Post Reply
Page 78 of 79  •  Prev 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 79 Next
Switch to Forum Live View School District Cancels Prom Rather than Allow a Same-Sex Prom Date: Is This Right?
4 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2010 - 4:47PM #771
Do_unto_others
Posts: 7,813

Apr 20, 2010 -- 2:47PM, Christianlib wrote:


I still find it very sad to follow a faith that says you are flawed, not to mention how insulting that is to your own (again generic your) creator to say he made you flawed in the first place., And yes that is what it is saying.


 


That is what SOME forms and branches of Christian theology says.  It is by no means what ALL Christian theology says, nor what all Christians believe.


Your view is, I'm afraid, too limited to the loud ones.






And, sadly, it's "the loud ones" who are the ones insisting on institutionalized discrimination against God's gay and lesbian children. One can only wonder why that is.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2010 - 4:49PM #772
REteach
Posts: 13,550

Apr 20, 2010 -- 12:42PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Very briefly, science cannot, on one hand, fully acknowlege the purpose for humans having a sex drive in the first place, and then go on to note such things and deep differences between the genders and the vital importance of an opposite-gender parent -- and then turn right around and say those things either don't exist or simply aren't important because that makes it possible for the entire "natural variation" paradigm of homosexuality to stand up.



And I already cited a study that showed that it still works, as the sisters of gay males tend to be more fecund than the sisters of straight men.  So the genes are still getting the job done.


IMO, you simply can't take any particular item out of that bigger loop of sexuality/procreation/child-rearing/family bonding without breaking the loop -- or, at least, running into a basic case of self-contradiction.  



Philosophy and science are no longer the same thing.


IMO, it's never going to stand the test of time.



????? Clearly gays have been around in different cultures forever.  How have they not stood the test of time.


As far as homosexuality having a purpose -- I don't think I ever said it didn't.



But you just said it didn't because it was not reproductive. 


 

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2010 - 5:36PM #773
Sirronrex
Posts: 2,675

Apr 20, 2010 -- 2:55PM, Girlchristian wrote:

I have never thought I was perfect.



But you are perfect. In every way. You are perfect, just as you were created to be. Why do you deny yourself what God has created?


 


No one is perfect and we all have flaws that we can and should work on.



Define "flaw".


 


 


Even my non-Christian friends believe that.



Does that make it true? More true? It either is or it isn't.


It's not.


 


 


I'm a big believer of introspection and working on those parts of one's self that need work.



I'm a big believer in introspection and working on treating others as I would like to be treated. When I fail at doing that, I learn from it. I see no flaw in that. I see that as functioning perfectly...exactly as I was created to be.


My nature leads me to want to call someone a jackass if they cut me off on the highway.



I learn a lot about myself on the highway. A whole lot. 

 


There is nothing good or "perfect" about that and so I work on it to become a better person.



Working on it is what makes you perfect. You are functioning exactly as you were created to function. It's not flawwed to make mistakes. It's enlightening. If the ultimate result of all of the "bad" that you've ever done and will do is enlightenment and knowledge and understanding and wisdom...then what is imperfect about that? What is imperfect about you if you function as you were created to function?


I've learned a lot in my life from giving and treating others with the respect and dignity I expect from others. But most of what I have learned in life has come as a result of having to "work on something".

I've been on a journey to nowhere...
and know that's the best place to be...
now...here...




If my faith isn't leading me inward, then my faith is leading me astray.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2010 - 7:02PM #774
Steven_A
Posts: 318

Apr 20, 2010 -- 12:42PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Steven, thanks once again for keeping this a respectful and intellignet exchange.


First of all, I'm not questioning what the so-called "objective" sources have to say so much as I see a deep and inherent contradiction in what they are trying to say in the first place.


Very briefly, science cannot, on one hand, fully acknowlege the purpose for humans having a sex drive in the first place, and then go on to note such things and deep differences between the genders and the vital importance of an opposite-gender parent -- and then turn right around and say those things either don't exist or simply aren't important because that makes it possible for the entire "natural variation" paradigm of homosexuality to stand up.



Saying that sex organs exist for the biological function of reproduction doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't use their sex organs for reproduction must have a disorder. There have always been some individuals in the human population who were homosexual, hence it is a natural variation. If this were something that only started recently and never happened in any animal populations, then you might have something to back up your argument. But the fact is that the homosexual variation has been occurring for as long as history can remember, and primate studies suggest that our pre-human ancestors also had homosexuals in their population.


Just because sex organs evolved for reproductive purposes doesn't mean someone has a disorder if they are attracted to individuals of the same sex. And if it actually serves a purpose biologically or socially, then how can it be a disorder?


