Page 54 of 54

PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 12:32 am
by Sundiata
Suriyanakhon wrote:
Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:We need to think evolutionarily. Why do Abrahamic religions ban male homosexuality? I bet the natural causes would probably be STDs among gays & bisexual men as well as boosting fertility rates among starving agricultural people so that they can be more robust in wars.


If that were the case then homosexuality wouldn't have been accepted in other parts of the world as much as it was. Abrahamic religions probably inherited their aversion to homosexuality from some earlier Middle Eastern cultures and this was strengthened by early Jews seeing ritualized homosexuality in cultures that they saw as foreign and alien, such as the Greeks and Romans.

While I find the Greek and Roman attitudes to those acts quite shocking, I don't think that they would have permitted same-sex adoption either. This is a fairly new subject with respect to human attitudes.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 12:34 am
by Sundiata
Suriyanakhon wrote:
Sundiata wrote:No. Confucianism is dharmic in origin, like Hinduism, like Buddhism. It doesn't make logical sense for God to operate in the manner described by dharmic religions and teachings for a variety of reasons. These reasons are outlined by Aquinas as he describes the qualities necessary to being and goodness.


You could make a thread about this if you feel inclined, it would be a fairly interesting topic (and wouldn't distract from this one).

I don't think it's necessary for now but thank you for the suggestion. It would be an interesting set of ideas to explore.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:34 am
by Thepeopl
Sundiata wrote:
Suriyanakhon wrote:
If that were the case then homosexuality wouldn't have been accepted in other parts of the world as much as it was. Abrahamic religions probably inherited their aversion to homosexuality from some earlier Middle Eastern cultures and this was strengthened by early Jews seeing ritualized homosexuality in cultures that they saw as foreign and alien, such as the Greeks and Romans.

While I find the Greek and Roman attitudes to those acts quite shocking, I don't think that they would have permitted same-sex adoption either. This is a fairly new subject with respect to human attitudes.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptio ... cient_Rome

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriag ... cient_Rome

If you were PaterFamilias, you could do anything so if you were married to a Male and decided to adopt someone, no one would think any lesser of you.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 4:56 am
by New Visayan Islands
Thread locked pending trawl. Thank you for your patience.

Turelisa- wrote:
Esalia wrote:
Yes. And?

What made you go "what on earth are you talking about?"



Harry S Truman is not infallible, and I do not care if you think you have respect for humanity.


You apparently conflate racism with both homophobia and moral opposition to homosexuality.

A racist thinks a black person is inferior based on his emotive reaction to his racial features and hates black people as an existential threat. His hatred is objectified in violence against black people, which is perversion.
A homophobic person thinks a homosexual is inferior based on his emotive reaction to his homosexual behaviour, and hates homosexuals as an existential threat. His hatred is objectified as violence against homosexuals, which is perversion.
A Christian thinks homosexual behaviour is an existential threat to the homosexual person and criticises their behaviour, which is perversion, because he is a Christian who hates perversion.

Suggesting that members of the LGBT+ community are perverts is how you get *** one day off for trolling, flamebait, and threadjacking. *** Take the time to read and review the Rules.

Johto- wrote:
Turelisa- wrote:
You apparently conflate racism with both homophobia and moral opposition to homosexuality.

A racist thinks a black person is inferior based on his emotive reaction to his racial features and hates black people as an existential threat. His hatred is objectified in violence against black people, which is perversion.
A homophobic person thinks a homosexual is inferior based on his emotive reaction to his homosexual behaviour, and hates homosexuals as an existential threat. His hatred is objectified as violence against homosexuals, which is perversion.
A Christian thinks homosexual behaviour is an existential threat to the homosexual person and criticises their behaviour, which is perversion, because he is a Christian who hates perversion.

I'm a Christian and part of the LGBT+ and fucking proud. Fight me.


Kungsu wrote:
Turelisa- wrote:
It's not judgmental to preach God's condemnation of homosexuality, which is expressed in Scripture (LEV 18 and 20; ROM 1:26–27; CORIN 6:9–11; 1; TIM 1:8–11) and where a society is blindly accepting of something which the Bible unequivocally condems, it is a Christian's duty to oppose it respectfully and peacefully. The Bible tells us to rebuke our neighbour (LEV 19:17)

As many have already pointed out, the archaic and Judaic laws of Moses have been superseded by Christ's doctrine. No longer are we to follow the brutal laws of "an eye for an eye" but instead we have been instructed that the two greatest commandment are:

"[...] Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." -Matthew 22:34-40 (KJV) (Note how Christ does not put any stipulations on love {i.e. Love your neighbor, so long as they be not homosexual.})

And preaching is not the same as forcing one to conform to your beliefs. By all means, feel free to tell everyone how much homosexuality is a sin. But leave it out of legislation. In fact, Romans 14 covers this subject entirely:

"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -Romans 14:1-5

So no. We are, in fact, taught to not force our beliefs onto others and to be compassionate, loving, and forgiving of those we perceive as sinful. Don't be so caught up in what others are preaching that you let Christ and the Bible go by the wayside.

Both of you have been issued unofficial warnings for contributing to a threadjack.

As for Sundiata...I am not going to list all the posts you've made that fed into the threadjack, but there were enough to warrant an official *** warning. ***

Let's get back on track, shall we? Any theological arguments may be best served in their own thread.

Thread Unlocked.


Thanks!
NVI

PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 7:40 am
by Kannap
Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:I want to understand why you think Lgbt people should be forced into relationships were they are unhappy and have no attraction whatsoever? Don’t you see the harm that could cause children in such relationships?

Having the option of that or being alone is no choice at all. Both are terrible.

Again, I don't think that anyone should be forced into marriage or celibacy. These are two moral choices in line with the moral teaching of the church that someone can voluntarily pursue. I hope that's understood.


So then you have no problem with gays marrying the same sex? Glad we've cleared that up.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 7:41 am
by Kannap
Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Yet that’s the choice your presenting and it’s a awful choice to give someone. I couldn’t bear the idea of either.

Well, that's understandable if you disagree. I can't make you be like me, think like me, or feel like me. I respect your opinion.


That's sweet, but I don't respect yours. You're advocating openly for not only harming people but harming the lives of the children you expect these people to raise.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 8:59 am
by Kernen
Sundiata wrote:
Kernen wrote:Every time I see something that shows the beauty and love unique to Christianity, I manage to come to NSG and see Sundiata say something that ruins it.

I hope you get to live a privileged life that avoids having society force you into a position like this.

I want to make this clear: I'm not expressing the moral attitudes of the Catholic Church to hurt your feelings or victimize you, let alone anyone else who shares similar experiences. If you'd like to stop this discussion because you're feeling frustrated I don't blame you.

We can stop at any time. Your feelings are yours. If you'd rather not continue this discussion I really do wish you a good rest of your week.

You didn't hurt my feelings. I have no personal stake in our relationship, such as it is.

I just hoped you might have a moment of introspection over how your religious agenda, especially in relation to children who just want a home, is actively repulsing people from your church and inciting antipathy to your god.

Indiana, incidentally, was trying to do doing the same. Those children would not thank the former AG for his efforts from their institutional dormatory.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:16 am
by Adamede
Sundiata wrote:
Suriyanakhon wrote:
If that were the case then homosexuality wouldn't have been accepted in other parts of the world as much as it was. Abrahamic religions probably inherited their aversion to homosexuality from some earlier Middle Eastern cultures and this was strengthened by early Jews seeing ritualized homosexuality in cultures that they saw as foreign and alien, such as the Greeks and Romans.

While I find the Greek and Roman attitudes to those acts quite shocking, I don't think that they would have permitted same-sex adoption either. This is a fairly new subject with respect to human attitudes.

Does it really matter what past societies would’ve accepted? Fact is that there’s no good reason to not allow same sex couples to have children.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 8:33 pm
by Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire
Adamede wrote:
Sundiata wrote:While I find the Greek and Roman attitudes to those acts quite shocking, I don't think that they would have permitted same-sex adoption either. This is a fairly new subject with respect to human attitudes.

Does it really matter what past societies would’ve accepted? Fact is that there’s no good reason to not allow same sex couples to have children.

Now if only people realized this, then stuff like this AG thing might not happen.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:20 am
by San Lumen
Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire wrote:
Adamede wrote:Does it really matter what past societies would’ve accepted? Fact is that there’s no good reason to not allow same sex couples to have children.

Now if only people realized this, then stuff like this AG thing might not happen.


I doubt the Supreme Court touches the case.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:29 am
by Transjlwanja
Thepeopl wrote:
Sundiata wrote:While I find the Greek and Roman attitudes to those acts quite shocking, I don't think that they would have permitted same-sex adoption either. This is a fairly new subject with respect to human attitudes.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptio ... cient_Rome

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriag ... cient_Rome

If you were PaterFamilias, you could do anything so if you were married to a Male and decided to adopt someone, no one would think any lesser of you.


Although the Emperor was effectively above the law, enabling Nero & Elagabalus to do what they did, marriage as defined in Roman law was exclusively heterosexual. A Pater Familias could live w/ his male lover, call it a marriage, & adopt anyone he wanted, though it would never have been recognized as "marriage" by Roman law.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2020 6:12 pm
by Kowani

PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2020 6:21 pm
by San Lumen
Kowani wrote:Update: SCOTUS said no

good. im not surprised they wouldnt touch it,

PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:56 pm
by Geneviev
Kowani wrote:Update: SCOTUS said no

Thank goodness. That was a wise decision from the justices.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2021 11:42 am
by Palmyrion
Sundiata wrote:
Celritannia wrote:
Oh boy....

The state should not imprison people for being attracted to persons of the same-sex.

...but it should imprison people for engaging in homosexual acts. (Not my words, but your beliefs)