Conservative Colloquium

An Intellectual Forum for All Things Conservative

Born Gay Hoax: The Origin of the “Gay” Identity

Posted by Tony Listi on October 1, 2007

BY RYAN SORBA 

CHAPTER 1

The Origin of the “Gay” Identity

A little over one-hundred years ago, the first concept of an inborn “homosexual” condition began to circulate in Germany. Prior to this time there is no known record of any human being ever claiming to have been born with same-sex attractions (SSA). The originator of the novel concept was Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895). Ulrichs, the “grandfather of the world ‘gay’ rights movement” was a lawyer, political activist, and known pedophile. At the age of fourteen Ulrichs was seduced by his riding instructor, a man about thirty years old. Observers familiar with the high correlation between childhood sexual molestation and adult same-sex attractions might conclude that this youthful experience was the cause of Ulrichs’s fixation.


In an effort to garner support to repeal Paragraph 175 of the German Penal Code which criminalized sodomy, Ulrichs began to spread a theory that defined individuals experiencing same-sex attractions as members of a “third-gender.” Ulrichs proposed that individuals who develop same-sex attractions do so because of a psycho-spiritual mix-up, in which a man’s body becomes inhabited by a woman’s soul, and vice versa. Ulrichs coined the terms “Urning” (male) and “Dialing” (female) to refer to members of this “third-gender,” which was neither male nor female, but a combination of both. The term “Uranian” was introduced in 1862 as a new designation for same-gender sexuality in general (both Urnings and Dailings). He took the term from Plato’s Symposium, in which same-gender Eros is said to fall under the protection of the ninth muse, Urania. Ulrichs reasoned that since same-sex attractions were natural, sodomy should not be criminalized.
Although Ulrichs was unable to abolish the sodomy law, his efforts were influential nonetheless, as evidenced by the swell of political activism and public sympathy for “Uranians” during his time. It was amidst this changing political climate that a German-Hungarian writer named Karoly Maria Benkert, writing under the pseudonym Karoly Maria Kertbeny, coined the term “homosexual” in an open letter to the Prussian Minister of Justice in 1869. Prior to this, men and women who engaged in same-gender sex acts were known as sodomites, pederasts, or “Knabenschaender” (literally, ‘boy ravishers’).
Ulrichs and Kertbeny understood that public opposition to same-gender sex acts sprang from the people’s understanding of sodomy as an unnatural and irrational act. In order to counter the behavioral connotations inextricably linked with terms like “sodomite” and “boy ravisher,” Ulrichs and Kertbeny set out to coin new terms that would refer to a sexual identity, rather than a specific behavior. They were successful. In fact, their most influential accomplishments proved to be the coining of the terms “Uranian” and “homosexual.”
During this time, German men who were engaging in sodomy began to refer to themselves as “Uranians,” and a militant slogan, “Uranians of the World, Unite!” was used internationally. Although Ulrichs’s identity-based term would fail to stick in the long term, Kertbeny’s term “homosexual” proved to have more lasting appeal.
Social critic Mark Steyn describes how the coining of terms by activists has played a central role in the movement to normalize same-gender sexual activity by subtly influencing public opinion via the lexicon. Historically, Steyn explains, moral concern for sexual activity between two persons of the same gender was identified as sodomy, an act. One can either think of sodomy as acceptable or unacceptable; either way, it is an act that someone chooses. Then, Steyn explains that in the late-nineteenth century, the act was re-described as a condition of certain persons, and it was termed “homosexuality.” Next, a few decades ago, “homosexuality” was upgraded again, this time referring to a person’s very identity, so that now we identify people as being “gay,” or “straight,” or somewhere “in-between.” Now it describes who a person is. It has become as fundamental to ones identity as race. Steyn explains:

“Each formulation raises the stakes: One can object to and even criminalize an act; one is obligated to be sympathetic toward a condition; but once it’s a full fledged 24/7 identity, like being Hispanic or Inuit, anything less than wholehearted acceptance gets you marked down as a bigot.”

Ulrichs socio-political strategy established itself as a working model in late-nineteenth century Germany. However, oncoming political turmoil pushed his movement underground. Ulrichs strategy was destined to lie explicitly dormant for nearly a century; yet its influence survived implicitly in the language. The “third-gender” theory had established a new concept for the masses. This concept carried with it an entirely new blueprint for society’s future.

Advertisements

31 Responses to “Born Gay Hoax: The Origin of the “Gay” Identity”

  1. Allothah Fvajina said

    About as insightful and unbiased as a Fox News special.

  2. foospro86 said

    I would take that as a compliment, but you probably didn’t mean it to be.

    Why can’t everyone just discuss the substance of my posts? Is that too much to ask?
    Why is it always some impulsive, mindless attack on Fox News or some other conservative personality or outlet? These ad hominem attacks only hurt you and your credibility, not mine.

    How about a reasoned objection and response to what has been presented?!

  3. JoJo said

    Lies, Lies, Lies

  4. James said

    This article talks about sodomy and the acceptance of the act, and then defining your whole self with it. It ignores same-sex LOVE. Both gay and straight people can and do engage in sodomy as an act. It is not gay specific. Why do straight people engage in it if it is so unnatural?

    We do not define a straight person by what they do with their genitals only. Isn’t it who they chose to spend their lives with also? I actually know a few gay male couples who do not enjoy anal sex – you probably wont believe me but there we go. Other acts are just as, if not more, pleasurable and important.
    I do not define myself by my sexual acts – my true love, devotion, happiness, support, loyalty and mutual respect for and with my parter is of so much more importance. Your speech/article is irrelivant to my life and relationships and value as a gay man, although an interesting read in it’s ignorance.

  5. Big___Al said

    I read chapter 3, which is a well done critique of the so-called “science” that proves (sic) that one is “born gay.”

    But I’d like to simplify the argument: What if I WAS born with an additional attraction to the same sex, or to little girls, or to adultery? In other words, an attraction to that scary word SIN in one form or another. Regardless of when and where that attraction came from, it is still my duty to fight it and not engage in those wrong and unnatural behaviors. Just because I was born with an attraction to 5 year-olds doesn’t excuse the behavior anyway!

  6. foospro86 said

    I guess it doesn’t really matter what I say. Some ppl just can’t get beyond ad hominem fallacies and mindless one word answers….

  7. foospro86 said

    James, do you dispute the historical narrative in this post or not?
    Which statement is untrue?

    This post is not about whether sodomy is right or wrong. The definition of what sodomy is seems to be somewhat unclear. I’m inclined to think that it is not merely a sexual act of some sort but a sexual act between people of the same sex.

    I agree that all people should not define themselves by their sexual acts.

    What exactly does love mean to you?

  8. JB76 said

    Why do people who are not gay continue to argue whether people are born that way? Why not just ask a gay person?

  9. James said

    Ok, you ask me what isn’t true in your post. Well you say “Prior to this time there is no known record of any human being ever claiming to have been born with same-sex attractions (SSA)”

    This is true, but then just because it wasn’t claimed doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the case. There are hundreds of examples of same sex love / attraction in Greek literature, archaeological findings (pottery painting etc), chinese painting, dating back before Jesus – so the attraction was there. Nobody claimed it was born necessarily, but so what? The Earth was round for thousands of years before somebody claimed it to be so! Didn’t stop it from being true.

    “This post is not about whether sodomy is right or wrong”

    Then I am confused – I thought you wanted to see it illegal again. Claiming it is wrong is your whole raison d’ete – no?

    “I’m inclined to think that it is not merely a sexual act of some sort but a sexual act between people of the same sex”

    Does this include masturbation, oral sex etc? Because, again, straight people do this all the time – sex that occurs NOT for the purposes of procreation. So what? Why is is so wrong for 2 people just to enjoy sex?

    “What exactly does love mean to you?”

    Funnily enought, I can quote the bible!! “Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude.” [I Corinthians] That is love to me, and embodies how I feel about my boyfriend. I love the man for who he is, a person who I respect and cherish totally. A man who has enriched my life. A kindred spirit perhaps. Someone I would prefer to suffer for, that to see suffer!

    I am intrigued by the question tho – do you not believe in gay love?

  10. foospro86 said

    JB76, supposing homosexual acts are abominable, then whether they are born with an attraction to the same-sex may at least mitigate culpability. Politically, genetics would give credence to the belief that homosexuals are really no different from blacks and women in the “protections” they need from discrimination (though even that doesn’t logically follow, strictly speaking, as Big___Al demonstrates above). It is not right to condemn someone for something they can’t control. And it is less justifiable to condemn someone for something that is partly out of their control.

