Re: Sexual immorality

[SquirleyWurley]

First of all I do not feel that I need to defend my sexuality (I'm not strait), nor does a strait person need to defend their sexuality.

Secondly I don't care if someone feels my sexuality is icky.

Thirdly I don't morally judge a heterosexual married couple if they cannot produce children, and I do not deem their physical intimacy a merely egotistical selfish materialistic matter, and nor do I deem homosexual physical intimacy to be a merely egotistical selfish materialistic matter.  Some relationships are superficial or more or less egotistical, etc., some people are more or less that way, some interactions are more superficial, etc. than others.

====

But this whole issue of some deity loosing patience over this.  Why on earth would some god loose patience primarily over sexuality, instead of over things like torture, rape, and slavery?

[WorldWarrior]

SW--very good Qs.

[SquirleyWurley]

Well, I do what I can 

[Thorolf]

SW--very good Qs.

There was only one Q. I expect a full apology and admittance of your heinous mistake immediately.

A little groveling would not be considered "over the top."




Squirley,

I'm not sure I agree with El's assessment on the matter, but I would suggest that sexual immorality (however that may be defined) is actually somewhat more widespread than torture, rape, and slavery.

That's not to say those things are acceptable - they aren't.

[WorldWarrior]

SW--no sweat man, around here I just like to give credit where it's due.

[SquirleyWurley]

Well, on to the question(s)?

I don't feel a need to defend my sexuality.  I'm not "strait" and that's fine.

[WorldWarrior]

SW--the way I phrase it is--why would the God who created you lose patiene with who you are?


Why lose patience with any of us for being the way we've been created?

[VLinvictus]

Just a quick sanity check.

Did anyone else notice if I wrote a post on this thread asking how a God who is perfect in every way could be said to lose patience at all?

I'm 90% certain that I did post it, but now I'm second guessing myself because I don't clearly recall it and I don't see it here.

If it was deleted by the moderator, could he or she send me a message or email just so I know that I'm not going insane?

Thanks!

[jacknky]

Squirley,
I wish you had been around the last mionth or so. I got raked over the coals by the good Christians here on the Christianity board about homosexuality. I was the only pro-homosexuals rights person there and I got beat up pretty bad. Check it out if you get a chance. It got so hot they shut the board down.

[WorldWarrior]

VLinvictus-I remember that post--I even responded to it---I think........

 

[WorldWarrior]

Ell says--

"Catholicism teaches that sexual acts between anyone outside of marriage (between a man and a woman) are not worthy of the individual person or of society."



Please explain what you mean by the qualifier--

"Not worthy of..."

[WorldWarrior]

Ell--okay--thanks.

It's a phrase I am not familiar with.

[Acumen]

Squirley,
I wish you had been around the last mionth or so. I got raked over the coals by the good Christians here on the Christianity board about homosexuality. I was the only pro-homosexuals rights person there and I got beat up pretty bad. Check it out if you get a chance. It got so hot they shut the board down.

It's rather intriguing how interpretations vary on a single subject.

• First, you weren't the only pro-homosexuals rights person.  Faithfulee shared some of your convictions -- perhaps not all of them, but certainly some of them.
• Second, if by "beat up", you mean you incurred some serious rational criticism, then I would agree.  You were unable to justify one form of sexual expression without also justifying the other.  However, if by "beat up" you meant we were attacking you personally, then I would strenuously disagree.
• And Third, the thread wasn't locked because it was too "hot."  It was locked down because most of the productive discussion had already taken place without the sort of ad hominem that typically follows when hot-button topics are discussed among people of differing viewpoints.  It appeared the thread was devolving into one sentence tit for tat responses that might have become "hot" given the nature of the topic.  I think it was a good judgment call.
  

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"First, you weren't the only pro-homosexuals rights person.  Faithfulee shared some of your convictions -- perhaps not all of them, but certainly some of them."

That's correct although I saw fathfulee as somewhere in the middle. he was certainly the Christian who could most acknowledge the humanity of homosexuals and was less academic and removed, probably because he had more personal experience to draw from.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Second, if by "beat up", you mean you incurred some serious rational criticism, then I would agree.  You were unable to justify one form of sexual expression without also justifying the other.  However, if by "beat up" you meant we were attacking you personally, then I would strenuously disagree."

Well, El agrees I got beat up a bit. Certainly my rationality was called into question because I wouldn't agree with your attempts to obfuscate the issue through analogies that had nothing to do with the topic. I also attempted to get you and others to discuss what was best for homosexuals but you wanted to discuss the issue academically by comparing homosexuality to incest.
-------------------------------------------------
"And Third, the thread wasn't locked because it was too "hot."  It was locked down because most of the productive discussion had already taken place without the sort of ad hominem that typically follows when hot-button topics are discussed among people of differing viewpoints.  It appeared the thread was devolving into one sentence tit for tat responses that might have become "hot" given the nature of the topic.  I think it was a good judgment call."

I agree with the call. I disagree with your statement things weren't getting "hot". They most certainly were. Perhaps you should go back and re-read. I admit that I for one was getting too hot and needed a cooling down period.

[jacknky]

El,
"I'm just glad he keeps coming back, I like sparring practice"

I'm a glutton for punishment.

