NationStates Jolt Archive

Finally, you reach the best argument for homosexuality: the ONLY one i stumble upon when see.
Perhaps an answer goes like this:
the more gays there are, the more people think it's ok to be gay, and experiment with it. If half your highschool was gay, there woudl be much more higher percentage of gay-simpathisers in the reamining, then if all of high school was straight. Since some are bound to like it, they turn gay. Thus, homosexuality spreads out. If all of human kind goes homosexual, its going to die out without reproduction. Of course you can say, like Femininty on international incidents, that sperm is to be produced by some bacteria, but that is also dangerous, as A) it makes men useless for reproduction, and B) if bacteria mutate, that's the end of that.

That is your concern? That? I don't mean to be offensive, but that's a dumb concern.
First, this goes to the whole issue of whether sexuality is a choice or not: all signs (and there are quite a few) point to the fact that it's not a choice (I won't cite specific studies, but 5 minutes on Google should turn up quite a few).
The next interesting assumption you make is that were social concerns not as they are, everyone would choose to be gay. I typically get annoyed when queer folk accuse a "straight" person of being gay, but this line of arguing raises the question for me. Answer this: if being gay had no societal, moral, or spiritual repercussions, would you be gay? If so, you're gay, so you might want to stop bashing gays. If not, you can be the one straight man alive and with luck there will be at least one straight woman alive and you can singlehandedly perpetuate the entire human species (an odious task, I'm sure ;)).

So you're telling me...that all of human kind is in danger of "turning gay", that homosexuality is like a virus, once it gets out of control, left and right die-hard heteros will be succumbing to it, and be raging flaming homos?

Could you imagine yourself "turning gay"? Probably not.
I can't. But my kids, possibly. Could your great-great-grandparents imagine themselves being absolutely equal to blacks (or Negros, as the grand parents called them then?) Probably not.
P.S. i am not against black equality.

you said that you hadn't heard of homo's making a choice to be homo's,

i have, it's called people who are in jail and miss sex, so they will do anyone.

I believe that is called RAPE.

Do you think they hold hands, make out, talk to each other and express their feelings, laugh and cry together, and once out of jail apply for a civil union?

No. It's just a big guy in jail showing how manly he is by forcing his dick up a weak prisoner's ass. It's about power, with a little sexual stimulation on the side.

that's not 'turning homo' - that is just having the need for physical stimulation and the touch of another human being - a sensation (thouch in general) that is underrated as a human need.

so basically they have no self control over their bodies, so they turn gay

That is your concern? That? I don't mean to be offensive, but that's a dumb concern.
First, this goes to the whole issue of whether sexuality is a choice or not: all signs (and there are quite a few) point to the fact that it's not a choice (I won't cite specific studies, but 5 minutes on Google should turn up quite a few).
The next interesting assumption you make is that were social concerns not as they are, everyone would choose to be gay. I typically get annoyed when queer folk accuse a "straight" person of being gay, but this line of arguing raises the question for me. Answer this: if being gay had no societal, moral, or spiritual repercussions, would you be gay? If so, you're gay, so you might want to stop bashing gays. If not, you can be the one straight man alive and with luck there will be at least one straight woman alive and you can singlehandedly perpetuate the entire human species (an odious task, I'm sure ;)).
5 minutes on google can turn up that aliens secretly rule the world. Half of internet articles aren';t valid sources.

I believe that is called RAPE.

Do you think they hold hands, make out, talk to each other and express their feelings, laugh and cry together, and once out of jail apply for a civil union?

No. It's just a big guy in jail showing how manly he is but forcing his dick up a weak prisoner's ass.
What about the big guy in jail? He chooses to rape the weak prisoner.

Answer this: if being gay had no societal, moral, or spiritual repercussions, would you be gay? If so, you're gay, so you might want to stop bashing gays.
It all depends on what choice I would make.
I could choose to be gay, or straight.

So you're telling me...that all of human kind is in danger of "turning gay", that homosexuality is like a virus, once it gets out of control, left and right die-hard heteros will be succumbing to it, and be raging flaming homos?
Not like a virus, but still expanding. Just compare the %age of people today that are gay, and in 1900.

Chodolo you seam to be along my train of thought's

fuck, it's 11:47 on a school night and i still got homework,

c u all latter,

bye
"time passes by fast in forum's"

so basically they have no self control over their bodies, so they turn gay

of course not. as noted below, they are usually not looking to sleep with men once they are out of the big house. everybody needs touch - and again, as noted below though in a slightly different light, hard men don't like to be seen kissing and hugging, so their very human need for touch will instead manifest itself in ways they previously could not have imagined. people DO need sex - that is why it takes so much willpower to live in any type of celibacy.

Not like a virus, but still expanding. Just compare the %age of people today that are gay, and in 1900.

again - liberal countries of today have no more gay people than countries where homosexuality is frowned upon, and liberal countries of today have no more gay people than when it was frowned upon back in the 1950s or 60s.

of course not. as noted below, they are usually not looking to sleep with men once they are out of the big house. everybody needs touch - and again, as noted below though in a slightly different light, hard men don't like to be seen kissing and hugging, so their very human need for touch will instead manifest itself in ways they previously could not have imagined. people DO need sex - that is why it takes so much willpower to live in any type of celibacy.
See. so homosexuality really is a choice: as they look for men to sleep with inside the gutter, and women outside. Same way gays could have heterosexual sex.
Fighting virgins, i don't wnat to intrude on your personal life, but have you ever had sex with a man? You odn't have to answer if you don't want to.

again - liberal countries of today have no more gay people than countries where homosexuality is frowned upon, and liberal countries of today have no more gay people than when it was frowned upon back in the 1950s or 60s.
You're wrong.

See. so homosexuality really is a choice: as they look for men to sleep with inside the gutter, and women outside. Same way gays could have heterosexual sex.
Fighting virgins, i don't wnat to intrude on your personal life, but have you ever had sex with a man? You odn't have to answer if you don't want to.

no- again, it is about human contact in the big house. not really about the sex.

yes i have - and damn, i ain't ever doing that again.

You're wrong.

there might be more openly gay people - but not more gay people.

5 minutes on google can turn up that aliens secretly rule the world. Half of internet articles aren';t valid sources.

5 minutes in a library, or with an anthology of articles from Scientific American, could also turn up quite a few studies.
Besides, a discerning eye on the internet can gauge whether the article on CNN saying homosexuality is not a choice, or the article on homestead.aol.com with the flashy gifs that says homosexuality is a choice, is true.
For your benefit, here are some articles (or abstracts thereof) from reputable sources:
Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101930726-162082,00.html
CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/23/gay.booklet/index.html (look above the heading "Opponents battle. . ."
Newsweek: Wingert, Patrice. "Straight Talk." May 10, 2001. (Article ID 051001_wingert_gays), but you need an accout to read it.

Ok so is homosexuality actually "wrong." you tell me. And dont give me any of this "there is no absolute truth, do whats 'right' to you" crap. I want an intellegent answer from someone out there.

Thank God for the Internet. Otherwise, where else would we go to hear the same topics brought up over and over and over and over....

Frankly, who gives a damn? My religious beliefs lead me to believe it's morally wrong and is, indeed, a sin. However, I realize full well that's my personal belief and, as such, isn't shared by everyone.

The sexual preferences of other's is absolutely none of my business. If folks want to gay it up, what is it to me? As far as I'm concerned, that's between them and God, and folks ought to be content to leave well enough alone and worry about more pressing issues (such as the mundane tasks of establishing careers, paying mortgages and etc.) I honestly wonder about the motives of people who keep bringing this topic up, regardless of where they stand on the issue.

The problem I see in society is reflected very well in various discussions of homosexuality. We tend to either love the hell out of something or hate it absolutely. Furthermore, those forming extreme beliefs tend to be inclined to run around trying to convert everyone to their particular views. Where's the middle ground?

No wonder people hate moderates. We don't agree with anyone. Oh, well.

yes i have - and damn, i ain't ever doing that again.
hurt much?

good night everyone.

hurt much?

don't think the question came from you - and don't think that doom could use the answer to prove a point since he vanished so swiftly.

If you need to ask this question then there is somthing wrong with you!

What about the big guy in jail? He chooses to rape the weak prisoner.
Yes, he does. But odds are he doesn't consider himself homosexual. You yourself said just a few posts ago that:
A fully straight man can have sex with a man, and experience an orgasm. that doesn't make them gay, that makes their penises stimulated enough to achieve it.
So such a rape is not a choice to become homosexual, it's a choice made to dominate, it's a power play for instant gratification.

If you need to ask this question then there is somthing wrong with you!

who?

Thank God for the Internet. Otherwise, where else would we go to hear the same topics brought up over and over and over and over....

Frankly, who gives a damn? My religious beliefs lead me to believe it's morally wrong and is, indeed, a sin. However, I realize full well that's my personal belief and, as such, isn't shared by everyone.

The sexual preferences of other's is absolutely none of my business. If folks want to gay it up, what is it to me? As far as I'm concerned, that's between them and God, and folks ought to be content to leave well enough alone and worry about more pressing issues (such as the mundane tasks of establishing careers, paying mortgages and etc.) I honestly wonder about the motives of people who keep bringing this topic up, regardless of where they stand on the issue.

The problem I see in society is reflected very well in various discussions of homosexuality. We tend to either love the hell out of something or hate it absolutely. Furthermore, those forming extreme beliefs tend to be inclined to run around trying to convert everyone to their particular views. Where's the middle ground?

No wonder people hate moderates. We don't agree with anyone. Oh, well.

I agree 100%

Thank God for the Internet. Otherwise, where else would we go to hear the same topics brought up over and over and over and over....

Frankly, who gives a damn? My religious beliefs lead me to believe it's morally wrong and is, indeed, a sin. However, I realize full well that's my personal belief and, as such, isn't shared by everyone.

The sexual preferences of other's is absolutely none of my business. If folks want to gay it up, what is it to me? As far as I'm concerned, that's between them and God, and folks ought to be content to leave well enough alone and worry about more pressing issues (such as the mundane tasks of establishing careers, paying mortgages and etc.) I honestly wonder about the motives of people who keep bringing this topic up, regardless of where they stand on the issue.

The problem I see in society is reflected very well in various discussions of homosexuality. We tend to either love the hell out of something or hate it absolutely. Furthermore, those forming extreme beliefs tend to be inclined to run around trying to convert everyone to their particular views. Where's the middle ground?

No wonder people hate moderates. We don't agree with anyone. Oh, well.

Well, on one hand you have gay people who want the same rights as straight people, then on the other hand you have "Christians" who proclaim gays are going to hell to get sodomized by Lucifer. Then there's the straight people who don't give what gay people do on their own time...and that makes two of us. However, I'm not religious, so that aspect of it doesn't bother me.

And if you're curious why this topic is brought up so much, perhaps it's because 6 states so far have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage, it's coming up in 10 other state referendums, and the feds just failed at a similar attempt.

No wonder people hate moderates. We don't agree with anyone. Oh, well.
I agree 100%

Oh, the irony.

Sorry I'm new to this and have only just discovered the "quote" button. The first post in regards to Homosexuals....

Thank God for the Internet. Otherwise, where else would we go to hear the same topics brought up over and over and over and over....

Frankly, who gives a damn? My religious beliefs lead me to believe it's morally wrong and is, indeed, a sin. However, I realize full well that's my personal belief and, as such, isn't shared by everyone.

The sexual preferences of other's is absolutely none of my business. If folks want to gay it up, what is it to me? As far as I'm concerned, that's between them and God, and folks ought to be content to leave well enough alone and worry about more pressing issues (such as the mundane tasks of establishing careers, paying mortgages and etc.) I honestly wonder about the motives of people who keep bringing this topic up, regardless of where they stand on the issue.

The problem I see in society is reflected very well in various discussions of homosexuality. We tend to either love the hell out of something or hate it absolutely. Furthermore, those forming extreme beliefs tend to be inclined to run around trying to convert everyone to their particular views. Where's the middle ground?

No wonder people hate moderates. We don't agree with anyone. Oh, well.

the problem creep (no pun intended) is that when you are gay, it is difficult to leave the topic alone, because other people are trying to dictate how you live your life. they tell you whether you can have children, get married, live together and so on (depending on where you live), and your moderate 'live-and-let-live' attitude is a little frightening- though oddly appreciated - because i fear how far it will go. does it extend to walking past a dying man? ignoring a unknown crying child? reaping the earth for your own benefit wilst ignoring others? might be a little extreme........ but you catch my drift.

To sum up my post for those with short attention spans, here it is in a short sumamry:

"Gays = Rock on, do what you love. Hating = Bad. Boo. Hiss. From each of ya."

Well, I must say that I am amused by this thread, and infact amused on two seperate manners. First of all, to the intelligent, well thought out posters out there, I do tip my hat to you. Even if I don't agree with all your positions or ideas, the very fact that you went to the effort to put out something more then "Omg! I hat3 teh gayz!" is greatly appreciated.

As to those who just are putting out mindless rhetoric on either side of the issue, I'm just amused. Not really much more to say, beyond the fact that people can be so stupid amuses me to no end at this point in time.

As for my own opinion I feel that if two -consenting adults- wish to express their love, then they should be able to freely do it, no matter how much others should dislike it. I'm not gay myself, but I've plenty of friends who are so. They get treated pretty badly, just for who they love, which frankly appalls me. They are human beings, they deserve respect as same.

On the other side of things though, I have noticed that some people seem to think that if you don't think gays are the best thing since sliced bread that you are some sort of monster. Ok, so because they have a differing opinion, they are inherently as bad as some are claiming you to be? The sword cuts both ways kiddos. Infact, you should know better since you've been on the receiving end.

Anyways, these topics seemed to always boil down to the same mindless yelling back and forth, but in this instance I'm pleased to see some people managing to convey their points in detail and with some consideration. I can only hope then that such forethought is actually put to use then, when this should eventually become some national issue to be dealt with. Then again, knowing how politics work, I fully expect nothing but soundbites and more rhetoric.

See you all later.

I think how conservatives and the evangelical nutcases treat gay people in America is an abomination in itself. First of all, where in the Bible did Christ Himself mention homosexuality? (Don't hand me that worn out quote from Levicitus either-working on the Sabbath is an "abomination" too. Does this mean the employees of Christian radio stations and grocery stores are going to hell too?) Who are they hurting? I don't see any destruction of the "family" and if gay people are destroying the families of the neo-conservatives and religious ideologues, then they must not have very strong families.

Homosexuality is an arguement they will lose every time. And I don't see what's wrong with gay marriage. It's a preference for some, a phase for others and in general, nobody else's business.

