Choices

Remove all ads!

Please give examples of this. Unless you are referring primarily to religious persecution. If so then the inference is that somehow homosexuality is religious in nature. ??? At least that would be how I read it.

 

AFAIK Nakia he might be talking about political factions... but that's stepping into a whole new ball game, we're talking about war there.

So basically overindulgence is a sin? But, how is being homosexual overinduging? I mean I guess you can have homosexuals and RAMPANT homosexuals...?

Well it's still unfair that some are tempted and fail and others are not tempted. If I'm going to hell I'd prefer it to be on fair standing as someone else. I'm going to hell because I'm a homosexual because I was tempted into becoming one yet that person over there who lived life exactly the same as mine apart from the fact that he was not tempted into becoming a homosexual and thus wasn't a homosexual doesn't go to hell. It's not just.

So even though the church has NOTHING to do with the legal binding between two people (because that's all a marriage is when you get down to brass tacks) you would still oppose it if it was between two people of the same gender? What if I 'married' another man but I am not a homosexual? He's just a friend I care for deeply and I value more than anyone else yet I do not engage in sexual acts or love him in a romantic fashion (unlikely I'm sure, improbable but not impossible). Would the church oppose such a legal bond?

Define 'sacred'. If you want to get into 'traditional' marriage you'll see it's simply a union between a man and a woman and love/sex/children need not be involved. Homosexuals aren't asking for 'marriage'. They're asking for the law to allow them the same legal rights and responsibilities as a married hetrosexual couple.

It has everything to do with the debate since homosexuals want the state to issue them the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. (I'm sounding like a broken record with this rights and responsibilities stuff...)

However I'm still surprised how you're spending so little time trying to convince people that homosexuality is a temptation and not nature. Because if it is natural, and you've yet to prove it isn't, then any argument against preventing homosexual couples from having the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple holds no water.

 

AND

You're both right. The State has absolutely no right to legally enforce any type of religious ceremony. That is to say, if Mormons (or any other group for that matter), deem homosexual unions to be invalid, then there's not a damn thing the State can do to force them to recognize such unions. On the other hand, granting homosexual couples equal rights under the law is something that only the State can do. It's an apples and oranges comparison. Religious matters are in the hands of individual church authorities, and the State cannot interfere. Equal rights on the other hand are in the hands of the appropriate government agency, over which church leaders have no authority.

 

@AFI: I've been trying to make that point since the very first topic we had on Gay Marriage, months ago. Perhaps you'll have better luck.

 

It refered to Crime. People here keep telling me that Social order has little to do with moral issues.

Actually, I was talking Religions there, but the point is that in past, people CHOSE to identify themselves with a religious faith that the locals, legally or otherwise, did not want around, and were beaten, tortured and killed for this. But they kept their faith because they CHOSE to. Likewise, "homosexuals" as a people CHOOSE to identify themselves as such, they would face that stigma. It is about the identity they chose for themselves.

Appetites and desires are normal, but if not satisfied in a proper manner (not to excess dfor food, only in the bonds of legal and lawful marriage for sex), then it is a sin. If you eat too much, it is a sin. If you have sex with anyone who is not your legal and lawful spouse (and this excludes same gender relations), then it is a sin.

But the temptations are different for each of us. We are tempted according to our own spiritual strength. But sin is sin, and the temptations you face will be different than those faced by Homosexuals (as described in this thread).

It doesn't work that way. There is the atonement, which allows for the forgiveness of our sins. True damnation comes through rejection of the atonement, regardless of what your sins are.

Yes, I would. Because Religion insists that Marriage be restricted to members of opposite genders. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Exactly. Marriage is specifically between Man and Woman.

Sacred means holy, ordained of God. And the first Marriage was between Adam and Eve, with the commandment to go forth, be Fruitful and Multiply. Since that predates reproductive technology, then yes, Sex WAS involved.

Then they're going about it the wrong way. By challenging the notion of traditional marriage, they risk the emnity of those that do not approve. Extending the definition of Common Law relationships to include them would suffice. Take that and get out of our face and there won't be as much trouble...

