Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Queen of Swords · 07-31-2002, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by GeoTheo:

Scigirl, if you think guys, straight or otherwise,
want to have sex because they are in love you are niave indeed.

Well, perhaps I'm "niave" too, but could there be any other reason for wanting to have sex, such as... you find someone very attractive?

Guys want to have sex because they are guys.

This is indeed profound.

Do women also want to have sex because they are women, or do they not want to have sex, because, well, they're women?

scigirl · 07-31-2002, 03:49 PM

Ok I just got back from UPS to pick up my computer (woo hoo dude I got a Dell - laptop actually) and had some time to think about this issue and clear my head and calm down a bit.

GeoTheo - if you are still reading this, let's agree to be more civil, and I apologize if I made any unwarranted attacks on your character (now your beliefs on the other hand, I can attack with glee. . .this is infidels.org after all!

)

Anyway, rather than compare you to a slave owner again (ok that was just mean), let's look at the gay rights issue from an entirely different angle, and compare it to. . . honoring the sabbath.

There are many orthodox jews who observe the sabbath (since it is one of the 10 commandments). Now, they have the freedom to practice this tenet of their religion, guaranteed by the 1st amendment. So, orthodox jews have the right to avoid working on saturdays, and the gov't should not interfere and force them to work on the sabbath.

I think we can all agree that never working on one specific day of the week is pretty much a religious belief, and there are no secular reasons to honor a day of the week "religiously" (I don't mean having days off here, I mean having one specific day off always, with no exceptions).

Now, let's say a bunch of the more 'rebellious' jews decide that they want everyone to abide by their sacrament. They believe that everyone who works on a saturday is committing a sin. They do have the right to that belief, and to promote that belief as outlined in the first amendment - they can pass out literature, speak about it, be printed in the press, etc, etc.

But now, these same orthodox jews get elected to public office. All of a sudden, they want to punish businesses that are open on saturday by denying them certain tax breaks and other rights. Tax breaks that they willingly would give other businesses that choose to remain closed on a saturday. In addition, they try to pass other laws making working on a saturday illegal (even though they know they won't really be enforced), and try to keep businesses that are open on the sabbath from participating in community events, such as city festivals, advertising at sporting events, stuff like that.

I think that these (hypothetical) politicians are stepping over the line here. In this case, they are not just practicing their religion. They are using political power to advocate their particular religion, and infringing on other people's rights--namely, all the businesses which want to stay open on saturday.

I would fight for the rights of those orthodox jews to not be forced to work on saturday. At the same time, I ask that they respect my right to open a business and work on saturday.

One other thing. . . I find it amusing that Christians even try to pass their religious tenets as laws. Even if I followed all the "enforcable" tenets of some flavor of Christianity - no drinking, no premarital sex, no lesbian sex. . . yet I remained an atheist, I still don't get to heaven right? I mean, making gay people be celibate still doesn't save their soul, is that not true?

scigirl

P.S. There are cases where I don't feel it's right to demand sabbath exceptions - if you want to be an ob/gyn, and you want to honor the sabbath 'religiously,' you are going to have a problem. As a doctor - I'd be willing to work as hard as I could so that a colleague could honor the sabbath as much as possible. But I would not, say, forgo all vacations and weekends because he/she was completely unwilling to compromise and come into the ER ever on a saturday or sunday. But. . .that's another issue entirely. . .

Vincent · 07-31-2002, 04:44 PM

First of all, GeoTheo, if you are still reading this thread, please respond to Scigirl's questions regarding how you would feel were the tables turned. (And don't give me the "I'm not going to because homosexuality is a choice/sin and my [righteous] heterosexuality is biological/proscribed by god/immutable ..." excuse. That is a completely different debate. If you want to discuss that one, start a different thread for it. (Though I'm sure there are threads you could just resurrect that jump straight to the "Is not!!" "Is so!!" portion of the argument.))

Now that that is out of the way.... I believe the original thrust of this thread was to discuss the percieved endorsement of bigotry by chrisianity in the U.S.. (Yes, I know that other religions do exist, but let's face it: Probably a good 80% -- or more -- of the people in the country would describe themselves as christian if you were to ask them about thier religous preference.) I know some people are tempted to take the track that those "vocal minorities" vehemently opposed to using the words "sexual orientation" in civil rights laws are "not true christians/not a representation of _real_ christian sentiment" no christian would support the oppression of a minority. No way. Yeah... At the very best, the "real" christians are guilty of passive promotion of bigotry by allowing those vocal ones to speak in the name of christianity. (And make no mistake about it -- Those voices _are_ seen as the voice of christianity.) And that is the best possibilty! In reality, it is a lot closer to outright conspiracy to deprive a segment of society of thier civil rights through political clout. Oh, sure, those real christians are against oppression and all for equal rights of all people regardless of whatever circumstance or choice. "God loves all his precious little children. But, what am I supposed to do? Its not my fault those legislators [mumble]that I elected[/mumble] made those laws!" Yes, I'm sure that it came a a big shock when Bob Legislator voted for that resolution outlawing same-sex marriages or asked that a bill be changed to omit the words "sexual orientation." Had no idea, I bet. After all, Bob is a good christian. Thats how he got elected, right? To represent those good christians, right? Last I saw, you still have to recieve at least a plurality of votes (if not a majority) to win an election. No, my friends, the "vocal minority" did not put those people there all by themselves.

[/part1]

Talulah · 07-31-2002, 05:59 PM

Words of Jesus

Quote:

Matthew 5:27-32

You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already commited adultery with her in his heart. And if your right eye caused you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. Furthermore, it has been said, Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

Quote:

Matthew 19:4

And he answered and said unto them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and to two shall become one flesh. SO then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined, let not man seperate.

I think it is worth saying here that Jesus quotes a lot from the Old Testament which has harsh injunctions and penelties for homosexuality. He clearly believes in the Old Testament and claims to be the same person as the God of the Old Testament. This means that he IS (if you believe the bible) the God who forbids the things spoken of in the Old Testament. To say that just because Jesus did not directly say anything about homosexuality, means that he has no opinion on the matter, is missing the point. Jesus also, in Luke 10:12, refers to Sodom and compares its fate with the fate of current cities who reject him. There is more about Sodom in Luke 17:28-32

Quote:

Mark 7: 20-23

And He said, What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deciet, licentiousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man

Talulah,
who just, er, 'awakened' from a 'nap' with her girlfriend.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Talulah ]

scigirl · 07-31-2002, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vincent:
At the very best, the "real" christians are guilty of passive promotion of bigotry by allowing those vocal ones to speak in the name of christianity. (And make no mistake about it -- Those voices _are_ seen as the voice of christianity.) And that is the best possibilty!

Thank you Vincent,

I'm looking forward to part 2. . .

scigirl

Talulah · 07-31-2002, 06:32 PM

Cont'......because I didn't read the question close enough.

Here is one from Jesus that I forgot.

Quote:

Matthew 19:12

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

The rest are from Paul or some other New Testament writer.

Quote:

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

Quote:

1 Timothy 1:10
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine

Quote:

Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Quote:

Revelation 22:15
For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Quote:

Revelation 14:4
These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Quote:

First Corinthians 5:1
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

Quote:

First Corinthians 5:9
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

Quote:

Act 15:20
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

Quote:

Act 15:29
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Quote:

Act 21:25
As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Quote:

1Cr 6:13
Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body [is] not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

Quote:

1Cr 6:18
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Quote:

1Cr 7:2
Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Quote:

Gal 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

Quote:

Eph 5:3
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

Quote:

Col 3:5
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

Quote:

1Th 4:3
For this is the will of God, [even] your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Talulah ]

NeilUnreal · 07-31-2002, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Ales: I think the evil can have more forms than just impinging on one�s safety, legal rights, and economic opportunities.

I agree with this 100% -- society can inflict damage on the oppressed in ways that that fall way outside what the law forbids. However, I take the view that even if these psychologically and socially bad things are happening, government intervention will at best suppress the problem and may even exacerbate the situation in the long run. My opinion is that people of good will need to work to change society from the bottom-up. The resulting effort may take longer, but the results will be more sound and long-lasting.

Quote:

Vincent: But, what am I supposed to do? Its not my fault those legislators [mumble]that I elected[/mumble] made those laws!

Which is why I always vote based on the issues, and often for independents if general issues are at stake. (In other words, nobody I vote for ever manages to get elected anyway, so the question is moot.

)

-Neil

Buffman · 07-31-2002, 11:01 PM

Just for general consideration I offer the following.

The Genome Project has just begun to research some of the potential markers for all manner of human expressions and proclivities. With that in mind as a potential source for more accurate answers becoming available in the future, here are a few of the biological factors with which we have acquired greater understanding.

<a href="http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/body_basics/endocrine.html" target="_blank">http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/body_basics/endocrine.html</a>

(Extract)
Although we rarely think about them, the glands in the endocrine system and the hormones they secrete influence practically every cell, organ, and function of our bodies. As the body's chemical messengers, hormones transfer information and instructions from one set of cells to another. They regulate our mood, growth and development, tissue function, metabolism, and sexual function, and in women they support pregnancy and other reproductive processes.
(End extract)

<a href="http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/" target="_blank">http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/</a>

<a href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/endocrinesystemhormones.html" target="_blank">http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/endocrinesystemhormones.html</a>

We still do not have much knowledge of how the human brain-mind interface. Neither have we acquired the necessary knowledge to make specific claims concerning the nature-nurture factors involved in sexual orientations. I believe that I can say that Nature could care less about orientations. My guess would be that over time, all living things find a nitch on a sexual orientation Bell Curve. (Only humans have historically attempted to label those nitches/positions in terms of sin/morality/right/wrong/good/bad.)

However, today modern science is in a position to directly intercede in the "normal" human reproductive process which had developed over eons of time. Therefore, IMHO, the entire issue of homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality and any other "sexuality" status must be re-examined in light of modern ethical standards that did not exist in the times of the sacred writings by which so many people have established their current belief systems.

Transexuals, as well as many folks who may be afflicted with abnormal or malfunctioning organs, already know the power of hormone therapy. Rather than clashing ideological swords over personal belief systems, would it not be more positive and productive to actually learn how our body chemistries actually influence how our minds become more or less susceptable to non-chemical external conditioning when discussing sexual orientations? (It just seems like we should first understand why humans "used" to only be able to reproduce sexually...especially now that we know that there are other methods of reproduction... and potentially more on the scientific horizon.)

Oolon Colluphid · 08-01-2002, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:


Oolon,
I don't mean this as an insult, But are you a homosexual?

Nope, I am not. No insult taken

.

This thread has exploded since yesterday evening (here in UK) when I wrote that. I think others have answered the rest of your points.

Oolon

GeoTheo · 08-01-2002, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
GeoTheo:

Whatever your opinions, I'm not sure you have the qualifications to express yourself as if you're a spokesperson for all "guys", or an expert on guydom, or on homosexuality for than matter.

No, but somehow Scigirl is an expert on homosexuality that none can choose it.

07-31-2002, 02:25 PM	#81
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by GeoTheo: <strong> Scigirl, if you think guys, straight or otherwise, want to have sex because they are in love you are niave indeed.</strong> Well, perhaps I'm "niave" too, but could there be any other reason for wanting to have sex, such as... you find someone very attractive? <strong>Guys want to have sex because they are guys.</strong> This is indeed profound. Do women also want to have sex because they are women, or do they not want to have sex, because, well, they're women?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2002, 03:49 PM	#82
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Ok I just got back from UPS to pick up my computer (woo hoo dude I got a Dell - laptop actually) and had some time to think about this issue and clear my head and calm down a bit. GeoTheo - if you are still reading this, let's agree to be more civil, and I apologize if I made any unwarranted attacks on your character (now your beliefs on the other hand, I can attack with glee. . .this is infidels.org after all! ) Anyway, rather than compare you to a slave owner again (ok that was just mean), let's look at the gay rights issue from an entirely different angle, and compare it to. . . honoring the sabbath. There are many orthodox jews who observe the sabbath (since it is one of the 10 commandments). Now, they have the freedom to practice this tenet of their religion, guaranteed by the 1st amendment. So, orthodox jews have the right to avoid working on saturdays, and the gov't should not interfere and force them to work on the sabbath. I think we can all agree that never working on one specific day of the week is pretty much a religious belief, and there are no secular reasons to honor a day of the week "religiously" (I don't mean having days off here, I mean having one specific day off always, with no exceptions). Now, let's say a bunch of the more 'rebellious' jews decide that they want everyone to abide by their sacrament. They believe that everyone who works on a saturday is committing a sin. They do have the right to that belief, and to promote that belief as outlined in the first amendment - they can pass out literature, speak about it, be printed in the press, etc, etc. But now, these same orthodox jews get elected to public office. All of a sudden, they want to punish businesses that are open on saturday by denying them certain tax breaks and other rights. Tax breaks that they willingly would give other businesses that choose to remain closed on a saturday. In addition, they try to pass other laws making working on a saturday illegal (even though they know they won't really be enforced), and try to keep businesses that are open on the sabbath from participating in community events, such as city festivals, advertising at sporting events, stuff like that. I think that these (hypothetical) politicians are stepping over the line here. In this case, they are not just practicing their religion. They are using political power to advocate their particular religion, and infringing on other people's rights--namely, all the businesses which want to stay open on saturday. I would fight for the rights of those orthodox jews to not be forced to work on saturday. At the same time, I ask that they respect my right to open a business and work on saturday. One other thing. . . I find it amusing that Christians even try to pass their religious tenets as laws. Even if I followed all the "enforcable" tenets of some flavor of Christianity - no drinking, no premarital sex, no lesbian sex. . . yet I remained an atheist, I still don't get to heaven right? I mean, making gay people be celibate still doesn't save their soul, is that not true? scigirl P.S. There are cases where I don't feel it's right to demand sabbath exceptions - if you want to be an ob/gyn, and you want to honor the sabbath 'religiously,' you are going to have a problem. As a doctor - I'd be willing to work as hard as I could so that a colleague could honor the sabbath as much as possible. But I would not, say, forgo all vacations and weekends because he/she was completely unwilling to compromise and come into the ER ever on a saturday or sunday. But. . .that's another issue entirely. . .