I'll agree with several of the recent posts stating "Who gives a fuck?".
Honestly people, grow up. If you can't deal with the fact that the 2 people across the street are gay, you've got a real problem.

On the other side of things though, I have noticed that some people seem to think that if you don't think gays are the best thing since sliced bread that you are some sort of monster. Ok, so because they have a differing opinion, they are inherently as bad as some are claiming you to be? The sword cuts both ways kiddos. Infact, you should know better since you've been on the receiving end.

I think you're clouding the issue. I haven't seen a single post yet in this thread that says, "GAYS ARE SO MUCH BETTER THAN STRAIGHTS!" however I have seen enough bull about gays going to hell or whatnot. And I'd say their "differing opinion" (i.e. homosexuality should be condemned) does make them "as inherently bad" as we clame they are.

What you're saying in essence is that gay people are being intolerant of straight people who want to ban gay marriage? WTF?


Anyhow, I agree with you and the next two posters fundamentally...none of the government's damn business.

also, take a look at the 20 or so most intellectually important people in western civilization. I bet you at least 25%, AT LEAST, were gay or bi. socrates, plato, davinchi - you've got to admit there's a markedly large instance of homosexuals in the intellectual community

heh plato and socrates? I suggest you read the Republic (about 400) and Laws (mid 800's+ i think it is), and you'll probably see how much of the anti homosexual viewpoint is there. He wasn't ignorant to its occurrence, but his

To paraphrase, Plato thought sexuality was irrational and posed a threat to society, so proposed all sexuality outside of marriage to be banned so as to improve the fabric of society. Of course marriage was only ever between a man and woman, so the dots should be easy enough to connect. He also proposed "Your god believes its right" as an adequate method of doing it, sort of "machiavellian" in principle, of course, Paul was well versed in plato philosophy, as was St Augustine who first brought the law into being in Rome....

As for my own views, I tend to agree with Plato that sexuality is driven by frenzy rather than rationale and unbridled poses a great threat to society's fabric. However I think western society has gone too far in the phobia, half of my family is Serb, but I live in Australia, I've always wondered why male greetings such as kissing eachother on the cheek is so looked down upon, I've read it described as hetero-paranoia.

i will just pretty quietly sit here an listen to all the straight people saying they don't care what we do, and thank you, but wonder why you are all still here.

i will just pretty quietly sit here an listen to all the straight people saying they don't care what we do, and thank you, but wonder why you are all still here.

Actually I'm bisexual. :p

Actually I'm bisexual. :p

camel eaters would be happy to hear.

i will just pretty quietly sit here an listen to all the straight people saying they don't care what we do, and thank you, but wonder why you are all still here.

What point are you trying to make? The most logical support of gay marriage is the fundamentally conservative idea that it's not the government's business to regulate our private lives (although in recent years, it appears the Republican party is edging closer to fascist theocracy).

Anyhow, the firebrands have left...not much else to discuss...

I will not tolerate intolerance... :D

Anyhow, the firebrands have left...not much else to discuss...

I will not tolerate intolerance... :D


that WAS my point

Right then! :p

Till tomorrow...I'll see if I can dig up some facts on the Netherlands for now.

Right then! :p

Till tomorrow...I'll see if I can dig up some facts on the Netherlands for now.

good luck. have fun - it's a good place.

heh plato and socrates?

Socrates was notorious for sleeping with his male students, of which Plato was one. I don't know if he every slept with Plato in particular, but the odds are good.

Sorry to have been misunderstood there. No, I'm certainly not saying that people who want to ban it and what not are in any way right. What I am saying is that, around here at least, some people have gotten very uppity at religious people for their beliefs. Not people who are going out and saying gays are evil, but simply people who think, in their mind, that it's not right. They voice this opinion and suddenly they get chewed out something fierce.

Yeah, there are some real amazingly bigoted people out there. But then again, nothing is for everyone. I just hate this whole "If you don't follow my line of belief exactly, then you are stupid!" And I'm meaning this for both sides, because some gay activists can be, well not as bad as anti-gay activists, but certainly are no prizes.

Now, I've no problem with a persons beliefs, but when you are forcing said on another, then yeah, you get me angry. I myself frankly think governments should just entirely get out of marriage, if they want they can keep something like civil unions that would be for everyone, and then let each religion sort itself out. But of course, with pews and politicians being so comfy with each other recently, I'm not too certain if this'll ever happen at least not in the forseeable future.

So, to clarify even more, "Your beliefs are your own. Unless someone gives you permission otherwise, keep them that way."

At the same time, I believe that in the society in which we are blessed to live, it is wrong to impose one's beliefs on others, to include discrimination and bashing. As long as people's actions are within the framework of the law, they deserve at least the minimum respect accorded to any member of our society.I'm glad you think so. I find it sad that gays might be convinced to forsake their loves. But while I disagree strongly with your views, they are nonetheless a far cry from the venom that causes so much harm in our societies. Such as the venom Doom 777 has been spreading.

does it not worry you that you are spreading so much hate? don't you think that spreading hate makes this world a worse place?
It did, but then i remembered: i am not a hippie.Um, concern for your fellow man is part of being a decent human being, and is hardly limited to hippies.

... and yes i am a hatter, ...Try to avoid any more mercury exposure.

Wikipedia, it turns out, is an excellent reference for this debate. In particular, it has pages relating to homosexuality and morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_morality), causes of sexual orientation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_sexual_orientation) (which addresses whether it's a choice to some degree, but there are fuller examinations of pages like reparative therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy#Opponents)), and even the recently-discussed topic of homosexual relations in prisons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality).

It even includes Socrates and Plato on its list of famous queer academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_gay%2C_lesbian%2C_or_bisexual_academics).

Since the idiots have all left, two questions.


yes i have - and damn, i ain't ever doing that again.

One) I believe you are female, I think you mentioned that earlier, could you verify? And more importantly...

two) Why? Are we REALLY that shitty in bed? o_O :p

Oh, and...

Socrates was notorious for sleeping with his male students, of which Plato was one. I don't know if he every slept with Plato in particular, but the odds are good.

I dunno about those two, but I know Plato and Aristotle had a few quarrels. Here's an interesting quote by Aristotle: "Dear be Plato, but dearer still be truth."

Which can mean multiple things ;)

Homosexual people are sick/wrong. Didn't I already say that?

Who cares, unless you can substantiate what you what say, it doesnt mean any more than my saying the moon is made of green cheese.

Again, bodies are designed to be heterosexual. I hope i am not pushing this too far. In addition to the child problem, a penis is designed to enter vagina -- they are similar in size, and vagina's have natural lubrication and all. A penis is not designed for the anus -- the anus is too small, there are a lot of close veins which leads to a lot of bleeding. Furthermore, it's in people's genes to seek the opposite sex. Homosexuality goes against all that. Add to this the religion factor.
Actually our bodies are not designed. Evidently culture is our primary mode of adaption as a species and provides all sorts of nice problem solving solutions. Many women suffer from a lack of the lubrication you think is univerals, it's a very common complaint actually. Fortunately we have non biological solutions ie technological behavioural (cultural) solutions, that solve this problem for heterosexual women, and also appear to work just as well for homosexual couples. So if you ever encounter a problem with lack of lubricant again, (one that cant be explained by a lack of effort/skill), dont give up, grab some K-Y and behold the wonderous problem solving potential of 'culture'...

If you're going to hold your opponents to that standard of evidence then I insist you adhere to it as well. Please cite the research that proves the biological advantage of homosexual behavior.

Blindness is a flaw found amongst many different species. Is it therefore not maladaptive?
The advantages of couples who might not conceive children of their own in an overpopulated world....surely you can figure this one out for yourself...
Blindness is only maladative when it is, evidently even if blindness is maladaptive, that does not prove that in cases where blindness is caused by gene variance, that the variance does not also cause beneficial effects that outweigh the negative effects. What is or is not adaptive is relative.

Homosexuality is a choice, not a race and its the wrong choice. I'm not saying gays should be discriminated against, I'm just saying that homosexuality should be treated like smoking: Allowed but discouraged. That's all there is to it.
We keep hearing it is wrong, but no one yet has provided a sound and valid argument that demonstrates this objectively or factually.

First of all, murderers can say they never chose to kill. Will you believe them? What makes the situation different.
SEcond, even if it is a mental disease, then they should repress it. Whether or not murderers choose to be murderers or not is irrelevent in evaluating how much harm their actions cause to other individuals and to society collectively. It is because of this perceived harm that murder is prohibited and considered immoral. The same can not be said of homosexuality, an act which does not by definition deprive someone of their right to live.

But homosexulity, if indeed a defect, is not a physical defect, but a psychological one.
Homosexuality is not a defect.

Finally, you reach the best argument for homosexuality: the ONLY one i stumble upon when see.
Perhaps an answer goes like this:
the more gays there are, the more people think it's ok to be gay, and experiment with it. If half your highschool was gay, there woudl be much more higher percentage of gay-simpathisers in the reamining, then if all of high school was straight. Since some are bound to like it, they turn gay. Thus, homosexuality spreads out. If all of human kind goes homosexual, its going to die out without reproduction. Of course you can say, like Femininty on international incidents, that sperm is to be produced by some bacteria, but that is also dangerous, as A) it makes men useless for reproduction, and B) if bacteria mutate, that's the end of that.

All humans are not homosexual. I have no problem with homosexuality and no desire to participate in homosexual activities. Consider your argument from the other end. In societies where homosexuality is considered not ok and heterosexuality is considered ok, not everyone 'turns heterosexual' so what is so fantastically wonderful about being homosexual, that the majority of human beings will turn their back on their own tendancies to follow along with the very few people who happen to be homosexual. If your theory were true, no one would have 'experimented' in the first place and homosexuality would not exist. Evidently homosexual males produce healthy sperm...why do you imagine otherwise?

A fully straight man can have sex with a man, and experience an orgasm. that doesn't make them gay, that makes their penises stimulated enough to achieve it. Also, feelings can be repressed: just think of all the people that became gay at the age of 50+. If they are indeed born with it, then they have supressed it for 50 years successfully
Right and if someone told you to supress your heterosexual desires and instead have homosexual relationships, may I ask what the quality of your life would be? I know as a heterosexual I would not be happy or fufilled in a homosexual relationship.

The statements were made in the context of homosexuality as a (mal)adaptive trait. That's all about biology. If homosexuality is a choice or product of upbringing (and said upbringing is not defined entirely by genetics), then it is not any sort of trait relevant to evolution or genetics.
Upbringing falls under the rubix of culture, and culture is human beings primary adaptation mechanism.

It all depends on what choice I would make.
I could choose to be gay, or straight.
If you can be as attracted to either sex, then you are bi-sexual, whether or not you act on that. I personally dont have that kind of interest in my own sex, and I certainly would not think it were wrong to act on such an interest.

Not like a virus, but still expanding. Just compare the %age of people today that are gay, and in 1900.
Cant be done, no reliable statistics are available.

I'm beginning to wonder if the perpensity of humans to debate something they find so offensive yet know next to nothing about is itself a mental defect.

You scum, you maggots, you filth, you revolting hetero filthy scum-maggots, you make me sick, you fill the streets with your blatant and disgusting acts of heterosexuality, you hide away in your churches and bolt your doors and scream bloody murder when anyone different comes near, you fornicate, molest and fuck until the streets run thick with unwanted, unloved children and the blood of aborted foeti, you haggle amongst yourselves over the value of our lives, none of you listening or caring to what we want, you ask yourself, have our blades' thirsts for blood been quenched, have the soles of our jackboots worn smooth enough against the faces of homosexuals, HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH YOU FUCKING SCUM?!
And thus, my point is proven far beyond my capacity to ever do so on my own.

Oh, woe is me, for I have sinned (godhatesfags.com)

What sort of fucking respect am I supposed to give to groups who turn up to the funerals of murder victims waving "God Hates Fags" signs, who talk about Homosexual Apologists and the Gay Mafia (http://www.michaelkelly.fsnet.co.uk/maf.htm)? I want rights, not silent consent to this sort of treatment.

I think some people need to be more tolerant of intolerant people. :p










This is a general comment - not related to anyone in particular's post...BTW, see the smiley?

there might be more openly gay people - but not more gay people.

We can't confirm or deny this assertion either way. There is no reliable data to go from.

You are mistaken. I have not participated in any other threads related to this topic.

Then I stand corrected. Someone else with a very similar name must've been there.

I imagine it could be construed that way by someone who was looking to pick a fight. It could also be construed as a simple matter of me misspeaking.

I wasn't looking to pick a fight. You may have been misspeaking, but there are many on this forum who love to think they can speak for all Christians, and that anyone who doesn't agree with them is simply not a Christian.

Are you talking about actual Biblical text, or are you referring partially to later traditions constructed during the time of the Maccabees?

I am talking about actual Biblical text. Everything I mentioned comes straight out of Leviticus, Exodus, or Deuteronomy.

This isn't really relevant. It would be impossible to capture everything He ever said in the space of those few chapters, and indeed the text itself points this out. Paul was an Apostle who was given revelation.

Paul was given relevation, not infallibility. There is a difference. Paul was also raised as a Jew, which would suggest that he would hold onto belief in the law he had learned without necessarily thinking about it. Paul also would not have known, scientifically, what we know today.

This is the same sort of generalization you called me out on. Wouldn't it be more precise to say that there are many who do but not all Christians are like this?

That's pretty much what I said. Considering that I am a Christian, and that Christians like that bother me, obviously not all Christians are like that.

I never said this bothered me or not. I was simply putting out some cultural reasons why such things would have been wrong in the ancient times. Please, if you're going to insist on going through my post line by line and then insist I reply to each point, do take the time to make yourself fully aware of the context.

Actually, you were talking about why you think God might have condemned homosexuality. If you don't think the reasoning still holds, then the condemnation can't really hold either, can it?

I think this would have been better phrased as "There is no demonstration you could possibly give that I would accept...."

No, it wouldn't be better worded that way. If you gave a demonstration of a truthful way in which homosexuality hurts society, I would accept that. Unfortunately for you, I have been around many homosexuals and have observed their relationships. I have also heard pretty much every reason people put out there for why it is harmful. Every single one of them is either "It bothers me, so it is harmful" or is completely and obviously scientifically incorrect. If you would like to pose a reason, I would be happy to consider it.


By saying this you've already shown that your mind is not open to any reply I might give on this matter, which leads me to wonder why I should.

Of course, if I had said it the way you put it, you would be right. But since I didn't, why don't you name whatever reason you have for thinking homosexuality harms society?

Here is where you made a couple of false assumptions about me that are not supported by anything I said in the posts. I do make use of the teachings of the Bible, yes, but my faith is based on far more than that, as is my understanding.

