NationStates Jolt Archive

No, I looked at a few hot women, a few hot men, and decided that women are hot, but men are just men.

Then you didn't make a decision, as it had already been made for you. You are not attracted to men - hence, you are heterosexual.

Now, why would you think it any different for a homosexual?

No, I looked at a few hot women, a few hot men, and decided that women are hot, but men are just men.

So, you had desires to do things to the men which the Torah says are quite sinful? And you rejected those desires?

Because merely appreciating that some men can be pretty, sexy, et cetera, is merely a function of good taste, not homosexuality.

Subconciousely.

You don't make subconcious decisions that register conciously.

Plus: Anbar, good one about the fruitful bit.

Logic rules.

Indeed. Logical thought is the exercising of our own divine gifts.

Okay, Anbar's argued too much theology tonight. :rolleyes:

Wasn't the whole point of Jesus to save us from the strict rules of the Old Testament? Or maybe not phrased exactly like that, but Christians certainly don't follow all the rules there about eating pork on certain days or whatever it is.
I am Jewish, and thus don't believe that Jesus was anything more than a common men.


And all of Torah is useful, and completely true, even Leviticus.

When I hit puberty.

I found women attractive long before I hit puberty, I simply never had a biological urge to act upon it. So really, the first time you had a biological urge towards another human being was when you hit puberty, not when you made a decision about which sex you were attracted to. However, that decision is not conscious, it's subconscious.

Plus: Anbar, good one about the fruitful bit.

Heh, it was a bad pun and we both know it.

Actually, I'd call that quite "fruitful."
That's just a wordpun in English. Fruitful in Hebrew, and fruit in hebrew, are not related or close words.

I am Jewish, and thus don't believe that Jesus was anything more than a common men.


And all of Torah is useful, and completely true, even Leviticus.
So, you're for lesbian marriage, but a man sleeping with a man is a Very, Very Bad Thing?

Meh. Either way, I'd put money on the possiblity that you're reading the Torah v30.0 or something.

Everything changes with time, when civilizations conquer one another, they inevitably change things. Including things in religion. *shrug* I personally think that any documents dating from anything further back than a few hundred years are questionable, at best.

That's just a wordpun in English. Fruitful in Hebrew, and fruit in hebrew, are not related or close words.

Hey, go with what you know. If I spoke Hebrew, I'd love to try and make some puns in it. Actually, I'd love to learn Hebrew, it's a beautiful language.

That's just a wordpun in English. Fruitful in Hebrew, and fruit in hebrew, are not related or close words.

I know it's a wordpun, see above.

So, you're for lesbian marriage, but a man sleeping with a man is a Very, Very Bad Thing?

Meh. Either way, I'd put money on the possiblity that you're reading the Torah v30.0 or something.

Everything changes with time, when civilizations conquer one another, they inevitably change things. Including things in religion. *shrug* I personally think that any documents dating from anything further back than a few hundred years are questionable, at best.
While lesbians are never mentioned in the Torah, the Mishnah, specifically, Rabbi Maimonides also forbids it, although the ban is not as severe as one on gay men. And Torah is also immutable, that is in fact one of the 13 main doctrines of Judaism.

Would I abandon them?

Absolutely not.

If being gay was a choice, that is, being abused, discriminated against, etc, I naturally would not want it for my child. But the point is, for some it ISN'T a choice. If they want to be complete, happy, healthy individuals and loving someone of their own sex/gender is the only way they can do it and not lie to themselves, then... they must. I think it would be very difficult for me to bear with it, especially knowing the brutality my child would have to go through. But? If I went through the task of having a child, taking part in raising it, it's just something that is there. People used to (and still do) disown their children for marrying outside their born-to religion, even if it was still a sect inside it... say, a Protestant disowned for marrying a Catholic. I'd like to think I have more ability to adapt to my children than that.

Do you really think people would willingly choose to be abused for their preference? I mean, if it was truly their choice, I think most would probably choose to be heterosexual. It would cause a lot less trouble to themselves, their family, etc. It's a terrible thing to live through, though, to lie to yourself day after day, just because other people find it uncomfortable.

Having children is also a factor too. Well, someone who is gay CAN have children. Just because you don't prefer the opposite sex doesn't mean you automatically don't want children someday.

If it was my child, MY child, I would not abandon them. Simply because in making such a discovery, they would need all the help and support they could get. And in loving your own child, it should go without conditions.

Hey, go with what you know. If I spoke Hebrew, I'd love to try and make some puns in it. Actually, I'd love to learn Hebrew, it's a beautiful language.
Actually, wordpuns in Hebrew are sometimes exploited in Judaism. For example:
"Everyone who daily learns laws is guaranteed a place in the world to come. It is said 'Halahot olam -- lo' (Paths of the future belong to Him). Reas not 'halahot' but 'halihot' (and then the phrase will mean 'One who learns law will get a place in the future world')"

While lesbians are never mentioned in the Torah, the Mishnah, specifically, Rabbi Maimonides also forbids it, although the ban is not as severe as one on gay men. And Torah is also immutable, that is in fact one of the 13 main doctrines of Judaism.

Perhaps there's a specific reason why the ban is less severe.
Apparrently, in your blessed Torah, women are less valuable than men.

Plus, just because a religious law says that something is immutable doesn't mean that it's immutable.

If the local Baptist church put a book out in the middle of the road and said that it's not allowed to be altered, I can guarantee you that some teenagers who were not Baptist would come along with a pen and some white-out and change things, merely for the hell of it.

While lesbians are never mentioned in the Torah, the Mishnah, specifically, Rabbi Maimonides also forbids it, although the ban is not as severe as one on gay men.
I think that's just cause guys are turned on by chicks kissing, but grossed out by guys kissing.

I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before in this and other threads.

Would I abandon them?

Absolutely not.

If being gay was a choice, that is, being abused, discriminated against, etc, I naturally would not want it for my child. But the point is, for some it ISN'T a choice. If they want to be complete, happy, healthy individuals and loving someone of their own sex/gender is the only way they can do it and not lie to themselves, then... they must. I think it would be very difficult for me to bear with it, especially knowing the brutality my child would have to go through. But? If I went through the task of having a child, taking part in raising it, it's just something that is there. People used to (and still do) disown their children for marrying outside their born-to religion, even if it was still a sect inside it... say, a Protestant disowned for marrying a Catholic. I'd like to think I have more ability to adapt to my children than that.

Do you really think people would willingly choose to be abused for their preference? I mean, if it was truly their choice, I think most would probably choose to be heterosexual. It would cause a lot less trouble to themselves, their family, etc. It's a terrible thing to live through, though, to lie to yourself day after day, just because other people find it uncomfortable.

Having children is also a factor too. Well, someone who is gay CAN have children. Just because you don't prefer the opposite sex doesn't mean you automatically don't want children someday.

If it was my child, MY child, I would not abandon them. Simply because in making such a discovery, they would need all the help and support they could get. And in loving your own child, it should go without conditions.

Encore. *claps* What a first post.

That's one of the most eloquent replies I've read in this topic (not that I've read most of it, I came in at about page 10) and one of the ones I respect most. If more people were as open-minded as you are, the world would be a much nicer place to live in.

I may have made a mistake in this thread. I didn't make the choice to be heterosexual. I made the choice not to be homosexual.

Would I abandon them?

Absolutely not.

If being gay was a choice, that is, being abused, discriminated against, etc, I naturally would not want it for my child. But the point is, for some it ISN'T a choice. If they want to be complete, happy, healthy individuals and loving someone of their own sex/gender is the only way they can do it and not lie to themselves, then... they must. I think it would be very difficult for me to bear with it, especially knowing the brutality my child would have to go through. But? If I went through the task of having a child, taking part in raising it, it's just something that is there. People used to (and still do) disown their children for marrying outside their born-to religion, even if it was still a sect inside it... say, a Protestant disowned for marrying a Catholic. I'd like to think I have more ability to adapt to my children than that.

Do you really think people would willingly choose to be abused for their preference? I mean, if it was truly their choice, I think most would probably choose to be heterosexual. It would cause a lot less trouble to themselves, their family, etc. It's a terrible thing to live through, though, to lie to yourself day after day, just because other people find it uncomfortable.

Having children is also a factor too. Well, someone who is gay CAN have children. Just because you don't prefer the opposite sex doesn't mean you automatically don't want children someday.

If it was my child, MY child, I would not abandon them. Simply because in making such a discovery, they would need all the help and support they could get. And in loving your own child, it should go without conditions.

It's people like you that make me believe that humanity really isn't hopeless - I may love everyone else, but hearing from people like Doom777 disappoints me like an aunt or an uncle might be disappointed in a child when they do something or make a decision that's entirely self-centered.

I think that's just cause guys are turned on by chicks kissing, but grossed out by guys kissing.

Some are. I'm not. I am turned on by two girls kissing, but I'm not grossed out by two guys. In fact, sometimes quite the reverse. Entirely depends on the guys. And it depends on the girls, too... Anne Widdecombe and Margaret Thatcher would NOT turn me on, not in a million years. Neither would Robert Kilroy-Silk and David Dickinson.

I may have made a mistake in this thread. I didn't make the choice to be heterosexual. I made the choice not to be homosexual.

No, if you didn't make a choice to be a heterosexual, or a choice to be a homosexual, you'd have no sexuality, and not be attracted to either gender. So, if people make the decision to be attracted to the same gender, when did you make the choice to be attracted to the opposite gender?

Lydania: yes, the torah tells men have more worth then women. Judaism, and even catolicism, do not support modern feminism. Neither do I.

Chodoloco: The torah was written by G-d, who has no sexual turn ons. And the reason for this, is most laws in the torah speak of men, women are rarely mentioned.

Lydania: why is it that when i speak out my homophobic thoughts, people automatically make judgments about my personality.

Lydania: yes, the torah tells men have more worth then women. Judaism, and even catolicism, do not support modern feminism. Neither do I.
And when you have a daughter, and she gets abused by her husband, don't go crying to the cops, or even say anything. Because a woman's place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

Lydania: why is it that when i speak out my homophobic thoughts, people automatically make judgments about my personality.
It's because they're just that - homophobic. You make no effort to understand, and immediately make moral judgements and proclamations. You decry things you have no firsthand knowledge of, merely because of your dogma. You make no effort to think. Thought is a gift from God. Not using it is a greater sin than anything that could ever be written in any religious text. God means for us to question him, and by questioning him, find our place in the world and love for him.

But you don't seem to care, you're just beating yourself in the forehead with your book, thinking you have all the answers, when really, all you know is what someone else has told you, or what you've read. If you could truly find compassion or love for your fellow human, you'd accept them and their decisions regardless of how you felt about them, so long as they were not hurting anyone. Their immortal souls are their own, not yours - only God can judge, so long as, like I've said, they're not hurting another. If they hurt others, it's our place to seperate them from society for their rehabilitation. Until that point, it's none of my, or yours, or anyone elses' business. Show me where in the Torah it says 'And you shall mind your neighbors business more closely than you mind your own, and you shall pick at every little flaw in them, while neglecting your own flaws.'

No, if you didn't make a choice to be a heterosexual, or a choice to be a homosexual, you'd have no sexuality, and not be attracted to either gender. So, if people make the decision to be attracted to the same gender, when did you make the choice to be attracted to the opposite gender?
No, everyone is heterosexual by default, as nature prescribed. Homosexuals make the choice to ignore the nature's call and become homosexual.

No, everyone is heterosexual by default, as nature prescribed. Homosexuals make the choice to ignore the nature's call and become homosexual.

I'd have to disagree with you, there. Everyone is omnisexual by default. They'll have sex, so long as it feels good. But human society has decided that it knows what's best for each member, so what it wants is seen as the 'norm' and that's what everyone is by 'default', and anyone not following it is a 'deviant'. You're being a sheep, both to your religion and to society, and not thinking for yourself.

You lose.

No, everyone is heterosexual by default, as nature prescribed. Homosexuals make the choice to ignore the nature's call and become homosexual.

Animals often have sex with members of the same sex - well, the males do, it would be a little difficult for a doe to have sex with another doe... so no, no-one and nothing is heterosexual by default. Not even plants, which have two clearly defined sexes.

Animals often have sex with members of the same sex - well, the males do, it would be a little difficult for a doe to have sex with another doe... so no, no-one and nothing is heterosexual by default. Not even plants, which have two clearly defined sexes.

And here's some evidence.
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp

Unless this is liberal propaganda.

It's because they're just that - homophobic. You make no effort to understand, and immediately make moral judgements and proclamations. You decry things you have no firsthand knowledge of, merely because of your dogma. You make no effort to think. Thought is a gift from God. Not using it is a greater sin than anything that could ever be written in any religious text. God means for us to question him, and by questioning him, find our place in the world and love for him.

But you don't seem to care, you're just beating yourself in the forehead with your book, thinking you have all the answers, when really, all you know is what someone else has told you, or what you've read. If you could truly find compassion or love for your fellow human, you'd accept them and their decisions regardless of how you felt about them, so long as they were not hurting anyone. Their immortal souls are their own, not yours - only God can judge, so long as, like I've said, they're not hurting another. If they hurt others, it's our place to seperate them from society for their rehabilitation. Until that point, it's none of my, or yours, or anyone elses' business. Show me where in the Torah it says 'And you shall mind your neighbors business more closely than you mind your own, and you shall pick at every little flaw in them, while neglecting your own flaws.'
G-d doesn't want us to question him. He wants us to firmly believe in him. The second most important thing to being alive, is believing in G-d. I don't have all the answers, "the book", as you have called it does. And G-d did judge, that's why the Torah says homosexuality is wrong. It is not our, nor anyone else's place to question his judgment. You shouldn't "mind your neighbors business more closely than you mind your own, and you shall pick at every little flaw in them, while neglecting your own flaws", but you should live a good life following the laws in the Torah. It should be the government's job to punish those who don't follow the laws, whether ones found in the torah, or ones imposed by the government.

I wouldn't treat them any different really. The only thing that I might do different was if I had a son, i wouldn'y ask him if he had a girlfriend or if I had a daughter I wouldnt ask her if she had a boyfriend. Also, I'd probably be a little more sensitive ti bullying, becuase if someone picked on my kind, there would be some major butt kicking going on and it would be my tush getting the crap knocked out of it, if you know what I mean.

G-d doesn't want us to question him. He wants us to firmly believe in him. The second most important thing to being alive, is believing in G-d. I don't have all the answers, "the book", as you have called it does. And G-d did judge, that's why the Torah says homosexuality is wrong. It is not our, nor anyone else's place to question his judgment. You shouldn't "mind your neighbors business more closely than you mind your own, and you shall pick at every little flaw in them, while neglecting your own flaws", but you should live a good life following the laws in the Torah. It should be the government's job to punish those who don't follow the laws, whether ones found in the torah, or ones imposed by the government.

So, because you think your book has all the answers, then all the other books must be wrong, and everyone should live by the laws that you voluntarily subject yourself to?

PS: More 'gay animals' evidence. Because animals have no capacity 'to choose', homosexuality must be in nature. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

No, everyone is heterosexual by default, as nature prescribed. Homosexuals make the choice to ignore the nature's call and become homosexual.

Oh, well I see, that's much simpler. So, you would be physically capable of having sex with a man then. Is that correct?

How would you react? Would you treat them any differently than if they were straight? Would you tell them they were going to hell? (if you are evangelical, that is) Honestly, I really wouldn't treat them any differently, and I certanly wouldn't disown them. I guess I'd need time to think about how to deal with them coming home and talking about having a crush on someone of the same gender. If they got picked on because they were gay though, I'd arrange a meeting with the kid's parents and raise hell. If my children are picked on for things they cannot control, well I don't put up with bs like that. Anyways, how would you out there handle this situation if it happened to you? I'm not trying to make it sound weird, it's just that different challenges come for parents that have gay children and yes, I know people who have gay children.

I would treat them as my children. I would possibly have to be there to listen more, because life is harder for gay kids. Learning about their crushes on students of the same gender would probably be weird, but I'd get used to it. And yeah, I'd be pretty pissed off, too, if my kid was getting shit for being gay.

