what do you think about homosexuality?

Hello Leap of Faith... please to make your aquaintance. You spoke in a very civil manner so I will address your questions :)

"1. for those who believe that the ONLY purpose of sex is reproduction, i ask you this: what is the purpose of the female orgasm? it serves no biological or reproductive function - it exists simply for pleasure. and for that matter, why is the male orgasm pleasurable if the sole purpose is reproduction? i can't think of any other necessary bodily function that provides pleasure. you have every right to believe that sex should only be occur within heterosexual marriage (as long as that belief isn't forced on other people), but i think disregarding the pleasure and intimacy and emotional connection between sexual partners is naive."

The only biological purpose is for reproduction. Now.. there are many SOCIAL benefits you get and that is what you are describing. For example, a man sees a woman's breasts and hips and is enticed. But, on the biological level, he is merely measuring her ability to feed his young and her potential fertility. On the other side, the female sees his broad shoulders and strength.. it is her biological instincts searching for a worthy mate who can protect and feed her and her young. And FYI.. the female orgasm does serve a purpose; it lubricates her inside and allows for easier travel of the sperm. You also asked why is it pleasurable?.. well for humans and dolhpnis for example.. it is pleasurable.. but it is actually painful for dogs and cats.. yet they still have the same drive we do to reproduce so the results gained by the nerve endings do nothing to justify or condemn an action based upon its feelings. And even if it were... the ability to gain a pleasurable sensation is not unique. Many get pleasure from getting tickled... and another bodily function that provides pleasure? Well umm..lol.. some say a bowel movement accomplishes that. I would never think human beings are so weak as to think I am forcing a belief on them. If they feel an additional opinion backed by facts is truly disturbing it may be that their confidence in their own beliefs must not be as strong as they might have thought. And I know that there is much emotional growth when intimacy is achieved yet is irrelevant as well as to what constitutes a biological (as opposed to perceived social benefit) function. Likewise one of the things that separate us (or most of us) from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to think and show self discipline. As mentioned, there are exceptions but these tend to be parts of society that are more prone to stds and other harmful lifestyles. Through natural selection they tend to die off while the more intelligent parts tend to thrive and continue to grow productively.

"2. (this is kind of a general statement, not a response to anything anyone said in particular) faith is a very personal thing. if you choose to follow the Christian faith and use that as a justification for disapproving of homosexuality, fine (i disagree with you, but fine). what i take issue with is people who pick and choose which words of the Bible to live by and which to ignore. it says in Leviticus that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man. in the original Hebrew translation, that SAME word - abomination - is used to describe someone who eats pork. Levitcus also details a ritual sacrifice of 2 pigeons that must be performed by every woman every time she finishes her cycle. these are just 2 examples (there are many more) of rules that are no longer adhered to in modern Christianity, even though everything in the Bible is supposed to be the "word of God." that's why i find it hard to take people seriously when they invoke the words of the Bible as their reason for disapproving of/disliking/discriminating against gay people.....they are only believing the parts that are convenient for them to believe, and i find that very hypocritical."

Perhaps you are right. Yet it is also accurate to say that perhaps all are wrong and it is the backers of the gay movement that are being hypocritical. Why would it be so difficult for one to believe all these others acts of sexual indiscretion are wrong but they are somehow protected? In other words... maybe we are becoming more and more unjust.. then should we not try that much harder to stem the tide? And maybe they are just picking their battles.. can't exactly fight all of them at once now can they? :)

"3. there was a discussion about the founding fathers earlier. it's true that many of them were Christian, but many others were Secular Humanists, Freethinkers, etc, which is why they purposely made no mention of Jesus in the Constitution, and why there is a clear separation of church and state. i for one deeply resent it when people in power in this country cite religion as the driving force behind their political agendas....THEIR faith is not THE faith...why should i be governed by THEIR beliefs? i do concede that this is a tricky area because i would never ask someone to ignore their own beliefs any more than i would allow someone to tell me to ignore mine...however, legally, their religion has no place in our government and cannot be used to make decisions for people who do not share their faith."

True.. 95% accurate. While there is a clause which states no religion cannot be held higher than any others in the anti-establishment clause.. it does not prohibit any religious doctrine on state grounds. On Modern PC thought, there is no religion in state but this is a contradiction. Would one not honestly think that the founders.. having just written the constitution.. would have a better grasp of its intentions than those of us over 200 years later? And if so, if they truly wished for there to be no religion in state.. why start each day with their public prayers, to write God into the constituion, to mandate religious studies in schools, to print money with "In God we trust". There are some small explanations but these hardly overcome the founders lack of action in this thought.