Good, but again - you must then agree that others may come to different conclusions than you - that are just as likely to be true.

Now, I do agree that there are a great many flaws in the Bible, mostly related to omissions, so the reader has to be aware of context and so on, but it doesn't invalidate the message, and it doesn't make the Bible worthless.

There are also additions and contradictions. But I never said that the message was invalidated or that the Bible was worthless. I simply suggested that you cannot base an entire argument on "Well, it says in this obviously flawed Bible that ..." I could argue from the Bible that all the creatures on the Earth were created twice and that the geocentric view of the Universe was correct - but I would be wrong in both.

we must all live gays along. i am baptist which means i am protestant. th e catholic church attack protestants,governman,homosexuality when they were hiding the abuse of kids in the missionaries isn't that crazy clean your self before you make judgements about other people.why are hteir gay priest in the chruch mass

1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a mental disorder. There have been studies conducted on the genetic links and evidence of natural occurrence on a biological level. Disorder?

Plus...I think it's sad that anyone cares enough to be so militant against homosexuality. The suicide rate of junior high schoolers labeled as sexual outcasts is through the roof thanks to you bigots.

I've read the first few pages of this stupid thread and if the other 30-something pages are like the first few, then I must say this is the longest string of stupidity I have ever seen. Its mainly a bunch of homosexuals declaring superiority over everyone else and making up facts to back it up. Homosexuality is a choice, not a race and its the wrong choice. I'm not saying gays should be discriminated against, I'm just saying that homosexuality should be treated like smoking: Allowed but discouraged. That's all there is to it.

So all of the animals that are exclusively homosexual (and there are quite a few instances of this) chose that fate, even though they don't necessarily have the cognitive abilities to really *choose*? Interesting viewpoint, I'd like to see you back it up.

And another question, I'll assume you are a guy - but the same applies either way. At exactly what point in your development did you choose to be heterosexual. At what point did you look at a guy that you thought was super-hot and say, "Nope, I'm not going to be attracted to him. Being attracted to him is a bad choice. Nope, I'm gonna be attracted to those breasts over there. That is what I have decided, so I am going to do it."

the more gays there are, the more people think it's ok to be gay, and experiment with it.

You can't experiment with being gay. Being gay means that you are exclusively attracted to the opposite sex. Last time I checked, we don't actively choose who to be attracted to, we just get that funny feeling when someone we are attracted to is around.

If half your highschool was gay, there woudl be much more higher percentage of gay-simpathisers in the reamining, then if all of high school was straight. Since some are bound to like it, they turn gay.

Again, you can't "turn gay" on choice. If you think you can, tell me at what point you wanted to be gay and then decided not to.

A fully straight man can have sex with a man, and experience an orgasm. that doesn't make them gay, that makes their penises stimulated enough to achieve it.

True, what would make them gay is actually being attracted to each other. See, as a girl, I know that just about any man (or woman) out there, by stimulating me properly, could make me orgasm. Big whoop - that doesn't make me straight or gay. Sexuality is determined by who I am attracted to. I am attracted to my boyfriend, but not the guy down the street. Homosexuals are attracted to members of the same sex, but not members of the opposite sex, so what?

Also, feelings can be repressed: just think of all the people that became gay at the age of 50+. If they are indeed born with it, then they have supressed it for 50 years successfully.

Which is a very unhealthy thing to do. Many little girls are abused every year. Some of them suppress the emotions associated with that for years - even forgetting it ever happened - until they are older and it begins showing through in many psychological problems. You can suppress the fact that you want to be an artist and force yourself to be a doctor. You can suppress just about anything you want - but that doesn't make it healthy.

Look at it from a biological standpoint. The biosphere as all know adapts to factors within itself. Humans are overpopulating their areas. Our aggressive nature has long been our only major population check and there's a lot less of it than there used to be and on far smaller scales. Yes I know you can point out lots of example of wars and fighting on the globe (sections of africa, the middle east and eastern europe spring to mind) but statisticly from a human population standpoint it's insignificant. So how can the earth adapt to limit growing population problems? Disease comes to mind. With growing numbers of people comes a greater chance of organisms interacting with people to evolve into different forms, thus you begin to see diseases grow and come into being (Aids, Sars, Ebola, etc...). Since we see behaviour can have genetic causes why not evolve a potential to not breed as well? Thus the growth of the homosexual community. I have never head of a study done on this but it would be interesting to see if the homosexual community is growing over time. Hard to do since in the past they usually stayed more in the closet. Anyway there's my idea on the issue.

5 minutes on google can turn up that aliens secretly rule the world. Half of internet articles aren';t valid sources.

Try 5 minutes on Pubmed then.

I've been thinking (oh dear!); How can experimenting turn you gay? At best/worst, it can turn you bisexual, right?

I've been thinking (oh dear!); How can experimenting turn you gay? At best/worst, it can turn you bisexual, right?

It really can't do either. If you want to experiment with a member of the same gender, you probably are attracted to said person. This means that you are already gay/bisexual. If you do it, not because you are attracted to the person but just to try it out (which I really haven't heard of many people doing) - you are neither.

It really can't do either. If you want to experiment with a member of the same gender, you probably are attracted to said person. This means that you are already gay/bisexual. If you do it, not because you are attracted to the person but just to try it out (which I really haven't heard of many people doing) - you are neither.

Either way, it moots the "all people will turn gay!!!!11OMGLOL" argument so badly it just isn't funny anymore.

why are hteir gay priest in the chruch massThe Catholic church expects everyone to get married to someone of the opposite gender, except members of the clergy. Where are people for which "traditional" marriage doesn't suit going to tend to end up? The clergy of course. Only now there are homophobic poo-heads trying to keep gays out of the clergy. They tell gays to be celibate, and then try and close off the avenue where gays can be celibate and still contribute in the context of Roman Catholicism. That's evil that is. Fortunately saner heads seem to be prevailing for the moment.

I am rather neutral on the issue. However, I do not think that the goverment has a right to legislate against it.

Gays can't be eradicated and they are here to say there is no problem with that

An incredible sidestep from the original question. I applaude you.
1) no one has said anything negative about gays here yet.
2) It's obviously not "created" by nature, as everything else in nature works (aka reproduction)
3)Discrimination isnt the topic here. I'm not discriminating and I dont look down on any homosexuals.

1. why would they? they're people just like the rest of us. they eat, they sleep, one day they'll die just like everybody else. the only major difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is that homosexuals are attracted to members of the same gender.
2. which is why every species we've observed sexual behaviour in, we've observed same sex couplings... yep, even in natural habitats... especially in natural habitats.
3. ok, then why do you ask why no one's said anything bad about them?

It really can't do either. If you want to experiment with a member of the same gender, you probably are attracted to said person. This means that you are already gay/bisexual. If you do it, not because you are attracted to the person but just to try it out (which I really haven't heard of many people doing) - you are neither.

I'd make the point that unless you've tried sex with someone of your own gender, you can't really be sure you're straight, but then I'm bisexual, so I want a bit of everything. Basically, introspection is only so much use, you need to actually do something to really know. Anyway, what's wrong with having some fun?

I'd make the point that unless you've tried sex with someone of your own gender, you can't really be sure you're straight, but then I'm bisexual, so I want a bit of everything. Basically, introspection is only so much use, you need to actually do something to really know. Anyway, what's wrong with having some fun?

And I would point out that if you want to try sex with someone of your own gender, you are either gay or bisexual anyways. Homosexuals don't have to try sex with the opposite gender to know that they are homosexual, so why would heterosexuals have to try sex with the same gender to know if they are straight.

Of course, I am of the opinion that everyone is bisexual along varying degrees - but that can't really be proven one way or another.

How would you feel if suddenly heterosexuality was "deviant" and treated like dirt, discriminated against, outlawed etc?

Deviant = One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.

or

Deviant = aberrant, anomalistic, anomalous, atypical

In this situation, deviant means that if greater than %50 of humanity were homosexual, then heterosexuality would be the deviance. Seeing as how that is not the case, Homosexuals must be the anomaly.

And I would point out that if you want to try sex with someone of your own gender, you are either gay or bisexual anyways. Homosexuals don't have to try sex with the opposite gender to know that they are homosexual, so why would heterosexuals have to try sex with the same gender to know if they are straight.

Of course, I am of the opinion that everyone is bisexual along varying degrees - but that can't really be proven one way or another.
That is not true for everyone. The desire to experiment does not equate to being homosexual.

You don't know you like it until you've tried it ...just like creamed peas.
EDIT: or aged whisky

That is not true for everyone. The desire to experiment does not equate to being homosexual.

I didn't say it does. But if you are attracted to someone of the same gender you are, by definition, either homosexual or bisexual.

You don't know you like it until you've tried it ...just like creamed peas.
EDIT: or aged whisky

People seem to forget that sexuality != actual sex. I don't need to have sex with a horse to know that I wouldn't like it and that it would be a disgusting act. I do know who I am attracted to, however, and am willing to experiment with those people.

Nope. Read what I wrote. It was a comparison. In, the post that your wrote this in you changed his words around (its so deliciously evil :devil:) and im not sure but i think you arent supposed to do that... anyways, I am straight and i say this: I think its wrong. I won't stop you though, just don't bother me with it.

I didn't say it does. But if you are attracted to someone of the same gender you are, by definition, either homosexual or bisexual.
...if you want to try sex with someone of your own gender, you are either gay or bisexual anyways.
...The desire to experiment does not equate to being homosexual.
Golly, sounds to me like exactly what you said. Perhaps not what you meant, though.

People seem to forget that sexuality != actual sex.
Sexuality = "a : the condition of having sex b : sexual activity c : expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive". Perhaps you are mistaking it for "sexiness"?

Oh, woe is me, for I have sinned (godhatesfags.com)

What sort of fucking respect am I supposed to give to groups who turn up to the funerals of murder victims waving "God Hates Fags" signs, who talk about Homosexual Apologists and the Gay Mafia (http://www.michaelkelly.fsnet.co.uk/maf.htm)? I want rights, not silent consent to this sort of treatment.None. But not everyone opposed to same-sex sex is a sadistic psycopathic nut.

BTW, "Apologists" may not have been meant in a derogatory manner. There are self-proclaimed Christian apologists after all.

Meh. I don't care if somebody decides/finds out that they're homoesexual or not. I don't pay attention to what religion has to say(religion can be every bit as immoral as it can be moral. For instance, the bible advocates slavery, rasicsm, sexism, violence, etc...), and, well, aside from the "Those people are different, so I don't like them" argument, that leaves very few other reasons for not thinking that homosexuality is "immoral". It's not hurting other people(unless you have an STD, but that can be said for all sex) or their possesions, so how could it be "wrong"?

Golly, sounds to me like exactly what you said. Perhaps not what you meant, though.

That's because you are equating homosexual with "one who has sex with members of the same gender" when, in fact, it simply refers to "one who is only attracted to members of the same sex." The actual sex act does not have to occur in order for one to be a hetero/homo/bisexual. And I suppose, although this would not be true in my experience, attraction does not have to be present for the sex act to occur.

Sexuality = "a : the condition of having sex b : sexual activity c : expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive". Perhaps you are mistaking it for "sexiness"?

"c:expression of sexual receptivity or interest" If you express sexual receptivity or interest [ie. attraction] towards a member of the same sex, you are exhibiting either homosexuality or bisexuality. Your own definition backs me up on this.

nature. if homosexual behavior was a maladaptive trait it would not be present in so many different species. research has proven that homosexual behavior is advantageous in a variety of contexts for a variety of reasons, and therefore it is not wrong by any biological standards.

if you believe there is some other criterion for "wrongness" than functional success, you are going to have to defend it. be prepared to show how your system is necessarily better than any alternate system presented.
Why do mammals need tails?

why are people busy arguing about whether or consensual sex is wrong? the sexual crimes being serially committed and systematically propagated are the rape of women and the murder of LGBTTQ folk. (for those who are unfamiliar with that acronym,it's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transexual, queer).

don't believe me?

in chicago a few years ago, paramedics responded to a car accident. a woman had been hit by a car. they began treating her, cut open her pants in order to assess her injuries, and realized that she had a penis. they stopped treating her, made crude jokes to the onlookers, and watched as she died.

if you love a five year old that would be a wonderful thing, because your love would prevent you from harming that child in any way. if you love a child, you would never be able to engage in the act of physical love with them because such a harmful act would be incompatible with your feelings for the child.
Ok. tell that to the pedofiles.

Moral Discussion? There is no moral dimension in homosexuality.

Either way, it moots the "all people will turn gay!!!!11OMGLOL" argument so badly it just isn't funny anymore.
Gross exageration.

Why do mammals need tails?
Uses of tails (http://www.google.com/search?q=uses+of+tails). And who said anything about need? Bottle was talking about "functional success".

Ok. tell that to the pedofiles.
True pedophiles love children too much to ever actually harm them by attempting to have sex with them. Most child molesters aren't even gay. Like I said in response to your point about prison, rape is about power and instant gratification, not love.
Besides, legal consent still applies to homosexual relationships. So this issue isn't relevent to the discussion since the slippery slope argument you are attempting to make bears no parrallel to gay sex.

And I would point out that if you want to try sex with someone of your own gender, you are either gay or bisexual anyways. Homosexuals don't have to try sex with the opposite gender to know that they are homosexual, so why would heterosexuals have to try sex with the same gender to know if they are straight.

Of course, I am of the opinion that everyone is bisexual along varying degrees - but that can't really be proven one way or another.

A big part of the problem for many bisexuals is uncertainty, arising from the fact we rarely have a 50-50 split in our desires, and fantasies often differ between genders. For people who are more than 80 or so percent one way or the other, this isn't much of a problem, but being somewhere in the middle causes a lot of doubt that one rarely feels comfortable expressing. Introspection may show that an impulse is there, but it really takes experimentation to show the strength of it. My father had a boyfriend during his years at uni, but hasn't had one since. He experimented, he found it wasn't for him.
Not everyone is comfortable with black-and-white, cast-iron conclusions from introspection, and I don't think they work, really, in the majority of cases, especially in the current social climate.



None. But not everyone opposed to same-sex sex is a sadistic psycopathic nut.

BTW, "Apologists" may not have been meant in a derogatory manner. There are self-proclaimed Christian apologists after all.

True, though referring back to the original post(The filthy, fucking scum-maggot one) the basis of that was the sort of rhetoric these sadistic, psychopathic nuts spew, but turned back at heteros. And me venting my bloated spleen, I must admit. In any case, the odd quiet aside of support is all we seem to get from Christianity, they never take stands against these people, regardless of how far they drag down the faith. It's enough to make one think that the absence of a Gay Agenda and Pink Militia isn't a hideous oversight.