So basically, I'd treat them with all the love and respect that a parent is supposed to treat their child with.

I would treat them as my children. I would possibly have to be there to listen more, because life is harder for gay kids. Learning about their crushes on students of the same gender would probably be weird, but I'd get used to it. And yeah, I'd be pretty pissed off, too, if my kid was getting shit for being gay.

So basically, I'd treat them with all the love and respect that a parent is supposed to treat their child with.

And for that, you get the kudos every good parent deserves.

I'd have to disagree with you, there. Everyone is omnisexual by default. They'll have sex, so long as it feels good. But human society has decided that it knows what's best for each member, so what it wants is seen as the 'norm' and that's what everyone is by 'default', and anyone not following it is a 'deviant'. You're being a sheep, both to your religion and to society, and not thinking for yourself.

No, everyone is heterosexual by default. They have sex with anything else, once they grow up and decide to ignore the nature. That was what happened in ancient cultures, and teh first religion to go against this, was Judaism.

No, everyone is heterosexual by default. They have sex with anything else, once they grow up and decide to ignore the nature. That was what happened in ancient cultures, and teh first religion to go against this, was Judaism.

Sorry, click my links and you can see why I'm right and you're wrong.

Homosexuality exists in nature, outside of the human race.

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp

So, do you suggest that we stone them poor gay penguins to death?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Oh, well I see, that's much simpler. So, you would be physically capable of having sex with a man then. Is that correct?
You are physically capable of having sex with more things then you think of. Food, for example, or the couch, or even the wall. Anything that you can rub against your penis.

No, everyone is heterosexual by default. They have sex with anything else, once they grow up and decide to ignore the nature. That was what happened in ancient cultures, and teh first religion to go against this, was Judaism.

You ignore the evidence. You say there is a choice made. Homosexual activity has been observed in most species of animals, as the provided evidence shows. Animals cannot choose to go against nature - they can only follow their instincts. Hence, you are wrong that it is a conscious choice.

Sorry, click my links and you can see why I'm right and you're wrong.

Homosexuality exists in nature, outside of the human race.

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp

So, do you suggest that we stone them poor gay penguins to death?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Quoted for Doom777's benefit.

Sorry guys, but i believe that you do not Choose to be gay, it simply is....
Feelings towards your own gender is because of a chemical imbalance....Even if one did not want to be gay they would not be able to block out feelings for the same sex, simply hide them from others.

Well if they turned queer I wouldn't care if they hated me. I might even go crazy wondering what I did wrong to cause such a horrible mind disorder.

A. It's not a disorder. Check with the APA if you don't believe me.
2. You can't turn gay. It's not a choice.
III. I hope you never have children.

Heterosexual by default? That's not actually true.

It's more correct to assume the idea of compulsorary heterosexuality. Namely, "everyone is going to be doing THIS, so I better do it, too". That's not going with nature. That's going with social behavior that is around you that doesn't necessarily connect with what you think inside.

And since it's behavioral, and the primary accepted sexuality is heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality is frowned upon even early in life. Gender is imposed upon children at an early age, almost from birth, according to their specific sex, and through gender, sexuality is always there. It's learned. Sexuality, to a degree, is, too.

That's why a lot of people don't come out until they are later in life. Because they don't necessarily understand even to themselves what these attractions mean, or completely deny them to themselves because "that's not me".

As to refering to Leviticus? Well.... I have a sample of a post from another forum that I find very... interesting. And something I enjoyed reading very much.

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 also states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
carpe diem, lash

And would you believe I'm only 16? Here is visible proof of the wonders growing up with old parents can create... I've been thinking like this since about a decade ago. Everyone was always freaked out by the way I used to argue on and on with 40 year old college professors when I was 6... except the college professor, he loved it! :D


Of course I believe you're 16. After all, I'm only 16, as well. Thinking deep thoughts is by no means restricted by age.

You are physically capable of having sex with more things then you think of. Food, for example, or the couch, or even the wall. Anything that you can rub against your penis.

No, you are not able to have sex with anything, because arousal is required. If something does not arouse you, you physically cannot have sex with it. In that, the only person who chooses to be gay or straight is a bisexual, being arousable by both sexes. A straight person does not have this choice, nor does a gay person. You are simply not attracted to the sex in question.

A. It's not a disorder. Check with the APA if you don't believe me.
2. You can't turn gay. It's not a choice.
III. I hope you never have children.

Never let logic coupled with compassion interfere with (faith and what was written 2000 years ago / ignorance).

No, everyone is heterosexual by default. They have sex with anything else, once they grow up and decide to ignore the nature. That was what happened in ancient cultures, and teh first religion to go against this, was Judaism.

Hmm. Egyptian pharoahs were encouraged to marry their sisters, and frequently had sexual relationships with other men, often their brothers. Now, this seems to me that that's three things nowadays considered taboo/sins/whatever you want to call them.

Also, people decide to have sex when they grow up, yes. They don't decide "Hey, today, I'm going to have anal sex with this man,". People's sexuality is decided by their environment as they grow up. If they are brought up with a religion that tells them that homosexuality is wrong, chances are they won't become homosexual. There's still a possibility that they will, though.

There's not some little voice inside my head saying to me that I should be attracted to women. I simply am. Likewise, there's no little voice in my head telling me to be attracted to men. I simply am, just not as frequently.

If I recall correctly, it operated under certain factors that could make a person be attracted to the opposite sex, but wouldn't necessarily do so, and had some degree of choice (attraction to both sides). Curling your tongue is not something you have any control over, homosexuality is.

Just because it had a less than 100% rate of penetrance does not mean it has any factor in choice. Environmental factors might influence the expression of homosexuality, but they are hardly under the child's control.

Yes it would be very painful on them. But they have the option to reconsider being gay, while I have no other option.

Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, or bisexuality, is not something you can reconsider. Reconsider your opinion.

Also, people decide to have sex when they grow up, yes. They don't decide "Hey, today, I'm going to have anal sex with this man,". People's sexuality is decided by their environment as they grow up. If they are brought up with a religion that tells them that homosexuality is wrong, chances are they won't become homosexual. There's still a possibility that they will, though.

Actually, they'll still be gay... it's just that they'll be really f---ed up in the head and will want to have sex with men but will have incredible personality conflicts and will be psychologically disordered until they go through therapy.

Sorry, click my links and you can see why I'm right and you're wrong.

Homosexuality exists in nature, outside of the human race.

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp

So, do you suggest that we stone them poor gay penguins to death?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
laws that apply to men do not apply to animals. Like if a wolf kills a pig, he's eating pork, but he is still allowed to do so.

laws that apply to men do not apply to animals. Like if a wolf kills a pig, he's eating pork, but he is still allowed to do so.

Good lord. They don't make a freaking choice, you nimrod. They were CREATED that way. And believe it or not, we're just animals - so if God's creating homosexual flies, it stands to reason that He's creating homosexual people as well. And denying them their God-given body, mind, soul and existence... that's sick, twisted, and more of a perversion than you think homosexuality is.

Anyways, I have to go again. I'm bookmarking this.

laws that apply to men do not apply to animals. Like if a wolf kills a pig, he's eating pork, but he is still allowed to do so.

Not the point. The point is choice. A homosexual does not choose to be gay, that is what s/he is. If you want to talk about acting upon it, that's another matter. Of course, a homosexual does not cease to be homosexual in being celibate.

I would be deeply ashamed and disown them.


if you are being serious. Why? what is there to be ashamed of and what would disowning them achieve? Remember homosexuality has been around for a very long time - alexandra the great had his 'companions', shakesphere was gay.

laws that apply to men do not apply to animals. Like if a wolf kills a pig, he's eating pork, but he is still allowed to do so.

That's handy then, isn't it. However, your statement of the call of nature is shown to be false in this evidence. Laws are not the same as instincts. A human is simply a hairless ape with various levels of intelligence added on top. We share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees. We share about 60% with bananas, for crying out loud. Is it that one percent of difference that means a chimp is exemplary of God's rules while we humans are not?

Marriage is (and has been for several thousand years) a means of producing and nurturing children. Studies have shown that children do better raised in a home with one man and one woman who are married. Why should you have to live with one wife if you love more than one woman? If my child had a compulsion to kill others, should I let him/her? I mean, it is their nature. Alcohosism has a genetic component. Yet there are people with alcoholic tendencies who don't drink.

Actually, studies have shown that children raised with two parents of the same gender fair just as well as children raised in heterosexual homes. Further they are no more or less likely to be homosexual themselves.

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#goodparents

And there is a difference between being gay and being a murdered. Namely murder hurts other people. Being gay doesn't hurt anyone--including yourself.

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 also states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
carpe diem, lash

1)Yes, you may purchase canadians, provided, there is a legal reason they're your slaves.
2)According to the United States constitution, slavery is not allowed.
3)For one, you should only have contact with your wife, and she should tell you. Hell you should be able tell by yourself, by her bitchiness.
4)Sacrifices are not allowed to be done, without the temple. Once Messiah comes, and rebuilds the temple, sacrifices will be around, but only INSIDE the temple. YOu may not sacrifice animals in yuor backyard.
5)You let the police get him.
6) Yes there are. But you should be a Jewish scholar to determine the degrees. I assume that yuor friend is right.
7)Only Jewish priests may approach the altar anyway, so you shouldn't be concerned.
8)The punishment for trimming your hair around the temples is not death.
9)Yes, you should wear gloves, or ask for a football from a different material.
10)Only the laws that specifically ask for death penality, plus violation of any of the 10 commandments calls for death. Other violations carry a smaller degree of punishment. Consult your rabbi, on what is the punishment for all the sins he does. Also, make sure, that executing the punishement is legal in your country.

Alcohosism has a genetic component. Yet there are people with alcoholic tendencies who don't drink.

I'd be interested to know where you heard this, seeing as it isn't true... an addiction to alcohol is due to the body becoming chemically balanced when filled with alcohol. It then becomes unbalanced if the alcohol isn't there, producing a dependency on the alcohol. The chemicals within the body are nothing to do with the genetic structure of the DNA. Getting pissed doesn't alter your DNA.

I will work on finding a link, but I've never met a homosexual who was ultimately happy in that lifestyle. That isn't to say that all heterosexual relationships are perfect and fulfilling--they aren't. Nothing in this world will ultimately make you suddenly happy and fulfilled. Except God. How do I know? Because I've experienced God. And everyone else who has truly experienced Jesus Christ knows it as well.

Just becaue you've never met me doesn't mean I don't exist.

I am perfectly happy to be a homosexual. I'm not pleased that I have my rights trampled on by others, but as far as being homosexual? I'm just as gay as can be about it :)

*sigh*


I wish people knew what they were talking about...

I know, because of experience, in what its like to come out to my parents. They didn't accept me, and they never will. It's sad to know that I will never have any support, especially from my own blood, and that I have to continue to live on, knowing that they hate who I am. (I'm 19, so I still love at home, and put up with a lot of the same abuse.)

What I wish for everyone to understand is that I'm no different from John Doe. I act just like everyone else (i.e. I love Halo and video games, I love hardcore punk/emo/rock), and I love to do what everyone else does, such as going to the mall, seeing movies, etc. I don't see why people have to judge me because of my sexual orientation, I mean, it doesn't change who I really am.

I am religious as well. People may see that as a shock, but personally, I don't think its contradictory at all. I love God, and I know he loves me, despite the fact that I am gay (actually I'm bi, but still). I believe that Jesus died for me, and my sins, and freed me from death, and that Jesus is the Son of God. Isn't that supposed to be the one thing you have to truly believe in, in order to get to heaven? (Yes it is, I went to a private school 9 years, and had it drilled into me, so yea, that was a rhetorical question).

/rant

Also, make sure, that executing the punishement is legal in your country.

Why? We're talking about the laws of God here. Wouldn't honoring the laws of Man over those of God be forsaking God for Man?

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is God-breathed..."

The Bible, although written down by men, is divinely inspired, meaning all information/ideas contained therein are those of God.

Circular arguement. You are using the Bible to prove itself. . . .

1)Yes, you may purchase canadians, provided, there is a legal reason they're your slaves.
2)According to the United States constitution, slavery is not allowed.
3)For one, you should only have contact with your wife, and she should tell you. Hell you should be able tell by yourself, by her bitchiness.
4)Sacrifices are not allowed to be done, without the temple. Once Messiah comes, and rebuilds the temple, sacrifices will be around, but only INSIDE the temple. YOu may not sacrifice animals in yuor backyard.
5)You let the police get him.
6) Yes there are. But you should be a Jewish scholar to determine the degrees. I assume that yuor friend is right.
7)Only Jewish priests may approach the altar anyway, so you shouldn't be concerned.
8)The punishment for trimming your hair around the temples is not death.
9)Yes, you should wear gloves, or ask for a football from a different material.
10)Only the laws that specifically ask for death penality, plus violation of any of the 10 commandments calls for death. Other violations carry a smaller degree of punishment. Consult your rabbi, on what is the punishment for all the sins he does. Also, make sure, that executing the punishement is legal in your country.

...LMAO Actually, that was meant to show that Leviticus is just a book with outdated elements that only applied to their own times. And the elements quoted FROM Leviticus and Exodus are meant to be followed, according to the ancient texts, directly and seriously. It shows that they can only apply to their place of origin and time of origin perfectly. And it also shows, according to the ancient texts if you follow it directly as according to the laws of it, you can't pick and choose.

I also showed it to give it a sense of humor. But I think you've done that for me. Thanks!

*Chuckling* Purchasing Canadians as slaves. LOL

That's handy then, isn't it. However, your statement of the call of nature is shown to be false in this evidence. Laws are not the same as instincts. A human is simply a hairless ape with various levels of intelligence added on top. We share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees. We share about 60% with bananas, for crying out loud. Is it that one percent of difference that means a chimp is exemplary of God's rules while we humans are not?
So, those animals are also disregarding some of their nature's callings.

Point the first: I plan never to have children.

Point the second: If I somehow lost my mind and went and had one/adopted one, and if they grew up gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, or whatever, I wouldn't care any which way. Be awful hypocritical of me to judge them for being something I myself am and have been since even before I was five, you see. Plus, they're human, and just as worthy of my love as any other.

Point the third: After two years of agonizing over whether or not I should tell my parents, I finally managed to work it into a conversation. My stepmom didn't seem like she gave a flip either way, but when my father decided to tell me that I wouldn't be his child should I carry on in this way, she joined in the Disowning Crusade with him.

This was many years ago. I note that thanks to their very similar "parenting" skills throughout my childhood (and some genetics), I am really, really fooked in the head. As a matter of fact, I'm a complete wreck. I could list ten different things wrong with me and still have room to talk of more, and nearly all of them have been properly diagnosed by psychiatrists/ologists (there are a few I haven't told anyone of because I'm sick of being placed on ever-more meds). I ought to walk up to them and strangle them both. As it is, I have spent the last three years just barely talking to them on my two siblings' birthdays and hiding terrified the remainder of the time. There is no way in hell I would put anyone else through this just because of something they couldn't help being.

To those of you parents who think you're doing the right thing trying to force your children to act how they aren't, or face disownment: F--- you.

No, seriously. Thanks to people like you, it is entirely possible I will never have an even semi-happy relationship in my life, no matter the gender. Thanks to people like you, I am lucky I haven't just done myself in. Thanks to people like you, an untold number more children and adults like me are out there suffering and thinking of themselves as evil people who should be hated and rebuked, and falling to dysfunctional pieces.

Parental love is unconditional. If you can't understand that, I recommend you visit your local sterilization clinic, because if we're going to overpopulate this planet anyway, I'd rather it not be with your help.

*sigh*


I wish people knew what they were talking about...

I know, because of experience, in what its like to come out to my parents. They didn't accept me, and they never will. It's sad to know that I will never have any support, especially from my own blood, and that I have to continue to live on, knowing that they hate who I am. (I'm 19, so I still love at home, and put up with a lot of the same abuse.)

