[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

First off, wikipedia isn't the best source. Second, you're taking it out of context. In the article, it's talking about "coming out" being such a difficult thing for young people because of societies inability to accept them and the large amount of ridicule a young person may receive. People are largely insensitive to the struggles of a young homosexual, which has to be daunting for a kid who's struggling with the feelings. That kind of stress is only perpetuated by the attitude you yourself are displaying. If homosexuality were accepted in society, then I suspect this supposed statistic of a higher suicide rate in pubescent homosexuals would not exist.

If homosexuality were a normal thing then it would most likely be openly accepted in society. "Coming out" wouldn't be such a problem if being gay wasn't a problem.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

If homosexuality were a normal thing then it would most likely be openly accepted in society. "Coming out" wouldn't be such a problem if being gay wasn't a problem.

So was wearing a two piece bathing suit in the past, or wearing anything even remotely like what we consider "modest" today. So was rock music. Societal norms have no significance in morality. German society in 1940 thought killing Jews was right. African tribes have cultures that embrace nudity. European cultures are largely more accepting of sexuality. Islamic cultures think everyone must wear long sleeve shirts and the females must cover up entirely. Unless morality is as subjective as cultural norms, then that's a really horrible argument.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

If sex and sex-related acts aren't involved then it's no longer a homosexual relationship, but a friendship. In order for a homosexual to be active he must commit homosexual acts.

Well it seems we have a different definition of homosexuality. In that case, unless a heterosexual couple don't have sex or sex-related acts, then they're just friends as well.

[Rick_is_boring]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

First off, wikipedia isn't the best source. Second, you're taking it out of context. In the article, it's talking about "coming out" being such a difficult thing for young people because of societies inability to accept them and the large amount of ridicule a young person may receive. People are largely insensitive to the struggles of a young homosexual, which has to be daunting for a kid who's struggling with the feelings. That kind of stress is only perpetuated by the attitude you yourself are displaying. If homosexuality were accepted in society, then I suspect this supposed statistic of a higher suicide rate in pubescent homosexuals would not exist.

Actually, Wikipedia isn't a bad source at all. A matter of fact they found that Encylopedia Britannica is only barely more accurate and that has been seen as a standard bearer for ages. The source shouldn't be indicted here. Secondly, do you really believe that the only ridicule a homosexual teen would face would be when they come out? You base your argument on the fact that you say it specifically says the stat is based around those "coming out" (which I failed to see). However, you do come back and say that people are insensitive to younger people who are homosexual, and you don't clarify that it is only when they are coming out (which is the correct viewpoint to have). So the argumentation that he took the stat out of context falls as well. Thirdly I don't think that by displaying a statistic that he was perpetuating the same kind of stress that school kids would put on a homosexual student, that is exaggeration at it's finest. As far as rates if homosexuality was allowed, you can do nothing more than assume. We could say, well if he government regulated crack there would be less crack dealers, but obviously the impacts of accepting something that is wrong outweight any benefit you can present.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

So was wearing a two piece bathing suit in the past, or wearing anything even remotely like what we consider "modest" today. So was rock music. Societal norms have no significance in morality. German society in 1940 thought killing Jews was right. African tribes have cultures that embrace nudity. European cultures are largely more accepting of sexuality. Islamic cultures think everyone must wear long sleeve shirts and the females must cover up entirely. Unless morality is as subjective as cultural norms, then that's a really horrible argument.

No, you're argument is the one that is faulty. What you're talking about is clothing. Different kinds of clothing (or lack of) can be considered immodest by different societies. However, a man having sex with a man goes beyond immodesty... it's a perversion of the unifying act between a man and a woman that sex was intended to be.

God intended sex to be between a man and a woman, within the bond of marriage. The Bible is clear that sexual acts between members of the same sex are gravely sinful.

If someone is attracted to the same sex, then they need to exercise self-control and refrain from comitting shameful acts with members of the same sex. Just because someone feels attracted to the same sex doesn't mean they have to act on it.

I think the burden is on you to show from Scripture or from Christian Tradition that homosexuality is okay. I don't think you can do it, because clearly Christianity teaches otherwise.