But I have been talking about how it is temptation. What they say is natural, is temptation. I believe that the words are chosen wrong. It's two different views on the same picture.

But when you try to make the two the same is where the problem lies. If Marriage, ultimately lies in Religion, then the State has no right to open it up to homosexual couples. But Common law relationships are not recognized by religion, therefore it is the state's area of influence. Any Gay rights will come in that framework, not as marriage.

 

One: the topic of marriage is actually in this thread. There are other threads that cover that topic.

The question I presented is "Is homosexuality a choice or not a choice."

Some of us think it is a choice and some of us think it is not a choice.

I am one of those who is convinced that it is not a choice. What causes a person to be homosexual is as far as I understand it unknown. There are various theories and all may be right or wrong. I don't know. But I do know that speaking to many homosexuals, both male and female, not one of them saw it as a choice. I dislike the term homosexual because it fixates on the sexual and not the emotional. Both elements are there but I have known many loving, supportive, committed relationships.

To those who view it as a choice I can only say that I have seen nothing that would even vaguely change my mind.

To be as blunt as possible, since I do not believe that the Bible is the unadulterated word of God simply saying "The Bible says so" is not going to sway me. I'm not even sure the Bible actually says that homosexuality is a choice except by the inference of human beings.

So we reach an impasse.

As I have stated before what a church chooses to teach is that church's business and anyone wishing to be a member must abide by its' rules. However when society attacks another human being that is my business and I will speak out.

I will defend the rights of the church as long as it does not trample on other peoples rights and I will defend the right of people to disagree with the church.

 

I had been holding off as I wasn't sure whether this referred to you or NOG, but since you've both said essentially the same thing now, I will simply address this to whichever of you it applies. Did you CHOOSE your religion when the Spirit so nicely showed you the "true path" there? No. Having only one choice is no choice at all. And before you go saying apples and oranges, it's pretty damn similar. Your only "choice" was between the 'true' faith and being true to your beliefs, and following a different faith that you don't believe in.

Just for a second, one tiny little second, think about following the Muslim faith. Think about being forced to practice Islam for your entire life, all the while knowing that the Christian faith is what you were truly destined for. Think, just for one insignificant moment, about the kind of soul-crushing feeling that would actually produce, and you might actually begin to understand the gay community.

Because that's how it is for them. They are gay, have always been gay, and will always be gay. And having them deny who they are, what they feel, is cruel and inhumane, as it would be to force you to practice a religion you do not believe in. Because you are who you are, and we know better than to try to force you to change, because that would be wrong. Would that you would just return the favor.

For your abstinence suggestion, replace Islam with atheism. We all know how vocal religious people are about our secular nation, but it could be FAR worse. And guess who's on the other side of the desk now.

That is still debated, even by religious scholars. I happen to agree with you, but you need to learn to pick your 'facts'.

Again, facts. Though I do not remember the marriage of Adam and Eve from the Bible, I will accept your claim that it happened in the Garden of Eden. However, the commandment to be fruitful and multiply came later when they were cast out, and was actually a curse, as I see it. So the marriage does not necessitate offspring.

Um, did you miss the "equal rights" part? IIRC, Common Law relationships do not bestow the same rights as marriages. Though really, I don't know why we're still arguing about this, especially as the solution has already been proposed and accepted several times on this board. Make civil unions the legal part, and marriages the religious but legally worthless part.

The only remaining complaint might be what the people who have gone through the civil union but not marriage would call themselves. Could they say they are "married", even though everyone would know that's not precisely what they meant? Or do we need a new word for civil unions that sounds more commonplace? Bonded sounds nice...

 

They used to use the term soul mate but the Church got up in arms about it since a soul is a 'holy' thing. So they changed it to 'sole' mate as in their 'single' mate

But that's what they ARE asking for. Seems like we're getting into a big fuss about a word here. You're fine with them having the Common Law relationship that is the SAME as marriage but the moment someone calls it a gay marriage you get up in arms? Over time the word 'marry' has changed to mean more than just Churchbells and "I do"s. It actually in today's modern context marriage is more synonymous with 'union'.

