posted on October 22, 2001 12:43:19 PM new
About the occurrence of homosexuality in other mammals -- I've heard it exists in many species, including dolphins. Sorry, I can't find any links. (You try punching in a search for "gay animals" and see what comes up!)
I'm not sure the question of church vs. conscience is one which can be answered because for many people conscience is so closely tied to their religious beliefs that the two concepts can't be completely separate.
Hey, I have a question about Christianity. If Christians believe that non-Christians are going to hell, what do they believe was the fate of people who existed before Christianity was established as a religion? In the Christian belief, did heaven and hell not exist until the time of Jesus? I know there must be an explanation. Terri or someone else, can you please answer this for me?
posted on October 22, 2001 12:50:04 PM new
Barry, sorry I don't know how I missed your post. Thanks for explaining your views! I understand what you're saying but I still don't understand why homosexuals are viewed as being "wrong". Forget your upbringing and your views on what your Bible teaches and tell me what part of being homosexual is wrong.
You state "No, since not all mutations are necessarily harmful..."
I would like to know in what way is a homosexual person harmful?
I chose to not have children. Do you think I have a mutant gene? Are us childless-by-choice people "wrong"?
posted on October 22, 2001 12:52:31 PM newRainyBear: I think it depends on the particular religion. I know that the "Mormon" religion [aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-say Saints] finds a loophole in the form of a scripture in 1 Corinthians 15: 29 that reads:
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?
One of the reasons that Mormons build those magnificent temples of theirs, in fact, is so that faithful members can perform proxy "baptisms for the dead" on behalf of those who died without the opportunity to accept the teachings of Christ. The dead remain free to accept or deny the baptism in the afterlife, the belief goes, but at least this way they are given the chance.
As for other Christian religions, I really don't know. And this was one of the reasons I had for eschewing religion in the first place. Even the Mormons can't hope to proxy baptize a few billion people.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
spelling...
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 22, 2001 12:53 PM ]
posted on October 22, 2001 12:53:28 PM newAnd yes, I’m disturbed by the notion of homosexuals wanting to raise children by themselves, to be honest. Not because I think that they are turning children into homosexuals, but because the children will be deprived of the chance to grow up with a positive male or female familial role model which may have a harmful effect on them later in life.
Sometimes I'm amazed by the things that come out of the posters here.
If a man or woman who happens to be gay or lesbian wishes to raise a child, and they are responsible, hard-working, loving people, who are you, Barry, to judge that they are not a "positive male or female familial role model?" Are you actually that arrogant? At the same time, you would rather deny some orphaned, unwanted child the opportunity to be loved by anyone -- because by and large, gays adopt. Better they should grow up in an orphanage, Barry, than be raised in a loving home?
I don't know what it is about this topic that makes people think they are experts on the subject. They roll out their half-baked "scientific" theories, their supposed religious justifications (which in some instances sound extremely un-Christianlike)and try to prove to the world that they know what's best for other people.
I'm not gay, I know very few gay people, and I'm no expert. But I've lived long enough to conclude that everybody has a right to live freely and love freely as long as it hurts no one else (sorry, your discomfort, distaste, or your beliefs that it flies in the face of science or offends God don't count as hurt).
posted on October 22, 2001 12:59:33 PM newwho are you, Barry
Who am I? I am simply somebody with an opinion, which I was asked to share. I'm not forcing that opinion on others, and I don't get involved in setting public policy. If the local legislature decides to allo Homosexuals to marry and/or have children, I won't do a thing to stand in their way or protest.
I happen to agree that everybody has a right to live freely and love freely as long as it hurts no one else. I am concerned, though, that there may be some "hurt" going on that you refuse to acknowledge. But, as I said up front, you may very well be right and I may be completely wrong. Either way, I'd like to think that, as long as I am not hurting anybody else, I am still entitled to my opinion. Surely you're not so arrogant as to feel that everybody MUST agree with your opinion?
Edited to add:
I see now that there might have been a slight misunderstanding as to what I was trying to say. I did not mean to imply in any way that a gay or lesbian parent could not be a positive role model for his or her gender. It was simply that I happen to believe that a child needs to be exposed to both a male AND a female parental role model, and in a homosexual couple one of those two is necessarily missing. They will either be deprived of a positive male role model or a positive female role model, depending on whether the homosexual couple is male or female.
And yes, I know that positive parental role models are missing in MANY families, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents, but that doesn't make it right.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 22, 2001 01:16 PM ]
posted on October 22, 2001 01:09:39 PM newkraftdinner: I'm sorry, but I thought I actually did explain why I felt homosexuality was "wrong", both from an evolutionary and a societal standpoint. I'd rather not post it all over again, and if you can't find what you're looking for there I'm afraid that's really all I have to say on the subject.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 22, 2001 01:34:24 PM new
rainy bear - If you exaimine the scriptures which I encourage you to do you will find that there is a doctrine of resurrection which is completely ignored by all the mainstream "Christian" religions. For example when Jesue went to resurrect Lazerus he was meet by the mans sister and when he said Lazerus would rise the sister said yes I know in the last day. She was expecting her brother to have a resurrection in the future not understanding Jesus intended to do so right then. You can conclude from that that she did not see him as being in a heavenly existance from which he would be called back. But that is exactly what Jesus would have been doing if the church's doctrines were correct. Rather the bible shows the dead are unconscious as Ecclesiastes 9:5 shows.
posted on October 22, 2001 01:41:56 PM newin the bedrooms or privacy of others' sexual lives
Lucy if it remained there, but it doesn't. It comes into our living rooms on tv, it comes into our school in the form of "tolerance curriculum", it confronts us when we go out, it affects employer employee legal issues, it impacts our tax dollars, etc.
