NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do so many Christians, "Christians," and other persons attack homosexuals so much?

I know of three view points on homosexuality: total sinfullness, problem which leads to sin, and no sin.

Total sinfullness is obvious: it is a sin to be gay.
No sin is also obvious: it is in no way a sin to be gay.

But what about the view that homosexuality being a problem which leads to sin? So few people have considered this possibility, especially in Christian circles. This belief is that homosexuals have a problem the same way some people have clinical depression. It is developed, but there are possibly some genetic factors that make it possible for someone to have a greater risk of being gay. Acting on the desires of homosexuality is sinful the same way one who has depression sins when s/he commits suicide. The problem lead to sin, but it was not sin in itself.

I find it very frustrating that so many Christians and "Christians" reject this and adopt a "Kill them all!" stance when they claim to be loving individuals. We ought to help homosexuals overcome their problem, not condemn them.

"Love the sinner; hate the sin!"

Any thoughts?

http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/8531.jpg

Why do so many Christians, "Christians," and other persons attack homosexuals so much?

I know of three view points on homosexuality: total sinfullness, problem which leads to sin, and no sin.

Total sinfullness is obvious: it is a sin to be gay.
No sin is also obvious: it is in no way a sin to be gay.

But what about the view that homosexuality being a problem which leads to sin? So few people have considered this possibility, especially in Christian circles. This belief is that homosexuals have a problem the same way some people have clinical depression. It is developed, but there are possibly some genetic factors that make it possible for someone to have a greater risk of being gay. Acting on the desires of homosexuality is sinful the same way one who has depression sins when s/he commits suicide. The problem lead to sin, but it was not sin in itself.

I find it very frustrating that so many Christians and "Christians" reject this and adopt a "Kill them all!" stance when they claim to be loving individuals. We ought to help homosexuals overcome their problem, not condemn them.

"Love the sinner; hate the sin!"

Any thoughts?

Because they're religious nut-jobs? Actually, in regards to homosexuality I think most religious types are. There's nout wrong with homosexuality, no matter what some dusty, controversial book tells you.

There are very few people who adopt a "kill 'em all!" stance when it comes to homosexuals.

"Although sexual conversion is still attempted by some psychiatrists, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders more than 25 years ago. The American Psychological Association maintains that there is no evidence that conversion therapy works.

In fact, the association says such therapy may do more harm than good by condemning patients to guilt, loneliness and depression, self-loathing, denial of sexuality, sham marriages and, in some cases, suicide attempts."
http://www.skeptictank.org/janut2.htm

STOP HELPING!!

There are very few people who adopt a "kill 'em all!" stance when it comes to homosexuals.

I disagree. 90% of the persons at my church adopt that view. 9% are heathens so it doesn't really matter what they believe when discussing the Christian view of homosexuality. 1% agree with me: 8 persons. This breakdown is reflected across churches in the US with few exceptions according to various surveys. Sorry I don't have any at my finger tips.

But what about the view that homosexuality being a problem which leads to sin? So few people have considered this possibility, especially in Christian circles. This belief is that homosexuals have a problem the same way some people have clinical depression. It is developed, but there are possibly some genetic factors that make it possible for someone to have a greater risk of being gay. Acting on the desires of homosexuality is sinful the same way one who has depression sins when s/he commits suicide. The problem lead to sin, but it was not sin in itself.

Depression? "Risk?" Gee, so I'm not just hell-bent and twisted sinner, I have a disease now, too?

Well, fuck you.

My mother's church has a married lesbian minister.

If homosexuality leads to depression, it's only because so many people in America don't tolerate it.

Arguments about 'homosexuality lead to sin' are extremely self serving.

'If you're gay, I'm going to be extremely hostile toward you, causing you to be depressed. Therefore, homosexuality causes depression'.

--

By the way, if you say gay sex is immoral, according to the bible? Well, if you have sex, and it's not strictly for the purpose of procreation, or if you masturbate, at all, you're equally sinful, according to the bible. You can't condemn gay people without equally condemning yourself, if you're 99% of Christians who are anti-gay.

"Although sexual conversion is still attempted by some psychiatrists, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders more than 25 years ago. The American Psychological Association maintains that there is no evidence that conversion therapy works.

In fact, the association says such therapy may do more harm than good by condemning patients to guilt, loneliness and depression, self-loathing, denial of sexuality, sham marriages and, in some cases, suicide attempts."
http://www.skeptictank.org/janut2.htm

STOP HELPING!!

Why should that change anything? Does the APA (is this the correct abbreviation?) dictate morality? If they refuse to view homoexuality as a problem, does that mean it isn't? I don't mean to get into a fight, but just because a group of persons come together and say something, doesn't mean it's true. And it doesn't matter if they are experts or "experts" in the field. Too many times, even in the Church, persons have let agendas and opinions get in the way of truth.