I completely agree with the Churchs' right to deny homosexuals weddings in their own church. But as far as I see they have no say save their votes in what happens OUTSIDE of their church.

Homosexuals only want some type of ceremony that allows them to call one another life partners,to confess their love for each other and to enter a legal agreement with one another. They don't want religion to change to suit them, they just don't want religion changing what homosexuals can (or in this case can not do) to suit religion.

 

/claps for Felinoid.


Beautifully said.

 

@Nakia:
I wasn't comparing homosexual choice to religious choice. There are plenty of other examples, including polotics and equality issues. But religion actually works pretty well. Despite what Fel said, I did choose Christ, and I could have refused Him. I had a choice between doing what was right (and hard) and what was wrong (and easy). The difference between that and homosexual choice is that I doubt many homosexuals have the right/wrong thing so clear. All they see is a desire to do/think/act one way and a social pull to do/think/act the other. And no, the desire does not make you homosexual, giving in to the desire makes you homosexual. Before anyone rants on that, I'm not necessarily talking about having sex, just mentally giving in to the desire does it.

Desires and temptations come and go. Some stay longer, but universally, if you feed them, they stay. Unless something really is a natural desire, like food, it will go away with time. I know this works for homosexuality because I know a recovered homosexual. He is genuinely attracted to women now, though it took him several years to get over the homosexual temptations.

@Ab:
Using anything for what it wasn't intended to be used for is a sin. Notice the breathing toxins bit, that isn't overindulgence, it's just a sin. Also, everyone is tempted. Not everyone is tempted by the same thing, but everyone is tempted.

 

Bull. Sure, you could have refused Him, you could have refused everything you believed in, but I think you've got the easy and hard very mixed up there. How can you possibly call the walk in the park that you've had believing in your religion hard, and then say that denying everything you felt and living a lie would be easy? Clearly you didn't even consider what I was trying to say, and that is why you will never understand the other side of the issue: because you won't even try. I'm done with you.

 

Who decides on what something is intended for or not? Since I think you're hiting at anal sex being a sin I think therefore that oral sex is a sin? Yet this is practiced by homosexuals AND hetrosexuals. Not to mention that just because someone is homosexual doesn't mean they engage in anal sex... especially if they're lesbians.

 

And what about sex toys? Their intent was for pleasure, if they are being used like that, is it still sinful?

Alright, that was streching it, I'll admit.

If you really want to have sex the way it was intended, do it like animals: doggy style vaginal...

(Note: I recall hearing Fel say that somewhere before)

In any case, your statement (not using something for its original intent) is highly generalized, and I disagree completely. Don't make such massive generalizations please, they do not further your argument very well.

 

Strange definition. I thought homosexuals are homosexual if they feel attracted to the same sex. And as we made clear, you can't choose to whom you are attracted to.

 

I read that as a comparison to religion.

Please read Fel's post. Now this has gotten ridiculous.

I will end my part in this fiasco with a very personal note on choice.

Perhaps you have failed to read my posts and only latched on to the parts you find offensive. I have clearly stated that I was a member of an Episcopal Religious order in my youth. You know, those people, commonly but incorrectly called Nuns. Exact same rules and regulations as in the RC Church. It caused a split with my family. Did I have a hard time making the decision? No, emphatically no. I was in love with God. I left the Order not because I stopped loving God but I stopped believing the Church. Too many questions unanswered.

Here endth the book of me.

[ April 27, 2006, 14:40: Message edited by: Nakia ]

 

As a curiosity, the entire human speech apparatus is "intended" for other things than speech. Namely, eating and breathing. Why is speech not a sin?

"Recovered" sounds an awful lot like "brainwashed." And I can only wonder how genuine that sort of thing is. I'm also wondering why it took seven pages before you brought this up.

 

Actually, in most states they do. That is, they do if a state acknowledges common law marriages, and currently 33 of the 50 do. However, the criteria for common law marriages is the same as the criteria for traditional marriages, which is to say that a homosexual couple can't engage in a common law marriage either.

