Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Will the legislation of homosexuality be a cause for concern in the future?

Announcements Posted on
Live webchat: Student Finance explained - on TSR from 2 - 3pm 17-09-2014
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gales)
    How does an animal give consent to have sexual relations with human beings? Consent is required for all the things you've mentioned, if the being doesn't give consent, then it shouldn't be legal in my opinion.
    How does an animal give "consent" to anything?

    Can we trust an animal's apparent willingness to engage in a particular activity (e.g. being petted, being fed, being exercised, being trained, being kept at all)?

    If so, then we can trust it's apparently willingness to get sexxed up by a human. If not, then every single interaction with animals should be illegal as well. Do you think this should be the case?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    You base your morality on a 2000 year old book, of which many parts are deemed to be no longer applicable to modern day society and thus 'outdated', so I feel perfectly justified in using such a word. Your views on homosexuality are outdated, society is evolving to become more tolerant and accepting and realise that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, thus your views no longer have a place.

    And it most certainly does seem like you pick and choose which parts of the OT to follow, but to be perfectly honest, I cannot be bothered to engage in such an argument with you.
    It sounds silly when you put it like that, but just to play devil's advocate, everyone else is basing their morality on... whispers on the breeze, basically. Some airy and changeable composite of whatever they were raised into, whatever their friends think and whatever the media is into.

    Today's "omgobviouslycorrect" morals will be shunned and scorned by the next generation, and so on and so forth. It's not much of a stretch of the imagination to see how a fixed moral code over time could be a reasonable idea. Certainly not worth dismissing off hand.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    What makes you think I am not intelligent or not rational?
    Every single post you have made on this thread.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guygp)
    All I would say is that if 'God' and the bible is so against homosexuality, then according to the bible which states that Humans are created by 'God' in his image, why then are there homosexuals?
    But what does "In His image" mean? It doesn't necessarily mean to people that you look like Him, but could easily be the morals from him. His image could simply be the way he acts that we should act too. Be caring for the world around us, love your fellow humans, don't respond with an eye for an eye but turn the other cheek.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    See Finnis for the best exposition of why this could cause significant problems for Western moral fabric:

    http://web.mit.edu/anscombe/www/finnisorientation.pdf

    It seems like the 'harm principle' is indoctrinated into today's thinking youth as the only possible basis for moral censure ever to present a logic.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think more of a cause for concern is that in certain sectors of society homophobia is flourishing and is actively encouraged. The govt also funds this part of society to build new places where homophobia can be taught.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    To answer the question simply, it shouldn't. Whether or not any of the above become legal has nothing to do with their morality. And just because the law still has a christian backing doesn't make it necessarily the right law or backing. Hence the laws can be changed. If society in the future deems these things acceptable it may well be for reasons that we haven't foreseen. However saying something is wrong or bad merely because the law says so is...short sighted to say the least.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    God has not written anything; humans have written their interpretations of God's rules/desires for people etc, and it is these interpretations which form the Bible. I could just as easily write out my interpretation of God's laws/rules etc into a book - it would be the same as the Bible, only there wouldn't be a world religion based upon it. The people who wrote the Bible were writing it within the societal context of their time, so yes, some parts of the Bible are outdated and the morality that as a follower you ought to draw from them is no longer applicable to modern day society. Our societal context is different to that when the Bible was being written, therefore what we see as moral or immoral has evolved and changed.

    Homsexuality is okay, and you need to learn to accept that. It is no false belief, it is the truth. Also, I must ask, are you Catholic or C of E. Because neither are exactly blemish-free:

    Catholic: all those kiddie-fiddling priests, many of whose victims were boys.
    C of E: some historians believe the king was himself a closet homosexual. Contemporary sources also point to a similar view.

    So, you know, when your own religion engages so much in 'nasty homosexuality', have you really got a leg to stand on?
    Let me say this one more time, because I don't think you are getting it:

    *I do NOT agree with what today's society views as moral and immoral. I have my OWN view of right and wrong, based not on the majority of people who happen to live in the same era and geographical locations as me, nor on the people who have earthly power over me (Parliament etc.) but on my interpretation of Scripture. I believe that Scripture trumps social norms always on natural-law issues, particularly "permissive" norms where the Bible is prohibitive. Romans 12 says "be not conformed to the world"- just because the world (secular society) agrees with something doesn't mean it is moral. The theme of not being "worldly" is all through the Bible.*

    Society does not decide what is objectively right and wrong. It has a VIEW of morality of course, which it enforces via numerous mechanisms: exclusion, condemnation, disrespect, denial of privileges, formal punishment through a criminal justice system, etc. Yet the opinion of most Western European people in 2012, or those who hold power in Western Europe in 2012, on the morality of homosexuality or any other ethical question is just that: an opinion. True morality is determined by our Creator and IS NOT susceptible to being altered by mere men, no matter how many or how mighty. Time has no bearing on the issue. So when you say that what WE see as right and wrong has evolved and changed, you do not speak for me, as I am counter-cultural on this issue.

    A further issue is that the Western society of 2012 we both live in is mainly secularist and one of its principles is human rights. Obviously when most people are secularist or only weakly religious, the mainstream viewpoint of society on moral matters will be based on secular reasoning. That may be fine for that majority but as a Christian I must base MY morals on God's revelation. I am a citizen in Heaven, and just a sojourner on Earth.

    The human rights issue is that of freedom of conscience as mentioned in UK, EU and international law and nearly all modern philosophical work on ethics. I can agree with you that most people believe anal sex between two men is okay. But I am profoundly against that opinion. My right to freedom of conscience means that beliefs more popular in the past should not be derided as "outdated". I do not HAVE to believe a particular thing just because I live in a particular society. It just doesn't work that way.

