Homosexuality and Homosexuals

[Archsage]

I hope you don't misunderstand, Cancer. It's not that people's emotions don't matter -- quite the contrary. However, it is best to know where one's emotions/feelings are to be best implemented. As in, you don't use your emotions/feelings to determine truth, only to understand it. That is to say, just because something feels a certain way doesn't mean that you can determine something objectively true about it. But it does mean that you gain experiential knowledge regarding a truth, even though you may not know what that truth is, exactly.

For example, a kid may eat vegetables and feel like it's disgusting, and towards the parent who makes her eat it feel like it's some sort of torture. But emotions/feelings do not determine reality. The reality is not that vegetables are so terrible, or that their parents are trying to torture her, of course! However, that isn't to say that the kid's emotions/feelings are completely useless either. Because she gains experiential knowledge of what it is like to consume vegetables, about what it tastes, how it makes her feel, and it will prove very useful in understanding the reality of the situation, even if it doesn't actually explicitly tell her what that reality is.

So my point is just that. The reason why I'm not concerned with how anyone feels (myself included) at the moment, is that it makes no sense to try and understand a reality that we are not even sure what it is. First, we should determine through the rationality of logic and reason, supported by our observations and revelations grounded within our faith within those respective mediums, what is actually true. Then we can explore how our feelings and emotions help us understand that reality, and to what extent they go towards deepening our understanding.

Remember, the main reason why it is irrational to determine reality based on our feelings is that our feelings are mainly a bio-chemical phenomena. It's as fickle as what we ate for breakfast this morning. To make a quick reference to the Romance, it is why people who, once "falling in love" can have their relationship drastically change only a few months after them coming together. They relied purely on their 'feeling'. But feeling is fleeting at best. They had no actual knowledge, no actual reality behind that emotion. Keep in mind that Truth is solid and objective. Feeling is not only subjective and biological, but is also extraordinarily temporary.

[captainyodels]

What does any of that have to do with anything ever. Come on, Archy, be on topic!

[Archsage]

What does any of that have to do with anything ever. Come on, Archy, be on topic!

How a person feels is integral to one's sexuality. The extent and purpose of those feelings are also, mind you, integral to the nature of the discussion about such a topic.

In any event I suppose I should just state my points again to 'be on topic'? That homosexuality isn't a sin that renders your salvation void, nor is homosexuality a frivolity that is righteous or acceptable behavior in regards to morality.

Furthermore, the only sort of sexual activity that is particularly 'pious' is the one that is non-adulterous that brings forth life (unity and life). Whatever else you do let it be fought within your own conscious. But we best not defend our behavior because of our body's bestial tendencies and biochemical urges over mental intellect and moral reason. And we best not defend our sexual behavior because of love (as that would, quite blatantly, make the error of equating sex with love, as if the two were one in the same).

Which is to say, I have yet to hear a defense of the homosexual behavior that does not also apply to the other sexual immoralities that the user themselves abhor.

[Ataru]

I like homosexuality because it's cute when two anime girls kiss each other.

[captainyodels]

There is no sin that renders salvation void. No sin is bigger than God's love and forgiveness, moron.

Anyway, you're making a giant, in-depth analysis of something that's really not that complex. Boy falls in love with boy and wants to get married. Since they aren't you, they don't have to jump through psychological hoops of morality. It does not matter whether or not homosexuality is sinful because not every American lives by the Bible. This means that if you try to argue about how being gay in the head is fine, just don't actually do anything, you are just pooping more of your religiously tainted beliefs out. So stop.

I was under the impression this thread wasn't completely about the morality of homosexuality, but instead just about homosexuality in general. So let's talk about how girls seem to be more fluid in their sexuality than guys. What's up with that!

[Archsage]

There is no sin that renders salvation void. No sin is bigger than God's love and forgiveness, moron.

This is very strange way of agreeing with me. Why would you make the same exact point that I made, and then call me a moron for it? It's like Rosa Parks saying to Dr. King "US citizens should be equal regardless of race, moron". It just doesn't make sense.

It does not matter whether or not homosexuality is sinful because not every American lives by the Bible.

Tegan, this has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say. And it's very weird because you're really intelligent. But think about this sentence (I shall call it 'P'):

(P) It does not matter whether or not child sacrifice is sinful because not every American lives by the Bible.

I want to use this sentence (instead of the one you made) just so that it would be easier to point out what you did wrong, without having to simultaneously address the homosexuality bit, as I'm sure we can plainly see the clear immorality of child sacrifice without disagreement.

Now the first mistake P makes, is the strange connection with Sin to the Bible. The problem is this: the Bible does not determine what is sinful or not. Even if there was no Bible, it would still be sinful to murder, lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, sacrifice your child to Mo-lech, etc.. In fact, that exactly how it was before the Bible was even compiled (and it wasn't compiled until MANY years AFTER Jesus).

The second mistake, which explains the first, is that P does not understand what it means for something to be sinful. Sins refer to morality. And not just any morality, but Objective morality. Meaning something that is right or wrong regardless of who you are, where you are, or when you are. Take bestiality. The Canaanites were judged by God because of that sexuality immorality (among others). So were the Jews warned. And even us modern day Gentiles are under the same conviction of morality regardless of what any of us may think on the matter. That's the whole point of something being objective. So, if Sins are real and Child Sacrifice is a sin, it does not matter whether you are American, Hindu, Mongolian, or some Discovery Age Puritan. It is still a sin.

Finally, and most interestingly I want to note your closing comment towards me:

"you are just pooping more of your religiously tainted beliefs out"

Think a little bit, Tegan. Couldn't the same be said of you -- whereas your "religion" is more of something resembling that grand Metaphorical Babylon? Just as a pro-tip for the future, make sure when you use accusatory language like this, that it's logic can't also be used against yourself.

[captainyodels]

I'm gonna go ahead and let Ataru take this one.

[Archsage]

I'm gonna go ahead and let Ataru take this one.

Okay. That's fine, I'll wait for Ataru. But, I quickly want to clarify something, just so you know for certain, when I said:

"Tegan, this has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say. And it's very weird because you're really intelligent."

I really don't mean to insult you in anyway. I genuinely believe that you're a brilliantly intelligent person, and in more ways than one. But your point there wasn't too brilliant. So I just want to really make it clear, I disagree with your point, not with you, as a person, good Captain.

[Ataru]

Okay Archsage, this one's actually a pretty easy one compared to most you usually give me.

In your above statement to Tegan you (again) use child sacrifice as the example, pointing out that it is, indeed, inherently morally wrong and therefore it is not even a question of whether the Bible says it's wrong or not.

Okay. So we're not talking about the Bible. We're talking about things that are inherently morally wrong.

So, uh, no. I'd say homosexuality isn't inherently morally wrong. I think cheating on your partner in any kind of marriage is wrong. I think prostitution is wrong. I think rape is wrong. I think sleeping around is wrong. However I do not believe the same inherent badness as the rest of these is present in the simple act of two people of the same sex falling in love with each other and having a relationship.

What proof do I have to back this up? Nothing but a wish to be accepting of my fellow man and not judge him for following the emotions and urges he feels in his body just like any straight guy would do if he was in love with a beautiful woman. But it's okay that I don't have proof since, without the Bible, there's nothing you can really say against it.

I mean seriously, what's -inherently- wrong with being gay? Yes, it's bad to sleep around, especially if you're already married, but -that's- not called homosexuality, that's promiscuity or lust and that's a sin/inherently bad no matter who you're having sex with. Society's not degrading because gays are in it. It doesn't ruin people's lives (except when haters get to them), and in fact it has very little effect on anyone outside the couple themselves, and they tend to be very happy... just like straight couples.

So, to answer your question briefly: nope, homosexuality is not a sin because it cannot be proven that it is inherently morally wrong due to it, in itself, having no negative effect on society or on the people who practice it (responsibly and without wanton lust).

[captainyodels]

also: nothing i said was wrong or stupid

you should just shaddup you jerk face homophobe!!!!!!