Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:55:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
358 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > ? I don't get this. Why? What doctrine? What parts? Changed how? I just
> > > don't see anything that poses a threat to any doctrine any more than if
> > > people found the "evil" gene. I mean, if people have the "evil" gene, does
> > > that suddenly excuse their being evil? (Sorry to associate 'gay' with
> > > 'evil', but from the religious perspective I think Kirby's referring to, I
> > > think it applies)
> >
> > The Holy Bible directly refers to homosexuality more than once as a sin.
>
> And? What has to change? What part no longer works? I mean, what if we
> discover the "cheat-on-your-wife" gene or the "stealing" gene? What if we
> find out that people are genetically predisposed to behaving in this way?
> Are they any less "evil" as deemed by Christianity? I mean, isn't it up to
> the person to "overcome" or "not act on" their instincts in Christianity
> anyway? Aren't gay's already ostracized from most Christian sects as being
> sinners? What does it matter they're genetically more likely to 'sin'?
Yes, if any of your above examples become reality, then the Bible is thereby
proven falacious. The Bible is an instruction for Christianity and includes
a code of conduct. The Bible should not be used as a source of social
reform, but as a means of *spiritual* reform...if that is what a person wants.
Also, a proper *Christian* church will not shut a person out for being a
sinner. Official *Membership* and activities may be restricted until a
person has accepted *the truth* and repented of sins. Any church that
closes doors on a person because of their sin, is not a *Christian* church.
Obviously there are many churches deviating from the instruction of the Holy
Bible. Unfortunately everyone seems to *want* to be Christian, yet don't
want to change the rules to support thier lifestyle. They could just start
a new religion that supports their lifestlyes and ideals, yet they want to
claim the lable of Christianity. Do you think I could offer blood
sacrifices to Elvis and still be Christian? If so, then you should do some
research yourself.
> > I wish your example is how things actually work. Unfortunately, without
> > enforceable laws for protection, a minoriy will always be abused or
> > neglected. However my point is that the homosexual community already seems
> > to be treated as a minority group. They are currently attempting to change
> > several laws to include homosexual clauses (I don't know where to start
> > researching the lawsuits).
>
> Exactly my point. The homosexual community is *already* considered a
> miniority group. What difference does it make where it stems from?
>
> > However, if the homosexual community is such by choice, what need for new
> > laws other than what already exist for freedom of choice?
>
> How about marriage laws? Why do we restrict based on sex? Why should we not
> change those laws? Or do you agree that we SHOULD change those laws? Again,
> how does whether it's choice or not change anything at all? If we discover
> that it's genetic, THEN should we change the laws?
>
> > > Let me ask one more thing. Define "by choice". Putting it in such words is
> > > kinda-- insulting, I think. I'm not sure how I'd put it, but I assume that
> > > you mean something along the lines of "it's psychological", and that
> > > "theoretically", a good psychiatrist and/or drugs could make someone who's
> > > gay become straight? I assume you DON'T mean that gay people just
> > > consciously decided one day "Gee, I think I'll be attracted to people of my
> > > gender from now on". Is that safe to assume what you mean by "by choice"?
> >
> > How is it insulting? Don't you think that people have some measure of
> > control over their lives?
>
> So, ok, you agree with my explanation of your definition? Assuming you do,
> let's go to claustrophobia. Genetic? Let's assume no. Let's assume it's
> psychological. Let's say Bob as a baby was frequently locked in a suitcase
> to contain his crying. As a child his parents put him in a closet. He's 30
> now. And claustrophobic. He has to go into a closet to get something. He's
> terrified. Does he have a "choice"? If you sat there and told him "Y'know,
> it's all mental. You can CHOOSE not to be scared," do you think he wouldn't
> be insulted/offended? Bob probably knows perfectly well that it's mental.
> Doesn't mean he can control it. Saying "it's a choice" makes it sound
> conscious. Saying "it's psychological" sounds less conscious. And telling
> people that they're making conscious decisions when they're not is-- well--
> offensive.
>
> Does it mean he can't be cured? Does it mean that he can't make progress if
> he goes to a thearapist? And couldn't he conceivably do the same on his own?
> Sure. Is it easy? No. Will people always figure out how? Certainly not.
> (That's why we have therapists, isn't it?) Here's the interesting part for
> me. Most psychological blocks/issues? You can help to eliminate with
> therapy. People *can* overcome things like claustrophobia, psychotic
> killing, depression, etc. All mentally. But never once have I heard of
> anyone who 'turned straight'. I *have*, however, heard of gay people who
> still have gay urges but who don't act upon them because of their belief in
> Christianity and the like. Still gay? Sure. But controlling themselves
> within what they believe to be right.
>
> DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) Why? What part is falacious? I presume that you mean to say that God would create humans with equal desires towards sinning. Hence, if it were found that SOME people had MORE desire to sin based on their genetics, that it would prove that God (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) And? What has to change? What part no longer works? I mean, what if we discover the "cheat-on-your-wife" gene or the "stealing" gene? What if we find out that people are genetically predisposed to behaving in this way? Are they any less "evil" (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
