Here’s your first book from me, enjoy!
“To start, you questioned several of my responses that unnatural means it is wrong. Simply, unnatural would not coincide with nature and if in fact you believe that we have evolved FROM nature, than how can you conclude that the unnatural does not mean out-of-place/incorrect/amiss/erronous/illicit…In other words, it is not “right.”
As I implied before, most of the things in modern human existence are unnatural: cars, computers, defibrillators, pacemakers, ultrasound machines, vaccines, antibiotics, c-sections, etc. etc. Basically, one could go on for a thread or four trying to list all the synthetic (unnatural things humans have devised to advance what is natural). Are all these things wrong because they aren’t natural? It seems you are trying to argue that homosexual behavior is wrong because it is unnatural; if so, then your argument would apply to all that is unnatural. Therefore, unless you are implying that everything unnatural is wrong (in which case you may be sinning for typing on the computer), your argument is invalid.
“Your preference for tall athletic blondes (as is my husbands!) and someone else’s preference for something entirely differing from yours cannot really be used as a good example. Preference is how God created us. To be attracted to someone of the same sex does not fit in with nature. It is not a preference, it is in opposition to what SHOULD be (even if we evolved, it would still anti-nature); PERVERSION.”
First, let me commend your husband for good taste : ) (actually, just an acknowledgment of a similar taste- this type of taste can be neither good nor bad). Second, one would have to accept that, A, there is a ‘god’ (which I currently don’t), B, this god is the God of Christianity (my thoughts on A continue to B), C, overcome the inconsistency you’ve just created when you say ‘God allows free-will’ and ‘God instills preference’ (if God tells you what you prefer, than you can’t choose it on your own). Third, as previously stated, just because something doesn’t fit in with nature doesn’t imply that it is wrong or shouldn’t be; C-section births don’t fit in with nature, but that doesn’t mean they are wrong. Fourth, yes, attraction to the same sex is a preference; some men prefer other men, some men prefer women, some women prefer women, some women prefer men. Some men prefer tall blondes, some men prefer tall blond men, etc. etc. Finally, where, exactly, are you getting the idea that preference has anything to do with what should or shouldn’t be, and, why do you think that you are qualified to determine what should or shouldn’t be in matters of preference?
“I am not permitted to judge anyone outside of the faith, therefore, I do not place judgment on such people.”
Then stop doing it. That was simple. Besides, I thought Christians weren’t supposed to judge anyone, even their own? ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’… a popular idea that I have heard on this sight regards ‘removing the speck from another’s eye while ignoring the plank in one’s own’. Planks and specks, Narnia, planks and specks. What if God doesn’t mind homosexuals, but somewhere down the line the message got altered? From what I understand, one can’t plead ignorance with God.
“I do know for certainty, however, that a gay or lesbian CAN be counseled and healed. Therefore, if they can change (and I’m sorry, but do not tell me people change their minds, this is a medical condition) their sexual desire to what is natural, than something was not right to begin with.”
Do you know what the problem with certainty is? You being certain doesn’t mean that something is a fact, but rather just that you just think it is. Your statement is not factual in any way, shape or form, save for your certainty about it. Allow me to quote directly from the American Psychological Association:
What Is Sexual Orientation?
Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).
Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).
Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.
What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.
However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
What About So-Called “Conversion Therapies”?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients’ sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association’s Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology’s opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client’s right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
So, now that we are clear on the facts involved, let’s move back to the ‘Alternative Lifestyle’ (almost sounds like Alternative Medicine, hmm).
“Secondly, where does your knowledge of right and wrong come from? Who is to say that if I wanted to be a vigilanty and take the life of another human being that I wouldn’t be right? Or, what if I stole because my children were starving? Is this behavior ethical? My point is this, if you have ethics, where did they come from? If there is no God, how did we know right from wrong? Why hasn’t the world ceased to exist because we would have, by now, destroyed every living thing. What does this have to do with homosexuality? Everything…there is a definitive right and wrong in this world.”
