Homosexuality

[Stu]

Paladin your opinion about the difference between homosexuality in other species and in humans is not supported by any logic or evidence.

Firstly, as you say, you cannot make conclusions about the psychology of other intelligent animals like dolphins and chimpanzees. To what extent actually do they respond instinctively or with consideration in regards sexuality? If we cannot know, then you cannot know that they do not, either. It is possible to draw conclusions based on observations though. The fact is that sexuality is not just about procreation in any of these animals. There are frequently other social functions of sex. The most striking example is in our close relatives the bonobo, where sexual activity is used for greetings and a means of conflict resolution. Homosexuality in bonobos is commonplace. Homosexual behaviour in humans is not about procreation but is about the other social functions that sexual behaviour fulfils in humans generally; sexual attraction is just one part of that equation. Another striking example of such secondary functions of sex is found in Adelie penguins, who exhibit prostitution, paying for sex with stones and sticks they need to build nests.

Secondly your sentience just makes you more aware of the nature of instinct than other animals; sexuality is still an instinctive behaviour in humans, that has not changed at any stage in our ancestry. As all species have common ancestry, it would be bizarre to try to argue that the very fundamental nature of sexuality is unique in humans compared with other animals. Observation just does not bear that out. We cannot necessarily see this without making an attempt to remove ourselves from our own context. We are products of human evolution with all the instincts that have developed with it. We are not necessarily programmed to be able to see ourselves in terms of other species, but if you can look at it objectively, the differences are only functional really.

'God's commandments' are things written by humans, following their instinct to find patterns amongst instinctive social taboos and codify them. Of course anyone with a vested interest in the masses following such rules will promote them on the basis of a reward / punishment system that cannot be challenged, inventing a mythical supernatural system that is beyond question is what people do in all sorts of different situations, from parenting to running dictatorships. This ancient codification would seem to be contrary to our modern sentiments of equality though. It would only be those who are slaves to the ancient codes who would need to object to new ways of thinking.

If you think you are in such a superior position with your human brain that the concept of 'instinct' no longer applies to you, you are kidding yourself. Just consider the physiological 'fight or flight' response that your own body mounts when you are threatened. You are instinctual whether you like the idea or not.

Stuart

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2009,12:46)

Quote (thethinker @ July 26 2009,03:39) Quote (Stu @ July 25 2009,20:38) Quote (thethinker @ July 25 2009,19:01) Cato said: Quote I think it is rather absurd to view homosexuality as a choice.  Having sex is a choice but your orientation is not. Some are “oriented” toward being pedafiles. thinker What does that have to do with it?  There are far more straight people who are pedophiles than gay ones. Remember this is about what consenting adults do with other consenting adults that you are objecting to, not anything illlegal. Stuart My point was that being “oriented” toward a particular sexual preference does not imply that it is natural or that it is right. There was a time in history when having sex with children was not illegal. What about this? Suppose having sex with children should become legal again? There will be people like you saying it's okay because it's legal. thinker Did you process the bit where I used the word consent? There is a universal principle here that includes children and animals not being able to make an informed decision to participate. No christian here has actually stated any equivalent principle for homosexuality.  It is just an unthinking regurgitation of scripture. Bestiality and pedophilia have victims.  Homosexuality doesn't. Obviously. Stuart

I processed your word consent. You miss my point. Consent does not make something right. You're wrong when you say that homosexuality does not have victims. I know a man who committed a misdemeanor crime and while in jail was forced to yield his rear end to homosexuals. I know of a college student who was sedated while sleeping by his homosexual room mate and was molested. Homosexuals prey on little boys in Italy.