Taking apologist to be derogatory was a little contrary to ivory tower definition one might love to use, but I was pissed off and not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in that instance.

I can speak for Christianity when I say that there are specific instances in both the Old and New Testament where homosexuality is specifically forbidden. Classified as a form of adultery it's considered generally more serious than fornication between a man and a woman.


Or is it? (http://www.ualberta.ca/~cbidwell/UFMCC/freetobe.htm) Dun dun dun ... seems it's not so clear-cut.


In fact, during the time of the Old Testament it was an offense punishable by death. In the New Testament is is described as an abomination, but like all sins it is one that can be forgiven and repented of.

Obviously, if you're not a Christian this isn't relevant to you, so by all means ignore it. Please no flame attacks, I'm just answering the question.


Actually, that's more of an evasion. "This said so", isn't really an answer. What I want is the "thing" in homosexuality that makes it immoral. What act in homosexuality makes it immoral?


A homosexual couple, by definition, would be incapable of producing children.


Producing, but not incapable of having. One word: adoption. Not to mention, in the context of the time, they would be more free to work and contribute in society in other ways because they are unburdened by the task of raising children.

Still, despite that, whether they can contribute to society or not is irrelevant unless you plan on putting forth some kind of obscene utilitarian ethics.


All of this is my own personal understanding. Ultimately it is God who defines what is sin and what isn't, and it is not my place to question His wisdom. I try and figure the wherefores and whys of it but if I can't then I rely on faith.


Woah. So basically whatever God does is moral.

19 Now the people of the city said to Elisha, "The location of this city is good, as my lord sees; but the water is bad, and the land is unfruitful." 20He said, "Bring me a new bowl, and put salt in it." So they brought it to him. 21Then he went to the spring of water and threw the salt into it, and said, "Thus says the LORD, I have made this water wholesome; from now on neither death nor miscarriage shall come from it." 22So the water has been wholesome to this day, according to the word that Elisha spoke. 23He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!" 24When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and then returned to Samaria.


Fourty-two children mauled and it is not your "place to question His wisdom."? "He has his reasons" just doesn't cut it. If you seek to understand morality then we must know the "why." Furtherfore, you realize that the writers of The Bible only claim to speak for God and you have no way of discerning the truth or falsehood of this claim. As you well, do you not imagine you have opened yourself up to manipulation by people who use these words and twist/re-interpret them to fit to their agenda? If what there was a copying mistake, translaton error or deliberate edit(!) going back sometime? How about the council of Nicea which determined which books are canon or not? How about the differences between the Catholic and Protestant bibles?

tolerance, tolerance, tolerance , that is what the world needs

tolerance, tolerance, tolerance , that is what the world needs

If only everyone agreed.

btw, trying to equate homosexuality with pedophiles doesn't work.

The reason: Consent.

It's filthy diversion used by the gay-bashers, that if we allow gays to marry, we'll have to allow necrophelia and beastiality and marrying dildos, etc.

CONSENT. That's all there is to it.

so basically they have no self control over their bodies, so they turn gay
Sarcasm my friend. Must resist resist homo basher bashing... *grits teeth and treis not to call Tree torchers same thing I called Bottle*

A big part of the problem for many bisexuals is uncertainty, arising from the fact we rarely have a 50-50 split in our desires, and fantasies often differ between genders. For people who are more than 80 or so percent one way or the other, this isn't much of a problem, but being somewhere in the middle causes a lot of doubt that one rarely feels comfortable expressing. Introspection may show that an impulse is there, but it really takes experimentation to show the strength of it. My father had a boyfriend during his years at uni, but hasn't had one since. He experimented, he found it wasn't for him.

But your father was attracted to a man at some point. He may have been further towards hetero in the scale, but he was, to a point, bisexual. This is not to say that it is an insult - and I fully understand the confusion that arises from finding that you aren't in the 95% and above range in either direction. However, you don't have to act on the urges to know whether or not they are there. And it is the urges, not the actions, that determine your sexuality.

Not everyone is comfortable with black-and-white, cast-iron conclusions from introspection, and I don't think they work, really, in the majority of cases, especially in the current social climate.

Well I wasn't really saying what someone would call themselves are wouldn't. I generally refer to myself as a mostly heterosexual person, because that is what I am and I have no problem saying it. If someone else, however, is mostly heterosexual but just wants to refer to themselves as fully heterosexual, I don't really care one way or another. The point was that, using a strict definition of the words, it is attraction to one gender or another that places an objective label.

That's because you are equating homosexual with "one who has sex with members of the same gender" when, in fact, it simply refers to "one who is only attracted to members of the same sex."
I just repeated what you said, and disowned it. I said nothing about my opinions. ;-) Way to leap, though!

The actual sex act does not have to occur in order for one to be a hetero/homo/bisexual. And I suppose, although this would not be true in my experience, attraction does not have to be present for the sex act to occur.

"c:expression of sexual receptivity or interest" If you express sexual receptivity or interest [ie. attraction] towards a member of the same sex, you are exhibiting either homosexuality or bisexuality. Your own definition backs me up on this.
Ah, but attraction does not have to be present for interest to occur. ;-)

Read this, and yes I wrote this--- http://forums.newspeakdictionary.com/viewtopic.php?t=84

Since the idiots have all left, two questions.



One) I believe you are female, I think you mentioned that earlier, could you verify? And more importantly...

two) Why? Are we REALLY that shitty in bed? o_O :p



1. i'm female
2. it's got nothing to do with that. for all i know, you are a wonderful lover - and i am sure so are many other men - but for me, your equipment is all wrong - just doesn't do the trick.

1. i'm female
2. it's got nothing to do with that. for all i know, you are a wonderful lover - and i am sure so are many other men - but for me, your equipment is all wrong - just doesn't do the trick.


WOAH! HOLD UP... your a LESBO!?!!?

Read this, and yes I wrote this--- http://forums.newspeakdictionary.com/viewtopic.php?t=84


i have never read such a crock of shit in my entire life.

i have never read such a crock of shit in my entire life.

Well maybe thats because you in the shit!

Ah, but attraction does not have to be present for interest to occur. ;-)Why would you be (sexually) interested in the person, UNLESS you were attracted to them?! Your logic doesn't make sense.

Well maybe thats because you in the shit!

how so?

*waiting expectantly for the regular insults*

Read this, and yes I wrote this--- http://forums.newspeakdictionary.com/viewtopic.php?t=84

What a tidy summary of tired, uninformed and refuted arguments.

how so?

*waiting expectantly for the regular insults*

First of all well homosexuality is worng, and women need to be cranking out babies, not licking another womans ****

i have never read such a crock of shit in my entire life.
Agreed.

Originally Posted by Setian-Sebeceans
Well maybe thats because you in the shit!


Is that a coherent thought?

First of all well homosexuality is worng, and women need to be cranking out babies, not licking another womans ****

who said i don't have/am not having babies?

I think you scared him away....

I think you scared him away....

maybe his mummy told him to go to bed........ :rolleyes:

maybe his mummy told him to go to bed........ :rolleyes:
I especially like the part of the comments that goes like this

Guest wrote:
Are you an idiot, or just unobservent?

General Hein wrote:
If I'm and idiot, your one.

Don't you just love irony?

I especially like the part of the comments that goes like this

Guest wrote:
Are you an idiot, or just unobservent?

General Hein wrote:
If I'm and idiot, your one.

Don't you just love irony?

can't not be loved

I'm out. Exams tomorrow = me studying my arse off.

Read this, and yes I wrote this--- http://forums.newspeakdictionary.com/viewtopic.php?t=84

A few points that you should probably know.

There are more "civilized religions" than just fundamentalist Christianity - and many of them accept homosexuality just fine.

Your assertion that homosexual behavior does not happen in nature is a crock of shit. Read a book called Biological Exuberance by Bruce Baghemil and get back to me.

Your assertion that "homosexual reproduction" does not contribute to any species is also bullshit. Look up whiptail lizards and get back to me.

Pedophilia and homsexuality are not the same thing and, in fact, are not even related. Stop equating them just to push your idiotic cause.

Evolution provides more than one reason for homosexuality being a good thing.

Homosexuality does not "spread like a disease" and it is not "just a way to rebel against your parents."

There is a word you should know - "consent" - look it up and get back to me.

If gay couples in the US were allowed to marry, they would pay more, not less taxes. Look up the tax code, study the tax brackets associated with the middle class (from which most gay couples herald) and then get back to me.

Your flawed reasoning has no evidence to back it up and is completely based on false assumptions.

A few points that you should probably know.

There are more "civilized religions" than just fundamentalist Christianity - and many of them accept homosexuality just fine.

Your assertion that homosexual behavior does not happen in nature is a crock of shit. Read a book called Biological Exuberance by Bruce Baghemil and get back to me.

Your assertion that "homosexual reproduction" does not contribute to any species is also bullshit. Look up whiptail lizards and get back to me.

Pedophilia and homsexuality are not the same thing and, in fact, are not even related. Stop equating them just to push your idiotic cause.

Evolution provides more than one reason for homosexuality being a good thing.

Homosexuality does not "spread like a disease" and it is not "just a way to rebel against your parents."

There is a word you should know - "consent" - look it up and get back to me.

If gay couples in the US were allowed to marry, they would pay more, not less taxes. Look up the tax code, study the tax brackets associated with the middle class (from which most gay couples herald) and then get back to me.

Your flawed reasoning has no evidence to back it up and is completely based on false assumptions.

i commend your patience - and add, lesbians are the lowest risk group for any STDs, including HIV.

Why would you be (sexually) interested in the person, UNLESS you were attracted to them?! Your logic doesn't make sense.
That's because it's not about logic, dear. It's about feelings. ;-)

First of all well homosexuality is worng, and women need to be cranking out babies, not licking another womans ****

well, i get my bf to lick mine, does that make it alright? ;)

and no reproduction for a good long while for me *pops birth control pill*

That's because it's not about logic, dear. It's about feelings. ;-)

Feelings would imply some sort of attraction.

I really have never met anyone who wants to have sex based on anything other than attraction.

Ok, I'm not about to read through 40 pages of responses, so sorry if someone already posted something like this.

I'm taking psychology in school right now and while looking through my textbook I found something on homosexuality. What it said was there was an experiment done where they took the brains of dead homosexual men and compared them to those of heterosexual men and found that there was a difference in size of the part of the brain that controls sexual drive. It was actually closer to that of a womans. According to this study, it's very possible that homosexuality is natural, not learned.

Ok, I'm not about to read through 40 pages of responses, so sorry if someone already posted something like this.

I'm taking psychology in school right now and while looking through my textbook I found something on homosexuality. What it said was there was an experiment done where they took the brains of dead homosexual men and compared them to those of heterosexual men and found that there was a difference in size of the part of the brain that controls sexual drive. It was actually closer to that of a womans. According to this study, it's very possible that homosexuality is natural, not learned.

thank you - we've been there - but with sheep ;)

Feelings would imply some sort of attraction.

I really have never met anyone who wants to have sex based on anything other than attraction.
Yes, indeed! Repulsion is also a feeling. Sort of negative-attraction, which is undoubtedly a type of attraction.

I think you need to get out more and browse more sex.

Yes, indeed! Repulsion is also a feeling. Sort of negative-attraction, which is undoubtedly a type of attraction.

So you're telling me that you have sex with people that repulse you? Interesting.

I think you need to get out more and browse more sex.

I have no need to do so. Besides, I'm pretty sure my boyfriend would object.

Ok, I'm not about to read through 40 pages of responses, so sorry if someone already posted something like this.

I'm taking psychology in school right now and while looking through my textbook I found something on homosexuality. What it said was there was an experiment done where they took the brains of dead homosexual men and compared them to those of heterosexual men and found that there was a difference in size of the part of the brain that controls sexual drive. It was actually closer to that of a womans. According to this study, it's very possible that homosexuality is natural, not learned.
Only the homosexual men were dead? Brutal, dude.

So you're telling me that you have sex with people that repulse you? Interesting.
I said nothing about myself. But way to leap, dude!

I have no need to do so. Besides, I'm pretty sure my boyfriend would object.
Then your experience is limited, and your statements similarly made from a limited viewpoint. Life, and people, are not so black-and-white.
EDIT: I'm just saying there's more to the big picture than you present, and seem willing to admit.

I said nothing about myself. But way to leap, dude!
Way to dodge the point, dude! "You" is obviously interchangeable with "one" in this context.


Then your experience is limited, and your statements similarly made from a limited viewpoint. Life, and people, are not so black-and-white.
EDIT: I'm just saying there's more to the big picture than you present, and seem willing to admit.

I don't know what you got out of it, but it seemed to me like she was saying she'd already had enough sex to know what she's talking about. And frankly, I'm confused too. Are you saying people have sex with people who repulse them (because they repulse them, that is)?

A few points that you should probably know.

There are more "civilized religions" than just fundamentalist Christianity - and many of them accept homosexuality just fine.

Your assertion that homosexual behavior does not happen in nature is a crock of shit. Read a book called Biological Exuberance by BruceBaghemil and get back to me.

Your assertion that "homosexual reproduction" does not contribute to any species is also bullshit. Look up whiptail lizards and get back to me.

Pedophilia and homsexuality are not the same thing and, in fact, are not even related. Stop equating them just to push your idiotic cause.

Evolution provides more than one reason for homosexuality being a good thing.

Homosexuality does not "spread like a disease" and it is not "just a way to rebel against your parents."

There is a word you should know - "consent" - look it up and get back to me.

If gay couples in the US were allowed to marry, they would pay more, not less taxes. Look up the tax code, study the tax brackets associated with the middle class (from which most gay couples herald) and then get back to me.

Your flawed reasoning has no evidence to back it up and is completely based on false assumptions.

You are basing some of your arguments on a person named BRUCE? Written by a homo, for homos.

EDIT: maybe i should add [/sarcasm] ?

You are basing some of your arguments on a person named BRUCE? Written by a homo, for homos.

EDIT: maybe i should add [/sarcasm] ?

Yeah, I know I didn't catch that at first :p

I mean...common. Bruce Willis man. That guy is hard fucking core.

Yeah... not like that Bruce Cockburn guy

*sheesh*

I wonder how he got his last name.

:eek:

First of all well homosexuality is worng, and women need to be cranking out babies, not licking another womans ****

Wow, someone's got a problem with the cunnilings. Does the big bad vagina scare you?

I'm assuming you've never had any experience with a woman before, now will you ever :p.

"Dammit, stop orgasaming! You're not supposed to ENJOY this!"

Yeah, I know I didn't catch that at first :p

I mean...common. Bruce Willis man. That guy is hard fucking core.
Nah, he's an actor, what do actors do in scene breaks? PUT MAKEUP ON!

