Homosexuality from a Non-Religious perspective

[_harmony]

b

Might I say your post has made me think. WOW. I always thought homosexuality is disgusting and wrong but when I look at your prison statement, it is actually true. People (especially men) must fulfil their sexual needs somehow. It is instinct.

They could always masturbate....(talk about trying to decipher the lesser of two evils:masturbation or male homosexual sex?)

This is more sarcasm is it Bond?

If not, why do you characterize as “evils”?

Why not call these distinctions between joys?

JAK

Because the LDS church defines them as evil and sin.

The LDS church is irrelevant to definitions. Any and every religious group makes up its own mythology. Those mythologies do not agree on many aspects of “sin” and a wide variety of other claims.

Your statement is hardly an address of causality.

The LDS church calls drinking coffee “sin.” It’s equally irrelevant.

Is war “sin”? Is participation in a military system as an instrument of death “sin”? Some religious myths would say it is. The Quakers, for example, would call deliberate killing of people “sin” at the order of a goverment.

Sex or sexual experiences are hardly on the same scale as deliberate killing of other humans for any reason.

Hence, any notion of “sin” is relative. It’s relative to time, to place, and to circumstances in any religious myth concept.

JAK

You asked why Bond called it a sin here. I answered the question. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make the answer wrong. And according to the LDS church, sexual "experience" (all sex outside of marriage qualifies) is a sin second only to murder. So yes, it is on the same scale, your protestations notwithstanding, and it does have relevance... here. (This place is called Mormon Discussions for a reason, JAK).

[_JAK]

harmony,

Your answer is most inadequate as my analysis demonstrated. Bond posted sarcasm previously. When I responded as if he had made a serious comment, I was advised to turn on my “sarcasm detector.”

I was not being sarcastic. Your response is a particular religious notion. You are unresponsive to the analysis.

(Previously I stated):
“The LDS church is irrelevant to definitions. Any and every religious group makes up its own mythology. Those mythologies do not agree on many aspects of “sin” and a wide variety of other claims.

Your statement is hardly an address of causality.

The LDS church calls drinking coffee “sin.” It’s equally irrelevant.

Is war “sin”? Is participation in a military system as an instrument of death “sin”? Some religious myths would say it is. The Quakers, for example, would call deliberate killing of people “sin” at the order of a government.

Sex or sexual experiences are hardly on the same scale as deliberate killing of other humans for any reason.

Hence, any notion of “sin” is relative. It’s relative to time, to place, and to circumstances in any religious myth concept.”

You have not responded to the issues which I raised.

The issue is not what someone likes. The issue is definition upon which there is consensus. No consensus has been established for “sin.”

And religious notions (in the plural) of “sin” lack consensus as my post demonstrated.

JAK

[_harmony]

The issue is not what someone likes. The issue is definition upon which there is consensus. No consensus has been established for “sin.”

In the LDS church, there is certainly a consensus for what is sin. What is considered a sin outside of the LDS church does not concern members of the LDS church. I'm not sure you understand that.

And religious notions (in the plural) of “sin” lack consensus as my post demonstrated.

JAK

Only in your mind. In the mind of LDS, and much of the conservative EV world, religious notions of sin prevail.

[_dartagnan]

Sex is just as much about pleasure as it is procreation?

Maybe sex is pleasurable for a purpose; to guarantee procreation.

There are people who are incapable of having sex, and yet they manage to remain intimate and close with the spouse.

[_JAK]

The issue is not what someone likes. The issue is definition upon which there is consensus. No consensus has been established for “sin.”

In the LDS church, there is certainly a consensus for what is sin. What is considered a sin outside of the LDS church does not concern members of the LDS church. I'm not sure you understand that.

And religious notions (in the plural) of “sin” lack consensus as my post demonstrated.

JAK

Only in your mind. In the mind of LDS, and much of the conservative EV world, religious notions of sin prevail.

harmony stated:
Only in your mind. In the mind of LDS, and much of the conservative EV world, religious notions of sin prevail.

An incorrect analysis. If you were to make up a list of 25 “sins” and ask different groups or individuals to number them in order, you would find disagreement. There is a lack of consensus among religious groups on the matter.

A significant relativity would be revealed and has been revealed in perception of what is a lesser sin vs. a greater sin in religious cultures.

Again, you have not address the analysis which I repeated. For the same politician, a “youthful indiscretion” in his own conduct was a terrible “sin” in a politician of the other political party.

Notions of “sin” are all in the mind. They are perpetuated by various religious groups using fear as a lever.

Further, “sin” is a lever or a button religious groups push as a tool of fear. Religion is nothing without appeal to fear. The technique of appeal to fear is rather universal in religion. However, the notions of “sin” are ordered differently in different religious groups.

For example, Roman Catholics generally have no label of “sin” for an alcoholic drink. For other religious groups, all forms of alcoholic drink are “a sin.”

You have made no refutation to my previous analysis. Here, I have added to that analysis.

Is drinking a glass of wine a “sin”?

It depends upon whom you ask. The same may be said for many areas of behavior. There is a lack of consensus on the notion of “sin” and the application of that lever to make people feel guilt.

As a result of this reality, “sin” is relative as I previously detailed.

You have in no way refuted that analysis by example or by definition. You have not addressed it.

Suppose YOU make a list of specific "sins" in order of worst to least. For example: Violating the will of God is not specific. It begs the issue and question regarding what “sin” is worse than another “sin” relatively speaking.

JAK

[_Bond...James Bond]

Might I say your post has made me think. WOW. I always thought homosexuality is disgusting and wrong but when I look at your prison statement, it is actually true. People (especially men) must fulfil their sexual needs somehow. It is instinct.

They could always masturbate....(talk about trying to decipher the lesser of two evils:masturbation or male homosexual sex?)

This is more sarcasm is it Bond?

If not, why do you characterize as “evils”?

Why not call these distinctions between joys?

JAK

JAK,

Why don't you just error on the side of caution and assume that most of my posts are sarcastic, particularly if they sound ridiculous or over the top.

(PS: I understand that what I post is over the top and probably moronic sounding. I post it to be sarcastic.)

[_JAK]

Sex is just as much about pleasure as it is procreation?

Maybe sex is pleasurable for a purpose; to guarantee procreation.

There are people who are incapable of having sex, and yet they manage to remain intimate and close with the spouse.

Yes, of course. Eating has multiple purposes. It was an absurd assertion that only one purpose existed for sex.

Nature is most imperfect with regard to procreation. A couple who has two children could have had conventional sexual relations only two times. Sex does NOT always result in a pregnancy. It never has. Nor does every pregnancy result in a birth. Miscarriages are common. Birth defects are common.

And related to that, beauty is relative, intelligence is relative. Degrees of clinical mental retardation are relative.

Conventional sexual relations do not produce universal results.

JAK

[_harmony]

An incorrect analysis. If you were to make up a list of 25 “sins” and ask different groups or individuals to number them in order, you would find disagreement. There is a lack of consensus among religious groups on the matter.

And yet they agree that sin exists. You don't. So what?

[_JAK]

An incorrect analysis. If you were to make up a list of 25 “sins” and ask different groups or individuals to number them in order, you would find disagreement. There is a lack of consensus among religious groups on the matter.

And yet they agree that sin exists. You don't. So what?

harmony,

What is required here is a working and workable definition of sin.

We do not have one.

You said:
And yet they agree that sin exists.

The point was/is that the various religious groups do not agree on particulars or on a scale of any kind. Thus, the claim of “sin” is made irrelevant.

I observe that you omitted the context of my questions and analysis for you in this post. The issues which I raised have not been addressed.

In reminder, I stated the following:

An incorrect analysis. If you were to make up a list of 25 “sins” and ask different groups or individuals to number them in order, you would find disagreement. There is a lack of consensus among religious groups on the matter.

A significant relativity would be revealed and has been revealed in perception of what is a lesser sin vs. a greater sin in religious cultures.

Again, you have not address the analysis which I repeated. For the same politician, a “youthful indiscretion” in his own conduct was a terrible “sin” in a politician of the other political party.

Notions of “sin” are all in the mind. They are perpetuated by various religious groups using fear as a lever.

Further, “sin” is a lever or a button religious groups push as a tool of fear. Religion is nothing without appeal to fear. The technique of appeal to fear is rather universal in religion. However, the notions of “sin” are ordered differently in different religious groups.

For example, Roman Catholics generally have no label of “sin” for an alcoholic drink. For other religious groups, all forms of alcoholic drink are “a sin.”

You have made no refutation to my previous analysis. Here, I have added to that analysis.

Is drinking a glass of wine a “sin”?

It depends upon whom you ask. The same may be said for many areas of behavior. There is a lack of consensus on the notion of “sin” and the application of that lever to make people feel guilt.

As a result of this reality, “sin” is relative as I previously detailed.

You have in no way refuted that analysis by example or by definition. You have not addressed it.

Suppose YOU make a list of specific "sins" in order of worst to least. For example: Violating the will of God is not specific. It begs the issue and question regarding what “sin” is worse than another “sin” relatively speaking.

There is much here to which you could respond in detail.

Why did you not? The simplistic use of terms which remain ambiguous is the “what” of material for response, harmony.

Since you have not responded to the heart of my observations, I must presume that you either agree with them or are unable to articulate a meaningful response providing your own analysis on the issues which I raised.

JAK

[_JAK]

Might I say your post has made me think. WOW. I always thought homosexuality is disgusting and wrong but when I look at your prison statement, it is actually true. People (especially men) must fulfil their sexual needs somehow. It is instinct.

They could always masturbate....(talk about trying to decipher the lesser of two evils:masturbation or male homosexual sex?)

This is more sarcasm is it Bond?

If not, why do you characterize as “evils”?

Why not call these distinctions between joys?

JAK

JAK,

Why don't you just error on the side of caution and assume that most of my posts are sarcastic, particularly if they sound ridiculous or over the top.

(PS: I understand that what I post is over the top and probably moronic sounding. I post it to be sarcastic.)

Bond,

I shall try to keep that in mind.

JAK