    I don’t think it is wise to assume someone can just tell you with accuracy whether they were either genetically or socially predisposed to be a certain way or act a certain way.

  11. foospro86 said

    So your first example admits that it is a true statement. I could rest my case there.
    People in the ancient world thought that people were born into castes of some sort. Circumstances of birth meant much more to them than it does to us. Show me evidence ancient peoples thought human beings were born with certain feelings or attractions. (If ancient pagans gave great significance to the bloodline, perhaps modern science, esp. genetics, is today being used as a tool to return to that paganism. That is what happened under eugenics, including Nazism.)

    First of all, I didn’t write this post. I’m merely defending it. Second, this post is meant to be merely historical and descriptive, as much as that is possible. That is why I asked you if you disputed the historical narrative that has been presented in the post.

    Masturbation is not a homosexual act. A homosexual act requires two individuals of the same sex. Oral sex is a homosexual act when it involves two individuals of the same sex.

    “Why is it so wrong for 2 people just to enjoy sex?” Because sex is a unique act. It is not just another act by which human beings give pleasure to one another. It is a (pro)creative act. And not just creative, creative of human life. What power is that! And thus great responsibility comes with this creative power.
    Along with mere creativity, it is a sacred act because it is a participation in divine creativity, God’s creativity. It is a gift of God and God has intended it for his purposes.
    Therefore, all sexual activity must ultimately be open to procreation.

    Now I think a non-Christian (and any liberal) can at least recognize and understand the power and awe of creativity in any form, if not also the responsibility that comes with creativity.
    Obviously, it requires faith to believe that sex is a sacred act. But again, though we cannot prove the sanctity of anything (including human rights or any basic moral proposition), we can see the consequences for society when sex is treated as a sacred act and when it is not. There are positive consequences for the former and negative for the latter.

    That verse describes love, but I wouldn’t say that it defines what love is. It describes Christian love in general.
    Perhaps I should have been more specific: what does marital love mean to you? Or more pointedly, what does marriage mean to you, if anything? What you have described as love could easily apply to any strong friendship or family bond.

  12. James said

    “That is why I asked you if you disputed the historical narrative that has been presented in the post.”

    No, I don’t dispute this. The gay rights movement is a very modern phenomenon. However, I dispute the relevance of such a historical perspective in your arguement. As I said before, SO WHAT? The ancients had lots of different ideas we either do not share or have continued to benefit from – deomocracy being one. The greeks would not have approved of gay marriage, sure, but they did believe it was ok for older and younger men to be attracted to one another. Pederasty was common, and is described in both ancient art and literature. They didn’t argue for what we now understand as gay rights, but they realised that same sex attraction existed and didn’t just criminalise all forms of it. They also had slaves – our civil rights movement is also new – try explaining civil rights to the ancient Greeks! Do you dispute that racism, or the taking of slaves is wrong? Surely it comes down to our own time. Morality changes between cultures and thru time. We have to look at what is right for us, here and now, from gained knowledge and experience. Which is why I have argued my belief that pedophilia is almost always wrong because, as YOU state “we can see the consequences for society” when certain acts occur. I don’t think we should necessarliy look to what the ancients felt on certain issues to guide our own understanding, or common morality in that case. Let us look at what we have now, what happens now, who benefits, and who actually loses out and make our minds up. This seems to be why most western civilisations have accepted homosexuality. Most say that pedophilia is wrong, homosexuality isn’t. Why is that? Are they just dumb? Or do they realise that actually they are different things entirely and that allowing someone to be gay causes no harm (what choices people make with that freedom is a different matter…but we can say the same of anything…the freedom to have sex at all for example), whereas pedophilia usually always does. I believe in taking morality from the world around us, not an ancient text. You will accuse me of “moral relativism” – but all morality is relative and dependent on the time and place it is imposed, and it always has been. Lastly, Christian morality is relative, because even you guys can decide how to interpret the supposed “word of God”. How many sects of Christianity are there? Shame God’s word is so confusing for you all, one would think he might have done away with all that verse and made it univeral and clear. Oh well – maybe God likes moral relativism.

    “Along with mere creativity, it is a sacred act because it is a participation in divine creativity, God’s creativity”

    I think this comes down to a gulf between us in out ideas of morality. You seem to see sex in a certain way because of a book (that also advocates slavery and many other dispicable things in my opinion) written centries ago. I am not going to get my morality from an ancient text CLAIMING to be the word of God (yet written by men from their own perspectives and then edited by men -with power and agendas – for their own ends) any more than I will get it from ancient pre-Christian Greeks, simply because someone tells me I should.

    God may have created sex to create babies, but actually it/he/she also created it to be the most wonderful thing a person can experience, with or without the aim of procreation. Why would he do such a thing? Just to tempt us into Hell I am sure!

    “Now I think a non-Christian (and any liberal) can at least recognize and understand the power and awe of creativity in any form, if not also the responsibility that comes with creativity.”

    I do – and when something is created from sex, it makes sense there should be a lot of responsibility.

    “Obviously, it requires faith to believe that sex is a sacred act”

    It does. And as I don’t believe in your version of what God is, we will have to rest our case on that one.

    “It describes Christian love in general.”
    Well that’s lovely. But I don’t think “christian” love is necessarily exclusive to Christians. It always makes me laugh when I hear people say things like “well without God there’s no morality” or “without God there’s no love”. If you NEED God to love, or to know what love actually is, or to be a moral person, then I am glad you have him to guide you in that direction. I do it fine by myself thankyou.

  13. foospro86 said

    The above historical account demonstrates that homosexuality as an identity began with political activism, not science of any sort. The idea that people were born gay began with the intention to manipulate culture by manipulating terminology and connotation. That seems relevant.

    Actually, if you study into it, the ancient Greeks are likely one source of the modern Western conception of civil rights (cf. Cicero and the Stoics).

    For the record, no, I don’t dispute that racism and slavery are wrong. But neither is the topic of discussion.

    “Morality changes between cultures and thru time. We have to look at what is right for us, here and now, from gained knowledge and experience.”
    If you really believe this, then it reveals you to be a moral relativist. What is true and right does not depend on time or culture, otherwise there would be nothing true or right…. From your other comments further down, it seems you really do believe this.

    Western civilization has never accepted homosexuality because the Judeo-Christian strain has always rejected it. Europe has abandoned Western civilization, its own heritage.

    The heritage of Christianity and natural revulsion to pedophilia still have sway in the West in an unconscious way perhaps, just as it used to be for homosexuality.

    Morality from the world around you? How the heck does that work? Yes, that is moral relativism. It is just another way of saying “I choose my own morality for myself,” which is to say that one acknowledges no authority higher than oneself and thus that there is no morality. It is called egotism.

    Haha! You forget (or may not know), I am Catholic! I do not believe in Scripture Alone and the supremacy of private interpretation. There is no moral relativism in Catholicism because we acknowledge the Rock of the Church, the Rock that provides certainty and stability, no matter the changes of time and culture.
    I think you just made my day: even you (a non-Christian, I presume) can see the degrading relativism that is at the heart of Protestantism.
    Sorry, James, you cannot comfort yourself in the idea that I am a hypocrite in this regard.
    (Though charging hypocrisy is an argumentative fallacy: tu quoque, i.e. defending your own wrongdoing by pointing out that your opponent does the same thing you do. It is not a valid defense.)

    The Bible does not advocate slavery. In fact, the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement were both spearheaded by Christian evangelicals (Let’s not forget MLK was a Baptist preacher). It is a historical fact. That certainly cannot be said of the “gay rights” movement.

    God “created [sex] to be the most wonderful thing a person can experience”? You really mean that? Surely, you meant to say love, no? Moreover, through faith, one can believe that a personal relationship with Jesus is actually “the most wonderful thing a person can experience.”
    Sex is a material, carnal pleasure that will pass away. Is there nothing higher than sex? From that statement, it seems as if you idolize it.

    I didn’t say that non-Christians could not exercise Christian love, agape, to some extent. But one has to question a love that is not grounded in a love of the one true God, who is Love.
    What are love and morality without the existence of a Higher Being? They would be nothing more than the petty and delusional thoughts of selfish, broken human beings. Nihilism, isolation, alienation, strife, and despair would be all that remained.

    Why won’t you answer my questions about marriage and marital love? Again, what you have described as love could easily apply to any strong friendship or family bond.