    Obviously, the fact that SOME priests are perverts and the speculation- in my view very false indeed- that King James may have had immoral proclivities does not affect what leg I have to stand on. All possible moral codes have the problem that some people who espouse them do not follow their tenets; it would be different I myself were a hypocrite who engaged in homosexual activity, promoted homosexual marriage or masturbated to homosexual pornography. (I am against all pornography and support the Santorum drive to rid America of the hard core type, though I can appreciate sexual explicitness in a film with artistic merit, unlike some other evangelical Christians who interpret passages on nudity, lasciviousness and shame to mean that showing nudity or sex scenes in films is shameful and thus watching the films wrong.) Had I lived in Victorian times, I would likely have opposed THEIR social norms by securing genuinely non-exploitative literature or art officially classed as "obscenity" on the black market, having recognised the beauty of it.

    I have already studied those scriptures you mentioned. I actually, at the time, wished that I could have a pro-gay view as I felt sorry for a lesbian girl who was one of my closest friends at school. I wanted to believe that, if she entered a civil partnership once she turned 16 the next year, she could have God's approval for her relationship. But from my studies and prayer to God to reveal the truth, I reached the conclusion that they do indeed prohibit all sexual activity between two persons of the same sex. As God has not given us new revelation on sexual morality since then, it will always and forever be a sin- that is, immoral- to perform those sex acts no matter what society thinks in future. Therefore I am not the person with the problem, I will not change my considered view, and the moral acceptability of such things cannot be a "fact."

    Respectfully
    Schedule 2
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mabrookes)
    If he has writtent it into our "nature", then why is it in fact common throughout the rest of nature inluding animals who we would have shared comman ancesters with?

    And I take it you don't mind marrying and sleeping with underage girls, that was sexually moral 2000 years ago and you just stated sexual morality cannot change. It is not gods word, it is humans word written often hundreds of years later than what they are talking about. In the original bible Jesus didn't even rise he stayed dead, then some guy decided it sounded better if he rose from the dead.
    Right. It was not sexually moral to be a paedophile. It might have been viewed as sexually moral by every single person on earth but it would still have been wrong because sex with a child perverts God's order apart from damaging the child involved. Also marriage of a pre-teen child to an adult was often for financial reasons but the child (almost always a girl) did not live with the man or have sex with him until she was mature enough to do so.

    But define "underage". 12-13 is the minimum age I think a person can give informed consent to sex, coinciding with the start of formal operations in Piaget's model and the average age for beginning of puberty. Roman Catholic countries such as Spain, Argentina, Mexico, Italy, Brazil and the Philippines generally have a low age of consent (all 12 to 14). I do not believe the society of Jesus' time on Earth would have differed much from that, definitely not downwards. Paedophilia has been (and is) tolerated in some small primitive societies, which says more about their backwardness than sexual morality itself.

    I would support a law in Britain against "corruption or exploitation of a minor" to replace the age of consent; if an adult >18 is found to have had sex with a 13-15 year old adolescent, they should be punished if they have taken advantage of their inexperience, abused their position or stolen their innocence. In cases where the youth is already sexually experienced, used internet etc. on own initiative to arrange meeting, acted cynically with an adult at a vulnerable time in ther life, etc. the defendant could be acquitted.

    Laws like this exist in many countries; although more complex than a simple age of consent I think the benefits of greater justice in dealing with this sensitive issue outweigh the drawback of possible inconsistency.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Let me say this one more time, because I don't think you are getting it:

    *I do NOT agree with what today's society views as moral and immoral. I have my OWN view of right and wrong, based not on the majority of people who happen to live in the same era and geographical locations as me, nor on the people who have earthly power over me (Parliament etc.) but on my interpretation of Scripture. I believe that Scripture trumps social norms always on natural-law issues, particularly "permissive" norms where the Bible is prohibitive. Romans 12 says "be not conformed to the world"- just because the world (secular society) agrees with something doesn't mean it is moral. The theme of not being "worldly" is all through the Bible.*

    Society does not decide what is objectively right and wrong. It has a VIEW of morality of course, which it enforces via numerous mechanisms: exclusion, condemnation, disrespect, denial of privileges, formal punishment through a criminal justice system, etc. Yet the opinion of most Western European people in 2012, or those who hold power in Western Europe in 2012, on the morality of homosexuality or any other ethical question is just that: an opinion. True morality is determined by our Creator and IS NOT susceptible to being altered by mere men, no matter how many or how mighty. Time has no bearing on the issue. So when you say that what WE see as right and wrong has evolved and changed, you do not speak for me, as I am counter-cultural on this issue.

    A further issue is that the Western society of 2012 we both live in is mainly secularist and one of its principles is human rights. Obviously when most people are secularist or only weakly religious, the mainstream viewpoint of society on moral matters will be based on secular reasoning. That may be fine for that majority but as a Christian I must base MY morals on God's revelation. I am a citizen in Heaven, and just a sojourner on Earth.

    The human rights issue is that of freedom of conscience as mentioned in UK, EU and international law and nearly all modern philosophical work on ethics. I can agree with you that most people believe anal sex between two men is okay. But I am profoundly against that opinion. My right to freedom of conscience means that beliefs more popular in the past should not be derided as "outdated". I do not HAVE to believe a particular thing just because I live in a particular society. It just doesn't work that way.
    No, you are right, you do not HAVE to believe in a particular thing because of the society you live; however, that doesn't mean that soon your views won't become outdated. You are free to hold on to them all you like and wallow in your religious righteousness, but that doesn't change the fact that society is evolving and views such as are yours ARE coming to be seen as outdated and behind the times.

    I do get that you do not agree with what society views as moral or immoral, partly because you say it is merely a view on morality. Fair enough that you think God creates/holds/teaches true morality, but you have said yourself that your view on morality is based on your interpretation of Scripture, which as it was written not by God but by humans, is also an interpretation of God's morality and NOT God's morality itself, to your dismissal of society's opinion because it is just that, an opinion, is slightly ridiculous when yours is also nothing more than an opinion.

    Time does have bearing on morality, for even in the Bible we see God's morality change over time. Much of what is taught in the Old Testament, and thus the morals that can be obtained from such teachings, is no longer applicable with the advent of Jesus, thus God's morality has changed and has evolved with time. Parts have become outdated and no longer applicable.

