Gayness

[Amillia]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Feb 16 2005, 07:09 AM

It should also be noted that there is no such thing as "gay sex." Heteros did it long before gays started doing it.

heterals started having sex with the same sex long before gays did? <span style=\'color:red\'>WHAT!????

[pushka]

Originally posted by Amillia+Feb 16 2005, 11:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Feb 16 2005, 11:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--DisRuptive1@Feb 16 2005, 07:09 AM

It should also be noted that there is no such thing as "gay sex."  Heteros did it long before gays started doing it.

heterals started having sex with the same sex long before gays did? <span style=\'color:red\'>WHAT!????

LOL...I think he might be referring directly to the act that takes place when gays have sex...

[Amillia]

Originally posted by pushka+Feb 16 2005, 01:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (pushka @ Feb 16 2005, 01:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 16 2005, 11:33 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--DisRuptive1@Feb 16 2005, 07:09 AM

It should also be noted that there is no such thing as "gay sex."  Heteros did it long before gays started doing it.

heterals started having sex with the same sex long before gays did? H

Well that makes more sense.

[Ray]

Parents are role models for their children, wouldn’t you say? Possibly even role models for other children as well, I would say.

So what would children learn about sexuality from parents of the same sex?

What would a child learn about sexuality from parents who are both men or women?

Would that child learn something different from members of the opposite sex?

Some of you seem to be saying that it’s okay for a child to be raised by members of the same sex because members of the same sex can teach about being honest or about being law abiding citizens just as well as members of the opposite sex can, but you are neglecting to discuss what a child would learn about sexuality from members of the same sex, and I believe that being sexual is just as important as how to be anything else.

Some of you also seem to be saying that a family is nothing more than a group of people who live together and care for each other, but I believe a family is much more than that. I believe a family is the fundamental unit of society, with society involving how people interact with other people.

In other words, what do you suppose a boy child would learn about how to be from 2 male “parents” living in his home as homosexuals? Not that the boy child would inevitably grow up to be homosexual himself, but clearly there would be a greater tendency to think it’s okay, don’t you think? And what good what that do for society, speaking specifically about what good it would be to be homosexual?

Or suppose the boy child decided to be heterosexual. What do you suppose his 2 male homosexual “parents” would have to teach him about that? Or in other words, what would his male homosexual “parents” have to teach that boy about women, contrasted against what that boy would learn from one parent who is male and another parent who is female? Clearly the boy would not have the advantage of learning from his parents, and would then be left to himself to go into the world to learn about those things from other people. Or in other words, his “family” would have failed him, giving him nothing to benefit him in his quest for knowledge about how to be involved in a homosexual relationship.

But can a homosexual couple feed a child? Yes

Can a homosexual couple provide clothing for a child? Sure

A homosexual couple can even provide shelter for a child and teach a child about how to be an honest, law abiding citizen, but there is one thing that a homosexual couple will never be able to teach that child, and that is about how to be a heterosexual person.

And btw, bisexuality is a completely separate issue.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Ray@Feb 16 2005, 02:47 PM

Parents are role models for their children, wouldn’t you say? Possibly even role models for other children as well, I would say.

So what would children learn about sexuality from parents of the same sex?

What would a child learn about sexuality from parents who are both men or women?

Would that child learn something different from members of the opposite sex?

Some of you seem to be saying that it’s okay for a child to be raised by members of the same sex because members of the same sex can teach about being honest or about being law abiding citizens just as well as members of the opposite sex can, but you are neglecting to discuss what a child would learn about sexuality from members of the same sex, and I believe that being sexual is just as important as how to be anything else.

Some of you also seem to be saying that a family is nothing more than a group of people who live together and care for each other, but I believe a family is much more than that. I believe a family is the fundamental unit of society, with society involving how people interact with other people.

In other words, what do you suppose a boy child would learn about how to be from 2 male “parents” living in his home as homosexuals? Not that the boy child would inevitably grow up to be homosexual himself, but clearly there would be a greater tendency to think it’s okay, don’t you think? And what good what that do for society, speaking specifically about what good it would be to be homosexual?

