NationStates Jolt Archive

I am personally straight, but my best friend is gay and she is constantly picked on and ridiculed for her prefernences. I don't understand what is wrong with homosexuality.

Nothing. The ones at fault are people who are homophobes, who's beliefs are totally irrational

Nothing. The ones at fault are people who are homophobes, who's beliefs are totally irrational
I don't quite agree. I agree that nothing is wrong with homosexuals, or homosexuality, but I disagree that something is wrong with homophobes. We all need someone to feel superior to after all.

I am personally straight, but my best friend is gay and she is constantly picked on and ridiculed for her prefernences. I don't understand what is wrong with homosexuality.
It's rather a good thing that you don't understand what's wrong with it, because there isn't.

I am personally straight, but my best friend is gay and she is constantly picked on and ridiculed for her prefernences. I don't understand what is wrong with homosexuality.

Nothing is wrong with it. It is simply that the vast majority of our species appears to hate and fear anyone or anything different. I know myself what it is like to suffer the prejudice of the moronic masses, I am certainly not one to quibble over how another differs from the norm.

yes, but why do so many people have problems excepting homosexuality?

What's wrong with anyone who dares to go against societal norms? The answer is: there isn't. People simply comdemn what they dont understand.

They're a minority, and they don't fight back. Why else does anyone get picked on?

I don't quite agree. I agree that nothing is wrong with homosexuals, or homosexuality, but I disagree that something is wrong with homophobes. We all need someone to feel superior to after all.
Yes, and it's somewhat of a symbiotic relationship, actually.

We fags couldn't feel superior if there weren't straight males around to make us and our clothes look good.

In my personal opinion, most homophobes are not comfortable with their own sexuality (i.e. "confused"), and so they are alarmed and angered by things that make them question their sexuality, or "the natural order of things". In my experience, those that are tolerant of the other sexuality are those that are most sure of their own.

Some people don't like gays because they're fixated on the idea that any gay person is going to try to get romantic with them and that freaks them out. Some people are closet gays who reject in others what they've repressed in themselves. Some people just think that even being near a gay person is a challenge to their masculinity. Some people are just assholes.

Fass would rather sleep with my husband than with me. That's what's wrong with it. All you gays and straights should stop being so narrow minded! We could have so much more fun if the world were bi...

They're a minority, and they don't fight back. Why else does anyone get picked on?
"They don't fight back"? Not on my turf. I do fight back, and I know a lot of others who do. Heck, we Canadians did manage to secure our right to marriage.

Those who think a conservative goverment is going to change that are gravely mistaken.

Yes, and it's somewhat of a symbiotic relationship, actually.

We fags couldn't feel superior if there weren't straight males around to make us and our clothes look good.
Yes, but what of us who don't have good dress sense? Being gay doesn't mean you dress well, and I am living proof of that.

Some people don't like gays because they're fixated on the idea that any gay person is going to try to get romantic with them and that freaks them out. Some people are closet gays who reject in others what they've repressed in themselves. Some people just think that even being near a gay person is a challenge to their masculinity. Some people are just assholes.
I know my masculinity is threatened by gay people.

Oh wait. I actually have no masculinity to speak of.

I have an asshole though. Do I win something?

yes, but why do so many people have problems excepting homosexuality?
I except homosexuality all the time.
I also accept it. It likes the acceptance better than the exceptance.

Yes, but what of us who don't have good dress sense? Being gay doesn't mean you dress well, and I am living proof of that.
*under his breath* Neither do I. Just keep smiling and pretend everything's ok.

Fass would rather sleep with my husband than with me. That's what's wrong with it. All you gays and straights should stop being so narrow minded! We could have so much more fun if the world were bi...
Intellectually, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, seems like my dick has a mind of its own.

the bible says its wrong

The problem is that one of the fuckwits who wrote the old testament had a problem with gay people (maybe a chap he had his eye on had brushed him off or something) so there's all this shit in the Bible, and the sort of twat who's more interested in the ten commandments than the beautitudes can find an excuse for any sort of abhorrent behaviour sort of raping children then gutting them and throwing their intestines at their parents afterwards.

my friend hit on me once I told her I was straight and that's that. it doesn't make a difference in our friendship i just prefer she not make out with other girls in front of me.

the bible says its wrong
The gays say the bible is wrong.

Intellectually, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, seems like my dick has a mind of its own.
You're just covering up the fact that being gay or straight instead of deliciously in the middle is a CHOICE!:D

my friend hit on me once I told her I was straight and that's that. it doesn't make a difference in our friendship i just prefer she not make out with other girls in front of me.
*refrains from the obvious request for a phone number and/or pictures of said action*

the bible says its wrong
Irrelevant, the Bible is wrong. Very wrong. Although rarely more wrong than on that.

The problem is that one of the fuckwits who wrote the old testament had a problem with gay people (maybe a chap he had his eye on had brushed him off or something) so there's all this shit in the Bible, and the sort of twat who's more interested in the ten commandments than the beautitudes can find an excuse for any sort of abhorrent behaviour sort of raping children then gutting them and throwing their intestines at their parents afterwards.
"Thou shalt not be a fag"
"Thou shalt not suck dick"
"Thou shalt not wear fashionable clothes"

Oh, wait, those aren't in the 10 commandments, now, are they? :rolleyes:

(What you were referring to in the old testament is actually in the book of leviticus)

The problem is that one of the fuckwits who wrote the old testament had a problem with gay people (maybe a chap he had his eye on had brushed him off or something) so there's all this shit in the Bible, and the sort of twat who's more interested in the ten commandments than the beautitudes can find an excuse for any sort of abhorrent behaviour sort of raping children then gutting them and throwing their intestines at their parents afterwards.
that's something i can agree with. now they're restricting gays from becoming priests! i think its ridiculous with a few things in the bible.

You're just covering up the fact that being gay or straight instead of deliciously in the middle is a CHOICE!:D
Well, if liking sexy, hot, nicely shaped young men and wanting to be very very naughty with them is a choice, then yes, I am covering up that fact :-p

Skaladora, actually its a mistranslation if I recall rightly; its actually a line about sexual perversions, and as Greek had no word for homosexuality why it is always translated as such is beyond me.

"Thou shalt not be a fag"
"Thou shalt not suck dick"
"Thou shalt not wear fashionable clothes"

Oh, wait, those aren't in the 10 commandments, now, are they? :rolleyes:

(What you were referring to in the old testament is actually in the book of leviticus)
Leviticus is the old testament.

Skaladora, actually its a mistranslation if I recall rightly; its actually a line about sexual perversions, and as Greek had no word for homosexuality why it is always translated as such is beyond me.
Oh, of course, I know there is a lot of debate about the actual meaning of all those translations. I just meant to tell the guy/gal that the line s/he was thinking of wasn't in the ten commandments.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" is in there, though. Tough luck for all those respectable straight men who cheat on their wives.

Skaladora, actually its a mistranslation if I recall rightly; its actually a line about sexual perversions, and as Greek had no word for homosexuality why it is always translated as such is beyond me.
wow.. i did not know that... then why is the catholic church so homophobic when the bible doesn't even state homosexuality is a sin... and isn't that a little prejudice on the church's side then?

Leviticus is the old testament.
I know, but Leviticus isn't the ten commandments.

Leviticus is the old testament.
I was under the impression it was just a portion of the old testament.

wow.. i did not know that... then why is the catholic church so homophobic when the bible doesn't even state homosexuality is a sin... and isn't that a little prejudice on the church's side then?
"A little"? O_O

I know, but Leviticus isn't the ten commandments.
I was making a point about twats like Fred Phelps. I possib;ly should have been a bit clearer about that.

"A little"? O_O
well better safe than srry i dont want any catholic people blowing up at me..

well better safe than srry i dont want any catholic people blowing up at me..
I'm catholic, officially at least, and I think they're really being fucktards about the whole gay issue. And the woman's rights issue. AND the contraception issue. And so on.

Come to think of it, why am I still in that church again?

[QUOTE=Cahnt]I was making a point about twats like Fred Phelps. I possib;ly should have been a bit clearer about that.[/QUth] that guy is a propagandist

I was making a point about twats like Fred Phelps. I possib;ly should have been a bit clearer about that.
Fred Phelps is not even close to being a catholic.

Even our new pope looks reasonable and compassionnate when compared with Phelps.

i think homosexuals have to be some of the bravest people out there... every day they stand up to discrimanation and they keep going. Props to you!

wow.. i did not know that... then why is the catholic church so homophobic when the bible doesn't even state homosexuality is a sin... and isn't that a little prejudice on the church's side then?

The Bible does condemn homosexuality as a sin in the new testament in the book of Romans chapter 1. God created man and woman and sanctioned them to be married and become one. Homosexuality is a sin and goes against the nature of what God created.

The Bible does condemn homosexuality as a sin in the new testament in the book of Romans chapter 1. God created man and woman and sanctioned them to be married and become one. Homosexuality is a sin and goes against the nature of what God created.
:rolleyes: When will you people give up?

The Bible does condemn homosexuality as a sin in the new testament in the book of Romans chapter 1. God created man and woman and sanctioned them to be married and become one. Homosexuality is a sin and goes against the nature of what God created.
Once more, wrong. God made people homosexual, in Romans, possibly as a punishment. Interesting if he hated it so much that he'd make people homosexuals isn't it.

Its wrong, the way women touch each other and stuff. Rubbing on each other kissin. Oh god, um...I have to go do something....;) No, but seriously, theres nothing wrong with it.

Fred Phelps is not even close to being a catholic.

Even our new pope looks reasonable and compassionnate when compared with Phelps.
So does Pol Pot, to be honest.
Surely he's meant to be a baptist, not a Catholic?

:rolleyes: When will you people give up?
When we make the 'Bible' on par with Mein Kampf... :p

I don't quite agree. I agree that nothing is wrong with homosexuals, or homosexuality, but I disagree that something is wrong with homophobes. We all need someone to feel superior to after all.
I never said there is anything wrong with having problems with homosexuality based on morals. HOMOPHOBIA, however, is literally a fear of gays. That's irrational.

When we make the 'Bible' on par with Mein Kampf... :p
Oh, look at that, on some matters it is used as Mein Kampf.... like homosexuality.

NYC, irrationality is not always bad. Love, for example, is irrational.

When we make the 'Bible' on par with Mein Kampf... :p

Mein Kampf will just achieve record sales.

:rolleyes: When will you people give up?

It's a never give up, never surrender attitude for the body of Christ! :D

Besides, the new covenant says that for us to follow the old law now would be a curse, and you know what, i'll be blunt. Jesus never reinstates Leviticus 20:12, or anything similar as a command for us to follow. So really, there's no excuse for trying to kill gay people simply for being gay anymore, the thing you've got to understand, is gay people are people too. And every person has sinned. Jesus came to save all people who would believe in Him, and gay people are people, just people living a sinful lifestyle....but so is the rest of the world, gay or not, when your comparing it to an infinitly just standard like God's, their's nothing increadibly special about being gay honestly. Gay people aren't in a special minority that Jesus commands us to despise in particular, I think the problem is these days being "gay" is almost equivalent in popular opinion with the Homosexual agenda, and their agenda really seems a whole bunch more scary than simply being gay because now their mostly not just sinning, but attacking anybody or anything that says homosexuality is wrong. But in the end, it doesn't matter, as we have been ordered to not be afraid of those who cannot destroy the soul anyway. Besides, how does anyone plan to witness to someone that their too busy hating? I'd think it would be increadibly difficult for me at least to evangelize to someone if I hated them.....

your all heathanistic bastards thats why being a fag or dyke is wrong...its that simpe =D obviously the bible has the most fact supporting it thatn any other religion or philosophy or whatever you would like to believe . Obviously to make things right everyone should live in countries like "conservative land" or "tree hugging hippi land" or "liberal coward land" or even "raging gay land" or "sexually perverted land". clearly that would solve alllll the problems see? then everyone would live where they agreed with everyone else....of course then the stronger countries would attack and crush the weaker ones resulting in genocide most likley...hmmm oh well.

