By their fruits shall you know them...

I wish to start a thread with some rules. I would hope you would abide by them for this thread, and address other issues outside of this thread.

I am looking for the fruits of being tolerant towards homosexuals, both good and bad. One obvious fruit is that we have people who are openly homosexual. This is going to be presumed neutral unless proven (with concepts or incidents or examples) otherwise for this thread, but can be the basis of further examples, etc.

By my count there is one count for and one count against. I may add these in to the thread formally.

The rules are:

#1) no presupposed homosexual conduct is bad because it is bad.

#2) no attacks on the position without evidence.

#3) no attacks with poor logic.

#4) the Church’s position that sex must be reproductive is for this thread only eliminated, and against the rules. As for why this restriction, for this thread I must say that I know that it will lead to a violation of rule #1 quickly. I have other reasons, but do not care for that discussion here.

#5) no off topic stuff

#6) no presupposed homosexual conduct is bad because someone or the Pope or the Bible or who/whatever said that it is bad. I seek demonstrable fruits, not past pronouncements.

#7 ) the more evidence you can cite for your position, the better it is, the less it looks like blind prejudice.

#Last) I will not do more than rate the examples as good, weak, or in violation of one of the rules. And maybe complain about frequent rules violations.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005

Answers

bump!

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

Trying to stack the deck with your rules, aren't you?

If you can't say conduct is bad because Christ and His church SAY it's bad, what is the point of asking your question on this board? If you are going to limit your discussion to only allowing topics like "adults should be able to do what they want", the only answer you'll get is "adults should be able to do what they want".

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 04, 2005.

Trying to stack the deck with your rules, aren't you?

If you can't say conduct is bad because Christ and His church SAY it's bad, what is the point of asking your question on this board? If you are going to limit your discussion to only allowing responses like "adults should be able to do what they want", the only answer you'll get is "adults should be able to do what they want".

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 04, 2005.

Frank,

Yes, the deck is stacked against this board, but this board is one of the few that could be counted on to come up with good examples. If it can't do so..., well that would be a surprise to me, and would also be kept in my heart and mind for future decision making.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

Frank,

A few weak examples, weak on evidence and on extent:

Pro: Many of our creative people in this country are gay. By allowing their expression we add to the creatity around us in a way that enriches. In the same way that the Germains lost by kicking out Einstien along with many other jews, we might so lose.

Problem: Weakly against rule #7/#2, no real evidence presented. Still a possible pro point. Also shows a bit of prejudice in favor of the 'gay' population. Extramely weakly fault against rule 1: no prejudice.

Con: Where once a boyhood embrace was free of possible sexual overtones, now each will fear that such may not be the case.

Problem: no much, this is more concept than evidence.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

Sean,

Pro: Many of our creative people in this country are gay. By allowing their expression we add to the creatity around us in a way that enriches.

The Nazis would perform medical experiments (such as breaking someone's leg over and over to study healing) on people in concentration camps. Should we then applaud Nazism because they were doing medical research? Of course not. If something is intrinically immoral or disordered, it shouldn't be promoted no matter what the benefit to society appears to be.

My gripe with your thread is that the only arguments you are allowing is things like health effects of their behavior, which is not that profound of a *moral* issue. And btw, it's always easier to argue the side of live and let live.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 04, 2005.

Pro: Many of our creative people in this country are gay. By allowing their expression we add to the creatity around us in a way that enriches.

Well, bias aside, is it true? Couldn't one just as easily make the following argument:

Con: Many of our creative perverted people in this country are gay. By allowing their expression we add to the creatity perversion around us in a way that enriches impoverishes.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), January 04, 2005.

"Pro: Many of our creative people in this country are gay."

A: This is not a "pro" point unless you can demonstrate that they are creative BECAUSE they are homosexual. Otherwise you are merely saying that many people in this country are creative and some of them happen to be homosexual as well. So what? Some creative people are left-handed. Some are bald. Some are French. Is creativity therefore a pro-bald characteristic?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 04, 2005.

Paul,

You are right. There is little evidence. It is flawed and weak. It was marked as flawed and weak. It is also prejudged in the favor of the Gay population. It was marked as flawed in that way. What part of the marking do you not understand?