[Rick_is_boring]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

So was wearing a two piece bathing suit in the past, or wearing anything even remotely like what we consider "modest" today. So was rock music. Societal norms have no significance in morality. German society in 1940 thought killing Jews was right. African tribes have cultures that embrace nudity. European cultures are largely more accepting of sexuality. Islamic cultures think everyone must wear long sleeve shirts and the females must cover up entirely. Unless morality is as subjective as cultural norms, then that's a really horrible argument.

Your leaps in logic absolutely astonish me. You say that societal norms have no significance on the definition of morality? I would love for you to explain that one because I find it HIGHLY debateable. Secondly, you have a horrible case of stereotyping. You say that German society in the 1940's thought killing Jews was right? Wow. Hitler's Reich though killing Jews were alright. As a society the German people pretty much faced a dictatorship where any sympathetic actions toward Jewish people equated with death. Being a part of a country does not make you evil. You also make claims that cannot be fully supported, such as European countries being more accepting of sexuality or that all Islamic cultures think everyone must wear long sleeve shirts and females must cover up entirely (Hmmm, Iraq is overrun by Sunni and Shiites yet we see Muslim women do the opposite of what you say). You are attempting to make morality into a worldly issue, instead of confronting it from direct Bible scripture and providing an answer that would further diologue on the topic.

[comitatus1]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

No, you're argument is the one that is faulty. What you're talking about is clothing. Different kinds of clothing (or lack of) can be considered immodest by different societies. However, a man having sex with a man goes beyond immodesty... it's a perversion of the unifying act between a man and a woman that sex was intended to be.

God intended sex to be between a man and a woman, within the bond of marriage. The Bible is clear that sexual acts between members of the same sex are gravely sinful.

If someone is attracted to the same sex, then they need to exercise self-control and refrain from comitting shameful acts with members of the same sex. Just because someone feels attracted to the same sex doesn't mean they have to act on it.

I think the burden is on you to show from Scripture or from Christian Tradition that homosexuality is okay. I don't think you can do it, because clearly Christianity teaches otherwise.

Reed,

I totally agree with everything you said in this post. It matters little to me that someone can quote psychologists, socialogists, MD's or social workers to "prove" that homosexuality is "ok" or normal. It is not, simply by virtue of the fact that it this is the verdict of God. It is not a cultural thing, it is not a social thing, it is a sin thing.

Chris

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by Rick_is_boring

Actually, Wikipedia isn't a bad source at all. A matter of fact they found that Encylopedia Britannica is only barely more accurate and that has been seen as a standard bearer for ages. The source shouldn't be indicted here.

Granted, wikipedia is a good source a lot of the time, and I have no reason to believe it isn't any good with this particular article, but it is a secondary source. A primary source would be better. Thus my statement that it isn't "the best" source stands, but I agree with you. If I thought the article wasn't any good, I wouldn't have even addressed it.

Secondly, do you really believe that the only ridicule a homosexual teen would face would be when they come out? You base your argument on the fact that you say it specifically says the stat is based around those "coming out" (which I failed to see).

It's under the section in the article named "Coming out". Why would it be in that section if it were not referring to it? And the context is pretty clear:

"Most have their coming out during school age, so sometime during the time of puberty. At this age, they may not trust or ask for help from others, especially when their orientation is not accepted in society. Sometimes their own parents are not even informed. Coming out can sometimes lead to a life crisis, which can elevate to suicidal thoughts or even committing suicide. Crisis centers in larger cities and information sites on the Internet can help these people to accept their homosexuality. In fact, the suicide rate is notably higher with pubescent homosexuals than their heterosexual peers." (emphasis mine)

Reedolo came in and cited this statistic as if homosexuals are generally unhappy and thus committ suicide more often, when his source is referring to homosexuals committing suicide because of the persecution and lack of acceptance society gives. They're two completely different things that are unrelated.

However, you do come back and say that people are insensitive to younger people who are homosexual, and you don't clarify that it is only when they are coming out (which is the correct viewpoint to have). So the argumentation that he took the stat out of context falls as well.

The insensitivity and persecution homosexuals receive are what create the inability for young homosexuals to accept themselves and to come out. So it is not only when they are coming out, but it is likely the most difficult part.

Thirdly I don't think that by displaying a statistic that he was perpetuating the same kind of stress that school kids would put on a homosexual student, that is exaggeration at it's finest.