It's a never give up, never surrender attitude for the body of Christ! :D

Besides, the new covenant says that for us to follow the old law now would be a curse, and you know what, i'll be blunt. Jesus never reinstates Leviticus 20:12, or anything similar as a command for us to follow. So really, there's no excuse for trying to kill gay people simply for being gay anymore, the thing you've got to understand, is gay people are people too. And every person has sinned. Jesus came to save all people who would believe in Him, and gay people are people, just people living a sinful lifestyle....but so is the rest of the world, gay or not, when your comparing it to an infinitly just standard like God's. Gay people gay people aren't in a special minority that Jesus commands us to despise in particular, I think the problem is these days being "gay" is almost equivalent in popular opinion with the Homosexual agenda, and their agenda really seems a whole bunch more scary than simply being gay because now their mostly not just sinning, but attacking anybody or anything that says homosexuality is wrong. But in the end, it doesn't matter, as we have been ordered to not be afraid of those who cannot destroy the soul anyway. Besides, how does anyone plan to witness to someone that their too busy hating? I'd think it would be increadibly difficult for me at least to evangelize to someone if I hated them.....
Finally a somewhat reasonable pattern of thought from a Christian

NYC, irrationality is not always bad. Love, for example, is irrational.
I didn't say it always was. In this case though, it usually is.

NYC, irrationality is not always bad. Love, for example, is irrational.
As is gay bashing. I wouldn't compare the two.

Finally a somewhat reasonable pattern of thought from a Christian

The best part is, I can back it up with the Bible too, thank you Biblical evangelism!!! :D

The best part is, I can back it up with the Bible too, thank you Biblical evangelism!!! :D
Don't tell us, tell the Christians.

Don't tell us, tell the Christians.

Well the only Christian comment I remember seeing in this thread was "The bible says it's wrong." And that was a correct comment, I mean, that's all it was, nothing about hatred or killing or anything, I dunno what to tell ya :/.

As is gay bashing. I wouldn't compare the two.
I would, simply for this exercise, as they are both irrational and as far as I am concerned you can say what you want about me and really, I don't actually care.

Theorb, as I said, the Bible never condemns homosexuality.

actually the bible does speak that homosexuality is a sin.....obviously you have read very little of the bible, probably because your a heathen...

Foolish heretic! Don't you realize that God created homosexuals so he could have someone to hate? It's their fault for being gay because they chose to be even though there is no good reason why they would do so. And remember, Hail Bush!

actually the bible does speak that homosexuality is a sin.....obviously you have read very little of the bible, probably because your a heathen...
Some quotes please, in the original, and underline the words for homosexual please. Its a mistranslation of the more geneal "sexual perversion" in the bit most oft-quoted.

or do people elsewhere refer to things they don't like, or think are stupid, as 'gay'?
As in, 'man, that's so gay!'
This happens more in school than anywhere else, possibly cos kids don't really undersand things at that stage, but I'm at university and I know plenty of people who routinely use 'gay' as a synonym for 'stupid'.
So is this just a UK thing? I'm not even gay myself and it really pisses me off, its made me at least vaguely uncomfortable since i was... 13? 14? Something like that... :mad:

actually the bible does speak that homosexuality is a sin.....obviously you have read very little of the bible, probably because your a heathen...
heathen? Dude...I don't think anyone who's playing nationstates lives anywhere around a heath. :p

But seriously, its funny that you know less about the original text of the bible than several atheists around here. Just 'cause your local pastor or whomever happens to study the bible doesn't mean that he's not as norrow minded and uneducated in bible history as many other people. I have a friend who is a priest, so don't you dare tell me about what pastors/preachers/priests take time to learn.

I am personally straight, but my best friend is gay and she is constantly picked on and ridiculed for her prefernences. I don't understand what is wrong with homosexuality.

Nothing. Someday, people will realize that sex isn't important enough to label.

or do people elsewhere refer to things they don't like, or think are stupid, as 'gay'?
As in, 'man, that's so gay!'
This happens more in school than anywhere else, possibly cos kids don't really undersand things at that stage, but I'm at university and I know plenty of people who routinely use 'gay' as a synonym for 'stupid'.
So is this just a UK thing? I'm not even gay myself and it really pisses me off, its made me at least vaguely uncomfortable since i was... 13? 14? Something like that... :mad:

Hell no that's not just UK. It's RAMPANT where I am in the US. I hate it. Its a totally illogical and offensive use of the word.

I would, simply for this exercise, as they are both irrational and as far as I am concerned you can say what you want about me and really, I don't actually care.

Theorb, as I said, the Bible never condemns homosexuality.

I noticed the thing about how Greek doesn't have a concrete word for it, but the OT wasn't written in Greek and it condemns it there, besides, there are Aramic and Hebrew translations of the NT as I understand it that do say "homosexuality" I presume?

actually the bible does speak that homosexuality is a sin.....obviously you have read very little of the bible, probably because your a heathen...


Ok, in accordance with Biblical policy, i've got to point this out, that's a Matthew 7:1 violation, no hard feelings, it just is, I have to warn you :/.

For me and many guys I know, homosexuals ruin the sacred brotherhood.

With women and men it's a chess game of give and take, move and countermove. Since gays have similar relationships as I understand it, it reduces your male-male relationships to this.

This is why the US military is patently against homosexuals in its ranks (read the policy online if you like). You will find this is many armies, particularly if you ask soldiers.

I also personally find it as repulsive as child molestation, it is a disgusting aberration(I am aware some animals do it in certain situations, but some animals also molest their young) of the human drive to reproduce. I think of it as a mental illness, as many countries and cultures do. Men having sexual relations is so counter to how they relate.

Logically, I am aware of many studies showing the relationship between homosexuality and STD rates. How bisexual individuals act as bridges to the heterosexual population. Take into account male propensity for promiscuity with the dangers of anal intercourse and this is understandable.

Homosexual men are also more likely to be child molesters, although this may be due to unequal prosecution.

In Canada gay couples could live common law with all the rights of a married couple. The marriage issue was about acceptance. I believe this acceptance is also meant to include homosexuality as a valid alternative for children. Which will include homosexual sex in sex education for children when they are growing up. So I guess a question that would circumvent all the liberal indoctrination would be: Do you want your children taught homosexual sex education in school?

With women and how they relate, sexual encounters are understandable and have been documented in the past to be far more common in women as compared to men. They are more affectionate with each other but often less loyal to their friends then men. I think tentative bisexuality but not exclusive homosexuality is somewhat acceptable in women.

Being ‘afraid’ of homosexuals in people is due to a few reasonable things: you don’t want them near your children as role models, every new friend you make you worry if he is gay or not (as I would ask the question of women if they would get drunk and pass out at a guy friends house, even if he is a good friend!) and if a guy makes a pass (I had a guy on a bus once try to pick me up, he was drinking and I had to repeatedly tell him to leave me alone and that I would not give him my number, when the bus stopped he wouldn’t get out of my way so I had to put him in his place so to speak) at you will be so disgusted that you may injure him particularly if it is unexpected or he is a friend.

I could go on but almost all the guys I know feel this way, more or less. I am not trying to flame or start an argument, I am just trying to answer the original question in an honest manner.

Saying that all men who dislike homosexuals in this way are homosexuals is ridiculous. These ideas about homosexuals are quite pervasive so how did we all get here if everyone is gay?

I noticed the thing about how Greek doesn't have a concrete word for it, but the OT wasn't written in Greek and it condemns it there, besides, there are Aramic and Hebrew translations of the NT as I understand it that do say "homosexuality" I presume?
Those are translations, its like using the English translations to justify a prejudice.

And I don';t know about the oiginal, but the ones we use are translated from the Greek, usually...

I also personally find it as repulsive as child molestation, it is a disgusting aberration(I am aware some animals do it in certain situations, but some animals also molest their young) of the human drive to reproduce. I think of it as a mental illness, as many countries and cultures do. Men having sexual relations is so counter to how they relate.
Given that 10% or so of men do this, no it isn't.
I am not even going to start on the bullshit about child abuse there: consensual acts between adults are equivalent to raping children because you don't think they're right?

For me and many guys I know, homosexuals ruin the sacred brotherhood.

With women and men it's a chess game of give and take, move and countermove. Since gays have similar relationships as I understand it, it reduces your male-male relationships to this.

This is why the US military is patently against homosexuals in its ranks (read the policy online if you like). You will find this is many armies, particularly if you ask soldiers.

I also personally find it as repulsive as child molestation, it is a disgusting aberration(I am aware some animals do it in certain situations, but some animals also molest their young) of the human drive to reproduce. I think of it as a mental illness, as many countries and cultures do. Men having sexual relations is so counter to how they relate.

Logically, I am aware of many studies showing the relationship between homosexuality and STD rates. How bisexual individuals act as bridges to the heterosexual population. Take into account male propensity for promiscuity with the dangers of anal intercourse and this is understandable.

Homosexual men are also more likely to be child molesters, although this may be due to unequal prosecution.

In Canada gay couples could live common law with all the rights of a married couple. The marriage issue was about acceptance. I believe this acceptance is also meant to include homosexuality as a valid alternative for children. Which will include homosexual sex in sex education for children when they are growing up. So I guess a question that would circumvent all the liberal indoctrination would be: Do you want your children taught homosexual sex education in school?

With women and how they relate, sexual encounters are understandable and have been documented in the past to be far more common in women as compared to men. They are more affectionate with each other but often less loyal to their friends then men. I think tentative bisexuality but not exclusive homosexuality is somewhat acceptable in women.

Being ‘afraid’ of homosexuals in people is due to a few reasonable things: you don’t want them near your children as role models, every new friend you make you worry if he is gay or not (as I would ask the question of women if they would get drunk and pass out at a guy friends house, even if he is a good friend!) and if a guy makes a pass (I had a guy on a bus once try to pick me up, he was drinking and I had to repeatedly tell him to leave me alone and that I would not give him my number, when the bus stopped he wouldn’t get out of my way so I had to put him in his place so to speak) at you will be so disgusted that you may injure him particularly if it is unexpected or he is a friend.

I could go on but almost all the guys I know feel this way, more or less. I am not trying to flame or start an argument, I am just trying to answer the original question in an honest manner.

Saying that all men who dislike homosexuals in this way are homosexuals is ridiculous. These ideas about homosexuals are quite pervasive so how did we all get here if everyone is gay?

SO who wants to pick this one up guys? I'll just make a small start.

So you fear homosexuals because they are 'unclean'? And you think that homosexuality is a choice? Tell me, for a start, could you choose to be attracted to men and stick your penis in another man's anus? I rather suspect not. Do you refute this by saying "Some people cna make the choice"? I hope not, because that means its not a choice anymore, doesn't it?

Unclean? So homosexuals are more unclean? There's so many ways to rip this up that I don't know where to begin. I'll make a nice start and leave the rest open to the rest of the forum. Guess what? Heterosexual sex is very nearly as likely to pass STDs. The whole 'gays have tons of STDs!' is just a layover from several decades ago. Get into the present and get some recent information.

I'd like to sum this up by saying that people like you make me ashamed to be a human.

Given that 10% or so of men do this, no it isn't.
I am not even going to start on the bullshit about child abuse there: consensual acts between adults are equivalent to raping children because you don't think they're right?

The idea is that more than 10% are "homophobic", so not all of them must be homosexual as indicated by one person on this thread. That is the logical fallacy I was referring to.