Or suppose the boy child decided to be heterosexual. What do you suppose his 2 male homosexual “parents” would have to teach him about that? Or in other words, what would his male homosexual “parents” have to teach that boy about women, contrasted against what that boy would learn from one parent who is male and another parent who is female? Clearly the boy would not have the advantage of learning from his parents, and would then be left to himself to go into the world to learn about those things from other people. Or in other words, his “family” would have failed him, giving him nothing to benefit him in his quest for knowledge about how to be involved in a homosexual relationship.

But can a homosexual couple feed a child? Yes

Can a homosexual couple provide clothing for a child? Sure

A homosexual couple can even provide shelter for a child and teach a child about how to be an honest, law abiding citizen, but there is one thing that a homosexual couple will never be able to teach that child, and that is about how to be a heterosexual person.

And btw, bisexuality is a completely separate issue.

Ray: Not that the boy child would inevitably grow up to be homosexual himself, but clearly there would be a greater tendency to think it’s okay, don’t you think?

S: I don't think, but that is where we differ so greatly. I think that if someone is going to be gay, they are going to be gay whether they have gay or straight parents - because I believe people are born gay or straight. I respect your belief though.

Ray: Or suppose the boy child decided to be heterosexual. What do you suppose his 2 male homosexual “parents” would have to teach him about that? Or in other words, what would his male homosexual “parents” have to teach that boy about women, contrasted against what that boy would learn from one parent who is male and another parent who is female?

S: He would learn the same I did about heterosexual sex. I wasn't raised by gays, but I was raised by a mother only. I'm in a very strong marriage, and have been for 7 years now. I don't go around cheating on my husband, or have sexual problems, just because I didn't have a mother and father in the house teaching me about heterosexual relationships.

[pushka]

Just a quick reply here Ray, I think that the gay parents would teach their child tolerance of other people's sexuality...You seem to believe that children learn how to be gay or straight? does that mean that you do not believe it is inborn? You say the child might 'decide' to be gay or straight...again, is that not something that is in them already, not chosen...

Also, every child has relations/friends/role models of both sexes within their families and schools and close friendships...I'm sure that even gay couples have straight couples as friends, so there would be no chance of the child never seeing a hetro relationship...the child wouldn't be existing in a bubble...

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Feb 16 2005, 12:47 PM

And what good what that do for society, speaking specifically about what good it would be to be homosexual?

Maybe it's Mother Nature's way of dealing with overpopulation.

[Ray]

Ray: Not that the boy child would inevitably grow up to be homosexual himself, but clearly there would be a greater tendency to think it’s okay, don’t you think?

S: I don't think, but that is where we differ so greatly. I think that if someone is going to be gay, they are going to be gay whether they have gay or straight parents - because I believe people are born gay or straight. I respect your belief though.

I wasn’t talking about whether or not a person is born to be “gay”, or not, I was stating that the child would be more inclined to think that being “gay” is “okay” because he would have grown up around it without it seeming to be a “big deal”, regardless of whether or not is truly is a big deal. Or in other words, people can subject themselves to just about anything and eventually come to think it’s okay or the “norm”, even when in fact it is not okay or the “norm”. I was simply stating that fact.

Ray: Or suppose the boy child decided to be heterosexual. What do you suppose his 2 male homosexual “parents” would have to teach him about that? Or in other words, what would his male homosexual “parents” have to teach that boy about women, contrasted against what that boy would learn from one parent who is male and another parent who is female?

S: He would learn the same I did about heterosexual sex. I wasn't raised by gays, but I was raised by a mother only. I'm in a very strong marriage, and have been for 7 years now. I don't go around cheating on my husband, or have sexual problems, just because I didn't have a mother and father in the house teaching me about heterosexual relationships.

Heh, do you really believe that your Mom, who I assume is heterosexual, taught you nothing more about men than you could learn about men from homosexual men? Heh, I would hope the knowledge gained from those sources would be different, because heterosexual men and homosexual men are not the same kind of men, nor are they generally regarded as such by woman and homosexual men.

[Ray]

Just a quick reply here Ray, I think that the gay parents would teach their child tolerance of other people's sexuality...You seem to believe that children learn how to be gay or straight? does that mean that you do not believe it is inborn? You say the child might 'decide' to be gay or straight...again, is that not something that is in them already, not chosen...

