I like this post. While my knowledge of religion is limited, this debate always reminded me of Plato's distinction between desires and rationality, where desires are considered a human weakness and the rational mind has control over them. By control, he didn't mean people could control their desires or stop them, but they could control how they reacted to them. Basically, their rational or calculating mind allowed people to not act on their desires. While I simplified Plato's argument, the whole view derived from Plato's metaphysics where he rejected physical reality as the ultimate reality in favor of his unchanging, eternal forms

My history is a little sketchy, but I do remember reading that early Christians liked Plato's writings as well as the writings of the neo-Platonists. I can't say whether they adopted his views, but I always saw a similiarity between them.

The big problem and the one you pointed out it that it is incredibly difficult, probably impossible, to judge the truth value of these statements. This is a problem that confronts all ethical systems, whether Plato's ideas or those of its antithesis utiliarianism. It is really difficult to ascribe truth to a statement telling people how they should act because there is a big difference between identifying how people act (which would be a fact) and identifying how they should act (which derives from a value judgement). It really just comes down to what people find acceptable or what people find pragmatic- this can build an ethical system, but it can hardly result in an ethical system that would be labeled as true.

... The scientific consensus is that homosexuality is beneficial (for the homosexual person), therefore it is also considered desirable from a areligious standpoint. So your analogywith alcohol fails. (and this is neglecting the fact that moderate consumption of alcohol can actualyl be beneficial)

This seems like circular logic to me. 'It's a sin because it's harmful to them', 'it's harmful to them because it's a sin'. Sorry, this argument is worthless.

No, not really. This really isn't a logical conclusion. The problem is that you're making assumptions that are contrary to reality, hence why your posts fail.

Then you admit you are a hypocrite. Confirms a little theory I had about homophobes actually. You disgust me to no end.

I don't see why that makes any difference. He's still a despicable human being.

Which one?

@padib:

The first area of contention is the biological and social differences of men and women, in my eyes.

Biological differences don't really justify your beliefs, and social differences are social constructs, mainly designed by men to opress women.

Regarding the bolded statement, I would like to ask you to be less insulting if possible. To tell a man he has probably never met a woman can be insulting, but I assure you it is for me.

Tough. Your views insult women and they insult me. I am treating you accordingly to what you deserve.

Both have very strong personalities and being twins, they have the ability to gang up, making it difficult for me to make my place, to have a place for my view in the group. I trust that helps picture my background a little for you.

Are you trying to suggest that your sexism and desire for women to 'know their place' is due to the fact that your ego was hurt when you were a child because girls beat you up? Well, it all makes sense now!

Regarding the underlined statement, I believe it is important to emphasize that we all have our points of view, this is simply mine.

Yes, a sexist point of view that is simply wrong.

Hopefully one day it can be the opinion of "1 man held in esteem"

Unless your views change you will never be more than '1 man held in great contempt' in my eyes. And even if you changed them, the fact that you even had  them in the first place would be a source of contempt.

But to cast away doubt, I can testify that I am a person who is seeking and looking to find observable truth in my reasoning.

I find it funny that someone so obsessed with the Bible can say that.

In other words, I am observing people, I am interested in their needs, and am conducting an exercise of social observation every day of my life, in case that gives any value to my assessment of sexual strengths.

Doesn't seem like you're doing a good job of observing (you'd also need to do a critical analysis regarding the effects of socially imposed gender roles FTR).

It`s in the nature of a sin to be harmful, otherwise it wouldn`t be a sin.

Circular logic (again surprisingly), and I think you may have thrown in a tautology too.