Perhaps you did no read the post, I am saying there are many activates that animals undertake; it does not mean that those activates must be present in humans as well. I was also speaking about the probability of child molestation based on sexual orientation; this has been worked out in various peer reviewed studies. I answer both because I don't know which citing of child molestation you were referring.

actually the bible does speak that homosexuality is a sin.....obviously you have read very little of the bible, probably because your a heathen...

Maybe a little late, but I'd like to add to this. I've taken several Theology classes, so I -have- read the Bible, and yes, it does say that.

But do you know that the Bible also says to bash the infants of your enemies onto rocks?

The idea is that more than 10% are "homophobic", so not all of them must be homosexual as indicated by one person on this thread. That is the logical fallacy I was referring to.

Perhaps you did no read the post, I am saying there are many activates that animals undertake; it does not mean that those activates must be present in humans as well. I was also speaking about the probability of child molestation based on sexual orientation; this has been worked out in various peer reviewed studies. I answer both because I don't know which citing of child molestation you were referring.
Piffle. You came out with a load of bigotted self righteous crap then stated that consensual acts between adults are equivalent to child abuse.

SO who wants to pick this one up guys? I'll just make a small start.

So you fear homosexuals because they are 'unclean'? And you think that homosexuality is a choice? Tell me, for a start, could you choose to be attracted to men and stick your penis in another man's anus? I rather suspect not. Do you refute this by saying "Some people cna make the choice"? I hope not, because that means its not a choice anymore, doesn't it?

Unclean? So homosexuals are more unclean? There's so many ways to rip this up that I don't know where to begin. I'll make a nice start and leave the rest open to the rest of the forum. Guess what? Heterosexual sex is very nearly as likely to pass STDs. The whole 'gays have tons of STDs!' is just a layover from several decades ago. Get into the present and get some recent information.

I'd like to sum this up by saying that people like you make me ashamed to be a human.

I was not referring to homosexual septic qualities per say but rather STD transmission rates in their population, these are well documented. Anal sex is much more likely to pass blood infections and overall STDs. It depends on which STD you are referring to but anal sex is much more dangerous. This is also well documented. In fact, when you give blood they will ask you questions about this. It is not a layover it is documented fact.

Nice personal insult.

But do you know that the Bible also says to bash the infants of your enemies onto rocks?

Only if you lived almost 2000 years ago and are Jewish :/.

Piffle. You came out with a load of bigotted self righteous crap then stated that consensual acts between adults are equivalent to child abuse.

I like how you change my argument so you can refute it. Sad really.

True, but if you're going to quote the Bible, use the ENTIRE Bible, and not just the parts that support you.

And of that, that was an example of an opposite siding.

The idea is that more than 10% are "homophobic", so not all of them must be homosexual as indicated by one person on this thread. That is the logical fallacy I was referring to.

Perhaps you did no read the post, I am saying there are many activates that animals undertake; it does not mean that those activates must be present in humans as well. I was also speaking about the probability of child molestation based on sexual orientation; this has been worked out in various peer reviewed studies. I answer both because I don't know which citing of child molestation you were referring.

Hmm.
a) Humans are animals too.
b) You have no sources of information to back up your post. You say the point about gay people being more likely to molest children "has been worked out in various peer reviewed studies". Such as?
I'd like to debate this with you if you have some evidence to show us. If not, there's no point this whole thing continuing.

Finally a somewhat reasonable pattern of thought from a Christian

Actually, such "patterns of thought" are common these days. Jerry Falwell has a similar line.

"You're a bunch of sinful perverts because you don't love other people the way I do or the way this millenia-old obsolete text demands that you do, but I'll spare your lives because I'm such a nice, good, and loving Christian."

Nothing "reasonable" about that sort of trash, just an old tactic for disguising bigotry.

to pick on someone because he or she is homo is not good. but you got to understand people have a choice for partner preference. and genetic disposition is a lame excuse. it still is not proven genes causes that. though i hear a homo did change his or her lifestyle, meaning, no genetic

oh and another thing, it is outright disgusting to have sex with the same gender.

I like how you change my argument so you can refute it. Sad really.
I didn't change anything. (Though you do seem to be trying to change your argument since it's attracted some criticism.) You never said a word about queers being more likely to abuse kids in your initial post, just (to reiterate) equated consensual acts between people who are old enough to vote with the rape of children.

For me and many guys I know, homosexuals ruin the sacred brotherhood.

Words fail me - I cannot accurately descirbe how ridiculous this sounds.

This is why the US military is patently against homosexuals in its ranks (read the policy online if you like). You will find this is many armies, particularly if you ask soldiers.

But the US Army, like the US Government is a rather bigoted, hate-filled institution. European armies allow gays.

I also personally find it [homosexuality] as repulsive as child molestation, it is a disgusting aberration

This kind of throwaway comment really REALLY upsets me. How on earth is consensual relations between two loving people be the same as a pervert raping a child? How on earth can that be equally repulsive?

Logically, I am aware of many studies showing the relationship between homosexuality and STD rates. How bisexual individuals act as bridges to the heterosexual population.

This is actually rubbish. Gay men now practice much safer sex than straight people. The reason why stds infections are going up is not because bi people are passing on gay diseases, but because straight people have these diseases already and are engaging in very risky sexual practices.

Homosexual men are also more likely to be child molesters, although this may be due to unequal prosecution.{/QUOTE]

This is just slander.

[QUOTE=Veermania]So I guess a question that would circumvent all the liberal indoctrination would be: Do you want your children taught homosexual sex education in school?

Why not? Its already part of sex education in a number of countries including the UK and Holland.

With women and how they relate, sexual encounters are understandable and have been documented in the past to be far more common in women as compared to men. They are more affectionate with each other but often less loyal to their friends then men. I think tentative bisexuality but not exclusive homosexuality is somewhat acceptable in women.

The only reason people think bisexuality in women is ok is because they think its hot. Your theories are nonsense based I would imagine on a rather warped understanding of how women relate to one another.

Saying that all men who dislike homosexuals in this way are homosexuals is ridiculous.

There is quite a bit of evidence to back up the theory that extreme homophobes are often deeply confused about their sexuality.

to pick on someone because he or she is homo is not good. but you got to understand people have a choice for partner preference. and genetic disposition is a lame excuse. it still is not proven genes causes that. though i hear a homo did change his or her lifestyle, meaning, no genetic

A. Do you think people like having their entire lives possibly ruined due to their sexual preference, either having to be closeted or be shunned by a large portion of society?

B. And it also hasn't been proven that genes DON'T cause it.

Let me just say that I don't have a problem with most of the gay people THEMSELVES. However, I do have a serious problem with the so-called "gay rights" and their "marriages". I wouldn't be so proud of Canada giving marriage rights to gay people. And why are people complaining about gays not being able to be priests? If they think the bible is a bunch of bullcrap anyway, then they obviously have NO business being a priest. As for the military, I don't care at all. They're not going to be in the locker room going "oh, I just want to (insert whatever here)". They're going to be focused on doing their job, just as you are.

Let me say this first: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALITY!

Now the rest: In my mind (I am straight) it is not that homosexuality is wrong, it just seems unnatural. Why would evolution allow for an individual (or as clearly seen in the latest media frenzy of Brokeback Mountain) a population to evole? It is harsh, but look at it this way: If you are a homosexual, Mother Nature and Natural Selection has decided that your genes are of no value to the population, and to insure that you do not go forth and procreate, spreading your tainted genes into the next generation. So she has made it that you only desire to mate with individuals who cannot bare offspring....That hurts me to even type, but it is the cold, Evolution Standpoint.

As I am currently residing in the United States of Jesus....I mean, America, for Creationists, this is God's way of saying you are worthless and your family is not worthy to live on through your children. So, He will make it so you wish to commit a Cardnal Sin, guarneteing your entrance into the Inner Circle of Hell.

I personally am just confused as to how Homosexuality arose. I have nothing against homosexuals (calling them Gay seems so derogatory, probably from a childhood spent listening to peers shout, "Man, this game is Gay!" ) I am just confused....

Hmm.
a) Humans are animals too.
b) You have no sources of information to back up your post. I'd like to debate this with you if you have some evidence to show us. If not, there's no point.


I am a pH.D student in biophysics I am aware of our classification. I was using animal in a colloquial sense. I would say then that other mammals engage in those activities. If you read my post you would realize that I was actually acknowledging that bisexuality is displayed in other organisms, and that even though we are somewhat analogous to other mammals we don't necessarily have to display the same behaviors. Although I do acknowledge that the basis for aberrant behaviors may be in our evolutionary relationship with prior mammals.

I can get it but I am tired today, I'll put what I can up. All peer reviewed of course. You could of course get off your butt and check!

I agree with you though. That was only part of my argument though.

Those are translations, its like using the English translations to justify a prejudice.

And I don';t know about the oiginal, but the ones we use are translated from the Greek, usually...

But when those were translated to English, you didn't have a gay advocacy movement in Europe, and when people translated it to Aramic or Hebrew, (Unless, for all we know, they started out as either of those) what motivation would they of had to make things up? There was no mass gay burning crusade as far as I know which would indicate they might of made it up just to instigate such a thing, nor were there homosexual advocacy groups screaming in the streets about destroying "the homophobes of Judaism" or whatever, and besides, even if those translations were bogus, Matthew 5:27-28 supports that adultery is still considered a sin, so technically speaking, homosexuality is still a sin that way too, because it's be a form of adultery. And as I think someone else brought up in this thread, the NT only mentions the right of marriage between a man and a woman, so whether they get "married" or not legally, Biblically it should still be adultery.

Personally, the reason I'm against homosexuality is because of a study done in the Netherlands (arguably one of the most tolerant in terms of homosexuality in Europe) in 2003. About 54% of the men interviewed said that they'd been, in some way abused (physically, or otherwise) and another 5% went on to say that they'd been raped by spouses or other gay men. It was far worse for lesbians who said that about 90% had suffered similar abuses from spouses (the study, however, didn't produce a rape percentage).
Furthermore, it said that homosexuals are about two times more likely to get into drugs and three times as likely to get into alcohol abuse.

This isn't to say that I hate homosexuals (for a good number of my friends are bi, etc), but I'm deeply sorrowed by the pain that they choose to bring upon themselves. Is it truly so wrong to be against seeing/living amongst people who're in pain?

I didn't change anything. (Though you do seem to be trying to change your argument since it's attracted some criticism.) You never said a word about queers being more likely to abuse kids in your initial post, just (to reiterate) equated consensual acts between people who are old enough to vote with the rape of children.

That is a correlation between the two. It is not an equating. Jesus give it up dude. Take a gander in a stats book for cripes sake.

This isn't to say that I hate homosexuals (for a good number of my friends are bi, etc), but I'm deeply sorrowed by the pain that they choose to bring upon themselves. Is it truly so wrong to be against seeing/living amongst people who're in pain?
It's a terrible thing, but this is probably why they're in pain in the first place.

to pick on someone because he or she is homo is not good. but you got to understand people have a choice for partner preference. and genetic disposition is a lame excuse. it still is not proven genes causes that. though i hear a homo did change his or her lifestyle, meaning, no genetic
Frankly, why should I care whether it's a choice or not? I make my own choices.

But when those were translated to English, you didn't have a gay advocacy movement in Europe, and when people translated it to Aramic or Hebrew, (Unless, for all we know, they started out as either of those) what motivation would they of had to make things up? There was no mass gay burning crusade as far as I know which would indicate they might of made it up just to instigate such a thing, nor were there homosexual advocacy groups screaming in the streets about destroying "the homophobes of Judaism" or whatever, and besides, even if those translations were bogus, Matthew 5:27-28 supports that adultery is still considered a sin, so technically speaking, homosexuality is still a sin that way too, because it's be a form of adultery. And as I think someone else brought up in this thread, the NT only mentions the right of marriage between a man and a woman, so whether they get "married" or not legally, Biblically it should still be adultery.
Actually adultery is only when one is married so it isn't...

