Can we defeat homosexuality?

[SlowwHand]

Pekka? I want a vote. Pekka? He's gone insane, man.
You pick someone insane? That figures.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Nikolai
A few years ago, I was much more liberal. But I believed strongly in God and his word. Slowly I understood what the Bible said. I didn't like it. I still don't. But I believe God's word is true. It tells me that it is a sin, and it tells me I am to love and respect others, even if they hate me. It's hard, both to accept the first and to practice the latter. But I will try. My belief is not an excuse. It's my life.

After demanding the rigorous consistency from organized religion that I tend to prefer, both from the doctrines and the practicioners, I came to the conclusion that there were too many flaws, and thus I could not in good conscience continue to follow a faith that I could not adequately rationalize.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Can we defeat homosexuality?

Originally posted by onodera
Let's assume for a moment that homosexuality is an illness. Can we try and get rid of it? We defeated smallpox, after all.

It is obvious that gayness is not a magical spell. It is caused by something in the real world, and if it has a cause, why not treat the cause?

Why would we want to? There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. Gays would be perfectly happy (within normal limits) if straights weren't oppressing them. Maybe what we should look for is an oppression gene, and get rid of it instead?

[Julian Delphiki]

Originally posted by Q Classic

It's a disease that lets them take alcoholism to another level.

Financial crisis curbs Russian vodka consumption

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpposted/archive/2008/11/24/financial-crisis-curbs-russian-vodka-consumption.aspx

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
The OP is the inevitable outcome of the insistence by many that homosexuality is inborn and genetic. All the GLBT orgs who strenuously insist that being gay isn't a choice are dooming themselves ultimately.

But I believe it is a choice, so I don't think there will be a way to program someone to be straight by gene tinkering.

If it truly is genetic, then very, very few couples, if given a choice, will have gay kids. Even the most progressive & tolerant folks would still want grandkids.

I completly agree with this, there are very good studies out there that show that most humans are bisexual, most gays and heteros are such due to environmental factors.


The point remains that if gays don't present their lifestyle as a choice people willl eventually want to find the environmental and genetic factors behind it and sooner or later parents will get a choice of which way they want their son/daughter to lean, I think most will choose straight.

[Heraclitus]

Re: Re: Can we defeat homosexuality?

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
we should look for is an oppression gene, and get rid of it instead?

I think humans without that would not really be human.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by MrFun


Do you wear clothing of mixed fabrics/fibers?

Withg that question, you just show that you don't know much about Christianity.

EDIT: I just find your self-righteous expression regarding gays and lesbians offensive, regardless of what your answer to my question is.

Self-righteous? Have you read anything of what I wrote, or did you just skip when you saw I was a Christian?

[MrFun]

Yeah, I went back and read your earlier post before the one that I quoted. You spoke about not wanting to deny other people their rights simply because your religious beliefs may be different from those of others.

My question about mixed clothing/fabrics was in reference to a passage in Leviticus that forbids followers of God from wearing such clothing.

[Elok]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Fair enough.

I do think though that the more the notion of it being genetic is pushed, rightly or wrongly, the more likely someone will work on trying to find a "cure" or "fix" for it. Which, if history is any guide, will result in Magneto taking over Alcatraz and seriously messing up the Golden Gate bridge. And no one wants that.

...I'm pretty sure that isn't "history." Just FYI.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Elok


...I'm pretty sure that isn't "history." Just FYI.

It is on Earth J!

[Pekka]

I didn't go insane, I just became more fabulous.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by MrFun
Yeah, I went back and read your earlier post before the one that I quoted. You spoke about not wanting to deny other people their rights simply because your religious beliefs may be different from those of others.

My question about mixed clothing/fabrics was in reference to a passage in Leviticus that forbids followers of God from wearing such clothing.

That's correct. I don't want that. And I'm trying not to.

The mixed clothing question shows that you don't know Christianity. The commands given in the books of Moses, exept those which are universal, like the 10 commandments, were given to the Jews in a specific time in history. Those requirements were fullfilled by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. In short, they are no longer relevant after Christ.

[Blaupanzer]

As to the Old Testament in Christianity, the passages relating to slave's and master's behavior are also "no longer relevant." Neither are the parts about determining the proper price for selling your daughter (dowry). If random parts, determined by fallible human Christian leaders, are no longer relevant, perhaps the passages related to male homosexuality are no longer relevant either. (Apparently, lesbianism is unmentioned in the Bible.) Relying on a 4000+-year-old book which is the basis of another religion does not seem to be a very reliable method for determining a modern moral code.

Bottom line: "You are a sinner, but I love you," never really works even if stated: "hate the sin, love the sinner." Both of these sound like self-righteous affronts because that is what they are.

[Jon Miller]

Homosexuality is mentioned as being the result of sin in the new testament as well.

Things from the old testament aren't 'no longer relevant', rather, they are cultural instructions. As such, to determine the concepts that are behind them, you study them relative to the culture at the time.

Now the new testament is also relevant within it's culture, so I encourage people to study it as well. Never take anything blindly unless it is directly from God (Like spoken to you or something). If you are interested in knowing what God's will is for you, pray and study and meditate. That is what is relevant. And yes, study includes (even is primarily) studying the Bible (for a Christian).

And I don't really see why everyone is 'oh no, you called me a sinner'. The starting place of Christianity is the recognition that you are a sinner, that you can't fix yourself, and that you need a savior. Christianity is pointless if you aren't a sinner, there is no reason for you to be a Christian.

Saying that someone is a sinner makes me no more a sinner nor any less a sinner (and I am a sinner). Being a sinner isn't some way of saying you are less than anyone else.

JM
(Now there are some groups of people who think that they are perfect. However, they are so clearly wrong that I see no need to include them in the discussion.)

[MrFun]

Yeah, I was only raised a Catholic in all my childhood and most of my teen years, and now I belong to a gay community Christian church, Metropolitan Community Church, so what do I know about my own religion?

I keep bringing up Leviticus, however for two reasons:

one, Christians still use Leviticus to bash gays ane lesbians today. Second, the Old Testament is still part of the Bible alongside with the New Testament.

Which passage are you referring to in New Testament, JM regarding homosexuality? I'm betting it can be interpreted in different ways. And how many of us follow all the rules in the New Testament literally? Do homophobes or self-righteous people just pick and choose passages that are convenient for them and ignore the other passages?