What I wish for everyone to understand is that I'm no different from John Doe. I act just like everyone else (i.e. I love Halo and video games, I love hardcore punk/emo/rock), and I love to do what everyone else does, such as going to the mall, seeing movies, etc. I don't see why people have to judge me because of my sexual orientation, I mean, it doesn't change who I really am.

I am religious as well. People may see that as a shock, but personally, I don't think its contradictory at all. I love God, and I know he loves me, despite the fact that I am gay (actually I'm bi, but still). I believe that Jesus died for me, and my sins, and freed me from death, and that Jesus is the Son of God. Isn't that supposed to be the one thing you have to truly believe in, in order to get to heaven? (Yes it is, I went to a private school 9 years, and had it drilled into me, so yea, that was a rhetorical question).

/rant
No, what's said is you chose yuor erroneous sexual orientation over your family.

So, those animals are also disregarding some of their nature's callings.

I think even you can see that this is a ridiculous thing to say. Animals are nature. They comprise one of the most integral parts of our definition of what is natural. Thusly, anything they do is natural. Lacking consciousness, an animal cannot make a conscious decision, and cannot choose to do something "unnatural." Once again, only a bisexual has a choice in this matter. You cannot become aroused by someone you are not attracted to.

I would be deeply ashamed and disown them.

I'm sure they would be ashamed of you too.

Doom777, I would like to apologize for the rampant anti-semitism in this thread. While I do not agree with your opinion 100% (People don't choose to be homosexual, although homosexual sex is a sin), I am appalled by the additudes of many of the other posters on this forum towards Judaism and the Torah.

As a Catholic, I have had to put up with religious descrimination on several other threads before, and it hasn't been easy. The amount of descrimination you are facing, and your calm responses to raving posts... you are an inspiration to people of all theologies, for your incredible tolerence. If I were you, I would have called in mods a while ago...

No, what's said is you chose yuor erroneous sexual parents over your family.

Of course! Is it really so much to ask that he live out his life in bitter, unfulfilled self-loathing for the sake of his family's intolerance? :rolleyes:

No, what's said is you chose yuor erroneous sexual parents over your family.


First of all, I didn't choose my sexuality. That's something that is part of me. Secondly, I still have a healthy relationship with my parents, putting my sexuality aside. They just don't support me when it comes to loving another man.

No, everyone is heterosexual by default. They have sex with anything else, once they grow up and decide to ignore the nature. That was what happened in ancient cultures, and teh first religion to go against this, was Judaism.

Would you mind citing a few sources that are non-religious in origin that back this up?

No, everyone is heterosexual by default. They have sex with anything else, once they grow up and decide to ignore the nature. That was what happened in ancient cultures, and teh first religion to go against this, was Judaism.

Even though I just issued a general apology for anti-semetism, I would like to point out that not everyone is heterosexual by default. There were homosexuals in many native american societies, I believe that a fairly common native american belief was that gays were the spirit of a woman trapped in the body of a man.

Of course! Is it really so much to ask that he live out his life in bitter, unfulfilled self-loathing for the sake of his family's intolerance? :rolleyes:
He'd only be bitter for a short while. Then he'd find out he really made the right choice.


The true reason Judaism is against homosexuality, is the main thing in Judaism is life, which is even more important then the faith in G-d. And by being homosexual, you're denying life by not having children. In fact, family planning is also not allowed.

Yes, because you know, I decided to become homosexual, so that Bush could declare me a 2nd class citizen...so that my parents could reject me...and so that people can mock me, discriminate me, and threaten my life because of my sexuality. :rolleyes: Such an enjoyable life.

Doom777, I would like to apologize for the rampant anti-semitism in this thread. While I do not agree with your opinion 100% (People don't choose to be homosexual, although homosexual sex is a sin), I am appalled by the additudes of many of the other posters on this forum towards Judaism and the Torah.

As a Catholic, I have had to put up with religious descrimination on several other threads before, and it hasn't been easy. The amount of descrimination you are facing, and your calm responses to raving posts... you are an inspiration to people of all theologies, for your incredible tolerence. If I were you, I would have called in mods a while ago...

Indeed...this thread has been brutal. I've been trying to engage his beliefs, actually. It's a change from the usual Christian response...quite refereshing. Not that there's anything wrong with either, of course - ones' beliefs are their own, and to be respected. But, I've had quite a bit of the Christian side of it, so someone intelligently arguing this from a different religious viewpoint is engaging.

People, Hesparia is right to call this. I've been ignoring it, but please, tone it down. A well thought out belief based in religion is as respectable as one based in science and secular logic. Feel free to attack bigots who twist scripture and have only a surface understanding of their faith, but it's wrong to attack anyone who brings an insightful religious perspective to an argument.

First of all, I didn't choose my sexuality. That's something that is part of me. Secondly, I still have a healthy relationship with my parents, putting my sexuality aside. They just don't support me when it comes to loving another man.
No, you chose.

What does religion have to do with the body's chemistry? Besides conditioning the brain to be inhibited.

Yes, because you know, I decided to become homosexual, so that Bush could declare me a 2nd class citizen...so that my parents could reject me...and so that people can mock me, discriminate me, and threaten my life because of my sexuality. :rolleyes: Such an enjoyable life.
So now do you understand why chosing to become homosexual is wrong?

That's handy then, isn't it. However, your statement of the call of nature is shown to be false in this evidence. Laws are not the same as instincts. A human is simply a hairless ape with various levels of intelligence added on top. We share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees. We share about 60% with bananas, for crying out loud. Is it that one percent of difference that means a chimp is exemplary of God's rules while we humans are not?

actually, I think the difference is only .3%, not one whole percent. Anyways, it's not the difference in genetics that makes the difference. Humans have souls, animals do not.

He'd only be bitter for a short while. Then he'd find out he really made the right choice.


The true reason Judaism is against homosexuality, is the main thing in Judaism is life, which is even more important then the faith in G-d. And by being homosexual, you're denying life by not having children. In fact, family planning is also not allowed.


What about all those who were born barren? Or those who choose not to get married and have kids?

Indeed...this thread has been brutal. I've been trying to engage his beliefs, actually. It's a change from the usual Christian response...quite refereshing. Not that there's anything wrong with either, of course - ones' beliefs are their own, and to be respected. But, I've had quite a bit of the Christian side of it, so someone intelligently arguing this from a different religious viewpoint is engaging.

People, Hesparia is right to call this. I've been ignoring it, but please, tone it down. A well thought out belief based in religion is as respectable as one based in science and secular logic. Feel free to attack bigots who twist scripture and have only a surface understanding of their faith, but it's wrong to attack anyone who brings an insightful religious perspective to an argument.
Thanks to the both of you, but I didn't really find this thread too antisemitic. Anti-Israeli threads are much more anti-semitic. But thanks anyway.

No, what's said is you chose yuor erroneous sexual orientation over your family.
Doom777, how old are you?

You are showing huge immaturity, absolutely no understanding and sound like an 8 year old parrotting what their pops said.

More than one poster on this thread have shared of their experiences with parents who reacted in a bigoted, ignorant, stupid, hurtful and evil* way towards their sexual orientation and your only response it to tell them it is their fault?

Have a serious look at yourself and how you are treating fellow human beings. You truly think your god, who I've been told is suposed to be benevolent, wants you to hate someone simply because they are attracted to their own gender?

Craig

*Not used in any religious sense.

So now do you understand why chosing to become homosexual is wrong?


Either A) You missed my sarcasm;
or B) You missed the fact that I didn't choose to be homosexual.
or C) Both A and B.

Remember homosexuality has been around for a very long time - alexandra the great had his 'companions', shakesphere was gay.

Actually (I know, this is nit-picking, but I couldn't resist) Shakespeare was probably bisexual. He did have male lovers, yes, but even during this time he went back to Stratford to visit his wife and children.

He'd only be bitter for a short while. Then he'd find out he really made the right choice.

But the urges do not pass, just as they wouldn't if you were told tomorrow that being heterosexual was against God's will and that you had to stop. You'd still long for women, hate yourself for it, and resent any relationship you would have to enter into. Over the years, this would wear on you, and you would become a hollow shell of your former self. Would you force that on someone?

The true reason Judaism is against homosexuality, is the main thing in Judaism is life, which is even more important then the faith in G-d. And by being homosexual, you're denying life by not having children. In fact, family planning is also not allowed.

I know the background of such things, I've studied them as part of my education.

What about all those who were born barren? Or those who choose not to get married and have kids?
The former are punished by G-d. The latter ones are breaking the law.

Or those who choose not to get married and have kids?

Oh, don't worry about us, we're just going to hell for further ruining His plan. Nothing important.

*Grumblesigh*
*HAS been told this before*

So now do you understand why chosing to become homosexual is wrong?

The persecution he receives from others is his fault?!

I find blaming the victim really despicable, Doom777. My respect for you just plummetted like a ton of bricks.

Even though I just issued a general apology for anti-semetism, I would like to point out that not everyone is heterosexual by default. There were homosexuals in many native american societies, I believe that a fairly common native american belief was that gays were the spirit of a woman trapped in the body of a man.

Actually, it was believed that they were two spirited, and it applied both to women and men. To their society, it was a blessing, for they understood more than the average person. They were on the same level as a holy man. It didn't necessarily go into their sexual relations. It more followed what they chose to do in their lives.

A being, according to them, was born "raw". When a rite of passage came (and this differs with each society), they chose what they wanted to do, and became "cooked". The problem with this, of course, was there was still no in-between. It was one or the other. When they died, they became "raw" again as they were reclaimed by the earth, and, say, if it was a man who chose to follow beadwork, leatherwork, etc, they were still buried with elements of what their defining sex was when they were born.

An example of a very advanced idea in a society, I think. :)

actually, I think the difference is only .3%, not one whole percent. Anyways, it's not the difference in genetics that makes the difference. Humans have souls, animals do not.

How can you say animals do not have souls? That is a statement that is beyond anyone's knowledge. Truth or not.

It truly hurts me to see that people these days are willing to throw away their relationships with their sons/daughters just because of their sexual orientation. It also hurts me to see that people out there are so closed-minded as to say that someone chose to go through a much harder life as a homosexual, and that it is all their fault that they are going through such a hard time. This is why I don't get involved in these threads, because I end up getting extremely upset/to the brink of crying.

All I wish for is that people wouldn't promote the hatred of other people, that they don't understand. You can't say you've been in my shoes (which is essentially what you're saying when you say that I am wrong), because you have absolutely no idea what I've been through, and I'd rather not share that with you, or anyone else for that matter.

How would you react? Would you treat them any differently than if they were straight? Would you tell them they were going to hell? (if you are evangelical, that is) Honestly, I really wouldn't treat them any differently, and I certanly wouldn't disown them. I guess I'd need time to think about how to deal with them coming home and talking about having a crush on someone of the same gender. If they got picked on because they were gay though, I'd arrange a meeting with the kid's parents and raise hell. If my children are picked on for things they cannot control, well I don't put up with bs like that. Anyways, how would you out there handle this situation if it happened to you? I'm not trying to make it sound weird, it's just that different challenges come for parents that have gay children and yes, I know people who have gay children.
My father was gay and died of AIDS. I went to a music school where heterosexuality was the exception, rather than the norm. I am now happily married with 3 children. Here's my take:
1. It does not matter to me whether homosexuality is genetic or from their environment, i.e. nature vs nurture. I still believe it is an immoral behavior, damaging to the personality of the person who does it and to the person it is done with.
2. I believe it is a behavioral choice, not an identity. Whether a person really is attracted to a member of the same sex is not wrong; acting on it is.
3. I don't believe that behavior can, or should be, legislated.
4. Those who engage in homosexual activity should be treated no differently than anyone else who has done something morally wrong. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".
5. If one of my children were to "come out of the closet" and willfully live with and engage in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, I would still love my child, and my child would be welcome in my home, but their "partner" would not be.
Go ahead, call me a bible-thumping, idiotic Jesus freak. I've been called worse. Just think about how useful name-calling is to convert someone to your cause.

Circular arguement. You are using the Bible to prove itself. . . .

Let me reveal a "circular argument" to you. Many people say "justify your religion [which is based on a certain Holy Book, such as the Bible or the Torah] without using the Book." [which, may I reiterate, is the BASIS for the religion]

It truly hurts me to see that people these days are willing to throw away their relationships with their sons/daughters just because of their sexual orientation. It also hurts me to see that people out there are so closed-minded as to say that someone chose to go through a much harder life as a homosexual, and that it is all their fault that they are going through such a hard time. This is why I don't get involved in these threads, because I end up getting extremely upset/to the brink of crying.

All I wish for is that people wouldn't promote the hatred of other people, that they don't understand. You can't say you've been in my shoes (which is essentially what you're saying when you say that I am wrong), because you have absolutely no idea what I've been through, and I'd rather not share that with you, or anyone else for that matter.

One huge secular amen to that :-D

If I found out my kid was homosexual, I would solve it the way I would if I found out (s)he was having sex or using drugs.

I would beat it out of them.

If I found out my kid was homosexual, I would solve it the way I would if I found out (s)he was having sex or using drugs.

I would beat it out of them.
'

And what would that solve? It would make your son/daughter hate you even more, and that would put you in jail.

If I found out my kid was homosexual, I would solve it the way I would if I found out (s)he was having sex or using drugs.

I would beat it out of them.

*grits teeth*

You are a poor excuse for a human being. I'm of mixed feelings on your worth, since, as a psychologist, people like you will provide me with employment years down the line. Be that as it may, the end does not justify the means.

(Will not be deleted for flaming here - deliberately cryptic.)

There've been a few stories told by gay people and their experiences with their parents. I'd like to share mine, just to show that some of them are wonderful.

I realized that I was attracted to men at 11 years old when I realized I had just gotten my first erection while looking at one of my sister's boyfriends. Ironic. For the next year or so, I didn't think a whole lot of it. In my mind what I was had nothing to do with this disgraceful title of "fag" that kids in my school liked to use. Then one day it hit me full on in the face. I was that thing that they used to cut each other down with. People were going to hate me for something that was beyond my control. It wasn't easy at twelve to accept that.

But I had no choice.

Sometimes I would almost forget about it, but then it would come back worse than it was. I cannot count the number of times I cried myself to sleep at night. I remember tossing and turning at age fourteen because I was something that society was telling me I was wrong. At fifteen I began a three year stint with fundamentalism. You see I was raised Methodist in Mississippi. My parents never really said anything about homosexuality, but my minister had plenty to say. That's when I began praying. Every night I would pray that God would lift this burden from me and make me straight. I would try to be attracted to girls--I even dated several. But it never changed.

At age 17 I finally told one of my friends are church that I was gay. I asked her to help me with it. My intention was that she would help me change. Her intention was that she would learn to help me accept the fact. That was when my life first started to be happy.

After graduation, I had elected to go to college at a small liberal arts school. It was a whole new world for me. My high school had encouraged rote memorization and acceptance of religious beliefs. This school, though religiously affiliated, focused on thought and logic. You could have religious beliefs, but you had to be able to back them up. That's when I really met my first challenge. It's also when life really got good for me. REALLY GOOD.

I accepted myself. My professors wouldn't accept less from me. They didn't knwo what they were doing for me, but they were doing it none the less. And I was making friends who were also thinkers. Friends who supported me unconditionally. I came out to my roomate after he approached me and basically said "Aren't you tired of hiding? You know you can be yourself around me." After him, I came out to all of my close friends and darn it felt good.

So there I am, living in my college world where its okay that I am gay and I've learned to accept myself and to even dream romantic dreams. Still there were my parents and I knew they were an obstacle that had to be faced.

I haven't really told you much about my folks, so let me relay a little. My father is about as conservative as they come. He hasn't voted for a Democrat EVER. My mother is rather more moderate--she is just one of those sweet gentlewomen who loves her kids, works hard at her job, and turns into a lioness when her kids are attacked. Looking back, I wonder why I worried about getting her acceptance, but still the fear was there. Certainly there was a fear of my father, he and I had never gotten along very well, but we did love one another. As for my sister, well I wasn't worried about her at all, but I felt I couldnt' tell her until I had told my parents. I guess my biggest worry was because of my parents involvement in the church. I just couldn't predict how that would affect them.