But I do agree, forcing someone to "convert" to a different orientation is wrong and harmful. The homo/bisexual has to want to "convert."

There is nothing wrong in homosexuality, it's not a disease nor a problem to overcome. So your question is meaningless.

Depression? "Risk?" Gee, so I'm not just hell-bent and twisted sinner, I have a disease now, too?

Well, fuck you.

The whole medicalizing of social problems seems to be a disturbing trend really.

Depression? "Risk?" Gee, so I'm not just hell-bent and twisted sinner, I have a disease now, too?

Well, fuck you.

I'm gay.

I believe homosexuality as an act is a sin, i don't really know for sure about the mindset. But that being said it is a sin like all others. it is no different from lying, pride, gluttony, divorce, drinking etc. So I don't believe that gays are bad people, they are just people. For any christian, jew, muslims, hinduist(not sure of the correct term ther) or so on to say other wise, would be for them to betray their faith and become hypocrits.

I'm gay.

PLOT TWIST!

*cough* Sorry....had to do it...

Oh BTW..forgot to say this...Its not a disease or psychological disorder. Just a lifestyle.

Why should that change anything? Does the APA (is this the correct abbreviation?) dictate morality?

No, they dictate what is considered a disease or not, and homosexuality is a disease in the same way heterosexuality is. Ie, not at all.

And, since when is homosexuality a morality issue? How am I immoral for being gay?

If they refuse to view homoexuality as a problem, does that mean it isn't?

No, homosexuality is not a problem, period. Not because someone says so, but because it simply isn't.

But I do agree, forcing someone to "convert" to a different orientation is wrong and harmful. The homo/bisexual has to want to "convert."

And will still fail. "Conversion" is not just impossible, but is rejected by the medical and psychological communities as very harmful indeed.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. I still don't know why some people are wired that way, but I have known enough to know it isn't a choice. It's just how you are. Asking someone to stop being gay is like asking someone to stop being straight. Even if they're twisted up enough to stop responding when they find someone attractive, finding them attractive, having the desire, is still there. As real as it ever was.

Deal with it.

I'm gay.

Fuck you, still. Gay or not, implying or claiming my sexuality is a disease earned you that. You wouldn't be the first self-loathing fag/dyke I've met.

The people who we should be trying to help and convert are not homosexuals but christians.

homosexuals are honest with themselves and do not deny the natural and healthy things that their minds and bodies tell them to do.

christians try to stop themselves doing the things their minds and bodies want them to do, and much worse; they try to stop others doing it.

christians also talk to an invisible man in the sky, and their favourite book is one obsessed with murder, torture, repression and magic tricks.

who you gonna trust?

Sam thinks....

Homosexuals are Gay. I have no problems with them being gay.

'nuff said.

The people who we should be trying to help and convert are not homosexuals but christians.

homosexuals are honest with themselves and do not deny the natural and healthy things that their minds and bodies tell them to do.

christians try to stop themselves doing the things their minds and bodies want them to do, and much worse; they try to stop others doing it.

christians also talk to an invisible man in the sky, and their favourite book is one obsessed with murder, torture, repression and magic tricks.

who you gonna trust?

Wait...don't attack christians because they beleive different. it is about as bad as us attacking homosexuals for being gay..its just not fair to do so. Just let people be who they are.

Oh BTW..forgot to say this...Its not a disease or psychological disorder. Just a lifestyle.

homosexuality is not a disease, its not a psychological disorder...

AND ITS NOT A LIFESTYLE!

homosexuality is a SEXUALITY. get over it.

I'm gay.

The take it literally and go get some Sex with Fass.

Those moderate Christians who accept people as they are, I accept as they are. Easy.
The minority (in my experience) who don't accept people as they are...well, it's their Hell, they can burn in it.

Wait...don't attack christians because they beleive different. it is about as bad as us attacking homosexuals for being gay..its just not fair to do so. Just let people be who they are.

If someone tells me that I am living an evil and immoral life, and barracks me in the street saying I will burn in hell, as well as publishing millions of copies that say i should not be allowed to sleep with another man...

i have a right to attack them... its called an argument.

christianity is a point of view, and can therefore be challenged.

homosexuality is a fact, and therefore cannot be.

The people who we should be trying to help and convert are not homosexuals but christians.

homosexuals are honest with themselves and do not deny the natural and healthy things that their minds and bodies tell them to do.

christians try to stop themselves doing the things their minds and bodies want them to do, and much worse; they try to stop others doing it.

christians also talk to an invisible man in the sky, and their favourite book is one obsessed with murder, torture, repression and magic tricks.

who you gonna trust?