    Yes, but while you are on your extended vacation to Earth, you have to live and abide by society's rules, no?

    You say that you do not agree with society's moral evolution, so do you disagree that certain things are now considered immoral by society? Do you disagree with the evolution of the role and position of women in society, because the Bible encourages female submission?

    Obviously, the fact that SOME priests are perverts and the speculation- in my view very false indeed- that King James may have had immoral proclivities does not affect what leg I have to stand on. All possible moral codes have the problem that some people who espouse them do not follow their tenets; it would be different I myself were a hypocrite who engaged in homosexual activity, promoted homosexual marriage or masturbated to homosexual pornography. (I am against all pornography and support the Santorum drive to rid America of the hard core type, though I can appreciate sexual explicitness in a film with artistic merit, unlike some other evangelical Christians who interpret passages on nudity, lasciviousness and shame to mean that showing nudity or sex scenes in films is shameful and thus watching the films wrong.) Had I lived in Victorian times, I would likely have opposed THEIR social norms by securing genuinely non-exploitative literature or art officially classed as "obscenity" on the black market, having recognised the beauty of it.
    It is very easy to say you would have gone against the Victorian authorities over a hundred years after the period, so forgive me if I am inclined to disbelief.

    No, but it affects the strength of the religious argument, as a whole, given the inherent hypocrisy of Christianity towards homosexuality. Admittedly, yes, this more affects the religion as a whole movement, rather than you individually, but it stills highlights the hypocrisy of religion.

    Why is it for you to decide that pornography should be unavailable for those who wish to see it? If you don't want to see it, it is very simple to not search the internet for it, but there are some people who do wish to see it, so why should they have their choices restricted because of your wishes?

    I have already studied those scriptures you mentioned. I actually, at the time, wished that I could have a pro-gay view as I felt sorry for a lesbian girl who was one of my closest friends at school. I wanted to believe that, if she entered a civil partnership once she turned 16 the next year, she could have God's approval for her relationship. But from my studies and prayer to God to reveal the truth, I reached the conclusion that they do indeed prohibit all sexual activity between two persons of the same sex. As God has not given us new revelation on sexual morality since then, it will always and forever be a sin- that is, immoral- to perform those sex acts no matter what society thinks in future. Therefore I am not the person with the problem, I will not change my considered view, and the moral acceptability of such things cannot be a "fact."
    In your opinion, it will always be a sin; it is fairly hypocritical to dismiss society's morality because it is nothing more than a 'view on morality' when yours is no different. Just because your interpretation of what the Bible says on the topic is different to mine, doesn't make your view any better than mine.

    You see God as the creator, who made all humans; thus it stands to reason that God made homosexuals. Are you therefore saying God made an error, or was mistaken?

    You may not consider yourself to have the problem, but I do not consider myself to be the person with the problem; clearly we see each other as the problem.

    And did you share your views with this friend? And is she still a friend?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Also marriage of a pre-teen child to an adult was often for financial reasons but the child (almost always a girl) did not live with the man or have sex with him until she was mature enough to do so.
    How can you possibly prove that?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Right. It was not sexually moral to be a paedophile. It might have been viewed as sexually moral by every single person on earth but it would still have been wrong because sex with a child perverts God's order apart from damaging the child involved. Also marriage of a pre-teen child to an adult was often for financial reasons but the child (almost always a girl) did not live with the man or have sex with him until she was mature enough to do so.

    But define "underage". 12-13 is the minimum age I think a person can give informed consent to sex, coinciding with the start of formal operations in Piaget's model and the average age for beginning of puberty. Roman Catholic countries such as Spain, Argentina, Mexico, Italy, Brazil and the Philippines generally have a low age of consent (all 12 to 14). I do not believe the society of Jesus' time on Earth would have differed much from that, definitely not downwards. Paedophilia has been (and is) tolerated in some small primitive societies, which says more about their backwardness than sexual morality itself.

    I would support a law in Britain against "corruption or exploitation of a minor" to replace the age of consent; if an adult >18 is found to have had sex with a 13-15 year old adolescent, they should be punished if they have taken advantage of their inexperience, abused their position or stolen their innocence. In cases where the youth is already sexually experienced, used internet etc. on own initiative to arrange meeting, acted cynically with an adult at a vulnerable time in ther life, etc. the defendant could be acquitted.

    Laws like this exist in many countries; although more complex than a simple age of consent I think the benefits of greater justice in dealing with this sensitive issue outweigh the drawback of possible inconsistency.
    You manage to ignore the first main point I made, well done.
    And starting puberty has absolutely nothing to do with being able to consent, the brain is developing for many more years and only an idiot would think that a 13 year old can have a full understanding of consenting to an adult trying to take advantage - and a 13 year old would commonly be having children back then which was fully condoned. Going on about current problems with the specifics of law is not overly relevant.

    I am interested to know where you think gods morality comes from?

    If he just makes it up, then he is only bound by morality he makes in the first place and he can change what morality is as and when he pleases - that is pretty messed up and not worth following the ramblings of someone who can choose what he demands. He could easily decide tomorrow that

    If he didn't make morality, so if it is Gods nature or morality already exists without God for instance, then morality is in fact innate anyway and we might as well cut out the middle man (God) and just follow this innate morality that requires no God to exist. The world would then be a much better place.

    Either way God and religion are either an unnecessary irrelevance that is not needed for us to be good, or a corrupt dictatorship not worth following (God could easily decide murder is ok whenever he wants, if you beleive the first option, and you would be required to follow).
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    No, you are right, you do not HAVE to believe in a particular thing because of the society you live; however, that doesn't mean that soon your views won't become outdated. You are free to hold on to them all you like and wallow in your religious righteousness, but that doesn't change the fact that society is evolving and views such as are yours ARE coming to be seen as outdated and behind the times.