More to the point, homosexuality was pretty widespread back then. The Romans were at it. The Greeks were at it. And the Jews didn't want to be at it. Pretty simple. And that assumes, something on which I am unsure, that there is an Aramaic or Hebrew wor for homosexuality.

True, but if you're going to quote the Bible, use the ENTIRE Bible, and not just the parts that support you.

And of that, that was an example of an opposite siding.

By using the entire Bible, that is the justification for me not going up to the nearest homosexual and stoning them in accordance with Leviticus. Because the NT tells us that all who are under the law are under a curse so to speak, and that Jesus effectively saved us from the Law, we are no longer under Biblical order to stone every homosexual we come across.

That is a correlation between the two. It is not an equating. Jesus give it up dude. Take a gander in a stats book for cripes sake.
Actually that's the reverse, heterosexual males are the most likely by far to abuse children.

For me and many guys I know, homosexuals ruin the sacred brotherhood.

With women and men it's a chess game of give and take, move and countermove. Since gays have similar relationships as I understand it, it reduces your male-male relationships to this.

This is why the US military is patently against homosexuals in its ranks (read the policy online if you like). You will find this is many armies, particularly if you ask soldiers.

So gay men should just make themselves convenient to you, so that you can continue your "sacred brotherhood" without any worry about having to deal with those stupid undesirables?

I also personally find it as repulsive as child molestation

Effectively non-consensual. Gay sex is not, usually.

it is a disgusting aberration(I am aware some animals do it in certain situations, but some animals also molest their young) of the human drive to reproduce.

Good. We need more "disgusting aberrations of the human drive to reproduce," because the "human drive to reproduce" is driving the species off a cliff through overpopulation.

I think of it as a mental illness, as many countries and cultures do. Men having sexual relations is so counter to how they relate.

So all men are like you? No men can relate any differently than the manner you consider "normal"? By what standard can you consider heterosexual male "bonding" as normal, anyway?

Logically, I am aware of many studies showing the relationship between homosexuality and STD rates. How bisexual individuals act as bridges to the heterosexual population. Take into account male propensity for promiscuity with the dangers of anal intercourse and this is understandable.

Neither promiscuity nor unsafe sex are inherent in the gay population, nor are they unique to it.

In Canada gay couples could live common law with all the rights of a married couple. The marriage issue was about acceptance. I believe this acceptance is also meant to include homosexuality as a valid alternative for children. Which will include homosexual sex in sex education for children when they are growing up. So I guess a question that would circumvent all the liberal indoctrination would be: Do you want your children taught homosexual sex education in school?

Yes, I do. Most definitely; without hesitation. All children should be taught about homosexuality alongside heterosexuality, and taught to see both as legitimate expressions of human sexuality and love.

With women and how they relate, sexual encounters are understandable and have been documented in the past to be far more common in women as compared to men. They are more affectionate with each other but often less loyal to their friends then men. I think tentative bisexuality but not exclusive homosexuality is somewhat acceptable in women.

Again, the assumption that "normality" in men is somehow defined by the exclusively straight male.

Being ‘afraid’ of homosexuals in people is due to a few reasonable things: you don’t want them near your children as role models,

Unreasonable.

every new friend you make you worry if he is gay or not (as I would ask the question of women if they would get drunk and pass out at a guy friends house, even if he is a good friend!)

Unreasonable.

and if a guy makes a pass (I had a guy on a bus once try to pick me up, he was drinking and I had to repeatedly tell him to leave me alone and that I would not give him my number, when the bus stopped he wouldn’t get out of my way so I had to put him in his place so to speak) at you will be so disgusted that you may injure him particularly if it is unexpected or he is a friend.

Unreasonable. Should gay men be disgusted if straight women make a pass at them?

Sica']Words fail me - I cannot accurately descirbe how ridiculous this sounds.



But the US Army, like the US Government is a rather bigoted, hate-filled institution. European armies allow gays.



This kind of throwaway comment really REALLY upsets me. How on earth is consensual relations between two loving people be the same as a pervert raping a child? How on earth can that be equally repulsive?



This is actually rubbish. Gay men now practice much safer sex than straight people. The reason why stds infections are going up is not because bi people are passing on gay diseases, but because straight people have these diseases already and are engaging in very risky sexual practices.

[QUOTE=Veermania]Homosexual men are also more likely to be child molesters, although this may be due to unequal prosecution.{/QUOTE]

This is just slander.



Why not? Its already part of sex education in a number of countries including the UK and Holland.



The only reason people think bisexuality in women is ok is because they think its hot. Your theories are nonsense based I would imagine on a rather warped understanding of how women relate to one another.



There is quite a bit of evidence to back up the theory that extreme homophobes are often deeply confused about their sexuality.

I disagree with you on the stats stuff so I'll have to get back to you with peer reviewed proof. I will have to investigate how the homosexuals in those militaries are making out and the sex education in the schools.

The child molestation part is just a personal opinion, no accounting for taste.

I feel I have a rather comprehensive understanding of how females relate to each other. But this is subjective.

I must say I would like to see the evidence for homophobe gay men. Besides Hollywood movies.

So gay men should just make themselves convenient to you, so that you can continue your "sacred brotherhood" without any worry about having to deal with those stupid undesirables?...
We need more "disgusting aberrations of the human drive to reproduce," because the "human drive to reproduce" is driving the species off a cliff through overpopulation...
So all men are like you? No men can relate any differently than the manner you consider "normal"? By what standard can you consider heterosexual male "bonding" as normal, anyway?
...Neither promiscuity nor unsafe sex are inherent in the gay population, nor are they unique to it.
...Yes, I do. Most definitely; without hesitation. All children should be taught about homosexuality alongside heterosexuality, and taught to see both as legitimate expressions of human sexuality and love.
...Again, the assumption that "normality" in men is somehow defined by the exclusively straight male.
...Unreasonable. Should gay men be disgusted if straight women make a pass at them?

I wish I'd thought of all that... well done

"For me and many guys I know, homosexuals ruin the sacred brotherhood."

This suggests to me that either you or the homosexual men you know are insufficiently developed, as emotional beings, to redirect sexual urges away from other forms of pleasant interaction. And frankly, I hear enough women complain that it's impossible to have a platonic friendship with a straight man that, while your claim may be unassailably true, it is meaningless. Further, your need to interact in a different way with men than you do with women suggests that you, at least, are underdeveloped-- In this case, unable to keep lust out of a cross-sex friendship-- while leaving open the possibility that the fags you know are as well.

"With women and men it's a chess game of give and take, move and countermove. Since gays have similar relationships as I understand it, it reduces your male-male relationships to this. "

Are you talking about romantic/sexual interactions? If so, I find your analogy to simple competive antagonism disturbing. I'm glad to have never been your girlfriend. If you're talking about all male-to-female interaction, then you are, at best, only correct in specific cases. And I generally disdain the people involved in such antagonisms as sexist assholes.

"This is why the US military is patently against homosexuals in its ranks (read the policy online if you like). You will find this is many armies, particularly if you ask soldiers."

Appeals to authority only work if the authority you choose has some credibility in the realm of discussion. If this were a debate about effective means of brainwashing, building an artificial family unit, or, obviously, martial matters, the US military would be an excellent choice. Unfortunately, this is a debate about private, somewhat exclusive emotional and physical interaction, and the military's stance on that is one of simple avoidance. After all, if you ensure that your soldiers aren't sexually attracted to one another then you greatly decrease the difficulty of keeping them from interacting sexually.

"I also personally find it as repulsive as child molestation, it is a disgusting aberration(I am aware some animals do it in certain situations, but some animals also molest their young) of the human drive to reproduce."

This makes me gladder that I've never been your girlfriend. I imagine that anyone who sees sex as solely or primarily a path to reproduction probably isn't much fun to have it with. Your focus is wrong, and it wouldn't take much more than the first week of a human sexuality course to teach you why.

"Logically, I am aware of many studies showing the relationship between homosexuality and STD rates. How bisexual individuals act as bridges to the heterosexual population. Take into account male propensity for promiscuity with the dangers of anal intercourse and this is understandable."

Here you have a valid point. Anal sex is riskier than oral, vaginal, manual, axillary, and most other variants of sex. I mention this because I want to counteract the supposition that I'm arguing to validate my dogmatic convictions. It's a rhetorical tactic that has no real place in formal debate, but it's generally very useful in garnering support from a third-party audience. And besides, you're guilty of excessive generalization; there are other ways for gay men to sexually interact.

"In Canada gay couples could live common law with all the rights of a married couple. The marriage issue was about acceptance. I believe this acceptance is also meant to include homosexuality as a valid alternative for children. Which will include homosexual sex in sex education for children when they are growing up. So I guess a question that would circumvent all the liberal indoctrination would be: Do you want your children taught homosexual sex education in school?"

I'm going to offer a tentative "yes" until you explain exactly what "homosexual sex education" is, how it differs from, I assume, heterosexual sex education, and why current sex-ed courses are particularly heterosexual. This is not a baiting question, mind you; I avoided all that silly sex-ed nonsense by virtue of curiosity, medical textbooks, and parents who managed to overcome their embarrassment enough to answer my questions.

"With women and how they relate, sexual encounters are understandable and have been documented in the past to be far more common in women as compared to men. They are more affectionate with each other but often less loyal to their friends then men. I think tentative bisexuality but not exclusive homosexuality is somewhat acceptable in women."

And I think that your opinion is motivated more by American society's cultural fixation on female bisexuality than any rational approach. From childhood, American females are taught from a very young age to find the female body attractive.

I'll finish later, and we'll have a rollicking go of it, yes?

Actually adultery is only when one is married so it isn't...

More to the point, homosexuality was pretty widespread back then. The Romans were at it. The Greeks were at it. And the Jews didn't want to be at it. Pretty simple. And that assumes, something on which I am unsure, that there is an Aramaic or Hebrew wor for homosexuality.

Well then I can only assume that the Bible meant homosexuality, and besides that, Leviticus 18:22 says it's detestable, the Law said not to do it, but even while being free from the Law, that doesn't stop it from being detestable, we don't have to do anything or be under the law for it to be detestable. Besides, it's not especially a huge deal, I mean a homosexual person is just like any other person without Christ, it's not some accursed class of sinners that can't be evangelized to. I mean, technically speaking, there's no much difference as far as I know honestly between evangelizing to a homosexual as opposed to a non-homosexual, I just don't see it.

Good post. I'm not too good with the formatting though.

Your argument is valid, so is mine. They differ on assumptions and subjective assessment of value in the weights of the final equation.

One point of contention though, I was speaking of promiscuity and STD rates in the population. I am speaking in Gaussian distribution (also non-normal) rather than labels. I am sure there are monogamous homosexuals, albeit probably less.

I know my masculinity is threatened by gay people.

Oh wait. I actually have no masculinity to speak of.

I have an asshole though. Do I win something?
:D

Furthermore, it said that homosexuals are about two times more likely to get into drugs and three times as likely to get into alcohol abuse.

This isn't to say that I hate homosexuals (for a good number of my friends are bi, etc), but I'm deeply sorrowed by the pain that they choose to bring upon themselves. Is it truly so wrong to be against seeing/living amongst people who're in pain?
You don't wish to live around people in pain (all gays are not in pain btw), yet don't you perpetuate that by shunning them? Furthermore, have you ever considered that it is the negative attitude many societies exhibit towards gay people that might cause them to abuse substances at a higher rate, and not being gay itself? I think if you had a group of homosexuals living in a society that was very accepting and friendly you'd find a lower rate of abuse then those living in a hostile one.