Well said :)

homosexuality is not a disease, its not a psychological disorder...

AND ITS NOT A LIFESTYLE!

homosexuality is a SEXUALITY. get over it.


Perhaps what i am thinking of is different from what you assume i am thinking? I see a lifestyle as being one of choice. Now i know that many homosexuals are born gay, or however it is said, but i know quite a few that have made the decision to be such a way. Now don't think that because i said it was a lifestyle, that i meant it in a bad way. I don't. I love gay people, ya know?(im not gay, but i love everyone)hell my 56 yr old grandmother is a lesbian..she straight up told me that she prefered her way..not that she was born that way..but ya know its whatever. Whatever a person does with their life is none of anyone else's business and the least we can do is respect their choices

Wait...don't attack christians because they beleive different. it is about as bad as us attacking homosexuals for being gay..its just not fair to do so. Just let people be who they are.

Well, I don't attack christians who keep their believe to themsleves, several of them are among my best friends. But I do attack (in a non-violent way, of course) christian who attack or judge other people, because of their sexuality or anything similar. I also attack christian who try to impose their religion on us.

They are free to believe in the invisible man in the sky, in the giant pink floating gnu or whatever, I don't care. As long as they don't insult/attack people in name of that.

If someone tells me that I am living an evil and immoral life, and barracks me in the street saying I will burn in hell, as well as publishing millions of copies that say i should not be allowed to sleep with another man...

i have a right to attack them... its called an argument.

christianity is a point of view, and can therefore be challenged.

homosexuality is a fact, and therefore cannot be.


Well thats what i was trying to say. Christians shouldn't go around yelling all that crap. its uncalled for. And you no right to "attack me". I have done nothing wrong. I just hate the double standard that if I believe and preach Christ then i am a bad person, and then if you go around bashing me then you are standing up for gay rights. Thats not fair! now i will admit horrible things have been done in the name of christianity, but does that make it right to try and get revenge or something? Whats the saying? umm two wrongs don't make a right.

Why should that change anything? Does the APA (is this the correct abbreviation?) dictate morality? If they refuse to view homoexuality as a problem, does that mean it isn't? I don't mean to get into a fight, but just because a group of persons come together and say something, doesn't mean it's true. And it doesn't matter if they are experts or "experts" in the field. Too many times, even in the Church, persons have let agendas and opinions get in the way of truth.

But I do agree, forcing someone to "convert" to a different orientation is wrong and harmful. The homo/bisexual has to want to "convert."
That is assuming that it is possible to convert (which it isn't).

Now i know that many homosexuals are born gay

I'm not sure someone is born gay. Sexuality is (nearly always) discovered during adolescence, and all your childhood life probably has a huge role in it. As far as I know, nothing is sure about that anyway.

But it doesn't change much. Be it from birth, during the childhood, during the adolescence, or anything else, they are what they are, love who they love, and we have absolute no right to judge them on that.

but i know quite a few that have made the decision to be such a way.

You can decide to be gay or straight ? Well, you can decide with who you try to have relationship, but you can't decide who you're attracted too... I really don't understand how it's possible.

Whatever a person does with their life is none of anyone else's business and the least we can do is respect their choices

As long as they don't harm anyone, yes. And gays definitely do not harm anyone.

Anyone who says something that someone else is doing is a sin isn't worth taking seriously in the first place.

Anyone who says something that someone else is doing is a sin isn't worth taking seriously in the first place.

You sure? Jocabia mentioned sins others commited a lot (Hence "Bible and Pride" topic), but I imagine he's worth taking seriously.

Perhaps what i am thinking of is different from what you assume i am thinking? I see a lifestyle as being one of choice. Now i know that many homosexuals are born gay, or however it is said, but i know quite a few that have made the decision to be such a way. Now don't think that because i said it was a lifestyle, that i meant it in a bad way. I don't. I love gay people, ya know?(im not gay, but i love everyone)hell my 56 yr old grandmother is a lesbian..she straight up told me that she prefered her way..not that she was born that way..but ya know its whatever. Whatever a person does with their life is none of anyone else's business and the least we can do is respect their choices

Really? At what point did the sexuality fairy visit these people and say, "Hey, so, um, what sex do you want to be attracted to?" and *POOF*, they suddenly were?

I don't know about you, but attraction in the biology of most human beings occurs without any choice. You either find that other person attractive, or you don't.