Tolerance, sure, homosexual couples could teach that, but they couldn’t teach a child how to be heterosexual. And yes, to a certain extent, sexually is something that is learned. People usually pick other people to imitate, imitating qualities they like from them, qualities they want to become part of themselves. Not that a person doesn’t have certain qualities of their own, mind you, but it is quite generally accepted that people like to imitate other people, or at

least the traits in other people that they like and want to imitate.

For instance, a boy will usually imitate his Dad, incorporating certain qualities from his Dad into himself, and there are certain qualities of a homosexually inclined man that a heterosexually inclined boy would not want to imitate. Surely you can see and admit the truth in that.

Also, every child has relations/friends/role models of both sexes within their families and schools and close friendships...I'm sure that even gay couples have straight couples as friends, so there would be no chance of the child never seeing a hetro relationship...the child wouldn't be existing in a bubble...

Yes, I admitted that a child can pick up certain qualities from other parents, and from other people outside of that child’s family, but the family who reflects fewer qualities that a child wants to imitate leaves the child with no choice but to go outside of his own family for those examples, and as I said, that bypasses the most fundamental and valuable component that a family should provide to its members.

If I can have my way, I will have a huge family with lots and lots of boys and girls who can grow up in a wonderful home with me (a Man) and a Woman who I love who loves me, where we will all live and love through all eternity. That way, there will hopefully be no confusion about what boys and girls are, and what each boy and girl will hopefully choose to be.

[pushka]

Originally posted by Ray@Feb 16 2005, 01:11 PM

Ray: Not that the boy child would inevitably grow up to be homosexual himself, but clearly there would be a greater tendency to think it’s okay, don’t you think?

S: I don't think, but that is where we differ so greatly. I think that if someone is going to be gay, they are going to be gay whether they have gay or straight parents - because I believe people are born gay or straight. I respect your belief though.

I wasn’t talking about whether or not a person is born to be “gay”, or not, I was stating that the child would be more inclined to think that being “gay” is “okay” because he would have grown up around it without it seeming to be a “big deal”, regardless of whether or not is truly is a big deal. Or in other words, people can subject themselves to just about anything and eventually come to think it’s okay or the “norm”, even when in fact it is not okay or the “norm”. I was simply stating that fact.

I think the ideas of considering something...lifestyle or otherwise, being 'okay' or 'the norm' is a matter of personal choice...I do accept that some people have been abused (I am not talking about within homosexual relationships with children they adopt here) as children, and they may feel that the abuse is normal behaviour...however, to gay people their sexuality is normal, it's only the people who object to it who feel it is abnormal or wrong...as long as they do not abuse the child in their care I don't feel that they are going to harm the child or alter the way that the child is going to view his or her own sexual preferences.

[Ray]

Originally posted by pushka+Feb 16 2005, 01:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (pushka @ Feb 16 2005, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Feb 16 2005, 01:11 PM

Ray: Not that the boy child would inevitably grow up to be homosexual himself, but clearly there would be a greater tendency to think it’s okay, don’t you think?

S: I don't think, but that is where we differ so greatly. I think that if someone is going to be gay, they are going to be gay whether they have gay or straight parents - because I believe people are born gay or straight. I respect your belief though.

I wasn’t talking about whether or not a person is born to be “gay”, or not, I was stating that the child would be more inclined to think that being “gay” is “okay” because he would have grown up around it without it seeming to be a “big deal”, regardless of whether or not is truly is a big deal. Or in other words, people can subject themselves to just about anything and eventually come to think it’s okay or the “norm”, even when in fact it is not okay or the “norm”. I was simply stating that fact.

I think the ideas of considering something...lifestyle or otherwise, being 'okay' or 'the norm' is a matter of personal choice...I do accept that some people have been abused (I am not talking about within homosexual relationships with children they adopt here) as children, and they may feel that the abuse is normal behaviour...however, to gay people their sexuality is normal, it's only the people who object to it who feel it is abnormal or wrong...as long as they do not abuse the child in their care I don't feel that they are going to harm the child or alter the way that the child is going to view his or her own sexual preferences.

And I say that to find out whether or not something is right or wrong, we need to Ask God whether or not it is right or wrong. After all, God will be our judge, and His determination of what is right or wrong IS what is right or wrong, and it will be based up by the common consent of everybody who has ever lived on this planet.

Heh, right now, I'd say the odds are greatly stacked against the people who are going to be voting that homosexuality should be considered "okay".

