Medical Questions > Debate Forums > General Debate Forum

Why Does the West Accept Homosexuality? (Page 3)


September 14th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
"Yep. The hard-core christians on here believe humans are not animals and not a real part of nature, that we are "superior" to it. "

they must be lunatic christians as I have never ever seen any christian proclaim this nonsense, your just making lies up based on your misunderstandings perhaps.

You are right to say we believe we are not animals but you are wrong in saying that we believe we are not a real part of nature and that we are superior to it. We are a real part of nature, we are the crown of creation - that does not mean we are superior to creation but the best part of creation as a whole, we are uniquely joined together with nature, with the rest of creation.

Homosexuality occurs in nature.

Cancer occurs in nature

Aids occurs in nature

pedophillia occurs in nature

Not everything that occurs in nature is Good.

Heck dosnt half this board say pregnancy is evil?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Experienced User
LOL That's OK sillychick.

To believe that the church did not codemn interracial marriage is complete ignorance. Completely!

If you see old footage. You will see pastors reading scripture to legitmate their bigotry against interracial marriage.
Most member of the Klu Klux Klan were God fearing church goers.

AND to compare loving your mother or father with having a sexual relationship if you are a homosexual is just ridiculious!

There is a major difference of loving someone and being in love with someone

It is only forcing someone to surpress showing their feelings for someone so that they don't "go to hell" that is the difference of being attracted to someone and being gay according to you.

This is again why I love Jesus, but I do not like his fan club.

and when I speak of the church. I mean organized religion in general.


Eric
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 14th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Whoa guys, I think we're missing something big here.

Homosexuality is not a new answer to the problem of overpopulation.

Homosexuality always was.... In ancient Roman times it was completely normal and accepted. In fact, the ideal of beauty at the time (which was, as always, constructed by men) was the image of a young boy. Young boys were often 'mentored' by older men, and this mentoring often included sexual activity between the two. It was considered normal and part of the socialization needed to create a good citizen boy. Of course, marrying a man was wrong, but casual sex with either gender (as long as you were a citizen man, this right wasn't granted to women) was just fine.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
To believe that the church did not codemn interracial marriage is complete ignorance. Completely!

give me a link to one docrine of the church that proclaims this.... just one, you cant do it... because it never happend.

If you see old footage. You will see pastors reading scripture to legitmate their bigotry against interracial marriage.
Most member of the Klu Klux Klan were God fearing church goers.

The KKK are not the church, they are a group of christians who seperate themesleves from the church.... fellowships ect but not the Christian Church.



AND to compare loving your mother or father with having a sexual relationship if you are a homosexual is just ridiculious!

Why not, what love are you talking about Eros, philia or agape?

eros, then eros...i.e lust should be oppressed even in marriage

There is a major difference of loving someone and being in love with someone.

being in love (philia or agape) or lust?

"It is only forcing someone to surpress showing their feelings for someone so that they don't "go to hell" that is the difference of being attracted to someone and being gay according to you."

no its not commiting sin for love of Christ, hell. fire and brimstone is not something we should consider when wanting to stop sinning, it is love for Christ we focus on.


This is again why I love Jesus, but I do not like his fan club.

The Church is Jesus Christ, litterally it is his mystical body in the world. The Church actually speaks "in persona Christi" in the person of Christ.


"and when I speak of the church. I mean organized religion in general. "

but isnt that being stereotypical, taring everyone with the same brush and unfair?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 14th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Gu£st wrote:
Ah you poor misinformed soul.

"It kind of reminds of the olden days. When the church was against interracial marriage and a black person couldn't marry a white person and visa versa. "

That has NEVER EVER been the case, your thinking of interreligious marriage where the church stressed the benefits and importance of marriage between people of the same faith and the complications of interfaith marriages.


I suggest you read up on Miscegenation Laws.

The mask of "interfaith" is cute. You are only deceiving yourself.

Oh, wait, you knew I was going to say that, right?

Am I going to have a good day or bad day today, Guest? Look into your crystal ball and tell me my subconscious thoughts....

dooooodeeeeeedooooooo
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
"Am I going to have a good day or bad day today, Guest? Look into your crystal ball and tell me my subconscious thoughts...."

every day, your alive and not dead is a Good day birch, every day!!!

Am I wrong?

I know i am not!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 14th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Eiri wrote:
UCanQuit wrote:
Did someone say we're not a part of nature? That's just arrogant.

Eric

Yep. The hard-core christians on here believe humans are not animals and not a real part of nature, that we are "superior" to it.


No, I said that, and I am as hard core christian as Guest is a Satanist.

me wrote:
I think human beings are well beyond the scope of "natural" because there is very little we did [sic] that is "natural".
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Experienced User
You know gaeust. I'm pretty much done with debating this. Believe what you want.

Most pastors in the south were against interracial marriage. The KKK was against other races. They both used God and scripture to validate their beliefs.

I hate the fact that people use God's name to validate things like this. There is too much hate in this world in the name of God.


You talk about choices. So are you a heterosexual or do you just practice being a heterosexual?

Did you choose to be a heterosexual? When you started having feelings.

Did you say to yourself, " I can either be a heterosexual or a homosexual."

And then did you weighed your options and choose to be heterosexual or was it just natural for you to be a heterosexual?

Did you really choose or is that just who you are?

You saying that a person being gay is a choice is like me saying to you that you chose to be straight.

I didn't shoose to be straight. I'm just naturally attracted to women.