Now, a person who is equally attracted to both sexes (or even partially one way or another) could certainly choose to only act on those impulses with one or the other. I, for instance, could certainly choose to only date men, although I am also sometimes attracted to women. A homosexual person could even choose not to act upon their attractions and to date only members of the opposite sex - whom they would not be attracted to. However, sexuality and actions are not the same thing.

Maybe some interesting facts relating to the Bible should be pointed out...
Firstly, it wasn't written by God - it was written by scribes who wrote what was dictated by people who heard what God had to hear. So, we've got human error, bias, and corruption factoring in already. Secondly, it should be pointed out that throughout the majority of time, preserving the Holy Texts in the Christian faith involved monks who read and rewrote what was there. In many cases, they were allowed to change things according to their interpretations or beliefs. Between the two, we've got a Bible that is very different from what God initially said.

How is this best dealt with? Collaboration with Judaism for a better understanding of what was in the Old Testament/Torah (Christian/Jewish name for the text). From what I've been told by my Jewish friends, apparently what is said is that two men having sex is unclean (there is no reference to the option of two women. That was actually fully accepted at the time). The word "unclean" is used with the same connotation as when it is said that a woman's period is "unclean." There is no connotation of it being wrong or sinful - it can even be necessary and biological (as with the period thing) - it is simply a situation that is not absolutely sanitary.

Hence, this argument is pointless. God accepts homosexuality.

Plus, the DSM-IV is the current authority of psychological disorders. It is the dictionary of psychological disorders, and yes, it is made by the APA. If it isn't in there, either it hasn't been found yet, or it has been rejected as a disorder (and consequently is NOT one). Homosexuality, like hysteria, WAS REJECTED. It is NOT an issue. Furthermore, even if a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender person is willing to "convert," it has been shown to be IMPOSSIBLE, AND TO CAUSE FUTHER HARM.

Both points have been refuted. Unless what I've written can be LOGICALLY refuted, this is the end of the discussion.

You sure? Jocabia mentioned sins others commited a lot (Hence "Bible and Pride" topic), but I imagine he's worth taking seriously.

Shrug ... doesn't matter. I find the idea that a person can actually determine what is and is not a sin in other people extremely laughable.

Well thats what i was trying to say. Christians shouldn't go around yelling all that crap. its uncalled for. And you no right to "attack me". I have done nothing wrong. I just hate the double standard that if I believe and preach Christ then i am a bad person, and then if you go around bashing me then you are standing up for gay rights. Thats not fair! now i will admit horrible things have been done in the name of christianity, but does that make it right to try and get revenge or something? Whats the saying? umm two wrongs don't make a right.

Preaching the teachings of Christ probably won't make anyone think you're a bad person... its only when you start preaching the bits of the old testament which call homosexuals immoral... in my opinion: YES, that does make you a bad, and disturbingly misguided, person... because you're talking about imposing your 'moral will' upon everyone else... and your morality is INSANE!

(when i say 'you' i mean 'one', not you personally)

Could it be *gasp* that she prefers being a lesbian because *gasp* she's attracted to women? There is no choice in that situation. She is what she is, she could choose to ignore it, but she can't choose whether she's gay or straight.

The only choice they make is whether or not they want to act on those desires, not which sex they want to be attracted to.

K, I'm done.

Could it be *gasp* that she prefers being a lesbian because *gasp* she's attracted to women? There is no choice in that situation. She is what she is, she could choose to ignore it, but she can't choose whether she's gay or straight.

The only choice they make is whether or not they want to act on those desires, not which sex they want to be attracted to.

K, I'm done.

Remove the first gasp, works better with one.

Christianity attacks homosexuality basically because it's unnatural, and you can't deny that.

Christianity attacks homosexuality basically because it's unnatural, and you can't deny that.

why not?

Hehe, I'm with Maraque. Only abotu a page ahead :p

And my only reason for not liking lesbians is they're never going to be interested in me. Hehe.
I like gay men, it removes some of the competition for the ladies :D

HTF is it unnatural for people to do what only comes naturally? Answer me that...

Christianity attacks homosexuality basically because it's unnatural, and you can't deny that.

Ignoring, of course, the other homosexual animals and all...

Christianity attacks homosexuality basically because it's unnatural, and you can't deny that.

True ... I agree ... Christianity is unnatural.

why not?
It's unnatural because it's not meant to be. If it were natural, for example, both sexes would have the capacity of giving birth, and the ability to inseminate the other. But no. Homosexuals, as harsh it may sound, have no purpose in nature if you consider humans as any other animal.

Homosexuals, as harsh it may sound, have no purpose in nature if you consider humans as any other animal.

So sterile men or barren women also have no purpose?

What a sad world you must live in if the only way to have a purpose is to make babies. Jesus never made any babies (reportedly), so I guess he had no purpose either, eh?