So during my junior year (I think I was still twenty) I woke up one morning. I had had a dream that I had come out to my parents and everything was okay. So I decided that I had to do it. I emailed my work study boss (incidently coming out to her in the process) to tell her I wouldn't be there, and I started my three and half hour drive home. You wanna talk about long and scary trips?

When I got home my parents were working in the yard. I asked them to come inside and said I had something to tell them. There was fear on their faces as plain as day. We sat down in the living room and I stuttered it out. No really, it took me five tries. Finally I got it and I tried to look at them ,but I couldn't see for the years in my eyes. I was crying from relief at expressing something that I had held inside for so long. For a moment they didn't say anything and then I heard my father's voice.

"Why didn't you tell us sooner?"

I told him I had been afraid.

"Why? Don't you know that nothing is going to come between us. Of course we are a little sad because it changes our hopes for you, but that is our problem. You are our son and always will be."

You want to talk about moments of sheer joy and happiness.

A few weeks later I was again at home and my mother and I were going on our yearly shopping trip. On the ride back she asked me if I was dating anyone. I told her no. And she started crying. I coudlnt' understand it and I asked if I had done something wrong.

She told me that she was crying because she was scared she may have hurt me by not knowing all those years. And she was scared of what I would have to go through, of the pain that other people would force on me, pain that she was not prepared to help me through. She had no experience in the areas I was entering and therefore she felt helpless and had suddenly realized that was what I must have felt for so long.

I tried to tell her, even though to this day I don't know that she understands it, that her tears were the best thing she could have done for me. My parents don't have to be able to give me the best advice or make the path easy for me. All they (and any good parent) has to do is to support their child and be willing to go through the rocky patches with them.

This is a mercilessly long post and I apologize, but I did want to share a happy story with you. Hoping my family story will continue when I adopt as many children as possible in the future. There are so many children out there who need unconditional love who aren't getting it. I want to pass on the gifts that my parents gave me.

Thanks to the both of you, but I didn't really find this thread too antisemitic. Anti-Israeli threads are much more anti-semitic. But thanks anyway.

I meant it more in the spirit of regretting the anti-religious sentiment, which, I think, was more the basis of the hostility of some posters. I don;t think the particular faith mattered, just that you were advocating a particularly literalist interpretation of it. At any rate, it was inexcuseably disrespectful.

My father was gay and died of AIDS. I went to a music school where heterosexuality was the exception, rather than the norm. I am now happily married with 3 children. Here's my take:
1. It does not matter to me whether homosexuality is genetic or from their environment, i.e. nature vs nurture. I still believe it is an immoral behavior, damaging to the personality of the person who does it and to the person it is done with.
2. I believe it is a behavioral choice, not an identity. Whether a person really is attracted to a member of the same sex is not wrong; acting on it is.
3. I don't believe that behavior can, or should be, legislated.
4. Those who engage in homosexual activity should be treated no differently than anyone else who has done something morally wrong. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".
5. If one of my children were to "come out of the closet" and willfully live with and engage in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, I would still love my child, and my child would be welcome in my home, but their "partner" would not be.
Go ahead, call me a bible-thumping, idiotic Jesus freak. I've been called worse. Just think about how useful name-calling is to convert someone to your cause.

Do you have any reasoning for any of your proclaimations of immorality apart from the bible?

Here is a question: If tommorow it was discovered that god proclaimed heterosexuality to be a sin and homosexuality to be the only moral form of sexual attraction, would you "change your ways", leave your wife and look for a man to spend your life with?

That's a bunch of crap. If atheists don't like people citing from religious books, they should write a book of atheism, and argue from that. It's not the fault of religious people that atheists didn't record any history.
Ooh i can see it now its called...The democratic campaign...

(Insert Story).

Seriously, that story put me to tears. Not even joking. Despite the fact that I don't know you, I am extremely proud of you for doing what you've done. If you have AIM, feel free to i.m. me sometime. It's "Euroslavia". My yahoo is thespiritwithin33. Just leave me a message if I'm not on.

Good night everyone. Thank you for debating with me.


To other people against homosexuality: keep it up. Just cause you're a minority, doesn't make you wrong.
To hetero's defending homosexuality: an open mind is not as good as you think. Sometimes, it's even dangerous.
To homosexuals: Reconsider! It's not too late. It is possible to ignore your urges, no matter how natural they feel.

The former are punished by G-d. The latter ones are breaking the law.

I dare I ask... what about Catholic clergy, who "marry" the church?

Don't respond to this if your only answer is that Catholic clergy will certainly go to Hell... after all, I think quite a few rabbis have a good shot at going to Heaven.

Also, why do you censor God, even though you believe in him?

*grits teeth*

You are a poor excuse for a human being. I'm of mixed feelings on your worth, since, as a psychologist, people like you will provide me with employment years down the line. Be that as it may, the end does not justify the means.

(Will not be deleted for flaming here - deliberately cryptic.)

You can talk to your kids all you want. Talk is cheap.

My parents hit me, their parents hit them. Its all done out of love and the ends always justify the means.

There've been a few stories told by gay people and their experiences with their parents. I'd like to share mine, just to show that some of them are wonderful.

Beautiful story...it's nice when reality works out in a way that gives you faith in people. That's love, and that's family.

That's a bunch of crap. If atheists don't like people citing from religious books, they should write a book of atheism, and argue from that. It's not the fault of religious people that atheists didn't record any history.

I was asking him to cite sources that homosexuality is a choice. That is not a matter of religion (which does not do studies) but of science (which does). Make sure you know what you are talking about.

And for the record, I'm not an atheist.

Thanks for playing.

I dare I ask... what about Catholic clergy, who "marry" the church?

Don't respond to this if your only answer is that Catholic clergy will certainly go to Hell... after all, I think quite a few rabbis have a good shot at going to Heaven.

Also, why do you censor God, even though you believe in him?
okay last post. Really.

1) They are also breakign the law
2) Because G-d's name cannot be written on something that can be erased, such as paper or forums.

Do you have any reasoning for any of your proclaimations of immorality apart from the bible?

Here is a question: If tommorow it was discovered that god proclaimed heterosexuality to be a sin and homosexuality to be the only moral form of sexual attraction, would you "change your ways", leave your wife and look for a man to spend your life with?
If tomorrow you woke up and the vast majority of society had agreed it was ok to lie, cheat, steal, and murder ( i. e. secular authorities "proclaimed"), would you become a liar, cheater, thief and a murderer? Work with the facts as they are, not some fantasy supposition. I am not trying to force you to accept my point of view, just expressing my point of view in hopes that some in this forum might understand where us "right-wing fascist bible-thumpers" come from. After all, aren't you secularists supposed to be the "tolerant" ones?

You can talk to your kids all you want. Talk is cheap.

My parents hit me, their parents hit them. Its all done out of love and the ends always justify the means.

Unless, of course, your kid kills him/herself, lacking family support. Oh yeah, that works out well.

Best thing that I'd hope for is that such a kid would leave the parent and never go back. No one deserves to be treated like a dog. Well, save for those who would treat others as such. Throw them to the wolves.

To hetero's defending homosexuality: an open mind is not as good as you think. Sometimes, it's even dangerous.

How the hell could accepting that other people do not share my sexual oreintation, realizing that it doesn't affect or degrade my relationship and wishing freedom and acceptance for them be dangerous?

I would except him to find a nice Catholic boy, fly to Amsterdam and get married, adopt a son and daughter, have them baptised, then live happily ever after.

I was asking him to cite sources that homosexuality is a choice. That is not a matter of religion (which does not do studies) but of science (which does). Make sure you know what you are talking about.

And for the record, I'm not an atheist.

Thanks for playing.

I apologise for that post. It was very rude, and judgemental of me. In fact, it was downright hypocritical. I'll delete it now.

I'm glad your not an atheist.

If tomorrow you woke up and the vast majority of society had agreed it was ok to lie, cheat, steal, and murder ( i. e. secular authorities "proclaimed"), would you become a liar, cheater, thief and a murderer? Work with the facts as they are, not some fantasy supposition. I am not trying to force you to accept my point of view, just expressing my point of view in hopes that some in this forum might understand where us "right-wing fascist bible-thumpers" come from.Not believing a god dictates what is moral does not mean you believe that society dictates what is moral. Your code of morality comes from god, right? So I'm asking if gods code changed to make you the deviant, would you give up your wife to obey gods will?
After all, aren't you secularists supposed to be the "tolerant" ones? I'm trying to see if you can put yourself in the shoes of a group that has been demonized and labelled as evil by religeon for an attribute of themselves that they do not choose and have no power over.

Good night everyone. Thank you for debating with me.


To other people against homosexuality: keep it up. Just cause you're a minority, doesn't make you wrong.
To hetero's defending homosexuality: an open mind is not as good as you think. Sometimes, it's even dangerous.
To homosexuals: Reconsider! It's not too late. It is possible to ignore your urges, no matter how natural they feel.

To people like yourself: Keep it up and you'll be laughed at as pigs of the stoneage.
To hereo's defending homosexuality: Thank you for both your confidence in life and congratulations on being comfortable with others sexuality thus proving comfort in your own.
To homosexuals: Hi there...I mean...Those who matter don't care, and those who care don't matter.

I apologise for that post. It was very rude, and judgemental of me. In fact, it was downright hypocritical. I'll delete it now.

I'm glad your not an atheist.

No problem. And note, just because I'm not an atheist doesn't mean I'm a Christian either. At least not by most people's standards.

How can you say animals do not have souls? That is a statement that is beyond anyone's knowledge. Truth or not.

It says in the Bible (i'll give you chaper and verse if you really want me to look it up) that God breathed his life into Adam and Eve. This was the ensouling. He did no such thing to animals.

Unless, of course, your kid kills him/herself, lacking family support. Oh yeah, that works out well.

Best thing that I'd hope for is that such a kid would leave the parent and never go back. No one deserves to be treated like a dog. Well, save for those who would treat others as such. Throw them to the wolves.

If the kid kills himself then the problem is instantly solved. If the kid leaves, that works well too.

It's still a win-win situation for me.

Not believing a god dictates what is moral does not mean you believe that society dictates what is moral. Your code of morality comes from god, right? So I'm asking if gods code changed to make you the deviant, would you give up your wife to obey gods will?
I'm trying to see if you can put yourself in the shoes of a group that has been demonized and labelled as evil by religeon for an attribute of themselves that they do not choose and have no power over.
Then where does your code of morality come from? Some sort of individual, inner sense of morality? If so, where do you think that came from? That you were just born with it? That society, your parents, teachers, etc, had nothing to do with shaping it?
As to the question if God's code changed, what would I do? The answer is one of the reasons I believe in His teachings is because they are defined as eternal, unchangeable principles. I don't have to worry about Him changing his Law tomorrow, because the very foundation of His law is its eternal, unchanging nature.
And you did not answer my question: from wherever you take your morality, what would you do if that source switched itself around?

If the kid kills himself then the problem is instantly solved. If the kid leaves, that works well too.

It's still a win-win situation for me.

*Spits on Philadora, walks out*

What a waste of good cyber-saliva...

I would not raise my children like that in the first place. It is MY OPINION that homosexuality is wrong and is equal to an act of treason. We all know what happens to people who commit treason. They get the chop and rightly so.


So would you consider Vice President Cheney a traitor for not executing his openly traitorous daughter on the spot?

That's some serious accusations there. :D

I've noticed a disturbing trend here, and it's that the posts that suggested people would disown or even murder their own kin for admitting or displaying homosexual tendencies goes beyond homophobia.

They almost border on talk of Nazi-style Eugenics.

What a waste of good cyber-saliva...
Agreed!!!

I think Philadora has set him/herself up for a ban.

Can we get a mod in here?

Then where does your code of morality come from? Some sort of individual, inner sense of morality? If so, where do you think that came from? That you were just born with it? That society, your parents, teachers, etc, had nothing to do with shaping it?
Of course they did. But my morals are now my own, and I am not required to follow a set of codes because of a belief in a god.

If society decided tommorow that slavery was ok, I would not have to start believing in slavery to keep to my morals. If your god decided tommorow that heterosexuality was a sin, you would have to change or you would have to consider yourself immoral.

As to the question if God's code changed, what would I do? The answer is one of the reasons I believe in His teachings is because they are defined as eternal, unchangeable principles. I don't have to worry about Him changing his Law tomorrow, because the very foundation of His law is its eternal, unchanging nature.

I'll ask you once more: Which comes first, your love and attraction towards your wife or your belief in god?

Would you first leave your wife to please your god or leave your god to please your wife (and yourself)?
And you did not answer my question: from wherever you take your morality, what would you do if that source switched itself around?
My morality is now my own, it isn't tied to society, a single person or an entity.

No matter who or what told me that rape was moral, I would not change my own morality in order to follow what they said, even if they were people who have had influence over my morality; 'society,' teachers or my own parents.

EDIT: To clarify, you are saying that homosexuals should be degraded, looked down on, abused and disowned for being attracted to/loving someone of their own gender. I'm trying to get you to imagine what it would be like if you were degraded, looked down on, abused and disowned for loving your wife.

:sniper:

i would make my child pay rent, disown and hate them for the rest of my life, i would take it a a personal offense. gays=:mp5:

I think Philadora has set him/herself up for a ban.

Can we get a mod in here?

I'm not sure that such a repugnant attitude is worthy of a mod action...if you wanna try, go ahead. I certainly don't wish that he be spared anything negative.

EDIT: Three violently homophobic posters in here at once...I smell a spammer. NOW it'd be good to get a mod in here.

Of course they did. But my morals are now my own, and I am not required to follow a set of codes because of a belief in a god.

If society decided tommorow that slavery was ok, I would not have to start believing in slavery to keep to my morals. If your god decided tommorow that heterosexuality was a sin, you would have to change or you would have to consider yourself immoral.



I'll ask you once more: Which comes first, your love and attraction towards your wife or your belief in god?

Would you first leave your wife to please your god or leave your god to please your wife (and yourself)?

My morality is now my own, it isn't tied to society, a single person or an entity.

No matter who or what told me that rape was moral, I would not change my own morality in order to follow what they said, even if they were people who have had influence over my morality; 'society,' teachers or my own parents.
"My morality is now my own, it isn't tied to society, a single person or an entity."

Yet you would inflict that morality upon me.

"I'll ask you once more: Which comes first, your love and attraction towards your wife or your belief in god?"

That is not what your original question was. Your original question was what would I do if my God changed His Word tomorrow. I have answered that question. I would be happy to answer your SECOND question:

My values, which are derived from my belief in God, come first. I would ask you the same question: Which comes first, your own individual morality and sense of values, or your love and attraction towards your significant other?

"If your god decided tommorow that heterosexuality was a sin, you would have to change or you would have to consider yourself immoral."

That statement is incorrect. The basic fabric of belief in the Christian God is that the principles written therein are eternal and unchangeable, as I have already stated. It would not/could not happen, according to all that is written in the Christian handbook, the Bible. I would argue that it is far more likely that your values could change tomorrow, since they are not based on anything other than yourself, based on any other life experiences you run across.

Yet you would inflict that morality upon me.Not read enough of your posts to deduce where you stand on this issue, but the only people "inflicting" morality on someone else are the ones who use the government to take away people's rights (to marriage). That's pretty heavy handed and overbearingly moralistic right there.

Not read enough of your posts to deduce where you stand on this issue, but the only people "inflicting" morality on someone else are the ones who use the government to take away people's rights (to marriage). That's pretty heavy handed and overbearingly moralistic right there.
Can't take away a right that wasn't there to begin with. Most of the legislation in the states, with the exception of Ohio, simply puts into law the meaning of marriage: a familial union between a man and a woman.