[Lindy]

just as an aside....I watched a gay comedian on comedy central yesterday for a short little bit......I really tried to listen to him, to step outside of the pocket and try to be more understanding....I tried.... I found a few things funny, but it was like he attacked others for their biased views and then he mentioned that he grew up catholic....and he said that he found out that the catholic church didn't condemn homosexuals as long as the individual didn't practice homosexuality....then he said that was fine and dandy with him....he didn't condemn people for being catholic....as long as they didn't practice Catholicism.

I laughed, but it just got worse, and I wasn't comfortable listening to it anymore..... the other person in the breakroom was busy reading the ingrediant label on her juice bottle, so I asked her if I could change the channel.....she said "Please do", it was nice to be able to shut off the offending dialog with the click of a button. I guess that my point is...even though we can try to be accepting of someone or some ideal that is offensive to our individual self.... and we just can't do it.....are we going to be judged for not being able to accept? For failure to love everyone no matter what? Does it make me bad for not being able to accept gays for what they are?

[Ray]

are we going to be judged for not being able to accept? For failure to love everyone no matter what? Does it make me bad for not being able to accept gays for what they are? : (

Lindy,

We all get to choose how we want to be, but to be able to live in the Celestial Kingdom, we must accept and live by the laws that our Father in Heaven lives by. If we don’t want to do that, we will simply live someplace else.

By and large, I think most people would agree that God’s laws are far superior to any law that can be concocted by man, once they properly understood what God’s laws are, but being able to live up to those laws is something that many people are simply not willing to do. We all can, it’s just that many of us do not want to.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Feb 16 2005, 04:48 PM

just as an aside....I watched a gay comedian on comedy central yesterday for a short little bit......I really tried to listen to him, to step outside of the pocket and try to be more understanding....I tried.... I found a few things funny, but it was like he attacked others for their biased views and then he mentioned that he grew up catholic....and he said that he found out that the catholic church didn't condemn homosexuals as long as the individual didn't practice homosexuality....then he said that was fine and dandy with him....he didn't condemn people for being catholic....as long as they didn't practice Catholicism.

I laughed, but it just got worse, and I wasn't comfortable listening to it anymore..... the other person in the breakroom was busy reading the ingrediant label on her juice bottle, so I asked her if I could change the channel.....she said "Please do", it was nice to be able to shut off the offending dialog with the click of a button. I guess that my point is...even though we can try to be accepting of someone or some ideal that is offensive to our individual self.... and we just can't do it.....are we going to be judged for not being able to accept? For failure to love everyone no matter what? Does it make me bad for not being able to accept gays for what they are?

Hi Lindy!

I don't think that we should try to force ourselves to be OK with 'in your face' homosexuality. I have a cousin who is a lesbian. We lived together growing up, as she had some problems with her mom (not because she was gay) so my mom took her in. I think of her as my sister.

I also have a great friend from back in college who is gay. We live in the same town, but our lives just took such different paths that we don't see each other that much. I still love him like a brother though, and love to get together with him. He is not the 'in your face' type at all. I probably wouldn't be friends with a flaming homosexual, just because I don't think you should be so outward about any form of sexuality. If you saw, or even talked to this friend, you would have no idea he is gay.

I would do anything I can to help either of these people. HOWEVER, I am not interested in knowing ANYTHING about their sex lives. It is not pleasant for me to think about, and I do not think it is normal. However, I think that God made them this way, just like He made some with other defects. But neither of them ever talk about their sex lives. If they did, I would change the subject or leave. Neither of them are the 'in your face' type. If they were, I probably wouldn't be close to them.

I am OK with their partner being there too. But if they ever held hands or kissed, I would not feel comfortable dealing with that... ESPECIALLY if my child was there. I would definitely vacate!

I see it much the same as someone who is into partner swapping, polygamy, or S&M. Just because they are into that stuff, it doesn't mean I wouldn't associate with them, or love them if they happened to be a family member. But I wouldn't want to talk about their sexual practices. It's immaterial.

As a general rule, we don't care about what kind of sexual practices someone has - such as whips and chains (sorry, but I'm trying to make a point). So why do we care so much about people who are into homosexual sex? It is just one part of what makes them who they are.