The Romans weren't at is much as the Greeks were: Greece was a very misogynistic society back then, so they screwed men instead. The Romans laid a trial for gay bashers the world over by turning their nose up at that sort of thing.

I am sure there are monogamous homosexuals, albeit probably less.
Untrue. There are plenty of monogamous homosexuals. They're more likely to stay tied down because finding another partner is trickier than it is for people who fancy members of the opposite sex.

I am personally straight, but my best friend is gay and she is constantly picked on and ridiculed for her prefernences. I don't understand what is wrong with homosexuality.

Nothing.

And anyone who says otherwise is a twat.

I am a 'sexist', and am kind of an asshole. But I’m probably one of the best people you would ever meet, if that makes sense? Although I must state I have taken women’s studies courses and took part in reasonable discussions without being murdered or castrated. I suppose a good label for me would be 'traditional'.

I don't know how developed I am, but score high on self actualization and on 'maleness' (7/7 on male, 2.3/7 on female, threshold is 4; on the standard test).

Females tend to let me get away with a lot as I think I make them partial. It should be fun over the internet without all my testosterone induced pheromones affecting your judgment.

I didn't explain enough about my 'adversarial' stuff; it is hard to explain, I don't mean try to maneuver her in bed or something like that. I mean it in an evolutionary biology type of way, men are adversarial with each other also but it is different.

On no! You are a nurture (not nature) person. God help me.

I don’t see sex as reproduction, it is that way. I see sex as a superfun happyland.

Hey! Wait a minute! You retroactively rejected me as a boyfriend? What the hell! I’ve never been judged unworthy in a past hypothetical relationship.

I’m not sure if I would have liked to have been your boyfriend in the past. But after considering your post and extrapolating your likely ideological configuration and personality I have come up with an all encompassing question to resolve this:

How big are your boobs? Oh wait how big were they at the time we would have been dating?

Got to go. I will return to the thread this weekend.

There's nothing wrong with gays. The only people that have anything wrong with them are the ones who condemn them for a simple preferance.

I've spoke with someone who will not be named, but he is devoted to his belief that everyone should be straight.

I asked him a question to test his belief. It was that since he loves women so much now, would he still feel that way if he were instantainiously changed into a woman (by his god or something). Amazingly, he said he wouldn't. He said he would love men since he had to.

A lot of people have the same reaction when I simply ask them that question.. All it is now for the anti-gays, is that we're "supposed" to be one way, and this just doesn't seem right.

Well, I am a straight male, and I have to say I personally think what whoever it was said about most straight men thinking certainly does not apply to me.

and what the hell is the "sacred brotherhood", because I certainly wasnt inducted into this secret rather paranoid grouping.

Right. I have to admit I find the idea of gay male sex actually physically repellant. But that is just me. I hate the male body, but just becuase I dont want to do something, or dont like something doesnt mean others shouldnt. I find bananas repellant. Doesnt mean I should prevent others having them, or be offended when someone offers me one. Gay men and women should be free to practice their sexual preference consentually. Doesnt affect me in any way.

And what this about having to worry about being hit on by a gay guy? Why? The chances are that you are not sending magical beams that will make gay guys hit on you (unlike many guys seem the think. I have heard the whole worry about being hit on thing many a time. Dunno why). And if one does, or says they find you attractive whats the problem? Just say you are not gay, and take it as a compliment. Hell, my (male) friend who is bisexual has frequently told me I have a nice ass. Slightly embarrasing yes, but nothing to get worried about. Sexuality is not contagious either. You will not "catch" homosexuality. And as far as I know, gay people are not trying to turn everyone into gays (unlike I have seen claimed by some rather loony right wing groups).

And on homosexual sex education, yes it should be taught. People should be taught about safe, responsible sex no matter who it will be with. Sex education is not about promoting anything. I never had the teacher in sex education going "You should all go out and start fucking", even in terms of straight sex. And in fact all preventing teachers talking about homosexual sex (like section 28 did (still does?) in Britain) only leads to confusion and worries among people who dont know who to talk to about sexual feelings which even if heterosexual are confusing enough among teenagers.

I am sure there are monogamous homosexuals, albeit probably less.

Gay or straight, men are men. Some go out and fuck anything that moves, some are only interested in forming solid monogamous relationships and there are some who just aren't all that interested in sex at all. The percentage of monogamous straight males to monogamous gay men is most likely about the same.

And as to the whole anal sex thing, not all gay men are into that. A lot of guys are only into oral, and some are only into watching each other jack off. It's not what you do (or don't do) that makes you gay. It's who you are attracted to.

i started this whole forum thingy and read all of it. Maybe its just me but the bible seems more like guidelines to adapt rather than actually doing some of the stuff in it. Its not to say that the ten commandements shouldn't be followed but i think it should be followed within reason: one of them says honor thy mother and father. well if your mother and father are mudering rapists then i wouldn't exactly honor them but hey that's just my view. after all i'm not even christian im an atheist. please don't shoot me. :sniper:

just b4 anyone says i can't talk about the bible because im not christian i would like to say i was raised as a christian and made my choice to be an atheist.

I only find two things wrong with being gay:

1. I have to bring up the 'natural order of things' and annoy everyone pro-gay, but since there are so many people who are straight we're not facing much of a problem.

2. I am religous so I think its wrong from that viewpoint, but if its legalized I'm not going to go to any protest marches, you have the choice to go to church or not so why not have the choice to marry gay or not?

As you can see I even find fault with my own idea's of why its bad, such a tricky subject. A lot of people I know are either gay or Bi, if they want to, good for them, I've made my choice on that matter.

Guy->:fluffle:<-Guy Guy->:fluffle:<-Girl Girl->:fluffle:<-Girl

I got no problem with gays and lesbians!
The only problem I have is the public display of their love for each other, but then again, I cant stand seeing anyone (gay or straight) making out right in front of me in public places. And stop pushing it on everyone too, please!!!!! It really gets annoying seeing people pushing homosexuality as the new thing to be. Ok, great you are gay! I'm straight! Big whoop! Some people act like "If you are proud to be straight, you are bigot and a homophobe!"

i started this whole forum thingy and read all of it. Maybe its just me but the bible seems more like guidelines to adapt rather than actually doing some of the stuff in it. Its not to say that the ten commandements shouldn't be followed but i think it should be followed within reason: one of them says honor thy mother and father. well if your mother and father are mudering rapists then i wouldn't exactly honor them but hey that's just my view. after all i'm not even christian im an atheist. please don't shoot me. :sniper:

Dnt worry I wont shoot at you!
It even says in the Bible, in the New testament, that it is morally wrong to be a homosexual, but it is an even BIGGER sin if you hate or inflict harm on them.

"wow.. i did not know that... then why is the catholic church so homophobic when the bible doesn't even state homosexuality is a sin... and isn't that a little prejudice on the church's side then?"

:eek: ... ... ... ...:headbang:

Two words: Sodom and Gomorrah. They're in Genesis 18-19. The Bible makes it very clear what's going on in there:

Genesis 19:1-5
"The two angels arrived in Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 'My lords,' he said, 'please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.'
"'No,' they answered, 'we will spend the night in the square.'
"But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. he prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'"
And here is what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah:
Genesis 19:23-29
"By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities--and also the vegetation in the land. But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
"So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived."

And I bet you're still wondering why Paul didn't explicitly say "homosexuality is bad" and say "sexual immorality" instead? Do you have any idea how many sexual immoral things people have invented over centuries?:fluffle: Paul knew people wouldn't stop inventing ways to corrupt sex, so he didn't give a list of sexual immoralites (because people would just come up with something not on that list and say "hey, Paul never said I couldn't!")

I only find two things wrong with being gay:

1. I have to bring up the 'natural order of things' and annoy everyone pro-gay, but since there are so many people who are straight we're not facing much of a problem.
It isn't unnatural, though: this behaviour occurs in most of the lower mammals.

Why would a true Christian even bother with the Old Testament?

I've heard other people say that Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for being inhospitable to the angels and that the problem with the sex is that it was forced, not that it was homosexual. Aren't angels supposedly asexual anway?

um.. who is that adressed to? if its to me i make informed descions i may be 13 years old but im not stupid

Why would a true Christian even bother with the Old Testament?


I've often wondered the same. Isnt that the part where they had 12 wives, seduced their fathers and sold/traded their daughters?

I've often wondered the same. Isnt that the part where they had 12 wives, seduced their fathers and sold/traded their daughters?
It utterly contradicts the NT, and more specifically, Jesus. I think it to be redundant.

So wait, g-d thinks its better for us to rape virgins than have sex with men?

What a sick fuck!

Oh and by the way all non-biased (i.e. not xtian) historians believe that Sodom and Gomorrah's "sin" was inhospitability not "sexual immorality". Laws of Hospitality were ironclad at the time and a host really would have let a member of his family be seriously injured in order to protect a guest (who was sacred not because he was angelic but because he was a guest). Just one of those historical tidbits that make your outdated bigoted beliefs look silly.

I've heard other people say that Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for being inhospitable to the angels and that the problem with the sex is that it was forced, not that it was homosexual. Aren't angels supposedly asexual anway?
Apparently they can assume either gender in terms of appearance. Though yes, they are asexual and of no gender.

I've heard other people say that Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for being inhospitable to the angels and that the problem with the sex is that it was forced, not that it was homosexual. Aren't angels supposedly asexual anway?

from what I remember of what was said of the gay part,
It was said that Sodom and Gomorrah had "men going to lay with other men as if with a women." I cant think of what else that could mean but homosexuality. Pardon me if that is not the exact quote from the Bible but its close.

Okay, thanks:)

Yeah, i have heard that quote before.

Happy to help!
:)

to pick on someone because he or she is homo is not good. but you got to understand people have a choice for partner preference. and genetic disposition is a lame excuse. it still is not proven genes causes that. though i hear a homo did change his or her lifestyle, meaning, no genetic

This one again. Back to the "ex-gay cure" thing... and people who point to the testimonials that you can read on line about ex-gays who were cured through Jesus.

OK... lets do some math. As of about 7pm tomorrow there will be 6,500,000,000 people on this planet. Conservative estimates say that 10% of the population is homosexual. That leaves us with 650,000,000 homosexuals in the world. They often claim hundreds of testimonials... I will give you that there are an even 1000 to keep the math simple, although I am not at all sure there are that many. So... 1000 testimonials of ex-gays out of a population of 650,000,000 gays means that ONE in six hundred and fifty thousand gays have been converted. Given that reputable follow up studies of supposed ex-gay cures show a less than 1% actual success rate (and even that is doubtful, but again, for sake of easy math I will GIVE you a whole 1%) then what that means is that the actual "cures" that can be claimed that anyone should even start to believe is 1 in sixty five million?

The odds of being hit by an asteroid are 1 in 20,000. I would think that bragging about a cure that is 32,500 times less likely than being hit by an asteroid is a bit much, wouldn't you?

And I wonder if the one you heard about was either bisexual and decided it was easier to hide his homosexual side, or perhaps was brainwashed by some religious nut and in three years is going to BURST back out of the closet or commit suicide?

Once more, wrong. God made people homosexual, in Romans, possibly as a punishment. Interesting if he hated it so much that he'd make people homosexuals isn't it.
There's no such thing as god.

"Why would a true Christian even bother with the Old Testament?

It utterly contradicts the NT, and more specifically, Jesus. I think it to be redundant.

