same gender as I am." These forms of "love" are impure love, and they are made by impure beings, ie. US!
It's not also a case of what gender one's mind is either as to who they fall for. One may say that men fall for other men because they have a feminine mind and think like a female, or vice versa for females. I am 100% male last time I checked, and as for my mind I am sometimes more girly that most of my female friends! But when I love someone, it's always female. Why? Because that's what God intended me being male for, to love and be with a female and have a family with her, and that instinct is built into my very being.
As for whether Christ can "rescue" someone from homosexualty, one of my good friends used to be bisexual, before he met Christ. He saw nothing wrong with having sexual relations with other males. When Jesus came into his mind and heart, his love became pure and free from this form of lust, and while not 100% free yet (he's still got a while to go), now he has learned how great love with a girl can be, because God made him male and intended him to be with a female.
Not sure about anyone else, but I think I'd prefer to go with what God intended that to go against it for the sake of what a politically correct society might say about me. After all, haven't we gone against His will enough during our lives?
01-28-03, 06:36 AM Elexina Mike, why can't an animal be gay? Sure, there are dogs who will hump anything that moves, and most things that don't, but there are also animals who form relationships with each other. Some species will mate with just one partner their entire life. That is dedication. If only humans could be like that. But some of these animals happen to choose to mate with a member of the same sex. They don't just have sex all over the place, they have a relationship with one partner, who is of the same sex. Penguins Queer Penguins Now, how often do you see penguins just a-humpin' away?
"The “we see homosexuality in nature so it must be natural” argument is so weak as to be non-existent. Animals engage in sexual congress driven by instinctive impulse." Sure, and when that instinctive impulse leads them to be with an animal of their same sex, what is that?
I don't understand why any comparison to human sexuality is ludicrous, though. Humans are animals, too.
quote: Originally posted by The Real Pac Shady: ...that is to say I don't know anyone who just WAS gay from birth.
I highly doubt that. Perhaps the gay people you know told you that, but perhaps in truth they just came to the realization that they were gay. They did not realize it earlier in life, but then became aware of it. Often, people who say they've "turned" gay say that because they know how their close-minded friends will react if it is discovered that they always were gay. I do not hate you and would not hate you for having your opinion on this matter, but I am going to disagree with you. Perhaps one day science will prove that homosexuals are born that way, but in the meantime I am content with my knowledge from my own personal experiences as well as those of my good friends and I know that homosexuality is perfectly normal, natural and beautiful.
01-28-03, 08:27 AM Mike121
quote:Originally posted by Elexina:
I don't understand why any comparison to human sexuality is ludicrous, though. Humans are animals, too.
Elexina,
I answered that question in an earlier post. Here it is with emphasis in bold:
“Animals engage in sexual congress driven by instinctive impulse. They don’t know what they are doing or why – which is why a dog will hump a person’s leg or a stuffed animal. Consequently, the sexual impulses of animals can be easily misdirected and whatever the direction it is as meaningless as the activity. An animal that can neither interpret urges or impulses nor “figure out” what to do about them may stumble onto a number of inefficacious outlets for the urges either in addition to or in place of mating. It is inevitable that some attempts to satisfy the impulses will occur with animals of the same sex within that species and/or social group. This is not an indication that they are “gay”. It merely underscores the fact that they are animals with strong urges and very limited intelligence.”
01-28-03, 08:52 AM Elexina Yeah, Mike, thanks. I read that all the first time. I'm sorry but I don't recall you saying you were a veterinarian or a biologist or an animal behaviourist. How do you know all of this about animals? How can you say with such absolute certainty that they are driven purely by impulse and that they cannot interpret their urges? I can't say for sure that you're wrong, but from the reading I've done I can disagree with you. Animals may be impulse driven, but how do we know that they are not driven by an impulse that attracts them solely to one sex or another?
01-28-03, 10:42 AM Sushimiman Those stupid democrats are the reason for all our problems. They are all so morally corrupt and most are pedophiles. They get us into war, like Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman. They are idiots who...