  14. James said

    To argue how the modern gay rights movement came about is relevant, yet I don’t see how it defends the points made in this article that homosexuality should somehow be illegal. I am being so defensive on this point simply because I know the writer of the article would hope for homosexuality to be made illegal again and is using his points to convince the reader of this. I have heard him say so on YouTube.

    So it is important for me to make the case that the modern gay rights movement might have brought in a new concept – that of inbuilt sexuality, BUT that does not mean their concept is incorrect simply because it is new (which is why I raised the point about the round earth etc..) Sometimes new ideas get to the heart of the matter and let us understand better what is really happening. That is why I said it was irrelevant to use it as an argument to say it isn’t true! Its new, yes. False? Very disputable.

    “What is true and right does not depend on time or culture, otherwise there would be nothing true or right”. I think we may be thinking in slightly different terms here. My point is that for human beings, what is right and wrong as ALWAYS changed over time. New religions have come in to change things, new philosophies etc. How can you say what is right ISN’T dependent on culture when we can see how different cultures see certain things in different ways. I used the stoning point previously. Surely the fact that cultures differ in their ideas of right and wrong PROVES that it depends on this in the minds of human beings. Now, I understand your point, but basically it is saying “ok, so whilst different cultures have IDEAS of right and wrong, there is actually only ONE right and wrong, and those cultures who don’t adopt the Catholic position on right and wrong, are …well…WRONG!”

    This is just too laughable. You only impose YOUR Catholic idea of right and wrong onto others in the same way a Muslim, Jew, Pagan, humanist etc. etc. would do so – so therefore, its relative!

    The Catholic church in my opinion isn’t a rock because it is a human made institution, vulnerable to the corruptions and problems of any other human made and run institution. You cannot say it has NEVER done bad things surely. We are human, and fallible! Even people with faith.

    I don’t think I ever said you were a hypocrite. I just stated that Catholicism was just one idea of the world out of many and that it’s foundations are questionable if you are to tell me that it is the true word of God, and not more so the words of men with power.

    In reference to the sex point – I stand by it. I was talking of love making. When two people connect emotionally, physically and intellectually – the act of love making can be genuinely wonderful, and I don’t need anyone disputing how I feel on that point, because that are my feelings to own and understand!

    “What are love and morality without the existence of a Higher Being?” I don’t know any difference as my love has ALWAYS been without a higher being. You will have to tell me what love is WITH a higher being to see if I can finally realise that it’s all been a lie and a waste of time. The love for my mother and father, the love for my best friends, the love for my boyfriend all seem pretty real and important to me. I must be imagining it then ofcourse!

    And finally, marital love. If I could get married to a man, then one day I could tell you how it feels. At the moment I don’t know! 🙂 Marriage is wonderful, and believe it or not I have strong family values. Being gay and having family values are not mutually exclusive. I think that the foundations of family and bonds are so important both for the individuals concerned and for childen are very important. It breaks my heart to see young children in broken homes. BUT, having experienced familys that are dedicated and committed and happy in both heterosexual and homosexual, I simply cannot just say “only the heterosexual ones count to anything”. Because it simply, in the reality of the lives they affect, it just isn’t true!

    What does marital love mean to you? I’d like to know what the differences you percieve between a man and a woman being in love, and a man and a man being in love. Is this kind of love ONLY there to create children? If you belive so then I think we have different ideas on what love is, and for.

  15. Sam said

    The argument of the article seems to be that homosexuality is accepted in modern-day Western society because of its changing definition: the act of sodomy could be criminalised, but the fact that homosexuality is a part of a person’s inherent personality cannot.

    In this case the argument of whether or not someone is ‘born gay’ is irrelevant. Whether someone is gay by hereditary means or not, the fact is that homosexuality is characterised not by just the act of sodomy, but by their very nature; and any advocate of human rights cannot dicriminate against a mutually consented, harmless aspect of human nature, in the same way you cannot discriminate against race or sex.

    With this in mind, the argument is reduced to nothing more than subjective morality. Indeed, the bible’s main protest to homosexuality appears in Leviticus in the old testement. Incidentally, this is the same chapter that outlines the laws of eating Kosher food. Perhaps, then, any Christian opposed to homosexuality should convert to Judaism, but I doubt our lord would be too pleased.

    By the same token, foospro86 seems to be against wasting the precious ‘seed’ of life in non-creative sex. In this case, the ‘evil’ of homosexuality is reduced to the same as a condom, masturbation, oral sex, and other such ‘straight’ acts that do not result in a baby. Perhaps he is even opposed to infertility – should that be made illegal too? For women may or may not be born infertile, but nonetheless the result is that they cannot bare a child. By the same token, a man may or may not be born homosexual, but nonetheless cannot pro-create.

    Then foospro86 has used the argument of ‘marital love’, to which James has not answered him – probably because the question is of no significance. Love is such a subjective term that whatever definition James gives you, foospro86, will not be enough to convince you that anything other than male-female love exists.

    Perhaps you should stop hiding behind the subjectivity of the bible and political movements of the 1800s and wake up to the real world.

  16. foospro86 said

    That may be Ryan Sorba’s opinion. I think a lot of things are sinful, but not all of them can or should be criminalized by law. Prudence is king.

    Not all new ideas are created equal, especially if the idea is attacking moral precepts than have been around for centuries in major civilizations. As G.K. Chesterton once wisely remarked, “Nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes.”

    That is exactly right: mere difference of opinion is no proof that there is no right answer (let that sink in). It is just common sense. Moreover, you really think you are right just as I do! Otherwise, you wouldn’t bother to argue with me. No one is a relativist in practice.

    So different people try to impose their values on other people. So what? This is a truism. And certainly doesn’t demonstrate that morality is relative. But Protestantism is doctrinally morally relativist, though, which is why there are so many Christian denominations.
    You don’t understand: the Rock refers to St. Peter. But this discussion is not about Catholic theology. All I’m going to say is that there is a difference between infallibility of action/behavior and infallibility of doctrine.

    With the existence of a Higher Being, love and morality have real purpose and meaning. Only then can love be something more than selfish or merely biochemical reactions, which are in turn merely the chaotic motion of atoms. Only then can morality be something more than a mere social agreement of convenience that can be broken when apparent advantage presents itself.
    So are you an atheist or an agnostic?

    Your attempt to be clever only reveals that you don’t understand what marriage is, as if it was something that only government could define, regulate, or control. If homosexuals really understood what marriage is, they wouldn’t be pushing a political agenda for gay marriage.

    What is a family without children? Merely a couple looking out for their mutual interests and thus not a family at all.
    What are family values without a concern for the begetting and raising of children? The notion is nonsensical.

    Marriage is a sacrament, something made holy by God. And thus marital love necessarily involves obedience to Him who created the husband and wife and the bond that unites them. Thus marital love necessarily involves sexual intercourse, which can only happen in a heterosexual union. Thus marital love necessarily involves the begetting and raising of children.
    Marriage cannot be defined by government; government can only recognize how it has been defined by God. Marriage is not dependent on government in any way, and thus marital love is not dependent on government in any way.
    There is no ban on gay marriage; there is only a ban on government recognition and approval of homosexual relationships. The government is not preventing you or any other homosexual from showing affection to a person of the same sex (nor could it).

  17. foospro86 said

    “[A]ny advocate of human rights cannot dicriminate against a mutually consented, harmless aspect of human nature….”
    Depends on your definition of “harm” and “human nature” and what prudence dictates.

    There is nothing subjective about Christian morality. Faith and reason supports its objectivity.
    Christianity has not accepted every single little bit of the Old Law of the Old Testament. It claims higher authority, for one “greater than Moses” commands Christians.
    Moreover, the New Testament, especially when translated most literally, explicitly condemns homosexuality too. I can provide more evidence in a separate post if you care to challenge me on that.
    “our lord”? Are you a Christian?

    Sure, I would agree that masturbation and contraception are immoral. I’ll admit that it takes more faith to believe such things. Oral sex, however, could conceivably be a moral act under the right circumstances perhaps, e.g. occurs within marriage and is used merely as a prelude to consummated intercourse.
    Infertility is not an act. It is a condition that one has no control over. Sexual relations with a person of the same sex is always a choice. James has admitted as much. That homosexual relationships are unfruitful with regard to children is only one element of the argument against it.
    And again, I have never called for homosexuality to be illegal, whatever that would mean.

    Love is subjective too, huh? haha, you sure like this hollow subjectivity argument. So what exactly do you consider to be objective? Are you a relativist too?
    Love is a commitment to the good of another. What is good has no meaning outside of religion. Thus, if homosexual acts are not good, then homosexuals are not loving each other when they engage in sexual acts.