Oh and by the way all non-biased (i.e. not xtian) historians believe that Sodom and Gomorrah's "sin" was inhospitability not "sexual immorality". Laws of Hospitality were ironclad at the time and a host really would have let a member of his family be seriously injured in order to protect a guest (who was sacred not because he was angelic but because he was a guest). Just one of those historical tidbits that make your outdated bigoted beliefs look silly."

1 & 2. There isn't a true Christian that doesn't read the Old Testament. The Old Testament is Act 1, the New Testament is Act 2. Does the second act of a play contradict the first because new stuff happens and old stuff changes? That makes as much sense as saying history books are contradictory because at first they say George Washington was elected president then say hundreds of years later, Reagon was elected President.

3. Inhospitiable?... Let's not forget, the angels went to Sodom. Not Gomorrah. And they were both destroyed, along with the ENTIRE surrounding area! Last time I checked, God has pretty good aim with his judgements. It isn't explicitly said that S&G were destroyed because of the homosexuality there, because it is blindly obvious that's what was going on there.

4. Yes, it is necessary to say this too. If God had created homosexuality, Christians would be at the forefront to support it. The Bible would also say, explicitly, "Men can sleep with men, women and sleep with women, and they can interchange that as they like."

1 & 2. There isn't a true Christian that doesn't read the Old Testament. The Old Testament is Act 1, the New Testament is Act 2. Does the second act of a play contradict the first because new stuff happens and old stuff changes? That makes as much sense as saying history books are contradictory because at first they say George Washington was elected president then say hundreds of years later, Reagon was elected President.

The OT is nothing but a history book so far as Christianity is concerned. I don't really care for tenuous links that some try to evoke between OT and NT. In that regard, the OT is useful as a piece of lore.

I've often wondered the same. Isnt that the part where they had 12 wives, seduced their fathers and sold/traded their daughters?
In response to this quote and the one after it about the OT:

What happened is that because Jesus came to fulfill the law, a new covenant of sorts was established, many of the terms got changed. Adultery was changed to looking with lust, forgive instead of eye for an eye, no more sacrificial laws, (I.E. huge part of Leviticus) etc. etc. for awhile, and in the end, we see that because of Christ, we are no longer under the Law, so should not try to gain salvation by following the law, because salvation comes from the new covenant in Christ. However, the Law was not evil, this is a very important point, you can't therefore just ignore the OT as heathenous or something. And on your other points, what happened was that there were laws concerning multiple wives in the OT that had to do with slave wives and well, i'll be frank, it was somewhat complicated. Sometimes people also seduced fathers into doing things like with Noah, but that didn't make it right, and the selling/trading daughters thing had standards behind it, the OT legalized slavery, but only in very specific terms, nothing like old plantation slavery at all, it was really relatively respectable. If you want I could take the time to look everything up and find it all Biblically, it just takes a bit of time.

In response to this quote and the one after it about the OT:

What happened is that because Jesus came to fulfill the law, a new covenant of sorts was established, many of the terms got changed. Adultery was changed to looking with lust, forgive instead of eye for an eye, no more sacrificial laws, (I.E. huge part of Leviticus) etc. etc. for awhile, and in the end, we see that because of Christ, we are no longer under the Law, so should not try to gain salvation by following the law, because salvation comes from the new covenant in Christ. However, the Law was not evil, this is a very important point, you can't therefore just ignore the OT as heathenous or something. And on your other points, what happened was that there were laws concerning multiple wives in the OT that had to do with slave wives and well, i'll be frank, it was somewhat complicated. Sometimes people also seduced fathers into doing things like with Noah, but that didn't make it right, and the selling/trading daughters thing had standards behind it, the OT legalized slavery, but only in very specific terms, nothing like old plantation slavery at all, it was really relatively respectable. If you want I could take the time to look everything up and find it all Biblically, it just takes a bit of time.

Yes, legalised slavery, relatively respectable. :rolleyes:

Ignoring the OT, no you can't, that is true. But the NT is the set of rules to follow, as outlined by Jesus, and not his apostles who may have twisted his words. I give the OT little more value than a history book.

I am a Christian. I go to a Christian church. I go to a Christian youth group, bible study, and so on. I am actually born again, God gave me the Holy Spirit, and I read the Bible everyday.

When I say Christians still read the Old Testament, I should know, considering I am a Christian. Considering you are not, maybe you should become a Christian for a while and see if we really think of the Old Testament as a peice of history only. And I mean a sincere Christian, not one of those fakers that just goes to church every week, pays tithes, shakes hands with everyone, then goes home to beat their spouse and kids.

I am a Christian. I go to a Christian church. I go to a Christian youth group, bible study, and so on. I am actually born again, God gave me the Holy Spirit, and I read the Bible everyday.

When I say Christians still read the Old Testament, I should know, considering I am a Christian. Considering you are not, maybe you should become a Christian for a while and see if we really think of the Old Testament as a peice of history only. And I mean a sincere Christian, not one of those fakers that just goes to church every week, pays tithes, shakes hands with everyone, then goes home to beat their spouse and kids.
I am a Christian (agnostic as to God's nature), and I am sorry, but I am unwilling to ascribe any greater meaning to the OT than a history book. Your denomination is one of hundreds. Ask one group of Christians what they think and it doubtlessly will differ to your group's. You have no monopoly on the "Truth."

You have no monopoly on the "Truth."

Then tell me why you have a monopoly on the "truth."

Then tell me why you have a monopoly on the "truth."
I never said so to begin with.

I do, however, read a lot around the Bible to see how it evolved. So based on what I've read and my own opinions, I adhere to my belief.

Yes, legalised slavery, relatively respectable. :rolleyes:

Ignoring the OT, no you can't, that is true. But the NT is the set of rules to follow, as outlined by Jesus, and not his apostles who may have twisted his words. I give the OT little more value than a history book.

Well you are right, it is historical :D. But the thing is, not all of the OT was the Law so to speak, so when it was saying stuff like "this is right and this is wrong", you can't just discredit it immedietly, it's things like what we are supposed to do that make up the Law :/. I mean, sin never stopped being sin and all. And besides, without the OT, it makes it harder to evangelise to Jews, if you read the gospels, bits of the OT get quoted all in there to show how Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies needed, so if you don't know a little about it you can't prove Christ's messiah-ship as easily as far as I know.

Well you are right, it is historical :D. But the thing is, not all of the OT was the Law so to speak, so when it was saying stuff like "this is right and this is wrong", you can't just discredit it immedietly, it's things like what we are supposed to do that make up the Law :/. I mean, sin never stopped being sin and all. And besides, without the OT, it makes it harder to evangelise to Jews, if you read the gospels, bits of the OT get quoted all in there to show how Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies needed, so if you don't know a little about it you can't prove Christ's messiah-ship as easily as far as I know.
Yes, so much is true. That is why I say historical piece. ;) It has it's validity, insofar as establishing Jesus's credentials, yet it is overridden in effect by the NT.

Then if you don't have a monopoly on the truth, and I don't have a monopoly on the truth, then we are both wrong or both right. And considering the issue of whether the Bible is history or something more can't really have a "happy medium" between the two, one of us actually does have a monopoly on the truth.

EDIT: *smacks forehead* wow I did it again. We were talking about the same thing, it's just we were just using different words. Turns out I believe pretty much what you do about the Old Testament. Sorry about that.

However, the Law was not evil, this is a very important point, you can't therefore just ignore the OT as heathenous or something. And on your other points, what happened was that there were laws concerning multiple wives in the OT that had to do with slave wives and well, i'll be frank, it was somewhat complicated.

Theres nothing complicated about multiple wives and slave wives. It seems more like something Satan would have or condone instead of the supposed loving God.


and the selling/trading daughters thing had standards behind it, the OT legalized slavery, but only in very specific terms, nothing like old plantation slavery at all, it was really relatively respectable.

Apparently you and I have two different dictionaries. *looks up "Respectable"* ........yep seems we do.

The OT is misleading and contradictory. While it is only part of the Bible, it still has some very controversial things. Whether or not people only choose to follow the NT or not, it tells stories of things that I just cant quite get behind. What are we gonna do if God changes the laws again?

Then if you don't have a monopoly on the truth, and I don't have a monopoly on the truth, then we are both wrong or both right. And considering the issue of whether the Bible is history or something more can't really have a "happy medium" between the two, one of us actually does have a monopoly on the truth.
Yes, and far be it from me to dispute that monopolist being you. :rolleyes:

I'm a faggot... I am proud... and there's nothing wrong with it...

Theres nothing complicated about multiple wives and slave wives. It seems more like something Satan would have or condone instead of the supposed loving God.




Apparently you and I have two different dictionaries. *looks up "Respectable"* ........yep seems we do.

The OT is misleading and contradictory. While it is only part of the Bible, it still has some very controversial things. Whether or not people only choose to follow the NT or not, it tells stories of things that I just cant quite get behind. What are we gonna do if God changes the laws again?

I don't see how it's particularily Satanic in nature, as far as I know there's Biblical rules that concerned it but I think they may of changed or who knows, I might just only be thinking of when things went wrong, but as for today, no old-school Mormonism please, 1 man to 1 woman :/. Besides, I know how brutal and horrible slavery has and continues to look. But you don't have to beat slaves and treat them like cattle to have a slavery system, the OT featured plenty of guidlines concerning proper treatment of slaves and foreginers to the effect of "no racism, no beating them a bazillion times, give them breaks, set them free on certain conditions..." it's a bit long, but the point is, it is absolutly nothing like the horrible slave systems you see from the Deep South and in those African countries today and the diamond mines. Besides, in the NT, we are commanded to not become slaves anyway, and if we are slaves somehow to start with, we should gain our freedom if we can, though not while being angry about being a slave. I don't see why Jesus would need to come and make a 3rd covenant, it looks like everything is done to guarentee us eternal salvation anyway. I mean, He said it was finished.....

I'm a faggot... I am proud... and there's nothing wrong with it...

Considering we've been talking about the Christian view of things, let's try evolution, which says that sex is used for reproduction:

Anal sex: without a condom, usually results in intestinal parasites. No rerproduction going on.

Oral: no reproduction.

Watching their partner masterbate: still no reproduction.

Yes, there's nothing wrong it, considering it's against the Bible and doesn't even fit into evolution. (sarcasm)

Besides, in the NT, we are commanded to not become slaves anyway, and if we are slaves somehow to start with, we should gain our freedom if we can, though not while being angry about being a slave. I don't see why Jesus would need to come and make a 3rd covenant, it looks like everything is done to guarentee us eternal salvation anyway. I mean, He said it was finished.....
Servants of God. Yet that in no way means one can be a slave to man. Some people are born to lead, true. Yet that still makes slavery no more justifiable.

Considering we've been talking about the Christian view of things, let's try evolution, which says that sex is used for reproduction:

Anal sex: without a condom, usually results in intestinal parasites. No rerproduction going on.

Oral: no reproduction.

Watching their partner masterbate: still no reproduction.

Yes, there's nothing wrong it, considering it's against the Bible and doesn't even fit into evolution. (sarcasm)
How do bigots fit into evolution?

How do bigots fit into evolution?

Nice comeback. Comeback when you have something intelligent, not insulting and rude to say.

I don't see how it's particularily Satanic in nature, as far as I know there's Biblical rules that concerned it but I think they may of changed or who knows, I might just only be thinking of when things went wrong, but as for today, no old-school Mormonism please, 1 man to 1 woman :/. Besides, I know how brutal and horrible slavery has and continues to look. But you don't have to beat slaves and treat them like cattle to have a slavery system, the OT featured plenty of guidlines concerning proper treatment of slaves and foreginers to the effect of "no racism, no beating them a bazillion times, give them breaks, set them free on certain conditions..." it's a bit long, but the point is, it is absolutly nothing like the horrible slave systems you see from the Deep South and in those African countries today and the diamond mines. Besides, in the NT, we are commanded to not become slaves anyway, and if we are slaves somehow to start with, we should gain our freedom if we can, though not while being angry about being a slave. I don't see why Jesus would need to come and make a 3rd covenant, it looks like everything is done to guarentee us eternal salvation anyway. I mean, He said it was finished.....