Now can anyone get off this and get on to the topic? Or must I conclude that there is no evidence of the fruits of this activity that are themselves adverse? Who is hurt or helped? What problems does it cause? For if the activity does *not* cause problems then the experimental evidence is counter to your moral statements. And your moral statements have failed a 'by the fruits you shall know' test. Such a test I would think this forum would well understand, and be the perfect site for.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

Paul,

Your arguements come closest to what I want. I am interested enough to break my last rule. Ok, lets say that some left handed people are amoung the high creative group. (Lets also assume a useful high creative group). So if we harrass all lefties, then some of that group will leave or feel suppressed? Likely, not certainly. Will this diminish us? Likely, not certainly. Does the connection have to be proved? Somewhat, it does. And that is were the arguement/statement is weak. I never said that it was strong, just that it was a weak example of the kinds of thing that would almost fly. I can argue that the above was a way of prompting for good content, but I know when I violate a rule.

Brian, & (Frank/Someone),

violated rule #1. And no useful content. And so violated rule #5.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

'If you can't say conduct is bad because Christ and His church SAY it's bad, what is the point of asking your question on this board? If you are going to limit your discussion to only allowing topics like "adults should be able to do what they want", the only answer you'll get is "adults should be able to do what they want".'

I THINK THE MAN(SEAN)WANTS REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHY HOMOSEXUALITY IS HARMFULL TO PEOPLE

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 04, 2005.

and thnx for making such a great post,i'm also intrested in this

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 04, 2005.

I felt that in the name of Tolerance I should correct your floating rules to allow for All people who suffer intolerance to be heard. You know other people who are born that way like drug, alcohol, gambling, sex addicts, or the murders rapist and thieves who suffer intolerance as well.

Just to be fair you know! besides to single out homosexuals would show your intolerance of them! over other sinners.

I am looking for the fruits of being tolerant towards Addictive personalities, both good and bad. One obvious fruit is that we have people who are openly Sinful. This is going to be presumed neutral unless proven (with concepts or incidents or examples) otherwise for this thread, but can be the basis of further examples, etc.

By my count there is one count for and one count against. I may add these in to the thread formally.

The rules are:

#1) no presupposed sinful conduct is bad because it is bad.

#2) no attacks on the position without evidence.

#3) no attacks with poor logic.

#4) Deleted See rule #5

#5) no off topic stuff

#6) no presupposed sinful conduct is bad because someone or the Pope or the Bible or who/whatever said that it is bad. I seek demonstrable fruits, not past pronouncements.

#7 ) the more evidence you can cite for your position, the better it is, the less it looks like blind prejudice.

#Last) I will not do more than rate the examples as good, weak, or in violation of one of the rules. And maybe complain about frequent rules violations.

Now I think we can talk about good and bad levels of tolerance.

-- Tolerant-This (Rules-R-us@...dotcom), January 04, 2005.

Tolerance,

violated rule #5. I applaud your effort to broaden this mini-forum, please take it elsewhere.

Sean: Your gross rule violation is wrong. Please take it eleswhere.

To whoever said that "the nation would be more perverse",

Sorry to have gotten on you, please take perverse as a value neutral term, tell how it has harmed or helped.

Scientific evidence person: that would be good, any suggestion might be good, a suggestion with a suggestion of evidence would be weak, but weak is better than absent. Flawed is better than absent, mostly.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

Off the top of my head, these are the fruits of homosexual behavior: aids, increase in sexually transmitted diseases, pedophilia, depression, abortion, teen pregnancy, feminization of men, lower birth rates.

If homosexuality didn't exist 40 years ago, would we have even heard of Aids?

There are something like 20 more Std's today than there were back before homosexual behavior was "tolerated."

The majority of pedophiles are homosexual men who prey on boys.

Homosexuals are more likely to be depressed and more likely to commit suicide.

Acceptance of homosexual behavior leads to acceptance of sexual deviancy, fornication in general and promiscuity which leads to depression, adultery, teen pregnancy, single parent families, abortion, etc. etc.

Acceptance of homosexual behavior reduces male masculinity blurring the lines of traditional heterosexual relationships.