    Um, of course there are other kinds of love that exist besides “male-female love”! It is called familial love or friendship or Christian love. You know, Greek has several words for what we call “love” to distinguish the different kinds.

    Is everyone keeping score?: Christian morality, love, the Bible, and “political movements of the 1800s” are all subjective. You think can just label something “subjective” and call it a day? So apparently, the “real world” is the only objective thing around? So anything that has old roots is prima facie wrong?
    Your writing has a logical tone and style but little logical substance.

  18. James said

    “With the existence of a Higher Being, love and morality have real purpose and meaning” / “What is a family without children?” / “What are family values without a concern for the begetting and raising of children?”

    You have totally lost me. I’m sorry but I don’t think I can argue anymore because these statements have NO meaning to me or my life, the people I love, the reasons that I love them and want to carve a meaningful existence out of life with. Sorry, I don’t think we can go back and forth with this. Your relationships have meaning only because of God. Mine don’t. Unless you can think of how to keep knocking this back and forth, we may as well quit.

    “there is no ban on gay marriage; there is only a ban on government recognition and approval of homosexual relationships.”

    Agree with that actually – but the point here is that I believe government should recognise gay marriage, simply for the benefits afforded married couples. I don’t care neccesarily for the term “marriage” – I actually live in the UK! We have civil partnerships and I am happy with this because in substance it means couples who have been together for many many years have now been able to create peace of mind thru the law – i.e – after death the civil partner has real rights they would otherwise not have had, even if the deceased parter wanted it etc. It’s more about these practical things as apposed to calling it “marriage”. I agree with your sentiments about government – it shouldn’t interfere, but when it offers rights to married couples, I believe they should be offered to gay couples who share their lives and wish to make that commitment. I suppose I differ from some on this one who may feel that actual marriage is all that counts. To me I don’t care aslong as there is an equality in the recognition of partnerships between people.

    “What is good has no meaning outside of religion”

    Again, cannot argue with this. There’s so much good in my life without religion, it’s like you are talking a different language.

    “So anything that has old roots is prima facie wrong?”
    No – did I say that? But maybe the “real” world is the only objective thing? Seeing as we all see this “real” world differently, maybe that is the case.

    It seems this term LOGIC is very interesting. I see logic in your tone too – but not in the substance. Funny huh?

  19. foospro86 said

    Maybe one day it will hit you that the only reason you perceive the good, love, w/e morality you believe, etc. is because you are feeding off of the legacy and tradition of Christianity and Western Civilization in general. Maybe one day you will recognize how the past wisdom of Christianity, Rome, and Greece has formed what is good about both the USA and the UK, and then be grateful and take heed of the moral order that has made it possible.
    Maybe one day someone will harm you, claim that he does not recognize your morality or anyone else’s, and then you will recognize that there is only one true morality, regardless of time, place, and culture (instead of falling into a despair of nihilism). Did the terrorists who bombed London on 7/7/05 merely have a “different morality”? Maybe then you will realize people are not inherently good but broken and prideful. Maybe then you will realize that suffering is the norm of human life, not pleasure and complacency. And maybe then you will seek out the source of that moral order that must exist if we are to be more than mere animals. And then maybe finally such suffering and sincere searching will bring you to faith, faith in something greater than oneself, if not the Christian faith.

    But that is just it: what about homosexual relationships makes them equal in dignity to heterosexual relationships? What do they possibly do to benefit society that they should be deserving of government benefits? I have no problem in ensuring that any person is able to bequeath property to whomever they wish. It is called a last will and testament. But that has little to do with marriage in itself.

    My last comment was for Sam, not you.

    Logic is only as good as the axioms that it begins with. Just as there are certain principles in mathematics and geometry that are taken on faith, so there must be social, cultural, and political axioms (aka religious beliefs). Secularists deceive themselves when they think they are guided by reason alone and take nothing for granted.

  20. James said

    I agree much a Western Christian civilisation has been beneficial. I think many things in the Bible are great. Great allagorical stories and philosophies. I am glad the West (if it had to have religion) chose Christianity as apposed to, say Islam.

    Most religions seem to have similar ideas about right or wrong don’t they? Why is that? Is it just that the “false” religions took their ideas from reality? Some religions and beliefs in right and wrong came before Christianity even existed. I am sure we would agree MORE on the ideas of right and wrong that we would disagree, and I am sure if you spoke to a Muslim, Buddhist etc. we would find so many similarities. It seems to me that these ideas of right and wrong are so innate in human beings – our conscience, empathy – that realisation that when one suffers, they feel what WE feel etc.. (do onto others as you would have them do onto you…) that so many of the same ideas seem to crop up in all religions. Christianity having many many philosophies that make sense does not make it the word of God – more like the word of people who were very aware of consequences of actions. People need a little more persuasion to act in certain ways however – stemming from our animal prehistory. I think this is why, since we evolved, we have always had one religion or another – unlike animals we comprehend our existence and this is so frightening that religion fills the gap where there would otherwise be the unknown. I know you may not believe in Evolution – but I have yet to be convinced by the writings on the matter on this site. I have yet to read an argument WHERE the fossils came from if the world is only 6000 years old.

    I have been hurt in the past. When I have been stolen from, attacked for being gay etc… I realise others have a different view of morality from me and it depresses me to recognise it. I don’t think we are any different there. If you were hurt, you too would be upset that the attacker didn’t recognise YOUR morality. Christianity has given lots of good – but it hasn’t ALL been good. I keep hearing christians on the radio discussing new developments in science that the Bible seems to have missed out on, and the arguments about how a Christian should respond is very revealing about the gaps in the Bibles morality teaching. The problem is that when religion also tells me my relationship is wrong, I cannot understand it because everything I recognise about it is wonderful. To tell me I must give it up and force myself to live with a woman (who I would be lying to and making very unhappy) simply because you think it is morally unacceptable seems like such a leap against all my inner instincts. No matter what the bible says on certain things, love seems to be stronger. I know of many gay couples who have been together for over 20, 30, 40 years – despite religion promising hell fire, and society promising imprisonment. When you say there is only good when there is religion, it makes me laugh because I cannot see that in any of the real world, atleast as I perceive it. Try telling your theory to those couples.

    It’s nice to hear you atleast hope I will find SOME faith or another – and not hassle me into finding Christianity. That’s quite refreshing.

    “what about homosexual relationships makes them equal in dignity to heterosexual relationships” It would depend on the relationship and what it does to the couple involved. Many gay couples (as above) are more loving, supportive and beneficial to society than some straight ones. To punish these relationships seems so abhorant. To punish any relationship seems abhorant, but when you are talking about dignity and worthiness – there is much dignity and worthiness in many gay relationships.

  21. foospro86 said

    haha, yeah, Jesus called for more mercy and compassion towards sexual deviants (saves an adulteress from death by stoning). The harsh but necessary (for that time) punishments of the Old Testament have been revoked, though such sins are no less grave or abominable. Imagine your situation had the Muslim hordes succeeded in consuming Europe centuries ago. The Crusades were a pathetic and tragic attempt at resistance, but imagine the strength of imperial Islam had such resistance not been gathered. You live a privileged life thanks to Christianity and those who fought to protect it. There is no such political tolerance of homosexuality in Islam as one can conceive of in Christian states.

    There are certainly commonalities among the moral codes of various civilizations. See http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htm
    Christianity explains this phenomenon by saying that certain moral precepts are written on the hearts of human beings. It is called natural law, which purposefully embraces reason as a means of access to morality. As all human beings are endowed with rational faculties (truly a divine gift), it is no surprise that we see commonalities.
    Again, the so-called Enlightenment was dead wrong in criticizing the Church for rejecting reason. In fact, Christianity has been the only religion to embrace it so tightly into its theology (at least Catholicism has). Of course, faith and reason must go together. One without the other is fatal philosophically.