I didnt say it was Satanic. I said that something as foul as slave wives seems like something Lucy would approve of instead of God.

"good guy" vs "bad guy" traits

Nice comeback. Comeback when you have something intelligent, not insulting and rude to say.
Take your own advice. Bigotry is hardly the hallmark of evolution.

Nice comeback. Comeback when you have something intelligent, not insulting and rude to say.When several species of mammals exhibit homosexual traits, how can it be unnatural?

If some trait or other makes no sense to you, how can you possibly condemn it by saying it "goes against evolution"?

When people doesn't believe in your god(s), why do you assume you have the right to force your beliefs on them?

When marriage originally was a trade contract, what gives you the right to monopolise it as something "holy"?

When one of the biggest threats to human life is over population, how can you possibly claim homosexuality is a negative trait?

I'm a faggot... I am proud... and there's nothing wrong with it...
Welcome to the club, buddy!

Here, have a rainbow-chocolate-chips cookie *hands cookie jar*

Welcome to the club, buddy!

Here, have a rainbow-chocolate-chips cookie *hands cookie jar*
*Takes the whole jar and scoffs them all* :)

When several species of mammals exhibit homosexual traits, how can it be unnatural?

If some trait or other makes no sense to you, how can you possibly condemn it by saying it "goes against evolution"?

*snip*

When one of the biggest threats to human life is over population, how can you possibly claim homosexuality is a negative trait?
In fact, it could easily be argued that homosexuality constitutes nature's and evolution's answer to overpopulation.

It makes more sense than making the whole species gradually sterile to avoid overpopulation.

*Takes the whole jar and scoffs them all* :)
*Takes out another rainbow-cookie jar, and munches on one, looking unconcerned*

Suicide.

That's what's wrong with homosexuality. Too much suicide, depression, and hopelessness.

*Takes out another rainbow-cookie jar, and munches on one, looking unconcerned*
Do you own a cookie factory or something? :p

In fact, it could easily be argued that homosexuality constitutes nature's and evolution's answer to overpopulation.

It makes more sense than making the whole species gradually sterile to avoid overpopulation.

But not overconsumption.

Suicide.

That's what's wrong with homosexuality. Too much suicide, depression, and hopelessness.
Actually, the suicide, depression, and hopelessness are caused by prejudice, not homosexuality.

Do you own a cookie factory or something? :p
Nah, but cookies are on my monthly sweets budget.

You don't wish to live around people in pain (all gays are not in pain btw), yet don't you perpetuate that by shunning them? Furthermore, have you ever considered that it is the negative attitude many societies exhibit towards gay people that might cause them to abuse substances at a higher rate, and not being gay itself? I think if you had a group of homosexuals living in a society that was very accepting and friendly you'd find a lower rate of abuse then those living in a hostile one.

Firstly, I never once said that I wanted to sever myself from people in pain (to do so, I would find myself locked away forever in some monastery, attic, or other dark hole- but that would defeat the purpose, seeing as how I'd have my own emotional pain; ergo, I could never escape). My original comment is that I don't like people getting hurt because of this, when they don't have to be hurting.

Secondly, on the matter of societal influences, you seem to have 'conveniently' overlooked that fact that I had made it perfectly clear that this study was done in the Netherlands, and that it is one of the most tolerant coutnries in Europe when it comes to homosexuality. The increased substance abuse, rape, spousal abuse, and the additional information that many of the spouses have great infidelity (on average, each person 'seeing' 7 people outside of their marriage), makes me think that the Netherland's social standing toward them have nothing to do with it.

Secondly, on the matter of societal influences, you seem to have 'conveniently' overlooked that fact that I had made it perfectly clear that this study was done in the Netherlands, and that it is one of the most tolerant coutnries in Europe when it comes to homosexuality. The increased substance abuse, rape, spousal abuse, and the additional information that many of the spouses have great infidelity (on average, each person 'seeing' 7 people outside of their marriage), makes me think that the Netherland's social standing toward them have nothing to do with it.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you have a gay boy right in front of you who never took any drugs, never drank enough to be inhebriated, never raped, abused, or cheated on his boyfriend.

Even in a very open place, such as Netherlands or Quebec(most open-minded province of Canada on this matter) there still are a lot of prejudice.

Gays are more often than not trying to escape that prejudiced, intolerant world by drowning their problems into alcohol or drugs. Abuse then comes as a symptom of the substance abuse. This abuse brings more problems to drown in alcohol or drugs, and the circle continues.

Actually, the suicide, depression, and hopelessness are caused by prejudice, not homosexuality.

I know the cause, but it's still a problem of homosexuality. And, indeed, that's my main fault I find with the personalities of those homosexuals I know. They'd be perfectly fine to be around if they didn't make my manic-depression fits look like skips through daisy fields.

I never intended to imply that all gay people have done the aforementioned (however, kudos to you for not doing them, nevertheless). I simply stated that according to the study, these are the results- love them, or hate them, this is what was gathered.

I know the cause, but it's still a problem of homosexuality. And, indeed, that's my main fault I find with the personalities of those homosexuals I know. They'd be perfectly fine to be around if they didn't make my manic-depression fits look like skips through daisy fields.
I am gay, and I get annoyed by some gay people. They can be really difficult to handle.

I know the cause, but it's still a problem of homosexuality. And, indeed, that's my main fault I find with the personalities of those homosexuals I know. They'd be perfectly fine to be around if they didn't make my manic-depression fits look like skips through daisy fields.
If homosexuality isn't the cause, then it's not homosexuality's problem. It's the prejudiced society's problem. The more prejudiced it is, the less (mentally AND physically)healthy homosexuals are.

You really need to hang out with some gays who are out of the closet and done with their acceptation of themselves. You'll find them quite agreeable company.

You really need to hang out with some gays who are out of the closet and done with their acceptation of themselves. You'll find them quite agreeable company.
Some are indeed. Others just turn it into a quest for self-glorification.

I never intended to imply that all gay people have done the aforementioned (however, kudos to you for not doing them, nevertheless). I simply stated that according to the study, these are the results- love them, or hate them, this is what was gathered.

Like I said, even in so-called open-minded places, there still is a lot of prejudice lying around. It's true here in Canada, and it's true in the Netherlands. However, an homosexual who grows in a completely healthy surrounding with little to no intolerance is no more likely to develop substance abuse problems than any straight person. I'm the living proof of that, as are many of my gay and lesbian friends.

Now, having a similar study done in several countries, and comparing the health and abuse results according to the country and its level of acceptance would really be enlightening. I'm ready to put my hand in the fire that such a study would show those abuse statistics are proportionately higher as intolerance grows in societies.

And, let's not ignore the fact that methodology greatly affects the outcome of any given study. I'd be interested to read all about their criterions for interviewing, and the geographical locations of those who answered their surveys.

I never intended to imply that all gay people have done the aforementioned (however, kudos to you for not doing them, nevertheless). I simply stated that according to the study, these are the results- love them, or hate them, this is what was gathered.You missed the point.
You're talking about symptoms. Not causes.

Sweden is likewise one of the best countries in the world for homosexuals. And yet, roughly 1/3rd of them have been the victims of completely unprovoked assaults, most of them violent.

Many openly gay/bi people will try to hide the fact. Myself included. It's not exactly fun to have everyone talking behind your back, making inane jokes or asking idiotic questions they should've gotten over as teenagers, simply because you were foolish enough to have yor boyfriend pick you up after work & in a moment of thoughtless indiscretion gave him a kiss.

Many people can't handle the pressure. Many people, even in socoeties where it's supposedly acceptable to be something other than hetero, will never admit they're not straight. They'll rather get married & avoid the peer pressure... And live their life in utter misery, dreaming of a life they dare not live.

That is what causes the symptoms. Homosexuality in it self, is no different from any other sexual orientation. Scorn, prejudice, discrimination & social isolation tends to fuck up people. Victims of mobbing in public schools often never get over it. Try being such a victim for your entire life, without any hope of ever changing the situation, unless you pretend to be someone you're not. That fucks people up.

Making it even less acceptable & instituting discriminatory laws against the unfortunate ones, won't do anything to help remove the causes of the symptoms you describe - on the contrary.

Some are indeed. Others just turn it into a quest for self-glorification.
Well, of course, we all know that I'm not one of such individuals.


*shifty eyes*

Well, of course, we all know that I'm not one of such individuals.


*shifty eyes*
Or so you say :p

You missed the point.
You're talking about symptoms. Not causes.

Sweden is likewise one of the best countries in the world for homosexuals. And yet, roughly 1/3rd of them have been the victims of completely unprovoked assaults, most of them violent.

Many openly gay/bi people will try to hide the fact. Myself included. It's not exactly fun to have everyone talking behind your back, making inane jokes or asking idiotic questions they should've gotten over as teenagers, simply because you were foolish enough to have yor boyfriend pick you up after work & in a moment of thoughtless indiscretion gave him a kiss.

Many people can't handle the pressure. Many people, even in socoeties where it's supposedly acceptable to be something other than hetero, will never admit they're not straight. They'll rather get married & avoid the peer pressure... And live their life in utter misery, dreaming of a life they dare not live.

That is what causes the symptoms. Homosexuality in it self, is no different from any other sexual orientation. Scorn, prejudice, discrimination & social isolation tends to fuck up people. Victims of mobbing in public schools often never get over it. Try being such a victim for your entire life, without any hope of ever changing the situation, unless you pretend to be someone you're not. That fucks people up.

Making it even less acceptable & instituting discriminatory laws against the unfortunate ones, won't do anything to help remove the causes of the symptoms you describe - on the contrary.
You summed it up better than I could.

*snip*
Indeed. Although I've never experienced outright discrimination, people rarely go beyond mere tolerance of homosexuality to actual acceptance. That doesn't make life any easier.

It's yucky! Jeebus doesn't like it!

It's yucky! Jeebus doesn't like it!
Don't be ridiculous. A 33 years old guy, unmarried, never had a girlfriend, hangs around with a crown composed of only 12 other guys?

Jeebus likes it. Obviously. Anyone who says otherwise is just blind to the obvious.

If homosexuality isn't the cause, then it's not homosexuality's problem. It's the prejudiced society's problem. The more prejudiced it is, the less (mentally AND physically)healthy homosexuals are.

You really need to hang out with some gays who are out of the closet and done with their acceptation of themselves. You'll find them quite agreeable company.

Alright, you win this round.

You are right about that last bit, unfortunately most of those are A. Yuppies, B. College students, C. Unknown. Though, as I've understood it and more or less had it explained to me the majority of times I've asked, it's almost a rite of passage to gain/surmount such dark thoughts/actions/eventualities...

I'm also very scared of yuppies, or maybe just younger people in general.

Don't be ridiculous. A 33 years old guy, unmarried, never had a girlfriend, hangs around with a crown composed of only 12 other guys?

Jeebus likes it. Obviously. Anyone who says otherwise is just blind to the obvious.

:eek:

NO WAI!

This reminds me of a cartoon published in a student newspaper commenting on the whole cartoon controversy issue. It had Jesus kissing Mohammed in a "Tunnel of Tolerance"

Ok, first let me start of by saying I am 100% a devout Catholic so right off the bat that my religion plays a good deal in my beliefs.

Second, I am not a homophobe. Some of my best friends and definetly some of my most loyal friends are gay, and around 1/4 of them are catholic. Catholic does not = homophobe.