"My morality is now my own, it isn't tied to society, a single person or an entity."

Yet you would inflict that morality upon me.

"I'll ask you once more: Which comes first, your love and attraction towards your wife or your belief in god?"

That is not what your original question was. Your original question was what would I do if my God changed His Word tomorrow. I have answered that question. I would be happy to answer your SECOND question:

My values, which are derived from my belief in God, come first. I would ask you the same question: Which comes first, your own individual morality and sense of values, or your love and attraction towards your significant other?

"If your god decided tommorow that heterosexuality was a sin, you would have to change or you would have to consider yourself immoral."

That statement is incorrect. The basic fabric of belief in the Christian God is that the principles written therein are eternal and unchangeable, as I have already stated. It would not/could not happen, according to all that is written in the Christian handbook, the Bible. I would argue that it is far more likely that your values could change tomorrow, since they are not based on anything other than yourself, based on any other life experiences you run across.



The fact that it could not happen doesn't matter. The question is hypothetical. That is the nature of that kind of question. You have not answered in the slightest, and you are dodging it.

To your question, I will be honest. I don't know what I would do. Some convictions I hold so strongly though that if say, my hypothetical wife were going against them, I would have to leave. However, all this talk of disowning, harming or even killing one's children because of their sexual orientation quite frightens me. Even if my hypothetical kids (I do not have kids, or a wife, at least not yet) did something I greatly disapproved of, such as getting addicted to hard drugs, I would not disown them or harm them. Certainly I wouldn't be happy with some of the things they did, but I would still love them. A parent's love for their child should be unconditional. Any fool can "love" someone when everything they do is pleasing, but loving them when it's hard, when they are not pleasing you, that is real love.

And obviously, when I say love, I mean in a parental way (duh).

Can't take away a right that wasn't there to begin with. Most of the legislation in the states, with the exception of Ohio, simply puts into law the meaning of marriage: a familial union between a man and a woman.

If it's not a right to begin with, then why do heterosexual couples get to marry and homosexual ones don't? Seems that neither should be entitled to anything.

Can't take away a right that wasn't there to begin with. Most of the legislation in the states, with the exception of Ohio, simply puts into law the meaning of marriage: a familial union between a man and a woman.

It is however a right to be treated equally under the law. When the law grants (I hate to use this word) privledges to one group, but not another that IS a violation of our rights.

If it's not a right to begin with, then why do heterosexual couples get to marry and homosexual ones don't? Seems that neither should be entitled to anything.
Marriage, as between a man and a woman, has long been codified and written into the law of all states in the USA, and thus could be defined as a "right". No state yet, that I know of, has written law to accomodate or account for marriage between two members of the same sex.

Marriage, as between a man and a woman, has long been codified and written into the law of all states in the USA, and thus could be defined as a "right". No state yet, that I know of, has written law to accomodate or account for marriage between two members of the same sex.

Also, rights don't necessarily have to be granted by the law to be there. The constitution says that just because a specific right is not named does not mean it is forbidden.

If one of my children turned out to be homosexual?

...I'd probably cry to myself for a little while, and then smile acceptingly. All the while planning to decrease his share of the inheritance slightly as he won't be having children.

If it was a daughter... I'd do the same thing, but probably be a bit more indulgent.

Also, rights don't necessarily have to be granted by the law to be there. The constitution says that just because a specific right is not named does not mean it is forbidden.

Then why are homosexual couples specifically forbidden marriage?

I am already blessed with children. My wife and I chose to have them. We wanted children to love and cherish, not to judge. Had one of my children been gay or bi, our love and cherishing would have been no less and neither of us would have punished the child for its natural tendencies. There can't be a much more selfish, arrogant and inhuman attitude than to raise a child only to 'disown' it for not reaching the parents personal moral standards. People likely to either punish or disown a child for not being a replica of themselves should be not allowed to bring life into the world.
And all this clap-trap about the so-called 'Christian' attitude. It is painfully obvious that non-Christians have a more enlightened and 'Christian' attitude to life than the mock Christians. These type of 'Christians' should have the courage to admit that they do not follow the teachings of Jesus the man. They are nothing more than Old Testament bigots, no less than Islamic bigots.
Their rants are sickening and repulsive.

"Suffer the little children to come unto me". I don't believe Christ cared about their possible sexuality.

http://errantparent.beingdaddy.com/childscreed.jpeg

Christ said 'love thy neighbour as thyself', he added no provisos. And if a parent can't apply even that pure and simple rule to their own offspring, fuck 'em.

Marriage, as between a man and a woman, has long been codified and written into the law of all states in the USA, and thus could be defined as a "right". No state yet, that I know of, has written law to accomodate or account for marriage between two members of the same sex.

I am curious as to why that is fair.

Also, I'd like to see some examples where marriage has been written into state law as being defined between man and woman.

I have a gay son, and I do not treat him diffrently from my other kids.

Also, rights don't necessarily have to be granted by the law to be there. The constitution says that just because a specific right is not named does not mean it is forbidden.
Unless and until SCOTUS rules that sexual preference is a protected class, or that this is a right given to the people not specifically outlined in the Constitution, that is a moot point.

Marriage, as between a man and a woman, has long been codified and written into the law of all states in the USA, and thus could be defined as a "right". No state yet, that I know of, has written law to accomodate or account for marriage between two members of the same sex.

Incorrect. The reason the Mayor of New Paltz began issuing same sex marriage certificates, if I recall correctly, was because the law did not specify man and woman.

Then why are homosexual couples specifically forbidden marriage?

Xth amendment issue.

Then why are homosexual couples specifically forbidden marriage?

By the US consitution they aren't. Further they it's illegal to do so.

Why does it happen though? Because somewhere in the last fifty to a hundred years people have gotten confused and have decided that we live in a Christian nation rather than a nation of Christians and that therefore the Christian viewpoint should have anything to do with our government.

Now, I have nothing wrong with Christians. However, if your only basis for a belief is religious, it has no place in our government. If you can back it up without religion, then I'm all for hearing your logic.

The Bible has been corraberated by archeology. The findings that have been made over the years have proven that many of the stories in the Bible are true. The Bible says that it is the word of God, that He is sinless, (therefore He cannot lie) and if some of the Bible has been proven, then it all must be true.
The Dead Sea scrolls were found in a cave, and they have been authenticated as being accurate, and they describe some of the same things that the Bible does.
That is how I know that the Bible is true.

I think the fact that his username is "slobbering idiots" is significant...

The fact that it could not happen doesn't matter. The question is hypothetical. That is the nature of that kind of question. You have not answered in the slightest, and you are dodging it.

To your question, I will be honest. I don't know what I would do. Some convictions I hold so strongly though that if say, my hypothetical wife were going against them, I would have to leave. However, all this talk of disowning, harming or even killing one's children because of their sexual orientation quite frightens me. Even if my hypothetical kids (I do not have kids, or a wife, at least not yet) did something I greatly disapproved of, such as getting addicted to hard drugs, I would not disown them or harm them. Certainly I wouldn't be happy with some of the things they did, but I would still love them. A parent's love for their child should be unconditional. Any fool can "love" someone when everything they do is pleasing, but loving them when it's hard, when they are not pleasing you, that is real love.

And obviously, when I say love, I mean in a parental way (duh).
I will not answer a hypothetical question (at least in the way that you want me to) that is not even hypothetically possible in my belief system. If I thought the precepts in the Bible could be changed or could raise the hypothetical question you have posed, it would not be the belief system that I would follow. That's like asking a physicist that if suddenly the law of gravity were repealed, would he then stop doing theoretical equations based on the law of gravity. The physicist would laugh in your face, as the whole of physics is based on gravity and the idea that the laws of physics will never change.

"A parent's love for their child should be unconditional. Any fool can "love" someone when everything they do is pleasing, but loving them when it's hard, when they are not pleasing you, that is real love."

On that point, you and I are in complete agreement. :cool:

Unless and until SCOTUS rules that sexual preference is a protected class, or that this is a right given to the people not specifically outlined in the Constitution, that is a moot point.

Well as its already ruled that the sodomy laws are illegal, we are a step in the right direction. And you are right about one thing--its going to have to be the courts interpreting the laws rather than the current politicians who are trying to oppress a minority.

Incorrect. The reason the Mayor of New Paltz began issuing same sex marriage certificates, if I recall correctly, was because the law did not specify man and woman.

In CA the consitution also said that it was illegal to discriminate based on S.O. Three cheers for Gavin Newsom.

:sniper:

Do be good enough to actually post text to explain what you're getting at. I don't understand your meaning. Kill the poster? Kill homosexuals? Kill the thread?

Aber wir lieben Sie, stattlich.

Well as its already ruled that the sodomy laws are illegal, we are a step in the right direction. And you are right about one thing--its going to have to be the courts interpreting the laws rather than the current politicians who are trying to oppress a minority.
Only in Massachusetts, but in 11 other states it has been ruled the opposite. At some point, SCOTUS will have to decide, IMHO.

I will not answer a hypothetical question (at least in the way that you want me to) that is not even hypothetically possible in my belief system. If I thought the precepts in the Bible could be changed or could raise the hypothetical question you have posed, it would not be the belief system that I would follow. That's like asking a physicist that if suddenly the law of gravity were repealed, would he then stop doing theoretical equations based on the law of gravity. The physicist would laugh in your face, as the whole of physics is based on gravity and the idea that the laws of physics will never change.


Poor example. The laws of gravity are not laws at all. They are theories and could easily be repealed. We don't know what causes the phenomena, all we have is a really good guess. A physicist would recognize this and would tell you that he would certainly alter his theoretical equations.

Only in Massachusetts, but in 11 other states it has been ruled the opposite. At some point, SCOTUS will have to decide, IMHO.

No, the anti-sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court over the entire nation. The case originated in Texas I do believe (though I coudl be wrong). It was the MA supreme court that said not allowing gay marriage was unconstitutional (by the MA consitution, they didn't even broach the subject of what the US Constitution has to say on the matter).

No, the anti-sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court over the entire nation. The case originated in Texas I do believe (though I coudl be wrong). It was the MA supreme court that said not allowing gay marriage was unconstitutional (by the MA consitution, they didn't even broach the subject of what the US Constitution has to say on the matter).

And we actually have anti-sodomy laws still on the books.

I think the fact that his username is "slobbering idiots" is significant...

And by the way, no-one on Earth 'knows' the bible is 'true'. It's faith not certainty.

And we actually have anti-sodomy laws still on the books.

Are you from the US? I can't speak for other countries. However, here they're all gone. The state cannot regulate what two consenting adults do in their bedroom.

Only in Massachusetts, but in 11 other states it has been ruled the opposite. At some point, SCOTUS will have to decide, IMHO.
Ummm, you mean it's been ruled in Massachussetts that Gay marriage is legal, and it has been decided in 11 other states that Gay marriage is illegal?

I happened to have voted on the harshest of the Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage, the one in Ohio, and it said nothing about sodomy. Nothing at all. Sodomy is legal in all 50 states.

SCOTUS did handle the sodomy issue not long ago. Texas had a law against it and they struck the law down.

Be informed Wunderkind.

Poor example. The laws of gravity are not laws at all. They are theories and could easily be repealed. We don't know what causes the phenomena, all we have is a really good guess. A physicist would recognize this and would tell you that he would certainly alter his theoretical equations.
Just used to give a general idea of where I'm coming from. BTW, you can't "repeal" a theory, you can only prove or disprove it. The point is my belief is based on the fact that the precepts in it are unchangeable, else I would not believe in them. Therefore the question is moot.

This Thread says this to me:

Flamebait. Blahblahblah. Opposing opinion. Shun. Demogouge.Blahblahblah. Flame.Incessant bitching.

Are you from the US? I can't speak for other countries. However, here they're all gone. The state cannot regulate what two consenting adults do in their bedroom.

Massachusetts. They're there, along with laws against oral sex, I believe, although I do not believe they've been enforced in quite a long time. Last time I can remember it even coming up was 5 or 6 years ago is when the state wanted to go after a supposed brothel.

Ummm, you mean it's been ruled in Massachussetts that Gay marriage is legal, and it has been decided in 11 other states that Gay marriage is illegal?

I happened to have voted on the harshest of the Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage, the one in Ohio, and it said nothing about sodomy. Nothing at all. Sodomy is legal in all 50 states.

SCOTUS did handle the sodomy issue not long ago. Texas had a law against it and they struck the law down.

Be informed Wunderkind.
Who said anything about sodomy???

Just used to give a general idea of where I'm coming from. BTW, you can't "repeal" a theory, you can only prove or disprove it. The point is my belief is based on the fact that the precepts in it are unchangeable, else I would not believe in them. Therefore the question is moot.

Actually, you cannot prove a theory either. Only disproof. And I don't agree that you couldn't answer the question. The point behind it (I think, but is *IS* pretty late) was to discern if you could change your sexuality. Even if the God you believe in said to, could you change from heterosexual to homosexual?

The point that was trying to be made was that its not a choice. Its not something a gay person can just decide to change, no matter how much they might believe God wants them to do so.

However, I coudl be wrong about that since I wasn't the one making the original point and, well, I was just poking fun :)

Can't take away a right that wasn't there to begin with. Most of the legislation in the states, with the exception of Ohio, simply puts into law the meaning of marriage: a familial union between a man and a woman.
By your argument, there's no basis for giving rights to people at all. Just because they aren't taking away something they had given, doesn't mean it's not a violation of said right.

Jim Crow laws in the old South took away rights the blacks never really had in their society (equal treatment of the law, in essence). Does that mean their rights were not violated? Heck no! And this movement against gay rights is equally dispicable.

And we actually have anti-sodomy laws still on the books.
Which state(s)? Enlighten please.

Massachusetts. They're there, along with laws against oral sex, I believe, although I do not believe they've been enforced in quite a long time. Last time I can remember it even coming up was 5 or 6 years ago is when the state wanted to go after a supposed brothel.

Yeah, those are gone too. The Supreme Court case that changed all that was in the summer of 2003. I remember because I was on my way to New Orleans and Jazzland with some friends and happened to read it in a newspaper while we were getting gas.

Which state(s)? Enlighten please.

When I say "we", I mean the state where I'm from, which you can easily look slightly to the left of this post to discern.

Yeah, those are gone too. The Supreme Court case that changed all that was in the summer of 2003. I remember because I was on my way to New Orleans and Jazzland with some friends and happened to read it in a newspaper while we were getting gas.

I think the Supreme Court ruled that laws like that are illegal. They didn't actually remove them from the books. That's the state's job. The state just can't really prosecute them anymore.

Well as its already ruled that the sodomy laws are illegal, we are a step in the right direction. And you are right about one thing--its going to have to be the courts interpreting the laws rather than the current politicians who are trying to oppress a minority.
This is what spawned the post I quoted.

I think the Supreme Court ruled that laws like that are illegal. They didn't actually remove them from the books. That's the state's job. The state just can't really prosecute them anymore.

Perhaps in legalese that's true. <shrugs> They're still not valid laws anymore as they have been termed discriminatory, an invasion of privacy, illegal, and unenforceable.

Actually, you cannot prove a theory either. Only disproof. And I don't agree that you couldn't answer the question. The point behind it (I think, but is *IS* pretty late) was to discern if you could change your sexuality. Even if the God you believe in said to, could you change from heterosexual to homosexual?

The point that was trying to be made was that its not a choice. Its not something a gay person can just decide to change, no matter how much they might believe God wants them to do so.

However, I coudl be wrong about that since I wasn't the one making the original point and, well, I was just poking fun :)
Actually, I agree with you that homosexuals are predisposed to engage in, well, homosexual behavior. There have also been studies that show some people are predisposed to become alcoholics, as well. Just because someone is born with a certain behavioral tendency does not mean that behavior is automatically acceptable. Many criminals have been found to have an extra Y chromosome that scientists think predisposes them to criminal behavior, but society does not then turn around and accept criminal behavior. Before everyone jumps on me, I am NOT equating homosexual sex to criminal behavior.

This is what spawned the post I quoted.