Kraft, to remove God from existance would be impossible for me to do so I can't answer that.
I will get back to the heaven question, Rainy, at another time. (Or maybe someone else can reply.) I have a brace on my arm and can't type very well. Sorry.
posted on October 22, 2001 01:55:12 PM new
>>>Your entire premise is ridiculous<<<
krs:
No more ridiculous than deciding which factors make up your so-called "tribes".
You decided that homosexuals were a tribe unto themselves.
I disagreed since there was no foundation or basis for what makes up one of your so-called primitive tribes.
When I attempt to simplify matters for you by citing ridiculous examples (such as male only or female only tribes) you conclude that my ideas are ridiculous yet fail to open your eyes to see that your comments are equally silly.
Stop separating people!
posted on October 22, 2001 02:03:44 PM new
zoomin,
I think that you might go back and read what I said because I didn't say any of the nonsenical things that you attribute to me. As far as I'm concerned you're doing nothing but make a fool of yourself by continuing this way.
posted on October 22, 2001 02:10:47 PM new
No James. That just comes of an old time. I had a friend who was flabbergasted to find that a woman he'd met was at the University of California studying whales at her father's expense. He'd been a commercial fisherman for most of his life and thought that such a thing was useless frippery. After a long conversation with her during which he asked her all sorts of polite questions about what had brought her to Santa Cruz and what she hoped to be from her schooling he stopped all conversation in the room by asking her that question, about whales.
posted on October 22, 2001 02:14:47 PM new
Rainy, Briefly,
Daniel 12 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
Revelation 20 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)
Revelation 20
12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
There are two theories, first that the dead who were under the law prior to Christ will be judged by the law. In that case they wouldn't have much of a chance for even those elected by God sinned.
But,
And all mankind will see God's salvation. Luke 3:6
perhaps reassures us that all will have an opportunity to accept Christ and enter into salvation. So the accepted belief (based on other scripture as well) is that those of us who hear the gospel in our lives are facing that chance now and will not have another chance (unless during the tribulation if we live and doing so will result in physical death and persecution) and that those who are raised from the dead without hearing the gospel will be given the opportunity at some point.
Interpretation differs but what is clear is that those of us who hear have one chance and that is in this life.
posted on October 22, 2001 02:15:48 PM newzoomin: Not that krs needs defending, but I can't figure out where you're coming from either. If you read his original post, he was talking about about the state of mankind when we all lived in small, primitive groups, or "tribes", as opposed to modern day societies. Back then, infant mortality and the general death rate were high, and a premium was put on procreation. Therefore, the practice of mating with members of the same gender would have been strongly frowned upon [as would, I'm sure, overly picky heterosexual men like myself]. Unlike today, of course, where there is an overabundance of population and it really doesn't affect society one way or another if people decide not to have children.
You're the one who started going off on tangets about tribes of men vs. tribes of females, not krs.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
edited to remove unintentional smiley.
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 22, 2001 02:17 PM ]
posted on October 22, 2001 02:31:22 PM new
jt, if "God" teaches to love unconditionally, then how can you also believe that homosexuality is wrong? Isn't placing rules on your love wrong according to God? Do you think God favours the person who rejects the thought of a homosexual lifestyle, and rejects the person that loves unconditionally?
posted on October 22, 2001 02:52:03 PM new
I just wanted to see if I could get Rainybear's pretty blush, James, but to answer your question; yes, probably. Certainly not in their ears. Or ear. Maybe ears--in many ways they are superior creatures to man.
posted on October 22, 2001 03:18:53 PM new
Thoses who die before chirst have already received there Judgement under the laws..
That was the fate of them who died before chirst..
There are millions of people who still live by the laws of the old testment today and since the time of christ !!!.
Even if you could remove god and faith and even Political corectness Homosexuality would still be un natrual.
it is nature to Reproduce, But its not for me or anyone else to decide right or wrong ever Each will be judge for what and who they were in there life in the end..
Its also wrong to Use faith and god as an excuse for hatered or to propagate hatered the bible teaches hate the evil and sin not the person its the spirit and principality which can't be seen that cause the fear or doubt not the Individual .
posted on October 22, 2001 03:45:51 PM new
"Lucy if it remained there, but it doesn't. It comes into our living rooms on tv, it comes into our school in the form of "tolerance curriculum", it confronts us when we go out, it affects employer employee legal issues, it impacts our tax dollars, etc."
