Support NeoGAF

[Hitokage]

You have to look at it from the perspective of Paul. His perspective of homosexuality was from what he saw of the Romans, who used boy sex slaves and all that shit. It wasn't from a modern perspective, which is why the church's views need updating.

Eh, I'd accept that if he wasn't also a misogynist.

 

[Joel Was Right]

There's a difference in this context between being gay and gay marriage in the eyes of God/religion.

 

[Kurtofan]

Sure would be nice if he was strong against homosexual child molesters.

He made a speech against child molesting priests recently.

 

[Veidt]

This article talks about it. There was also a 60 minute program about it, which (iirc) focused on how one sibling in a pair of twins (who thus share the same genetic code) can display a different gender identity (I'm afraid I can't remember the correct term) whereas the other does not.

I think the implication might be that there's an evolutionary basis to homosexuality, which is why the matter is controversial.

Edit: To summarise the theory, I think the suggestion is that homosexuality is caused by hormones released in the womb before a child's birth. Apparently, repeatedly having male children increases the likelihood of these hormones being released, and thus of a child being gay. The trend's only been found in right-handed children, though, which may also place doubt on it.

Edit2: Here are two Wikipedia pages on fraternal birth order and sexual orientation and prenatal hormones and sexual orientation.

Interesting.

 

[Mael]

Well gee, maybe that's why you're not so concerned.

Look at what happened to Italy's gay partnership proposals once the vatican spoke. Look at what the pope is saying now in Portugal as it prepares its own legislation. Then turn around and tell me that what I say about church influence and interference is not true

Hey he can try all he wants for the whole discrimination against gay people, once it reaches the European court of Justice the country that passed the law is faced with 2 options :
- comply
- get out

Either way they're fucked, abortion is another thing altogether and even here it might be in danger (then again we're pretty adamant on not letting religious stuffs get in the way, it's even part of the constitution :lol)

Anyway I can see how the ordeal might seem like a growing concern (the whole church meddling was a valid and pressing concern before luckily for us they dealt with it swiftly) still I don't think misrepresenting a whole corpus actually help anyone (the whole church == peodphiliac maniacs).

 

[Speevy]

Pope gives strongest anti-gay speech yet


Gay guy gives strongest anti-Pope speech yet


And the world is surprised.

 

[Giard]

I'm a Catholic, along with most of my friends. We've learned to just kind of ignore the Vatican

Isn't that being Protestant?

 

[Guevara]

Wow - I didn't realize the pope is gay!

 

[Schmitty]

Isn't that being Protestant?

Yeah, if you want to be technical. None of us would want to go through with the trouble of switching.

 

[Speevy]

Isn't that being Protestant?

These threads tend to ignore us anyway, because we don't have a human target.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

Time to bring back worshiping the best gods:

Ra>>>>

HE HAS THE FUCKING SUN ON HIS HEAD!!!

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Time's like these me think this:

No top down level leadership. I couldn't stand having to take stuff directly from the Vatican.

 

[gofreak]

Would you please explain the bolded sentence? I'm kinda interested in knowing why.

He is no exception in terms of his ignorance. We're all ignorant to one degree or another, but people 2000 years ago were significantly more ignorant - particularly, I would say, when it comes to knowledge of the human condition (and variations therein). The bible is a collection of beliefs - of knowledge from the time, and thus reflect the time - and state of knowledge at the time - of their writing. And in many ways the shortcomings of that knowledge are only too apparent.

His writing is steeped in the cultural context of the times. He writes from his understanding of things, and writes for audiences (and their attitudes) that he was seeking to convert to his fledgling religion.

If I could transport a man from 2000 years ago and sit him next to a modern psychologist, who would you be more inclined to listen to on matters of the nature of being human? If I told you the man from 2000 years ago was divinely inspired, would you believe me, and then thus, him? If you believe Paul because you believe he was speaking from the Holy Spirit or whatever, there's nothing I can say to you to make you accept the above. But I do not believe he was so inspired, and I think it's fairly plainly obvious that he can be placed 'in-context', that he was a man of his times with specific goals in mind, and that his writings were of their time, just as with any writings in the Bible. And because of that, to modern eyes, such writings are often cringe-inducing in their ignorance (I needn't go through the list...read Leviticus, and its sage wisdom on female hygiene and purity for one nice example if you must).

 

[effzee]

That guy?