07-31-2002, 04:44 PM	#83
Vincent Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 37	First of all, GeoTheo, if you are still reading this thread, please respond to Scigirl's questions regarding how you would feel were the tables turned. (And don't give me the "I'm not going to because homosexuality is a choice/sin and my [righteous] heterosexuality is biological/proscribed by god/immutable ..." excuse. That is a completely different debate. If you want to discuss that one, start a different thread for it. (Though I'm sure there are threads you could just resurrect that jump straight to the "Is not!!" "Is so!!" portion of the argument.)) Now that that is out of the way.... I believe the original thrust of this thread was to discuss the percieved endorsement of bigotry by chrisianity in the U.S.. (Yes, I know that other religions do exist, but let's face it: Probably a good 80% -- or more -- of the people in the country would describe themselves as christian if you were to ask them about thier religous preference.) I know some people are tempted to take the track that those "vocal minorities" vehemently opposed to using the words "sexual orientation" in civil rights laws are "not true christians/not a representation of _real_ christian sentiment" no christian would support the oppression of a minority. No way. Yeah... At the very best, the "real" christians are guilty of passive promotion of bigotry by allowing those vocal ones to speak in the name of christianity. (And make no mistake about it -- Those voices _are_ seen as the voice of christianity.) And that is the best possibilty! In reality, it is a lot closer to outright conspiracy to deprive a segment of society of thier civil rights through political clout. Oh, sure, those real christians are against oppression and all for equal rights of all people regardless of whatever circumstance or choice. "God loves all his precious little children. But, what am I supposed to do? Its not my fault those legislators [mumble]that I elected[/mumble] made those laws!" Yes, I'm sure that it came a a big shock when Bob Legislator voted for that resolution outlawing same-sex marriages or asked that a bill be changed to omit the words "sexual orientation." Had no idea, I bet. After all, Bob is a good christian. Thats how he got elected, right? To represent those good christians, right? Last I saw, you still have to recieve at least a plurality of votes (if not a majority) to win an election. No, my friends, the "vocal minority" did not put those people there all by themselves. [/part1]

07-31-2002, 11:01 PM	#88
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Just for general consideration I offer the following. The Genome Project has just begun to research some of the potential markers for all manner of human expressions and proclivities. With that in mind as a potential source for more accurate answers becoming available in the future, here are a few of the biological factors with which we have acquired greater understanding. <a href="http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/body_basics/endocrine.html" target="_blank">http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/body_basics/endocrine.html</a> (Extract) Although we rarely think about them, the glands in the endocrine system and the hormones they secrete influence practically every cell, organ, and function of our bodies. As the body's chemical messengers, hormones transfer information and instructions from one set of cells to another. They regulate our mood, growth and development, tissue function, metabolism, and sexual function, and in women they support pregnancy and other reproductive processes. (End extract) <a href="http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/" target="_blank">http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/</a> <a href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/endocrinesystemhormones.html" target="_blank">http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/endocrinesystemhormones.html</a> We still do not have much knowledge of how the human brain-mind interface. Neither have we acquired the necessary knowledge to make specific claims concerning the nature-nurture factors involved in sexual orientations. I believe that I can say that Nature could care less about orientations. My guess would be that over time, all living things find a nitch on a sexual orientation Bell Curve. (Only humans have historically attempted to label those nitches/positions in terms of sin/morality/right/wrong/good/bad.) However, today modern science is in a position to directly intercede in the "normal" human reproductive process which had developed over eons of time. Therefore, IMHO, the entire issue of homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality and any other "sexuality" status must be re-examined in light of modern ethical standards that did not exist in the times of the sacred writings by which so many people have established their current belief systems. Transexuals, as well as many folks who may be afflicted with abnormal or malfunctioning organs, already know the power of hormone therapy. Rather than clashing ideological swords over personal belief systems, would it not be more positive and productive to actually learn how our body chemistries actually influence how our minds become more or less susceptable to non-chemical external conditioning when discussing sexual orientations? (It just seems like we should first understand why humans "used" to only be able to reproduce sexually...especially now that we know that there are other methods of reproduction... and potentially more on the scientific horizon.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.