    As a Catholic, I do not idolize Scripture to the exclusion of Tradition and reason. Thus I don’t have to believe that the earth is 6000 yrs old, a very unreasonable belief. Please see https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/creation-and-genesis-6-days/

    Have you ever been physically attacked for your embrace of homosexuality?
    The problem with your views (and those of homosexuals in general) about religion, love, and sexual relationships is that they are grounded in the fact that you explicitly seek truth within yourself, within your personal feelings. How can you justify that? That seems extremely unreasonable and self-centered to me. It would seem that you set yourself up as the source and arbiter of truth.
    I would encourage you to look beyond yourself, even beyond humanity/humanism, which has shown itself to be depraved, fallen, and insufficient throughout history. You may criticize religion as merely a collection of useful stories, but you can do no better rationally. The only rational alternative you can offer is nihilism, meaninglessness. Why should I choose to believe that and embrace its miserable consequences rather than choose and embrace the most reasonable account of the Transcendent? It is not even in one’s self-interest to be atheist or agnostic!

    haha, I will take what I can get. If you will look beyond yourself, place your faith in some sense of the Transcendent, then I will consider that progress. Obviously, I believe that Christianity of the Catholic kind is what everyone should embrace. But unlike most Protestants, I don’t think mere evangelization is sufficient. The West is so hyper/pseudo- rationalistic currently that Christians must engage unbelievers on their own ground (actually hijacked Christian ground).
    You probably won’t read them, but I highly recommend two books that rationally examine faith and Christianity: http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Lee+Strobel&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=author-navigational&hl=en

    You didn’t really answer my question; you merely begged the question. So I’ll make you dig deeper if you’ll let me. What is so “beneficial to society” (NOT “to the couple involved” ) about homosexual relationships in comparison with heterosexual ones?

    No thoughts on my last paragraph about logic, axioms, reason, and faith in my previous comment? I think it is too powerful a statement of truth for you to ignore it completely.

  22. James said

    We could go on forever couldn’t we. lol

    In reference to your Christianity V Muslim arguement – where did I argue that Christianity was worse than Islam? Where did I say that I would have preferred Muslim hordes to overtake Europe? My point about the crusades was that it shows (to me) that religion (full stop) has a lot of blood on its hands and I find it hard to take its message of peace and love seriously. Both Christianity and Islam, if allowed to be political, will (and does) result in human imprisonment, slaughter and misery for many many people. If you happen to believe in the religion and are able to follow it word for word, well lucky you – you may just get through life without suffering. If you don’t, we know the consequences. This is true ofcourse for atheist countries too that adopt political extremes – I am against those too!

    You still cannot prove this concept of morality as being divine. I am sure moral precepts are “written on the hearts” of people – but again, prove this to be divine. You cannot simply say it’s “a divine gift”. Could it not as easily be a natural manifestation of our sentience and awareness of the world around us – and our empathy. Maybe it is divine! But yet again, from which god? There’s thousands for me to choose from remember!!

    I have been verbally attacked for my sexuality. Friends of mine have been physically attacked for it – some quite seriously. I seek the truth inside myself? Is it so self centred to try and look at how my actions affect the world around me? If I was to suggest that my gay relationship/s harmed others, but I engaged in them anyway – I might agree with you. But I have looked, and still see no negative consequence. Maybe that’s self centred, but I think its quite reasonable and rational and considerate. Would you not steal from somebody just because you know it to be wrong in the bible? Or would you choose not to steal from somebody because you know that it would result in the suffering of a fellow human being? Also you knew that to be stolen from is a terrible thing and that you have human compassion and would want to set an example in your own life? For me it would be the latter examples and I don’t feel any need to appologise for my reasoning. I do not see this as nihilism. It may feel meaningless to you – but to me it is a rationality imbued with compassion and respect. I would hope someone would chose NOT to hurt me or steal from me (or anything else) because they felt human compassion and empathy – not because they were afraid of hell. I was brought up a non religious person and it is because of a good upbringing that I have moral values. I’m not going to suddenly believe in something I don’t, because I realise that OTHER people might be more moral if they chose to follow the bible. I believe with ALL my heart and reasoning that I am a good person without being a Catholic. I am not telling you I think you shouldn’t be a Catholic. We each have to find our own ways in life, and the thoughts and lifestyles that bring us joy, happiness and a fulfilled life. Just, I beg you, to open your mind to the fact that this can be found in MANY areas of life. Not just the one you have found and chosen. This is not nihilism…it’s finding the things in life that make it meaningful for you.

    What is beneficial about homosexual relationships? Nothing is MORE benefitial about gay relationships than heterosexual ones. I just don’t see gay relationships that are loving and supportive as being any less worthy. The fact you even ask the question suggests you believe the world would be a better place if gay relationships didn’t happen at all. Very hard to imagine now that we have them and people recognise that true gay love does exist.

    Do you know any gay couples? Any gay people for that matter? Do you think they are kidding themselves?

    Obviosly these Godless fools are way to wrapped up in their victimless happiness to recognise the innate misery and evil they are actually involved with.

    You seem to believe that somehow if we outlawed homosexuality, or that if we all became Catholic, this “problem” would go away. Which is why in the other thread I asked about your preferred “utopic” world. Remember, when Europe was very religious, homosexuality existed – just hidden away. Were we (as a whole) happier as a species in those times because of the laws and superstisions we had? I would doubt it. I see the acceptance of homosexuality as an awakening to the reality of our world and human nature. We have elevated our consiousness. Anything else is putting our heads in the sand. We surely can recognise that what is so great about human relationships, actually spans both gay and straight.

    The catholic God’s existance is not axiomatic. It is reasonable to suggest that God MIGHT exist. It is reasonable to suggest he/it might not. Ofcourse many things are taken on faith. And? You take Catholicism on faith. I take reason on faith. Some takes Islam on faith. The Pagans took Thor on faith. How does that support Catholicism?

  23. foospro86 said

    Not forever. We getting down to fundamental philosophical differences now. We’re getting there if you don’t bail out first.

    War is hardly mentioned at all in the New Testament. It is not a coercive religion, unlike Islam, which was born in violence. There is a stark contrast between Jesus the teacher and martyr and Muhammad the warrior and politician. Not all religions are created equal. So don’t lump them all together.

    Religion or not, if the government is allowed to dominate its citizens’ lives, there will be misery. Were communism and fascism any less deadly and oppressive because they were not conventional religions (they were humanist religions)? They were exponentially more bloody than Christianity (abused) ever was. See our other discussion.
    Moreover, as I have explained, Christianity is the ONLY major religion to really advocate a separation of Church and state. Communism and fascism were a combination of church and state in a sense: the church of humanist collectivism plus the state.

    I don’t think you understand: fascism and communism (basically the same thing) are the inexorable logic of your humanism. If God is not the highest power, then the state must be. If human beings have no souls, then they must be treated merely as mechanical parts of the whole. The seeds of fascism and communism were sown during the humanist Enlightenment, the so-called Age of Reason, and the French Revolution in particular. Can you not see this?

    Do you think heart cells, proteins, and atoms (mere material) have or confer any morality whatsoever?! Where do you think morality comes from? Dust and ash and mud? Who is being irrational?! What is the Divine except the super-material (that which transcends the material world)?
    So you think sentience, awareness, and empathy come from moving atoms, huh?
    Explain to me how truth and morality come about through the mere movement of atoms!
    “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the [random, uncontrolled] motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” (quoted by C.S. Lewis)

    There are thousands of potential answers to choose from in answering 2+2=? but that doesn’t mean there is not a right answer! Why won’t you abandon these logical fallacies?

    That is precisely it: you don’t realize how your actions do in fact affect the world in a negative way. The harm you create is not easily observed in a short amount of time (like global warming, haha).

    There is an old Russian proverb: “The tears of strangers are only water.” There is no logical reason why the suffering of another should matter to me or you at all. Empathy like morality in general is a matter of faith. Many people over the centuries have taken delight in others’ suffering. Maybe they even found meaning to their lives in it! If you or I can gain the advantage of another human being, why not do so?
    You cannot reason your way to morality! Nietzsche, for all the harm he has caused, proved that, no?! (Kant recognized the limits of reason in this regard too.) He at least was an honest and intelligent atheist to recognize the disturbing conclusions of his own premises. Your “compassion and respect” are completely irrational! You think you can get away with that? You think society can get away with that over time? Such concepts ONLY having meaning to you because you are feeding like a parasite off the legacy of Christianity, undermining its beneficial influence over time.
    Don’t you see? I don’t have to prove that morality is divine because the alternative is no morality at all!

    Raised a good person with moral values? How do you know that? You can’t possibly use mere reason to support a claim like that! You looked inside your heart, huh? You set the standards by which you judge yourself?! (And do you wonder why we don’t allow people to be their own judges in civil/criminal trials?) Basically, you’re just saying you believe in yourself as if you were a god. But maybe one day you will examine your heart a little closer (or be a little more honest with yourself) and realize the evil desires you have within you and which all people have. Maybe then you will realize how necessary fear and shame are and how they need not be in opposition to love and empathy. Maybe then you will look for strength and truth and stability beyond the broken humanity which you see clearly then.