And I'm not so sure about the vital importance of an opposite gender parent. There are plenty of single moms out there who raise little girls, and the girls turn out to be just fine. Same-sex and opposite-sex role models can also be found in aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents and a whatnot. 


Yes, gays can and do biologically reproduce. I'm well aware of that. But, it's still taking things out of the larger loop that also involves for the offspring a chance to bond with both natural parents and an opposite gender parent. IMO, you simply can't take any particular item out of that bigger loop of sexuality/procreation/child-rearing/family bonding without breaking the loop -- or, at least, running into a basic case of self-contradiction.  



Love, not genitalia, makes a family. There are plenty of "natural parents" who do a terrible job at parenting, and plenty of homosexual couples who do a great job at parenting. Any heterosexual couple that has adopted a child, or any person who was raised by adopted parents, will tell you that it makes no difference that their parents aren't their biological parents. Adoption works. And even if you think opposite sex role models are vital, they can be found in other members of the family besides parents. 


I'll again quote the American Psychological Association. This is from their website:


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 indicate their children's.


source: www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientatio...



So basically, if bonding with parents of both sexes is vitally important to a child's development, science has found no evidence of it, unless you know something that the American Psychological Association doesn't know. What seems clear to me is that you have your own ideas about what is good for everyone, and you're stating those opinions and ideas as if they were fact, and they certainly are not. The objective evidence disagrees with you, I'm afraid. You should try actually talking to some people who have been raised by homosexual parents, or talk to some homosexuals who are raising children, and see what you find out. I've met plenty of them.


IOW, I'm looking at the big picture, and I'm seeing a concept that is self-contradictory and built upon a foundation of sand. IMO, it's never going to stand the test of time. For now, you are right. And I can certianly live with that. It's certainly no skin off my nose. But, I strongly suspect that in a few decades -- or perhaps even sooner -- many of the ideas you hold up as soundly proven and objectively true will be exploded -- and their downfall will be based upon their inherent self-contradictory nature.



There is nothing self-contradictory about my position.


As far as homosexuality having a purpose -- I don't think I ever said it didn't. Everything in nature has a purpose. And that would include disorders, IMO. But does that mean we are to automatically accept all things as inevitable and/or desirable?



If something interferes with someone's health and well-being, then no, we shouldn't accept it as inevitable or desirable. This has nothing to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality itself doesn't make anyone unhealthy or unhappy. It doesn't threaten anyone, it doesn't harm anyone... the only negative consequences that arise indirectly from it are those that are caused by bigoted members of society who see it as a threat and wish to isolate or extinguish it. People who see it as a disorder are the problem; homosexuals are not the problem.


In order for something to be called a disorder it has to be directly associated with some kind of impairment in functioning or distress. Homosexuality does not cause any impairment in functioning or distress. People who insist on calling it an abnormal disorder are the ones who cause the distress. I don't know how else to explain this. You keep talking about how your ideas will probably be proven in 20-30 years from now, but what if they aren't? How can you base your entire argument on something that might or might not happen in a few decades? You're grasping at straws.


Homosexuality will never be considered a psychological disorder, because psychological disorders are characterized by a behavior that causes distress or impairment in normal functioning. There are many sexual psychological disorders, such as voyeurism, exhibitionism, fetishism, pedophilia, sadism, and masochism, all of which are associated with an impairment in functioning, distress, or danger to other people. Homosexuality doesn't fit any of those criteria. All of the sexual disorders end in -philia or -ism. Homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, polyamory.. none of these are disorders, and they never will be unless someone changes the definition what constitutes a disorder.


And, as I pointed out to you before, I never go around saying these things anyway. It's not my style, place or even desire to tell other people how to live -- sexually or otherwise. I know and am close to gay people in my life. I treat them just the way I do anybody else. And if, for example, they say they have a new girlfriend/boyfriend, I'll just say something like "congratulations, I hope it works out" and leave it at that.


I'm secure enough in both my personal opinons and my religious faith to not in any way be threatened by others holding contradictory views.




That's great that you treat gay people nicely, but as long as you consider it a disorder I think you've still got a problem. You might not be offending your gay friends in real life since you choose not to talk to them about it, but it offends people here when you tell us that our sexuality is a disorder. I'm not sure how many gay people are in this thread, I might be the only one, but I know it also offends open-minded heterosexuals who regard homosexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation. Maybe you'd be better off keeping your prejudices to yourself even on BNet until you have some legitimate, concrete evidence to back up your claims about homosexuality.