What world are you living in? Are these facts just an “unthinking regurgitation” of scripture?

thinker

[Stu]

Quote (thethinker @ July 27 2009,19:24)

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2009,12:46) Quote (thethinker @ July 26 2009,03:39) Quote (Stu @ July 25 2009,20:38) Quote (thethinker @ July 25 2009,19:01) Cato said: Quote I think it is rather absurd to view homosexuality as a choice.  Having sex is a choice but your orientation is not. Some are “oriented” toward being pedafiles. thinker What does that have to do with it?  There are far more straight people who are pedophiles than gay ones. Remember this is about what consenting adults do with other consenting adults that you are objecting to, not anything illlegal. Stuart My point was that being “oriented” toward a particular sexual preference does not imply that it is natural or that it is right. There was a time in history when having sex with children was not illegal. What about this? Suppose having sex with children should become legal again? There will be people like you saying it's okay because it's legal. thinker Did you process the bit where I used the word consent? There is a universal principle here that includes children and animals not being able to make an informed decision to participate. No christian here has actually stated any equivalent principle for homosexuality.  It is just an unthinking regurgitation of scripture. Bestiality and pedophilia have victims.  Homosexuality doesn't. Obviously. Stuart I processed your word consent. You miss my point. Consent does not make something right. You're wrong when you say that homosexuality does not have victims. I know a man who committed a misdemeanor crime and while in jail was forced to yield his rear end to homosexuals. I know of a college student who was sedated while sleeping by his homosexual room mate and was molested. Homosexuals prey on little boys in Italy. What world are you living in? Are these facts just an “unthinking regurgitation” of scripture? thinker

Are those examples of CONSENTUAL homosexual activity?

NO, they are unlawful sexual connection, make wrong by LACK OF CONSENT.

Consent does not make homicide right, but it does make sexual activity between consenting adults right.

Stuart

[Cato]

Quote (thethinker @ July 27 2009,19:24)

[I processed your word consent. You miss my point. Consent does not make something right. You're wrong when you say that homosexuality does not have victims. I know a man who committed a misdemeanor crime and while in jail was forced to yield his rear end to homosexuals. I know of a college student who was sedated while sleeping by his homosexual room mate and was molested. Homosexuals prey on little boys in Italy. What world are you living in? Are these facts just an “unthinking regurgitation” of scripture? thinker

Thinker what you describe is rape. Rape takes place between people of all sexual orientations. It is not germane to the discussion. Don't you think there are plenty of instances of women being sexually abused, attacked or raped by men? Should we declare heterosexual orientations wrong because of this?

[KangarooJack]

Stu said:

Quote

Are those examples of CONSENTUAL homosexual activity? NO, they are unlawful sexual connection, make wrong by LACK OF CONSENT. Consent does not make homicide right, but it does make sexual activity between consenting adults right.

The point is that you erroneously asserted that homosexxuality does not have victims. You lost all credibility when you said that. Homosexuality as all other sexual “oreintations” has victims.

I will tell you why you said that. It is because you are aggressively pro homosexual. You want to cover the sins of the gay community like the secular media does. Your assertion that homosexuals are not predators is absolutely ridiculous! The very first sexual predators in human history were homosexuals. You should be so embarrassed that you will disappear from this thread.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Cato @ July 27 2009,23:47)

Quote (thethinker @ July 27 2009,19:24) [I processed your word consent. You miss my point. Consent does not make something right. You're wrong when you say that homosexuality does not have victims. I know a man who committed a misdemeanor crime and while in jail was forced to yield his rear end to homosexuals. I know of a college student who was sedated while sleeping by his homosexual room mate and was molested. Homosexuals prey on little boys in Italy. What world are you living in? Are these facts just an “unthinking regurgitation” of scripture? thinker Thinker what you describe is rape.  Rape takes place between people of  all sexual orientations.  It is not germane to the discussion.  Don't you think there are plenty of instances of women being sexually abused, attacked or raped by men?  Should we declare heterosexual orientations wrong because of this?

Cato,
The point is that Stu said that homosexuality doesn't have victims. Either Stu lives in a dream world or he is aggressively pro homosexual to the point that he will cover their sins. It was an asinine statement to say the least. I know of another man who lived in my community who molested his neighbors 10 year old boy. This was 12 years ago. That boy is now a young man and a homosexual predator! His mother is devastated!

Stu has shown that he has no credibility at all so he should not make any more comments on this subject.

thinker

[Cato]

What Stuart meant is that homosexual sex between consenting adults doesn't have victims any more then it would between heterosexual couples. Your anecdotal examples of homosexual abuse are all cases of rape and are in no way examples of consensual relations. I don't see Stuart as pro gay he merely is pointing out what he sees as hypochrisy for those who would, in his opinion, castigate gays unfairly. For myself I am not pro-gay, I find it unsettling for I can't imagine the motivation in same sex relations, it is alien, but I am sure they feel the same way about my attraction for women (except for lesbians of course). Having said that I can't argue that it is evil or a sin just having feelings for the same sex the way the rest of us have for the opposite. The good or evil would come to in how we would treat the other willing adult partner. This is exactly the same for heterosexual relations.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Cato @ July 28 2009,05:35)

What Stuart meant is that homosexual sex between consenting adults doesn't have victims any more then it would between heterosexual couples.  Your anecdotal examples of homosexual abuse are all cases of rape and are in no way examples of consensual relations.  I don't see Stuart as pro gay he merely is pointing out what he sees as hypochrisy for those who would, in his opinion, castigate gays unfairly.  For myself I am not pro-gay, I find it unsettling for I can't imagine the motivation in same sex relations, it is alien, but I am sure they feel the same way about my attraction for women (except for lesbians of course).  Having said that I can't argue that it is evil or a sin just having feelings for the same sex the way the rest of us have for the opposite.  The good or evil would come to in how we would treat the other willing adult partner.  This is exactly the same for heterosexual relations.

Cato,
I know what you are trying to say. But read Stu's post again. In context he was inferring that all homosexual sex is consentual.

thinker

[kejonn]

Quote (thethinker @ July 27 2009,13:34)

But read Stu's post again. In context he was inferring that all homosexual sex is consentual. thinker

Sorry, but you are flat out wrong. I read all of Stu's posts on the prior page where he mentions that homosexuality does not have victims. In context, he was referring to consensual sex between adults. He also mentioned pedophilia and bestiality as having victims because in those acts, the children and animals are not able to give consent. A child might consent, but is too young to make such decisions for many reasons.

You simply see what you want to see due to your preconceptions.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (kejonn @ July 28 2009,23:19)

Quote (thethinker @ July 27 2009,13:34) But read Stu's post again. In context he was inferring that all homosexual sex is consentual. thinker Sorry, but you are flat out wrong. I read all of Stu's posts on the prior page where he mentions that homosexuality does not have victims. In context, he was referring to consensual sex between adults. He also mentioned pedophilia and bestiality as having victims because in those acts, the children and animals are not able to give consent. A child might consent, but is too young to make such decisions for many reasons. You simply see what you want to see due to your preconceptions.

Stu said that beastiality and pedophilia have victims. “Homosexuality does not.” Stu infers that all homosexual sex is consentual. How could he say it has no victims? It appears that you secularists have a problem with clarity in your use of language.

Btw, homosexuals are the first sexual predators to appear in human history.

thinker

[TimothyVI]

Quote (thethinker @ July 27 2009,19:24)

Homosexuals prey on little boys in Italy. thinker

Priests prey on little boys the world over.
What was your point?

Tim

[TimothyVI]

thinker

Do you think that all priests are sexual preditors?

Tim

[Cato]

Quote (thethinker @ July 29 2009,02:58)

Btw, homosexuals are the first sexual predators to appear in human history. thinker

I'd be curious as to where you got your information.  If you look to scripture most of the references to actual rape and not just laws prohibiting same as in:
Gen 34:2
Judges 19:25
2 Sam 13:14
Zech 14:2
Are examples of heterosexual abuse.  
The most famous case of incest is Lot and his daughters (note: Lot was drunk and twice was conveniently unaware he was doing his own girls.  Who would believe that defence today).

So it seems a bit hollow to trumpet homosexuals as poster boys for sexual abuse and immorality.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Cato @ July 29 2009,05:49)

The most famous case of incest is Lot and his daughters (note: Lot was drunk and twice was conveniently unaware he was doing his own girls. Who would believe that defence today).

Absolutely NO ONE would believe that defense today. But several on this board (mainly David) preached it from the mountain tops as being true. Rubbish.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (TimothyVI @ July 29 2009,05:39)

Quote (thethinker @ July 27 2009,19:24) Homosexuals prey on little boys in Italy. thinker Priests prey on little boys the world over. What was your point? Tim

Apparently you have not been following the thread. Stu made the outrageous statement that homosexuality has no victims inferring that all homosexual sex is consentual. I cited anecdotal evidence to the contrary and added that homosexuals were the first sexual predators in human history. Not that this makes them worse as predators. Just the first predators known to mankind. I just wanted to help Stu get out of fantasy land.

thinker

[Paladin]

Quote (thethinker @ July 29 2009,10:59)

Quote (TimothyVI @ July 29 2009,05:39) Quote (thethinker @ July 27 2009,19:24) Homosexuals prey on little boys in Italy. thinker Priests prey on little boys the world over. What was your point? Tim Apparently you have not been following the thread. Stu made the outrageous statement that homosexuality has no victims inferring that all homosexual sex is consentual. I cited anecdotal evidence to the contrary and added that homosexuals were the first sexual predators in human history. Not that this makes them worse as predators. Just the first predators known to mankind. I just wanted to help Stu get out of fantasy land. thinker

I think your choice of words needs tweaked just a little, because the “first predator known to mankind, was Cain, who murdered his brother able. There is no reference to other kinds of predation prior to this event.

As for “Stu's fantasy land,” I have to take Stu's side on this one. Not that he is right, but that his experiences differ from yours or mine. And his perceptions will also differ. That does not make them “fantassy” except from our own perspective of experience and interpretation of experiences.

That is really what his side of this debate is all about. He has contributed nothing to the understanding of homosexuality, which is what the thread began with, but has contributed to the disagreement over the meaning of terminology, rather than issues raised in the OP.

In THAT, YOU are correct, but it should be recognized that you and he are not talking about the same things.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Paladin @ July 30 2009,00:00)

Quote (thethinker @ July 29 2009,10:59) Quote (TimothyVI @ July 29 2009,05:39) Quote (thethinker @ July 27 2009,19:24) Homosexuals prey on little boys in Italy. thinker Priests prey on little boys the world over. What was your point? Tim Apparently you have not been following the thread. Stu made the outrageous statement that homosexuality has no victims inferring that all homosexual sex is consentual. I cited anecdotal evidence to the contrary and added that homosexuals were the first sexual predators in human history. Not that this makes them worse as predators. Just the first predators known to mankind. I just wanted to help Stu get out of fantasy land. thinker I think your choice of words needs tweaked just a little, because the “first predator known to mankind, was Cain, who murdered his brother able. There is no reference to other kinds of predation prior to this event. As for “Stu's fantasy land,” I have to take Stu's side on this one. Not that he is right, but that his experiences differ from yours or mine. And his perceptions will also differ. That does not make them “fantassy” except from our own perspective of experience and interpretation of experiences. That is really what his side of this debate is all about. He has contributed nothing to the understanding of homosexuality, which is what the thread began with, but has contributed to the disagreement over the meaning of terminology, rather than issues raised in the OP. In THAT, YOU are correct, but it should be recognized that you and he are not talking about the same things.

You have not been following the thread either. I said that homosexuals were the first sexual predators. And Stu said that homosexuality has no victims. This is his fantasy land.

thinker

[Paladin]

Quote (thethinker @ July 30 2009,03:53)

Quote (Paladin @ July 30 2009,00:00) Quote (thethinker @ July 29 2009,10:59) Quote (TimothyVI @ July 29 2009,05:39) Quote (thethinker @ July 27 2009,19:24) Homosexuals prey on little boys in Italy. thinker Priests prey on little boys the world over. What was your point? Tim Apparently you have not been following the thread. Stu made the outrageous statement that homosexuality has no victims inferring that all homosexual sex is consentual. I cited anecdotal evidence to the contrary and added that homosexuals were the first sexual predators in human history. Not that this makes them worse as predators. Just the first predators known to mankind. I just wanted to help Stu get out of fantasy land. thinker (P) I think your choice of words needs tweaked just a little, because the “first predator known to mankind, was Cain, who murdered his brother able. There is no reference to other kinds of predation prior to this event. As for “Stu's fantasy land,” I have to take Stu's side on this one. Not that he is right, but that his experiences differ from yours or mine. And his perceptions will also differ. That does not make them “fantassy” except from our own perspective of experience and interpretation of experiences. That is really what his side of this debate is all about. He has contributed nothing to the understanding of homosexuality, which is what the thread began with, but has contributed to the disagreement over the meaning of terminology, rather than issues raised in the OP. In THAT, YOU are correct, but it should be recognized that you and he are not talking about the same things. (WJ) You have not been following the thread either. I said that homosexuals were the first sexual predators. And Stu said that homosexuality has no victims. This is his fantasy land. thinker