FAG!

they wear makeup to hide the fact that they're FUGLY, and they ENJOY it because they are HOMOSEXUALS.

His physique just screams out "COME TO PAPPA!"

and you thought this guy was hard core?

*groups goed will the homos*

Wow, someone's got a problem with the cunnilings. Does the big bad vagina scare you?

I'm assuming you've never had any experience with a woman before, now will you ever :p.

"Dammit, stop orgasaming! You're not supposed to ENJOY this!"

Thehomophobes seem to think that sex shouldn't be fun, that its sole purpose should be procreation... odd.

Nah, he's an actor, what do actors do in scene breaks? PUT MAKEUP ON!

FAG!

they wear makeup to hide the fact that they're FUGLY, and they ENJOY it because they are HOMOSEXUALS.

His physique just screams out "COME TO PAPPA!"

and you thought this guy was hard core?

*groups goed will the homos*

Dude, it's Bruce Die Hard Willis. Common man. I wouldn't care if he's gay. I wouldn't care if he was really a transexual illegal mexican immigrant with heavy plastic surgery.

He's still hard fucking core.

Dude, it's Bruce Die Hard Willis. Common man. I wouldn't care if he's gay. I wouldn't care if he was really a transexual illegal mexican immigrant with heavy plastic surgery.

He's still hard fucking core.

Is Core a person? If so he's managed to keep hard fucking him for a reasonable time... how long has he been hard fucking Core can I ask?

... i'm tired :|

First of all well homosexuality is worng, and women need to be cranking out babies, not licking another womans ****
i guess then heterosexuality is "worng" as well, since my heterosexual partner and i engage in oral sex, and i have no intention of every having a baby.

Then your experience is limited, and your statements similarly made from a limited viewpoint. Life, and people, are not so black-and-white.
EDIT: I'm just saying there's more to the big picture than you present, and seem willing to admit.

Of course, you keep reading things into my statements. I never actually said that the act of having sex makes you homo- or bisexual. What I said was that if you are attracted to a member of the same sex, you are one or the other. (And yes, I have had experience in that area).

Way to dodge the point, dude! "You" is obviously interchangeable with "one" in this context.
Um, no, the first person context is not interchangable with the third person context.

I don't know what you got out of it, but it seemed to me like she was saying she'd already had enough sex to know what she's talking about. And frankly, I'm confused too. Are you saying people have sex with people who repulse them (because they repulse them, that is)?
Having sex doesn't make one an expert on everybody's sexuality.

Some people have sex with people that they are replused by; it turns them on. Pleasure is the thing, not attraction.

Of course, you keep reading things into my statements. I never actually said that the act of having sex makes you homo- or bisexual. What I said was that if you are attracted to a member of the same sex, you are one or the other. (And yes, I have had experience in that area).
I didn't twist anything. You said, "...if you want to try sex with someone of your own gender, you are either gay or bisexual anyways." I agree that the act of having sex does not make one any particular thing; I didn't say it did. I said, "The desire to experiment does not equate to being homosexual." Your statement suggests that a pre-condition of homosexuality exists for someone wanting to experiment with someone of the same gender/sex. I disagree.

Yeah... not like that Bruce Cockburn guy

*sheesh*

I wonder how he got his last name.

:eek:
Ancestors?

JESUS HATES YOU! KNEEL AND PRAY SINNERS! GOD DIDN'T MAKE COCKS FOR YOUR PERVERSION!

*a cyclone of light spins around me and dissapears as randomly as it came*

Oh sorry, sometimes the bible thumpin part of me comes out and screams at people. It really hurts my vocal cords...whats this forum about anyway?

JESUS HATES YOU! KNEEL AND PRAY SINNERS! GOD DIDN'T MAKE COCKS FOR YOUR PERVERSION!

*a cyclone of light spins around me and dissapears as randomly as it came*

Oh sorry, sometimes the bible thumpin part of me comes out and screams at people. It really hurts my vocal cords...whats this forum about anyway?
...

I didn't twist anything. You said, "...if you want to try sex with someone of your own gender, you are either gay or bisexual anyways." I agree that the act of having sex does not make one any particular thing; I didn't say it did. I said, "The desire to experiment does not equate to being homosexual." Your statement suggests that a pre-condition of homosexuality exists for someone wanting to experiment with someone of the same gender/sex. I disagree.

Actually, what I said was that if you are *attracted* to a member of the same sex, you are either gay or bisexual. Most people who want to experiment want to experiment with someone they are attracted to. This may not be true for a subset of people, but it the word attraction that denotes sexuality.

JESUS HATES YOU! KNEEL AND PRAY SINNERS! GOD DIDN'T MAKE COCKS FOR YOUR PERVERSION!

*a cyclone of light spins around me and dissapears as randomly as it came*

Oh sorry, sometimes the bible thumpin part of me comes out and screams at people. It really hurts my vocal cords...whats this forum about anyway?

This is completly random, but I'm hoping you get it.

I . .E. . .YU .I
NO .BO . ME .NO
RE .N . . MI . RI
YO .JYU .YO .GO
HA .SA
TE .KA
NA .E
KU .TA
. . .MA
. . .E

(periods are there as place keepers...)

First of all well homosexuality is worng, and women need to be cranking out babies, not licking another womans ****
Worng? really why don't you define that one, eh? Cranking out babies? Is it just me or are you some backwater cross burner who is really suppressing homosexual tendencies? Let it out dude, let it out...

Gays are here to stay, ain't crap anyone can do about it. It's natural to me, I can't wake up and suddenly love girls, I can think there pretty and be friends etc but thats where it ends. I love people of my gender and I have someone of my gender who loves me. If you think love is wrong than I feel very very sorry for you.

All you need is love...;)

hey, just throwing something out here, why is it that the South has produced the most ignorant folk over the past 200 years? Is it like something in the water?

Gays are here to stay, ain't crap anyone can do about it. It's natural to me, I can't wake up and suddenly love girls, I can think there pretty and be friends etc but thats where it ends. I love people of my gender and I have someone of my gender who loves me. If you think love is wrong than I feel very very sorry for you.
Exactly like I can't just wake up someday and say I'm only attracted to men or I'm only attracted to women. Even though I've mentioned this fact before I like seeing the responses of homosexuals and heterosexuals (seriously even some homos don't like bi folk) Willamena I have a suggestion you really like to think up experiments right? Put the book down and pick up something else. Then after a suitable time pick the book back up.

All you need is love...;)

hey, just throwing something out here, why is it that the South has produced the most ignorant folk over the past 200 years? Is it like something in the water?
I'm from the South. We're not all like that just the ignorants are the ones who get on the news.

Too bad the bigots get that much sway.

Louisiana passed the amendment by 80%...sad.

I doubt anything like that could happen in the North or Pacific Coast.

First of all, what the hell is your interest in what people do for sexual pleasure?

I have heard of far more shocking things than homosexuality that people get off on. And i am sorry i heard of some of them.

The point is, you can't legislate what turns people on, except where there is an unwilliing victim (like rape, pedophilia, human trafficking et al). What goes on between two consenting adults behind closed doors is not for the government to decide.

It's called Pursuit of Happiness, last i checked.

Personally, i think any loving bond between people is always a good thing. We need more, not less of that.

Gays are here to stay, ain't crap anyone can do about it. It's natural to me, I can't wake up and suddenly love girls, I can think there pretty and be friends etc but thats where it ends. I love people of my gender and I have someone of my gender who loves me. If you think love is wrong than I feel very very sorry for you.
Love is not wrong.
1 Corinthians 13:4-8
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails.

Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable
Problem is God sees Homosexuality as a perversion of the flesh. Whether you like it or not being gay is not natural, and it is morally wrong.
Romans 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
The second problem is that you have crazy people like Yevon of Spira who just judge you and reject you. What you have to understand is that while God hates sin (homosexuality is a sin.) God loves the sinner.
Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 10:9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Now I know that someone isn't going to like this and is going to whine at me not to post things like this and so on. However this is what morality is founded upon. If you don't have or use the Bible as your moral anchor then you succumb to moral reletivism. Then morality become what ever you dictate it is, just like Hitler did when he justified the killing of Jews and gays in death camps because he didn't see them as people.

Too bad the bigots get that much sway.

Louisiana passed the amendment by 80%...sad.

I doubt anything like that could happen in the North or Pacific Coast.
Shows that Louisana has some morals and common decency.

LMFAO. And all those poor, misguided people in Asia without the benefit of the Bible, they just run around raping and murdering each other, because they fall victim to relative morality without an authoritarian source dictating it for them.

Shows that Louisana has some morals and common decency.

We've been over this bullshit enough in this thread. If you have ANY reason that is non-religious, feel free to scroll back in the thread and see it refuted. If all you have is a 2000 year old text, remember that America, unlike some countries in the middle east, does not base its laws on religion.

LMFAO. And all those poor, misguided people in Asia without the benefit of the Bible, they just run around raping and murdering each other, because they fall victim to relative morality without an authoritarian source dictating it for them.
We've been over this bullshit enough in this thread. If you have ANY reason that is non-religious, feel free to scroll back in the thread and see it refuted. If all you have is a 2000 year old text, remember that America, unlike some countries in the middle east, does not base its laws on religion.
First of all there isn't a good reason for being against homosexuality unless you are religious because then like I said a few posts ago you are morally relevant and are just expressing an opinion.
Second you are obviously incredibly naive if you think any county in the middle east isn't based of a religion. (except maybe Turkey) ever hear of Islam? Its not only a religion. Its set up to run governments. What do you think they do with all the profits from all the oil we buy? They have to put it into the mosques.
Lastly there was an isolated tribe about 30 years ago in Papua New Guinea that murdered each other, raped each other, did everything imaginable (and even then some)...The only thing they wouldn't do was lie to each other. An American missionary came there learned the language, translated the Bible and changed the entire culture in a few years, but I'm sure you would say that we were invading an ruining a peaceful civililazation. Also only the youngest parts of the Bible are 2000 years old, some parts are even older, and they still tell us God's words. So since Chodolo has had enough "bullshit" I hope he doesn't read this.

Willamena I have a suggestion you really like to think up experiments right? Put the book down and pick up something else. Then after a suitable time pick the book back up.
I do? What book?

Ok so is homosexuality actually "wrong." you tell me. And dont give me any of this "there is no absolute truth, do whats 'right' to you" crap. I want an intellegent answer from someone out there.
Lesbo action is nice to watch.

Lesbo action is nice to watch.
He said intelligent answer

He said intelligent answer
Anyone denying that it's nice to watch is a fool.

I do? What book?
You always ok not always but you've mentioned experiments more than most people I've conversed with on this forum and the book thing is just pure expression meaning allow your mind some rest time. Mainly because everytime you post *usually* you'll have a really long but well thought out answer and you usually seem very excited and eager to think up a new point or experiment. I gave you a compliment.

Anyone denying that it's nice to watch is a fool.
Most if not all of the "lesbians" one watches in porno are not real lesbians they're just getting well paid.

Most if not all of the "lesbians" one watches in porno are not real lesbians they're just getting well paid.
Yes. I know. But typing all that out is sort of long. Hence the shortened version. Lesbo action. *starts feeling all warm and tingely down south* :D

Well I'm from Alabama and I don't feel tingly I did 20 minutes ago when I was browsing for porno. Oh wait you're using an ill hidden double entundre.

First of all there isn't a good reason for being against homosexuality unless you are religious because then like I said a few posts ago you are morally relevant and are just expressing an opinion.

Well, then it's taken care of! The ONLY justifiable objection to homosexuality is on religious grounds. Thank god (lol) we have separated church and state.

Second you are obviously incredibly naive if you think any county in the middle east isn't based of a religion. (except maybe Turkey) ever hear of Islam? Its not only a religion. Its set up to run governments. What do you think they do with all the profits from all the oil we buy? They have to put it into the mosques.

I think you misunderstood me. Of course I know that most countries in the middle-east are hopeless theocracies (Iraq was an exception...well, we'll see where that goes).

Lastly there was an isolated tribe about 30 years ago in Papua New Guinea that murdered each other, raped each other, did everything imaginable (and even then some)...The only thing they wouldn't do was lie to each other. An American missionary came there learned the language, translated the Bible and changed the entire culture in a few years, but I'm sure you would say that we were invading an ruining a peaceful civililazation.

Oh goody, now we're saving the savages from their animal urges! Need I bring up the early Native Americans, who got along just fine before the Bible was brought in. btw, Americans rape and murder each other too. Anyways, I guess the Papuans changed their ways after reading the Bible? I'm sure they got off on the parts when God massacred tribes of people, since those savages are so bloodthirsty.

Also only the youngest parts of the Bible are 2000 years old, some parts are even older, and they still tell us God's words. So since Chodolo has had enough "bullshit" I hope he doesn't read this.

Eh, I can wipe shit on a napkin and preserve it for a thousand years, doesn't mean it's God's word. Why are you so sure the Bible (written by men) accurately reflects God's words? Maybe they got it all wrong...

Anyways, I am sorry to have read this sorry excuse of an argument. It gets to be really deja vu, after endless debating. But at least we agree that the only objections to homosexuality are religious-based. If I were religious I would have to agree with you then! :D

You always ok not always but you've mentioned experiments more than most people I've conversed with on this forum and the book thing is just pure expression meaning allow your mind some rest time. Mainly because everytime you post *usually* you'll have a really long but well thought out answer and you usually seem very excited and eager to think up a new point or experiment. I gave you a compliment.
LOL!

I talked a lot about experiences and experiencial existence, not experiments. :-) Although I guess that kind of makes life a big experiment. :cool:

Rest is what I need; thank you. You read minds? ;-)

LOL!

I talked a lot about experiences and experiencial existence, not experiments. :-) Although I guess that kind of makes life a big experiment. :cool:

Rest is what I need; thank you. You read minds? ;-)
Not much anymore Miss Cleo sues me.

I guess someone is preparing to attempt and destroy/FLAME my ass for the porno thing. I think hope not.

I guess someone is preparing to attempt and destroy/FLAME my ass for the porno thing. I think hope not.
*pourse gasoline all over camel eaters and lights it*
NO ONE will badmouth porn!!!!!!!!!!! DIE!!!!!

i must agree that using the bible as your point of reference is a mistake in any debate, unless it is with others who already agree with you.

The bible is a translation of a translation of a document that was a copy of a copy of a translation.... For instance, Jesus spoke Aramaic, yet none of the "original" documents from which the New Testament was pieced together at the council of Nicea, were written in Aramaic.

Anyone who speaks more than one language knows the impossibility of perfect translation. And why did the Council of Nicea choose some text to include, and left out others (particularly those documents that mentioned women's rights).

A lot of the New Testament is simply the correspondence of some followers of Jesus.