    Alright, I’ve given you plenty of opportunity to answer the question. Now it’s my turn. There is NO benefit to society from homosexual relationships relative to heterosexual relationships. Heterosexual relationships sustain a society, literally and figuratively. They create the future citizens of the state and members of society (they’re called children). They pass on their values more or less to these new citizen-members (it’s called raising children). Sorry, but homosexual relationships look inward to the two individuals involved. Heterosexual relationships necessarily look outward and contribute to society. Therefore, in the eyes of the law and society, homosexual relationships should be of lesser worth and dignity and thus are unworthy of any special recognition, approval, or benefits that have been confirmed upon heterosexual relationships (marriages). It’s as simple as that.

    No couples but individuals yes (Seems to be a lot more of the latter than the former, no?). In general, there is a philosophical narcissism that seems to characterize virtually all homosexuals.
    One cannot really be happy without some sort of moral/theological stability and certainty. Confusion is not harmless in the long run. Besides, the descent into evil and misery typically happens very gradually so as not to trip any internal alarms. Ultimately, I cannot know for sure about any particular individual.

    My utopia does not exist in the past. Or in the future for that matter. There is no utopia! At least not in this world and time. This world is fallen until God decides it is game over.
    Not everyone will become Catholic. We shouldn’t force ppl to become Catholic or kill off those who don’t. Even if it were to happen, division and heresy would arise again. So there is no point in contemplating such a world.
    There is no maximum-happiness world out there to be won. Suffering is here to stay, no matter what the academics and scientists come up with next. And it cannot be escaped unless it is given purpose. That is something the atheist and agnostic can never do. Only Christianity has claimed a purpose for suffering and a Suffering God.

    Nope, gay couples will never be able to take part in the supreme act of creation, the height of any kind of human relationship.

    Catholicism embraces both faith and reason, which are not opposed to each other and come from the same Source.
    Actually, axiom is just another word for God. God is the Axiom, the unprovable but necessary. But reason cannot prove or contain love and morality. Don’t you think it is interesting that ONLY the Christian God has ever claimed to be Love itself and Truth itself? The Christian God claims to be the axioms upon which reason depends if it is to be of any worth. Reason requires axioms and thus a God.
    Actually there may be a way to prove God exists: https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/proof-of-god-the-big-bang/ and https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe/

    Besides, how can you account historically for Christianity at all?! Some poor Jewish rabbi born in a Roman-subjugated country and killed by Romans inspires a religion that overcomes the Roman Empire without drawing a sword?! Many people testify to seeing miracles, including Jesus himself after the crucifixion. You think each and every one was insane or something?

  24. James said

    No ofcourse not all religions are the same. And I agree that Christianity as written is a much more peaceful religion than Islam. But then that wouldn’t be hard would it! Reading the bible is still a very violent experience none the less. However, religion of any kind, when left to its own devices has shown to be murderous and coercive no matter which denomination. This is why I still believe in secularism: a separation of church and state, for the sake of the church also. My gripe is with religion, full stop. If Christianity really was the peaceful religion you talk of, then it wouldn’t have attracted or displayed the coercive, repressive elements quite so easily and frequently. If Marxism caused the horrors of Stalin etc. then you have to suggest that Marxism itself was flawed. If religious states cause human misery and suffering then you have to go back to the inspiration for such states. Nothing is perfect however, and neither is religion.

    I don’t know how communism and fascism is the logic of my humanism – you may need to explain more. My own view of humanity would resist both these ideologies right out. Just because I am humanist, doesn’t mean I will end up fascist/communist (just as, you being religious does not mean you will end up supporting the Taliban!). The flaws of secularism may have resulted in some countries with extreme political movements – but even within religious countries we see similar human repressions and extremes taken by depsotic leaders. Allowed to flurish unchecked by non-religious sections of the community we would go back to the Middle Ages and burning witches. Religion appeals to the worst in humanity as much as it appeals to the best. Because fascim etc. was able to take hold in certain states does not mean I will run to religion as the antidote. It isn’t!

    Your arguement about the 2+2 is ridiculous. Of course there is always (hopefully) a right answer – but asking me to chose your religion over the next needs more proof of your truth. If your truth goes against my understanding of what is good in my life, then it needs something else.

    You talk of global warming. The main problem I have with this arguement is that global warming will probably have a detrimental if not complete devastating effect on us as a species. Somehow, thousands of years of homosexuality (hidden and accepted) has yet to extinguish human life! My (or anyone elses) homosexuality has not stopped you, or any of your fellow heterosexuals from having families, reproducing, enjoying your marital lives. Slightly different from the obvious impact of global warming. Again, I am afraid if you are to tell me your god thinks my actions are evil, then your god will have to show me how. Selfish, fine. But I would think reasonable. If I was to tell you MY God believes your lifestlye will ultimatley result in the end of civilisation then you would want to know why my God believes that, or designed it so.

    I have always seen gay relationships as wonderful for those involved and benign as a whole in the sense that, yes, they may not be involved in the “act of creation” – but so what? Aren’t there enough people doing that anyway to keep this world overpopulated? If there is a God, maybe homosexuality is it’s way of population control (one you have heard before I am sure, but the idea makes me laugh).

    I have never in these posts stated I did not believe in God. My gripe has always been with religion. The fact is I DO NOT KNOW if there is a God or not, let alone which religion worships it correctly. In terms of morality, again, I have to go with what I see – selfish or not. If I understand something to be harmful I will back away.

    “Raised a good person with moral values? How do you know that?” How do you KNOW your moral values are any good either? Non of us KNOW these things – we hope and do our best with what we have and perceive. Well I do. Like most people, I do feel shame and guilt over many things in my life. But not over my homosexuality, again because no matter how deep I have looked so far – I am yet to see the problem for myself or society in my relationships.

    For me it is as if you are saying “there is only one morality…most of which you will agree with…murder is bad, rape is bad, adultery is bad…but also, because these are bad, then so is homosexuality”. You may as well say to me “murder is bad, rape is bad, adultery is bad…but also, because these are bad, then so is driving a car” or “being a vegan” or “living by the beach”. To me they have no connection to living a life that is positive and good for you and your community. I also do not see how it would offend God so much. For what reason would a minority of people only being attracted to the same sex be so awful? If you say, because it isn’t heterosexuality and cannot create children, I would argue again “so what?” It isn’t as if homosexuality is catching and likely to end our civilisation. There will always be heterosexuals and they will always have children.

    The axiom / proof in the big bang arguement: Again, I never stated there WAS NO CREATOR. I have heard the argument in your post before and was one of the arguments that gave me pause for thought in the question of how we got here. I have never had a desire to disprove an ulimate deisgner/creator in this universe. What would be the purpose of such an arguement? But in our awe of such mystery, the human mind tries and has always tried to explain it and find a connection to it. So if God exists – great! I still stand by my problem with religious choice.

    In your other post you say I am a parasite on Christian morality, but then go on to say that morals are stamped on the human heart which is why even pre-christian and non-christian peoples have had similar moral ideas. IF I am a parasite it is on these moral ideas shared by both christians and non-christians.
    How do I account for Christianity? I do not know how to account for it, as I do not know how to account for the Jews, Islamic faith, Hinduism or buddhism. These beliefs spread to billions – it seems the human desire to make sense of this world has very much geographical implications. Funny how the buddhists and Hindu’s reject Christ, while Europe so easily understood it. I think culture and geographical boundaries has a lot to do with it – something I would have thought God would be able to get through. I wonder why God chose to go so very local with his only human manifestation on earth, hoping that the small amount of people who were there could convince the billions of subsequent peoples of the earth. Christian’s complete devotion to Jesus is obviously amazing and awe inspiring as it was able to convince so many – yet not everyone. No matter what your faith, there is always more people on earth who believe something different from you.

    Basically, it all comes down to BELIEVING it doesn’t it. Yes I hope and believe that, as this universe is so amazing, that there must be SOMETHING behind it. But then what created that something?? And what created that? But what me and you are arguing over is the interpretation of that entity we think is behind the universe. Neither of us can convince the other of our positions.