I just thought I'd act like the rest of you AA*"pin-heads" and go on and on with no facts; As if anybody gives a rats@ss about your political opinion. Some of you don't even have a grasp as to what Christianity is about, and now you are trying to extol your knowledge on Socio, cultural, and macro economics.
Anyway - to the key subjects. God loves Gays, I love gays. I will leave it to God as to wether they make it to the pearly gates or not. I have friends who are gay. As far as accepting IT as normal - At this point I haven't been swayed by the science. But I'll make a deal with you. I'll join a gay parade when the liberals accept pedophilia as normal.(You can use the same arguments)
I await with baited breath the stinging and educated replies.
*Aggressive Atheist: The same as a Jimmy Swaggart but on the other side.
01-28-03, 11:23 AM DvdGStwrt
quote:Originally posted by The Real Pac Shady:
For those who say that people just ARE homosexual, and they're just BORN homosexual, virtually all the gay and lesbian people I know TURNED that way for some reason or another, that is to say I don't know anyone who just WAS gay from birth.
You are entitled to your opinion Pac, however, as a homosexual who has many homosexual friends and acquaintances, I assure you that you are seeing a mis-balanced occurrence.
I know many, and I mean hundreds, of homosexual men and women raised in loving, caring homes, having good lives without the traumas that some experiences and they are as gay as they can be.
Our experiences may change the way we express our homosexuality (example, instead of being a 'bottom' one becomes a 'top' due to anal rape in the past) but it is not the only factor that determines if a person is gay or bi or not.
Case in point: My eldest brother was adopted out as a baby (my mother was only 14 when she had him) he was raised in Beverly Hills by a very wealthy family who loved and cherished him because they could not have children of their own. He came out of the closet when he was 16.
I, being raised by my mother and father, be subjected to various forms of abuse, including sexual abuse didn't come out of the closet until my late 20's.
My eldest brother was a 'nelly queen' (which is to say stereotypical gay) I on the other hand have always been straight acting. He was 100% bottom, I have been 98% top. The way we were raised, and the way our respective parents (not our biological parents) raised us up determined when we came out, how we acted when we came out - it did nothing to determine if we were gay or not.
There are many similar cases, which clearly showed that homosexuality is a biological thing, perhaps a matter of genetics or inheritance.
We are asked to look at the evidence as presented. What is the evidence we see? We see straight people turning gay, obviously they made a choice to be gay - right?
No, what actually happens is that the gay people who come out of the closet are in fact only coping to the reality of their sexuality - instead of trying to conform to what society (church, parents, friends) demand.
I lived the lie, I married, had a kid (actually it was because I got her pregnant that we had to marry) I got her pregnant because my father's constant demands that I prove that I am a man - so I went out and had unprotected sex with a girl. Dad was happy, mom was happy - everyone was happy that I was a man, except for me - I would have preferred to have been with a man.
It wasn't until 6 years after my wife and son passed on that I came out of the closet and had my first homosexual relationship. During that six years I struggled in vain against my needs and wants and the demands of society.
To the outsider they may see that my loss caused me to 'turn' gay, but I assure you, I had always thought of men, even way back when I first started having sexual feelings.
Many homosexuals will relate to this, they always knew on a gut level that they always were gay. the battle they fought was against their homosexuality to keep up the appearance of being 'normal' because we are programmed that men are supposed to marry a woman, and that woman are supposed to marry a man.
Yes, there is a good number of ex-homosexuals/bisexuals in the world. They made a choice to go straight. Whether they really did or if they are in denial is not known to me. It would depend on the individual and the motivation for being straight. I know a couple few of them, they professed to be happy, one has already killed himself, the other ones haven't been in a very long 'straight' relationship since taking on the straight life. Perhaps these are the results of other factors.
We are all capable of being good actors - even if we act in a way which goes against our very nature.
David
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
o gays even need "rescuing"?