Mea culpa. I was just using that as an example the the Supreme Court was moving towards full gay rights. Anyways folks, it's nearly 1:30 here and I's sleepy. I'm gonna say good night and see you all tomorrow.

BTW, thanks for the debate and discussion, its some of the best I've had on here. I didn't even get mad!

Only in Massachusetts, but in 11 other states it has been ruled the opposite. At some point, SCOTUS will have to decide, IMHO.
And this is what Selgin put underneath his quoting of the above fellow.

Actually, I agree with you that homosexuals are predisposed to engage in, well, homosexual behavior. There have also been studies that show some people are predisposed to become alcoholics, as well. Just because someone is born with a certain behavioral tendency does not mean that behavior is automatically acceptable. Many criminals have been found to have an extra Y chromosome that scientists think predisposes them to criminal behavior, but society does not then turn around and accept criminal behavior. Before everyone jumps on me, I am NOT equating homosexual sex to criminal behavior.

Okay, one more before bed :)

The difference between homosexuals being predisposed and alcoholics/criminals being predisposed?

Homosexuals don't hurt other people. Criminals do. As for alcoholics. . . well, we don't take their rights away until they hurt people.

Again, homosexuality hurts no one.

I think the Supreme Court ruled that laws like that are illegal. They didn't actually remove them from the books. That's the state's job. The state just can't really prosecute them anymore.
The case was Lawrence v Texas. I'm assuming you are talking about sodomy.

The case was Lawrence v Texas. I'm assuming you are talking about sodomy.

Yeah. I was saying that the laws still technically exist on the books, but they're not enforceable anymore.

Sodomy laws were pretty unfair. For one, they were very unequally enforced. Gays would be busted for it, but a straight couple could engage in sodomy to their heart's content. Also, why have a law against something that really harms no one? Why should it be a crime to sodomize my hypothetical wife/ladyfriend/partner/whatever, if the person is willing? Laws like that shouldn't be written in the first place.

I'd have to agree with Pracus that as far as debate threads go, this one's been pretty polite, with a few exceptions.

Well, I'm off for the night. It's been a tiring day. Be nice to your children, people.

Who said anything about sodomy???

o/ "Sodomy
You must think it very odd of me
But I enjoy the act of sodomy
You might call the wrath of God on me
But if you tried it then you might agree
That you enjoy the act of sodomy" o/~

As long as they were genuinely gay and not just confused or doing it for attention then I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever. It is their life. Why?

Because I remember how my parents initially disapproved of my girlfirend Isabelle (who I've been seeing for about 2 years now) not because she was German but because she used to be a Lap Dancer (when she was struggling for money). I remember hating them for interfering in my life. I wouldn't want that from my children. Now they love Isabelle and I cannot be happier.

I wonder how the court would rule on gay marriage...was there a specific court case that struck down bans on interracial marriage? I might have to google that, but if there was a court case, I'm sure it was the exact same shit, individual states passing constitutional amendments, various lawsuits, people coming North to get married, then having their marriage nullified when they return home, the Supreme Court not wanting to get involved, but eventually having to...

Scalia mentioned in a speech to some Virginia school that he expects gay marriage will come before the Supreme Court. Seeing as how Scalia was in the dissent on Lawrence vs. Texas, it's obvious his position on gay marriage.

some people make me sick. A child is a child, no matter what their preferance may be!

My friend, who is gay, has parents like those here that would disown their child. His parents make his life hell at home, yet refuse to let him move out, scared that he will continue his 'gay ways'.

How can one do that to their own child. You have watched this child grow, nursed them when they were sick, clapped when they triumphed at a young age. What changes? The words 'I am gay' should not change anything at all.

Me? If my child came out, i would probably react some how, no dount, because often, it can come as a shock. But my reaction will be more allong the lines of 'how long have you known, why didnt you come to me earlier, You are being safe arent you?!' Normal motherly nags that usually follow a 'i am no longer a virgin' discussion.

I have been surrounded by gay people for a long time. My mopther has a gay friend, my best friend has been accused of being gay for his entire life- he ofcourse, is straight. Another friend is a lesbian, who has no secret in expressing desire for a number of my friends, and at times, me. And then there is my before mentioned friend, whom asked me out before he discovered his sexuality.

personally, a little part of me hopes a child of mine will turn out gay, just so i can continue being a by-stander to a brilliant and diverse culture.

BTW, all you using the bible as an excuse- does the bible not preach to LOVE eachother equally. To love ones child no matter what. tolerance. does it not speak out against discrimination?

Some people need to have a long hard look at their own morals before they start bashing others.

some people make me sick. A child is a child, no matter what their preferance may be!

My friend, who is gay, has parents like those here that would disown their child. His parents make his life hell at home, yet refuse to let him move out, scared that he will continue his 'gay ways'.

How can one do that to their own child. You have watched this child grow, nursed them when they were sick, clapped when they triumphed at a young age. What changes? The words 'I am gay' should not change anything at all.

Me? If my child came out, i would probably react some how, no dount, because often, it can come as a shock. But my reaction will be more allong the lines of 'how long have you known, why didnt you come to me earlier, You are being safe arent you?!' Normal motherly nags that usually follow a 'i am no longer a virgin' discussion.

I have been surrounded by gay people for a long time. My mopther has a gay friend, my best friend has been accused of being gay for his entire life- he ofcourse, is straight. Another friend is a lesbian, who has no secret in expressing desire for a number of my friends, and at times, me. And then there is my before mentioned friend, whom asked me out before he discovered his sexuality.

personally, a little part of me hopes a child of mine will turn out gay, just so i can continue being a by-stander to a brilliant and diverse culture.

BTW, all you using the bible as an excuse- does the bible not preach to LOVE eachother equally. To love ones child no matter what. tolerance. does it not speak out against discrimination?

Some people need to have a long hard look at their own morals before they start bashing others.


*Claps*

Of course I believe you're 16. After all, I'm only 16, as well. Thinking deep thoughts is by no means restricted by age.

I feel left out. I'm only 15.

Are you from the US? I can't speak for other countries. However, here they're all gone. The state cannot regulate what two consenting adults do in their bedroom.

However, they can regulate the flush capacity of our toilets.

Yes. No time for further explanation at the moment.
"Thou shalt not kill." A fetus is still a living, breathing human being. Before a woman misses her period, that baby already has a heartbeat. There's no question that it is a human being, with a soul. The only time an abortion should ever be allowed is when a woman is physically unable to have the baby, and the abortion should be done in a way to minimize pain (physical and emotional) to both the mother and the child. Here is a link (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetaldevelopment.html) with some pictures and more information on the development of a fetus. Yes, it's biased, but the facts are correct from what I've read from other sources. (Primarily a book from the 1970s written by a European doctor somewhere).

How about pulling a "clock-work orange" on them?

How about pulling a "clock-work orange" on them?

If you used this technique so that the child sees that homosexuality
is gross & sickening it might help them understand what we see wrong
with it.

It seems that several people have made the assumption that Christians hate gays and we want them all to die. I want to tell you that that's NOT what we believe. Yes, acts of homosexuality are sinful. ANY sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful. Everyone has sinned in some way and is in need of forgiveness. "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Again, I do NOT hate homosexuals as some would claim. Personally, I think it's disgusting. I know people who are gay, and it isn't my place to judge them as individuals. They are sinners just like everyone else. But I do strongly disapprove of the kinds of activities that they engage in.

OK, read this through from start to finish. I agree with those who said this has been civil, surprisingly so, apart from the few instances of flaimbait and those rising to said flaimbait.

Anyhow, here's my take. Basically so far there seems to be two main camps. Those who take homosexuality to be wrong, usually on the basis of religious text/decree, and would take varying degrees of action against their children and those who argue that homosexuality should not be condemned, on the basis of tolerating other lifestyles, equal rights or the fact that it does no harm (or a combination of the three), though there's been a wide variety of other viewpoints.

I want to adress this question to the second camp. You argue that one should not condemn a child's actions on the basis of sexual preference, rather that one should accept their lifestyle even if it goes against your own moral beliefs. I want to ask, then, on what basis you feel it acceptable to condemn the actions of parents to raise their children in a certain manner that you find morally unnaceptable?

Invoking the harm principle can't be considered a legitmate argument since those who accept orthodox religious teaching, be it Christian, Jewish, Islamic or indeed most other demoninations, would reject the harm principle as being inferior to pursuit of God's laws. Rights go the same way. Rejecting the Bible/Torah as a source of justification on the basis that "we don't know for sure it was written by God" is also unnaceptable, we don't know for sure it wasn't either. That's why it's called faith. I'm just wondering how you justify stating how other people should behave without basing it solely on your own personal moral beliefs. :confused:

Oh, just for the record, I state this as a thoroughly secular, liberal atheist who would have no problem with having a gay child.

It seems that several people have made the assumption that Christians hate gays and we want them all to die. I want to tell you that that's NOT what we believe. Yes, acts of homosexuality are sinful. ANY sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful. Everyone has sinned in some way and is in need of forgiveness. "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Again, I do NOT hate homosexuals as some would claim. Personally, I think it's disgusting. I know people who are gay, and it isn't my place to judge them as individuals. They are sinners just like everyone else. But I do strongly disapprove of the kinds of activities that they engage in.
Well I would certainly like to marry my dogs then,
but the problem would be that they're both boys.
Those two will never get into heaven now.

The former are punished by G-d. The latter ones are breaking the law.

May I ask what sorts of things I'm being punished for? I want children, I was just born with a screwed up reproductive system. Did I do something before I was even born to deserve it?

Well I would certainly like to marry my dogs then,
but the problem would be that they're both boys.
Those two will never get into heaven now.

Animals have no moral responsibilities because they never consciously rebelled against God, as man did.

"Voice Of God Is Government"

Neighbors, no one loves you like he loves you,
And no one cares like he cares.
Neighbors, let us join today in the holy love of God and money,
Because neighbors, no one loves you like He loves you.
And what better way to show your love than to dig deep into your pockets.
Dig real deep, until it hurts. Alleviate your guilt,
Free yourself once again, because he gave to you, brothers and sisters.
Please give a 10, 25, or 50 dollar tax-deductible donation,
And I assure you your modest pledge will be used to censor TV and radio,
Ban questionable books, and contribute to many other Godly services.
No longer will young Christian Americans hedonistically indulge
In masochistic submission to rhythmic music, for with your monetary support,
There is no end to what we can achieve in this country.

The voice of God is government. The voice of God is government.
The voice of God is government. In God we trust, sinners repent!
(1,2,3,4)

Can't you see what we believe in, all our thoughts, all our reasons,
Pursuit of life and liberty and happiness we cannot see?
Speak of truth with a mighty voice, but politics are your real choice.
Hire men to change the law, protect and serve with one small flaw.
Voice of God is government. The voice of God is government.
Voice of God is government. In God we trust, sinners repent!

If we shun God and Jesus Christ, religious love is sacrifice.
Love for God is shown in cash, the love they send is mailbox trash.
With every pamphlet we receive, more money asked for Godly needs.
Build a million dollar church, with money spent on God's research.
Voice of God is government. The voice of God is government.
Voice of God is government. In God we trust, sinners repent!

On late night TV, God can heal, a certain force you cannot feel.
Love for money in God's name, religion's now a TV game!
Build a million dollar church, with money spent on God's research.
Build a million dollar church, with money spent on God's research.
Voice of God is government. The voice of God is government.
Voice of God is government. In God we trust, sinners repent!
Yeah!
Voice of God is government. The voice of God is government.
Voice of God is government. In God we trust, sinners repent!

Shocking news just in! :eek:

Scholars in America have discovered that the Bible has been translated completely wrongly.

"It turns out that we confused the words 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual'," said Prof. May Dup. "Also, the word we thought meant 'sodomy' actually meant 'having sex with camels'. There's also a completely new passage we've found, which states that 'the turkey-baster method is the way of God, and all other ways are sin.'"

The pope made this statement today: "In light of the new findings, I urge all people in heterosexual relationships to break up, pray forgiveness to God, and find a new same-sex partner as quickly as possible." He then added "Got to go, I've got a salon appointment with the Archbishop of Canterbury this afternoon."

Ahehe. :D But seriously, what if this happened?

It would be a shock but I would accept it and hope that they are happy

When your religion collapses before you, nothing will be around to shield you from reality.

Religion blows in all areas. I don't need some 2000 year old fairy-tale (as far as I'm concerned, that's what it is to me) telling me how to live my life, nor do I need some spamming retard on this forum quoting passages from said fairy-tale doing the same. Religion is mind-control.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

Hey, in my NS state people are often seen marrying their pets, so what do you think my views are?

actually, I think the difference is only .3%, not one whole percent. Anyways, it's not the difference in genetics that makes the difference. Humans have souls, animals do not.

You believe in the soul, I do not. I'm a scientist, not religious. I explain things through physics, not through semantics. Therefore, for me, the only thing that DOES make a difference between us and chimps is the infinitessimaly small amount of genetic difference.

It seems that several people have made the assumption that Christians hate gays and we want them all to die. I want to tell you that that's NOT what we believe. Yes, acts of homosexuality are sinful. ANY sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful. Everyone has sinned in some way and is in need of forgiveness. "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Again, I do NOT hate homosexuals as some would claim. Personally, I think it's disgusting. I know people who are gay, and it isn't my place to judge them as individuals. They are sinners just like everyone else. But I do strongly disapprove of the kinds of activities that they engage in.

I think that the people who seemed as if they were attacking Christians as gay-haters were specifically addressing certain people who've said they would kick their kid out or even kill him. They give their religion as an excuse, but ignore the other parts about unconditional love. To my remembrance (and it was late last night when I read most of this) very few, if any, people have attacked all Christians but rather have called out specific people.

If I found out my kid was homosexual, I would solve it the way I would if I found out (s)he was having sex or using drugs.

I would beat it out of them.

Right. So if you found out that your kid was homosexual or having sex, neither of which are illegal, you would beat them, which is? And using drugs... hmm... beating someone for taking drugs won't solve anything. In fact, it's likely to make them do it more, since most drugs are painkillers.

You can talk to your kids all you want. Talk is cheap.

My parents hit me, their parents hit them. Its all done out of love and the ends always justify the means.

Just because it happens to you doesn't mean it's what you should do to others. What are you going to do when your kids get bigger and stronger than you, and beat you shitless "out of love"?

The Bible has been corraberated by archeology. The findings that have been made over the years have proven that many of the stories in the Bible are true. The Bible says that it is the word of God, that He is sinless, (therefore He cannot lie) and if some of the Bible has been proven, then it all must be true.
The Dead Sea scrolls were found in a cave, and they have been authenticated as being accurate, and they describe some of the same things that the Bible does.
That is how I know that the Bible is true.

Interesting. You think that because part of something has been proven true, the rest of it MUST be, correct? Ok, here goes... on September the 11th, the World Trade Centre towers were destroyed by two aeroplanes flying into them. True, no? And now... last week, it was discovered that by igniting intestinal gas, the planet will be destroyed - they then tested this theory and destroyed the world. Since we're still here, that is blatently untrue. Just because part of something is historically accurate, it doesnt mean that all of it is. People explained away the global floods which happened at the end of the last ice age (which only extended as far south as about the north of Italy) as being caused by a god/gods. In fact, it was the melting ice.

I feel left out. I'm only 15.

Awww... :) *pats*

May I ask what sorts of things I'm being punished for? I want children, I was just born with a screwed up reproductive system. Did I do something before I was even born to deserve it?

Actually, he just contradicted himself. The idea of being punished from birth is from a different religious doctrine to his own. It comes from the idea of constant birth and re-birth (past lives, etc.) and so if you did something wrong in a past life, your current one will have you in a wheelchair, or sterile.

Actually, he just contradicted himself. The idea of being punished from birth is from a different religious doctrine to his own. It comes from the idea of constant birth and re-birth (past lives, etc.) and so if you did something wrong in a past life, your current one will have you in a wheelchair, or sterile.