    I do get that you do not agree with what society views as moral or immoral, partly because you say it is merely a view on morality. Fair enough that you think God creates/holds/teaches true morality, but you have said yourself that your view on morality is based on your interpretation of Scripture, which as it was written not by God but by humans, is also an interpretation of God's morality and NOT God's morality itself, to your dismissal of society's opinion because it is just that, an opinion, is slightly ridiculous when yours is also nothing more than an opinion.

    Time does have bearing on morality, for even in the Bible we see God's morality change over time. Much of what is taught in the Old Testament, and thus the morals that can be obtained from such teachings, is no longer applicable with the advent of Jesus, thus God's morality has changed and has evolved with time. Parts have become outdated and no longer applicable.

    Yes, but while you are on your extended vacation to Earth, you have to live and abide by society's rules, no?

    You say that you do not agree with society's moral evolution, so do you disagree that certain things are now considered immoral by society? Do you disagree with the evolution of the role and position of women in society, because the Bible encourages female submission?



    It is very easy to say you would have gone against the Victorian authorities over a hundred years after the period, so forgive me if I am inclined to disbelief.

    No, but it affects the strength of the religious argument, as a whole, given the inherent hypocrisy of Christianity towards homosexuality. Admittedly, yes, this more affects the religion as a whole movement, rather than you individually, but it stills highlights the hypocrisy of religion.

    Why is it for you to decide that pornography should be unavailable for those who wish to see it? If you don't want to see it, it is very simple to not search the internet for it, but there are some people who do wish to see it, so why should they have their choices restricted because of your wishes?



    In your opinion, it will always be a sin; it is fairly hypocritical to dismiss society's morality because it is nothing more than a 'view on morality' when yours is no different. Just because your interpretation of what the Bible says on the topic is different to mine, doesn't make your view any better than mine.

    You see God as the creator, who made all humans; thus it stands to reason that God made homosexuals. Are you therefore saying God made an error, or was mistaken?

    You may not consider yourself to have the problem, but I do not consider myself to be the person with the problem; clearly we see each other as the problem.

    And did you share your views with this friend? And is she still a friend?
    1) As for obeying society's rules- yes and no. I don't believe in rebellion for the sake of it nor am I "anti-society" or anarchist in any way- I just think that society and/or law cannot overrule God on the matter of morals. It certainly does supplement God's eternal rules with ones necessary or appropriate to particular times and situations. There are passages about "living above reproach for the Gospel" and not causing a weaker brother to stumble; so a Christian who openly does things their society says is wrong, unless there is a Biblical mandate to do so, is usually doing bad. Sometimes fighting social mores is just such as with slavery and protests outside abortion clinics in the contemporary context. Another thing: nearly all of the 21st century mores I disagree with are more PERMISSIVE than my view, so I am not actually disobeying them- there is no rule in our society "you MUST have premarital sex", "you MUST abort children", "you MUST get drunk on nights out." Difficult as it is for me in the C21, I grant it would have been far harder for you living in the 19th century with your ideas.

    2)The submission in the Bible is "servant leadership" model, wives and husbands are to submit to each other because their bodies belong to each other, unlike the false religion of Islam which teaches degrading submission of females to males. I have some respect for pro-life feminism/ Christian feminism- mainstream feminism disgusts me with its support for unjust pos-discrim measures like quotas, lack of regard for any gender roles whatsoever and far worse, its advocacy of the murder of millions of unborn babies in the name of liberation. Those dead babies will never enjoy a career or even burn bras on a thoroughfare with their consoeurs. I am not sure whether the requirement for clergy to be male was a cultural thing or part of eternal design.

    3)The evolution of society is a fact that nobody can deny. I fully accept that my entire worldview may be perceived as "behind the times" but was making the point that I think some things are absolutely right or wrong for all time. Morally, being "with the times" is not a good and being "behind the times" is not evil.

    4) The changing of rules for moral conduct between OT and NT was done by God through the men He chose to write His word to man, which is different to people who say the NT doesn't apply any more because of social evolution when God has not given us any further revelation.

    5) If you actively disbelieve that I would have rejected Victorian obscenity law based on the Biblical mandate for rejecting oppression (and I think the way they treated art and artists was very oppressive) you obviously have very little knowledge of me; not that this is a bad thing as we've only just encountered each other online.

    6)My lesbian friend- yes, she did remain a friend although we did have one brief falling out over the issue of my view of her sexuality. I remember the rapprochement more, for the horrendous consequences in school. I went to find the pastoral care professional who dealt with her as she was a Looked After Child at the time. I said "(She) has forgiven me over the argument. Here's proof," passing her a printout of MSN chat with the girl. Both discussed, without too much detail, what sort of girls we were attracted to and I apologised for insulting her. I assumed that this woman would know her sexuality as she had secret access to all pupil files in LAC cases and her CAMHS team shared information with the school. She didn't, and found it "inappropriate" that I had "breached her privacy" by showing her the printout. Instead of telling me this, she chose to COVER her back, pass it to the Child Protection Coordinator, who gave it to the Headmistress and it was embarrassingly shown to my MUM- as if that helped with any breach of the girl's privacy. I got a very, very stern telling-off.