[Acumen]

Acumen,
"First, you weren't the only pro-homosexuals rights person.  Faithfulee shared some of your convictions -- perhaps not all of them, but certainly some of them."

That's correct although I saw fathfulee as somewhere in the middle. he was certainly the Christian who could most acknowledge the humanity of homosexuals and was less academic and removed, probably because he had more personal experience to draw from.

I know what you're doing -- and it's not cool.

---------------------------------------------------------------

"Second, if by "beat up", you mean you incurred some serious rational criticism, then I would agree.  You were unable to justify one form of sexual expression without also justifying the other.  However, if by "beat up" you meant we were attacking you personally, then I would strenuously disagree."

Well, El agrees I got beat up a bit. Certainly my rationality was called into question because I wouldn't agree with your attempts to obfuscate the issue through analogies that had nothing to do with the topic. I also attempted to get you and others to discuss what was best for homosexuals but you wanted to discuss the issue academically by comparing homosexuality to incest.

Wow.  For anyone to say that incest has nothing to do with homosexuality seriously needs to reevaluate the issue.  We belabored this point throughout plenty of posts, and it is personally fatiguing to repeat the points.  Both groups share in many similarities including sexual forms of expression, socially taboo private lives, social prejudice and discrimination, legislative inequality, personal and political attempts to justify respective adult consensual sex, and of course, the human suffering element you are inclined to emphasize during the debate.  If someone were to ask me to make an analogy about homosexuality in terms someone could understand, it would be difficult to find another issue that fits more perfectly.  And you have the audacity to say that one has nothing to do with the other.

-------------------------------------------------

"And Third, the thread wasn't locked because it was too "hot."  It was locked down because most of the productive discussion had already taken place without the sort of ad hominem that typically follows when hot-button topics are discussed among people of differing viewpoints.  It appeared the thread was devolving into one sentence tit for tat responses that might have become "hot" given the nature of the topic.  I think it was a good judgment call."

I agree with the call. I disagree with your statement things weren't getting "hot". They most certainly were. Perhaps you should go back and re-read. I admit that I for one was getting too hot and needed a cooling down period.

It got hot at first, then you cooled down for a while.  Then the thread appeared to devolve into something not worth continuing.  You should also keep in mind that I compare my experience on that thread with past encounters of discussing this issue on Bnet.  And those past encounters were vicious and nasty.  The way we conducted the debate was almost angelic compared to what usually occurs in such discussions.

[jacknky]

I just noticed that today the California Supreme Court ruled that homosexual marriages are constitutional. Here's the link:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BAGAVNC5K.DTL

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"I know what you're doing -- and it's not cool."

I have no idea what you're talking about. What's not cool?

---------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
"If someone were to ask me to make an analogy about homosexuality in terms someone could understand, it would be difficult to find another issue that fits more perfectly.  And you have the audacity to say that one has nothing to do with the other."

I have the audacity to say "Why do you feel the need to make an anolgy in the first place?" Why can you not simply discuss the issue we're talking about? The analogy does not hold because there are not millions of loving incestuous couples seeking to have their loving relationship recognized. The analogy does not hold up because people are not born with the proclivity for incest like they are toward heterosexuality OR homosexuality.
-------------------------------------------------

"You should also keep in mind that I compare my experience on that thread with past encounters of discussing this issue on Bnet.  And those past encounters were vicious and nasty.  The way we conducted the debate was almost angelic compared to what usually occurs in such discussions."

That's good to hear.

[SquirleyWurley]

Catholicism teaches that sexual acts between anyone outside of marriage (between a man and a woman) are not worthy of the individual person or of society.  Actually many sexual relationships even between married men and women are immoral too.

For one, I don't agree with their assessments.  For two, I don't see how a gay relationship between two consenting individuals is 'unworthy of society', I don't understand at all what you mean there.

I don't see any reason to defend my sexuality or relationship's 'worth' to the church and their view of what is worth it to me, since they don't live my life and I don't think they know what they are talking about anyhow.

This is about philosophy not biology.

I'm just living my life, and Catholic philosophy isn't a help to it.

[SquirleyWurley]

Wow.  For anyone to say that incest has nothing to do with homosexuality seriously needs to reevaluate the issue.

First off, please explain to me why I shouldn't see this as slander of the lowest kind?  Do you really not understand the difference between consentual sex and non-consenting sex, between the abuse of a position of trust/authority/guardianship and a peer relationship, between the taking advantage of someone who is in a vulnerable position and being decent?  If you do understand these differences, WHY do you put incest in the same sentence as homosexuality?  Your own Bible has your God telling the ancient Hebrews to kill all the men women and boys, but to keep the virgin girls for themselves, in their destruction of their enemies in warfare -- it is NO basis for the 'moral high ground' on the subject of sex slavery, forced concubinage of little girls as 'war spoils', etc., and yet you compare homosexuality with incest on the most ridiculous pretexts?

For starters, it is not an abomination to be gay or for a man to have sexual intercourse with another man.  The Bible is wrong on that.  I am not an abomination.  My sexual actions with men are not abominatinable.  Torture and rape and sexual slavery are evil.  Several of the commands of the god of the Bible ARE abominations (see above)