So sterile men or barren women also have no purpose?

What a sad world you must live in if the only way to have a purpose is to make babies.

They have no purpose. Zey must be eliminated! To ze camps!

It's unnatural because it's not meant to be. If it were natural, for example, both sexes would have the capacity of giving birth, and the ability to inseminate the other. But no. Homosexuals, as harsh it may sound, have no purpose in nature if you consider humans as any other animal.

Because "we're born, we have kids, we die" is the natural order, no matter what. If humans are the same as any other animal, we should have homosexuals, just like other animals.

So sterile men or barren women also have no purpose?

What a sad world you must live in if the only way to have a purpose is to make babies. Jesus never made any babies (reportedly), so I guess he had no purpose either, eh?
I said "if you consider humans as any other animal"!

It's unnatural because it's not meant to be. If it were natural, for example, both sexes would have the capacity of giving birth, and the ability to inseminate the other. But no. Homosexuals, as harsh it may sound, have no purpose in nature if you consider humans as any other animal.

That it has no purpose doesn't mean it's unnatural. We have parts of our body with no purpose (appendice, coxis, ...), and they are perfectly natural. Nature, evolution, are far from being flawless (I don't mean by that that homosexuality is a flaw, but that there many things which have "no purpose" and are perfectly natural).

As far as we know, homosexuality always existed in human history, and it even exists in some other species. It's something as natural as heterosexuality, even if it doesn't have the purpose heterosexuality has (reproduction).

But well, anyway, I wonder how people using computers can say "unnatural = bad" ;) Our lives are far more natural anyway, so why judge others because we claim they have "unnatural" behaviors ?

I said "if you consider humans as any other animal"!

Most of us do. The only difference between us and the other animals in the Bible is that we were appointed as caretakers. That's it. In all other ways, we ain't nothin' but mammals.

I said "if you consider humans as any other animal"!

Yeah, you said, if we consider humans as any other animal, they have no natural purpose because they can't have kids...sterile/barren people, should have no purpose as well, and be unnatural and opposed by Christianity...Not to mention any woman past menopause.

Exactly, Kilobugya. I didn't use "unnatural" despectively, and I pointed out the reproductive issue because sexuality is the main difference between straight and gay people.

So what if homosexuality were unnatural (not saying I think so)

So are:
Peace
Justice
Liberty
Democracy
Equality
etc....
Just cos it's unnatural don't mean it's wrong.

What other difference is there between straight and gay people than sexuality? Meh.

What other difference is there between straight and gay people than sexuality? Meh.
Some differences in behaviour and habits, like gay men being "girlier" and stuff.

It's unnatural because it's not meant to be. If it were natural, for example, both sexes would have the capacity of giving birth, and the ability to inseminate the other. But no. Homosexuals, as harsh it may sound, have no purpose in nature if you consider humans as any other animal.

Actually, in most animals, the members who do not reproduce (because they are homosexual, are unable, or choose not to) are appointed as the main caregivers for the children, in addition to the parents (mainly mothers). Thus, even in the course of reproduction, homosexuality has its part and reason. Your argument is more flawed than evolution.

Some differences in behaviour and habits, like men being "girlier" and stuff.

Actually, that's not entirely accurate either. More gay men act "girlier" than straight men, but it's hardly a "most gay men" situation. That's flawed too.

What other difference is there between straight and gay people than sexuality? Meh.

The level of fabulousness.

Some differences in behaviour and habits, like men being "girlier" and stuff.

...Soo...I take it you know everything about homosexuals from television?

Actually, in most animals, the members who do not reproduce (because they are homosexual, are unable, or choose not to) are appointed as the main caregivers for the children, in addition to the parents (mainly mothers). Thus, even in the course of reproduction, homosexuality has its part and reason. Your argument is more flawed than evolution.

...That sentence ended weirdly.

Some differences in behaviour and habits, like gay men being "girlier" and stuff.

Ummm ... I take it you don't know too many gay men. "Girlier" is not exactly a word I'd use around some of my friends.

Actually, in most animals, the members who do not reproduce (because they are homosexual, are unable, or choose not to) are appointed as the main caregivers for the children, in addition to the parents (mainly mothers). Thus, even in the course of reproduction, homosexuality has its part and reason. Your argument is more flawed than evolution.
Heh, I shouldn't be surprised about the hostility of most posters.

Ummm ... I take it you don't know too many gay men. "Girlier" is not exactly a word I'd use around some of my friends.
If you want to be picky... Geez.

You know what I meant.

Heh, I shouldn't be surprised about the hostility of most posters.

*shrug* Stupidity allergies. All over the place here.

Some differences in behaviour and habits, like gay men being "girlier" and stuff.