Actually, what you said was

Quote

homosexuals were the first sexual predators in human history. Not that this makes them worse as predators. Just the first predators known to mankind

I pointed out that homosexual predators were not the “first predators known to mankind.”

Do you actually READ what you post?

Also, YOU are correct on the “victim” concept. In my opinion EVERY CRIME has a victim. And “Crime” is not limited to those concepts and practices men sometimes get around to passing laws about. Sometimes “Crimes” are defined so by the words of God.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Paladin @ July 30 2009,04:17)

Quote (thethinker @ July 30 2009,03:53) Quote (Paladin @ July 30 2009,00:00) Quote (thethinker @ July 29 2009,10:59) Quote (TimothyVI @ July 29 2009,05:39) Quote (thethinker @ July 27 2009,19:24) Homosexuals prey on little boys in Italy. thinker Priests prey on little boys the world over. What was your point? Tim Apparently you have not been following the thread. Stu made the outrageous statement that homosexuality has no victims inferring that all homosexual sex is consentual. I cited anecdotal evidence to the contrary and added that homosexuals were the first sexual predators in human history. Not that this makes them worse as predators. Just the first predators known to mankind. I just wanted to help Stu get out of fantasy land. thinker (P) I think your choice of words needs tweaked just a little, because the “first predator known to mankind, was Cain, who murdered his brother able. There is no reference to other kinds of predation prior to this event. As for “Stu's fantasy land,” I have to take Stu's side on this one. Not that he is right, but that his experiences differ from yours or mine. And his perceptions will also differ. That does not make them “fantassy” except from our own perspective of experience and interpretation of experiences. That is really what his side of this debate is all about. He has contributed nothing to the understanding of homosexuality, which is what the thread began with, but has contributed to the disagreement over the meaning of terminology, rather than issues raised in the OP. In THAT, YOU are correct, but it should be recognized that you and he are not talking about the same things. (WJ) You have not been following the thread either. I said that homosexuals were the first sexual predators. And Stu said that homosexuality has no victims. This is his fantasy land. thinker Actually, what you said was Quote homosexuals were the first sexual predators in human history. Not that this makes them worse as predators. Just the first predators known to mankind I pointed out that homosexual predators were not the “first predators known to mankind.” Do you actually READ what you post? Also, YOU are correct on the “victim” concept. In my opinion EVERY CRIME has a victim. And “Crime” is not limited to those concepts and practices men sometimes get around to passing laws about. Sometimes “Crimes” are defined so by the words of God.

I SAID THAT HOMOSEXUALS WERE THE FIRST SEXUAL PREDATORS IN HUMAN HISTORY!  

thinker

[KangarooJack]

TO PALADIN:
Below is the original discourse which you apparently missed. At the end I said that homosexuals were the first SEXUAL predators.

Quote (kejonn @ July 28 2009,23:19)

Quote (thethinker @ July 27 2009,13:34) But read Stu's post again. In context he was inferring that all homosexual sex is consentual. thinker Sorry, but you are flat out wrong. I read all of Stu's posts on the prior page where he mentions that homosexuality does not have victims. In context, he was referring to consensual sex between adults. He also mentioned pedophilia and bestiality as having victims because in those acts, the children and animals are not able to give consent. A child might consent, but is too young to make such decisions for many reasons. You simply see what you want to see due to your preconceptions.

Stu said that beastiality and pedophilia have victims. “Homosexuality does not.” Stu infers that all homosexual sex is consentual. How could he say it has no victims? It appears that you secularists have a problem with clarity in your use of language.

Btw, homosexuals are the first sexual predators to appear in human history.

thinker

[Author]

Posts