You keep saying that it's a disorder because sex organs have evolved for the purpose of reproduction, but that's not a good enough reason to call homosexuality a disorder. "Disorder" is a strong word in today's culture and it implies something that causes harm, distress, or impedes functioning in some way. Homosexuality does none of those things. Maybe we're arguing over semantics. Maybe my understanding of the word "disorder" is different from yours. For one thing, "disorder" is a vague term, and whenever I hear it I think of how my abnormal psychology textbook defined a psychological disorder. But you've said that you're not talking about psychological disorders. Maybe you need to find a term that's a little more specific than "disorder", because people have different ways of defining that word.


Peace


- Steven

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2010 - 7:48PM #775
Ken
Posts: 33,860

Who screwed up the formatting on this page?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2010 - 10:45AM #776
Do_unto_others
Posts: 7,813

Words matter, mtm,


 


You say "disorder" or "abnormal". We say "a natural variation". Which of these is judgemental? Which of these is helpful to a debate/discussion?


 


Or, more importantly, which of these is the radical 'religious' 'right' likely to use in a court case deciding on equal treatment before the law for gay citizens. They (and YOU?) seem to LIKE the pejorative label. We merely find it baseless as pointed out quite eloquently above by the previous poster.


 


(I also see you've given up trying to defend your baseless claim that the body is attempting to reproduce when, in fact, it is attempting to reach (an often self-satisfying) orgasm. The difference is vast indeed.)

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Apr 24, 2010 - 1:38AM #777
Stardove
Posts: 14,564

Hate Crimes is a movie where I was an extra. 


Robbie and Trey live peacefully in a quiet neighborhood, until an unexpected conflict arises in the form of hostile new neighbor Chris, a preacher’s kid. Blindsided by a brutal attack, Trey winds up in a hospital bed, fighting for his life. Chris becomes the prime suspect, but he has a solid alibi. After he himself becomes a suspect, Robbie desperately attempts to carry out a complex and dangerous plan that will uncover shocking secrets and turn many lives upside down.

A thought-provoking suspense drama, Hate Crime, a testament to the power of love and the damaging consequences of intolerance, is a film by Tommy Stovall, shot on location in Dallas, Texas. Seth Peterson (Providence) stars as Robbie, with Bruce Davison (X-Men, Runaway Jury), Giancarlo Esposito (Usual Suspects, Homicide: Life on the Street), Cindy Pickett (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off), Chad Donella (Final Destination), Susan Blakely (The Towering Inferno), and Lin Shaye (There’s Something About Mary) rounding out the all-star cast.



The filming that I was a part of took place in a Dallas church.  There was a smaller sanctuary and a larger one at the church.  Two church scenes were filmed.  One sermon was about basically love.  The other was totally a hell fire and damnation sermon.  Not that they were as long as a real sermon, but just parts of one repeated a number of times.  During the repeated takes of the hell fire sermon thunder really sounded like the wrath of God which was being spoken about.  Really!

Beliefnet Community Wide Moderator ~ Peace Love Stardove
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community

Anger cannot occur unless you believe that you have been attacked, that your attack is justified in return, and that you are in no way responsible for it. ACIM

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2010 - 3:31PM #778
Merope
Posts: 8,788

This thread was moved from the Hot Topics Zone.


While the relaxed site-wide ROC standard applied to the discussion on that forum, the tighter forum-wide ROC standard — and all local guidelines for this forum — apply to discussion from this point forward.


Merope
Beliefnet Community Host
Hot Topics Zone

Merope | Beliefnet Community Manager
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 02, 2010 - 4:43PM #779
Sirronrex
Posts: 2,675

What happened in Itawamba County, Mississippi to Constance McMillen, and the mentally handicapped children at her school, was not a result of Constance's sexuality or the handicaps of the children. What happened in Itawamba County is no different than what happened in Salem, Massachusetts. Alleged witches weren't burned at the stake because they were witches. Human beings were burned at the stake because of the people of Salem, Massachusetts. While Constance and her "prom" companions were not so egregiously harmed as to be murdered by being burned alive, the message is identical...those who are judged to be unworthy are treated as such...Jesus be damned.

I've been on a journey to nowhere...
and know that's the best place to be...
now...here...




If my faith isn't leading me inward, then my faith is leading me astray.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 05, 2010 - 5:25AM #780
sydneymoon
Posts: 3,670

Ugh. Here we go again. The Westboro Baptist Church, the hate group from Kansas, plans to picket her graduation. These are the same  fools who picket funerals, etc.


www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/0...

Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 78 of 79  •  Prev 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 79 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook