ARCHIVE: My niece is gay and I love her for it. So does God.

Freak

New member
Originally posted by taoist
This argument is bogus. No, if you'd like to make the point that homosexuality is wrong, you won't find support in natural law.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Even in Scripture Natural Law in observed and spoken of, see the bold.
 

taoist

New member
And frankly, the "because it feels good" arguments are just as bogus. Do any of the proponents of this position find themselves fighting urges to homosexual behavior? Are they denying themselves the "pleasure" of homosexual activity?

I don't date men, but it's not because I'm denying myself anything. It just doesn't rock my boat. Aqua doesn't either. I can't see why I'm justified in refusing to behave in a way that would cause "chaos and personal unfulfillment" and she's not.

Why isn't that obvious?
 

taoist

New member
Jay, the bible isn't a science book. It's not composed of observations of natural law, but of interpretations of natural morality. That difference is important. Moreover, the health and power of a tribal culture such as that of the Jews in the OT is inextricably linked with its ability to grow in numbers, for the formation of armies and population to hold territory.

This is no longer an issue. The OT was written in another time, and spoke of a different nature.
 

taoist

New member
And now I'm going to move "naturally" away from a debate that "by my nature" doesn't really draw my interest. I just don't like seeing one person getting ganged up on, independent of the justice of their cause. For me, it's about justice to the individual.

If you want to argue the benefits and costs of a homosexual lifestyle with Aqua, feel free. But I think it'd be a lot more moral to do so one-on-one, in private messages or email or over a cup of coffee. But please, leave the "natural law" and 'rhyme scheming" behind when you do it. That's just bogus.
 

Freak

New member
Originally posted by taoist
I can't see why I'm justified in refusing to behave in a way that would cause "chaos and personal unfulfillment" and she's not.

There is order in universe, in human affairs, in the animal kingdom, in the cosmos. There is order in the seen & unseen realms. Within the unseen realm there is order of moral attributes and direction. Civilizations are based on the created order of family & marriage. Moral civilizations would cease to exist if the created order was distorted. Man is not to mate with beast. This is order within the realm of sexuality. Father is not to mate with daughter. This is a distortion of the created order, if this would occur. Chaos would reign for order would cease to being order. Moral anarchy would be witnessed. For Natural Law is universal, that is to say, it applies to the entire human race, and is in itself the same for all. Militating against the Natural Law leads to consquences which would lead to despair. This is what we want to avoid.
 

Freak

New member
Originally posted by taoist
Jay, the bible isn't a science book. It's not composed of observations of natural law.
Apparently you haven't studied moral philosophy. Natural Law is "the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us."
 

Freak

New member
taoist,

Do you believe creation was endued with a principle of mobility and in the process established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion? In other words, is there a law to keep humanity progessing forward? For we know if homosexuality was the only sexuality expressed (or allowed) mobility would cease. Certain laws that safeguard humanity and ones actions? Can man mate with beast and keep in motion moral civilization?

Is there not some immutable laws of human nature, Natural Law, whereby that free will of humans is in some degree regulated and restrained? Example--Father is not to mate with daughter.
 

taoist

New member
Jay
There is order in universe, in human affairs, in the animal kingdom, in the cosmos. There is order in the seen & unseen realms. Within the unseen realm there is order of moral attributes and direction. Civilizations are based on the created order of family & marriage.
Okay, you lured me back. I don't disagree with any of the above. But I don't think the "order" of family and marriage are fixed. And I think we "created" that order ourselves by the usual methods of trial and error. Societal structures that weren't pro-survival didn't survive.

Moral civilizations would cease to exist if the created order was distorted.
I don't even disagree with this, but I think it's only true "by definition" of a moral civilization. I see where your definition is fixed by scripture, and I don't disagree with your logic. I do disagree with the idea that what was "moral" for the tribal societies of Israel and its neighbors must, by necessity, be applicable to our society today.

Early apostolic christianity was "moral" in its insistence on communal groupings of shared wealth. In Acts we see an example of a couple struck dead by their god because they engaged in behavior that threatened this "family structure." Yet I'd be the first to defend you if your church wished to see you slain for keeping a part of your earnings because my own definition of morality says you must approach people in error in a one-on-one setting.

Yes, I draw that from reading your scriptures. And no, I'm not always as good as my ideals.

Man is not to mate with beast.
Neither is beast to mate with grain, but tell that to the GM food lobby.

This is order within the realm of sexuality. Father is not to mate with daughter.
I agree. Now tell it to Lot.

This is a distortion of the created order, if this would occur. Chaos would reign for order would cease to being order.
And yet it occurs. How are we, in good "morality" to address these distortions from what we've known before? It's not just a question of a behavior being wrong, or partly wrong, or kinda-sorta wrong, or wrong for some but not for others, though those distinctions are important. It's about how we address them in a healing manner.

If I want to cause a fight, I can go up to just about any slob on the street and slap his face, whether he's "moral" or not. And likewise, whether he's "moral" or not, my act would, by my own admittedly relative and arguably arbitrary definition, be "immoral."

To me at least, it's not the destination but the path. If your path is straight, you'll get to the right destination eventually. I feel called to keep my eyes on my path in hopes that "the means will become the ends." Sure, I could be wrong, but it's the best answer I've come with so far.

Moral anarchy would be witnessed. For Natural Law is universal, that is to say, it applies to the entire human race, and is in itself the same for all. Militating against the Natural Law leads to consquences which would lead to despair. This is what we want to avoid.
Jay, I've already refuted your definition of natural law, so while I'm willing to discuss it further, it's going to have to be confined to defense of arguments against my previous response.

Fair enough?
 

taoist

New member
Jay
Apparently you haven't studied moral philosophy. Natural Law is "the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us."
"Studied" would be overstating my position, but I have done some reading in that area. It doesn't really attract my interest, or hasn't in the past I might say. I think of natural law from a scientific viewpoint, so you're right to criticize my definition in the view of moral philosophy. Still, fairness would demand you consider my definition in my context as well, IMHO.
 

Freak

New member
Originally posted by taoist
Jay
Okay, you lured me back. I don't disagree with any of the above. But I don't think the "order" of family and marriage are fixed.
It's very difficult to discuss this issue with someone lacking basic reason. You don't think there's order in family or marriage? Is the created order distorted if man mates with beast or if father has sexual relations with his own son?

And I think we "created" that order ourselves by the usual methods of trial and error.
We created universal attributes that bring order? We created order? What is your source on this belief?

Societal structures that weren't pro-survival didn't survive.
Socities that cease being orderly ceased. If a society endorses only homosexuality, society breaks down and ceases to exist. Order would have been severly distorted.

I do disagree with the idea that what was "moral" for the tribal societies of Israel and its neighbors must, by necessity, be applicable to our society today.
I'm using Natural Law which speaks of the universal principles which we are discussing.
 

Freak

New member
Originally posted by taoist
Jay "Studied" would be overstating my position, but I have done some reading in that area. It doesn't really attract my interest, or hasn't in the past I might say. I think of natural law from a scientific viewpoint, so you're right to criticize my definition in the view of moral philosophy. Still, fairness would demand you consider my definition in my context as well, IMHO.

Founded in our nature and revealed to us by our reason, the moral law or Natural Law, if you will, is known to us in the measure that reason brings a knowledge of it home to our understanding.
 

Freak

New member
Btw, taoist,

Do you believe creation was endued with a principle of mobility and in the process established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion? In other words, is there a law to keep humanity progessing forward? For we know if homosexuality was the only sexuality expressed (or allowed) mobility would cease. Certain laws that safeguard humanity and ones actions? Can man mate with beast and keep in motion moral civilization?

Is there not some immutable laws of human nature, Natural Law, whereby that free will of humans is in some degree regulated and restrained? Example--Father is not to mate with daughter.
 

taoist

New member
Jay, pop me some references to the "principle of mobility" and I'll study them and get back to you on it. I've never heard of the concept before. Thanks.
 

aquamulier

New member
"Your conscience is screaming from within you, "Stop Aqua, stop." Your constitution is revolting, for you are attempting to bend created order to your liking. "

Alright, hold it right there. I can take a lot of crap, but one thing I absolutely will not stand for is YOU telling ME about my conscience. You are more than welcome to share your opinion on homosexuality and I will do the same, but don't ever tell me what I feel again.
 

aquamulier

New member
"Earlier in this thread you tried to make it look like you were a gay christian, and that God loved you for being gay. If you did believe in the real God, I just wanted to hear you say that homosexuality was wrong."

Eight months ago, when I started posing here, I really did believe in the twisted crap that is Christianity. Sense then I realized that it really is just twisted crap and am now seeking the truth. Bad news, ya'll don't have it. I don't think anybody does. If anyone did, what would ya'll spend your time arguing about? Homosexuality is not wrong and I'm not a Christian. There it is... the truth, the whole truth, and nothng but the truth...
 

Freak

New member
Originally posted by aquamulier
"Your conscience is screaming from within you, "Stop Aqua, stop." Your constitution is revolting, for you are attempting to bend created order to your liking. "
You quoted from me and I stand by my statements. Natural Law stands against you and your behavior. You know this to be true for you go on to state, as one bothered in their conscience:

Alright, hold it right there. I can take a lot of crap, but one thing I absolutely will not stand for is YOU telling ME about my conscience. You are more than welcome to share your opinion on homosexuality and I will do the same, but don't ever tell me what I feel again.

Aqua, my friend, do you believe creation was endued with a principle of mobility and in the process established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion? In other words, is there a law to keep humanity progessing forward? For we know if homosexuality was the only sexuality expressed (or allowed) mobility would cease. Certain laws that safeguard humanity and ones actions? Can man mate with beast and keep in motion moral civilization?

Is there not some immutable laws of human nature, Natural Law, whereby that free will of humans is in some degree regulated and restrained? Example--Father is not to mate with daughter.
 

aquamulier

New member
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "

If I had a nickle for every time you quoted this at me, I'd be a rich little lesbian...
 

Freak

New member
Originally posted by aquamulier
Homosexuality is not wrong and I'm not a Christian. There it is... the truth, the whole truth, and nothng but the truth...
I'm afraid you're in danger Aqua of this:

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
 
Last edited:

aquamulier

New member
"For we know if homosexuality was the only sexuality expressed (or allowed) mobility would cease. "

Obviously. But homosexuality isn't the only type of sexual expression, now is it? But guess what, homosexuality is most likely a result of breeders who refuse to use condoms. In about a hundred years the earth will be too overpopulated to support its inhabitants. Homosexuality manifests itself a a form of natural population control, as I believe taoist brought up earlier. Get over it.
 

Freak

New member
I posted:

"For we know if homosexuality was the only sexuality expressed (or allowed) mobility would cease. "

Aqua responded:

Obviously. But homosexuality isn't the only type of sexual expression, now is it?
We're making progress here, good.

So what are these established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion, Aqua?

Homosexuality manifests itself a a form of natural population control, as I believe taoist brought up earlier. Get over it.
As would beastality. But you're not in favor of that sexual expression, right?

Homework for Aqua:

Is there not some immutable laws of human nature, Natural Law, whereby that free will of humans is in some degree regulated and restrained? Example--Father is not to mate with daughter.
 
Top