And what about the turn-around Jesus made from tearing up the temple to "turn the otehr cheek"? That happened during his seven years in the desert, which was spent with holy men of eastern religions.

Furthermore, to counter your point about the bible turning people into moral creatures, i must remind you of how many people in history have died because of that same bible. The Crusades. The Native American Indians. The South American tribes. How many more have been oppressed by the church's policies throughout history? Women in particular.

Bad call, bringing the bible into this.

A lot of the New Testament is simply the correspondence of some followers of Jesus.


Cause it's a book of propaganda. And painting Jesus as a perfect flawless beeing is catchier then painting him as a religouse zealot which he was according to some dead sea scrolls.

Well, then it's taken care of! The ONLY justifiable objection to homosexuality is on religious grounds. Thank god (lol) we have separated church and state.



I think you misunderstood me. Of course I know that most countries in the middle-east are hopeless theocracies (Iraq was an exception...well, we'll see where that goes).



Oh goody, now we're saving the savages from their animal urges! Need I bring up the early Native Americans, who got along just fine before the Bible was brought in. btw, Americans rape and murder each other too. Anyways, I guess the Papuans changed their ways after reading the Bible? I'm sure they got off on the parts when God massacred tribes of people, since those savages are so bloodthirsty.



Eh, I can wipe shit on a napkin and preserve it for a thousand years, doesn't mean it's God's word. Why are you so sure the Bible (written by men) accurately reflects God's words? Maybe they got it all wrong...

Anyways, I am sorry to have read this sorry excuse of an argument. It gets to be really deja vu, after endless debating. But at least we agree that the only objections to homosexuality are religious-based. If I were religious I would have to agree with you then! :D


Whoo! If any one but a liberal writes something its a "sorry exuse for a argument." Actully I have 1 objection to homosexuality that is not religious based, even though I am Catholic. It serves no purpose

When you think about it how does it contribute to the human race in any way? How has it even benifited America? What use does it have!?! Its worthless!

Some more notes...As for the bible being wrong. Oh yes thats why its predictions have been right. Yep totally wrong. As for your piece of excritment idea. One problem with that. Its a piece of shit. The bible has changed civilizations and shaped the world.

Also, yes missionaries are so bad. But look at atheism! Thanks atheism for runing morality and promoting a "no blame" society. Oh and lets not forget your contributions to improvished nations. Wait....atheist nations...dont really care about the poor. Oh yes God is so bad. Of course hes bad to you. Your a bleeding heart liberal who things war is morally wrong.But of course its ok for two middle aged men to be grouping each other at disney in front of 5 year olds. Exuse me. Thats thier "right."
Funny about how you turned a discussion about homosexuality into a attack on religion. Oh wait...Chritianity not any others.

Hm. "Nature" bless liberal America

Yar!!!

Funny about how you turned a discussion about homosexuality into a attack on religion. Oh wait...Chritianity not any others.

You entered a quote from a document. By the rules of debate, I am allowed to point out flaws in the documentation.

With all the name calling and insult throwing, i seem to have missed the point you were trying to make.

That Christians are nice people? Yes, you have been a shining example. I hope you dont kiss your mother with that mouth.

Let it be known I was not aggreeing with Green Moon or Jever Pilsener but a combo of the two. BTFW Green Moon gay and bisexual people have as just as much restraint as heteros do. Also if you were that five year old at Disney (The Happiest Fuc**** Place on the Face of the Earth) I'm deeply sorry for you for seeing people groping in public which is not really great whoever you are.

Yes Tropical Montana. Christians are usually nice people I should know I am one.

Whoo! If any one but a liberal writes something its a "sorry exuse for a argument." Actully I have 1 objection to homosexuality that is not religious based, even though I am Catholic. It serves no purpose

Yes, we should ban anything that we deem to hold no purpose. Like, sex without intent to procreate, how pointless is that?

When you think about it how does it contribute to the human race in any way? How has it even benifited America? What use does it have!?! Its worthless!

Listen to yourself. You are judging other people's sex lives on how they benefit America. Has your sex life benefitted society in any way? Maybe you got children, maybe you don't. If you don't, then your sex life is obviously worthless, it hasn't contributed to the human race in any way.

Some more notes...As for the bible being wrong. Oh yes thats why its predictions have been right.

Predictions? Explain.

Yep totally wrong. As for your piece of excritment idea. One problem with that. Its a piece of shit. The bible has changed civilizations and shaped the world.

See: The Crusades.
See: The Spanish Inquisition.
See: The Salem Witch Trials.
See: Slavery.

Yeah, it's changed civilizations and shaped the world.

Also, yes missionaries are so bad. But look at atheism! Thanks atheism for runing morality and promoting a "no blame" society. Oh and lets not forget your contributions to improvished nations. Wait....atheist nations...dont really care about the poor.

It's been my experience that atheists care more about the poor than self-proclaimed Christians. Atheists = liberal, and support welfare and the like. Christians = conservative, "poor people are poor cause they're lazy".

A "no-blame" society? Maybe people are just tired of being made to feel guilty for being who they are.

Oh yes God is so bad. Of course hes bad to you. Your a bleeding heart liberal who things war is morally wrong.But of course its ok for two middle aged men to be grouping each other at disney in front of 5 year olds. Exuse me. Thats thier "right."

Hold on. You think homosexuality is worse than war? Fuck off, fascist.

Funny about how you turned a discussion about homosexuality into a attack on religion. Oh wait...Chritianity not any others.

Hm. "Nature" bless liberal America

Well, Christianity pisses me off the most, to be honest, I don't know many rabid Buddhists who tell me my best friend is going to hell because he happens to like men.

I once met a rabid Buddhist. He didn't really do anything except well he was leaning over to get some food and quickly bit me on the shoulder. Good buddhist hmm...

I particularly enjoy quoting the bible to bible thumpers.

JUDGE NOT, LEST YE BE JUDGED!

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Love is not wrong.But having a propensity to love people of the same sex is, appearently: "being gay is not natural, and it is morally wrong."
Problem is God sees Homosexuality as a perversion of the flesh.So what? Yeah, assuming he exists and abandons people to the agony of hellfire, staying on his good side is a good idea. But how does that make his edicts the moral things to do? Do you seriously contend that executing men who had sex with men was a-ok until god changed his mind?
However this is what morality is founded upon. If you don't have or use the Bible as your moral anchor then you succumb to moral reletivism. Then morality become what ever you dictate it is, just like Hitler did when he justified the killing of Jews and gays in death camps because he didn't see them as people.Uh, no. Firstly, the Bible is not the only moral anchor in town, and secondly, I can no more dictate what I believe to be moral than I can decide to believe that leprechauns are stealing my socks. I could pretend that they are, but believe it? No.

do what you like so long as it doesnt hurt someone else.

everyone should love thy neighbor, some just choose to do it a little more so then others. :fluffle:

i must agree that using the bible as your point of reference is a mistake in any debate, unless it is with others who already agree with you.

Actually whoever it was who used the Bible was using it as the standard of truth. It is objective whereas your personal experience and mine are only subjective and therefore do not and cannot be absolute. The Bible has proven it's superiority, being the very inerrant Word of God. You show as well that you are a bigot with such a statement. In other words you are saying "shut up unless we agree with you, because WE and not the Bible, are the arbiters of truth".

The bible is a translation of a translation of a document that was a copy of a copy of a translation.... For instance, Jesus spoke Aramaic, yet none of the "original" documents from which the New Testament was pieced together at the council of Nicea, were written in Aramaic.

WRONG! Typical "defense" from a person who doesn't know anything of the archaeological evidence for the Holy Bible. The Bible is the most reliable book, or collection of books on the planet. No one questions the veracity of any other ancient writings when their extant ancient manuscripts are only fragmentary and incomplete.


Anyone who speaks more than one language knows the impossibility of perfect translation. And why did the Council of Nicea choose some text to include, and left out others (particularly those documents that mentioned women's rights).

Spoken again like someone who knows nothing of the ancient languages, and still wants to hang with the big boys. This almost isn't even worth commenting on but ... the church did not CHOOSE the texts in the manner which you suggest. The church RECOGNISED over the years those books which were widely accepted and had the marks of spiritual excellence, as well as being free from contradiction (there are no contradictions in the Bible, only apparent ones, which under careful study are shown to be not contradictions but things such as alternate presentational views as well alternate details). The Holy Spirit of God is who made sure that only the books which were supposed to be kept were kept. God is quite capable of making sure His message is kept in tact and translated in a manner that suits his purposes both to the elect and to the reprobate.

QUOTE=Tropical Montana]A lot of the New Testament is simply the correspondence of some followers of Jesus.[/QUOTE]

Nothing in the Bible is JUST anything. Unlike the Koran where Mohammed supposedly was in a trance being used as a human pen, so to speak, God, in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge did by through the free agency of his elect use their own styles and personalities to say precisely and exactly what He wanted to say, and did so through many types of writing -- poems, proverbs, historical accounts, letters, etc. It is an organic "book" just as the church is organic, in that it grows from a seed type to that which is mature. The same is for salvation. No Christian becomes a Christian and suddenly knows and understands everything he will come to know and understand when he is mature.

Jesus never wrote a book. But he gave all authority to his apostles. THEY have the keys to heaven and hell, to life and death. Through THEIR teaching (which is God's teaching through the agency of man) is anyone admitted into the family of God and is anyone dammned. Why God did it this way, I don't know, but he did and who are we to question the Maker?

And what about the turn-around Jesus made from tearing up the temple to "turn the otehr cheek"? That happened during his seven years in the desert, which was spent with holy men of eastern religions.

Everything must be taken in its context. Doing what you just did is why there are so many cults in this world claiming to be Christian, such as JW's and Mormons, Rosicrucianists, etc. And there was no "seven years in the desert". There is no historical reason to believe such a thing nor is there any logical reason. Jesus was already God and had no need for any man to teach him. He made man and already knew what was in him. Don't be ridiculous.

Furthermore, to counter your point about the bible turning people into moral creatures, i must remind you of how many people in history have died because of that same bible. The Crusades. The Native American Indians. The South American tribes. How many more have been oppressed by the church's policies throughout history? Women in particular.

Firstly, the morals found in the Bible, whether they make a reprobate better or not is immaterial, even though history proves that it does and human experience proves that every country that is the most heavily influenced by PROTESTANT Christianity is the most advanced and charitable. Those of pagan nations cannot compare.

Secondly, the New Testament is full of the fair and good treatment of women. They have a different function in the order of creation but they are not inferior to men, nor are they shown to be. For that matter, the OT does not make a woman inferior to the man but does place her in submission to her husband. You must also understand that the instruction for how to treat a woman was also kept inthe context of the times. It was not meant to revolutionize the lives of pagan women or men -- only those within the covenant community. Whatever good outward ripple effects there might come from that covenant community (God's elect) was simply another aspect of God's grace even toward the reprobate.

Bad call, bringing the bible into this.

Bad call showing your ignorance.

Actually whoever it was who used the Bible was using it as the standard of truth.

Which is a mistake.


It is objective whereas your personal experience and mine are only subjective and therefore do not and cannot be absolute.


The subjective ideas of men who then tried to justify their beliefs. Kind of like Objectivism. Objective morality is a fable.


The Bible has proven it's superiority, being the very inerrant Word of God.


lol internet. No.


You show as well that you are a bigot with such a statement. In other words you are saying "shut up unless we agree with you, because WE and not the Bible, are the arbiters of truth".


We are.


WRONG! Typical "defense" from a person who doesn't know anything of the archaeological evidence for the Holy Bible. The Bible is the most reliable book, or collection of books on the planet. No one questions the veracity of any other ancient writings when their extant ancient manuscripts are only fragmentary and incomplete.

lol internet. I guess that means the Epic of Gilgamesh is more reliable than the Bible. It must be, since the Hebrews saw fit to borrow significant parts of it.


Spoken again like someone who knows nothing of the ancient languages, and still wants to hang with the big boys. This almost isn't even worth commenting on but ... the church did not CHOOSE the texts in the manner which you suggest.


o rly?


The church RECOGNISED over the years those books which were widely accepted and had the marks of spiritual excellence, as well as being free from contradiction (there are no contradictions in the Bible, only apparent ones, which under careful study are shown to be not contradictions but things such as alternate presentational views as well alternate details).


Oh, so if we decided a priori there are no contradictions and rationalize them or simply change the text to fix them *cough* King James *cough* then we're a-ok!


The Holy Spirit of God is who made sure that only the books which were supposed to be kept were kept. God is quite capable of making sure His message is kept in tact and translated in a manner that suits his purposes both to the elect and to the reprobate.


Nice try. Too bad it doesn't work if you don't already believe in the first place.


Nothing in the Bible is JUST anything. Unlike the Koran where Mohammed supposedly was in a trance being used as a human pen, so to speak, God, in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge did by through the free agency of his elect use their own styles and personalities to say precisely and exactly what He wanted to say, and did so through many types of writing -- poems, proverbs, historical accounts, letters, etc.


No difference despite whatever unsubstantiated claims you make.


It is an organic "book" just as the church is organic, in that it grows from a seed type to that which is mature. The same is for salvation. No Christian becomes a Christian and suddenly knows and understands everything he will come to know and understand when he is mature.

Where people reinterpret it again and again until it grows beyond the original text (just look at the Roman Catholics) and is a much different beast than a person around the 1500s (Printing press invented, people actually get to read the Bible for themselves ... Protestant reformation soon follows) would think it was let alone what the writers up to 200 CE meant. Ironically, evolution at work.


Jesus never wrote a book. But he gave all authority to his apostles. THEY have the keys to heaven and hell, to life and death. Through THEIR teaching (which is God's teaching through the agency of man) is anyone admitted into the family of God and is anyone dammned. Why God did it this way, I don't know, but he did and who are we to question the Maker?


The gospels are anonymous and date back well after Jesus kicked the can (if he existed.)

I love this "Well God can do whatever he wants." mentality the fundies seem to have now. Looks like God can't be trusted anymore. :D


Everything must be taken in its context. Doing what you just did is why there are so many cults in this world claiming to be Christian, such as JW's and Mormons, Rosicrucianists, etc. And there was no "seven years in the desert". There is no historical reason to believe such a thing nor is there any logical reason. Jesus was already God and had no need for any man to teach him. He made man and already knew what was in him. Don't be ridiculous.

Context indeed, there's no context in which mauling fourty-two children for making fun of a bald man is right.


Firstly, the morals found in the Bible, whether they make a reprobate better or not is immaterial, even though history proves that it does and human experience proves that every country that is the most heavily influenced by PROTESTANT Christianity is the most advanced and charitable. Those of pagan nations cannot compare.


You crazy xians can't hold a candle to the Buddhists. Most advanced and charitable? Who do you think you're kidding? I also love the dodge to avoid roman catholic atrocities.


Secondly, the New Testament is full of the fair and good treatment of women. They have a different function in the order of creation but they are not inferior to men, nor are they shown to be. For that matter, the OT does not make a woman inferior to the man but does place her in submission to her husband.


No difference.


You must also understand that the instruction for how to treat a woman was also kept inthe context of the times


Nice try, apologist. Seems the glory of God was too feeble to change some oppressive aspects of culture at the time.

OK, there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality; the problems pop up when it becomes acted upon. Here is a definition I found in my dictionary on my bookshelf: Homosexual, Morbidly attracted to person(s) of one's own sex.

Every acknowledged religion in the world has an equivalent to the Golden Rule:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If we all agree upon this, then the rest is just terminology.

People get so insistent on the details, that they miss the Big Picture. We are all connected. The connection is god. drawing lines and dividing it up is the work of the devil.

Every acknowledged religion in the world has an equivalent to the Golden Rule:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If we all agree upon this, then the rest is just terminology.
I have heard people twist this idea, too, along the lines of "If I did someone wrong I would fully expect them to do ____ to me, so I can do ____ to them."

I have heard people twist this idea, too, along the lines of "If I did someone wrong I would fully expect them to do ____ to me, so I can do ____ to them."

The obvious question to ask them to is: "But do you want them to do x to you?"

my post was in response to claims that homosexuality is unnatural, or that homosexuality goes against nature. that is false, and proven to be false. whether or not you think homosexuality is wrong for moral reasons is an entirely different argument, and there can be no empirical proof of that, so i focus on the issues for which there is objective evidence. homosexuality IS natural, and in many species it IS an evolutionarily stable solution. you may think it is wrong for humans to engage in it, and that is your choice, but you cannot rightfully claim that homosexuality is unnatural.

Depends on what your morals are, not everyones are the same, so it just comes down to individuality.

Hm. "Nature" bless liberal America
If you've ever read the book Rainbow Six you know how scary that statement is.

The obvious question to ask them to is: "But do you want them to do x to you?"
Sadly, they do. They expect no less. :-(

Depends on what your morals are, not everyones are the same, so it just comes down to individuality.
erm, did you read my post? homosexuality is, by definition of the terms, NOT UNNATURAL.

it doesn't matter what your morals are, if you claim the world is flat because of your morals you are wrong. in the same way, if you claim homosexuality is unnatural you are wrong.

you can say homosexuality is immoral, or icky, or use any subjective term you like, but empirical evidence proves beyond any doubt at all that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, occurs in nature with no artificial interference, and, when it occurs, it is selected for by natural processes. homosexuality IS NATURAL. that point is not open for debate, any more than the debate on the geocentric universe is still open.

WRONG! Typical "defense" from a person who doesn't know anything of the archaeological evidence for the Holy Bible. The Bible is the most reliable book, or collection of books on the planet. No one questions the veracity of any other ancient writings when their extant ancient manuscripts are only fragmentary and incomplete.


Really? So, do YOU accept the veracity of the Book of Enoch? The Gospel of Thomas? The Gospel of Mary Magdalene?


The church RECOGNISED over the years those books which were widely accepted and had the marks of spiritual excellence, as well as being free from contradiction (there are no contradictions in the Bible, only apparent ones, which under careful study are shown to be not contradictions but things such as alternate presentational views as well alternate details).

The bible is inerrant? Free from contradiction?

Explain: Who is Jesus' grandfather, on his father's side?
Explain: Who persuaded David to take a census?
Explain: How many times did the cock crow, when Peter denied Jesus?
Explain: Who killed Goliath, and how many times did Goliath die?
Explain: Who killed Saul?
Explain: Does God tempt men?
Explain: How many horses did Solomon have?
Explain: How many beatitudes did Jesus recount in the Sermon on the Mount?
Explain: What was inscribed on the cross of Jesus?
Explain: That the bible says every man sins, and also, that some do not?
Explain: Who bought the Potters field?
Explain: Galatians 6:2 and Galatians 6:5?
Explain: Proverbs 26:4 and Proverbs 26:5?
Explain: How Michal was childless until she died, and yet had 5 sons?
Explain: How Jehoiachin began his reign at age 8... and at age 18?
Explain: How Sauls' companions heard the voice of god, and didn't hear the voice of god?
Explain: How Jesus immediately went into the wilderness after his baptism, and stayed there for forty days... but still managed to attend the wedding in Cana?
Explain: How Moses wrote Deuteronomy, yet it details his own death and burial?
Explain: How 'the stars' fought against Sisera?
Explain: How a bat is a bird?
Explain: How a cricket has only four legs?

I could go on... but I think my point is made...

Actully I have 1 objection to homosexuality that is not religious based, even though I am Catholic. It serves no purpose

"Your feelings serve no prupose to me - therefore I shall condemn you." Yeah, that makes sense. What purpose does the ability to roll your tongue have? None. Of course, I don't see anyone out there persecuting people who can roll their tongues.

When you think about it how does it contribute to the human race in any way? How has it even benifited America? What use does it have!?! Its worthless!

It contributes to those who are homosexual. Because they are attracted to someone, they can find love and lead a happy life.

Your whole argument makes it sound like homosexuality was something we humans just made up - like the printing press. But since it isn't the printing press, it has no purpose. You call this blabber a reason? Homosexuality provides every benefit that heterosexuality provides, except a direct pathway to children.

Some more notes...As for the bible being wrong. Oh yes thats why its predictions have been right.

Even your own church admits that parts of the Bible are, in some way, wrong.

But of course its ok for two middle aged men to be grouping each other at disney in front of 5 year olds. Exuse me. Thats thier "right."

It isn't "right" for anyone to grope each other in public. But a little hand-holding or even a quick kiss or two isn't going to hurt anybody, least of all a five year old who doesn't even understand the significance.

The Bible has proven it's superiority, being the very inerrant Word of God.

I am a Christian, but even I recognize that this is bunk. If you actually read the Bible, you would know better.

Spoken again like someone who knows nothing of the ancient languages, and still wants to hang with the big boys. This almost isn't even worth commenting on but ... the church did not CHOOSE the texts in the manner which you suggest. The church RECOGNISED over the years those books which were widely accepted

This is really what they went on. "Only ten percent of churches use this Gospel, so we can throw that out." Yeah, because we can safely assume that human beings got it right. Regardless of how you swing it, human beings chose which books to include, which rules to live by, etc. They were inspired by God, but like in anything else, added their own spin on things because they *thought* God agreed with them.

there are no contradictions in the Bible, only apparent ones, which under careful study are shown to be not contradictions but things such as alternate presentational views as well alternate details).

Alternate details = contradictions. If one account says "X happened first" and the other says "Y happened first" and X is not the same as Y - sure, those are alternate details - but they are also a contradiction. Again, read your Bible and study a little history.

The Holy Spirit of God is who made sure that only the books which were supposed to be kept were kept. God is quite capable of making sure His message is kept in tact and translated in a manner that suits his purposes both to the elect and to the reprobate.

Yeah, God could do that. Of course if God did, then that would mean (a) God is not all-powerful or all-knowing (since the Bible talks more than once about God changing God's mind or regretting something) and that God is evil, since God accepts slavery and many other immoral acts as moral.

No Christian becomes a Christian and suddenly knows and understands everything he will come to know and understand when he is mature.

No Christian is mature if they just take the Bible as the infallible word of God just because someone told them to instead of praying and meditating on the parts that just might not be.

Jesus never wrote a book. But he gave all authority to his apostles. THEY have the keys to heaven and hell, to life and death.

Yeah, but the Church decided that some of their accounts were more important than others.

Secondly, the New Testament is full of the fair and good treatment of women. They have a different function in the order of creation but they are not inferior to men, nor are they shown to be.

So, what you are telling me is that God changed God's mind about women before the NT? Never mind the fact that Paul was obviously anti-female.

For that matter, the OT does not make a woman inferior to the man but does place her in submission to her husband.

Yeah, kill the rape victim if no one saved her!! A woman is unclean for twice as long after a female baby as after a male one!! If a man rapes a woman, he can just buy her from her father and marry her, but if the woman does it willingly - stone her!

Yeah, that doesn't sound inferior at all.

You must also understand that the instruction for how to treat a woman was also kept inthe context of the times.

So God's morality is subjective to what humans think? Interesting idea.

I particularly enjoy quoting the bible to bible thumpers.

JUDGE NOT, LEST YE BE JUDGED!

Be excellent to each other [/Bill and Ted]

Be excellent to each other [/Bill and Ted]

STATION!!!!!

Let's do the inquisition again!
yey spanish inquisition! woohoo!
let's kill'em queers! and jews! and witches! and punks! and public enemies! and racists!

STFU...
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Let's do the inquisition again!
yey spanish inquisition! woohoo!
let's kill'em queers! and jews! and witches! and punks! and public enemies! and racists!

STFU...
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:


But don't you see how good of an idea that is? Why...

NOBODY expects the spanish inquisition!

http://www.montypythonpages.com/pictures/spanish_inq.jpg

I'm against homosexuality, because it's what my father in heaven says. :)

EDIT:

Okay, more detailed response.

Religion, yeah, but homosexuality is pure lust, that's all it is. No one you want to spend your life with or have children with. And it's icky... XO

Religion, yeah, but homosexuality is pure lust, that's all it is. No one you want to spend your life with or have children with. And it's icky... XO

This is a joke, right?

I can only find religious grounds to oppose it on. Oh and, about the earlier "Bible-debunking" - the Catholic Church has done a lot of things wrong in the past, but that doesn't give good grounds to keep going on about it. England did some pretty awful things (sepoys, slavery…), but you don't hate England because of that now, do you?

Oh AND, if you believe what God has said, you must accept practising homosexuality to be wrong. It is mentioned several times, and you can't just ignore the bits of the Bible that you don't like in order to fit in with society. Go against the tide if you must.

Oh AND, if you believe what God has said, you must accept practising homosexuality to be wrong. It is mentioned several times, and you can't just ignore the bits of the Bible that you don't like in order to fit in with society. Go against the tide if you must.

Do you believe that slavery is right?
Do you believe that a woman is dirtier after having a female child than she is after having a male one?
Do you believe that it is right to punish a rape victim for being raped if nobody saves her?
Do you believe that genocide is morally justifiable?
Do you believe that it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery?
Do you believe that a rapist should only have to pay the woman's father and marry her?
Do you believe that a fetus is less of a life (worthy of only a fine paid to the father) than a born life?
Do you believe that the sun rotates around the Earth?

If the answer to any of these questions was no, then you have already ignored parts of the Bible in order to fit in with society.

Uh.....

What's the question again..!?

"Moral Discussion: Homosexuality"...?

Er....

"Is homosexuality moral"...?

What "set-O-morals" are we talking about...?

One of the "christianities"...?

One of the "islams"...?

Some other code...?

Generally..?

Generally it's considered immoral, because it's considered "icky" for some reason.

It ususally takes some "intellection" to "rationalize" homosexuality, much like it takes some "intellection" to rationalize "not killing a child molester on sight".

Sometimes intellection is a good thing.

but homosexuality is pure lust, that's all it is.

Explain.

I'm against homosexuality, because it's what my father in heaven says. :)

EDIT:

Okay, more detailed response.

Religion, yeah, but homosexuality is pure lust, that's all it is. No one you want to spend your life with or have children with. And it's icky... XO


What on Earth are you talking about? Are you 12 years old? icky? My Lord! For one thing, as a practicing homosexual...wait, scratch that, I've had a lot of practice, I'm pretty much at it full time now...I can safely say that the way I feel towards members of my own sex are far removed from being 'pure lust'. I have loved, and I have lost. I have laughed with my lover, and cried. We have shared moments completely non-sexually that have blown my mind, and I resent your implication that I wouldn't want to spend my whole life with this man, and don't want to raise children with him. I look forward to a family, married to the man I love, raising healthy, normal, well-adjusted children and happily going about my middle-class, suburban lifestyle. So either extreme youth or impressive ignorance can excuse you, but not much else really.

Do you believe that slavery is right?
Do you believe that a woman is dirtier after having a female child than she is after having a male one?
Do you believe that it is right to punish a rape victim for being raped if nobody saves her?
Do you believe that genocide is morally justifiable?
Do you believe that it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery?
Do you believe that a rapist should only have to pay the woman's father and marry her?
Do you believe that a fetus is less of a life (worthy of only a fine paid to the father) than a born life?
Do you believe that the sun rotates around the Earth?

If the answer to any of these questions was no, then you have already ignored parts of the Bible in order to fit in with society.

No answer?

Lastly there was an isolated tribe about 30 years ago in Papua New Guinea that murdered each other, raped each other, did everything imaginable (and even then some)...The only thing they wouldn't do was lie to each other. An American missionary came there learned the language, translated the Bible and changed the entire culture in a few years, but I'm sure you would say that we were invading an ruining a peaceful civililazation.
Actually what I would say is cite it, the place/people you are referring to, or the source of the information regarding the place/people.
It serves no purpose
When you think about it how does it contribute to the human race in any way? How has it even benifited America? What use does it have!?! Its worthless!
It increases peoples' 'life-satisfaction', enhancing peoples' quality of life and so is not worthless.

I'm against homosexuality, because it's what my father in heaven says. :)

EDIT:

Okay, more detailed response.

Religion, yeah, but homosexuality is pure lust, that's all it is. No one you want to spend your life with or have children with. And it's icky... XO

Your sex-life must be lively, I can almost hear Sir David Attenborough describing your mating habits...

There are some homosexual freinds of mine that describe the female genitalia as "icky." Why choose for someone else what they can and can't do? If it doesn't hurt anyone it is morally correct.

Exactly, if they aren't bothering me, then they should be alllowed to live their lives how they please. You can't just say "oh its wrong", that can be said about so many legal things.

Can you define the act of homosexuality as immoral without the accusations of a religious belief? Outside of what your religion tells you... what is "wrong" about it?

You could point out that it is physically harmful to practice sodomy, yet this is not solely directed at homosexuals, considering heterosexuals practice this act too.

You could also say that the union of same sex partners goes against the natural law of procreation, yet while some heterosexual couples lack fertility, it does not make their union any less substantial.

Outside of a biblical translation I doubt you could find anything harmful about two persons of the same sex being together out of intimacy.

Can you define the act of homosexuality as immoral without the accusations of a religious belief? Outside of what your religion tells you... what is "wrong" about it?

You could point out that it is physically harmful to practice sodomy, yet this is not solely directed at homosexuals, considering heterosexuals practice this act too.

