Homosexuality from a Non-Religious perspective

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_jskains
_Emeritus
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Post by _jskains »

Jersey Girl wrote:
jskains wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Could you describe the main features of the "lifestyle"?

LSD


In defining the "lifestyle" I mean allowing it to become a social norm. That homosexuality is not a defect at all, but a natural and normal behavioral pattern.

JMS


If it's okay with you to inject religious aspects here, if Christians believe that God created humankind, does that mean that God created humankind with sexual defects? If so, why regard homosexuality as different than say one who is born without reproductive ability?

Next up, what in your view, constitutes a social norm?

I'll post more tomorrow if I can. If the religious tangent isn't agreeable to you, just say the word and I'll drop it.

LSD


While I do not pretend to know the mind of God, I believe the idea of "homosexuality" as a sin is a response to God wanting the control of "natural man". God said "this is an activity you should not participate in". One who is homosexual would be required by God to ignore his "natural" urges to become more God-like and hence elevate themselves beyond the natural state and above the typical animal on Earth.

JMS
_jskains
_Emeritus
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Post by _jskains »

Sorry, I am leaving. Not worth it. As they say, if you lie with dogs, you get fleas... There are a LOT of flea infested pooches on this board.

God bless and have a good life.

JMS
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Flawed Think of jskains on Homosexuality

Post by _JAK »

jskains stated:
Man and woman have two seperate [sic] roles. Man is the protector, woman is the nurturer.


Surely you are aware of significant role shifts in quite recent time. I know of a number of couples where the wife earns a higher income than the husband. I know of some in which the wife is the one employed. The husband stays home with the two children and nurtures. The mother/wife nurtures as well. But it just happens that SHE has a good income as a federal judge (she is a lawyer), and she enjoys her chosen profession.

The husband is a lawyer as well by training, but he is not practicing law. While their roles ARE separate to some degree, they are not the provincial stereotype roles which you champion.

jskains stated:
Sex biologically has only one value. Make children.


Wrong. Reproduction is one value in today’s Western world. Your view of this is most narrow. Sex also has the value of emotional cement for a continuing relationship between two individuals. That is a value. Sex gives pleasure. That's a value emotionally -- clearly a part of biology. Emotions are understood scientifically.

jskains stated:
There is no real way of having sex naturally without the risk of pregnancy.

Wrong again. There is virtually no risk of pregnancy in masturbation. There is no risk in sexual pleasure between homosexuals.

It’s sex which is NATURAL, not just how it is realized in a gratifying way. I also know some long-term homosexual couples who have satisfying sexual relations, and there is NO RISK OF PREGNANCY.

You’re simply misinformed.

jskains stated:
So from a biological point of view, there is no other value in sex.


You present a false singular in “biological point of view.” Biologically, sexual satisfaction is of physical and psychological value.

Both of those are “biological.” Again, you’re misinformed.

jskains stated:
A second mechanism exists that makes man and woman come together. It is a sexual attraction to the opposite sex. Science claims this is biological. That there is something wired in our brains that make us attracted to one another.


Evolution of species as well as the evolution of cultures among humans is can be understood both scientifically and historically. Humans ARE attracted to one another. The attraction is not always sexual. And in sexual attraction, that attraction is not always to the opposite sex.

jskains stated:
In a homosexual, I contend there is a break in this wiring.


You offer no evidential support for the claim “break in this wiring.” Death is a break “in wiring” unless you regard death as natural. If you regard death as natural, the “break” with life is natural.

Hence, other “breaks” (which is not a term I’d use here) are also NATURAL. They happen. Most unusual accidents happen too. They are natural. A bridge which has stood and carried traffic for 50 years breaks and cars plunge into the river. It was a natural event and can be explained by scientific examination of bridge structure and the life expectancy of a bridge.

Human behavior which may occur only rarely is natural. What we regard as birth abnormalities occur NATURALLY. Recently, in India, a child was born with FOUR arms and FOUR legs. Because of modern medical science, efforts to remove the extra arms and legs was possible. The recovery will be long and complex. But, a hundred years ago (much less) such a corrective surgery would have been impossible.

A behavior need not occur 100% of the time to be “natural.”

jskains stated:
In a homosexual, I contend there is a break in this wiring. Hence it is by definition, a defect.


It’s YOUR definition, not one of psychological, scientific consensus.

Your calling it a “defect” does not make it a defect.

jskains stated:
I say that we should avoid making it into a "lifestyle". That it should be treated, and that modern Psychology has become PC to the point of flowing with the "alternative lifestyle" view.


Well, you have not responded to Jersey Girl’s questions about just what you mean by attaching “homosexual” to “lifestyle.”

Why are you abandoning the discussion. I think I have been civil. You objected to lack of civility.

Homosexuality and homosexual encounters occur in sexual organisms other than human. Apparently you are unaware of that fact. While such encounters are in the minority, they none-the-less exist and are well documented by study of the biological sciences.

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

jskains on What God Wants

Post by _JAK »

jskains stated:
While I do not pretend to know the mind of God, I believe the idea of "homosexuality" as a sin is a response to God wanting the control of "natural man". God said "this is an activity you should not participate in". One who is homosexual would be required by God to ignore his "natural" urges to become more God-like and hence elevate themselves beyond the natural state and above the typical animal on Earth.


Why do you pretend God? There is no evidence for such an entity. Those who invent God have a wide variety of inventions.

“I believe” which you use as if you were stating fact is non-fact.

Your invention God, is, by your own statements, NOT in control.

Notice that you assign human emotion to your invention God. God wants in your construction. No such thing as gods and later God has been established – let alone the precise want factors which you attribute to your (really the doctrine of others) God.

You appear to say God wants to control but is unable to control.
Hence, you invent a WEAK God.

Now, God said nothing. People, men wrote what humans regard as God’s words. So, you’re making all sorts of assumptions here to suit your own dogma. It has been copied by hand many times. It has been translated many times into evolving language and into multiple languages. It is interpreted a wide variety of ways differently by those who claim that their interpretation is correct. You seem to be unaware of that historical reality.

If it’s your position that your God made (created) humans, any attributes of those humans are a result of God’s doing. How absurd for God to make “defect” as you have argued. Why? The defect lies with your invented God NOT with humans who act just as they were programmed to act.

See the absurdity of your God invention? You also invent an unkind, even cruel God. Why does this entity discriminate against some and not others. We could ask the same question with regard to all human illnesses that cause pain and suffering. “Defects” as you call them. What is responsible for the “defects”? It’s your invented God that is responsible.

Unless…you are claiming multiple gods as in times more ancient when many gods were worshiped.

“…become more Godlike.” Your failure to have established your God claim makes this statement merely an assertion absent support.

Should humans ignore other “natural urges”? Should humans ignore the urge to eat food? Should humans ignore the urge to void their bladders? Should humans ignore the urge to put on warm coats to go out into the cold weather?

Your argument is nonsense as you presume to know what “natural urges” we should ignore and which we should yield to.

You see, jskains, you are just making it up as you go absent any honest intellectual inquiry.

Further, when the pressures to defend your positions are on such as they are in this post, you run away. Why?

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

jskains Quits Because He Lack Mental Prowess

Post by _JAK »

jskains wrote:Sorry, I am leaving. Not worth it. As they say, if you lie with dogs, you get fleas... There are a LOT of flea infested pooches on this board.

God bless and have a good life.

JMS


You are not being truthful. You are leaving because you are ill equipped to address issues placed before you.

I challenge you to think, to develop a rational mentality.

JAK
_jskains
_Emeritus
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Re: jskains Quits Because He Lack Mental Prowess

Post by _jskains »

JAK wrote:
jskains wrote:Sorry, I am leaving. Not worth it. As they say, if you lie with dogs, you get fleas... There are a LOT of flea infested pooches on this board.

God bless and have a good life.

JMS


You are not being truthful. You are leaving because you are ill equipped to address issues placed before you.

I challenge you to think, to develop a rational mentality.

JAK


Yes, it couldn't be because of the massive gang rape I experienced on the board. No not that.

JMS
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: jskains Quits Because He Lack Mental Prowess

Post by _JAK »

jskains wrote:
JAK wrote:
jskains wrote:Sorry, I am leaving. Not worth it. As they say, if you lie with dogs, you get fleas... There are a LOT of flea infested pooches on this board.

God bless and have a good life.

JMS


You are not being truthful. You are leaving because you are ill equipped to address issues placed before you.

I challenge you to think, to develop a rational mentality.

JAK


Yes, it couldn't be because of the massive gang rape I experienced on the board. No not that.

JMS


Well jskains,

“Massive gang rape” is not something which can be done on a bb such as this.

I think you need some research on “gang rape.”

My comments to you in this forum were comments. They were analysis of your thinking or lack there-of. They were not “massive gang rape.”

Jersey Girl and I and probably others have asked you to address issues. You seem unable to do that.

One way to do it is to quote someone and address their remarks directly. There is NO “rape” massive or otherwise involved in addressing issues from a keyboard.

JAK
_jskains
_Emeritus
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Re: jskains Quits Because He Lack Mental Prowess

Post by _jskains »

JAK wrote:
jskains wrote:
JAK wrote:
jskains wrote:Sorry, I am leaving. Not worth it. As they say, if you lie with dogs, you get fleas... There are a LOT of flea infested pooches on this board.

God bless and have a good life.

JMS


You are not being truthful. You are leaving because you are ill equipped to address issues placed before you.

I challenge you to think, to develop a rational mentality.

JAK


Yes, it couldn't be because of the massive gang rape I experienced on the board. No not that.

JMS


Well jskains,

“Massive gang rape” is not something which can be done on a bb such as this.

I think you need some research on “gang rape.”

My comments to you in this forum were comments. They were analysis of your thinking or lack there-of. They were not “massive gang rape.”

Jersey Girl and I and probably others have asked you to address issues. You seem unable to do that.

One way to do it is to quote someone and address their remarks directly. There is NO “rape” massive or otherwise involved in addressing issues from a keyboard.

JAK


A case of staring at the tree and ignoring the whole forest.

JMS
_jskains
_Emeritus
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Re: jskains on What God Wants

Post by _jskains »

JAK wrote:jskains stated:
While I do not pretend to know the mind of God, I believe the idea of "homosexuality" as a sin is a response to God wanting the control of "natural man". God said "this is an activity you should not participate in". One who is homosexual would be required by God to ignore his "natural" urges to become more God-like and hence elevate themselves beyond the natural state and above the typical animal on Earth.


Why do you pretend God? There is no evidence for such an entity. Those who invent God have a wide variety of inventions.

“I believe” which you use as if you were stating fact is non-fact.

Your invention God, is, by your own statements, NOT in control.

Notice that you assign human emotion to your invention God. God wants in your construction. No such thing as gods and later God has been established – let alone the precise want factors which you attribute to your (really the doctrine of others) God.

You appear to say God wants to control but is unable to control.
Hence, you invent a WEAK God.

Now, God said nothing. People, men wrote what humans regard as God’s words. So, you’re making all sorts of assumptions here to suit your own dogma. It has been copied by hand many times. It has been translated many times into evolving language and into multiple languages. It is interpreted a wide variety of ways differently by those who claim that their interpretation is correct. You seem to be unaware of that historical reality.

If it’s your position that your God made (created) humans, any attributes of those humans are a result of God’s doing. How absurd for God to make “defect” as you have argued. Why? The defect lies with your invented God NOT with humans who act just as they were programmed to act.

See the absurdity of your God invention? You also invent an unkind, even cruel God. Why does this entity discriminate against some and not others. We could ask the same question with regard to all human illnesses that cause pain and suffering. “Defects” as you call them. What is responsible for the “defects”? It’s your invented God that is responsible.

Unless…you are claiming multiple gods as in times more ancient when many gods were worshiped.

“…become more Godlike.” Your failure to have established your God claim makes this statement merely an assertion absent support.

Should humans ignore other “natural urges”? Should humans ignore the urge to eat food? Should humans ignore the urge to void their bladders? Should humans ignore the urge to put on warm coats to go out into the cold weather?

Your argument is nonsense as you presume to know what “natural urges” we should ignore and which we should yield to.

You see, jskains, you are just making it up as you go absent any honest intellectual inquiry.

Further, when the pressures to defend your positions are on such as they are in this post, you run away. Why?

JAK


Since you want me to respond to you, I'll make it simple.

"You see, jskains, you are just making it up as you go absent any honest intellectual inquiry. "

Instead of having a mature discussion, it goes into personal attacks. No use wasting time on the close minded.

JMS
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: jskains on What God Wants

Post by _JAK »

jskains wrote:
JAK wrote:jskains stated:
While I do not pretend to know the mind of God, I believe the idea of "homosexuality" as a sin is a response to God wanting the control of "natural man". God said "this is an activity you should not participate in". One who is homosexual would be required by God to ignore his "natural" urges to become more God-like and hence elevate themselves beyond the natural state and above the typical animal on Earth.


Why do you pretend God? There is no evidence for such an entity. Those who invent God have a wide variety of inventions.

“I believe” which you use as if you were stating fact is non-fact.

Your invention God, is, by your own statements, NOT in control.

Notice that you assign human emotion to your invention God. God wants in your construction. No such thing as gods and later God has been established – let alone the precise want factors which you attribute to your (really the doctrine of others) God.

You appear to say God wants to control but is unable to control.
Hence, you invent a WEAK God.

Now, God said nothing. People, men wrote what humans regard as God’s words. So, you’re making all sorts of assumptions here to suit your own dogma. It has been copied by hand many times. It has been translated many times into evolving language and into multiple languages. It is interpreted a wide variety of ways differently by those who claim that their interpretation is correct. You seem to be unaware of that historical reality.

If it’s your position that your God made (created) humans, any attributes of those humans are a result of God’s doing. How absurd for God to make “defect” as you have argued. Why? The defect lies with your invented God NOT with humans who act just as they were programmed to act.

See the absurdity of your God invention? You also invent an unkind, even cruel God. Why does this entity discriminate against some and not others. We could ask the same question with regard to all human illnesses that cause pain and suffering. “Defects” as you call them. What is responsible for the “defects”? It’s your invented God that is responsible.

Unless…you are claiming multiple gods as in times more ancient when many gods were worshiped.

“…become more Godlike.” Your failure to have established your God claim makes this statement merely an assertion absent support.

Should humans ignore other “natural urges”? Should humans ignore the urge to eat food? Should humans ignore the urge to void their bladders? Should humans ignore the urge to put on warm coats to go out into the cold weather?

Your argument is nonsense as you presume to know what “natural urges” we should ignore and which we should yield to.

You see, jskains, you are just making it up as you go absent any honest intellectual inquiry.

Further, when the pressures to defend your positions are on such as they are in this post, you run away. Why?

JAK


Since you want me to respond to you, I'll make it simple.

"You see, jskains, you are just making it up as you go absent any honest intellectual inquiry. "

Instead of having a mature discussion, it goes into personal attacks. No use wasting time on the close minded.

JMS


jskains,

The issues I raised with you stand unaddressed. That’s a statement of fact. My attempt was to open your mind by raising questions and presenting analysis of your statements.

As I allow my comment to stand here along with yours, we can see that you did not respond to the thrust of my analysis.

I await a “mature discussion” of the analysis presented for your consideration. You can refute it with evidence and fact. You can agree with parts and not all. You can quote the substance of my remarks standing in the full context of my remarks in this single post which you left standing.

There are numerous options open for you to participate in “mature discussion” regarding the analysis.

The intention and significance of my comment was addressing directly what I quoted from you, jskains, in your earlier post.

Do you think you could address the analysis?

JAK
Post Reply