Home Politics & Debate

Homosexuality: natural, nurture or just abnormal

2456

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Nature or nurture? I honestly have no idea whether someone's upbringing could make them homosexual. Either way, I don't care.
    Thing is there's no proof of either- that's why its a debate
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    KiwiFruit wrote: »
    Not being a Christian myself, I was referring to the Christian movement. The 'Church' relating to christianity can have many different denominations, if thats what you're getting at. Each with a different way of interpreting the bible and preaching a different lifestyle to followers

    You seem to be under the impression that Christianity is led by one single voice or movement - and that's a commonly held misconception. There is no one person or group that speaks for all Christians. There isn't anyone who can speak for or change the whole Christian ideology.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Put simply, the bible disapproves of any sexual encounter outside of marriage. Whether it's between a gay or straight couple, it is viewed on the same level.

    I'm pretty sure Leviticus see things differently.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm pretty sure Leviticus see things differently.

    Leviticus says they should be stoned to death - it also says exactly the same for adulterers. Not saying I agree with it but I'm just demonstrating that it's viewed the same way.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Leviticus says they should be stoned to death - it also says exactly the same for adulterers. Not saying I agree with it but I'm just demonstrating that it's viewed the same way.

    I was thinking more along the lines of 18:22.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And Proverbs 6:32 says something equally damaging about adulterers. Wording may be different but taking everything in context the bible doesn't say much worse about gay sex than adulterous sex.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kiwifruit
    Thing is there's no proof of either- that's why its a debate

    Sorry but you've clearly ignored the post I made above. There isn't a lack of evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality/gender, far from it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And Proverbs 6:32 says something equally damaging about adulterers. Wording may be different but taking everything in context the bible doesn't say much worse about gay sex than adulterous sex.

    Putting aside the fact that homosexuality is described as an 'abomination', the Bible's equivocation of homosexuality and adultery lends yet more weight to its anti-gay credentials.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    KiwiFruit wrote: »
    Thing is there's no proof of either- that's why its a debate

    Homosexual behaviour observed in animals?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Putting aside the fact that homosexuality is described as an 'abomination', the Bible's equivocation of homosexuality and adultery lends yet more weight to its anti-gay credentials.

    No, it doesn't describe homosexuality as anything.

    It calls homosexual sex as an abomination but also describes an adulterer as 'destroying his soul' - in the 21st century that doesn't sound so bad but in a day and age where one's soul was considered precious, that sort of thing would be extremely damaging and hurtful. In fact on equal ground with an 'abomination'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How can something so beautiful be so wrong?

    bush-blair-gay-marriage.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, it doesn't describe homosexuality as anything.

    It calls homosexual sex as an abomination but also describes an adulterer as 'destroying his soul' - in the 21st century that doesn't sound so bad but in a day and age where one's soul was considered precious, that sort of thing would be extremely damaging and hurtful. In fact on equal ground with an 'abomination'.

    Come on...seriously? That's the weakest-ass-shit ever; being gay is fine as long as you don't do the touching men bit? Being ginger's fine as long as you wear a hat. You'd only ever hear shit like that in defence of religion.

    You're missing the point. The fact that homosexuality and adultery are lumped in together, speaks volumes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Come on...seriously? That's the weakest-ass-shit ever; being gay is fine as long as you don't do the touching men bit? Being ginger's fine as long as you wear a hat. You'd only ever hear shit like that in defence of religion.

    You're missing the point. The fact that homosexuality and adultery are lumped in together, speaks volumes.

    Of course I'm serious. What, you're saying all gays are having sex? Damn, I'm buying me a Will Young album and getting my arse converted, obviously I'll get more action then...:blush:

    For the third time the bible says nothing about homosexuality. What I've done is pointed out why homosexual sex and adultery are considered sinful, and that's because they are both outside of marriage.

    Don't blame me, I didn't write the bible.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The bible does specifically single out gay sex as something that is unacceptable, so to say that the only criticism of it is that it's sex outside of marriage is simply wrong. It specifically says that you shouldn't lie with another man, and I'm pretty sure it isn't talking about telling porky pies. And from what I can tell, Jesus does nothing to change the law of the Old Testament, just how we should deal with and treat those who break it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The bible does specifically single out gay sex as something that is unacceptable, so to say that the only criticism of it is that it's sex outside of marriage is simply wrong. It specifically says that you shouldn't lie with another man, and I'm pretty sure it isn't talking about telling porky pies.