Why is our society obsessed with the sex lives other other individuals. We are confronted more often on TV with heterosexual love life than homosexual. Your schools don't teach tolerance of those who may be different? What does a sexual preference have to do with being a good employee or employer? It impacts our tax dollars because people are intolerant and judgmental. Does your ability to do a job depend on your sexual preference?
Most people, no matter what their sexual preferences, just want to make it through the day, laugh a little, love a little, work a little. Why should their sexual preferences have an affect on whether you or I live our life? Just what do I care what Tom and Harry do in their bedroom? What do I care what John and Mary do in theirs? Why do they care what I do in mine?
But then, the old "I am right, you are wrong" premise has always prevailed. Won't ever be an end to who is right and who is wrong. Or of telling people how to live their lives.
posted on October 22, 2001 03:51:43 PM new
It has nothing to do with being careful, krs (though I'm glad it gave you a moment of pleasure to make it seem that way). In the instance above I was pointing out that while I am no kind of expert on the subject, you don't have to be an expert to understand the basic truth that everyone has a right to live freely as long as it hurts no one else.
What motivates me to keep posting to this topic is the consternation I feel when I see people using religion and science as convenient justifications to look down upon an entire group of people. How would they object if they couldn't refer back to God or Darwin? Maybe they'd be forced to admit Because I don't like the way gays look or act! Because I think what they do is disgusting! Because I'm afraid of it! Thing is, they know objections of that type aren't good enough reasons to treat people like second class citizens. So instead they reach for religion or science so they "righteously" denounce them. That way they can be heard and remain true to their own personal agendas.
I thought you would have understood this, given your disdain for politicians whom you suspect are using the war and patriotism as as platforms to push their own political agendas. It's the same sort of artifice, just on a much larger scale.
posted on October 22, 2001 04:08:30 PM new
Well to get real basic I don't think it is loving, gentle or normal to ram something up someones rear end where the tissues are delicate and not made for that sort of thing.
That is literally unnatural to use this orfice that is for elimination and rather dirty biologically speaking for a parody of procreation. It also is dangerous because we find it is an excellant way to spread disease. That argues for it's wrong nature outside of religion or law just from the view of human kindness and not wishing to harm your fellow man. I know it is no more degrading than many of the things done to women but that is not any real excuse.
posted on October 22, 2001 04:16:31 PM newjt, if "God" teaches to love unconditionally, then how can you also believe that homosexuality is wrong?
Because the Bible clearly say it is.
Isn't placing rules on your love wrong according to God?
Not doing that.
You can love the sinner but hate the sin. Can I love an alcoholic? a drug addict? a child that disobeys? YES.
When my husband gets angry and says something harsh to me, I still love him but I might not like his attitude.
When my kids are disobedient, selfish, hateful, jealous, I still love them but that does not mean that I have to approve of their sin. But I still love them unconditionally.
How about you? Do you approve of every action of those you love? Do you stop loving them if they do something wrong? Or do you say, "I think you were wrong but I still love you anyway."?
Your schools don't teach tolerance of those who may be different?
Yes Lucy, but my school also teaches right and wrong and God's word as the foundation for everything else.
posted on October 22, 2001 04:35:07 PM newgravid: your post assumes that only homosexuals indulge in anal sex. It is something heterosexual couples do as well. Oh, and don't forget oral sex--how is that for using an orfice that is for elimination and rather dirty biologically speaking?
posted on October 22, 2001 04:42:26 PM new
I agree with spaz and luculent.
But gravid, I'm surprised at you. Why do you use the word "ram"? Is that what you think of when you're with your wife? Can't homosexuals be gentle also?
[ edited by kraftdinner on Oct 22, 2001 04:44 PM ]
posted on October 22, 2001 05:01:47 PM new
I am still unsure why another's sexlife is of concern to anyone else. Please tell me what a person's sex life has to do with the manner in which they do their job, raise their children, interact with their neighbors, ???? (and yes there are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual bad people. Those who exploit children, degrade others, pornagraphers, etc. These kind of people are NOT limited to one type.)
If my mailman is gay, what does that have to do with his ability to deliver the mail? If my son's teacher is gay, what does that have to do with her ability to teach? If my niece's softball coach is gay, does that make for a bad coach?
Where is the question line on employment applications that ask about sex life affecting your job?
Does a heterosexual mow the lawn better than a bisexual? Does a homosexual Christian worship differently than a heterosexual Christian?
I don't understand how anyone can be concerned about another's sex life. Or why anyone would think it even affects their life. (and I'm talking about a sex life like most of us want, intimate and private between consenting parties. Not the flaunt in your face of some people, no matter what sexual preference.)
One thing I have learned though is that religious views are interpreted on an individual basis. No one is right, no one is wrong. And that a lot of religious people are judgmental.
posted on October 22, 2001 05:15:33 PM new
luculent, it's sad isn't it? Think of what life would be like if we all got rid of that kind of ridiculous behavior and just accepted everyone. I would think it would be mind-freeing, but I guess not.
This topic is 11 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new11new