Watson was a radical behaviourist who believed that infants were born blank slates - or rather, shapeless blobs of clay that would then be sculpted by their environment.

This for of radical behaviourism is dead in the water... although I have always loved that quote.

That's not to say that there can't be a role for psycho-social factors to influence sexual development, but it will inevitably take a role that the behaviourists were unwilling to discuss.

Radical Behaviorism = Skinner not Watson, two very different schools of thought. Also, you are correct in saying Watson's behaviorism is dead but Radical Behaviorism is not.

Also, on the topic at hand, the article I linked below is a great summary of scientific research on this issue. For those too lazy to read it, it talks about the complexity of human sexual preferences being on a spectrum and not discrete categories. It also has a quick survey if anyone is curious where they land on the spectrum.

http://drrobertepstein.com/downloads/Epstein-Do_Gays_Have_a_Choice-SciAmMIND-3-06.pdf

 

[DECK'ARD]

Interesting.

Yeah, as I've explained in my posts hormonal levels in the womb governing sexuality makes by far the most sense. Especially over a 9 month pregnancy, with things set at different times over that 9 months, and hormone levels being affected by the health of the mother or just subject to change anyway.

Sex of brain is set very early before the body itself, sexual attraction being governed by a region of the brain would also be affected by whatever the hormone levels were at the point that is fixed, and the ongoing physical development set by the final hormone ratio would explain feminine characters in some gay men and vice versa with lesbians. Sudden temporary changes in hormone levels would produce exceptions to the rules, dramatic changes to levels that then stick would change the course of development.

The link with older brothers to homosexuality is just another bit that ties in with it being hormone levels in the womb. It also makes sense that sexuality would be determined by testosterone and oestrogen, they are the sex hormones after all.

 

[Joel Was Right]

He is no exception in terms of his ignorance. We're all ignorant to one degree or another, but people 2000 years ago were significantly more ignorant - particularly, I would say, when it comes to knowledge of the human condition. The bible is a collection of beliefs - of knowledge from the time, and thus reflect the time - and state of knowledge at the time - of their writing. And in many ways the shortcomings of that knowledge are only too apparent.

His writing is steeped in the cultural context of the times. He writes from his understanding of things, and writes for audiences (and their attitudes) that he was seeking to convert to his fledgling religion.

If I could transport a man from 2000 years ago and sit him next to a modern psychologist, who would you be more inclined to listen to on matters of the nature of being human? If I told you the man from 2000 years ago was divinely inspired, would you believe me, and then thus, him? If you believe Paul because you believe he was speaking from the Holy Spirit or whatever, there's nothing I can say to you to make you accept the above. But I do not believe he was so inspired, and I think it's fairly plainly obvious that he can be placed 'in-context', that he was a man of his times with specific goals in mind, and that his writings were of their time, just as with any writings in the Bible. And because of that, to modern eyes, such writings are often cringe-inducing in their ignorance (I needn't go through the list...read Leviticus, and its sage wisdom on female hygiene and purity for one nice example if you must).

By this logic, we can dismiss pretty anything in scriptures on the basis of "they are based on another context". In fact I met a girl once who claimed that it was completely fine for her, as a Christian, to sleep around. She dismissed the sin of fornication as "something based on a previous society, it was immoral then, not now hence not sin". Attitudes like this suggest the individual is more inclined to apply their lifestyle to their religious beliefs, as opposed to applying their religious morals onto their lifestyle. I can't take these people seriously. The motive at play there is not to gain a deeper understanding of doctrine, but for self-vindication.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Whatever, friend of baby fuckers.

 

[krypt0nian]

By this logic, we can dismiss pretty anything in scriptures on the basis of "they are based on another context".

Now you're getting it.

 

[-COOLIO-]

maybe the pope is trying get religion to decline in popularity because he believes it's bad for society

seriously, who knows

 

[BocoDragon]

This kind of thing is so sad a giant monolithic organization who picks on the natural tendencies of innocent people. Fuck them. ....and I'm not gay.. Just happy to ACCEPT whatever my fellow man wants to do. In fact, the thought of judging my brothers/sisters like that brings up a deep sadness within me. How dare they? They know nothing of a true sentiment of sprituality, which would surely love, and not condemn.

This is the kind of thing that is the epitome of all that can be ugly about religion. It's Hate created under the guise of some sort of truth.

Combating this thinking is an evil thats as critical as preserving the world's rainforests. :/

 

[gofreak]

By this logic, we can dismiss pretty anything in scriptures on the basis of "they are based on another context".

You can if you wish. The only way to read any historical document is to account for context and culture. I cannot read the bible while switching that analysis off. I for one can't just accept it as 'the word of God and that's it'. Too much of it betrays the limitations of knowledge and attitudes at the time.

In fact I met a girl once who claimed that it was completely fine for her, as a Christian, to sleep around. She dismissed the sin of fornication as "something based on a previous society, it was immoral then, not now hence not sin". Attitudes like this suggest the individual is more inclined to apply their lifestyle to their religious beliefs, as opposed to applying their religious morals onto their lifestyle. I can't take these people seriously.

I think there are a lot of 'christians' like that.

Let's face it though, christianity so split up, you can't really say one's 'really christian' and one's not. Not that I particularly care...not my ship.

 

[Hitokage]

By this logic, we can dismiss pretty anything in scriptures on the basis of "they are based on another context".

Well, even if you don't go that far it's clearly odd that the life and teachings of Jesus are put on the same footing in the New Testament as what Paul had to say.

 

[Dead Man]

maybe the pope is trying get religion to decline in popularity because he believes it's bad for society

seriously, who knows

Reminds me of this great little gem from the oil leak thread:

The Nazis didn't conduct the holocaust. The Jews did. Why? To get rid of the Nazis.

Everyone is just thinking about this the wrong way!

 

[Joel Was Right]

Now you're getting it.

If so, then scripture (doctrine) would vary not only from generation to generation, but from town to town, nation to nation; each scripture based on the unique culture and identity of that society. One man's sin would be another's cup of tea. You'd have more variations of the same faith than you would languages.

 

[Alcoori]

The link with older brothers to homosexuality is just another bit that ties in with it being hormone levels in the womb.

It might have an influence, but it's definitely not an absolute rule. I'm the second amongst 3 brothers and I'm gay. However, my little bro isn't, yet he came after me.
A good friend of mine is the first, he's gay, his little brother isn't.
Another friend is a single child, yet he's gay.
I do have a friend who's the last one amongst 3 brothers, and he is indeed gay.

I can't conclude anything from that and I don't know how you would get a representative sample of people besides just studying families with several male kids.


Also, on the subject on projecting one's lifestyle on religion. I don't think there is a lot of people who do not do that.
People will adapt religion to suit their needs, but whenever it gives them a reason to hate on people they will go for it. Just look at people divorcing.
Getting a divorce is fine even though you made a commitment in front of God. I'm sure being divorced is gonna cost you some points in your quest to heaven.

 

[Dead Man]

If so, then scripture (doctrine) would vary not only from generation to generation, but from town to town, nation to nation; each scripture based on the unique culture and identity of that society. One man's sin would be another's cup of tea. You'd have more variations of the same faith than you would languages.

That is pretty much the case.

 

[krypt0nian]

If so, then scripture (doctrine) would vary not only from generation to generation, but from town to town, nation to nation; each scripture based on the unique culture and identity of that society. One man's sin would be another's cup of tea. You'd have more variations of the same faith than you would languages.

That already happens. Look at Christianity in South America compared to Haiti, compared to Rome, compared to the UK.

 

[Dude Abides]

Honestly? Probably around 9 or 10? Before that I wouldn't touch a girl, they were revolting. I preferred to hang around guys. The only girl I accepted as being cool was my sister.

The media, family, friends and even video games presented boys being attracted to girls and so I followed suit and here I am today, oggling over females I find attractive.

So if you had watched a lot of will and grace you would be ogling men today?

 

[dyls]

“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, nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

So is that really it, because that is some vague shit. What other anti-homosexual passages are there?

I just find it hilarious that something like the above quote is used to forge this hard line opinion against homosexuality, yet something like this totally concrete statement directly attributed to Jesus:

I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

gets completely ignored because no one wants to tell people that they shouldn't be rich, especially people who are already rich.

 

[DarkKyo]

Fuck the pope. Just die already.

 

[DECK'ARD]

It might have an influence, but it's definitely not an absolute rule. I'm the second amongst 3 brothers and I'm gay. However, my little bro isn't, yet he came after me.
A good friend of mine is the first, he's gay, his little brother isn't.
Another friend is a single child, yet he's gay.
I do have a friend who's the last one amongst 3 brothers, and he is indeed gay.

I can't conclude anything from that and I don't know how you would get a representative sample of people besides just studying families with several male kids.

This is the point though, we're biological and the womb is a melting pot with hormone levels that change. And can change dramatically during the pregnancy depending on the health of the mother, such as her needing steroid injections.

The fact it's not a mechanical process is why we have a spectrum of sexuality, and a spectrum of masculinity and femininity across male and female irrespective of sexuality. Although the overlap between physiological characteristics and sexuality suggests both are caused by the sex hormones.

 

[Count Dookkake]

So is that really it, because that is some vague shit. What other anti-homosexual passages are there?

I just find it hilarious that something like the above quote is used to forge this hard line opinion against homosexuality, yet something like this totally concrete statement directly attributed to Jesus:



gets completely ignored because no one wants to tell people that they shouldn't be rich, especially people who are already rich.

Even more damning than the camel and the eye-of-the-needle is the Parable of the Poor Widow.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Well, even if you don't go that far it's clearly odd that the life and teachings of Jesus are put on the same footing in the New Testament as what Paul had to say.

I don't understand why people refer to the NT as if it's the final definitive draft of an essay or something. This is the same book that will cause you to shit bricks with it's prophecies of the end of time and the suffering to be inflicted. Quite a few things are at odds with each other. The topic always comes back to morality and whilst we talk about specifics (whether it be about homosexuality or stoning adulterers), why do we never look at the source of it all? If you ever wanted to know something about the morals God pertains, then you don't need to go further than acknowledging the roles Heaven and Hell play. Eternal suffering / Eternal bliss.

God may have a love unmatched by mankind, but he also has a wrath that is equally unmatched. So to pick specific doctrines because they seem immoral, or a paradox to something else, and because of that attempt to "reinterpret it" to something less difficult to accept doesn't hold water IMO.

P.S. Back to topic, I don't understand why every time the subject of homosexuality is brought up, Paul is the only source mentioned.

So is that really it, because that is some vague shit. What other anti-homosexual passages are there?

Google it

 

[ZephyrFate]

(I know this is Anubis)
But Horus already resembles Jesus in many aspects.

Horus came before Jesus, so it's the other way around.

 

[BocoDragon]

God may have a love unmatched by mankind, but he also has a wrath that is equally unmatched.

What an asshole.

My God would never have wrath, or make his needs for humanity one giant riddle. (writing books and sending secret messengers and shit)

I would openly defy that version of God. He sounds like a tyrant. He sounds like a cartoon super villain.

 

[krypt0nian]

Horus came before Jesus, so it's the other way around.

The Jesus myth borrows from plenty of earlier sources.

 

[Alcoori]

This is the point though, we're biological and the womb is a melting pot with hormone levels that change. And can change dramatically during the pregnancy depending on the health of the mother, such as her needing steroid injections.

The fact it's not a mechanical process is why we have a spectrum of sexuality, and a spectrum of masculinity and femininity across male and female irrespective of sexuality. Although the overlap between physiological characteristics and sexuality suggests both are caused by the sex hormones.

I don't disagree with this idea, there might be something there and it might be interesting to find what.
However the risk is to simplify this to the extreme and have people do hormone therapy and shit to try and geared their kid towards heterosexuality. I think this is why gay people have a hard time not getting passionate about purely genetic/hormonal causes. Same goes with purely environmental (as in way you're raised, people you interact with and stuff).
It allows people to think you can "cure" something that has no need to be cured.

Cue to re-orientation therapy where you sit in circle being hugged by men in order to provide you with the fatherly attention you never had and are now looking in other men.

 

[Joel Was Right]

What an asshole.

My God would never have wrath, or make his needs for humanity one giant riddle. (writing books and sending secret messengers and shit)

I would openly defy that version of God. He sounds like a tyrant. He sounds like a cartoon super villain.

Believing in any creator will ultimately lead you to question what is right and what is wrong. You could worship something like a flower, but observe the suffering in the world and you'll look past the colourful petals and pleasant aura and see only questions. If you believe your creator is omnipotent, then life is only a reflection of His will. Because of this a few lose their faith.

 

[ZephyrFate]

The Jesus myth borrows from plenty of earlier sources.

I was not saying otherwise.

 

[krypt0nian]

I was not saying otherwise.

Oh I know, silly.

 

[WillyFive]

Having a Pope is so wrong. We are not supposed to be worshiping a man, we should be worshiping God.

This guy is just a regular politician, especially since he actually takes part in blessing politics's plans.

 

[emomoonbase]

The longer they pretend this child abuse thing is just gonna disappear and keep pointing fingers at anything else they can to try to deflect attention the further down the drain they are gonna go. A friend of mine who's been a catholic all his life is saying at this point it's publicly embarrassing and his church has lost probably a third of it's members. And all the people that are still going are older folks. When they kick off there will be no one left.

 

[Dude Abides]

God may have a love unmatched by mankind, but he also has a wrath that is equally unmatched. So to pick specific doctrines because they seem immoral, or a paradox to something else, and because of that attempt to "reinterpret it" to something less difficult to accept doesn't hold water IMO.

Oh God not this "argument" again. You're basically saying we we can't make any moral judgments, or any judgments about god, except of course the things you say about him/it, which, amazingly enough, always happen to be positive.

 

[BocoDragon]

Believing in any creator will ultimately lead you to question what is right and what is wrong.

There's your mistake.. Right and wrong are created by thinking.

Existance is a dance, and the theologian is the misguided wallflower nerd who judges the steps as right or wrong instead of just dancing himself.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Oh God not this "argument" again. You're basically saying we we can't make any moral judgments, or any judgments about god, except of course the things you say about him/it, which, amazingly enough, always happen to be positive.

No, of course not. I was referring to someone's comment that something's seem at odd with Christs' persona. This is similar to people referring to the NT like the OT never existed or considered to be divine. This attitude leads some to interpret some doctrines in less traditional ways, questioning any "immoral" laws by using the image of love and tolerance presented through Christ as a basis. However, this is the same God who killed every first born male simply for Pharaoh in defying him? It is the same God that challenged Abraham to slit the throat of his son in a show of devotion? But more so, this is the same God that has prepared Hell; for people to be eternally damned and cooked alive, over and over again, and inflict unimaginable pain forever. He is, however, the same God that has prepared Heaven for others. So when judging the morality in religion, look no further than that last point. I think it gives the best definition/description of God's morals more so than referring to things like gay sex being an abomination, or stoning adulterers.

There are paradoxes, but only if you assume God to be someone without a hammer (so to speak).

 

[wRATH2x]

There is one thing I'm trying to understand, how does one choose his sexuality?

Hell go up to any straight 14 year old and ask him if he'd choose to be gay, what kind of answer do you think you'll get? Same with any straight male.

There is nothing wrong with being gay obviously, but its no surprise straight guys are disgusted whenever gay sex is brought up.

You are born that way, embrace it. I can not imagine anyone just deciding what he's attracted to, you are born either attracted to females, males or both. Its pretty easily acceptable. I wonder why people are so offended that two dudes are fucking, it doesn't affect them so they shouldn't care.

I have gay friends, and they are like my straight friends except they like another set of genitals. What they do with their lovers is their business.

 

[Hot Coldman]

Having a Pope is so wrong. We are not supposed to be worshiping a man, we should be worshiping God.

No-one worships the Pope.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

No-one worships the Pope.

I do!

 

[Miau]

Well gee, maybe that's why you're not so concerned.

Look at what happened to Italy's gay partnership proposals once the vatican spoke. Look at what the pope is saying now in Portugal as it prepares its own legislation. Then turn around and tell me that what I say about church influence and interference is not true

Not trying to argue with your point; I wanted to post this early in the thread to point out that OP's article is wrong. Abortion has been legal (not decriminalized) in Portugal since 2007 and the gay marriages legislation will almost surely pass (like in a 99.9% chance) since the Constitutional Tribunal saw no constitutional problems with it.

 

[Souldriver]

There is one thing I'm trying to understand, how does one choose his sexuality?

Hell go up to any straight 14 year old and ask him if he'd choose to be gay, what kind of answer do you think you'll get? Same with any straight male.

There is nothing wrong with being gay obviously, but its no surprise straight guys are disgusted whenever gay sex is brought up.

You are born that way, embrace it. I can not imagine anyone just deciding what he's attracted to, you are born either attracted to females, males or both. Its pretty easily acceptable. I wonder why people are so offended that two dudes are fucking, it doesn't affect them so they shouldn't care.

I have gay friends, and they are like my straight friends except they like another set of genitals. What they do with their lovers is their business.

What is this tolerance and logic fuckery!?! GET THE FUCK OUT OF THIS THREAD!!!!!