You could also say that the union of same sex partners goes against the natural law of procreation, yet while some heterosexual couples lack fertility, it does not make their union any less substantial.

Outside of a biblical translation I doubt you could find anything harmful about two persons of the same sex being together out of intimacy.

Not all gays practice sodomy. Also I'm quite sure that it is a very uncommon practice among lesbians.

Obviously you've never walked in on two women fisting one another.

Obviously you've never walked in on two women fisting one another.

Is it really that obvious?



:rolleyes:

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are both natural, as they both appear in nature w/other animals.

Heterosexuality is just more dominant because it's the way a species reproduces. And I'm heterosexual, well, because . . . I wanna do my part and "ensure my species' survival" . . . (yeah, that's it, ensure my species' survival!)

When you think about it how does it contribute to the human race in any way?

I mean, really! All humans should have more children because our species is practically endangered, you know.

Seriously, take a look at world population graphs. Do you think Mother Nature/God/evolution/whatever-life-forming-higher-power-you-believe-in would just sit back and let us horny humans procreate without any limiting factors?

2) It's obviously not "created" by nature, as everything else in nature works (aka reproduction)
Eh? What does this mean?

So you're backing homosexuality as a means of population control?

Not all gays practice sodomy. Also I'm quite sure that it is a very uncommon practice among lesbians.
i am good friends with several couples right now, and our various conversations about sex have given me an interesting tally: only one of the three gay couples i know has EVER tried anal intercourse...and 4 of the 5 straight couples i know have tried it.

So you're backing homosexuality as a means of population control?

It's the ultimate form of birth control.

It's the ultimate form of birth control.
Nope. Even if the world is 100% homosexual, there would still be opposite genders, and with today's technology, one could implant a fertilized egg in a surrogate mother

Nope. Even if the world is 100% homosexual, there would still be opposite genders, and with today's technology, one could implant a fertilized egg in a surrogate mother

Birth CONTROL. I think the ancient greeks were onto something. Homosexuality was very common among teens and young men. But eventually, society expected them to settle down with a wife and have kids or they were seen as irresponsible perverts.

Birth CONTROL. I think the ancient greeks were onto something. Homosexuality was very common among teens and young men. But eventually, society expected them to settle down with a wife and have kids or they were seen as irresponsible perverts.

Actually, they were expected to settle down with a wife JUST to have kids. It was the norm for the husband to unabashedly have a mistress (or the male equivilant of).

Actually what I would say is cite it, the place/people you are referring to, or the source of the information regarding the place/people.

It increases peoples' 'life-satisfaction', enhancing peoples' quality of life and so is not worthless.


Oh my god. Whoo life-satisfaction. Oh yes that is very important for carrying on life. Yep some days I could just DIE if I didnt go and drive around. Unfourtantly for you homosexuality has no purpose in reproductive terms. Two men or two women will not have a child if they have sex. After all, the whole purpose of having sex is to reproduce. Gay people cant reproduce together. Therefore it serves no real purpose. In no way, shape, or form does it truly benefit humanity in any solid way.

Enhancing quality of life? Cmon, im a dictator here remmember?

[QUOTE=Chodolo]Yes, we should ban anything that we deem to hold no purpose. Like, sex without intent to procreate, how pointless is that?



Listen to yourself. You are judging other people's sex lives on how they benefit America. Has your sex life benefitted society in any way? Maybe you got children, maybe you don't. If you don't, then your sex life is obviously worthless, it hasn't contributed to the human race in any way.

----Why yes that is what im talking about

Predictions? Explain.

----Im Catholic so unless this turns into a religious debate lets just say I withdraw that comment



See: The Crusades.
See: The Spanish Inquisition.
See: The Salem Witch Trials.
See: Slavery.

Yeah, it's changed civilizations and shaped the world.

----Oh yes its so bad
Lets take a look at Germany's past
Lets look at Mongolia's past
Lets look at England's past
In fact nearly any establishment from the time christianity has done some pretty rotton things. But can you deny it's shaped the world?
Oh as for atheists?
See: Stalins rule over Russia

It's been my experience that atheists care more about the poor than self-proclaimed Christians. Atheists = liberal, and support welfare and the like. Christians = conservative, "poor people are poor cause they're lazy".

----Hey have you ever seen a bum? Give him a buck and follow him around. Watch as he goes and buys booze or saves up for drugs

A "no-blame" society? Maybe people are just tired of being made to feel guilty for being who they are.

----I know. Child molestors have the right to go and have sex with five year olds. Its who they are. The Nazis shouldnt feel guilty for killing all those people. After all its who they are. One of the ideas of christianity is to become BETTER then you all ready are.



Hold on. You think homosexuality is worse than war? Fuck off, fascist.

----War is quite natural for the human species. There will always be war wherever there are humans. Although homosexuality is quite unnatural. And such language! Can I give it a shot? Rot in hell you liberal pile of crap.
Wow. That does make me feel like a bigger person.



Well, Christianity pisses me off the most, to be honest, I don't know many rabid Buddhists who tell me my best friend is going to hell because he happens to like men.

----Yes well the whole buddhist philosophy is "Live and let live." Thats great for when your in a fox-hole figting off the enemy. Or when your country is being invaded. Or when a man has killed 48 people and is merely getting life in jail. Im just safe in the fact that we, and by that I mean us christians, out number you. And believe me if I were in power I would have people like you.... well best to stay on topic.

----I know. Child molestors have the right to go and have sex with five year olds. Its who they are. The Nazis shouldnt feel guilty for killing all those people. After all its who they are.

Non-sequitur. Those actions harm other people.

----War is quite natural for the human species. There will always be war wherever there are humans. Although homosexuality is quite unnatural.

You don't read very well, do you? Otherwise, you would know that the statement "homosexuality is quite unnatural" is pure idiocy.

----Yes well the whole buddhist philosophy is "Live and let live." Thats great for when your in a fox-hole figting off the enemy. Or when your country is being invaded. Or when a man has killed 48 people and is merely getting life in jail. Im just safe in the fact that we, and by that I mean us christians, out number you. And believe me if I were in power I would have people like you.... well best to stay on topic.

Actually, strangely enough, Jesus Christ was very big on passive resistance. Maybe you should study your Bible.

Let him who has not sinned, cast the first stone.

all nationstates members who has never wanted to have sex with someone for reasons other than procreation please speak up and show these gays how a true christian lives.

never mind, just keep your mouth shut hypocrites

It's been my experience that atheists care more about the poor than self-proclaimed Christians. Atheists = liberal, and support welfare and the like. Christians = conservative, "poor people are poor cause they're lazy".
Visit Canada sometime. We do have Christians as you describe them (although your description is a very good fit to Mike Harris' decidedly secular Progressive Conservatives as well). But while the liberal Christians are not nearly as loudly Christian (I figure it's got something to do with being more concerned with people than rules), there are an awful lot of them around here.

Oh my god. Whoo life-satisfaction. Oh yes that is very important for carrying on life.Well, it is. Even from a strictly utilitarian view-point. Happy people are more productive, and healthier.

Unfourtantly for you homosexuality has no purpose in reproductive terms. Sure it does. It provides each member in the pair-bond with a partner to help raise any offspring. Now to be sure any offspring won't be the progeny of both parents, but gays do have children.

Two men or two women will not have a child if they have sex. After all, the whole purpose of having sex is to reproduce.Wow, you're a bit of a killjoy. Not everything in life must have a purpose. I daresay most of the sex people have is to have fun with their loves, which sounds like a fine purpose to me. It's time for the days of staring up at the ceiling and thinking of God and country to disappear. And if you insist on requiring a benefit to society as a whole; there is that too with non-procreative sex. Besides increasing life-satisfaction, it helps stengthen pair bonds (love).
There is more to homosexuality than just sex. Gays fall in love with others of their sex. And whether they have sex or not, that love, in addition to being a beautiful thing (I recon the world can always have more love), is useful. People in love support each other, mentally and physically, more than they would otherwise. Isvevia expressed this far better than I could. My lover is supporting me through a trying time in my life, and is helping me get stronger mentally while I look for a job and become productive. I suppose such things don't count to you.

Enhancing quality of life? Cmon, im a dictator here remmember?Heh, I didn't know there was role-playing in the general forum. Read Machiavelli sometime; keeping your subjects happy benefits princes too.

Oh my god. Whoo life-satisfaction. Oh yes that is very important for carrying on life.
That's right, quality of life is important to individuals, it's really the only point in fact...

Unfourtantly for you homosexuality has no purpose in reproductive terms
Wrong.

Two men or two women will not have a child if they have sex.
And so?

After all, the whole purpose of having sex is to reproduce
No that is not the whole purpose for having sex.

Gay people cant reproduce together.
Actually they can through various means cooperate to reproduce.

Therefore it serves no real purpose. In no way, shape, or form does it truly benefit humanity in any solid way.
Your argument is unsound and so is your conclusion.

if i'm not mistaken, some animals in zoos have been seen showing homosexual behavior....i'll see if i can find a link, but don't get any hopes up.

i only just got to this comment but if no one else has said so, bonobos (they are quite close to chimpanzees in the order of things) are known for having highly sexual behaviors instead of violence... the females are the dominant sex and sexual relations between two females or two males is not uncommon at all

sexual contact between females is very common especially between mothers of small offspring and young females who have not reproduced yet

This is the part where someone tells me what's wrong with homosexuality itself.

if i'm not mistaken, some animals in zoos have been seen showing homosexual behavior....i'll see if i can find a link, but don't get any hopes up.


it has been documented.
dolphins are the only documented cases of lesbian animal sex
you can see it in dogs on your own...so documentation isn't really needed.
No, I am not comparing people to these animals but animals are part of nature.

Birth CONTROL. I think the ancient greeks were onto something. Homosexuality was very common among teens and young men. But eventually, society expected them to settle down with a wife and have kids or they were seen as irresponsible perverts.

actually, you should do more research. They took on wives and children for the uses of procreation but women were still seen as inferior beings. They would then on the side have younger male lovers, it was looked as a rite of passage. The men were usually much older and very affluent. Beyond procreating men were not expected to deal with their wives or children much at all. That is why such things as naked gymnasiums were common and men only. Because this was such a greek practice, christians who were opressed by the Greeks, identified this as a "Greek behavior" and therefor it became a "bad behavior"..........tada, the bible reflects this.

Oh AND, if you believe what God has said, you must accept practising homosexuality to be wrong. It is mentioned several times, and you can't just ignore the bits of the Bible that you don't like in order to fit in with society. Go against the tide if you must.
Wha? Anyone here ever heard of freedom of religion? You can believe whatever you want without there being any requisite acceptance of other principles.
Not to mention that if you are anything like approaching what I would consider a decent human being, you are being hypocritical.
Unless you follow everything else spelled out in the bible, specific examples of which have already been offered in counter to this particular point.

----Why yes that is what im talking about

So...you're against contraception for heterosexuals? Are you really against "pointless" sex? I just think you don't get laid enough, I could be wrong. I'll start making the bumper stickers: "NO FUCKING UNLESS YOU PLAN TO MAKE A BABY!"

"Mommy, why did Daddy get a vasectomy?"

"Why, so we could make love more often, without worrying about making any more children! We already have 7."

"SELFISH HEDONIST! Bad Christian!"


----Oh yes its so bad
Lets take a look at Germany's past
Lets look at Mongolia's past
Lets look at England's past
In fact nearly any establishment from the time christianity has done some pretty rotton things. But can you deny it's shaped the world?
Oh as for atheists?
See: Stalins rule over Russia

Christianity has it's good and bad moments, just like most things.

In response to the Stalin comment...Hitler was a Christian. ;)

----Hey have you ever seen a bum? Give him a buck and follow him around. Watch as he goes and buys booze or saves up for drugs

Maybe we could give him food instead?

----I know. Child molestors have the right to go and have sex with five year olds. Its who they are. The Nazis shouldnt feel guilty for killing all those people. After all its who they are. One of the ideas of christianity is to become BETTER then you all ready are.

The flaw in that line of argument is that pedophilism and genocide causes harm to the recieving person, whereas homosexuality does not. So prove that all homosex causes outright harm to one party, if you want to continue that reasoning.

----War is quite natural for the human species. There will always be war wherever there are humans. Although homosexuality is quite unnatural. And such language! Can I give it a shot? Rot in hell you liberal pile of crap.
Wow. That does make me feel like a bigger person.

LMAO @ "rot in hell"...I'm atheist, remember, I don't think it exists. :p

Anyways, your views on war are frightening, to say the least.

And I could give you some reasons on why homosexuality is quite natural, but I think everyone else took care of that.


----Yes well the whole buddhist philosophy is "Live and let live." Thats great for when your in a fox-hole figting off the enemy. Or when your country is being invaded. Or when a man has killed 48 people and is merely getting life in jail. Im just safe in the fact that we, and by that I mean us christians, out number you. And believe me if I were in power I would have people like you.... well best to stay on topic.

Umm...I miss the point of the first few sentences. :confused:

Anyways, your comment about the serial killer shows that you're all for capital punishment, no surprise, from a self-proclaimed Christian.

And I'm glad your kind are not in power, otherwise anyone who didn't conform to your version of Christianity would probably be lined up against the wall and shot, or maybe just get our hands chopped off.

And I wouldn't be so sure about the "we outnumber you" statement. The vast majority of religious folk are much older than the average age. You will find that the people who will run this country 30 years from now are much more open-minded and tolerant than you hateful throwbacks.

Current predictions estimate that the religious folk in America will drop below 50% by 2050.

But whatever floats your boat, I'm sure there are just enough Jerry Falwell's in the making to keep the myth going that America is largely composed of right-wing homophobes.

it has been documented.
dolphins are the only documented cases of lesbian animal sex
you can see it in dogs on your own...so documentation isn't really needed.
No, I am not comparing people to these animals but animals are part of nature.

Dolphins are nowhere near the only documented case. Read a book named Biological Exuberance, the shear number of animals will amaze you.

Ok so is homosexuality actually "wrong." you tell me. And dont give me any of this "there is no absolute truth, do whats 'right' to you" crap. I want an intellegent answer from someone out there.

Well, the absolute truth issue aside, there's the issue of whether it's actually CAUSING HARM. I have yet to see anything to suggest that consensual homosexual sex between people of legal age is, in of itself, bad. I feel that if something is not doing anyone any harm, that it's basically impossible (although I suppose someone could think of an exception or two) to argue that it is "immoral".

Furthermore, regarding the "it's not in nature" argument- many animals in nature engage in homosexual activity, including but not limited to:

- Penguins
- Apes
- Mountain Gorillas
- Bighorn Rams
- Geese
- Dolphins
- Swans
- Killer Whales
- Penguins