Agree completely. You were raised in a Christian home by Christian parents in a predominantly Christian community and taken to a Christian church. I'd say it was overwhelmingly easier for you to chose Christianity over any other religion. Now, if you were raised in a Muslim home by Muslim parents in a predominantly Muslim community and taken to a Muslim mosque, then yes, selecting Christianity under those circumstances would have been very difficult indeed. I'd love to hear an explanation for how you think that the right way (according to your point of view) was the hard path, and the wrong way (again from your point of view) was the easy path. As Fel suggests, from all appearances, the exact opposite would be true.

 

@Fel:
Now you're the one not concidering what I said. I never said I could have refused to believe in Him, that wasn't an option, but I could have refused to serve Him. I could have cursed His name. I could have looked at this cruel, hard, unfair world and said, "What kind of a God would make this?" But I didn't. I decided to trust God, to trust that He had His reasons, and He has shown many of them, though no doubt not all, to me.
And yes, the Christian life has been hard. I may not have been beaten for it, or put in prison, but I have been tempted away from it at every turn. Do you know how hard it is to stay a virgin this long in modern American society? Do you know how many times I was offered drugs? Do you know how many mistakes I could have covered up with simple lies? Christianity has not been the easy choice, agnosticism, WEAK agnosticism, is the easy choice.

Ab:
God decides what His creations were made for. Sex was made for both procreation and pleasure, so I'm not really sure on anal and oral, but it was not made for same-sex couples.

@Nakia:
I was only trying to make a partial comparison. Such things are never perfect and should not be taken as absolutes. Sorry if I misconstrued your post.

@Susipaisti:
So what were vocal cords meant for? Why have a mechanism to vibrate the air in your throat within the range of sounds you can hear if not to communicate?
You can wonder all you like about 'recovered' vs 'brainwashed', that's why I was loathe to bring it up.

@Aldeth:
I have spent much more conscious time outside of my home, away from my family, than I have in my home with my family. What my family supports and what the society around me wanted of me were and are two totally different things.

 

And again you do not listen to what I said. How would actually switching what you believed in your heart be living a lie, hmm? I was talking about service and following the religion just as you are, even specifically about denying you inner beliefs. Yet you act as if I said none of those things.

And your 'temptations' are the most pathetic I've ever seen. Staying a virgin? I have, despite many overtures from both sides and no religious demand to do so. Add to that that it's exactly what you're advocating for others for their entire lives, and I don't have a lot of sympathy for your plight, nor do I think you've actually had to struggle that hard for it. (JK. ) Doing drugs? You'd have to be retarded to give in, Christian or not. Lies? Frankly, I don't believe you, given your prior statements and twisting your very own words as well as mine. Intellectual dishonesty is still dishonesty.

And agnosticism isn't as easy as you make it out to be. It is relatively easy compared to some, but not absolutely; it takes courage to admit that you don't know everything under the sun (something I'll admit I never quite mastered). There's also a reason why weak agnosticism is called 'weak'.

 

@NOG: I'll try to explain this "easy way/hard way" thing to you a little differently. I'm a vegan because I feel it is wrong to kill when it is unnecessary. Because of this, I don't wear certain clothes, I can't eat at most restauraunts and I avoid family gatherings like the plague. It's "hard" being vegan. On the other hand, the values I live by are values I have had for of my entire adult life. Life would be easier for me if I abandoned them. I would be able to join the rest of society again.....maybe even celebrate thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, Easter with the whole family again. As it is now, I am an outcast because what I choose not to eat offends other people for some reason. The reason I don't abandon my values and follow the societal "norm" is because I would be living a lie. I wouldn't be able to live with myself. Living in opposition to your own nature is painfull, NOG. While it may be less work (easier by one definition) to live in the manner society wishes me to, it would be much, much harder to live with myself. That is what Felinoid means when he says that living in a manner diametrically opposed to that which you are predisposed to live is much harder than living in accordance with your own values. You are looking only at the "work" half of it. Felinoid is talking about the "emotional" half.