So think what you want about gay people going to hell (again a man made up story to scare people), but I know gay people living in Seattle and they are some of the most caring, supportive people I know. To me that's important.

As far as stereotyping. That's what organized religion does in general. It doesn't seem to matter how big a heart or how caring a person is. It doesn't seem to matter about the content of their character. If they are gay they are going to hell. Is being gay even in the seven deadly sins? Is it under adultery. I'm not sure what the bible defines as adultery.

But it's OK from a scripture I read one time in the bible for a daughter to get her father drunk and then trick him into having sex with her so to bear him a son. Why not just get him drunk and go knock some other woman up? Is incest best?

Ye without sin cast the first stone. Oops wait. I can't use that because Jesus really never said it. King James had that put into the King James edition.


Speaking of choices. If the Catholic Church is so into interracial relationships. Don't you think it was a bit of a poor choice for them to have a pope (Pope Benidict) that was once part of the Nazi Youth Movement?

To add also. The bottom line is we need a seperation of church and state and this doesn't seem to be happening as of late.



Eric
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 14th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Gu£st wrote:
"Am I going to have a good day or bad day today, Guest? Look into your crystal ball and tell me my subconscious thoughts...."

every day, your alive and not dead is a Good day birch, every day!!!

Am I wrong?

I know i am not!


How 'bout those Miscegenation Laws? You got anything of substance to say?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 14th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
I'm going to lust after my husband every day for the rest of my life.

Not even Guest can stop me.

(Another way I'm ruining society Wink )

If that puts me in hell with the homosexuals, fine. I'd rather be there where the time is spent having fun.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Guest, you asked for proof of the church having doctrines against interracial marriages...

Quote:
7. The statement on Race and Ethnic Relations in the Church clearly stated that the church would no longer teach against inter­racial marriage.


And also this in 1977:
Quote:
15. Racial Intermarriage was no longer condemned as a sin.


This was put into effect in 1976 and 1977 so up until then church doctrine was teaching against interracial marriage. Why else would they need to make a statement saying they would no longer teach it?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Experienced User
Thank you Opal,

and if I remember right, interracial marriage was actually illegal up until the mid 1900's and this law was fully backed by church in the south.


Eric
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Yep. It actually took the church until 1977 to say interracial marriage is not a sin and about the same time they stopped teaching against it. Yep, gotta love the catholic church.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 14th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
I love Catholicism and have faith that they'll come around eventually as an institution.

Of course, that won't happen with this pope. But he's old.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Gu£st wrote:
"Yep. The hard-core christians on here believe humans are not animals and not a real part of nature, that we are "superior" to it. "

they must be lunatic christians as I have never ever seen any christian proclaim this nonsense, your just making lies up based on your misunderstandings perhaps.


I am as serious as a heart attack when I say this. I have seen christians on here stating point blank that humans are not animals because god created us separately. They try to use this argument to say we are better than all animals and should not behave like animals, since we are not animals.


Quote:
[...]

Homosexuality occurs in nature.

Cancer occurs in nature

Aids occurs in nature

pedophillia occurs in nature

Not everything that occurs in nature is Good.

Heck dosnt half this board say pregnancy is evil?


You CANNOT apply morals to nature. Period. Does cancer suck? Yep. Doesn't make it evil.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Georgia59 wrote:
I love Catholicism and have faith that they'll come around eventually as an institution.

Of course, that won't happen with this pope. But he's old.

And a former Nazi! Wink Hitler's Youth!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Birch wrote:
Eiri wrote:
UCanQuit wrote:
Did someone say we're not a part of nature? That's just arrogant.

Eric

Yep. The hard-core christians on here believe humans are not animals and not a real part of nature, that we are "superior" to it.


No, I said that, and I am as hard core christian as Guest is a Satanist.

me wrote:
I think human beings are well beyond the scope of "natural" because there is very little we did [sic] that is "natural".


I've seen christians do it too.

Basically, anyone who ignores blatant scientific process and doesn't think evolution makes sense believes that humans are not animals. I cannot help but look at our actions and see nature in all of it.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 14th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Eiri wrote:
Birch wrote:
Eiri wrote:
UCanQuit wrote:
Did someone say we're not a part of nature? That's just arrogant.

Eric

Yep. The hard-core christians on here believe humans are not animals and not a real part of nature, that we are "superior" to it.


No, I said that, and I am as hard core christian as Guest is a Satanist.

me wrote:
I think human beings are well beyond the scope of "natural" because there is very little we did [sic] that is "natural".


I've seen christians do it too.

Basically, anyone who ignores blatant scientific process and doesn't think evolution makes sense believes that humans are not animals. I cannot help but look at our actions and see nature in all of it.


Really? Can you quote "hard core christians on here" who think we are not a part of nature?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
That would involve actually going back and looking.

As far as I'm concerned, saying we didn't evolve is the same thing as saying we are not a part of nature. In my mind, nature = evolution.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Juan Toobie Healthy wrote:
I'm all for gays and gay rights. Is homosexuality natural? I don't know. I can't think of any homosexual animals (please correct me if I'm wrong). I can think of bisexual ones. With bonobos for example, the females will get it on with each other while in heat. I can't see how a species could survive if homosexuality was natural.


Penguins. There are gay penguins, lol. It's actually very beneficial, since if an egg is abandoned a fertile couple doesn't have to waste their time raising an egg that's not theirs when they can just have their own. Gay penguins raise them!

Many many animals have gay and bisexual relations, so imo it's very obviously a natural behavior, and VERY helpful for the species.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
Tags: woman
Quick Reply