    So I want to come back to the very start… This article is about homosexality and the “born gay” issue. To quote myself “It ignores same-sex LOVE.” For me this is why I cannot just drop everything I understand and cherish in my life. If I were to decide “hey, all the religions, or Christianity is right after all” then I would ultimately have to end my current relationship that makes me happy, and live a life of celibacy for a reason that I ultimately do not understand. It would be like yourself saying “I think I will submit to the will of Alah, drop Christianity and cover my wife with a burkah”. It would go against everything you cherish in YOUR life. I am so glad you cherish and make sense of the world around you through a faith is something. I hope all people are able to do this. But to tell me YOUR understanding should negate my own is asking a little too much my friend. Even if that means I go to hell (something I do not believe in either but we shall see!) I will have to go knowing I followed the logic and understanding of this world that I have managed to understand, with the brain and questioning nature that God gave me.

  25. foospro86 said

    Just because there is violence present in the Bible doesn’t mean that God necessarily approves of it. And obviously, there is hardly any violence in the New Testament compared to the Old.

    Religion left to its own devices becomes “murderous and coercive”? Prove it!
    https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/religion-creates-social-order-and-happiness/
    If you actually look at the issue reasonably and historically, you will see that it was the the institutional combination of Church and state that eventually led to many horrors. It has been the introduction of non-Christian impurities that have led Christians to do un-Christian things. Thus it cannot be compared to Marxism at all like that.
    Christianity is very much a non-coercive religion. Jesus, the apostles, and early Christians did not go around punishing or killing non-Christians. Words were their weapons. They were not insurgents in a physical sense.
    “quite so easily and frequently”? Would you like to actually try and back up that assertion?

    Of course I’m not going to end up like the Taliban; I’m not a Muslim! There is no equivalent of jihad in Christianity. Again, you are unfairly trying to lump Christians in with radical Muslims under the heading of “religious.”

    Fascism and communism aside, it was secular humanism that directly led to the Reign of Terror in France in the late 18th c.

    Explain more?! How about digesting and responding to what I already said: “fascism and communism (basically the same thing) are the inexorable logic of your humanism. If God is not the highest power, then the state must be. If human beings have no souls, then they must be treated merely as mechanical parts of the whole. The seeds of fascism and communism were sown during the humanist Enlightenment, the so-called Age of Reason, and the French Revolution in particular.”

    haha, you think Christians today believe there is such a thing as witches? That is your best argument?!
    Here is what C.S. Lewis had to say about that:
    “But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did–if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did.”

    Why are you not willing to debate the merits of Christianity in its essence? Forget what ppl have done in the name of Christianity centuries after it became established. I’m not sure you really understand what Christianity is. You would do well to read at least the first few chapters of Mere Christianity:
    http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt

    Look, I merely want you to admit there is a right answer, just as there is a right answer to 2+2. If I can’t get you to admit that much, I’m wasting my breath in trying to demonstrate that Christianity is that right answer.

    Homosexuality is not a threat to human life in a physical sense (unless everyone abandoned normal sexual intercourse or if it was combined with promiscuity a la AIDS). I’ve never claimed such a thing.
    My concern is the harm to the soul and then by extension to society. If God intends for sex to be sacred and have rules, then it can only harm us to disobey him. But on a purely rational level, the consequences of separating sex from the context on marriage and children has observable harmful consequences. Children suffer from weak marriages. Marriages suffer when they are not open to children.

    How ironic that humanism, which supposedly holds humanity as the highest good, should be the source for such notions as population control which is just a euphemism for disdain of humanity. It is just an excuse for crimes against humanity.

    Sex is not mere reproduction, continuing the species; it is the creation of human life and thus sacred and unique. Again, why is it that humanism seems to revile human life and how it comes to be? The answer is quite obvious to any true Christian.

    One cannot understand humanity without God. There is no purpose to human life in and of itself. One must look outward to find purpose, not inward. If you are honest with yourself, you will admit the selfishness, darkness, and chaos one finds within.
    And how can one know God without religion? God will rarely reveal Himself to the physical senses. Though we know many have testified that He did over 2000 yrs ago.

    Yes, that’s right. You have basically admitted that all morality comes down to faith, a largely irrational trust or “hope.” But faith in what? If you can’t know, then you can’t put faith in yourself!

    If there is one source of true morality, then how can we pick and choose which rules from that source to follow and which not to follow?
    I mean, are you telling me that sex, which creates such an important thing as human life, is to have no rules at all? If not, then on what basis does one posit such rules?

    But if there is a Creator and He created you, however directly or indirectly, then how can you reject the demands of the Creator who is the benefactor of your very existence?
    The Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition is very unique in this regard. Name another religion where the divinity claims to be the Creator of the universe, the natural world, and to have created it out of nothing like the Big Bang. At the very least, one’s search for the one true religion should be limited to 3 options.

    There is no contradiction between being a parasite on Christian morality and having a conscience, the natural law stamped on one’s heart but accessible through reason.
    It should be noted that it is possible for a culture or even the person himself to wear away the mark and dictates of conscience, if not erase completely. And yet it is possible, though difficult, for one to regain one’s conscience through humility and a willingness to transcend one’s own culture and selfishness.

    The Greco-Roman world was seemingly providentially primed to receive Christianity. It was a fairly peaceful time. Plato’s thoughts on the divine were very compatible in many ways with Christianity as St. Augustine notes. St. Thomas Aquinas easily appropriated much of Aristotle’s thought. As I’ve mentioned before, the Romans, at least in the beginning, were very pious people, though pagan. The notion of virtue was quite compatible with Christianity. St. Paul, a Roman citizen, knew how to communicate to Greco-Roman audiences. The Christian God is the God of Reason, so it is no surprise that the Greco-Roman world adopted Christianity.

    Sure, geography and culture play a part. But let’s remember that Christianity does seek to overcome those factors: it’s called evangelization and missionaries. Jesus told his apostles (the term “apostle” means “one who is sent” ) to go out and baptize all nations. Of course, Jesus did not promise his apostles they would be accepted wherever they went; almost all would be martyred. Give God a little more credit though; He’s not stupid, but he does respect our free will.

    That’s a very good question. I’ve also wondered why God couldn’t have appeared all around the world and shown himself more clearly and frequently. But Scripture tells us that Jesus had to die, had to be sacrificed for our sins. It also tells us that we are God’s “fellow workers” and thus he intends for his followers to be a part of his plan of spreading the good news. The Bible also tells us that there is blessing upon those who believe but have not seen (doubting Thomas passage). But more pointedly, what would be the point of faith if God merely showed himself to everyone? Faith in God is compared to a loving marriage in Scripture. When you trust someone to be faithful to you, you are putting faith in them. It is not a matter of certain knowledge, though one is right to demand some kind of evidence, though no proof is possible.
    Again, name another religion that specifically claims the existence of miracles. Moreover, name a religion that even conceived of the world as divided between the natural world and the supernatural (a Greek/Christian concept).

    Why dismiss the possibility that the “something” behind the universe actually revealed itself, especially through miracles? Why not investigate the claims of those who said it actually happened? How do you explain their claims?

    But just imagine the perfect love and happiness that the Christian God promises to those have faith in him and obey him. If there is even the possibility that such a thing might exist, why would you throw it all away? I mean, you are going to grow old, your partner will die, and the pleasures of the flesh will slowly fade away and be replaced by sickness and suffering. There are some things worth giving up pleasure and even one’s life, no?
    Have you ever heard of Pascal’s Wager?

  26. James said

    Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been busy and also wanted to read a little of the “Mere Christianity” text which I found very interesting.

    Yes, often the combination of church and state has caused much of the horrors we have seen. But then that is not much of an advert for the Church’s inflibility is it. If chruch + state equals so many horrors, surely secularism is the answer? You said yourself – Christianity was responsible for such seperation (and seemed glad bu that analysis) – so therefor you are advocating a separation of church and state to refrain from such horrors, no? Isn’t this seperation what we call secularism? You yourself quoted the bible “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s; Render unto God that which is God’s”. I would agree.
    In terms of other non state related horrors I would just refer you to God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens for a small example of what religions, including christianity have done in the name of God. It seems from the murderous stories of Abraham and Moses (God very much approved – indeed instructed Moses to kill many many people did he not?) to the burning of Joan of Arc, the inquisition to the crusades, right up to the probelms in Northern Ireland, Beirut and Belgrade – we see that a problem of all organised religions, Christianity included, is that they appeal to the ego of people – appeal to their sense of righteousness and gives them devine authority to kill and maim. Religion makes enemies of eachother. Christianity made / makes enemies of those who refused to accept Jesus. And many were burned for it. This is why I belive organised religion to be so terrible and devisive. I could go through so many times in human history where this coercison has existed but then I don’t have the time.

