 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
If you are not following all the rules of the Bible, why do you insist that gays need to follow all the rules of the Bible?
|
Christ sets a high standard. It is not so much that I am asking the standard, but that Christ demands that standard from Christians.
Yes, it is true that Christians fall short, but they at least acknowledge that they are not doing as they ought to.
Secondly, proscribing homosexual acts is not just a regulation in the OT as you imply, but can be found in the NT as well.
quote:
Why are we allowed to wear clothes made of mixed fibers/fabrics for instance, when the Leviticus forbids this, for example??
|
That's a good question. I presume it has something to do with the uncleanness of certain animals.
Do I believe such regulations continue to apply? No. Christ has fulfilled the sacrificial system, such that no more sacrifices are needed.
Thus there is no need to keep ceremonial 'cleaniness', as set out by the OT.
quote:
Also -- why do you believe these people who affirm heterosexuality to be more right than those who do not?
|
"Male and female, he created them"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
The reason why using the term "lifestyle" is fallacious, is because gays have as many diverse, different lifestyles as heterosexuals do. One subculture in gay society is a minority within the minority group. So you can't use one group within gay society to describe all gays.
|
1)
Well, then how does one define one who is gay, and one who is not? If behaviour is inextricably linked with genetics, then we should see something in common with all homosexuals.
quote:
2) Monogamous relationships do not revolve only around sex. So glad we agree on this point. But to say that gays should be happy with platonic relationships in replacement of more intimate relationships
|
Intimacy can be found in platonic relationships much more than some 'intimate' relationships, where all you do is sleep with someone. Ergo, it makes no sense to say all platonic relationships are less fulfilling than supposedly 'intimate' ones.
quote:
is to unjustifiably impose your morals on other people who are not harming anyone -- not even themselves.
|
Not my morals. You claim to be Christian, so you have already decided for yourself that these are the morals that you are going to follow.
quote:
People need to mind their own business when it comes to other people's relationships that are monogamous and involve mutually consenting, mentally competent adults.
|
Yet they should intervene when someone is not monogamous?
I am not saying that people should intervene to stop these relationships, merely that these relationships should not be recognised as marriage.
quote:
3) What do you mean by "that's not an endorsement" with my previous point that you referred to??
|
Just because most of society affirms something in no way makes it right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
1)
Well, then how does one define one who is gay, and one who is not? If behaviour is inextricably linked with genetics, then we should see something in common with all homosexuals.
Intimacy can be found in platonic relationships much more than some 'intimate' relationships, where all you do is sleep with someone. Ergo, it makes no sense to say all platonic relationships are less fulfilling than supposedly 'intimate' ones.
Not my morals. You claim to be Christian, so you have already decided for yourself that these are the morals that you are going to follow.
Yet they should intervene when someone is not monogamous?
I am not saying that people should intervene to stop these relationships, merely that these relationships should not be recognised as marriage.
Just because most of society affirms something in no way makes it right. |
So your definition of a person's lifestyle is centered on whom you have sex with?? I thought "lifestyle" is more complicated, and more mult-faceted than just sex. In other words -- the straight lifestyle is defined as having sex with someone of the opposite gender? Reducing a person's lifestyle to whom you have sex with is degrading and disrespectful.
Secondly, the reasons why people -- regardless of sexual orientation -- seek an intimate relationship with someone beyond platonic level, is because those more intimate relationships satisfy legitimate, basic human needs that platonic relationships do not (needs involving more than just the sexual desire). And you are insulting not only gay relationships, but straight relationships as well by reducing the concept of intimate, romantic relationships to the animalistic sex level, thus degrading human beings.
Third, I'm not arguing that majoritarian morality or values is a justification in of itself. I'm making the statement that the majority of gays have the same values of family and monogamy that straight people do, in order to refute the homophobic and/or ignorant misperception that majority of gays want to destroy these values. Rather, it's the case that the majority of gays want to be included in the same mainstream society as straight people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
So your definition of a person's lifestyle is centered on whom you have sex with??
|
No, I'm asking you, on how do we distinguish someone who is gay, and someone who is straight.
I'm open to your suggestions.
quote:
the straight lifestyle is defined as having sex with someone of the opposite gender?
|
Yeah, that is what distinguishes a lifestyle as 'straight' in my mind.
Did you have some other way of telling the two apart?
quote:
Reducing a person's lifestyle to whom you have sex with is degrading and disrespectful.
|
Hardly. This is one aspect of a person's lifestyle, but is not the same as the person itself. You are assuming that the two cannot be seperated.
quote:
by reducing the concept of intimate, romantic relationships to the animalistic sex level, thus degrading human beings.
|
I am not saying that all 'intimate' relationships bear these characteristics. I am trying to say that what makes these intimate relationships fulfilling is when they share many of the same characteristics as those 'platonic' relationships you despise. It is possible to be intimate sexually, yet distant emotionally, and these relationships, though 'intimate' are certainly not fulfilling.
quote:
intimate relationships satisfy legitimate, basic human needs that platonic relationships do not (needs involving more than just the sexual desire).
|
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that they satisfy desires, but either you argue that what makes these relationships uniquely fulfilling is the 'animalistic' sex or you are left with the puzzle with why platonic relationships are less fulfilling supposedly than those that are sexual.
quote:
in order to refute the homophobic and/or ignorant misperception that majority of gays want to destroy these values.
|
Perhaps you should give me a little credit, eh? Many people agree with you that this is how a family should work. But just because many people agree with you does not mean that this works, or that this will make better families.
In a sense, you want very much the same things, but you destroy the institution, not through a desire to destroy them, but rather, because it cannot apply to homosexuals in the same way that it does to heterosexuals.
How many gay people will be raising children?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
|
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, I'm asking you, on how do we distinguish someone who is gay, and someone who is straight.
I'm open to your suggestions.
Yeah, that is what distinguishes a lifestyle as 'straight' in my mind.
Did you have some other way of telling the two apart?
Hardly. This is one aspect of a person's lifestyle, but is not the same as the person itself. You are assuming that the two cannot be seperated.
I am not saying that all 'intimate' relationships bear these characteristics. I am trying to say that what makes these intimate relationships fulfilling is when they share many of the same characteristics as those 'platonic' relationships you despise. It is possible to be intimate sexually, yet distant emotionally, and these relationships, though 'intimate' are certainly not fulfilling.
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that they satisfy desires, but either you argue that what makes these relationships uniquely fulfilling is the 'animalistic' sex or you are left with the puzzle with why platonic relationships are less fulfilling supposedly than those that are sexual.
Perhaps you should give me a little credit, eh? Many people agree with you that this is how a family should work. But just because many people agree with you does not mean that this works, or that this will make better families.
In a sense, you want very much the same things, but you destroy the institution, not through a desire to destroy them, but rather, because it cannot apply to homosexuals in the same way that it does to heterosexuals.
How many gay people will be raising children? |
Definition of lifestyle according one dictionary:
lifestyle -- the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture.
This can include many things and many aspects of an individual's life. For this reason, there is no "straight" lifestyle, nor is there is any "gay" lifestyle simply because each individual lifestyles are incredibly diverse within society. The lifestyles of mainstream gays are basically indistinguishable from the lifestyles of mainstreams straights.
So you ask how can we distinguish homosexuality from heterosexuality. We distinguish homosexulity from heterosexuality based on which gender a person is attracted to. But that does not make their attraction a "lifestyle." Nor does this justify reducing any person's intimate relationship with another person to an animalistic level.
Your insistence that gays can be happy without an intimate, committed, romantic relationship with another person of the same gender is unfair, and denigrates the appreciative value of intimate relationships for humans in general. To make the false claim that people can live happy, full lives without intimate relationships is to degrade their humanity.
Your insistence that the same values that mainstream heterosexual society has cannot work among homosexuals is also bigoted and unfair. Not to mention that countless straight people engage in intimate, non-reproductive relationships that are still romantic in their nature.
Should elderly straight people be forced to anul their marriages once they are beyond reproductive function?
Are straight teenagers less deserving of equal human rights because they have an intimate, romantic relationship that is non-reproductive?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
I would argue that i do know of guys that choose to be gay - south americans working in london, its for the money, but then it becomes normal for them i suppose?
And we all know there are gay gays who choose to be straight(for family/job etc).
Still for me at the most fundemental level it comes down to reproduction - i want to have biological kids someday.
hope thats not too offensive sounding?, but from a hetrosexual(who didn't make a deliberate decision about it) point of view thats one of my main reasons i wouldn't 'choose' to be gay if i could.
Edited by Mng... it went beyond offensive
Edit: Yes sorry about that - i wasn't paying close enough attention to my words - and offer my apologies for any offense caused - coT.
Last edited by child of Thor on 15-05-2004 at 23:57
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-05-2004 00:36
|