On the other hand, I don't understand why some gay people want to shove it into everyones' faces! I think it's OK not to approve of what these people do... just as I would not approve of a woman dressing like a harlot.

[Ray]

A true friend is someone who will try to do what he/she can to help someone overcome their weaknesses, even pointing them out if necessary (with patience and compassion, of course), while still being willing to remain a true friend to someone with even the most difficult weaknesses to overcome.

That’s what a friend is.

I suppose you might also say that a friend is someone who wants to be with someone who isn’t willing to overcome their weaknesses, but I call that person an accomplice.

In other words, friends don’t let friends drive drunk, or do anything else that will jeopardize their own life or the life of somebody else.

What could be more harmful to someone than to allow them to live in sin without warning them of the consequences to their actions, when I know they will be judged?

And btw, the most important trait a friend should have is LOVE.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Ray@Feb 17 2005, 11:37 AM

A true friend is someone who will try to do what he/she can to help someone overcome their weaknesses, even pointing them out if necessary (with patience and compassion, of course), while still being willing to remain a true friend to someone with even the most difficult weaknesses to overcome.

That’s what a friend is.

I suppose you might also say that a friend is someone who wants to be with someone who isn’t willing to overcome their weaknesses, but I call that person an accomplice.

In other words, friends don’t let friends drive drunk, or do anything else that will jeopardize their own life or the life of somebody else.

What could be more harmful to someone than to allow them to live in sin without warning them of the consequences to their actions, when I know they will be judged?

And btw, the most important trait a friend should have is LOVE.

But Ray, I explained that MY thoughts on gayness is that although not perfect, it is something that someone is born with.

So another example of that would be if someone was born with birth defect that is not operable. That would definitely be a weakness. You CAN'T help them overcome it. So all you can (and should) do is just love them the way they are.

Maybe it isn't the best example, but I think it gets my point across. I can never get my friend or cousin to become straight, no matter what I do. So I love them as they are. And I don't judge them. That is not my job.

I guess the big difference in our beliefs is that you believe it is a sin, and I do not.

On the other hand, I know of someone who is LDS and has a brother who is gay. Although she believes it is a sin, she ignores that part of his life and loves him for all the other reasons she has. He knows that people in her church think it's a sin, so why should she tell him? If she did, he would have nothing to do with her.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Feb 16 2005, 03:48 PM

just as an aside....I watched a gay comedian on comedy central yesterday for a short little bit......I really tried to listen to him, to step outside of the pocket and try to be more understanding....I tried.... I found a few things funny, but it was like he attacked others for their biased views and then he mentioned that he grew up catholic....and he said that he found out that the catholic church didn't condemn homosexuals as long as the individual didn't practice homosexuality....then he said that was fine and dandy with him....he didn't condemn people for being catholic....as long as they didn't practice Catholicism. 

  I laughed, but it just got worse, and I wasn't comfortable listening to it anymore..... the other person in the breakroom was busy reading the ingrediant label on her juice bottle, so I asked her if I could change the channel.....she said "Please do", it was nice to be able to shut off the offending dialog with the click of a button.  I guess that my point is...even though we can try to be accepting of someone or some ideal that is offensive to our individual self.... and we just can't do it.....are we going to be judged for not being able to accept? For failure to love everyone no matter what?  Does it make me bad for not being able to accept gays for what they are? 

Bravo Lindy! BTW this is the first I have heard of practicing purverted sex and practicing cathollism being in the same catagory. LOL

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Amillia@Feb 17 2005, 12:58 PM

Bravo Lindy! BTW this is the first I have heard of practicing purverted sex and practicing cathollism being in the same catagory. LOL

I don't get it.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Shan,

If someone is born with an innate love for starting fires, do we have to love the arsonist the way he is?

In case the reader is logically challenged enough to mistake this for a comparison of gays to arsonists (a standard homosexualist response to this kind of argument), I'll draw a bright red circle around the point this argument is really making, which is: Whether a predilection to do something is innate (genetic, hormonal or otherwise) has nothing to do with whether, in the final analysis, it is right or wrong -- because we all agree that some innate tendencies (like the one mentioned above), if acted upon, lead to wrongful conduct.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 17 2005, 11:31 AM

Whether a predilection to do something is innate (genetic, hormonal or otherwise) has nothing to do with whether, in the final analysis, it is right or wrong -- because we all agree that some innate tendencies (like the one mentioned above), if acted upon, lead to wrongful conduct.