    7)Porno, creation and gays- I think it hurts the women involved even if they consent, and many of them have drug and/or mental health issues that make their consent of questionable moral (not legal) value in the first instance. God created the human race but sin entered when some of His angels led by Satan disobeyed Him and man followed that false path. People frequently choose to sin whether by having gay sex, fornicating, taking His name in vain, promising falsely, using Ouija boards, being hateful (Westboro Baptists, Ian Paisley, Marc Carpenter) or any other wrongful act. He didn't make them sin.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    1) As for obeying society's rules- yes and no. I don't believe in rebellion for the sake of it nor am I "anti-society" or anarchist in any way- I just think that society and/or law cannot overrule God on the matter of morals. It certainly does supplement God's eternal rules with ones necessary or appropriate to particular times and situations. There are passages about "living above reproach for the Gospel" and not causing a weaker brother to stumble; so a Christian who openly does things their society says is wrong, unless there is a Biblical mandate to do so, is usually doing bad. Sometimes fighting social mores is just such as with slavery and protests outside abortion clinics in the contemporary context. Another thing: nearly all of the 21st century mores I disagree with are more PERMISSIVE than my view, so I am not actually disobeying them- there is no rule in our society "you MUST have premarital sex", "you MUST abort children", "you MUST get drunk on nights out." Difficult as it is for me in the C21, I grant it would have been far harder for you living in the 19th century with your ideas.
    But how could there be a Biblical mandate for deliberately breaking some of society's laws? I get that you don't support abortion/premarital sex/homosexuality, and that your beliefs here are biblically based, but does the Bible really condone/encourage things that would entail breaking laws? Surely there must be some element of adaptation by yourself to see that sometimes, certain things from the Bible aren't applicable at that time. I can't think of any specific hypothetical examples, but surely there must be times?

    2)The submission in the Bible is "servant leadership" model, wives and husbands are to submit to each other because their bodies belong to each other, unlike the false religion of Islam which teaches degrading submission of females to males. I have some respect for pro-life feminism/ Christian feminism- mainstream feminism disgusts me with its support for unjust pos-discrim measures like quotas, lack of regard for any gender roles whatsoever and far worse, its advocacy of the murder of millions of unborn babies in the name of liberation. Those dead babies will never enjoy a career or even burn bras on a thoroughfare with their consoeurs. I am not sure whether the requirement for clergy to be male was a cultural thing or part of eternal design.
    Many examples encouraging female submission to their husbands appear in the Bible; the majority are admittedly in the OT, which we shall ignore as you believe that is not applicable to you, but in Corinthians, Ephesians and Timothy there are passages stating the same idea, that women should submit to their husbands, or are wicked and evil. Women are traditionally blamed for the fall from the Garden of Eden, a belief which allowed the discrimination against women that we see throughout history, especially when religion played a much more important part in life than it does now.

    I would describe myself as on the cusp of feminism; I don't agree with quotas (for anything, be it disabled people, LGBT people, people of ethnic minorities, not just gender) and think jobs should be achieved based on merit, not what you have (or don't have) between your legs. However, for the time being, quotas may be the only way (unfortunately) to start the process of achieving equality in the working world. What needs to be countered is the perception that men can do certain jobs better than woman; that the upper echelons of the business world are still dominated by men is ridiculous, when there are many just as (if not more) capable women able to do the job. Some career paths still resemble, at the very top, gentlemen's private members' clubs, which is not acceptable.

    However, I do not agree with restrictive gender roles and think the evolution and development of these roles has been a good thing, for both men and women. Such rigid gender roles as we saw in previous centuries were damaging, both to individual families and to society as a whole, and I think we are much better off for the lessening of such restrictions.

    So do you agree with abortion when the mother's life would be put at risk if the pregnancy was carried out, or is that still unacceptable? I think you rather simplify the reasoning behind abortions; yes, the ability of women to secure abortions when and if required is a sign of female liberation, but women don't get abortions willy-nilly to show off about women's lib. The reasons for abortions are wide ranging and numerous: the pregnancy could endanger the women's health; the pregnancy came about as the result of sexual assault; the women is not psychologically capable of either carrying on the pregnancy or looking after the child, which would mean one more child in the care system etc. Some women/couples feel it would be unfair to have a child in the situation they are in, they don't think they have the means or are in the right place in their lives to be able to give a baby the love and support (financial and emotional) it needs; in other cases, the woman/couple does not want the baby (perhaps the pregnancy came about as an accident). In these situations I think the ability to get an abortion is necessary; it would be unfair to the child to be brought into a family that doesn't want it, can't support it, sees it as an accident etc. At the very least, it would lead to an unhappy childhood, at the worst, intense psychological damage for the child. In other cases, abortions are obtained because a screening has shown that the baby will have some kind of debilitating disease or disability and the parents do not feel they would be able to give a disabled child the extra support it requires, or do not want to bring a child into the world purely for a lifetime of suffering, especially when there is no hope of recovery; again, I think abortions in these cases are justified.

    Only male clergy = cultural, no doubt about it.

    3)The evolution of society is a fact that nobody can deny. I fully accept that my entire worldview may be perceived as "behind the times" but was making the point that I think some things are absolutely right or wrong for all time. Morally, being "with the times" is not a good and being "behind the times" is not evil.
    Yes, some things are absolutely right/wrong for all time, yet some things evolve, the majority's view on homosexuality being one of them. Being with the times or behind the times does not mean all of the time a good thing or a bad thing, but in certain situations it does.

    4) The changing of rules for moral conduct between OT and NT was done by God through the men He chose to write His word to man, which is different to people who say the NT doesn't apply any more because of social evolution when God has not given us any further revelation.
    But if God created everything, then perhaps the social evolution and the questioning by some people of the views of the Bible was in his design, a way to show us that the Bible must be adapted to fit the modern day society etc?

    5) If you actively disbelieve that I would have rejected Victorian obscenity law based on the Biblical mandate for rejecting oppression (and I think the way they treated art and artists was very oppressive) you obviously have very little knowledge of me; not that this is a bad thing as we've only just encountered each other online.
    I said nothing about actively believing/disbelieving, merely that it is easy to say such a thing after the event has ocurred. I agree with you that the laws were oppressive, though you cannot know what it was like for those who shared similar viewpoints at the time and whether you would have risked punishment for it. Some beliefs are worth it, but I do not think this is one of them.