"THEIR faith is not THE faith...why should i be governed by THEIR beliefs?"

Well, it is a government that is mandated by the will of the people. To change laws.. regardless of motivation... are done by the people (their reps). I think if you wanted more validation though.. you should not single out religion. One's motivation can be as humble as religion or as deviant as a deep seeded hatred. But that is pointless so long as each law is attacked or praised for its own specific level of credibility. The best and worst legislation can be introduced by people as diverse as you can imagine and their motivations are inconsequential.


So the religious, scientific, and biological approaches to homosexuality are pretty compelling. True you have a marginal percentage disagreeing.. but again, like the argument itself.. it is simply the exception to the rule.. not the rule. Take care all and thank you again for remaining so civil.

-------

edit:

"I guess my question is what is the primary drive for having sex? If it is biological, then why do people who are infertile (whether male or female) still have the desire to have sex? And yes, you do address the social benefits. But the social benefits you describe seem to be a byproduct of the biological needs so the feelings shouldn't exist to begin with in infertile people."

Well the proper urge (for pro-creation) still exists in straight couples even if they are infertile. In their circumstance, the problem is not biological.. but physical. Their drive is correct but the mechanics are not working properly for whatever reason.

"Final thought, and this could just be my opinion, I find it difficult to think that a population that numbers in the tens of millions world wide could possibly just be a biological error. Unless I get free reign to say that Eastern Europe or Canada are Biological errors...which I really don't want to do - I have an affection for both...but you get my point. I guess it goes back to what was said in an earlier post - if we are created in God's image, than God wouldn't make a mistake, would S/He?"

Kids are born in pain all the time. Bones are brittle in some people from birth and break as easily as glass, there are hundreds and even thousands of errors within each human body. Millions also have heart disease because of hereditary conditions so it is VERY accurate to think that people are born with many errors. This is just one of many.

"I apologize for my post being kind of all over the place. When I would go to look up some factoid so I wouldn't be ignorant, I would get pulled off on a tangent and have a new thought!

Hope y'all are having (or had - depending on where you live) a great day!! "

Take care .. you too :)

---------------------------------



"Second, though I find most of your contributions to this discussion constructive and open-minded, there is something highly judgemental to your use of the words "lack of discipline/moral decay". Mostly because this is a very one-sided (dare I say fundamentalist?) way of looking at our current situation."

Well of course my view is to be to one side. I realize there are often different points of view but it does not mean all of them have credibility. When it comes to morality there is right and wrong. Wrong cannot be (imo) painted in a way to be seen as correct or constructive.. the notion is absurd.

"Fact: Our country is over-populated. Largely for this reason many political parties in this country have tried to slow down population increase throughout the course of about two decades, partially through stricter immigration laws, partially through mass education. I will not get into the details of which difficulties these parties faced while establishing their agendas, but I can guarantee you it has not been easy for a country with mostly a "live and let live"-attitude to actually contain something as widely sought after as population increase. Quite the contrary to your statement."

Statistically old europe has a steadily decreasing population. And due to several social programs that cost money and pay back little, it is barely able to sustain itself. The lack of responsibility on a grander scale can doom a culture as quickly as a siege.


"Fact: The Netherlands has a long history of tolerance (and not: moral decay) leading back to our establishment in the Sixteenth Century by William of Orange. William was a protestant in a time of catholic rule, making him a rebel to the Spanish king. Our country was attacked heavily by the Spanish inquisition, which sought to wipe out this "moral decay" that the "heretics" were displaying. Eventually, the rebels managed to liberate themselves from the Spanish monarchy and establish the country of The Netherlands (consisting of several provinces, of which the largest and most densely populated was "Holland" -- hence the alternative naming). The prime directive in our constitution became, upon its establishment in 1815: "All those who are located in the Netherlands are to be treated equally. Discrimination based on religion, views, political stance, race, gender or on whatever grounds may be is not allowed."

Yes. Moral decay can be deceitfully portrayed under the guise of tolerance. But for tons of children being born out of wedlock, where one sees tolerance and an open lifestyle... most can see it as a lack of restraint and responsibility. Now that a few have been too weak to contain themselves, society as a whole flips the bill and pays for decades to come in social services. As this type of behaviour becomes more "tolerated" the society has fewer resources and fewer people capable of contributing to the growth. In essence this is what has happened to many countries of old Europe. So claiming you have tolerance might be a fact.. however it is therefore just as factual that the moral decay has led to many more problems than a sense of self-control would have easily solved. To tolerate lesser ways of life is often destructive to a society.

"Sexual preference was added to this in the 1970s.