Well, I’ve already discussed the origin of ethics in the ‘I’m an Atheist’ thread, so I’ll just give a brief summary here:
Ethics are an accommodation that man has made with himself, other man and his environment. Ethics derive from, very simply, an idea/attitude that was stated by Confucius (551-479 BCE) that you may be familiar with ‘Don’t do anything to anyone that you wouldn’t want done to you’. There may have been earlier formulations of what Jesus stated 500 years later in the positive, but this is the oldest I’m aware of. This accommodation developed from human interaction and the realization that some things caused unpleasant reactions when done to others, as they did when they were done to us. As the mind evolved, human rights evolved, and are still evolving today (remember, only sixty years ago it was ethically acceptable for God-fearing people to drop an atom bomb on a populated country… no wait, two atom bombs on a populated country- is that acceptable now?)
You know, I’m a really glad you brought up moral absolutes! What is a moral absolute? A moral absolute is something that is wrong independently of time, place, superstition, mentality, etc. etc., and independent of whether or not people agree that it is wrong. So, let’s examine things that are absolutely wrong: murder (I would say it is absolutely wrong to kill another person out of anything besides self defense), rape (I would say it is absolutely wrong to sexually violate another human being), slavery (I would say it is absolutely wrong to force another human being to endeavor for an end they do not capitulate to- against their will). Now, what do all of these have in common? Very simple, they all violate the universal human right that has developed into a maxim from mankind’s interaction with man and environment: one has the autonomous right to do anything as long as they don’t violate the autonomous rights of anyone else (this would be the most current formulation of Confucius, Jesus, Kant, et al. ‘golden rule’, or ‘categorical imperative’). So, then, what can we infer about a book that claims to be inspired by a deity that supports violating moral absolutes? Slavery, murder, and even rape? (If you would like the verses, I’d be happy to provide them). Please remember, moral absolutes define things that are always wrong regardless of any influence, place or time, so saying they are taken out of context, they are the product of a different society, etc. etc. are not valid arguments.
“Ryan, if more people began to conclude that homosexual relations where acceptable and natural, the population of earth would drop drastically and if the world is still here 1,000’s of years from now, where would we be? This is not survival of the fittest, this is a weakening of the human race.”
No offense Narnia, but this is ridiculous. First, many people have concluded that homosexual relations were acceptable (accepting them doesn’t imply engaging in them); most of Europe acknowledges that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, and there population is not suffering. In any case, your argument commits the slippery slope logical fallacy. Since intercourse is not required to create life and some homosexuals want children, it seems highly likely that even if the world went ‘gay’, an accommodation would most likely be made to continue the species (on the assumption that our technology hasn’t advanced to the point where we can make babies without some of the things we need now). Second, a further demarcation of ‘natural’ is now necessary in light of what we’ve learned from the APA- natural for procreation, and natural preference. In terms of natural for procreation and population decline (while decline isn’t occurring), it seems over-population is becoming a rather large problem, so a declining natality rate might not be such a bad thing (unless one considers the truly scary statistic that uneducated people are out-breeding educated people 2 to 1, and the thought that the decline could be from educated people rather than educated one’s).
“Artifical insemination is not 100% successful, it is not 90% successful, it is not 80% successful (shall I keep going), and if I may, when a woman is artifically inseminated, generally SERVERAL eggs are placed within the womb. MANY times more than one of those eggs attach and life begins. Do you know the statistics for low birth weight as in twins and triplets, etc….? Do you realize that low birth weight often times has repercussions on mental intelligence? Or what about survival rates when three or more babies are born? Are you honestly going to tell me that this is survival of the fittest or survival of the most idiotic?! Science CANNOT take the place of natural conception and birth. It never will. It has a VERY HIGH failure rate.”
Hmm, you know what else had a very high failure rate (50%) up until about 100-150 years ago? Natural birth. But then, unnatural science came in and reduced that failure rate to, what, 2% failure rate. Besides, do you know what the natural procreation rate is? Or, what percentage of times a heterosexual couple engages in intercourse (with the intention of conception) does conception occur? I bet three dollars it isn’t that different from the 67% for women under thirty-five that AI is successful. Now, for the statistics from Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine regarding single birth, twins and triplets: singles 85%, twins 12%, triplets 2%, quadruplets less than 1%.
“Now to the point that statistically children are far more well-rounded and generally stay out of trouble when they are raised in a home with a father and a mother. They are statistically less likely to be involved with drugs, alcohol, gangs, violence and other destructive behavior. They are far less likely to be depressed and generally have better health due to healthier out-looks. They are far more likely to succeed and start a “traditional” family. Hence, survival of the fittest! “
Where did this statistic come from? Narnia, would you please reference your ‘data’? Well, to reference the APA again (in the context of homosexual parents):
Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent’s sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children’s.
Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.
“As for your comment regarding disease and sin. You are sorely lacking in the facts and again, Please go to Christian debates and read what I have posted. Although I warn you, it is VERY long. An unborn baby with M.S. has not sinned, but the human race has, therefore creating external factor that have GREATLY effected the human body. Examples may be chemicals, pollution, medical science and antibiotic abuse. I will not go any further with this until you read what I posted elsewhere. This topic is far to involved and easily explained WHEN you have the BASIC FACTS, which you obviously do not. (By the way, this is my educational background)”
Chemicals, pollution, and antibiotic abuse don’t sound like sin to me, but rather like the things one is exposed to (or could expose themselves to). Remember, you are the one who is trying to reconcile a supposedly omni-benevolent deity with disease, not I.
“And, for your information, I am bold because I KNOW God is real and He is the Creator of Life.”
How do you know that?
“And, no, I have not bothered to look in the Atheist Debates before this. I guess I never really took it seriously. Ryan, I would love to speak with you further on many topics.”
Super. I tell you what, start thinking about this question ‘What is God’? I will pull my questions out of the other thread and start a new one with my problems with ‘God’.
“Evolution is one. Recorded history IS the beginning of human history. There is no substantial proof that life was before this. Cave man was nothing more than a mistake of science as the skull was not human and another was found to be afflicted with arthritis.”
Have you studied the current fossil record? Can I quote you?, “This topic is far to involved and easily explained WHEN you have the BASIC FACTS, which you obviously do not.”
“Do you honestly believe you came from an APE? Ryan, I would like to think you have more dignity than that!”
To this, I can only laugh- ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
“Apes would not be here if in fact evolution was fact. Evolution means just that, to evolve into something greater, or to change in order to survive the NATURAL environment. COME ON! Be serious! It takes far more faith to believe in Darwanism.”
Once again, can I quote you, “This topic is far to involved and easily explained WHEN you have the BASIC FACTS, which you obviously do not.”
“I am not so sure you understand Christian marriage. You quoted a verse from Paul, “It is better to marry than to burn with passion.” For one thing, out of context of the passage, it can be looked at incorrectly as in the case of so many divorced Christians remarrying. Saint Paul said this to prevent men from disrespecting their finance.”
Um, this is what Paul said. Please read:
1 Corinthians 7: 6-11
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
This means that if you can’t contain your sexual impulses, get married, because that is a step above going to hell (and the only way one can ‘get down’ without going to the pit). Paul also states that it is better not to marry, see verse 7.
“Anyway, marriage between a man and a woman is for the purpose of procreating children. If a couple cannot have children, it is God’s will and they will be used in other ways or they may have been put together for the purpose of adopting one of God’s elect children and raising them in the faith.”
Then why get married? Just for sex? What about couples who don’t want to have children. This poses an interesting free-will question too. Geez, Narnia, where are you getting this stuff from???
“To desire a physical relationship with the same sex is a perversion of our desire to socialize with people of the same sex, to bond.”
What brought you to this conclusion? Once again, I’m immensely curious about your sources. I have homosexual friends, and that doesn’t have any affect on our friendships, it is certainly not perverse, for them or me (maybe the perversion is a creation of your mind)?
“What is your definition of a marriage as it sounds that physical love is not very important by your statement.”
My definition of marriage is a commitment between two consenting adults to remain committed to each other for the rest of their lives that is based on love. Yes, the physical plays a significant role, but it is certainly not the most important factor, nor would it warrant too much consideration if I ever decide to get married. Maybe if people didn’t get married for physical reasons the divorce rate wouldn’t be so high? Paul doesn’t seem to be too keen on the idea of divorce, which would imply that God isn’t either.
“Homosexuality is an unhealthy desire, a LUSTING for anothers sex and nothing more.”
I’m sorry Narnia, I don’t mean to offend you, but that statement is completely ignorant and nothing more; it does seem to indicate an issue with lust (based on the cap’s). For some reason, this sentence is sticking out at me. You sound like you have a lot of anger in you. I would venture to say that it may not be because of homosexuality, but something else…
Well, N, it’s been fun! Have a great night and take care!
‘Peace, love, and good happiness stuff’,
Incidentally, do you know what parthenogenesis is? May prove to be interesting topic for study considering some of the main points you were making….