Or be a lesser animal. Like a fish, or bird etc

You can't have children so you think you're being punished?

Maybe you weren't meant to have children so you would adopt
some kid that didn't have a mother? It's basically depends on
how you perceive yourself. Personnally I believe everything
happens for a reason, and it doesn't have to be a negativity
for the rest of your life.

You can't have children so you think you're being punished?

Maybe you weren't meant to have children so you would adopt
some kid that didn't have a mother? It's basically depends on
how you perceive yourself. Personnally I believe everything
happens for a reason, and it doesn't have to be a negativity
for the rest of your life.

I didn't mean to say that I felt like I was punished. It bothered me that that was his explanation for me being unable to carry a child. I will adopt when the time comes. I have no doubt about that :)

No matter what their religious text says, nobody has any right to dictate to others what they may or may not do (unless they're ... you know, making laws and stuff - and even then, it shouldn't have anything to do with their religious text).

The majority of people know what's 'right' and what's 'wrong', with or without a religious basis - it's fairly simple. You hurt someone else, and it's wrong. Everything else, while not everything may be right, is a bit of a gray area.

I personally am not against marijuana smoking, I'm not against sex education to children that are very young (10 or so - just think, if kids are actually taught to respect others' bodies and their own, there'll be a much lower rate of rape), and I'm most certainly not against gay marriage (it's legal in Canada - my province was the second to legalize it, as far as I'm aware).

Like most Canadians, I'm intolerant of intolerance. Like a great deal of Canadians, I want to get married. Like quite a few Canadians, I have a deep-seated love and respect of a higher being, and in my case, God. Like some Canadians, I'm gay.

I don't see why people need to mind other people's business so much - so long as they're not hurting another, it's really nobody's business but their own. And studies have shown that neither being homosexual, nor being a homosexual in a committed relationship with children, causes harm to anyone, including yourself, your partner, and the children.

A happy home with homosexual parents is much safer and more secure than a heterosexual family who abuses the children. The inverse is also true, but much, much rarer (for obvious reasons).

Love and understanding should be everyone's first priorities, whether or not they personally agree with the subject in question. It's when people respond with fear, dislike, or God forbid, hate, that things go wrong.

I don't 'hate' anyone I've argued with here... I feel sorry for them, because they feel the /need/ to hate and discriminate. For the record, I don't think they should parent children, because I believe that their beliefs are damaging to the children... but until the child is physically, psychologically or emotionally damaged, I really can't say conclusively whether or not they /should/. I merely said what I /think/.

Tolerate, love, and give people the benefit of the doubt. Think. Question. Research. Then make an opinion. For the good of yourself, your loved ones, the people around you, and everyone else.

<insert post here>


Lydania, that was one of the best posts I think I've read on here. Thank you for sharing it.

Lydania, that was one of the best posts I think I've read on here. Thank you for sharing it.
I tend to like making ones like it, it's just that people tend to disregard me. Anyways, I just popped in to post that, so I'm going to bookmark this and leave ye be.

I really couldn't care less if my children had interests in people of the same sex. I see absolutely nothing wrong with finding people of the same sex attractive and I don't like simple categorisations such as homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual. People shouldn't have to fall into neat little categories with their sexuality, and they certainly should never feel ashamed about how they feel towards either sex.

It wouldn't bother me at all. I think you people who would all be "dissapointed" with your childs perfectly normal brain need to put things in perspective. Millions of people can't even have children, and I know plenty of people who have had children born with serious illnesses like Huntingtons, which some people would say is worse then not being able to have children. I'd say its certainly worse then being gay, but at the end of the day we all know that rich white straight Christian capitalist American men are always right and daring to have an other opinion is act of the purest evil.

Its amusing how some branches of self-defined christians feel that the can cherry pick their values out of the bible. That is, showing such disrespect and lack of love, compassion, tolerance, and understanding for their own children for a simple difference not of their own making.

It is a sad and pitiful disregard for Christian values of love and forgiveness. To simply disown one's children for a choice of sexual preference shows a profound and impossibly evil disregard for the most important of Christian values.

I would respect him with all my heart

would be stupid if i didnt im one myself as well LOL

"Thou shalt not kill." A fetus is still a living, breathing human being. Before a woman misses her period, that baby already has a heartbeat. There's no question that it is a human being, with a soul. The only time an abortion should ever be allowed is when a woman is physically unable to have the baby, and the abortion should be done in a way to minimize pain (physical and emotional) to both the mother and the child. Here is a link (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetaldevelopment.html) with some pictures and more information on the development of a fetus. Yes, it's biased, but the facts are correct from what I've read from other sources. (Primarily a book from the 1970s written by a European doctor somewhere).

Oops. Contradiction.

Exodus 21:22-25 (NRSV)
When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall abe fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The crime for killing the woman is "life for life," but causing her to lose the fetus only carries a fine. Thusly, a fetus is not considered life according to scripture. If it were life, the penalty would be death, as it is with the mother.

Of course, this is a contradiction in your beliefs...you're the one extending "thou shalt not kill" to this situation. The Bible clearly does not share your viewpoint, unless you have a passage that answers whether or not a fetus is considered a life specifically. This passage certainly disproves your belief.

Oops. Contradiction.

Exodus 21:22-25 (NRSV)
When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall abe fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The crime for killing the woman is "life for life," but causing her to lose the fetus only carries a fine. Thusly, a fetus is not considered life according to scripture. If it were life, the penalty would be death, as it is with the mother.

Of course, this is a contradiction in your beliefs...you're the one extending "thou shalt not kill" to this situation. The Bible clearly does not share your viewpoint, unless you have a passage that answers whether or not a fetus is considered a life specifically. This passage certainly disproves your belief.

<3 If you have MSN, add me.

I tend to like making ones like it, it's just that people tend to disregard me. Anyways, I just popped in to post that, so I'm going to bookmark this and leave ye be.

Well, you ought to keep it up. Very insightful.

I want to adress this question to the second camp. You argue that one should not condemn a child's actions on the basis of sexual preference, rather that one should accept their lifestyle even if it goes against your own moral beliefs. I want to ask, then, on what basis you feel it acceptable to condemn the actions of parents to raise their children in a certain manner that you find morally unnaceptable?

I think that the role/responsibility of parenting is to nurture the development of a happy and healthy human being, and to recognise that new person as having a separate and unique existence, with all the rights and freedoms of any other human being.

It appears to me that the 'parents' on this discussion who plan to beat or shun their children for expressing love for a same sex partner are infringing on basic human rights and also failing to grasp the meaning of parenting.

Where any person's human rights are being trampled on, I feel obligated to speak out

Listen, I'm also Jewish, and I've never heard any Rabbi mentioning parts of Leviticus that advocate killing homosexuals. Not only would homosexuality be associated only with orgies at the time the Torah was written, but I would have to think that since the Talmud is more important in Judiasm than the Torah, that a fundamentalist approach would be completely wrong. Overall, I think that no part of the Torah should be mocked, but should be understood in historical context.

Oops. Contradiction.

Exodus 21:22-25 (NRSV)
When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall abe fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The crime for killing the woman is "life for life," but causing her to lose the fetus only carries a fine. Thusly, a fetus is not considered life according to scripture. If it were life, the penalty would be death, as it is with the mother.

Of course, this is a contradiction in your beliefs...you're the one extending "thou shalt not kill" to this situation. The Bible clearly does not share your viewpoint, unless you have a passage that answers whether or not a fetus is considered a life specifically. This passage certainly disproves your belief.

That indicates an accident. I'm talking about the willful murder of an infant for social or economic reasons. You can't prove from that passage that a fetus is a person, but you can't disprove it either. If a man accidentally kills another man, he is sent away. Exodus 21:13 "However, if he does not do it (kill another) intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate." Samson was a Nazarite from before he was born. David says in Psalm 139:13 that God "created my inmost being." He "knit me together in my mother's womb." Does a baby not have a soul until it is born alive?

That indicates an accident. I'm talking about the willful murder of an infant for social or economic reasons. You can't prove from that passage that a fetus is a person, but you can't disprove it either. If a man accidentally kills another man, he is sent away. Exodus 21:13 "However, if he does not do it (kill another) intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate." Samson was a Nazarite from before he was born. David says in Psalm 139:13 that God "created my inmost being." He "knit me together in my mother's womb." Does a baby not have a soul until it is born alive?

So? It doesn't specify that. It clearly states that if you harm a woman so she miscarries, you pay a fine, but if you harm her more seriously, the punishment is a life for a life etc.
Obviously, according to the bible, a foetus is not a life.

I don't believe this myself, I'm all for abortion, but the argument is akin to murder/manslaughter. Murder is an intentional killing, manslaughter is when you didn't set out to kill them. The punishment is less severe for manslaughter than for murder, hence: if you accidentally cause a woman to miscarry, the punishment is less severe than if you then continue to go on and kill her intentionally.

Obviously, according to the bible, a foetus is not a life.

Then what is it?

Then what is it?

A potential life, something which is not yet alive. It could be a life, but it isn't yet. Like an egg. If you eat eggs, you're eating a possible life, it was simply never fertilised. Meaning that if you ate a fertilised egg before it had developed fully, you still wouldn't be killing a chicken.

Such as the part claiming that the Earth was founded almost 2,000 years ago, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary?

Uhhh, kthnxbye.

This happened a LONG time ago in the post (about page 2 or 3) but annoyed me so much I had to write something about it.

Are you serious? It never mentions in the Bible that the Earth was created 2,000 years ago. That is a misconception. It is said that Christ came 2,000 years ago. For someone who claims that looking to the Bible is ignorant about the discussion, please try to understand the other side before bashing it. Sheesh.

As for the guy who made the comment on that page about 10% of animalia exhibiting gay/bi-sexual behavior, do the math 1/10th is not "just as natural."

Bringing up mental retardation is about as crappy an arguement as a Christian only using the Bible. Mental retardation is not something someone CHOOSES to be, but the choice of their sexual orientation is.

As for all this talk about science. Could someone here please bring up ANY points as to origin of man that are irrefutable? I can't think of any yet. Especially the formation of the Earth. That is a toughy.

I do not descriminate against gays, but I do not approve of it in my own opinion. So you can't really bash me because I am not attacking them. Slightly one-sided indifference is not ignorance, thank you.

I would not disown my child as they ARE my flesh and blood, but I would try to talk to them about being straight as it is what (in my opinion again) is right.

Opinions can't be wrong... they are just that, opinions.

Erm... actually, it's pretty much 100% certain about how the Earth was created... a huge cloud of hydrogen gas and dust from dead stars gradually collapsed under its own gravity and formed the sun at the centre due to immense heat and pressure fusing two hydrogen atoms into one helium atom and releasing hideously large amounts of energy, kick-starting the rest of the reactions within the sun. The explosion of energy caused the dust and surplus hydrogen to begin to rotate around the centre point, and in the same way that a centrifuge works, it seperated the various particles of different density, which collected around each other. Denser materials came to the inner parts of the disc and created the rocky planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars), the hydrogen collected into the gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) and no-one's quite sure why Pluto is even classified as a planet... But anyway, yeah. That's how the Earth was formed, in a rather abridged version.

EDIT: It's the formation of the universe that's not certain, not that of the Earth.

Didn't explain anything other than the Sun being formed, which I will grant you.

But it still does not explain life on earth. I might have written my question wrong. I was not asking about the formation of the sun and (in a very well written and use of a good analogy) the planets. I meant to ask how you explain us, humans. What possible way does science explain that?

Oh yeah, just thought of it. How did that matter get there to start all of the reactions? Thanks... feel free to answer now.

EDIT: It's the formation of the universe that's not certain, not that of the Earth.

Care to explain the formation of Earth then?

Sorry, I should have explained myself better. The planets were formed in much the same way as the sun. The sun collected hydrogen through its own gravity, the planets gathered together the little bits of dust which gradually stuck together. As they got bigger, they attracted other big bits. These attracted other big bits, and so on and so on. The Earth is a lot of little bits of dust fused together.

The matter got there from (or at least, this is the explanation that makes most sense at the moment) the Big Bang. The Big Bang made there be a universe (I don't pretend to understand what there was before, the human mind cannot comprehend nothing) and filled it with the matter and anti-matter that had been crammed into the singularity that exploded. Over trillions of years, the anti-matter gradually got wiped out (as there was a lot more matter than anti-matter) and created a matter-rich universe. Most of it was hydrogen, the simplest element. This gradually formed suns, which formed helium. This helium spread out when the suns died, and created other suns, which fused helium into... whatever it is two helium atoms fuse into, I can't remember. That's where all the heavy elements came from.

As to where humans came from... well, they evolved from the animals that came before them. Track that back to single celled organisms, and they got there due to the conditions on the relatively newly formed Earth. The electrical storms that ravaged the planet's surface provided the energy needed for various amino acids to form DNA. The DNA joined with the chemicals it was suspended in, and somehow created life (they don't know HOW it happened, but they know it happened...). This made the single celled organisms that eventually became man.

Or, at least, that's the currently-supported theorum. This may change as more evidence becomes available.

If he became a drunk/druggie, he'd suffer the same fate.

What?!? Surely if he became a druggie you'd get him to score you some dope?
Personally, if one of my kids were gay, I wouldn't have a problem with it. There's nothing wrong with them.

What?!? Surely if he became a druggie you'd get him to score you some dope?
Personally, if one of my kids were gay, I wouldn't have a problem with it. There's nothing wrong with them.

Bravo. And from someone with such a nice username! :D I <3 people with your attitude. :)

Sorry, I should have explained myself better. The planets were formed in much the same way as the sun. The sun collected hydrogen through its own gravity, the planets gathered together the little bits of dust which gradually stuck together. As they got bigger, they attracted other big bits. These attracted other big bits, and so on and so on. The Earth is a lot of little bits of dust fused together.

Thank you. Now how did life begin? (I noticed you answered this below and I will get to it down there... heh.)

The matter got there from (or at least, this is the explanation that makes most sense at the moment) the Big Bang. The Big Bang made there be a universe (I don't pretend to understand what there was before, the human mind cannot comprehend nothing) and filled it with the matter and anti-matter that had been crammed into the singularity that exploded. Over trillions of years, the anti-matter gradually got wiped out (as there was a lot more matter than anti-matter) and created a matter-rich universe. Most of it was hydrogen, the simplest element. This gradually formed suns, which formed helium. This helium spread out when the suns died, and created other suns, which fused helium into... whatever it is two helium atoms fuse into, I can't remember. That's where all the heavy elements came from.

True... the human mind cannot comprehend nothing, but that leaves the question. Where did that matter (the matter involved in the "Big Bang") come from? Science has no explanation for this, which is why many are moving towards the "Intelligent Design" theory.

As to where humans came from... well, they evolved from the animals that came before them. Track that back to single celled organisms, and they got there due to the conditions on the relatively newly formed Earth. The electrical storms that ravaged the planet's surface provided the energy needed for various amino acids to form DNA. The DNA joined with the chemicals it was suspended in, and somehow created life (they don't know HOW it happened, but they know it happened...). This made the single celled organisms that eventually became man.

Ah yes, the most basic of all evolutionary theories. I will say thank you for explaining it well enough that most people can understand, but my next question is where did those amino acids come from? And how did any reaction at all survive those storms? The Miller-Urey idea is an interesting one, but does not work as it has been proven that oxygen did existed as one of the essential (beginning) elements on the planet. (The Miller-Urey experiment claimed that oxygen was not present and did not develop any sort of "building block" molecules to eventually lead to DNA. The did however create small particles, but they could not develop any complex organizims such as amino acids in their experiments.) If the electricity that formed this world were to strike off a reaction, it would cause an explosion with the existance of oxygen.

What about the gaps in evolutionary "family trees?" There has never been a firm foundation as to that "missing link" between man and ape and so it has been nothing but a hypothesis for some time.

Or, at least, that's the currently-supported theorum. This may change as more evidence becomes available.

Thank you for that fact. Yes more evidence may become available in the future, but as to which side the information will lean... who knows?