    6)My lesbian friend- yes, she did remain a friend although we did have one brief falling out over the issue of my view of her sexuality. I remember the rapprochement more, for the horrendous consequences in school. I went to find the pastoral care professional who dealt with her as she was a Looked After Child at the time. I said "(She) has forgiven me over the argument. Here's proof," passing her a printout of MSN chat with the girl. Both discussed, without too much detail, what sort of girls we were attracted to and I apologised for insulting her. I assumed that this woman would know her sexuality as she had secret access to all pupil files in LAC cases and her CAMHS team shared information with the school. She didn't, and found it "inappropriate" that I had "breached her privacy" by showing her the printout. Instead of telling me this, she chose to COVER her back, pass it to the Child Protection Coordinator, who gave it to the Headmistress and it was embarrassingly shown to my MUM- as if that helped with any breach of the girl's privacy. I got a very, very stern telling-off.
    I agree that it was a breach of privacy by both yourself and the pastoral care professional; just because she was out to people at school, doesn't mean others knew or that she wanted them to know. There are stages in coming out for some people; you start with those you feel most comfortable with, so while she may have been out to her friends, she might not have wanted people like that to find out.

    7)Porno, creation and gays- I think it hurts the women involved even if they consent, and many of them have drug and/or mental health issues that make their consent of questionable moral (not legal) value in the first instance. God created the human race but sin entered when some of His angels led by Satan disobeyed Him and man followed that false path. People frequently choose to sin whether by having gay sex, fornicating, taking His name in vain, promising falsely, using Ouija boards, being hateful (Westboro Baptists, Ian Paisley, Marc Carpenter) or any other wrongful act. He didn't make them sin.
    I do think that is a slight generalisation of the porn industry; I'd say it is more in prostitution where you would encounter such problems, though I am not denying their existence in the porn industry, However, I would say they are probably more likely to appear in low budget affairs; certainly, I would imagine the more professionally made ones that conform to industry rules (whatever they may be) are all above board; the actors and actresses have chosen to act, health checks on all involved are carried out, everyone is paid what they have negotiated etc.

    Yes, but God also created the sin itself, for he created everything, and he created the predisposition of certain people to sinning and the capacity/ability to do so, he created the trigger for them to start sinning (whatever it may be) and he made it so that these 'sinners' would continue to do so, so I would say God does actually make these people sin, thus homosexuality must, if you use the ultimate creator argument, be created by God (not that I see homosexuality as a sin of course, I'm merely going by your words)
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoziHQ)
    The Buggery Act 1553 firstly outlawed homosexuality, making it punishable by hanging. It was only in 1861 where the death penalty was removed, and in 1967 where homosexuality was decriminalised. Homosexual couples now have the right to sexual relations, and even marriage. It's taken more than 450 years for such to take place, but such legislation is a cause for concern.

    Some say that incest is love, but as adduced through our law, this is simply disgusting and a criminal offence. Some people think that polygamous marriage is acceptable as well, but again as adduced through the law, it's not ( it's illegal, unless you're married outside of the UK where it is legal).
    The strong dislike of incest within the TSR community, and the examples mentioned above just prove that christian ethics still have a sound influence on not only our society, but more importantly our constitution.

    However, this influence is lessening year by year by year. The UK is deciding for itself what is moral and what is immoral. If the latter wasn't true, homosexuality would be illegal along with incest as well.And as culture is subject to change, and morality now is becoming more based on the opinions of culture, what society may find disgusting now may be perfectly fine in 450 years.

    Let's fast forward 450 years. What will the UK constitution allow? Will incest be legal? Will polygamous marriage be legal? Will zoophilia be legal?
    We know through economics that the world doesn't have enough resources to sustain our booming population for another 450 years. However, let's just say that it will.

    Will the legislation of homosexuality be a cause for concern in the future?
    I've not read the topic so I dunno if anyone has said this but you should go ahead and shag your brother/sister if you're so angry about it. I fully condone incestual relationships, if that's your thing. I'm undecided about whether you should have kids with him, though.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mabrookes)
    You manage to ignore the first main point I made, well done.
    And starting puberty has absolutely nothing to do with being able to consent, the brain is developing for many more years and only an idiot would think that a 13 year old can have a full understanding of consenting to an adult trying to take advantage - and a 13 year old would commonly be having children back then which was fully condoned. Going on about current problems with the specifics of law is not overly relevant.

    I am interested to know where you think gods morality comes from?

    If he just makes it up, then he is only bound by morality he makes in the first place and he can change what morality is as and when he pleases - that is pretty messed up and not worth following the ramblings of someone who can choose what he demands. He could easily decide tomorrow that

    If he didn't make morality, so if it is Gods nature or morality already exists without God for instance, then morality is in fact innate anyway and we might as well cut out the middle man (God) and just follow this innate morality that requires no God to exist. The world would then be a much better place.

    Either way God and religion are either an unnecessary irrelevance that is not needed for us to be good, or a corrupt dictatorship not worth following (God could easily decide murder is ok whenever he wants, if you beleive the first option, and you would be required to follow).
    I know that the brain has not finished developing, of course, because I am NOT an IDIOT. You don't need a fully-developed brain to consent to a sexual relationship; the lobes implicated in judgment and decision making do not mature until the early to mid twenties, but people very much younger than that are clearly sexual beings and always have been; I find the idea that "brain still developing" would nullify consent to be absolutely absurd.

    A top psychologist, Dr Rob Epstein, explained the neuroscience behind the "teen brain" in a book called The Case Against Adolescence and showed that teenagers are in fact competent to make important decisions even while their brains are going through changes; the concept of their being naturally semi-mad was invented by drug companies wanting to extend the market for ADHD psychostimulants, anti-depressants and other medication. This met with little resistance from parents due to the natural desire to protect and try to control their teens; if scientists were saying they were incompetent, immature and irresponsible because they simply lacked the physiologal correlate to maturity they would have the perfect pretext to enforce ever stricter rules on them. Brain changes that happen between 12 and 14 are the ones which many experts think are relevant to sexual (and medical) consent- see Gillick/Fraser competency in medicine. I don't agree with 13 year old girls having babies-that can change with the advent of industrial society, before which it was not seen as negative, as it isn't really a moral matter as such when one starts procreating. The fact we generally live longer and we need to be educated longer before working is more a practical matter that militates against teenage girls being mothers, it's not "evil" morally. This is why I support ABC teaching in sex education (abstinence till marriage first, be faithful second, condoms/ contracept third) instead of "pure" abstinence which fails to protect those girls who do make mistakes iat this time of life.

    God's role in morality is to give life purpose in the first place, as one who is concerned with His creation and in particular the crowning glory of the earth- men able to relate to Him and accept the sacrifice made at Calvary. He also judges justly, all this impels us to be moral while if we were only spatterings of matter and energy arranged in the right way for blind chance to confer the emergent property of "life" there would be no telos, no Master Plan to live up to. There is also the problem of free will without God; some say it is still possible while others would say that if we are only physical beings we cannot have contra-causal free will and so do not actually choose how we will behave. If that is true, there is no morality, everything just happens the way it does because the cosmos said so.

    It would violate His nature also to suddenly say murder is OK, as God is love: once He decided sovereignly to create the universe His omnipotence was limited by that binding act of choice. Some moral principles come from our imitation of the divine nature as image-bearers. He is perfectly true, so lying, cheating and fraud are sin; He is love so hatred and all the acts that stem from it are sin; as He created man/woman marriage as the sanctified framework for expression of erotic love towards another person, and sex has a spiritual effect of uniting the two partners in one flesh (eg "Should the Body of Christ be united with a harlot?"), promiscuity is sin.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    But how could there be a Biblical mandate for deliberately breaking some of society's laws? I get that you don't support abortion/premarital sex/homosexuality, and that your beliefs here are biblically based, but does the Bible really condone/encourage things that would entail breaking laws? Surely there must be some element of adaptation by yourself to see that sometimes, certain things from the Bible aren't applicable at that time. I can't think of any specific hypothetical examples, but surely there must be times?

    Many examples encouraging female submission to their husbands appear in the Bible; the majority are admittedly in the OT, which we shall ignore as you believe that is not applicable to you, but in Corinthians, Ephesians and Timothy there are passages stating the same idea, that women should submit to their husbands, or are wicked and evil. Women are traditionally blamed for the fall from the Garden of Eden, a belief which allowed the discrimination against women that we see throughout history, especially when religion played a much more important part in life than it does now.

    I would describe myself as on the cusp of feminism; I don't agree with quotas (for anything, be it disabled people, LGBT people, people of ethnic minorities, not just gender) and think jobs should be achieved based on merit, not what you have (or don't have) between your legs. However, for the time being, quotas may be the only way (unfortunately) to start the process of achieving equality in the working world. What needs to be countered is the perception that men can do certain jobs better than woman; that the upper echelons of the business world are still dominated by men is ridiculous, when there are many just as (if not more) capable women able to do the job. Some career paths still resemble, at the very top, gentlemen's private members' clubs, which is not acceptable.

    However, I do not agree with restrictive gender roles and think the evolution and development of these roles has been a good thing, for both men and women. Such rigid gender roles as we saw in previous centuries were damaging, both to individual families and to society as a whole, and I think we are much better off for the lessening of such restrictions.

    So do you agree with abortion when the mother's life would be put at risk if the pregnancy was carried out, or is that still unacceptable? I think you rather simplify the reasoning behind abortions; yes, the ability of women to secure abortions when and if required is a sign of female liberation, but women don't get abortions willy-nilly to show off about women's lib. The reasons for abortions are wide ranging and numerous: the pregnancy could endanger the women's health; the pregnancy came about as the result of sexual assault; the women is not psychologically capable of either carrying on the pregnancy or looking after the child, which would mean one more child in the care system etc. Some women/couples feel it would be unfair to have a child in the situation they are in, they don't think they have the means or are in the right place in their lives to be able to give a baby the love and support (financial and emotional) it needs; in other cases, the woman/couple does not want the baby (perhaps the pregnancy came about as an accident). In these situations I think the ability to get an abortion is necessary; it would be unfair to the child to be brought into a family that doesn't want it, can't support it, sees it as an accident etc. At the very least, it would lead to an unhappy childhood, at the worst, intense psychological damage for the child. In other cases, abortions are obtained because a screening has shown that the baby will have some kind of debilitating disease or disability and the parents do not feel they would be able to give a disabled child the extra support it requires, or do not want to bring a child into the world purely for a lifetime of suffering, especially when there is no hope of recovery; again, I think abortions in these cases are justified.

    Only male clergy = cultural, no doubt about it.



    Yes, some things are absolutely right/wrong for all time, yet some things evolve, the majority's view on homosexuality being one of them. Being with the times or behind the times does not mean all of the time a good thing or a bad thing, but in certain situations it does.
    But if God created everything, then perhaps the social evolution and the questioning by some people of the views of the Bible was in his design, a way to show us that the Bible must be adapted to fit the modern day society etc?

    I said nothing about actively believing/disbelieving, merely that it is easy to say such a thing after the event has ocurred. I agree with you that the laws were oppressive, though you cannot know what it was like for those who shared similar viewpoints at the time and whether you would have risked punishment for it. Some beliefs are worth it, but I do not think this is one of them.

    I agree that it was a breach of privacy by both yourself and the pastoral care professional; just because she was out to people at school, doesn't mean others knew or that she wanted them to know. There are stages in coming out for some people; you start with those you feel most comfortable with, so while she may have been out to her friends, she might not have wanted people like that to find out.


    I do think that is a slight generalisation of the porn industry; I'd say it is more in prostitution where you would encounter such problems, though I am not denying their existence in the porn industry, However, I would say they are probably more likely to appear in low budget affairs; certainly, I would imagine the more professionally made ones that conform to industry rules (whatever they may be) are all above board; the actors and actresses have chosen to act, health checks on all involved are carried out, everyone is paid what they have negotiated etc.