You haven't been around long enough to see me exaggerate at my finest

It wasn't the display of the statistic, it was the use of it out of it's context. I state that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone like breaking the law does. He states that homosexuals are more likely to committ suicide. Given the context of coming out and the ridicule and lack of acceptance that perpetuates the difficulty in coming out, it is clear he used it out of context. Using such a statistic in such a way is just laughably ironic, because he is using a statistic that measures the effect of society condemning homosexuals to further condemn them.

As far as rates if homosexuality was allowed, you can do nothing more than assume. We could say, well if he government regulated crack there would be less crack dealers, but obviously the impacts of accepting something that is wrong outweight any benefit you can present.

Well yes, it is an assumption based off of what the wikipedia article seemed to be saying with the statistic presented. I suppose we couldn't know for sure unless we asked each and every homosexual pubescent that killed themselves if it was because of societies inacceptance or because they were unhappy in their life of sin they were supposedly living in as pubescents. I imagine they must have had quite a bit of a secret homosexual sex life at such a young age to warrant suicide if the latter is true. If this is the point trying to be made, then find statistics stating that grown men and women are more likely to commit suicide as already outed homosexuals than heterosexuals.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

No, you're argument is the one that is faulty. What you're talking about is clothing. Different kinds of clothing (or lack of) can be considered immodest by different societies. However, a man having sex with a man goes beyond immodesty... it's a perversion of the unifying act between a man and a woman that sex was intended to be.

God intended sex to be between a man and a woman, within the bond of marriage. The Bible is clear that sexual acts between members of the same sex are gravely sinful.

If someone is attracted to the same sex, then they need to exercise self-control and refrain from comitting shameful acts with members of the same sex. Just because someone feels attracted to the same sex doesn't mean they have to act on it.

I think the burden is on you to show from Scripture or from Christian Tradition that homosexuality is okay. I don't think you can do it, because clearly Christianity teaches otherwise.

Have I once ever said homosexuality is not a sin? Read through every one of my posts in this thread so far and find it. In fact, if you look for my first one, you'll find that my study of homosexuality in the Bible has brought me to the conclusion that the Bible doesn't look favorably on homosexuality at all. All I'm doing is trying to question what the context of that was and ask whether that context still applies today. I have never once come to any conclusion for those questions. I merely ask them.

And you have yet to address whether heterosexual couples who do not engage in sex are still considered a couple or whether they're just friends. Again, you go to sex, when I have never debated that issue.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

Have I once ever said homosexuality is not a sin? Read through every one of my posts in this thread so far and find it. In fact, if you look for my first one, you'll find that my study of homosexuality in the Bible has brought me to the conclusion that the Bible doesn't look favorably on homosexuality at all. All I'm doing is trying to question what the context of that was and ask whether that context still applies today. I have never once come to any conclusion for those questions. I merely ask them.

And you have yet to address whether heterosexual couples who do not engage in sex are still considered a couple or whether they're just friends. Again, you go to sex, when I have never debated that issue.

The fact that sex is intended to be between a man and a woman is something that is intrinsical to the human race. No matter what society or race you look at, you will always see that men and women are attracted to each other sexually and that men and women come together to procreate. Any devation from this is unnatural.

In Romans 1:26-27 St. Paul tells us that men were giving up "natural" relationships with women and burning with lust for one another. St. Paul didn't say that these acts were immodest or displeasing, he said that they were unnatural and sinful.

If you want to claim that the context of our culture and society changes anything, then the burden of proof is on you because you are deviating from the standard Christian view. I have not yet seen any Scriptural support for your argument from you at all. You need to somehow show from Scripture that this teaching is acceptable.

Of course I don't think you can do that without taking Scripture absurdly out of context... but all the same this is a Christian Theology forum, so you're argument needs to have Scriptural support. Otherwise we will just be arguing philosophy and there's no point in doing that here.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by Rick_is_boring

Your leaps in logic absolutely astonish me. You say that societal norms have no significance on the definition of morality? I would love for you to explain that one because I find it HIGHLY debateable.

If all morality is subjective, then there is no God. That certainly is a leap of logic, yes. But C.S. Lewis used universal morality as the basis for his argument for the existance of God. A much smaller leap would be that if all morality is subjective, the subjective morality in ancient times in which the Bible was written doesn't necessarily mean it can be applied at all today since we're a completely different culture and society. Perhaps the Bible has no say on applicable morality then? You're certainly on a slippery slope.

Secondly, you have a horrible case of stereotyping. You say that German society in the 1940's thought killing Jews was right? Wow. Hitler's Reich though killing Jews were alright. As a society the German people pretty much faced a dictatorship where any sympathetic actions toward Jewish people equated with death. Being a part of a country does not make you evil.

You're right, I apologize. I should have been more specific. That's something I would usually catch.

You also make claims that cannot be fully supported, such as European countries being more accepting of sexuality or that all Islamic cultures think everyone must wear long sleeve shirts and females must cover up entirely (Hmmm, Iraq is overrun by Sunni and Shiites yet we see Muslim women do the opposite of what you say). You are attempting to make morality into a worldly issue, instead of confronting it from direct Bible scripture and providing an answer that would further diologue on the topic.

Go to Europe. Turn on the TV. Count how many breasts you see. A lot of European countries are a lot more matter-of-fact about sex and nudity. Just spend some time there or watch movies from there. It's pretty obvious.

As for Islamic beliefs, it is a Islamic belief that both men and women must dress much more modestly than what we consider modest. I suppose I generalized a bit again though, as I'm sure not every Muslim believes the same. But my point still stands.

If we were wanting to discuss the Biblical stance on homosexuality, it's already been stated several times from the beginning. The Bible never once says anything good about homosexuality, nor have I said anything otherwise. If that's all you want to talk about, then there, I said it and agree with you. The Bible is very clear. I am only trying to wrestle with the issue in our modern culture and decide whether or not or how much it is applicable today. But if you merely want to discuss what the Bible says, then I am done here, and this thread has no reason to be as long as it is.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

The fact that sex is intended to be between a man and a woman is something that is intrinsical to the human race. No matter what society or race you look at, you will always see that men and women are attracted to each other sexually and that men and women come together to procreate. Any devation from this is unnatural.

In Romans 1:26-27 St. Paul tells us that men were giving up "natural" relationships with women and burning with lust for one another. St. Paul didn't say that these acts were immodest or displeasing, he said that they were unnatural and sinful.

If you want to claim that the context of our culture and society changes anything, then the burden of proof is on you because you are deviating from the standard Christian view. I have not yet seen any Scriptural support for your argument from you at all. You need to somehow show from Scripture that this teaching is acceptable.

Of course I don't think you can do that without taking Scripture absurdly out of context... but all the same this is a Christian Theology forum, so you're argument needs to have Scriptural support. Otherwise we will just be arguing philosophy and there's no point in doing that here.

Again, you avoid a homosexual relationship devoid of any actual sex. Either way, as I said in response to Rick, if we only want to discuss what the Bible says, it's an open and shut case, and I have never once debated that. If we want to discuss it's application to us in our modern culture, then we can discuss further. I apologize that my philosophy and my theology are not separate as yours seem to be.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

The Bible is very clear. I am only trying to wrestle with the issue in our modern culture and decide whether or not or how much it is applicable today.

So are you wanting to know "how much is too much" or something along those lines?

I think we both agree that homosexual acts are sinful, so what are you wanting to know? If homosexual acts were unnatural and sinful 2000 years ago then they are unnatural and sinful today. I'm not really sure how much our modern culture changes anything, except for ordinary customs. Such as for example I think in Jesus' society men used to kiss one another in greeting (hence why Judas kissed Jesus the night he betrayed him), and that would be considered strange in our culture today, to say the least.

What matters is the intent behind it. If men in Jesus' time kissed one another in greeting, there was nothing sexual about that, it was just a standard form of greeting. That doesn't mean that men today can make out with one another all they want, because the intent behind it is different.

[Rick_is_boring]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

Granted, wikipedia is a good source a lot of the time, and I have no reason to believe it isn't any good with this particular article, but it is a secondary source. A primary source would be better. Thus my statement that it isn't "the best" source stands, but I agree with you. If I thought the article wasn't any good, I wouldn't have even addressed it.



It's under the section in the article named "Coming out". Why would it be in that section if it were not referring to it? And the context is pretty clear:

"Most have their coming out during school age, so sometime during the time of puberty. At this age, they may not trust or ask for help from others, especially when their orientation is not accepted in society. Sometimes their own parents are not even informed. Coming out can sometimes lead to a life crisis, which can elevate to suicidal thoughts or even committing suicide. Crisis centers in larger cities and information sites on the Internet can help these people to accept their homosexuality. In fact, the suicide rate is notably higher with pubescent homosexuals than their heterosexual peers." (emphasis mine)

Reedolo came in and cited this statistic as if homosexuals are generally unhappy and thus committ suicide more often, when his source is referring to homosexuals committing suicide because of the persecution and lack of acceptance society gives. They're two completely different things that are unrelated.

Yes but your argumentation is stating that the statistics used are based around a "coming out" and not just the daily homosexual lifestyle. However you use the things you argue out of context, for even the quotes you used to support you say the opposite...ie. "Coming out can sometimes lead to a life crisis, which can elevate to suicidal thoughts or even committing suicide". Well pitchers in baseball can "sometimes" throw a perfect game, but it obviously doesn't happen daily. Also note how many times the terms "may" or "sometimes" are used in the passage. In no way is that absolute. The quotes you give do nothing to support your claim that the bulk of persecution for homosexuals occurs when coming out.



The insensitivity and persecution homosexuals receive are what create the inability for young homosexuals to accept themselves and to come out. So it is not only when they are coming out, but it is likely the most difficult part.

See above


You haven't been around long enough to see me exaggerate at my finest

Well I'll be here for a while

It wasn't the display of the statistic, it was the use of it out of it's context. I state that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone like breaking the law does. He states that homosexuals are more likely to committ suicide. Given the context of coming out and the ridicule and lack of acceptance that perpetuates the difficulty in coming out, it is clear he used it out of context. Using such a statistic in such a way is just laughably ironic, because he is using a statistic that measures the effect of society condemning homosexuals to further condemn them.

No what is laughably ironic is that you use the same article out of context for you own purposes. You repeatedly post that "coming out" for a homosexual is the point in which they recieve the most persecution and thus it becomes difficult for them. However, you try to support what you say by stating that being homosexual does not hurt anyone like breaking the law does. Well obviously that falls by the way side if you wanted to make this a biblical argument, because what is worse, setting an example that homosexuality is ok or running a stop sign? Obviously, homosexuality's impact trumps breaking the law in that instance, because in the bible homosexuality is a sin that thumbs it's nose at Christ, while running a stop sign will get you a minor traffic violation. But even if you want to argue from a social standpoint and not a biblical one (which is what I am drawing from you), if being homosexual increases the risk of death (which it does from the stats given in the article, and that is "being" a homosexual not just saying you are one) then the significance of that one life trumps any law that could be broken.



Well yes, it is an assumption based off of what the wikipedia article seemed to be saying with the statistic presented. I suppose we couldn't know for sure unless we asked each and every homosexual pubescent that killed themselves if it was because of societies inacceptance or because they were unhappy in their life of sin they were supposedly living in as pubescents. I imagine they must have had quite a bit of a secret homosexual sex life at such a young age to warrant suicide if the latter is true. If this is the point trying to be made, then find statistics stating that grown men and women are more likely to commit suicide as already outed homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Again that is not a fair assumption to make off the article seeing how you took it out of context. Secondly, it is your burden to show evidence that early stages of homosexuality lead to the MOST persecution. As far as statistics on my part, I am sure that I can find them, but it's plainly rational for us to say that people who have been homosexual for years have faced a great deal more persecution than someone who just comes out and says "I'm gay" (which is becoming more and more accepted in society sadly)

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

Again, you avoid a homosexual relationship devoid of any actual sex. Either way, as I said in response to Rick, if we only want to discuss what the Bible says, it's an open and shut case, and I have never once debated that. If we want to discuss it's application to us in our modern culture, then we can discuss further. I apologize that my philosophy and my theology are not separate as yours seem to be.

Don't get me wrong, I love philosophy. At my confirmation i took the name "Justin" for St. Justin Martyr, a great philosopher of the early Church. I chose him for that reason, because I love philosophy.

I think I may have misunderstood the direction of your argument until now. See my previous post and maybe i'm a little closer there to addressing your actual concern.

Also i'd like to ask what you mean by a "homosexual relationship devoid of any actualy sex." ? It's the acts themselves that are sinful. The Bible never once condemns homosexual urges, rather it condemns homosexual acts. Urges and desires are out of our control, but we can choose whether or not to act on them. If there are no homosexual acts then there are no sinful acts.