Gay and Christian

[South East Europe]

No, gender is a social construct, it is nurture over nature.

Race is a social construct. Gender may be a social construct but it is also used to define the neurological/psychological condition of a person in terms of whether they identify as female or male.

[Ceannairceach]

Gender is also what you're given when you are born. Knowing that my gender is female is very different from wishing that your race is Asian. You are trying to compare two entirely different subjects here.

No, gender is a social construct, it is nurture over nature.

That is rather false. As proved with a certain case...

A man, during circumcision as a child, lost his penis so far that it couldn't be repaired. The parents, in a fit of sadness, asked doctors what they should do. The consensus was to raise the child as a woman. The parents agreed, and gave the child estrogen throughout his life and slowly, he gained female features due to his natural, childlike neutral appearance. However, during puberty, his hormones kicked in. He naturally liked women. He was interested in 'male' things and 'male' clothing. He was more akin to a young man than a young woman. So, after the big reveal, what did he do? He chose to return to manhood. He got of estrogen, and slowly became a man once more.

Moral of the story? Gender could be nature or nurture.

And because I'm persnickety, religion is a social construct.

[Gagatron]

No, gender is a social construct, it is nurture over nature.

I'm sure then that you have the necessary studies and psychological reports that show that then?

Here's one.

[South East Europe]

I'm sure then that you have the necessary studies and psychological reports that show that then?

Here's one.

Wow, are you seriously trying to say that Wikipedia is a neurological or psychological study or report? If you even tried to call it a credible source, I bet any intellectual or college professor worth her or his salt would reprimand you for it.

[Gagatron]

No, gender is a social construct, it is nurture over nature.

That is rather false. As proved with a certain case...

A man, during circumcision as a child, lost his penis so far that it couldn't be repaired. The parents, in a fit of sadness, asked doctors what they should do. The consensus was to raise the child as a woman. The parents agreed, and gave the child estrogen throughout his life and slowly, he gained female features due to his natural, childlike neutral appearance. However, during puberty, his hormones kicked in. He naturally liked women. He was interested in 'male' things and 'male' clothing. He was more akin to a young man than a young woman. So, after the big reveal, what did he do? He chose to return to manhood. He got of estrogen, and slowly became a man once more.

Moral of the story? Gender could be nature or nurture.

And because I'm persnickety, religion is a social construct.

Well, it seems I have been proven wrong, provided that this story is true. Nevermind.

[Gagatron]

Here's one.

Wow, are you seriously trying to say that Wikipedia is a neurological or psychological study or report? If you even tried to call it a credible source, I bet any intellectual or college professor worth her or his salt would reprimand you for it.

The obvious solution is to look at the footnotes.

[South East Europe]

Well, it seems I have been proven wrong, provided that this story is true. Nevermind.

If you knew anything about the medical establishment, you would know that the story is true.

[Gagatron]

Well, it seems I have been proven wrong, provided that this story is true. Nevermind.

If you knew anything about the medical establishment, you would know that the story is true.

Doesn't that story prove that gender is defined by sex?

/notanexpert

[Norstal]

Wow, are you seriously trying to say that Wikipedia is a neurological or psychological study or report? If you even tried to call it a credible source, I bet any intellectual or college professor worth her or his salt would reprimand you for it.

The obvious solution is to look at the footnotes.

Gagatron has studied the ways of the NSG much.

He's right in that, using Wikipedia in an peer-reviewed paper will make you a laughing-stock, but this thread is not a peer-reviewed paper...
With that said, if a Wikipedia article is sufficiently sourced, there should be no complaints about it.

[Ceannairceach]

That is rather false. As proved with a certain case...

A man, during circumcision as a child, lost his penis so far that it couldn't be repaired. The parents, in a fit of sadness, asked doctors what they should do. The consensus was to raise the child as a woman. The parents agreed, and gave the child estrogen throughout his life and slowly, he gained female features due to his natural, childlike neutral appearance. However, during puberty, his hormones kicked in. He naturally liked women. He was interested in 'male' things and 'male' clothing. He was more akin to a young man than a young woman. So, after the big reveal, what did he do? He chose to return to manhood. He got of estrogen, and slowly became a man once more.

Moral of the story? Gender could be nature or nurture.

And because I'm persnickety, religion is a social construct.

Well, it seems I have been proven wrong, provided that this story is true. Nevermind.

If I can find the title, I can get you the book about it...
*Looks*
"As Nature Made Him: A Boy Who Was Raised As a Girl". David Reimer. Sad ending, though. He commits suicide.

[Ceannairceach]

If you knew anything about the medical establishment, you would know that the story is true.

Doesn't that story prove that gender is defined by sex?

/notanexpert

Not exactly. One could argue it like that, but its not definitive evidence. However, it does prove that nurture does not determine our gender.

[The Theban Legion]

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV),

I think this implies that you can't be a practicing homosexual. Now let me find something that condemns the thought of homosexuality or what 'practicing means....


You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

I think this means practicing and in terms of not thinking to sin "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.. Matthew 5-28

This might also be all inclusive in terms of sins. But does this lead to condemnation of the soul?
"Early in the morning Jesus came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, 'Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?' This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, 'Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.' And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.'" (John 8:1-11)

This whole thing is a pretty awesome example of forgiveness is chief among all acts. You have sinned either in your actions or thoughts but you are forgiven as long as you acknowledge your sins and ask for forgivenness.

[South East Europe]

The obvious solution is to look at the footnotes.

A large minority of what is on wikipedia is false. Also, no professional or intellectual in the scientific and medical communities has ever declared wikipedia to be credible source in even the most broad definitive understanding of the word.

[Ravenvalles]

The obvious solution is to look at the footnotes.

A large minority of what is on wikipedia is false. Also, no professional or intellectual in the scientific and medical communities has ever declared wikipedia to be credible source in even the most broad definitive understanding of the word.

I do know that my instructors in school would never accept Wikipedia as a source.

[Gagatron]

Well it seems that some of the people have gone offline.

[Eskandapolis]

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV),

I think this implies that you can't be a practicing homosexual. Now let me find something that condemns the thought of homosexuality or what 'practicing means....


You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

I think this means practicing and in terms of not thinking to sin "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.. Matthew 5-28

This might also be all inclusive in terms of sins. But does this lead to condemnation of the soul?
"Early in the morning Jesus came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, 'Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?' This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, 'Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.' And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.'" (John 8:1-11)

This whole thing is a pretty awesome example of forgiveness is chief among all acts. You have sinned either in your actions or thoughts but you are forgiven as long as you acknowledge your sins and ask for forgivenness.

Malakói, the word translated here as "practicing homosexuals" is thought to to have meant "of weak morals", and what arsenokoítai means is disputed

[Eskandapolis]

The obvious solution is to look at the footnotes.

A large minority of what is on wikipedia is false. Also, no professional or intellectual in the scientific and medical communities has ever declared wikipedia to be credible source in even the most broad definitive understanding of the word.

A small minority, and many times "serious/reputable" books and websites can have extremely biased or outdated, or simply wrong, information, it's not just a wiki-thing. And it's not reputed as a source by the scientific/medical establishment cause it takes it info from the establishment, as a professional doctor doesnot make a diagnosis based on the Britannica or on a newspaper, but on the ICD and experience

[Demen]

That is rather false. As proved with a certain case...

A man, during circumcision as a child, lost his penis so far that it couldn't be repaired. The parents, in a fit of sadness, asked doctors what they should do. The consensus was to raise the child as a woman. The parents agreed, and gave the child estrogen throughout his life and slowly, he gained female features due to his natural, childlike neutral appearance. However, during puberty, his hormones kicked in. He naturally liked women. He was interested in 'male' things and 'male' clothing. He was more akin to a young man than a young woman. So, after the big reveal, what did he do? He chose to return to manhood. He got of estrogen, and slowly became a man once more.

Moral of the story? Gender could be nature or nurture.

And because I'm persnickety, religion is a social construct.

Well, it seems I have been proven wrong, provided that this story is true. Nevermind.

What I say when you argue about the bible.

[Gagatron]

Well, it seems I have been proven wrong, provided that this story is true. Nevermind.

What I say when you argue about the bible.

Hm? Is that a question?

[Demen]

What I say when you argue about the bible.

Hm? Is that a question?

I can't even find a right thing to say I'm so frustrated.



It's like arguing with a brick wall that likes lady gaga.

[Gagatron]

Hm? Is that a question?

I can't even find a right thing to say I'm so frustrated.



It's like arguing with a brick wall that likes lady gaga.

Do try to calmly elaborate on what you would like to tell me.

[IngliHaShem]

"This might also be all inclusive in terms of sins. But does this lead to condemnation of the soul?
"Early in the morning Jesus came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, 'Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?' This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, 'Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.' And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.'" (John 8:1-11)"

This says that should you truly turn too Christ then you will not commit another sin. The law states what is a sin and the law says that practising homosexuality is forbidden.

[Gagatron]

"This might also be all inclusive in terms of sins. But does this lead to condemnation of the soul?
"Early in the morning Jesus came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, 'Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?' This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, 'Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.' And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.'" (John 8:1-11)"

This says that should you truly turn too Christ then you will not commit another sin. The law states what is a sin and the law says that practising homosexuality is forbidden.

Okay, we've already established that homosexual sex is a sin, but homoerotic love is not.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

"This might also be all inclusive in terms of sins. But does this lead to condemnation of the soul?
"Early in the morning Jesus came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, 'Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?' This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, 'Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.' And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.'" (John 8:1-11)"

This says that should you truly turn too Christ then you will not commit another sin. The law states what is a sin and the law says that practising homosexuality is forbidden.

Do you seriously believe that Christ/God thinks that any man/woman/person can not sin? He wants us NOT to sin - hence "do not sin again" - but He realizes we will, otherwise He would not have sacrificed Himself on the Cross for all then, and today. If humanity were perfect - i.e. perfect enough to not sin - He would not have been needed.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

"This might also be all inclusive in terms of sins. But does this lead to condemnation of the soul?
"Early in the morning Jesus came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, 'Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?' This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, 'Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.' And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.'" (John 8:1-11)"

This says that should you truly turn too Christ then you will not commit another sin. The law states what is a sin and the law says that practising homosexuality is forbidden.

Okay, we've already established that homosexual sex is a sin, but homoerotic love is not.

It is, and very much so. I do believe that there is a parable where a boy is stoned to death for displaying erotic interest in another boy.

cba to remember the book

The obvious solution is to look at the footnotes.

Gagatron has studied the ways of the NSG much.

He's right in that, using Wikipedia in an peer-reviewed paper will make you a laughing-stock, but this thread is not a peer-reviewed paper...
With that said, if a Wikipedia article is sufficiently sourced, there should be no complaints about it.

In which case he shouldn't be lazy, and I shouldn't have to do his research for him by making sure his Wikipedia sources are accurate.

He should link to the footnotes himself.