That depends a lot. I have several homosexual friends, and they behave, cloth, ... as straight would. For some, I discovered they were homosexuals years after knowing them. Not that they were hiding, but just that it's not a topic that comes in a usual discussion, and because they had absolutely no sign of "gayness". The "girlie" gay man is more a movie stereotype than a reality (well, they exist, and it's their perfect right to be so, but they are not the majority of gays).

It's unnatural because it's not meant to be. If it were natural, for example, both sexes would have the capacity of giving birth, and the ability to inseminate the other. But no. Homosexuals, as harsh it may sound, have no purpose in nature if you consider humans as any other animal.

Homosexuals can not have children naturally, you are correct.

but to assume this makes them unnatural is an error, it in fact can be a huge benefit. Without the social/biological need to have and rear children homosexuals have the chance to do other things with their lives that can benefit mankind, examples being:

Walt Whitman
Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky
General Viscount Horatio Herbert Kitchener
Arthur Rimbaud
Oscar Wilde
John Maynard Keynes
Virginia Woolf
Alexander the Great
Lawrence of Arabia
Noel Coward
Socrates
Plato
Virgil
Leonardo da Vinci
Michaelangelo
Sir Francis Bacon
Shakespeare
Christopher Marlowe
Byron
Marlene Dietrich
Greta Garbo
W H Auden
Liberace
Truman Capote
Alan Mathison Turing... (1912-1954) British mathematician
Pioneer inventor of computer programming, "the Turing machine". Cracked the German Enigma Code during WWII. Awarded OBE and elected FRS. Forced to have hormone therapy for a gay offence, he ate an apple dipped in cyanide.



oh... and David (10th cent. BC) 2nd King of Israel (reign. c.1010-971/961 BC)
Slayer of Goliath, musician and military leader. Famous for his friendship with Jonathan (son of King Saul), whose early death he lamented: "Thy love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love for women."

and... St Anselm (1033/4-1109) Italian-French-British prelate and scholastic
Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093. Though committed to celibacy, wrote romantic love letters to former companions in Benedictine monastery of Bec in Normandy, indicating yearning and frustrated desire.

and... St Anselm (1033/4-1109) Italian-French-British prelate and scholastic
Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093. Though committed to celibacy, wrote romantic love letters to former companions in Benedictine monastery of Bec in Normandy, indicating yearning and frustrated desire.

and... Julius II (Giuliano Della Ròvere) (1443-1513) Italian pope
Established control of the Papal States over many territories. Patron of artists incl. Bramante and Raphael. Commissioned Sistine Chapel ceiling and his tomb from Michelangelo.

(see: http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/greatga3.htm)

If you want to be picky... Geez.

You know what I meant.

Yeah, you were sugesting an inherrennt lack of masculinity.

Gay men, girlier. And presumably lesbians more butch? People actually think that these days do they? Well, that's NS General I guess. Your friendly neighbourhood window into total ignorance, stated with utter certainty. And that quote is almost siggable, though I say it myself.

Heh, I shouldn't be surprised about the hostility of most posters.

Excuse me? That was hostile? That wasn't the intent, so I'd appreciate it if you'd show me how so I don't do it again in the future.
(I'm serious about this. I'm sick, and when I'm sick, I do sometimes act meanly without meaning to. Sorry if I was being mean.)

You know what I meant.

Yeah, you meant to vomit your bigotry all over my forums.

Yeah, you meant to vomit your bigotry all over my forums.
No comment.

...That sentence ended weirdly.

Which sentence? There are three.

No comment.

Here, let me find a comment for you then.

Have you seen those gay people on television like Queer Eye? That's what I meant.

Which sentence? There are three.

Shockingly enough. *shrug* The last one.

Here, let me find a comment for you then.
I KNOW what I meant. Now it's wrong to encourage someone to draw his/her own conclusions?

Alexander, AIUI, was more bi.

And the last sentence I think. The one going 'almost as poor an argument as evolution' or something.

Alexander, AIUI, was more bi.

Not to mention oh so girlie. *cough*

I KNOW what I meant. Now it's wrong to encourage someone to draw his/her own conclusions?

Well, if you were basically gonna waste a post with "No comment" I might as well use it to clarify just where you get your knowledge from so we can better understand why you act as you do.

Shockingly enough. *shrug* The last one.

Oh. I was playing with the entire thing where people were talking about evolution earlier, and someone said about how evolution was flawed. Evolution itself, not the concept. And no, I definitely don't think the concept is flawed. Even though I am a Christian.

Not to mention oh so girlie. *cough*
Oh, sorry if that somehow, inexplicably hurt your feelings. Get over it.

Anyways, I'm off. The recent posts just put in evidence how stale this discussion is.

Oh, sorry if that somehow, inexplicably hurt your feelings. Get over it.

Eh, Why get over it...It's not as though we made some sort of totally bigoted and incorrect statment.

Oh, sorry if that somehow, inexplicably hurt your feelings. Get over it.

Anyways, I'm off. The recent posts just put in evidence how stale this discussion is.
Deal if you quit making assinine statements.

consider him defeated intellectually.

Fine. Yes, I meant "effeminate". I'm not a native English speaker, so I just happen to pick the wrong word and everyone goes ballistic about it (perhaps -ish instead of -ie would've worked better).

No, I thought that was what you meant in the first place. It's still wrong. Gay blokes are still blokes, with all that entails in terms of mental attitude.

Fine. Yes, I meant "effeminate". I'm not a native English speaker, so I just happen to pick the wrong word and everyone goes ballistic about it (perhaps -ish instead of -ie would've worked better).

No, that word still doesn't apply, because it's not true, The only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is who they're attracted to. End of story.

Dinaverg, taking your own words: "Have you seen those gay people on television like Queer Eye? That's what I meant." Not all of them are like that, but a sizeable portion behave like that.

Geez, I don't even know why do I bother to go on with this.

Dinaverg, taking your own words: "Have you seen those gay people on television like Queer Eye? That's what I meant." Not all of them are like that, but a sizeable portion behave like that.

How the heck would you know? Been conducting studies?

Meh. I've known one stereotypical gay bloke. Out of I don't know how many gay people. And out of 3 or 4 who acted "gay". So judging on that, I would have said 4 people were gay, and been wrong about three of them; and missed all the other gay people I've known. So?

Dinaverg, taking your own words: "Have you seen those gay people on television like Queer Eye? That's what I meant." Not all of them are like that, but a sizeable portion behave like that.

Geez, I don't even know why do I bother to go on with this.

I dont want you to go away with the idea that gay people are aggressive and intolerant to your ideas...

but if you say things like 'gays are girlies' and 'gays are immoral' then, to be honest, what the hell do you expect?

Dinaverg, taking your own words: "Have you seen those gay people on television like Queer Eye? That's what I meant." Not all of them are like that, but a sizeable portion behave like that.

Inaccurate. Most of "them" are NOT like that.

Suggestion: Don't keep calling homosexual men "them" in this manner. It seems to be creating an "Us vs. Them" mentality in you - if it hasn't fully done so already. A good way of dealing with that is to think of homosexual men as people, just as you are a person (include the "them" in the "us"), or to try to understand what it would be like for "them" (a "walk in their shoes" scenario). At the very least, it may help you understand the viewpoint that you are against, even if you keep yours. It might give you better arguments if you do keep your current viewpoint, because you'll have to defend it against yourself - not an easy task. Anyway, it's just a suggestion, so you certainly don't have to follow it.

"Although sexual conversion is still attempted by some psychiatrists, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders more than 25 years ago. The American Psychological Association maintains that there is no evidence that conversion therapy works.

Who cares what the APA "maintains?"
It can and often times does work.

It's unnatural because it's not meant to be. If it were natural, for example, both sexes would have the capacity of giving birth, and the ability to inseminate the other. But no. Homosexuals, as harsh it may sound, have no purpose in nature if you consider humans as any other animal.

(a) Unnatural does not equate to "without an evolutionary purpose."

(b) Homosexuals do, it seems, serve an evolutionary purpose in social animals (like, say, humans). Homosexual animals generally will not reproduce, but will still help take care of the offspring of others in the family/pride/tribe/etc. Thus, the children from that grouping have a better chance at survival, as they have more parent-figures focusing on them.

Then, of course, there is the evidence that genetic aspects that contribute to homosexuality in men may increase fertility in women. Thus, while homosexual men do not reproduce, their mothers/aunts/sisters may reproduce more than other women.

It seems that, perhaps, you have spoken before doing the research.

I dont want you to go away with the idea that gay people are aggressive and intolerant to your ideas...

but if you say things like 'gays are girlies' and 'gays are immoral' then, to be honest, what the hell do you expect?
I didn't say any of those things. I said homosexuality is unnatural, and that a sizeable portion of gays behave in an effeminate manner.

But what about the view that homosexuality being a problem which leads to sin? So few people have considered this possibility, especially in Christian circles. This belief is that homosexuals have a problem the same way some people have clinical depression. It is developed, but there are possibly some genetic factors that make it possible for someone to have a greater risk of being gay. Acting on the desires of homosexuality is sinful the same way one who has depression sins when s/he commits suicide. The problem lead to sin, but it was not sin in itself.