    I used the Tabliban argument because it highlighted the stupidity of your assertion that my non-religiousness is tantamount or of the same ilk as Stalinism. They are NOT the same thing, just as your Christianity is not the same as fundamentalist Muslims. The religion, and the way you preactice it may not be so coercive or deplorable as some others religion, and neither is my humanism so deplorable as Stalin’s communism. You too are lumping any belief outside Christianity into the same box.

    I never said humans have no soul. The idea of humans being mechanical parts to a whole is not a logical extention of what I believe – I don’t believe it. I just don’t believe in your interpretation of ancient texts of dubious origin. This is something quite seperate from the belief or hope or felling of there being a God of some sort to fill in the blanks still left by science.

    I think Mere Christianity was a great piece of writing and I think I understand a little better why you, and others would be Christians. I read about half of it.
    It does assume many things however – there is a good and bad in the world, and because of this God must exist and have a hand in it. The two do not necessarily follow. His argument about the soul was interesting and I liked his idea of the fleet of ships as a metaphore for humanity. I agree that to go forward together then we have to have our own ship in order so that we do not hit the other ships. But what if I believe my ship is in order. And once persons “order” is another persons chaos surely. You would argue my ship needs to be heterosexual to be in order. In fact, if I decided to “give up” my homosexuality – if you can do such a thing – then I can tell you my ship would be a very stressed out and unhappy ship! A ship with fond memories of great relationships and love, now sailing in denial. I think this would have a lot of consequences for my soul, and not good ones. I think you must believe for a person to be gay, then they must automatically be narcisitic, unhappy, nihilistic etc.. This is not the case, well for me anyway.

    “My concern is the harm to the soul and then by extension to society”. Do you think my sexuality is all I am? Do you think my soul is homosexual? My soul only benefits from the happiness, tenderness, mutual understanding and love my parter and I experience when together. I do not think the sex of the person / people I experience this with has any effect on my soul. You may disagree, but funnily enough, when I am with my partner, his sex is not something that seems to be on my mind – all I know is that it works and makes sense to us and makes us happy – and our ships seem to sail alot straighter (so to speak) with eachothers guidance and love for eachother. Yes I could have this with a woman – but I have this with a man – so what? My soul is really do devastated for having this connection with another man? Please!

    I think my point of population control was taken a little seriously – as if I advocated certain measures for it or something – I’m not sure.

    Being gay does not make you revile human life or how it comes to be. Not being able to find someone of the opposite sex attractive (or not haveing been able to yet) does not mean I look down on the way human life continues. I may not be a part of it yet (now / ever) but so what? I do say again, enough people already are.

    “One must look outward to find purpose, not inward. If you are honest with yourself, you will admit the selfishness, darkness, and chaos one finds within.” I disagree – for if there is a God, it is without and within. How can one know God without religion? Well you would have to ask the thousands/millions of people who do so. You do not want me to negate your relationship to God, for I do not know this relationship, only you can – so therefore don’t negate the relationship other have to it. It may be a different relationship to yours – it may or may not have a book of ancient texts, it may or may not have a cross symbol – but may be just as real.

    When I know the creators “demands” (if you want to use such human, dictatorial, emotional terminology) then I will follow them. You wonder why I made a flippant remark about Kim Jong-il! The bible reads more like human demands on humans. Sorry, it just does. And the history of it, and very parochial stories it contains just helps to back up this point to me, even if the themes are universal.
    “Search for the one true religion” – I don’t believe any of them are “true”. I have yet to find a “true” god in these traditions or texts. The Roman people were pious tho pagan you state – well perhaps they had as much connection to god as you do.

    Speaking of Thomas – didn’t they find a gospel accoring to him? And one according to Judas? Funny how people “with the band” and their interepretations have been so quickly discarded. One wonders of the 4 main gospels (written after the fact) are the only true interpretation, or if somehow, human influence had a hand in all this??

    Everyone claims miracles all the time – a baby is saved from the rubble – a “MIRACLE”. It makes me laugh that when good things happen in the world they are of God’s intervention – and when bad things happen it is “god’s punishment” – yet surely the answer is we live in a natural world where both good and bad things happen to people all the time, because we live in a changing, shifting natural world. Thousands of sick catholics gather and when one or two get better, its a mircale! Ofcourse it couldn’t be that sometimes people get better!

    “name another religion that specifically claims the existence of miracles. Moreover, name a religion that even conceived of the world as divided between the natural world and the supernatural” And this is to prove the existence of the Christian God? The greeks had this idea too – so…the question backfired on you.

    “Why dismiss the possibility that the “something” behind the universe” I don’t. But the question is did it reveal itself and if it did, how do we know the interpretations of it are sound? I’m sorry – and I genuinely mean that – but I cannot look at the history of the bible, take into account of the illiterate desert peoples and the myths and superstitions people had about the natural world there and then, and believe the creator of the COSMOS came (to them only) as a man and said the exact things that were ascribed to him by people many many years later in some books chosen to be true by people with agendas for a church. That is where the leap of faith comes – and it has nothing to do with recognising the energy / force / light / god / consiousness behind the universe.

    The pefect love and happiness of the catholic church is something many people would argue and attest against. There is no love in such supressing dogma. Again – not an attack on God, an attack on the human institutions that arise to tell others how to worship/believe in it.

    Pascal’s Wager? Ofcourse I have heard of it – but again, any religion can take this wager and use it for themselves. The Muslims might be correct so I will follow them. No wait, the Jews make a lot of sense, ok I will follow them…
    You get my point. C S Lewis said that God knows the hearts and souls of people – thus people going to church are not guaranteed a place in heaven whereas a prostitute may infact go, as God knows what it truely in her heart. So therefor pascals wager is pointless to me. If there is a God, it knows my heart and reasoning for being who I am in life. If that’s not good enough for God, I will not pretend to be something I am not. Kim Jong-Il may fall for it, i’m sure God wouldn’t.

  27. Brandon said

    This guy is full of it! He claims before this Ulrichs guy “made up” homosexuality, there’s no known record of it? HA! That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Historians will tell you there are plenty of recorded instances of homosexuality in history before then. Hadrian was gay. Many other Roman emperors were as well. And plus, not all pedophiles are gay. Some actually are into little girls. So, I really wish homophobes would stop promoting this claim that all gay men are pedophiles. It doesn’t hold water!

    Pedophilia has nothing to do with whether you’re gay or straight. It’s a totally exclusive phenomenon. And even if people weren’t born gay, what’s the big deal?? Just accept gay people and move on. God, we have such hangups. Everywhere Westerners go and conquer, they end up promoting their bigoted views on sex. Most tribal or indigenous areas before Western interference had much more liberal and relaxed views on sex, I can assure you. And they did fine.

  28. Brandon said

    What evidence does this guy provide that molested children grow up gay?? There are PLENTY of homosexual men and women who weren’t molested.

  29. […] The four chapters of the nicely-researched “Born Gay Hoax” can be started here, especially recent studies have largely debunked the “born gay” […]

  30. Jayhuck said

    There is nothing about this article that “debunks ” the born gay theory. This is merely an article about words. Sodomy, at least as was understood in the law, applied to sexual acts performed by men and women. That words to describe various things change over time shouldn’t surprise anyone. Sodomy, sodomite, homosexual, gay – does it really matter? In terms of the law homosexual makes a great deal more sense if for no other reason than to distinguish it from opposite sex folk who practice the act. I’m at a loss to understand the point of this article

  31. Jayhuck said

    “Why is it so wrong for 2 people just to enjoy sex?” Because sex is a unique act. It is not just another act by which human beings give pleasure to one another. It is a (pro)creative act. And not just creative, creative of human life. What power is that! And thus great responsibility comes with this creative power.
    Along with mere creativity, it is a sacred act because it is a participation in divine creativity, God’s creativity. It is a gift of God and God has intended it for his purposes.
    Therefore, all sexual activity must ultimately be open to procreation.

    See – this is where your argument falls apart – you are bringing your beliefs into the equation – your own, personal religion beliefs which colors your understanding and illuminates your great bias. Its fine that you believe this about sex, but it does not make it so. There are many straight couples that cannot have kids – surely you’ve heard this argument before? Should they not enjoy sex – Older couples cannot have kids either, should they be restricted from the sexual act.

    Its nearly impossible to have a rational argument about this subject with someone who is so obviously colored and tainted by his personal religion views. Your bias was obvious to me when I read your article on Evolution and ID so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised

    You are right above in saying that not all religions are created equal – Catholicism has a terrible and bloody history – want to talk about its violent past since you seem to be so keen on trashing other people’s beliefs such as Muslims?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: