Philosophy Now Forum

Douglas Groothuis argues that it is possible for someone to be gay, happy, and committed to traditional sexual ethics.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/141/Homosexuality_and_Christianity

Religious people are the epitome of the self deluded.
I like to judge people by their deeds and not their words.
In this case Christianity is homophobic both by word and by deed. Homosexuality, pro-choice, and gender rights is currently enjoying liberality, but this is temporary.
I seriously think that the author of this tract ought to take care and continue to avoid too much publicity. Those Christians will get him in the end.
The Trumpers are out there and they are coming to pull down a gay club, mosque or temple near you soon.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:06 am Religious people are the epitome of the self deluded.

Where it comes to philosophy, Atheists are the epitome of the fools.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:06 amI like to judge people by their deeds and not their words.
In this case Christianity is homophobic both by word and by deed.

PROVE IT.

This is Y I would not even bother reading the article - the point is moot.

Christ stated sweet FA about men not being allowed to be in love, and indeed have sexual relations with each other.

Indeed, when God 'does' me (heaven is rather nice) - if 'HE' is a man, 'he' is at least bi-sexual.

You and the likes of Dick Dorkins are putting far too much investment of thought on those dumb arse evangelist 'Christian' 'churches' where some PASTOR (ROT_SAP) is preaching his personal fuckwit bigotry - the dudes from across the pond.

U R Welcome

- atto (an actual Christian)\

https://www.androcies.com/galleryscroll.php

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 4:09 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:06 am Religious people are the epitome of the self deluded.

Where it comes to philosophy, Atheists are the epitome of the fools.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:06 amI like to judge people by their deeds and not their words.
In this case Christianity is homophobic both by word and by deed.

PROVE IT.

No need to prove the obvious.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:43 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 4:09 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:06 am Religious people are the epitome of the self deluded.

Where it comes to philosophy, Atheists are the epitome of the fools.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:06 amI like to judge people by their deeds and not their words.
In this case Christianity is homophobic both by word and by deed.

PROVE IT.

No need to prive the obvious.

Of which U R oblivious (to the words of Christ).

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:59 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:43 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 4:09 am

Where it comes to philosophy, Atheists are the epitome of the fools.




PROVE IT.

No need to prove the obvious.

Of which U R oblivious (to the words of Christ).

Jesus is dead, and his "words" are contradictory and misquoted.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 4:09 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:06 am Religious people are the epitome of the self deluded.

Where it comes to philosophy, Atheists are the epitome of the fools.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:06 amI like to judge people by their deeds and not their words.
In this case Christianity is homophobic both by word and by deed.

PROVE IT.

This is Y I would not even bother reading the article - the point is moot.

Christ stated sweet FA about men not being allowed to be in love, and indeed have sexual relations with each other.

Indeed, when God 'does' me (heaven is rather nice) - if 'HE' is a man, 'he' is at least bi-sexual.

You and the likes of Dick Dorkins are putting far too much investment of thought on those dumb arse evangelist 'Christian' 'churches' where some PASTOR (ROT_SAP) is preaching his personal fuckwit bigotry - the dudes from across the pond.

U R Welcome

- atto (an actual Christian)\

https://www.androcies.com/galleryscroll.php

Although I agree to your point about insulting "Christianity" as not relevant to argue, one CAN discuss how (any) religion can SET people's minds ABOUT some 'taboo' with strict faith about what some Superior Being may assert is or is not 'correct' behavior. The concerns regarding acceptance of homosexuality actually refers only to a subset of most religions, like Christianity, that might believe God asserts such behavior sinful.

But prior to the modern era, homosexuality actually had certain real social concerns, regardless of religion. The act of specifically male homosexuality involves using one's penis in penetration in another's orifaces which is something relatively easy to cause and spread infection with more power than Nature does by normal everyday behavior. [I'm reminded of those wilderness challenge shows, like Naked and Alone which demonstrates the ease of one to get infected by even peeing in certain waters that can invite certain worms or insects to enter the genitalia of both men and women.]

Further more, I interpret the more likely concern of those wanting to challenge religious taboos are about PARTICULAR gay people WITHIN PARTICULAR religious groups who want to ALTER the very religion rather than leave it. This is only most relevant for those who are locked out of one's family or kinship groups because of their personal inclinations towards regular taboos. Although I can understand, it is irrelevant for one to blame the particular religion but rather complain about 'religions' that are more EXCLUSIVE against their own who break their rules, regardless of any truth apart from religion itself.

Marriage, for instance, used to refer specifically to the formal contractual obligation of a couple to be responsible to the children that such a union was originally referencing. "Marriage" come from "Mary's age", or, more neutrally, a "mare's age", whereby the female is at the age for safe childbearing. So how the concern of the gay community to challenge the institute in modern days is about attempting to REDEFINE contractual rights between homosexuals IN LIGHT OF their family's traditional religious taboos against such unions. In fact, a religion doesn't necessarily require 'tabooing' it so much as to ask what the NEED for formalizing unions between people matter if children themselves are not involved, right? I, being an athiest, still side with the religious community on the intentional meaning of "marriage" as contractual, if not to some 'God', to society. One "marries" so that they PROVE to others their commitment for the sake of children. This COULD have been better formally addressed in law by removing the term, 'marriage' from law and replacing all contracts of intimate nature as "unions" instead. Then "marriage" could be left to the ceremonial aspects beyond the laws regarding contracts. The Unions, for instance, could be extended to define "Unions involving Children", that would avoid the particular biases of different religions. The way that the law has imposed the meaning of the term, "marriage", though, is more about religious gay people who want some forceful legal means to challenge their churches decisions to optionally discriminate. I find that such laws are imposing 'religious laws' because they are favored BY a subset of religious people wanting power to ALTER the minds of other religious people OF THEIR OWN RELIGION by having the secular system do the dirty work. That way, the particular gay person who is discriminated by their family's religion can have the same power of social acceptance of the secular society's laws to the benefits that traditional religious laws originally had power to define.

Homosexuality & (Whichever Religion) only matters if that particular religion is the defining force of the legal system of the secular society.

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:15 pm Douglas Groothuis argues that it is possible for someone to be gay, happy, and committed to traditional sexual ethics.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/141/Ho ... ristianity

The bigger question is why they'd want to be "committed to traditional sexual ethics."

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 12:41 pm

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:15 pm Douglas Groothuis argues that it is possible for someone to be gay, happy, and committed to traditional sexual ethics.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/141/Ho ... ristianity

The bigger question is why they'd want to be "committed to traditional sexual ethics."

Indeed why ANYONE would you mean?
Having some ethical guide is as important for sex as in any other field of human activity, as long as you know what you are getting into, and that certain assumptions are understood by all parties.
But as far as the Bible goes - you might as well burn it. Since most of it was written in the early first millenium, and records morals way older, it has precious little relevance to today.

It was not so long ago, that the act of sex was taken as a promise of marriage.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 12:41 pm

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:15 pm Douglas Groothuis argues that it is possible for someone to be gay, happy, and committed to traditional sexual ethics.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/141/Ho ... ristianity

The bigger question is why they'd want to be "committed to traditional sexual ethics."

That is a good question. I suppose the obvious answer would be that they believe the Bible is the everlasting word of God and that one should not do something that God deems "sinful."

I think if there is a God and if we are now at a point in technological evolution where we can do those things relatively safely without health repercussions, then it would be kind of nice of God to rewrite the Bible for us or at least find someone to orate the new rules to so that we here on Earth can stop fighting over traditions that are perhaps out of date. Or else, it would be kind of nice if God explained to us (in some way other than, "because I say so") WHY "Thou" doesn't want us to do those things. I mean if it doesn't hurt anyone, then it seems like 'no harm, no foul.'

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:15 pm Douglas Groothuis argues that it is possible for someone to be gay, happy, and committed to traditional sexual ethics.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/141/Ho ... ristianity

"...traditional sexual ethics." Really? I thought this was a philosophy forum, where it's understood that within this universe there is no Right or Wrong. Where is this users guide for the universe, as written by the universe, that can be proven to be such? For quite some time certain humans have created everything that is said to be that which is supposed to be the best thing in being a human. But the real question is who are they to say what is or is not what it should be to be considered proper in being a human? And the answer is, no one, absolutely no one! They were/are just another 'one' of the multitudes that were/are the totality of the then/current population.

The truth is we all die alone, such that our lives are ours alone. Any that love another, as the other loves them, such that they honestly love together equally, is good for them, and nobodies business but theirs. That's how I see homosexuality relative to heterosexuality.

Enough with trying to dictate the lives of others, by telling them how to love. Better to keep your eyes on your own love, and love as I've mentioned above. All else is that of selfish people, and no one else.

Live and love your own way, until you die alone, else you live not your own life, and therefore it was all a lie!

Edit: made the last line more clear and fixed a typo

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:50 pm The truth is we all die alone, such that our lives are ours alone. Any that love another, as the other loves them, such that they honestly love together equally, is good for them, and nobodies business but theirs. That's how a see homosexuality relative to heterosexuality.

Not sure your last point is clear.
GIven the first part of your statement seems to apply equally to hetero and homo sexulity I do not see how you are "relating" one type to the other.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:43 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:50 pm The truth is we all die alone, such that our lives are ours alone. Any that love another, as the other loves them, such that they honestly love together equally, is good for them, and nobodies business but theirs. That's how a see homosexuality relative to heterosexuality.

Not sure your last point is clear.
GIven the first part of your statement seems to apply equally to hetero and homo sexulity I do not see how you are "relating" one type to the other.

Traditionally the church sees homosexuality as an abomination. I'm uniting them as the same thing. Obviously you'd do it differently.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:00 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:43 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:50 pm The truth is we all die alone, such that our lives are ours alone. Any that love another, as the other loves them, such that they honestly love together equally, is good for them, and nobodies business but theirs. That's how a see homosexuality relative to heterosexuality.

Not sure your last point is clear.
GIven the first part of your statement seems to apply equally to hetero and homo sexulity I do not see how you are "relating" one type to the other.

Traditionally the church sees homosexuality as an abomination. I'm uniting them as the same thing. Obviously you'd do it differently.

This is a genuine enquiry as to your meaning. Not a criticism. ANd you are still not clear.
What is the meaning of "THEM" in second sentence?

From Letters to the editor...Martin makes the point i was alluding to...

No Christianity & Homosexuality
Dear Editor: There are at least 31,100 verses in the Bible. Of these, two in Leviticus condemn male homosexuality (the Jewish scripture says nothing about lesbianism); one in the New Testament’s Letter to the Romans condemns male homosexuality; and one in the same letter, female homosexuality. You don’t need to be a mathematician to see how important God considers the issue. On the other hand, fifteen verses of 1 Corinthians condemn women not covering their heads in worship – from which we may conclude that God is more concerned about whether you wear a hat in church than about what you do with your genitals.

May I make two suggestions? The first is that the obsession of conservative Christians with homosexuality (and sex in general) has more to do with their human reactions than with any revelation from God. The second is that Philosophy Now should follow God’s example, and devote as little space to the issue as the Bible does.

Martin Jenkins, London