It depends on whether or not the innate tendency is something that is harmful to others. Pyromania, kleptomania, pedophilia, and homicidal tendencies are all things that rob others of their rights. What two monogomous, homosexual individuals do in the privacy of their own home doesn't hurt anyone else.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 17 2005, 01:31 PM

Shan,

If someone is born with an innate love for starting fires, do we have to love the arsonist the way he is?

In case the reader is logically challenged enough to mistake this for a comparison of gays to arsonists (a standard homosexualist response to this kind of argument), I'll draw a bright red circle around the point this argument is really making, which is: Whether a predilection to do something is innate (genetic, hormonal or otherwise) has nothing to do with whether, in the final analysis, it is right or wrong -- because we all agree that some innate tendencies (like the one mentioned above), if acted upon, lead to wrongful conduct.

So what do you suggest we do, PD? I can think of a few options:

Ignore them.

Try to talk them into changing (ain't gonna happen, probably).

Tell them how wrong they are and that they are going to hell.

Have a relationship (whether close or distant) and like them for their good points.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 17 2005, 12:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 17 2005, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 17 2005, 11:31 AM

Whether a predilection to do something is innate (genetic, hormonal or otherwise) has nothing to do with whether, in the final analysis, it is right or wrong -- because we all agree that some innate tendencies (like the one mentioned above), if acted upon, lead to wrongful conduct.

It depends on whether or not the innate tendency is something that is harmful to others. Pyromania, kleptomania, pedophilia, and homicidal tendencies are all things that rob others of their rights. What two monogomous, homosexual individuals do in the privacy of their own home doesn't hurt anyone else.

Exactly. That clarifies the argument immensely. The argument that gay sex is fine is not based on its being "innate" or not, but rather on the Millsian principle that the only thing that determines whether something is moral or not is whether it hurts someone else.

That's a logical ethical standard, but not the only one. One could also make the case that things are immoral that prevent an individual from living up to his human potential, defined as ... well, that's a whole 'nother ethical question. Ultimately, we all have to decide based on what are, in the final analysis, unexamined moral judgments what good conduct consists of. Religion is not alone in deciding to say that certain things are good because God says so; secular philosophy also has, ultimately, to make moral judgments, such as Kant's principle that each human being has innate value as an end in himself, just because that's the way things are.

Compare your "kleptomania" example. Your judgment that it "infringes on the rights of others" is based on a moral judgment that people have rights to their property. Where does this judgment come from? Well, you could say that a person's property is ultimately a function of the time he (or his parents) have worked to obtain it, and that each person's time is his own, since people are independent agents. But why is that so? Why would slavery be wrong, if there is nothing more sacred about a human being than a chicken? (PETA thinks that last statement is true.) Ultimately, you have to make a determination that some moral principles are true, just because they are.

That's setting entirely aside the whole other set of moral judgments as to whether the human right to property is offset by other ethical concerns, like equality or some such, that Marx and others used to denigrate the property right.

What two monogomous, homosexual individuals do in the privacy of their own home doesn't hurt anyone else.

Why "monogomous"? And why two? How does a bathhouse party among anonymous partners "hurt anyone else," assuming everyone practices safe sex?

I'm rambling, but my point, again, is that whether a disposition for behavior is innate is irrelevant to determine whether it is right or not.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by shanstress70+Feb 17 2005, 12:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shanstress70 @ Feb 17 2005, 12:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 17 2005, 01:31 PM

Shan,

If someone is born with an innate love for starting fires, do we have to love the arsonist the way he is?

In case the reader is logically challenged enough to mistake this for a comparison of gays to arsonists (a standard homosexualist response to this kind of argument), I'll draw a bright red circle around the point this argument is really making, which is:  Whether a predilection to do something is innate (genetic, hormonal or otherwise) has nothing to do with whether, in the final analysis, it is right or wrong -- because we all agree that some innate tendencies (like the one mentioned above), if acted upon, lead to wrongful conduct.

So what do you suggest we do, PD? I can think of a few options:

Ignore them.

Try to talk them into changing (ain't gonna happen, probably).