Homosexual men do not reproduce. Societies that fail to reproduce in sufficient quantities will eventually cease to exist and be replaced by societies that do. In the not too distant future, "tolerant" Christian societies that do not procreate will be replaced by intolerant Muslim societies that do reproduce themselves.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), January 04, 2005.

Brian Crane-- I could be wrong but I'll take bets that your post is in Violation of some of the rules perhaps all of them. You know we just can not Tolerate violators of these rules.

Hmmm, now this has me thinking about "the fruits of tolerance, good and bad" (sounds like an Archie Bunker saying)

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 05, 2005.

Dear Sean,

What exactly do you mean by, being tolerant of homosexuals? Do you mean lack of laws against homosexual behavior? Do you mean benefits for same-sex couples and gay marriage announcements in newspapers? Do you mean a laissez-faire attitude toward whatever one wants to do sexually? Do you mean refraining from gay-bashing and crude jokes?

I'm just wondering what you are driving at, or what you are picturing.

By the way, even though my personal experience was quite limited, I'm glad I was not imprisoned in my wayward youth. But I'm even more glad God was able to transform me.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 05, 2005.

-just posting links I have referenced in such debates -for those that are not in denial or not wishing to remain in denial...

Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1)

tolerance of homosexuals is required -intolerance of (opposition against) homosexual activity is also required.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 05, 2005.

Brian,

Good start:

Off the top of my head, these are the fruits of homosexual behavior: aids, increase in sexually transmitted diseases, pedophilia, depression, abortion, teen pregnancy, feminization of men, lower birth rates.

If homosexuality didn't exist 40 years ago, would we have even heard of Aids? > unknown and uncertain. Needs solid data. There are something like 20 more Std's today than there were back before homosexual behavior was "tolerated." >More discovered, or more spread or more what?

The majority of pedophiles are homosexual men who prey on boys. >Needs valid backup data, and kinda twists things: most A are B, and thus B is bad.

Homosexuals are more likely to be depressed and more likely to commit suicide. >Needs valid backup data, good concept.

Acceptance of homosexual behavior leads to acceptance of sexual deviancy, fornication in general and promiscuity which leads to depression, adultery, teen pregnancy, single parent families, abortion, etc. etc. >marajuana must lead to heroin use arguement. Slight validity.

Acceptance of homosexual behavior reduces male masculinity blurring the lines of traditional heterosexual relationships. >Needs further detail to show that this is bad.

Homosexual men do not reproduce. Societies that fail to reproduce in sufficient quantities will eventually cease to exist and be replaced by societies that do. In the not too distant future, "tolerant" Christian societies that do not procreate will be replaced by intolerant Muslim societies that do reproduce themselves.

#4 violation. To escape you must show that the % of homosexuals will have a signifigant impact on population.

If this continues, you will have a solid discussion forum answer.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), January 05, 2005.

Danial,

Good links, some bias appearing, but mostly solid. You may have ended this thread.

Thanks,

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), January 05, 2005.

"So if we harrass all lefties, then some of that group will leave or feel suppressed?"

A: That isn't the issue. There are already laws in place to prevent the harassment of lefties, homosexuals, or any group of citizens. In fact there is an increased level of protection for such groups through hate crime statutes. The question is not "should homosexuals be harassed?". Obviously they should not. Virtually all people agree on that point, regardless of their view of homosexuality itself. The question is, "should lefties or homosexuals or any other "minority" group receive special considerations and special privileges that are not extended to the population at large?"

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 05, 2005.

I take it that the discussion must be strictly medical and psychologically oriented then right?

Fine.

After all, homosexuality isn't wrong BECAUSE the Church or a Pope or the Bible says it is. It's harmful and THEREFORE the Bible, and hence, Church and Popes warn people from giving in to such urges.

Now how do you prove some activity is harmful?

Biologically this isn't hard to do. Check out the Center for Disease Control CDC.gov statistics for Homosexuals.

In many of the communities and cities where the lifestyle is openly tolerated and promoted, where SOCIETY is utterly supportive.... you have incredible levels of STDs and early deaths.

Now if the lifestyle was unproblematic, "normal" and a truly viable "alternative", you wouldn't see such huge losses to biological problems. Nature means a thing can successfully trive and grow within certain parameters.