    Yes, but God also created the sin itself, for he created everything, and he created the predisposition of certain people to sinning and the capacity/ability to do so, he created the trigger for them to start sinning (whatever it may be) and he made it so that these 'sinners' would continue to do so, so I would say God does actually make these people sin, thus homosexuality must, if you use the ultimate creator argument, be created by God (not that I see homosexuality as a sin of course, I'm merely going by your words)
    "Should we obey God or Man?" Acts 5, and references to oppression being wrong, are part of the justification used for disobeying laws or society sometimes. I'd prefer to be dead than a slave to any worldly government. I'd also prefer to be in jail than obey something I found to be seriously wrong and unjust. Fortunately there are not many unjust laws that affect me in this country. I was referring to social mores and folkways as well as law though; many a time believers have put their conscience above these, and paid the price of society's disapproval in some way without the involvement of the legal system.

    I know it is easy to say about the Victorian system. There is a scripture for that too, saying that if you claim "I will lay down my life for my neighbour" but will not make small sacrifices on quotidian matters you're dissimulating. I think it would have been worth getting into trouble over myself. My dad did actually help me circumvent the present far less Draconian film censorship system, without breaking the law or causing a public scandal (an example of when not living by an aspect of "society" isn't a sin.) Unlike in cinemas, parents have legal discretion to buy any DVD or video game for their children as it is not "supply in the course of a business." As he believed the French film classification system was truer to human nature without the unnecessary constriction of the BBFC, he bought me a whole series of "18" certificate DVDs and two that had been banned here when I was 12-13. Nearly all were rated 12 in France. All were serious dramatic works with explicit sexual representations. The BBFC classify according to majority UK public opinion as reflected in polls they carry out every so many years; we do not share their opinions so in our house we did things differently. Unless my future wife strongly objects I intend to do the same with my children, but be strict on other issues. I do not mind children seeing two grown-ups simulating sex in a Bertolucci, Fellini or Catherine Breillat. Fiction is fiction, and they could see the beauty of love and the human form as counterpoint to positive injunctions (be chaste, dress modestly) while still knowing the physical and spiritual consequences of "experimenting" with sex in their own lives.

    I would definitely mind them being given the sex/puberty leaflets produced by the FPA, a pro-abortion and anti-abstinence group or taught that the Bible was "outdated" or going to sex education classes which taught "respect for self and others, and responsibility for actions" as the moral framework without reference to the classical virtues or the supremacy of heterosexual marriage among models of intimate human relations. The fact that so much SRE practice in schools is inappropriate from my moral perspective leads me to believe it should simply be taught at home by parents, tout de suite, and schools should keep to less sensitive matter.

    I find it upsetting that you support the deliberate killing of an unborn child just because the parents aren't ready to be a mum and dad. This is what adoption or extended family support is for. Wantedness does not determine worth, all children are valuable in God's sight; quality of life arguments are never acceptable when intentionally undermining the sanctity of life. You place far more import than me on the concept of "equality" as well. I think that it is natural that most, but not all, people who wish to be leaders in business, finance and politics are male and that many women prefer part-time work so they can spend time with their families; in fact a lot of women would ultimately prefer to opt for motherhood in lieu of gainful employment but in this age of inflation, two-income mortgages, rising fuel and the like that is not a workable option for many ladies. I have absolutely NOTHING against female leaders, all the way up to prime ministers and multinational CEOs, but I do not agree that the propensity to lead and devote oneself wholly or mainly to a career is equitably distributed between the sexes and so quotas are to my mind more likely to saddle women with unwanted responsibilities while justifiably provoking men to anger; inflaming gender war is the last thing society needs.

    God did not create sodomy or other perversity; the predispositions to do it would come from the flesh (the sin-nature, so ultimately from the satanic rebellion at the beginning) and He made penises and anuses but did not intend for one to be inserted into the other. Man took the bodies designed for us and chose to misuse them.

    Oh- and as a faithful Christian I will NOT just subordinate the Bible to modern views. I have already said I believe that it is eternal unchangeable ethical truth on matters such as preserving life, the family and sexual ethics. These cannot be adapted to fit a non-believing majority under any circumstances whatsoever. As I also said previously, we now live in a de facto secular society. I cannot expect society at large to be organised by the Bible, but nor will my moral compass as a Bible believer be altered, and so if we are in a post-Christian society, of course I will be proudly behind the times !
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    It would violate His nature also to suddenly say murder is OK, as God is love: once He decided sovereignly to create the universe His omnipotence was limited by that binding act of choice. Some moral principles come from our imitation of the divine nature as image-bearers. He is perfectly true, so lying, cheating and fraud are sin; He is love so hatred and all the acts that stem from it are sin; as He created man/woman marriage as the sanctified framework for expression of erotic love towards another person, and sex has a spiritual effect of uniting the two partners in one flesh (eg "Should the Body of Christ be united with a harlot?"), promiscuity is sin.
    He cannot have a nature if nothing came before him and he created everything. If he has a nature then clearly he is not at the top, whoever created that nature is and so again, lets cut out the middle man and stop worshipping this pointless being. He either has a nature, in which case he is not the creator of morals because they already exist and so god is pointless, or he doesn't in which case he can change murder whenever he wants and so he not worth following and morals are not set in stone like you claim (and for you to suggest otherwise is a laughable level of arrogance considering you are trying to speak for what you claim is god as though you can understand, you can only claim what the fairy tales tell you not what he is capable of changing!!!).

    Teens are sexual with experimentation withing their own age group, not with adults who have the greater undestanding and mental capacity to both stop themselves taking advantage - but also to actually take advantage of children/adolescents in a vulnerable stage of development psychologically if they wanted to. So of course this development nullifies consent in all these areas with adults making consenting sex between an adult and a 13 year old morally wrong.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Thank you OP for confirming I made the right choice choosing athiesm.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoziHQ)
    Let's fast forward 450 years. What will the UK constitution allow? Will incest be legal? Will polygamous marriage be legal? Will zoophilia be legal?
    We know through economics that the world doesn't have enough resources to sustain our booming population for another 450 years. However, let's just say that it will.
    You wont be alive then so why do you care?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 12, 2012
New on TSR

Writing your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.