    It's written that way as to be descriptive - it's taken as read that one man cannot marry another man - again any such sexual relationship would be considered adulterous, nothing more.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not going to go into the Bible discussion now; there are many sites where you can find much more lucid arguments than I can put together in the 15 mins I have before my meeting!

    However, I don't think it is important to establish "how" or "why" people are gay. Many are, what is the problem? It is most likely that, like handedness, it's a combination of genetics and environmental factors. It also seems to be possible, like with handedness, to recondition behaviour.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Bible wrote:

    Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1

    Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

    1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

    Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

    Let's not be under any misconceptions regarding the profoundly homophobic nature of those quotes.

    Homosexuals ARE singled out, castigated and demonised in the OT. No question, no argument.

    And unfortunately too many cunts, not only in the wackier demoninations of Chrisitanity but within the supposedly tolerant and moderate Church of England, are still spouting bigotry, prejudice and homophobia masquerading as religious beliefs:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5744559/Change-and-repent-bishop-tells-gays.html


    I won't even mention the rulers of the Catholic Church...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmm, I'm not convinced another debate about religious attitudes to homosexuality is really that helpful or relevant in this debate?

    Outside of how this might apply to the question of nature vs. nurture it's otherwise pretty much off-topic here. Obviously religious prohobitions against homosexuality supports the idea that homosexuality is more nature than nuture, but beyond that is it relevant?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not going to perpetuate the argument as it's obvious plenty of people have already made up their minds but I could post an equal amount of passages from the bible regarding what it says about adulterers.

    In any case I don't see why people get as uptight as they do - any religious influence in society is diminishing as each day passes. Pretty soon those on the extreme right of christianity will be viewed as no more than people with unwelcome views.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not going to perpetuate the argument as it's obvious plenty of people have already made up their minds but I could post an equal amount of passages from the bible regarding what it says about adulterers.

    No one's denying that adulterers are vilified in the Bible. However, Aladdin's just demonstrated that not only is the act of homosexuality condemned in the Bible, but the thoughts and desires are demonised too. And you keep ignoring the fact that the Bible places homosexuality alongside adultery - another indication of the skewed morality present in it.

    Either way, what's the defence? The Bible doesn't just poop on your shoes, it poops on mine as well? Fantastic. Killing people and/or destroying their souls for adultery or homosexuality just shows the text up to be the archaic, backwards nonsense it is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This isn't a justification but bear in mind biblical texts were written in very different times. They're more a less a record from a different culture up to 4000 years ago. Stoning people to death was a standard punishment in those days, it's not just a bible thing, it was a society thing. Those caught having gay sex would have been put to death regardless of whether it was written in scripture.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Stoning people to death was a standard punishment in those days, it's not just a bible thing, it was a society thing. Those caught having gay sex would have been put to death regardless of whether it was written in scripture.

    It was a 'society thing' influenced by the 'bible thing'. Homosexuals weren't stoned in either Rome or Greece, amongst others, were they? Homosexuality is only really condemned by those faiths that are of born out of Judaism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm going back almost 20 years now but in 6th form I did a study on Judaism society. Around that time those 'convicted' of certain acts (gay sex, blasphemy, adultery, 'higher' theft etc) were put to death. The Romans were known for their brutality, it's one of the ways they kept law and order.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kiwifruit


    Sorry but you've clearly ignored the post I made above. There isn't a lack of evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality/gender, far from it.
    Genes for homosexuality doesn't make someone such. There's an inclination from biological metabolism, but the interplay with social interaction is so complex there can be no conclusive proof
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    It was a 'society thing' influenced by the 'bible thing'. Homosexuals weren't stoned in either Rome or Greece, amongst others, were they? Homosexuality is only really condemned by those faiths that are of born out of Judaism.

    I don't agree with this. Homophobia is common from India to Japan where Abrahamic religions have had a somewhat more limited impact. Although I would agree that the Abrahamic religions have certainly exacerbated the problem in cultures where it is more common. But I think you are right to say that only the Abrahamic religions (I think) specifically mention homosexuality.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't agree with this. Homophobia is common from India to Japan where Abrahamic religions have had a somewhat more limited impact. Although I would agree that the Abrahamic religions have certainly exacerbated the problem in cultures where it is more common. But I think you are right to say that only the Abrahamic religions (I think) specifically mention homosexuality.

    Sorry, but you're wrong.

    Hindu scriptures themselves are often vague about sexuality but there are temples depicting gay sexual activity quite openly. It was the arrival of the British that lead to the downfall of the acceptance of gays in Indian public life.

    The same goes for Japan. Homosexuality was never viewed as a sin in Japanese society and religion. Sodomy was restricted by law in 1873, but this was repealed seven years later by the Penal Code of 1880. It was the exposure to Western religious thought and the Japanese desire to appear "civilised" that influenced the way that gays were viewed by both the Japanese since the end of the nineteenth century.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Genes for homosexuality doesn't make someone such. There's an inclination from biological metabolism, but the interplay with social interaction is so complex there can be no conclusive proof

    I didn't say that there was conclusive proof, and there is not thought to be a 'gay gene' as such - what we see as sexuality is the result of an incredibly complex interplay in hormonal and cognitive development, stemming from the effects of many different genes, which is why I stated that gender should be understood as a sliding scale (accounting for personality trait differences linked to gender, within groups assumed to be heterosexual/homosexual etc.)

    Most of the evidence suggests that base sexual attraction is conditioned in large part by biological factors - indeed that is why in societies where homosexuals are forced/shoehorned by social norms into 'normative' sexual relations you still get men cheating on their wives because they are gay, or in worst cases harming or killing themselves because the world they have been forced into doesn't fit.

    The idea of 'conclusive proof' is pretty much anaethema to scientific reason anyway, if you look to the principle of falsification (e.g: we can never 'prove' something, only gather further suggestive evidence, and therefore have to make decisions based upon best available evidence).

    Most of the time the 'nature vs. nurture' debate has been applied in gendered contexts (e.g: the social construction theory of gender) it has been shown in most cases to be false. Socialisation can have an effect on the performance of gender identities, but a the current body of evidence suggests that you cannot fundamentally change a person's sexuality through socialisation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer#Social_effect_of_David_Reimer.27s_story
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    It was a 'society thing' influenced by the 'bible thing'. Homosexuals weren't stoned in either Rome or Greece, amongst others, were they? Homosexuality is only really condemned by those faiths that are of born out of Judaism.

    Many homosexuals were put to death by both Hitler and Stalin. Its not a religion thing its a xenophobia issue - fear of the 'other'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    It was a 'society thing' influenced by the 'bible thing'. Homosexuals weren't stoned in either Rome or Greece, amongst others, were they? Homosexuality is only really condemned by those faiths that are of born out of Judaism.

    Is it also worth noting that the most vehement attacks on homosexuality come from religions that were developed in areas where the opposition to their own society (greek and roman society?) didn't discriminate against homosexuality or openly allowed it in some circumstances?

    In a way the opposition to the 'other' argument seems more relevant - that the opposition to homosexuality could be seen as a political action turning obvious cultural differences into religious doctrine? Uniting jewish/chrisitian faith against others by scapegoating behaviour that they judged unusual.

    However, I'd have to brush up on my history of early jewish and chrisitian belief to see if the thought has any legs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Sorry, but you're wrong.

    Hindu scriptures themselves are often vague about sexuality but there are temples depicting gay sexual activity quite openly. It was the arrival of the British that lead to the downfall of the acceptance of gays in Indian public life.

    The same goes for Japan. Homosexuality was never viewed as a sin in Japanese society and religion. Sodomy was restricted by law in 1873, but this was repealed seven years later by the Penal Code of 1880. It was the exposure to Western religious thought and the Japanese desire to appear "civilised" that influenced the way that gays were viewed by both the Japanese since the end of the nineteenth century.

    Chinese literature isn't anti-homosexual, but is certainly pro-male-female relationships and the traditional family. One of the most important things for men in Confucian literature is having children. Taoism emphasises yin and yang in every aspect of life, with male-female relationships being a vital part of it. So while outright homophobia isn't part of such religions, there are still social norms and expectations that lead to the exclusion of anyone who isn't part of those social norms.
Sign In or Register to comment.