Thus it is healthy for a dog to be outside - their immune system is such that they can drink rain water...lick their various body parts, etc. and basically act like a dog.

Not everything that a creature CAN do is Natural though. Mice injected with super doses of chemicals in labs suffer unnatural demises... yes, they CAN receive such doses, but in the normal, natural scope of their lives they wouldn't.

Now, homosexuals who live the gay lifestyle feel compelled to having sexual relations with multiple partners. This is highly risky from a strictly biological point of view... ergo, it doesn't lead to their organism's "organic thriving".

Insofar as they choose to cruise... there is a moral and hence, emotional toll to be paid for such self-inflicted harm.

If the gay lifestyle was natural and good there wouldn't be a higher incidence of negative psychological problems among that population...but there are, as is exhaustively pointed out by even PRO-gay publications, the APA, the CDC, etc. even among people who live in socially accepting places.

Suicidal ideations, substance abuse, depression, violence, etc. occurs at a rate several times higher among homosexuals than it does among their heterosexual peers - EVEN those who are promiscuous.

How do we account for this discrepancy?

None of the above has anything to do with the Bible, a Pope, or the Church.

If you want to argue or claim that homosexuals don't suffer biologically or emotionally/psychologically at a greater rate than other people then you'll have to explain away literally hundreds of studies.

If you accept that they do, then you will have to account for this difference. It should be added that societal opinion doesn't seem to favor Catholicism - yet you don't see vast numbers of depressed, violent, and suicidal Catholics.

Society doesn't approve of teen virgins... but you don't see them suffering from huge mood swings and emotional trauma.

Why then do we see these real problems among the gay community...if as they claim, it's all natural and good?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 06, 2005.

Joe,

Thank you for that answer. Can you cover the ones that are not promiscuous?

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), January 07, 2005.

Just some ideas:
Here we see two men (Or women).

A chaste heterosexual, and an unchaste homosexual. Which of the two offends God most?

Or; a chaste homosexual and an unchaste heterosexual? Who sins?

If both the homosexual and the heterosexual repent of all sin, does God forgive only one? Which one?

If neither the heterosexual or homosexual repent, who goes to hell?

If the homosexual repents before he dies, and the heterosexual sins before he dies, do both of them go to hell?

Which would you like sent to hell? The homosexual or the heterosexual, if you have NO IDEA who repented? Why?

__________________________________________________

Just some light contemplation to sleep on. God bless us and keep us. Good night.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 07, 2005.

Two guys who are virgins - no STDs - who settle down on an island and begin to engage in frequent acts of sodomy (oral and anal sex) will still develop various health problems given the nature of biological pathogens, the transfer of fluids, the limitations of those orafices, and the frenzy often related to eroticism.

The psychological problems will also follow.

The problem people have in seeing this as problematic is that they confuse various types of friendship. Because all people need friends and need to experience love, they assume that two active homosexuals are fulfilling their intrinsic human need for love BY homosexuality.

Not so. Two heterosexual guys stuck on an island could have perfectly healthy minds, emotions and bodies without needing a sexual outlet. Once you throw in the erotic element, problems begin.

Among the relevant studies, men who identify themselves as homosexuals who have a significant partner they live with though not necessarily are monogamous with (very few live chaste monogamy as in 1 sex partner only for life) have a higher incidence of violence than heterosexuals.

Why would guys of a sub-group who consider themselves victims be more likely to victimize each other than heterosexuals of their same age group? The answer is in the nature of the sex acts they perform on each other and the psychological effects these produce totally apart from religion or opinions of society.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 07, 2005.

Thank you Joe. Do you have any backup proof/studies that would back up your assertions?

Joe and all have answered enough, I will tolerate E.'s thread split.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), January 08, 2005.

-a few more informative links:

Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic

Homo sexuality and Hope - Statement of the Catholic Medical Association

A renowned Catholic organization, an apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church, ministers to those with same-sex attractions and their loved ones. Courage Apostolate has been endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family:

Courage Apostolate

a renowned interdenominational organization:

Exodus: Proclaiming Freedom from Homosexuality

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 08, 2005.