I hardly believe that a country based upon these foundations could last if indeed the moral (Christian) decay was the root of all problems."

Well it is weakening given the GNP for your country continues to lower from year to year. While prices go up since the traditional family has broken down. Where there is smoke, there is fire..course if you honestly believe when you go away from respectful teachings bad things just happen out of the blue for no reason.

"Fact: Our social security programme is very different from the one in place in (for instance) the USA, leading to more financial pressure on the middle and higher incomes (true), but at the same time leading to much lower crime and proverty rates and a much better spread of wealth throughout the population. The reason it is under pressure right now is mainly because of the process of "vergrijzing" ("greying" - the process in which the percentage of elderly citizens increased compared to the percentage of newborns) which is a natural response to the fact that we are purposely limiting our population increase. Also, more and more women decide to have careers in stead of babies, especially when they are in their twenties. Couples realize now how much of an impact having a child actually has on their lives, and it has become a much more conscious decision to have children and bring them up in a loving home, in stead of seeing them as a natural progression of marriage."

I agree that the socialism your country engages in might benefit the lower income brackets more thoroughly. Yet at the same time it removes much incentive for the higher earners to keep their businesses there as there is a higher cost. In America (that produces over 20% of the world's GNP), we still tax higher income individuals at a higher level, but change laws to ensure people pull their own weight and to rpevent them from becoming a drag on the nation's economy. I applaud responsible parents and want to see them in a loving home but the number of children on odler european countries continues to rise giving credibility to the viewpoint of a lack of morality/self restraint. Again, if the teachings were not accurate this trend would not be worsening. Finally, there are ways to justify the lack of commitment between individuals in your country. It is easier to shack up and pump out some babies with no commitment than to display integrity and self-discipline and show a high level of responsiblity... I get that. I just find it is a poor example for children to show a lower class of civility is all.

"Fact: The percentage of teenage pregnancies is much lower than in the USA due to better education and information regarding birth control. Divorce rates are about equal."

The rates would be even lower if teenagers from both countries learned to keep their legs crossed. I can offer not a shred of respect for someone so weak that they are willing to have sex.. but lack the ability and fortitude to take care of the child if a child results. To do otherwise is the essence of selfishness. And for the record, kids here know where babies come from... just that many in American do everything to access. Perhaps both kids are just as educated only in America.. I concede a lot of our youth are very weak excuses for people with integrity.

"Fact: The fact that there a more children being born out of wedlock is not a problem when you look at it from a secular point of view. Most of these are still taking place between couples that are living together and have long-term relationships; however, the emotional necessity to set up a "contract" for their unity as a family has decreased."

Well the secular point of view is pretty much devoid of any type of morality. Even if it had some of it, I find that statement highly questionable. It costs a lot more than a "good" child costs both financial and emotionally so far as asociety is concerned. I agree people are becoming less loyal and lesser individuals. Having bastard children might be looked at as a positive thing when people lose their way. However, these excuses are typically used by people with no real center for personal responsibility and invent their own code to service their selfishness. Children born as bastards tend to end up in prison more often, susbstance abuse more often, have less successful relationships, etc. To try to alter reality and embrace a lifestyle that shuns responsibility and accepts weakness as a positive is a recipe for disaster. Again, your country's philosophies have weakened your overall stability and within a few decades your population will unable to support your programs and then it wil lreally hit the fan.

"When it comes to our social security programme, most Dutch (as the inhabitants of the Netherlands are called) consider it a nightmare vision to have a system similar to that in place in the United States. For ages, we have had a situation where the population was left free to chose whatever path in life they preferred, and the government simply provided a "catching net" for those who slipped. Right now, more and more politicians are looking towards the Scandinavian countries to see what we can learn from their systems (Sweden and Norway, though relitavely isolated, have some very interesting principles that we as Europeans could benefit from)."

Well we can agree that people can make stupid choices. They sleep around as teenagers, thinking having kids outside of marriage is a decent thing as opposed to a shameful act. They think earning more money should have them support the sltohs of society.. I get that. But be embracing the lower denominators economincally and socially it will eventually weaken the country's well being.. see my last post.

"And to compare the Netherlands to Finland or Switzerland is like comparing Mexico or Canada (one of the few countries in the world to adopt gay marriage) to the United States. Each country has its own set of challenges, some historical, some actual, and they cannot be listed up under the header of "moral decay" by anyone other than... a Fox newsreader?"

Well they are all part of old europe is all. Old europe has rejected more traditional approaches that have historically led to a stronger model. And as those countries struggle (and the struggling will only increase) they will continue to weaken until they collapse.

i can't think of any other necessary bodily function that provides pleasure