homosexuality

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

what is your view on homosexuality?

it's okay to be gay
32
82%
i love to sodomise other men!
0
No votes
it's immoral
4
10%
i'm a closeted homosexuel that goes around screaming god hates fags
1
3%
other
2
5%
 
Total votes: 39
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:54 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:In addition such things get much more attention now than they have previously. There has always been a lot of liberal sex in society, but it was largely accepted and/or overlooked before modern media made obsessing about it a common pastime. The number of Pope's who had kids for example is pretty amazing and there are several instances of Pope's who were known to engage in homosexual behavior. These things are nothing new and may not even be more common now than they have been historically.

Indeed. Thank you for pointing that out.

xander
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:58 pm

torig wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:Well, you haven't offended me.


Therefore I'm glad.

Ace Rimmer wrote:I'm not the most eloquent person in the world, but I'll give it a shot. Your argument has one tremendous flaw in it. God did not create robots. He created beings and gave them the ability to make choices. God did create man in his image with the potential to be like him and gave him the instructions necessary to work towards that goal. Obviously, there's only one that's done it perfectly in this life. Had God wanted complete and total obedience without question as you imply, making it impossible to be gay etc, then he would have done so in all other areas such as murder, stealing, etc, etc.


It's interesting that you equate what I said to obedience. So you too hold the belief someone who is gay "wants" to be gay?

Well, I'm not a geneticists or any other such scientist. What I do know is that man was created in his image and was given free will to choose which way he'd go. If you want to call having choice a flaw that's up to you. Now, making the choice is an entirely different matter. As to whether or not there is a "gene", there may well be something along those lines that leads some people down that road. I don't know. If there is, I'd say it wasn't there to begin with and because of the rebellion and lifestyle of men over the last several thousand years it has "evolved" that way. :wink: (little bit of humor there)

torig wrote:I never had the intention of questioning anyone's convictions, so I won't go further than that one question, out of respect for your faith.
To me it looks odd that such an empowered being would go 'Hah, my creation. Looks like me, but just a bit more flawed" but your point was...interesting.

Ace Rimmer wrote:Secondly, you are correct that we (as Christians) should not treat people differently. That is not to say that a [insert church/congregation] should ignore what it's members are doing and ignore the repeated behavior of a person that goes against its core teachings. Of course, as I said earlier, screaming "God hates fags" and degrading another human made in His image is different than explaining to a "follower" that his continued actions will lead the church to "put him/her out" for the sake of the rest.


That does clear up your stance on the 'issue'. Thanks. It seems like you're willing to accept them as God's children as much as yourself, which I guess is all that matters in the discussion. Or am I reading things as I want them to appear to me?

No, you're correct. All are created in his image. Let me put it this way; God is the perfect parent and I as a parent would love/will love my children no matter their choices in life. Now, will I agree with or condone everything they do, probably not but that doesn't change what they are to me. Me being imperfect can certainly understand then how a perfect parent would love His children all the more, regardless of any rebellion. In fact, the "punishment" if you will (I don't believe in the mainstream idea of Hell) is out of love.

Lastly, we are not to condemn others as only God knows a persons true character and heart but we are to discern between (a different "judge") right and wrong actions and live [our own lives] accordingly.
Darksun
level5
level5
Posts: 6461
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 7:08 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby Darksun » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:59 pm

torig wrote:It's those people going 'I was born as a woman in a man's body, so I'll have to undergo surgery, so then I can be a real lady and get me a man." that TRULY freak me out :shock:

I'm not advocating a mass genocide on transsexuals (or whatever they are called) to "root out the problem", but I'll admit I'm not fucking far from thinking it... :oops:


There's some evidence to suggest that the cause of gender identity disorder is at least partly physiological. Plus, given a whole host of genetic and hormonal disorders that blur the lines of genders, the whole idea of binary gender identity is on shaky ground to say the least.

What I really don't see is why it bothers you atall? Why should the feelings of someone else freak you out so much that you're 'not far' from thinking about commiting mass murder. If anything, it is your thoughts that are more disturbing.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:11 pm

xander wrote:Do you deny that Mormonism ever encouraged polygyny? Do you deny that some fundamentalist Mormons still practice polygyny?

I admit that my phrasing oversimplified the matter, because I was looking for a quick example, not a complete discussion of Mormon polygyny. So, while Mormonism no longer officially condones polygyny, and actively condemns it, it is a historical fact that it was encouraged at one point, and that some groups of Mormons still practice it.

Does this phrasing suit you better: "It was also quite common in Jewish culture, at one point in time (which is where historical Mormons, and certain modern groups of fundamentalist Mormons, pull their ideas about polygyny from)."

xander


No, I don't deny that we once practiced plural marriage, nor do I deny that apostate groups still practice a degenerate form of it. However, those groups are in no way Mormons. Calling them such would be like calling a Baptist a Catholic.

As for your phrasing, no it doesn't suit me. My objection wasn't to the idea that we once did it, but to your idea of where the idea came from.

You once advised me not to try and aruge with you over one of your area's of specialty (archaeology). Well, I'd advise you the same here. I know more about my Church's doctrines and history, both what is true and what others say is true, then you do. We can discuss it calmly, but let's not get into a debate.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:31 pm

Feud wrote:No, I don't deny that we once practiced plural marriage, nor do I deny that apostate groups still practice a degenerate form of it. However, those groups are in no way Mormons. Calling them such would be like calling a Baptist a Catholic.

Would you consider yourself a Christian? Most Mormons do, most other Christians do not. I am going to continue to call them Mormons, because that is how they self identify. That is the same reason that I am willing to call Mormons Christians.

Feud wrote:My objection wasn't to the idea that we once did it, but to your idea of where the idea came from.

You once advised me not to try and aruge with you over one of your area's of specialty (archaeology). Well, I'd advise you the same here. I know more about my Church's doctrines and history, both what is true and what others say is true, then you do. We can discuss it calmly, but let's not get into a debate.

Would you care to elucidate?

My understanding is this: polygamy is justified under two broad biblical arguments.

First, when a couple are married, they are joined until the end of time. Thus, if a man marries, and his wife dies, and he remarries, he has two wives. Thus, he can have multiple wives -- one living the rest dead. But death doesn't really mean anything, so he actually does have multiple wives. That means that he can have multiple living wives.

Second, there were many patriarchs and Jewish leaders in the Torah who explicitly had multiple wives (starting with Abraham).

Both of these come from reading the Torah (or First Testament, or whatever you want to call it), and come from a Jewish tradition, though extended a bit. Is this incorrect? Rather than mocking my ignorance, would you perhaps care to first mock it, then cure it?

xander
Last edited by xander on Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:35 pm

Abraham wasn't Jewish for starters. :P
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:37 pm

Feud wrote:No, I don't deny that we once practiced plural marriage, nor do I deny that apostate groups still practice a degenerate form of it. However, those groups are in no way Mormons. Calling them such would be like calling a Baptist a Catholic.


Actually not quite. A Baptist does not claim to be a Catholic nor do they follow Catholic teachings. The polygamous groups being talked about claim to be Mormons and follow Mormon teachings (even if the teachings are not the current teachings). Technically they are more Mormon than you are I would imagine. The term "Mormon" is only supposed to be applied to Joseph Smith era practice which included plural marriage.
User avatar
creator
level3
level3
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:57 pm
Location: Cornwall, England

Postby creator » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:45 pm

you know what i don't get about peopl who are agaisnt homosexuality...why would you care!!! It seems to me likea slightly odd thing to want to do but i dont give a dam if anyone else wants to do it.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:59 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:Abraham wasn't Jewish for starters. :P

The Jews consider him to be the proto-Jew, father of their line. He is regarded as a moral character in the Bible. Does it matter if he was Jewish or not? Or perhaps you should ignore Jesus because he was Jewish, and not Christian?

xander
User avatar
The GoldFish
level5
level5
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:01 pm
Location: Bowl / South UK
Contact:

Postby The GoldFish » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:12 pm

I by in large agree with both your comments - though I do put forwards perhaps that you'd need to go back quite a long time to note anything significantly prevelant to what I suggest, and that there will always have been things going in the background and that as times have changed there is now no longer any 'background' to have things go on in.

Also, I'd question why the age of marriage was set so low, and became accepted as being so low, in the first place. I would suggest by this stage enforced morality etc had already lost most of its grip, but I do agree that the age of marriage may play a part in high teen pregnancy rates of late, though I feel that it's the casual nature that youth has to interpesonal relations which is more of the problem (STDs and teen pregnancy) and that the low age of marriage was just another mechanism to conceal it. Really the methods I see in the past have been to stop the sex happening in the first place, now it's all about allowing them to do it but that they should do it safely. (neither of which seem to have really worked, but I feel that education is a step in the right direction.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:13 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Actually not quite. A Baptist does not claim to be a Catholic nor do they follow Catholic teachings. The polygamous groups being talked about claim to be Mormons and follow Mormon teachings (even if the teachings are not the current teachings). Technically they are more Mormon than you are I would imagine. The term "Mormon" is only supposed to be applied to Joseph Smith era practice which included plural marriage.


No, they do not follow Mormon teachings, either past or present. The whole purpsoe of the Church being here is it's claim of being restored through Priesthood authority through living Prophets and Apsotles through the Prophet Joseph Smith, with one of the crowning tenets being continued revelation. Those groups have openly rejected the system of Priesthood Authority setup by Joseph Smith. They have ignored teachings (predating their own creation) of Priesthood keys, and lines of authority. The have rejected the teachings on Church government of every governing body prior to thier split.

You can say they are "more Mormon", but the reality is that they dogmatically cling to one practice while rejecting the means by which it came (and as a result, the more important practices).

xander wrote:Would you care to elucidate?


I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.

xander wrote:
Both of these come from reading the Torah (or First Testament, or whatever you want to call it), and come from a Jewish tradition, though extended a bit. Is this incorrect? Rather than mocking my ignorance, would you perhaps care to first mock it, then cure it?



I did not intend to mock you, and if you felt I had done so then I apologize. I percieved your respose to be an attack (due to the repeated us of the phrase "do you deny"), and I responded as such. If I was mistaken in your intentions, then I apologize for that as well.

As I said in my response to Stewsburtmonkey, our Church is founded upon the idea that Prophets and Apostles have been called in our day to provide continuing revelation. This process has provided many things, amoung which is a better understanding of who we (humanity) are, why we are here, where we are coming from, and where we are going. Central to this plan is the family, which we feel to be one of the greatest gifts that we have in this life.

A true understanding of why it was practiced can't really be reached with out an understanding of that plan, and careful study of our modern Scriptures (Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants). I assure you however that it was not started simply becuase Abraham did so, nor was it stoped for an equally arbitrary reason. It had a purpose, it served it, and it is no longer used.

Again, I apologize if I misinterpreted your response, and for any miscommunication that resulted from such.

xander wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:Abraham wasn't Jewish for starters. :P

The Jews consider him to be the proto-Jew, father of their line. He is regarded as a moral character in the Bible. Does it matter if he was Jewish or not? Or perhaps you should ignore Jesus because he was Jewish, and not Christian?

xander


I see your point and agree with you. But, since Jews are decended from his great grandson Judah (as opposed to those decended from his other grandkids through Jacob, such as the Levites, Ephriamites, etc., who were not Jews, but collectivly called Isrealites) he could not be a Jew. You are right though in your assertion.
torig
level5
level5
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:19 pm

Postby torig » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:21 pm

Darksun wrote:
torig wrote:It's those people going 'I was born as a woman in a man's body, so I'll have to undergo surgery, so then I can be a real lady and get me a man." that TRULY freak me out :shock:

I'm not advocating a mass genocide on transsexuals (or whatever they are called) to "root out the problem", but I'll admit I'm not fucking far from thinking it... :oops:


There's some evidence to suggest that the cause of gender identity disorder is at least partly physiological. Plus, given a whole host of genetic and hormonal disorders that blur the lines of genders, the whole idea of binary gender identity is on shaky ground to say the least.

What I really don't see is why it bothers you atall? Why should the feelings of someone else freak you out so much that you're 'not far' from thinking about commiting mass murder. If anything, it is your thoughts that are more disturbing.


That's most interesting, but surely than instead of giving them what they want, you could try to 'reset' the hormonal balance, so things would be ok again?
It's got to be more than just physiological, but also something in the mind perhaps?

I haven't said my thoughts aren't disturbing, but if it can make you feel better, I meant it more as a joke. Perhaps one in very bad taste, but a joke still. What I really wanted to admit is that while I condone people for not being openminded about gays, I cannot bring myself to be as open about transsexuals. I *do*, to some extinct, feel it's abnormal, an abomination, an error of nature, something as insane as someone claiming to be a giant apple. The latter would be locked up for life, too dangerous to live freely, while the former are "helped" and surgery is performed on them.
I somehow feel that a transsexual man (who becomes a woman) is a closetted gay that cannot admit to himself he is gay, for all the stigmas this will bring on him.
It's quite peculiar women are so conditioned they don't feel like a "true woman" if they lack big breasts for them to get their chests stuffed like Thanksgiving turkeys, but for men to start doing it, too, while getting rid of their penis is completely beyond me.

I have my limits, unfortunately. It would be hypocritical to state I'm very openminded, while hiding an example of an area in which I find it hard to be openminded about. Even though I'm trying hard to be.
All I can say is people have a right to live their lives any way they want to, as long as it doesn't harm other people, and as such, I will have to accept also that kind of people. So I wouldn't discriminate against transsexuals, not treat them differently (depending if they'd try and seduce me :shock: :shock: ) but I can pretty much guarantee I don't see myself having transsexual friends in the predictable future.
Last edited by torig on Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:26 pm

xander wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:Abraham wasn't Jewish for starters. :P

The Jews consider him to be the proto-Jew, father of their line. He is regarded as a moral character in the Bible. Does it matter if he was Jewish or not? Or perhaps you should ignore Jesus because he was Jewish, and not Christian?

xander

Surely you realize that was an attempt at humor, right? Of course.

Now, I did say that partly because people think that everything started with Abraham or Moses and that there was no "law" prior to that when in fact the "law" and statutes and such were given as instruction to Adam and Eve. I.e., people confuse Old Testament with being solely Jewish because the Jews hold so tightly to it. There were in fact 12 (technically 13) tribes with the tribe of Judah being one of them.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:31 pm

Feud wrote:No, they do not follow Mormon teachings, either past or present. The whole purpsoe of the Church being here is it's claim of being restored through Priesthood authority through living Prophets and Apsotles through the Prophet Joseph Smith, with one of the crowning tenets being continued revelation. Those groups have openly rejected the system of Priesthood Authority setup by Joseph Smith. They have ignored teachings (predating their own creation) of Priesthood keys, and lines of authority. The have rejected the teachings on Church government of every governing body prior to thier split.


So you're arguing that the core tenant of the LDS movement is the Church bureaucracy? I find that a rather odd statement. It is like saying the most important part of being a Christian is submission to the Pope. If you really believe this, then you really can't call yourself a true Christian since you do not follow the Pope.
Last edited by Stewsburntmonkey on Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:31 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:Surely you realize that was an attempt at humor, right? Of course.

Now, I did say that partly because people think that everything started with Abraham or Moses and that there was no "law" prior to that when in fact the "law" and statutes and such were given as instruction to Adam and Eve. I.e., people confuse Old Testament with being solely Jewish because the Jews hold so tightly to it. There were in fact 12 (technically 13) tribes with the tribe of Judah being one of them.

Ah. Sorry. I missed the joke.

Feud: do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

xander

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests