Homosexuality and Teens Having Sex

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The problem is that man finds himself living in two cities simultaneously. He lives in the City of God and the City of Man. This is reconciled by making sure that we can do both simultaneously. If there is a conflict between the two, we must choose our faith. My priorities are as follows: God, Country, Family, Self, Other People. It is easy to live when you have your priorities straight. If God is first then you know where you stand. Look at Abraham and Issac. Abraham did not want to kill Issac but he put God first.

The problem is that you presume:

1) That there is any god to begin with.

2) That god is worthy of praise. How do you know he isn't a horrible vicious monster unworthy of worship?

3) That offering deference and praise to god will help you or anyone else in any way.

4) That you have a good idea about what god wants from you.

5) That god's ideas are consistent and have any motivating logic at all.

You have no reason to presume any of these things.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

That would be true if there were no sins. But sin is actually helpful to us because it defines conduct that cannot be performed to the glory of God. Sorry fellas but being greatly skilled in the arts of the joys of gaiety is not something that can be done for the glory of God.

History will show, however, that mass murder and genocide "for the glory of god" seems perfectly acceptable.

[Glorious Freedonia]

I do not know why the sin is considered sinful. I do not even know if these rules are divinely inspired or if they are a part of the Jewish tradition but I believe that it comes from one of those possible choices (and either way I am in, obviously).

I am not sure I understand what your question is but there is a societal prohibition in either Deuteronomy or Leviticus (I think it is in Leviticus) that comes immediately after the individual prohibition. The language requires no tolerance for male homosexuality by society.

It is therefore not only a sin to have gay sex but it is also sinful for a community to tolerate it.

Once you've decided that you don't know (or apparently care) why something is considered "sinful", why not just extend that characteristic of answer to everything you've said?

Your problem with male homosexuality is that you think its a sin, but you don't know why your source makes it a sin, just run with that.

Why are gays sinful? Don't know. Just believe it.

And once we are convinced by that equally for everyone else, we get:

Why should blacks not be allowed to vote? Don't know. Just believe it.

Why should women be subjugated? Don't know. Just believe it.

Why should you be taken away to a camp? Don't know. Just believe it.

Now of course, you aren't saying any of those things, but they are presented with exactly the same logic and reason that you've applied to your position, so...

The problem is that man finds himself living in two cities simultaneously. He lives in the City of God and the City of Man. This is reconciled by making sure that we can do both simultaneously. If there is a conflict between the two, we must choose our faith. My priorities are as follows: God, Country, Family, Self, Other People. It is easy to live when you have your priorities straight. If God is first then you know where you stand. Look at Abraham and Issac. Abraham did not want to kill Issac but he put God first.

After you have dealt with your divine obligations, you are free to participate in the world of man. But one must never put the world of Man first before God for that is idolatrous blasphemy.

Is there any part of you that realizes that using a cliched analogy to merely restate your assumptions in no way addresses the critique illustrated in my post?

But after all, some guy probably doesn't WANT to kill his child, or discriminate against gays, or strap explosives onto himself and run into a crowd...but we must put God first.

God comes first. We cannot be good people if we do not put him first. We might and probably do differ on what exactly it means to put God first and we may do it in different ways but we must put God first.

There is a biblical prohibition against murder. Yet God told Abraham to kill his son and Abraham did what he was told and it all worked out ok. People that go about exploding themselves in crowds are in a different situation unless God actually told them to do it as opposed to some Al Quaeda dude told them to do it for God which is different.

[Camcuda]

If you have never been taught right from wrong then I could understand your question, However, I believe from your prior posts that you have. People have created thier cultures to allow or not to allow certain norms and mores. In our culture which is still based in christianity, which prohibits homosexual practice. If we had no christian based culture,sin would not exist. If you were uncertain of how things were supposed to be, one would look at nature and see that there was a male and a female in every species on the planet. Male on male or female on female bears no fruit. It is just that simple so I would wonder why people would go against what makes sence and what does not. Homosexuals go against the norm and furthermore people hate what they do not understand. If one is enlightened, they know that they could never beat the homosexual out of anyone who was so inclined, However hate crimes against the Gays still happen. Look at other cultures and how they deal with homosexuals in thier countries. I think that you would have a greater understanding to your question, if sin was removed from the equation.

[Glorious Freedonia]

The problem is that man finds himself living in two cities simultaneously. He lives in the City of God and the City of Man. This is reconciled by making sure that we can do both simultaneously. If there is a conflict between the two, we must choose our faith. My priorities are as follows: God, Country, Family, Self, Other People. It is easy to live when you have your priorities straight. If God is first then you know where you stand. Look at Abraham and Issac. Abraham did not want to kill Issac but he put God first.

The problem is that you presume:

1) That there is any god to begin with.

2) That god is worthy of praise. How do you know he isn't a horrible vicious monster unworthy of worship?

3) That offering deference and praise to god will help you or anyone else in any way.

4) That you have a good idea about what god wants from you.

5) That god's ideas are consistent and have any motivating logic at all.

You have no reason to presume any of these things.

1. Yes.
2. Yes. If he is our creator he should be respected.
3. I do not know that I believe that this is true. An all powerful God does not need anything from me. It would be the greatest honor for Him to use me in His service but I do not deserve this offer regardless of what I do or how I worship him. It would be a gift and not a payment.
4. I try to do my best and ask for His help to do even better than I can possibly do what is expected of me or at least what might make Him happy.
5. I do not know the nature of God's motivation or how God thinks.

These things are based primarily upon faith.

[Reagan Clone]

God comes first. We cannot be good people if we do not put him first. We might and probably do differ on what exactly it means to put God first and we may do it in different ways but we must put God first.

There is a biblical prohibition against murder. Yet God told Abraham to kill his son and Abraham did what he was told and it all worked out ok. People that go about exploding themselves in crowds are in a different situation unless God actually told them to do it as opposed to some Al Quaeda dude told them to do it for God which is different.

Yes, we get your ability to just repeat your own assertions without providing meaningful cogent support for them. Its central to who you are and how/why you believe what you believe.

The suicide bombers give essentially the same reasoning you do, only slightly more fervent.

[Ifreann]

What question have I not answered?

You never gave a full response to my original question (in what way does homosexuality harm society), only stating that it was a "biblical crime." And no, the bible doesn't give me any more information about what harmful things it does. I checked.

If we take sin out of the picture, there is no harm that I am aware of. Can you think of any?

If we leave sin in the picture: what harm does this specific sin do to society (as opposed to merely the eternal futures of the people engaging in it)? I understood that, unless some justification for temporal punishment was offered (eg your sin of theft has deprived some guy of his car), your sins were generally between you, your priest/rabbi/imam/spiritual advisor/whatever, and God.

Do you know the justification for why this particular behavior is considered sinful?

I do not know why the sin is considered sinful. I do not even know if these rules are divinely inspired or if they are a part of the Jewish tradition but I believe that it comes from one of those possible choices (and either way I am in, obviously).

I am not sure I understand what your question is but there is a societal prohibition in either Deuteronomy or Leviticus (I think it is in Leviticus) that comes immediately after the individual prohibition. The language requires no tolerance for male homosexuality by society.

It is therefore not only a sin to have gay sex but it is also sinful for a community to tolerate it.

And you admit that you have no idea why these prohibitions exist, yet you go along with them none the less.

Yes. I admit that. But I need to explain that the motivation is more important than the reasoning. It is like when Jesus (who regardless of whatever else he was or was not was still a Hebrew) said that if you want to eat meat for the glory of God, then eat meat for the glory of God. If you want to not eat meat to the glory of God, then avoid meat to the glory of God. The point is to do what you do for the glory of God. There is wisdom in that.

How about tolerate homosexuals for the glory of god? There wisdom in that?

[Glorious Freedonia]

That would be true if there were no sins. But sin is actually helpful to us because it defines conduct that cannot be performed to the glory of God. Sorry fellas but being greatly skilled in the arts of the joys of gaiety is not something that can be done for the glory of God.

History will show, however, that mass murder and genocide "for the glory of god" seems perfectly acceptable.

How?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

God comes first. We cannot be good people if we do not put him first. We might and probably do differ on what exactly it means to put God first and we may do it in different ways but we must put God first.

There is a biblical prohibition against murder. Yet God told Abraham to kill his son and Abraham did what he was told and it all worked out ok. People that go about exploding themselves in crowds are in a different situation unless God actually told them to do it as opposed to some Al Quaeda dude told them to do it for God which is different.

Your presumption that put god first is a prerequisite to being moral requires the assumptions that you know what god wants AND that god is actually a good being to begin with. It also requires the assumption that god knows what is right to begin with.

[Glorious Freedonia]

What question have I not answered?

You never gave a full response to my original question (in what way does homosexuality harm society), only stating that it was a "biblical crime." And no, the bible doesn't give me any more information about what harmful things it does. I checked.

If we take sin out of the picture, there is no harm that I am aware of. Can you think of any?

If we leave sin in the picture: what harm does this specific sin do to society (as opposed to merely the eternal futures of the people engaging in it)? I understood that, unless some justification for temporal punishment was offered (eg your sin of theft has deprived some guy of his car), your sins were generally between you, your priest/rabbi/imam/spiritual advisor/whatever, and God.

Do you know the justification for why this particular behavior is considered sinful?

I do not know why the sin is considered sinful. I do not even know if these rules are divinely inspired or if they are a part of the Jewish tradition but I believe that it comes from one of those possible choices (and either way I am in, obviously).

I am not sure I understand what your question is but there is a societal prohibition in either Deuteronomy or Leviticus (I think it is in Leviticus) that comes immediately after the individual prohibition. The language requires no tolerance for male homosexuality by society.

It is therefore not only a sin to have gay sex but it is also sinful for a community to tolerate it.

And you admit that you have no idea why these prohibitions exist, yet you go along with them none the less.

Yes. I admit that. But I need to explain that the motivation is more important than the reasoning. It is like when Jesus (who regardless of whatever else he was or was not was still a Hebrew) said that if you want to eat meat for the glory of God, then eat meat for the glory of God. If you want to not eat meat to the glory of God, then avoid meat to the glory of God. The point is to do what you do for the glory of God. There is wisdom in that.

How about tolerate homosexuals for the glory of god? There wisdom in that?

I do not see how that is possible.

[Czardas]

There is a biblical prohibition against murder. Yet God told Abraham to kill his son and Abraham did what he was told and it all worked out ok. People that go about exploding themselves in crowds are in a different situation unless God actually told them to do it as opposed to some Al Quaeda dude told them to do it for God which is different.

Well, how do you know gay people aren't gay because God told them to be?

I mean, look at the evidence. No one knows what really causes homosexuality (scientists say "a combination of genetic and environmental factors", but which ones? They're not sure.). There have been numerous documented cases of people in straight relationships abruptly ending them and beginning gay relationships instead (divine intervention to pair them up with the people they were "intended" for, perhaps?). By all rights, if it's a genetic trait, homosexuality should be very uncommon, yet new gay people often show up in families that never before had histories of homosexuality. (A miracle, no?) Not to mention the disproportionate number of artists, writers, and other creative folk (and the creative arts do exist for the purpose of venerating God, as tradition has established) who have been gay. Clearly, homosexuality is God's will and who are you to question it?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

How?

The crusades, the witch trials of Europe, the inquisition, the witch trials in the Americas, the death of people in biblical times for completely nonsensical reasons, the pointless slaughter of the Midianites by the Hebrews, need I go on?

[Reagan Clone]

How about tolerate homosexuals for the glory of god? There wisdom in that?

What you are proposing is glorifying God by loving, respecting, or at least tolerating, his other creations.

That is the gayest fucking shit I've ever heard, and I had Barry Manilow perform at the White House in '82.

[Glorious Freedonia]

God comes first. We cannot be good people if we do not put him first. We might and probably do differ on what exactly it means to put God first and we may do it in different ways but we must put God first.

There is a biblical prohibition against murder. Yet God told Abraham to kill his son and Abraham did what he was told and it all worked out ok. People that go about exploding themselves in crowds are in a different situation unless God actually told them to do it as opposed to some Al Quaeda dude told them to do it for God which is different.

Your presumption that put god first is a prerequisite to being moral requires the assumptions that you know what god wants AND that god is actually a good being to begin with. It also requires the assumption that god knows what is right to begin with.

I think that God defines good and evil. Otherwise man would be in a position higher than God which is ridiculous.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

1. Yes.
2. Yes. If he is our creator he should be respected.
3. I do not know that I believe that this is true. An all powerful God does not need anything from me. It would be the greatest honor for Him to use me in His service but I do not deserve this offer regardless of what I do or how I worship him. It would be a gift and not a payment.
4. I try to do my best and ask for His help to do even better than I can possibly do what is expected of me or at least what might make Him happy.
5. I do not know the nature of God's motivation or how God thinks.

These things are based primarily upon faith.

2. How does this follow? Not every possible god is a good guy. Look into the Sumerian religion.
3. I'm not saying he needs worship. I'm asking you how you know that he's worthy of it.
4. That's not even vaguely an answer to my point. It's completely off topic and out of nowhere.
5. Then how do you know you're doing the right thing?

So they rest on nothing it all?

[Reagan Clone]

God comes first. We cannot be good people if we do not put him first. We might and probably do differ on what exactly it means to put God first and we may do it in different ways but we must put God first.

There is a biblical prohibition against murder. Yet God told Abraham to kill his son and Abraham did what he was told and it all worked out ok. People that go about exploding themselves in crowds are in a different situation unless God actually told them to do it as opposed to some Al Quaeda dude told them to do it for God which is different.

Your presumption that put god first is a prerequisite to being moral requires the assumptions that you know what god wants AND that god is actually a good being to begin with. It also requires the assumption that god knows what is right to begin with.

I think that God defines good and evil. Otherwise man would be in a position higher than God which is ridiculous.

Exactly. Why tackle the issues of good and evil for yourself, when someone else can do it for you and you just "humbly accept it" and not understand why it is the way it is?

That's exactly what a real God would want from its followers.

[Ifreann]

How about tolerate homosexuals for the glory of god? There wisdom in that?

I do not see how that is possible.

Somehow I'm not surprised.

[Glorious Freedonia]

How?

The crusades, the witch trials of Europe, the inquisition, the witch trials in the Americas, the death of people in biblical times for completely nonsensical reasons, the pointless slaughter of the Midianites by the Hebrews, need I go on?

With the exception of the natives of Israel getting genocided none of those other things are good at all. Yes they were done for the glory of God so there is a little redemption but not much. Now I know that we should not allow witches to live. The question though is what the heck is a witch? Are there even any alive that we need to go and kill? This is a difficult thing. People may say they are witches but what if they are lying?

I do not have a problem with trying and killing witches, I do have a problem though with doing so without a whole hell of a lot of substantive and procedural due process.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I think that God defines good and evil. Otherwise man would be in a position higher than God which is ridiculous.

That doesn't follow. (Jesus, how many times have I had to use that statement now?)

Just because good doesn't define good and evil doesn't mean that man does. You are neglecting three other possibilities.

1) Good and evil are completely objective and intrinsic to existence and they neither depend on humanity nor god.

2) Good and evil aren't real, and morality is a lie.

3) Good and evil are determined by something apart from man or god.

Actually, the truth is that, if good and evil aren't intrinsic to existence, in other words, if option 1 isn't true, then all morality is subjective, and thus it's a lie. Your moral system is just god said so. Your moral system is thus not objectively true of the universe.

[Callisdrun]

Something I've been thinking about recently.

In general, most parents will disapprove of their teenage kids having sex. The most common reasons outside of religion are:
- Risk of pregnancy
- Risk of STDs
- Not emotionally mature enough

Here's my question - what happens when you throw homosexuality into the mix?

If your gay son has sex with his boyfriend, there is no risk of pregnancy (despite what fanfic says).

How would you react if you found out your gay teenage child was having sex, assuming you already knew he/she was gay?

EDIT: Turns out lesbians CAN transmit STDs. They just have a much lower rate of it.

I'd actually be kinda relieved/happy if my daughter turned out to be a lesbian precisely because lesbian sex can't result in pregnancy and has a much lower STD transmission rate. I'd have two less things to worry about.

[Glorious Freedonia]

How about tolerate homosexuals for the glory of god? There wisdom in that?

I do not see how that is possible.

Somehow I'm not surprised.

Ok the only way you could do this is if you honestly believe that God wants us to do that. If you believe that then you have some explaining to do because it flies in the face of tradition. Traditions can be wrong though but we need lots of proof and none of this well disprove that it is not so nonsense.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

With the exception of the natives of Israel getting genocided none of those other things are good at all. Yes they were done for the glory of God so there is a little redemption but not much. Now I know that we should not allow witches to live. The question though is what the heck is a witch? Are there even any alive that we need to go and kill? This is a difficult thing. People may say they are witches but what if they are lying?

I do not have a problem with trying and killing witches, I do have a problem though with doing so without a whole hell of a lot of substantive and procedural due process.

So the slaughter of the Midianites was fine? Wow, I think you are completely unfit to judge ANYONE else as being immoral.

I don't even want to touch the thing about witches. "Real" witchcraft is a superstition. There is no real witchcraft, because magic isn't real.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Something I've been thinking about recently.

In general, most parents will disapprove of their teenage kids having sex. The most common reasons outside of religion are:
- Risk of pregnancy
- Risk of STDs
- Not emotionally mature enough

Here's my question - what happens when you throw homosexuality into the mix?

If your gay son has sex with his boyfriend, there is no risk of pregnancy (despite what fanfic says).

How would you react if you found out your gay teenage child was having sex, assuming you already knew he/she was gay?

EDIT: Turns out lesbians CAN transmit STDs. They just have a much lower rate of it.

I'd actually be kinda relieved/happy if my daughter turned out to be a lesbian precisely because lesbian sex can't result in pregnancy and has a much lower STD transmission rate. I'd have two less things to worry about.

So you do not want your daughter to give you a grandchild, right?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Somehow I'm not surprised.

An interpretation of scripture is only valid if it confirms his prejudices, apparently.

[Glorious Freedonia]

With the exception of the natives of Israel getting genocided none of those other things are good at all. Yes they were done for the glory of God so there is a little redemption but not much. Now I know that we should not allow witches to live. The question though is what the heck is a witch? Are there even any alive that we need to go and kill? This is a difficult thing. People may say they are witches but what if they are lying?

I do not have a problem with trying and killing witches, I do have a problem though with doing so without a whole hell of a lot of substantive and procedural due process.

So the slaughter of the Midianites was fine? Wow, I think you are completely unfit to judge ANYONE else as being immoral.

I don't even want to touch the thing about witches. "Real" witchcraft is a superstition. There is no real witchcraft, because magic isn't real.

If God wants a genocide and tells you to do it, that is different than Nazis wanting a genocide and telling you to do it.

I think that we agree on the point of witches. I do not believe that there are witches but I do believe that if they did exist then we have a duty to kill them. Perhaps it is God's plan to send us a witch for the first time since giving us our orders, in the year 2,500 and see how we react. I have no idea how God works. However, killing witches is something that we are supposed to do. I do not think that the people killed in the witch trials were witches. I also do not think that we need to kill them in a cruel manner.