My personal beliefs are that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual in itself. It is not a desease, it is not a sickness of the mind, and it is not made up. It is who you are, what God made you, and therefore you are beutiful. However, I am still against Gay Marriage for the simple reason that Marriage was an institution set out by RELIGIONS not governments and it was meants to make a culture more "fertile" and create population growth.

There is nothing wrong with two men being in love. However it is not the Governments place to give out a marriage in the first place. I believe Marriage should be left souly to the churches and seperate institutions, and states should souly give out civil unions to hetero-sexuals, homo-sexuals, and everyone in-between. If an atheist than feels that they are being wronged against because they don't want to get married in a church, then go to a JP.

Let seperate churches make their own laws on gay marriage, and keep government out of it.

Let seperate churches make their own laws on gay marriage, and keep government out of it.
On this I'll agree. It's a matter for churches to settle, not governments. You cannot force them to marry gay people.

Ok, first let me start of by saying I am 100% a devout Catholic so right off the bat that my religion plays a good deal in my beliefs.

Second, I am not a homophobe. Some of my best friends and definetly some of my most loyal friends are gay, and around 1/4 of them are catholic. Catholic does not = homophobe.

My personal beliefs are that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual in itself. It is not a desease, it is not a sickness of the mind, and it is not made up. It is who you are, what God made you, and therefore you are beutiful. However, I am still against Gay Marriage for the simple reason that Marriage was an institution set out by RELIGIONS not governments and it was meants to make a culture more "fertile" and create population growth.

There is nothing wrong with two men being in love. However it is not the Governments place to give out a marriage in the first place. I believe Marriage should be left souly to the churches and seperate institutions, and states should souly give out civil unions to hetero-sexuals, homo-sexuals, and everyone in-between. If an atheist than feels that they are being wronged against because they don't want to get married in a church, then go to a JP.

Let seperate churches make their own laws on gay marriage, and keep government out of it.
I could kiss you, but that'd be kinda gay :p

Seriously, please be as vocal as you can be on that position. Perhaps between the two of us we'll finally beat some sense into the prejudiced, bureaucratic, monolithic institution the catholic church has become.

I could kiss you, but that'd be kinda gay :p

Seriously, please be as vocal as you can be on that position. Perhaps between the two of us we'll finally beat some sense into the prejudiced, bureaucratic, monolithic institution the catholic church has become.
Not just the Catholic Church...most religious organisations. Either that, or they're actually selling faith. And funnily enough, of all of them I still like Catholicism the most.

On this I'll agree. It's a matter for churches to settle, not governments. You cannot force them to marry gay people.
No one said they should. Here in Canada, we have the best of both worlds, I guess. We have same-sex civil marriage, and at the same time dispositions protect Churche's rights to marry or refuse to marry whomever they may want to marry or refuse to marry.

It's very much like divorce: remarrying yourself(in a civil marriage) after a divorce is perfectly legal, yet Churches refuses to marry someone for a 2nd time after a divorce(no religious marriage for them).

No one said they should. Here in Canada, we have the best of both worlds, I guess. We have same-sex civil marriage, and at the same time dispositions protect Churche's rights to marry or refuse to marry whomever they may want to marry or refuse to marry.

It's very much like divorce: remarrying yourself(in a civil marriage) after a divorce is perfectly legal, yet Churches refuses to marry someone for a 2nd time after a divorce(no religious marriage for them).
Yep. And all the better. That way no one treads on the Church's toes, and civil rights are further promoted.

I am still against Gay Marriage for the simple reason that Marriage was an institution set out by RELIGIONS not governments and it was meants to make a culture more "fertile" and create population growth.Nope. Marriage is a concept hijacked by religion. Your god wasn't invented when people thought up marriage. That said, the atheist in me agrees with you. I'll never marry, because I'd be associating it with religion & that would cheapen it for me.There is nothing wrong with two men being in love. However it is not the Governments place to give out a marriage in the first place. I believe Marriage should be left souly to the churches and seperate institutions, and states should souly give out civil unions to hetero-sexuals, homo-sexuals, and everyone in-between. If an atheist than feels that they are being wronged against because they don't want to get married in a church, then go to a JP.

Let seperate churches make their own laws on gay marriage, and keep government out of it.Other than the "law" bit, I wholeheartedly agree. Let the churches have the M-word. They've already taken it over in the mind of the public, so why not?
Unions should be legal constructs. Churches can perform unrelated & meaningless marriage ceremonies for whomever they bloody well please & we can all go about our business.

*snip*

Again, this is exactly what Canada has done, except we still kept the word "marriage" for civil marriage. I don't see the point in changing the word just to please a couple of fundamentalists. Besides, there ARE Churches willing to bless and perform religious marriage ceremonies. I personally know of two such organisations.

Again, this is exactly what Canada has done, except we still kept the word "marriage" for civil marriage. I don't see the point in changing the word just to please a couple of fundamentalists. Besides, there ARE Churches willing to bless and perform religious marriage ceremonies. I personally know of two such organisations.I'm well aware of that. I was trying to say that I agree that the M-word has become associated with religion, not anti-homo religion, just religion in general.

I don't honestly care overly much. The Canadian model is fine by me. Still, I wouldn't mind the religions monopolised the word, because according to most people I've had the (usually dis-) pleasure of discussing this with, Marriage is already something religious in itself.

Again, this is exactly what Canada has done, except we still kept the word "marriage" for civil marriage. I don't see the point in changing the word just to please a couple of fundamentalists. Besides, there ARE Churches willing to bless and perform religious marriage ceremonies. I personally know of two such organisations.

As you can see from my previous post I would not consider myself a fundamentalist. However, I also don't like the "M" word in government. Other than that (and i never thought i would say this) I agree with Canada.

Wow. That felt weird. :)

Secondly, on the matter of societal influences, you seem to have 'conveniently' overlooked that fact that I had made it perfectly clear that this study was done in the Netherlands, and that it is one of the most tolerant coutnries in Europe when it comes to homosexuality. The increased substance abuse, rape, spousal abuse, and the additional information that many of the spouses have great infidelity (on average, each person 'seeing' 7 people outside of their marriage), makes me think that the Netherland's social standing toward them have nothing to do with it.

Actually, they use drugs etc because they're Dutch, not because they're gay. ;)

You especially don't want to go to the south of the Netherlands this week, unless you like booze.

theres nothing wrong with homosexuality there just something wrong with ignorant people

Genesis 19:1-5 (KJV)
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.



Deuteronomy 23:17 (KJV)
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.


1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (KJV)
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


1 Timothy 1:9-10 (KJV)
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for homosexuals, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;


Romans 1:21-31 (NKJV)
because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man -- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful.


Jude 1:6-7 (NKJV)
And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Revelation 21:8 (NKJV)
But for the cowardly, unbelieving, sinners, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."


GOD'S LAW IS CLEAR — THE PENALTY SEVERE!!!

funnny how god wrote none of that stuff

<Snip>Hehe, sick puppies abounds.

The Bible wasn't written by any god, neither in part nor in whole.

2/3 people on the planet believes you're a misguided fool & a victim of your imagination. If majority rules, let's ban your religion now.

According to Islam, Jesus was no son of God. What you wortship is blasphemy & you have strayed from the true path.

According to me, you can keep believing whatever the hell you want, as long as you don't force others to abide by your beliefs.

Can you prove you're not simply suffering from a mental illness? Violent crazy people belong in hospitals. You want to kill people for something you read in a book.

Genesis 19:1-5 (KJV)
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.



Deuteronomy 23:17 (KJV)
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.


1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (KJV)
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


1 Timothy 1:9-10 (KJV)
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for homosexuals, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;


Romans 1:21-31 (NKJV)
because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man -- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful.


Jude 1:6-7 (NKJV)
And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Revelation 21:8 (NKJV)
But for the cowardly, unbelieving, sinners, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

If God thinks same-sex love is wrong, then God is not worth listening to, and His code of morality should be ignored.

GOD'S LAW IS CLEAR — THE PENALTY SEVERE!!!

Gee, what a clever rhyme. It must be true if it rhymes. :rolleyes: Just like back in the '80s when "Turn or Burn!" was the chant du jour.

Either way, I think I'll take my chances. After all, it's my "soul," and I can do with it as I wish.

I'm a Chrisitan myself, and while I consider homosexual sex to be a sin, its just as bad as any other sin and since I have no right to judge sins (IE say 'X person is bad becuase they do Y sin') it means I dont treat them any diffrently than anyone else. I do however oppose gay marriage for two reasons, one political and one relgious. Firstly on the religious reason, its essentially glorifying a sin, in my mind, which isnt at all good. Secondly, on politcial grounds, if it really was just about practicality and giving the nessecary legal rights to people who live together, then why is the same kind of legislation not considered for other groups in the same situation, such as elderly spinsters living together or university students or any numbers of others who co habit and could have use of the legal benefits of this system.

Considering we've been talking about the Christian view of things, let's try evolution, which says that sex is used for reproduction:

Anal sex: without a condom, usually results in intestinal parasites. No rerproduction going on.

Oral: no reproduction.

Watching their partner masterbate: still no reproduction.

Yes, there's nothing wrong it, considering it's against the Bible and doesn't even fit into evolution. (sarcasm)
Oral sex between people of the opposite sex, any kind of fetishism and safe sex are also against nature in those terms: are these acts of hideous evil as well? It isn't like the bulk of heterosexual rumpy pumpy is intended to cause pregnancy any more than what goes on between queers is, after all. This is why the American Religious Right and their smirking puppet in the White House are gearing up to overturn Roe vs Wade, I'd imagine.

I'm a Chrisitan myself, and while I consider homosexual sex to be a sin, its just as bad as any other sin and since I have no right to judge sins (IE say 'X person is bad becuase they do Y sin') it means I dont treat them any diffrently than anyone else. I do however oppose gay marriage for two reasons, one political and one relgious. Firstly on the religious reason, its essentially glorifying a sin, in my mind, which isnt at all good. Secondly, on politcial grounds, if it really was just about practicality and giving the nessecary legal rights to people who live together, then why is the same kind of legislation not considered for other groups in the same situation, such as elderly spinsters living together or university students or any numbers of others who co habit and could have use of the legal benefits of this system.Hmm.. Yes, tax exemption & legal churches are a bad idea. Christianity is nothing but idolatry, wotshipping the false son of God. We shouldn't encourage that by making it possible for people to live out their cultish ways. It is a Sin after all, and is rightly punishable by death. We're a nice lot though. No reason to kill people over it - God will do that.

Your political reason is ridiculous. Either couples need alternative legal standing, or they don't. If they don't, abolish all marriage laws. If they do, stop discriminating against some couples.

Laws exist - hell, your nation exists - to serve the all individuals that comprise it. If the laws doesn't work, you change them. That is what they are for. They aren't there to serve your personal grudge against some of your fellows - just like they aren't there to serve your fellows' grudges against you.

If college students need special legal standing for things like guardianship, taxes, wills, medical emergencies & the like, then grant it to them. Why have laws for the sole purpose of making life miserable for your fellow citizens? Such things create social scisms, and are do nothing to preserve your society.

Hehe, sick puppies abounds.

The Bible wasn't written by any god, neither in part nor in whole.

2/3 people on the planet believes you're a misguided fool & a victim of your imagination. If majority rules, let's ban your religion now.

According to Islam, Jesus was no son of God. What you wortship is blasphemy & you have strayed from the true path.

According to me, you can keep believing whatever the hell you want, as long as you don't force others to abide by your beliefs.

Can you prove you're not simply suffering from a mental illness? Violent crazy people belong in hospitals. You want to kill people for something you read in a book.

He's joking. If you look at his profile (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=482942) you'll find three posts: that one, a joke post about the UK and another where he admits to being gay himself.