True... the human mind cannot comprehend nothing, but that leaves the question. Where did that matter (the matter involved in the "Big Bang") come from? Science has no explanation for this, which is why many are moving towards the "Intelligent Design" theory.

It depends on what theory you listen to. Some say that the universe is on an endless cyclical track, it is born, it expands, it contracts and dies, creating the singularity needed to start the next universe. Actually, I think that's a reasonable theory, we can just never find out for sure since we will all be dead and gone by the time it comes around, and will then become the basis for the next universe.

Ah yes, the most basic of all evolutionary theories. I will say thank you for explaining it well enough that most people can understand, but my next question is where did those amino acids come from? And how did any reaction at all survive those storms? The Miller-Urey idea is an interesting one, but does not work as it has been proven that oxygen did existed as one of the essential (beginning) elements on the planet. (The Miller-Urey experiment claimed that oxygen was not present and did not develop any sort of "building block" molecules to eventually lead to DNA. The did however create small particles, but they could not develop any complex organizims such as amino acids in their experiments.) If the electricity that formed this world were to strike off a reaction, it would cause an explosion with the existance of oxygen.

Maybe it did cause an explosion. That would also provide energy for the reactions. Oxygen certainly could have been present, it would have been produced in one of the stars that died long before our solar system was even a twinkle in the universe's eye. :D Then again, no-one's really sure what causes life. If we pulled someone apart an atom at a time, we'd get a pile of atoms, none of which were ever alive, but constituted a living being.

What about the gaps in evolutionary "family trees?" There has never been a firm foundation as to that "missing link" between man and ape and so it has been nothing but a hypothesis for some time.

The Australopithicus(sp?) skeletons found in various places in Africa are widely regarded as the missing link, they are simply apes with slightly bigger brains and bipedal structure.

Thank you for that fact. Yes more evidence may become available in the future, but as to which side the information will lean... who knows?

Absolutely. For all I know, I could be completely wrong. There could be a god/gods looking down on me right now, sighing and thinking, "If only he listened to our people, he could be saved." Well, there could. But I don't think so. And for all you know, you could be wrong. We could BOTH be wrong, and it was really Mumbojumbo of the Congo that created the world. Or maybe the Aboriginies had it right all along. We will most likely never find out, so in the meantime we have friendly debates such as this. :)

That indicates an accident. I'm talking about the willful murder of an infant for social or economic reasons. You can't prove from that passage that a fetus is a person, but you can't disprove it either. If a man accidentally kills another man, he is sent away. Exodus 21:13 "However, if he does not do it (kill another) intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate." Samson was a Nazarite from before he was born. David says in Psalm 139:13 that God "created my inmost being." He "knit me together in my mother's womb." Does a baby not have a soul until it is born alive?

It would also be an accident if the mother was injured. There is no difference in the way the harm came to either one of them by that verse. So, at least it appears to me, that the Bible thinks the mother's life is more important than the fetus. That being said, I'm not expressing an opinion on abortion nor am I going to get into an arguement over it. I'm just pointing out a logic flaw (the best of us make them!).

It depends on what theory you listen to. Some say that the universe is on an endless cyclical track, it is born, it expands, it contracts and dies, creating the singularity needed to start the next universe. Actually, I think that's a reasonable theory, we can just never find out for sure since we will all be dead and gone by the time it comes around, and will then become the basis for the next universe.

It sounds like a reasonable theory indeed, but what about the creation of the original universe? (going on the fact that the matter to start ANY of this had to come from somewhere).

Maybe it did cause an explosion. That would also provide energy for the reactions. Oxygen certainly could have been present, it would have been produced in one of the stars that died long before our solar system was even a twinkle in the universe's eye. :D Then again, no-one's really sure what causes life. If we pulled someone apart an atom at a time, we'd get a pile of atoms, none of which were ever alive, but constituted a living being.

The oxygen would have caused a reaction yes, blowing apart any matter that wished to come together. It would also cause more explosions, and could any life ever hope to survive long enough in an endless series of explosions? True enough, no real evidence has come to surface in a scientific sense of the origin of life. Hence the "Intelligent Design"/"Creator" theory has its foundation. I like your analogy about pulling a person apart atom by atom and you end up with the pile of atoms. But the point is that those atoms fused together to form a being (a living-breathing being), but how did that happen? Science has not proven its theories about how this came about. It just has too many gaps that evidence has not fixed yet. I concede that someday it could come to pass that evidence is found. I am not arguing that, but for now science cannot explain the origin of life successfully (without too many holes in its logic/evidence basically).

The Australopithicus(sp?) skeletons found in various places in Africa are widely regarded as the missing link, they are simply apes with slightly bigger brains and bipedal structure.

I have heard of these findings and am quite curious about them. But from studies I have heard, it was discovered that the scientist who found this skeleton took the head of an orangutang (sp?) and the body of a guerilla (or something of that sort... basically he fabricated the findings) and created his discovery. This may not be the same bones and if so I will be sure to dig into this finding a bit more. But I believe we are speaking of the same incident.

Absolutely. For all I know, I could be completely wrong. There could be a god/gods looking down on me right now, sighing and thinking, "If only he listened to our people, he could be saved." Well, there could. But I don't think so. And for all you know, you could be wrong. We could BOTH be wrong, and it was really Mumbojumbo of the Congo that created the world. Or maybe the Aboriginies had it right all along. We will most likely never find out, so in the meantime we have friendly debates such as this. :)

Amen. lol Both of us could be wrong, I could be or you could be. It does not much matter as when we actually die will be the exact way to find out. Hopefully neither of us will find that out for a while yet. Perhaps the Progenitors created us in a universe that has always existed? lol. Who knows. But yes, we can have our debates and I thank you for a very polite and sociable one.

*Reads Pracus' little thing* Who? lol Him or me?

It sounds like a reasonable theory indeed, but what about the creation of the original universe? (going on the fact that the matter to start ANY of this had to come from somewhere).

Who knows? Maybe time is also cyclical, and so when the final universe dies it creates the first one. It's a bit like the grandfather paradox. If you went back in time and killed your grandfather before he had a chance to father your father... too many fathers in that sentence, but still... then you would cease to exist, meaning you couldn't have gone back in time to kill your grandfather, which would mean he was still alive, which would mean you could go back and kill him, which would mean you couldnt, which would mean you could, which would...

The oxygen would have caused a reaction yes, blowing apart any matter that wished to come together. It would also cause more explosions, and could any life ever hope to survive long enough in an endless series of explosions? True enough, no real evidence has come to surface in a scientific sense of the origin of life. Hence the "Intelligent Design"/"Creator" theory has its foundation. I like your analogy about pulling a person apart atom by atom and you end up with the pile of atoms. But the point is that those atoms fused together to form a being (a living-breathing being), but how did that happen? Science has not proven its theories about how this came about. It just has too many gaps that evidence has not fixed yet. I concede that someday it could come to pass that evidence is found. I am not arguing that, but for now science cannot explain the origin of life successfully (without too many holes in its logic/evidence basically).

The thing is that there's not enough evidence yet to give us a definite scientific answer about how life is created, so until then, God is a good an answer as any other, to be honest.

But as for the explosions... oxygen itself does not ignite. It is essential for combustion, but it does not ignite. When there is lightning these days, is there an explosion? And don't say thunder - thunder is not an explosion. The lightning cleaves the air in two, and the thunder is the sound of the two bodies of air slamming back together (who knew air could be so noisy, huh?).

I have heard of these findings and am quite curious about them. But from studies I have heard, it was discovered that the scientist who found this skeleton took the head of an orangutang (sp?) and the body of a guerilla (or something of that sort... basically he fabricated the findings) and created his discovery. This may not be the same bones and if so I will be sure to dig into this finding a bit more. But I believe we are speaking of the same incident.

No, the first one to discover a skeleton wasn't quite sure what he'd found, and so assumed that it was lots of different apes that had died in the same spot, or been moved there afterwards, and the rest of the bones got lost. When it was noticed that the bones actually connected with each other, it was announced that it was a new species. Then, the stories that the bones had previously been classified as various other apes came out, and shrouded it in mystery. But as far as what I heard goes, they actually are real.

Amen. lol Both of us could be wrong, I could be or you could be. It does not much matter as when we actually die will be the exact way to find out. Hopefully neither of us will find that out for a while yet. Perhaps the Progenitors created us in a universe that has always existed? lol. Who knows. But yes, we can have our debates and I thank you for a very polite and sociable one.

I certainly hope I don't die any time soon, and I hope you don't either - after all, who could I debate with then? :D

I return your thanks. :)

That indicates an accident. I'm talking about the willful murder of an infant for social or economic reasons. You can't prove from that passage that a fetus is a person, but you can't disprove it either. If a man accidentally kills another man, he is sent away. Exodus 21:13 "However, if he does not do it (kill another) intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate." Samson was a Nazarite from before he was born. David says in Psalm 139:13 that God "created my inmost being." He "knit me together in my mother's womb." Does a baby not have a soul until it is born alive?

That's your interpretation. I could just as easily claim the following:

God is omnipotent and omniscient. By virtue of this, God knows all that is, has been, or will be. As such, he does indeed know you from when you were in the womb. In fact, he knows you from when you were sperm and egg, and when you were individual proteins before that. Just because God knows what those particles will eventually become does not necessarily mean that a soul is immediately imparted to you.

And your explanation of the incident being an accident does not hold up at all. In the passage I cited, it goes on to say (as I bolded) that should further harm come to the woman, eye-for-an-eye justice is to be exacted, including life for life. This would also be punishing an accidental killing, and the punishment for this is different from the punishment for causing a miscarriage. The Bible is otherwise silent about abortion or the termination of foeti, save for loose passages such as you've cited which are very widely interpretted. The passage I cited was painstakingly clear.

<3 If you have MSN, add me.

Is your nation name your MSN name?

Who knows? Maybe time is also cyclical, and so when the final universe dies it creates the first one. It's a bit like the grandfather paradox. If you went back in time and killed your grandfather before he had a chance to father your father... too many fathers in that sentence, but still... then you would cease to exist, meaning you couldn't have gone back in time to kill your grandfather, which would mean he was still alive, which would mean you could go back and kill him, which would mean you couldnt, which would mean you could, which would...

lol... circular arguements... what a wonderful thing. Or maybe I am mistaken in my using that term "circular arguements" Basically the arguement of everything going around and around again. Heh. Gotta love them paradoxs...

The thing is that there's not enough evidence yet to give us a definite scientific answer about how life is created, so until then, God is a good an answer as any other, to be honest.

Haha. You mean I actually got my side to make a point that made sense? wow. Hurrah for me. Anyway, yeah without physical evidence for Christianity though, all Christians have is faith. Same as most theories I guess... so yeah, evolution is the same.

But as for the explosions... oxygen itself does not ignite. It is essential for combustion, but it does not ignite. When there is lightning these days, is there an explosion? And don't say thunder - thunder is not an explosion. The lightning cleaves the air in two, and the thunder is the sound of the two bodies of air slamming back together (who knew air could be so noisy, huh?).

I do understand the basic constructs of thunder, but thanks for the explanation. I also realize that oxygen itself is not the only thing needed for construction, but there was hydrogen, helium, sulfur (volcanoes), etc. as for elements on the forming Earth. Those elements combined create (captain planet... haha) combustion (might be missing a few that I did not list, but was not excluding them from my list). All I meant by my oxygen statement is that without oxygen combustion cannot happen. It was originally argued that oxygen did not exist (Miller-Urey), and it was later discovered that it did exist but in unknown quantities.

No, the first one to discover a skeleton wasn't quite sure what he'd found, and so assumed that it was lots of different apes that had died in the same spot, or been moved there afterwards, and the rest of the bones got lost. When it was noticed that the bones actually connected with each other, it was announced that it was a new species. Then, the stories that the bones had previously been classified as various other apes came out, and shrouded it in mystery. But as far as what I heard goes, they actually are real.

Sounds a bit different, but could also be the same. From what I have heard about those bones that the scientist claimed were a new species, that were clouded in mystery as you put it, were eventually discovered to actually be the mix of several types of apes, orangutangs(sp?), chimps, etc. Which (in the reports I have read/heard) disproves his hypothesis about a new species.

I certainly hope I don't die any time soon, and I hope you don't either - after all, who could I debate with then? :D

I return your thanks. :)

Same here my friend. Also thank you for putting it into an intelligent discussion and not just ranting that my ideas/opinions are wrong. The ignorant annoy me. Also will not be responding for a while, going to a movie.

I think that the role/responsibility of parenting is to nurture the development of a happy and healthy human being, and to recognise that new person as having a separate and unique existence, with all the rights and freedoms of any other human being.

It appears to me that the 'parents' on this discussion who plan to beat or shun their children for expressing love for a same sex partner are infringing on basic human rights and also failing to grasp the meaning of parenting.

Where any person's human rights are being trampled on, I feel obligated to speak out

Whilst you're entitled to your view of parenting, ultimately it is not one that is universally shared. Some parents would view instilling correct morals in their children as more important than happiness or health. Some would regard saving their soul as more important. Equally not everyone would accept the notion of innate human rights, or even if they do they may not accept that they are of paramount importance. The question still remains, then, can anyone justify condemning the shunning of a child in a way that sn't based on moral preconceptions?

While I would not support their choice of lifestyle, I would still accept him as my son or daughter.

As someone who was pariahed from his family all his life, I don't think I could just sit and accept anyone I know disowning or attacking their child for being homosexual, much less do it myself.

While I would not support their choice of lifestyle, I would still accept him as my son or daughter.

Just for my own edification, do you realize that homosexuality is not a choice?

Just for my own edification, do you realize that homosexuality is not a choice?

You can supress homosexuality.

I would tell them that it is completely thier choice, and I support them no matter thier sexual preference
that is the way that the world should be, homosexuals are just like everyone else, so what's all the bitching and complaining about?

You can supress homosexuality.

Which leads to a lifetime of misery and depression and potentially to mental instability and suicide--just like if you tried to suppress your heterosexuality.

Now, if you mean you can abstain that's a little different--it doesn't mean that you would be denying your feelings, just not acting on them.

But then that raises the question . . . would you go a lifetime without love or sex? Because of course, homosexuality is about the emotions as well as the sex.

My initial reaction would likely be, "...and?"
Of course, I would then realize the importance of what my child had told me; I think of it as a triviality in my own life (I am bisexual), something I don't even really think about most of the time. I would then congratulate my child on furthering their understanding of who they are, offer support if they are confused about anything, and make sure they knew I was perfectly comfortable with it. I would then encourage them to either begin or continue martial arts training; I don't want any child of mine to get attacked by bigoted homophobes without being able to take a good shot at defending themself.

I don't know if I'll ever have children; if I do, it will likely be through adoption. However, assuming that I do...my child is my child. Something as trivial as sexuality (and it is trivial, really, in the face of everything else that makes up a person) could not alter my love for them. I certainly couldn't disown them; I doubt I could do such a thing even if I fathered a murderer. It just seems wrong, to me, to deny the basic tie between parent and child...the attitude that this is an acceptable tactic is far more dangerous to the stability of "family values" in this country than gay marriage could ever be.

I would also like to add, the story that Pracus posted on page 24 was perhaps the most moving thing I've read in weeks. It was simply beautiful, and it's stories like these that give me hope for the human race.

I would find it hard to accept, except I would love my child all the same.

But then that raises the question . . . would you go a lifetime without love or sex? Because of course, homosexuality is about the emotions as well as the sex.
See, wouldn't you fall in love anyway? I mean, people fall in love by accident. You get to know someone, and grow to love them.

So I don't think it's possible to suppress your sexuality. Or if you did, as Pracus said, you'd end up miserable and depressed.

"Dad...I'm homosexual"
"Ok" **flips through newspaper**

Or

"Dad...I'm homosexual"
"Ok" **flips through newspaper**
"That's..it? The kids at school-"
"If the kids at school have a problem I'll talk to their parents. And if that doesn't work, I'll kick their parents' ass."

:D