Tell them how wrong they are and that they are going to hell.

Have a relationship (whether close or distant) and like them for their good points.

First, it's not my business to tell anyone he's going to hell, no matter whether I think what does is right or wrong. God makes that judgment, not me, and I will probably be surprised one way or another how things turn out.

You're seeming to suggest that since most gay people probably won't abandon gay sex no matter what society says, we should just let the whole thing slide. If that's what you're saying, I disagree. The whole point of moral standards is that they call people to do what they wouldn't naturally do. Some will accept the standards, and some won't. That's their business.

I don't think we should go around buttonholing gay people in bars and telling them they're sinning (any more than I pounded the table in high school to tell my rutting friends that they were being immoral). Preachiness offends people, often even people who aren't being preached at. At the same time, I'm free to believe what I believe, and let people know what that is in the proper circumstances, and act accordingly.

To "have a relationship [with a person who does not share your moral standards] and like them for their good points" does not require me to abandon my beliefs, any more than I'm required to agree with a Protestant on every point of theology to be his friend.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Feb 17 2005, 04:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Feb 17 2005, 04:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -shanstress70@Feb 17 2005, 12:41 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 17 2005, 01:31 PM

Shan,

If someone is born with an innate love for starting fires, do we have to love the arsonist the way he is?

In case the reader is logically challenged enough to mistake this for a comparison of gays to arsonists (a standard homosexualist response to this kind of argument), I'll draw a bright red circle around the point this argument is really making, which is:š Whether a predilection to do something is innate (genetic, hormonal or otherwise) has nothing to do with whether, in the final analysis, it is right or wrong -- because we all agree that some innate tendencies (like the one mentioned above), if acted upon, lead to wrongful conduct.

So what do you suggest we do, PD? I can think of a few options:

Ignore them.

Try to talk them into changing (ain't gonna happen, probably).

Tell them how wrong they are and that they are going to hell.

Have a relationship (whether close or distant) and like them for their good points.

First, it's not my business to tell anyone he's going to hell, no matter whether I think what does is right or wrong. God makes that judgment, not me, and I will probably be surprised one way or another how things turn out.

You're seeming to suggest that since most gay people probably won't abandon gay sex no matter what society says, we should just let the whole thing slide. If that's what you're saying, I disagree. The whole point of moral standards is that they call people to do what they wouldn't naturally do. Some will accept the standards, and some won't. That's their business.

I don't think we should go around buttonholing gay people in bars and telling them they're sinning (any more than I pounded the table in high school to tell my rutting friends that they were being immoral). Preachiness offends people, often even people who aren't being preached at. At the same time, I'm free to believe what I believe, and let people know what that is in the proper circumstances, and act accordingly.

To "have a relationship [with a person who does not share your moral standards] and like them for their good points" does not require me to abandon my beliefs, any more than I'm required to agree with a Protestant on every point of theology to be his friend.

So you've basically said that you choose to do what I choose to do, and that is, "Have a relationship (whether close or distant) and like them for their good points." Right?

(BTW, I don't think they are going to hell.... just in case my previous post made anyone think that. But I know people who think they are, which is why I included that option.)

[Guest curvette]

<<Why "monogomous"? And why two? How does a bathhouse party among anonymous partners "hurt anyone else," assuming everyone practices safe sex?>>

I guess I was still following the twist the thread had taken about homosexual couples adopting children. I'll have to get back to you on the bathhouse party question...

<< Ultimately, you have to make a determination that some moral principles are true, just because they are. >>

I think your example of property rights is a little vague. Maybe there are some places where "ownership" doesn't exist, but I think most of the the human race considers stealing wrong. I just don't think true homosexuality really fits into any of these categories. A true homosexual is born (for whatever reason) to be attracted to only members of their same sex. Sex with a member of the opposite sex is as repulsive to them as sex with another man would be to you. I believe that this type of sexual orientation cannot be changed. They are expected to live a life of complete celibacy without any of the intimacies of marriage that the rest of us "normal' people are able to enjoy by virtue of our inborn hetrosexuality. It's not the same as having to give up stealing, or lighting fires, or driving around in a bus all the time. I can't imagine what my life would be like if I was told that my only options were to have sex with other women or else completely abstain for the rest of my life. I'm afraid I'd have to 'live in sin" with a man.