I find it very frustrating that so many Christians and "Christians" reject this and adopt a "Kill them all!" stance when they claim to be loving individuals. We ought to help homosexuals overcome their problem, not condemn them.

"Love the sinner; hate the sin!"

Any thoughts?

As a Christian I actually fully accept this position as do many, many other Christians. The only people you hear about on the news who have the "kill them all" stance are most likely fundamentalists which do NOT represent true, historical Christianity at all.

Who cares what the APA "maintains?"
It can and often times does work.

Well, Jamesypie said so. I believe 'im. Don't need no evidence or anything like that.

I didn't say any of those things. I said homosexuality is unnatural, and that a sizeable portion of gays behave in an effeminate manner.

ok, we have dealt with the unnatural thing adequately...

so you think a "sizeable portion" of gay men are iffeminate, quick question:

how many gay men do you know?

Who cares what the APA "maintains?"
It can and often times does work.

Actually, there is little to no evidence that "curing" homosexuality works. Most often, those who participate in these "studies" eventually go back to homosexuality, and claim that they were reporting a change because they had been convinced that they needed to "convert", not because their attractions actually changed. And they are pretty much always based on self-diagnosis, which really isn't very useful. If someone has been convinced that they are evil, and need to change, they are eventually going to report a change.

The only mental changes that have consistently come out of these "rehabilitation" programs is an increased self-loathing and a tendency towards depression.

Let me ask you, when was the last time you had control over who you are and are not attracted to?


I didn't say any of those things. I said homosexuality is unnatural, and that a sizeable portion of gays behave in an effeminate manner.

And you have not supported either statement.

Care to do so?

How can it be un-natural when everywhere you look in the world there are gay people? in essence how do we actually know whether hetrosexuality is the norm? unfortuantly that is something that will never be answered. At the end of the day we are all human beings and we all have something to offer. gay str8 bi trans it doesnt matter what people are or who they have feelings for.

and if real christians read the bible properly then they will see that gays are not actually seen as sinners. its how people very wrongly interpret the writings.

Just like some people say its againstt here religion to have sex with a condom, you will also find there religion states its immoral to have sex before marriage and thats what the bible states. Until two people have joined in marriage then they shouldnt have sex. so sorry to displease some homophobes on here but the bible says until ANYONE is married sex shouldnt be allowed. of course it then brings us on to the big question. why belive a silly little book written by people thousands of years ago. how do we know its real?

Well, Jamesypie said so. I believe 'im. Don't need no evidence or anything like that.

Ok cool :) I was going to support it, but if you say you already believe me than I won't bother. :)

And you have not supported either statement.

Care to do so?
Yes, I have. At least the first and most important one. Please care to read the other pages.

Inaccurate. Most of "them" are NOT like that.

Suggestion: Don't keep calling homosexual men "them" in this manner. It seems to be creating an "Us vs. Them" mentality in you - if it hasn't fully done so already. A good way of dealing with that is to think of homosexual men as people, just as you are a person (include the "them" in the "us"), or to try to understand what it would be like for "them" (a "walk in their shoes" scenario). At the very least, it may help you understand the viewpoint that you are against, even if you keep yours. It might give you better arguments if you do keep your current viewpoint, because you'll have to defend it against yourself - not an easy task. Anyway, it's just a suggestion, so you certainly don't have to follow it.
Honestly, what the hell?! Why do you think everything I say is hostile?

I don't refer to gay people as "them", pejoratively. I use "them" just as I use it with everyone else. It's a basic technique if you want to avoid repeating words. I also never said homosexuals weren't people like you and me, nor do I keep an "us vs. them" mentality.

Who cares what the APA "maintains?"
It can and often times does work.

No it doesn't. The only times it "works" is when the homosexual person stops acting on his/her instincts and pretends to be heterosexual due to guilt, etc. It NEVER works. And you should care what the APA maintains because they are the organization of psychology. As in, every psychotherapist is technically speaking a part of the APA. Including anyone who could actually do conversion therapy. If the APA maintains that something does not work, it doesn't. That's like saying that it doesn't matter if the NIH (or its subsection, the NIAID) maintains that AIDS is currently uncureable by any known method (though able to better lived with through medication), it really is currently cureable and we know what the relevant cure is.

but you can't decide who you're attracted too

You think you can't decide who you're attracted to, but you do, if not consciously then subconsciously. Homosexuality is a lifestyle; people are not born with it, no matter how many people say it and no matter how hard they try to convince themselves of it.

Hint: study the anatomy of a human male and a human female, then tell me whether homosexuality can be inherent or not.



And gays definitely do not harm anyone.

Maybe not physically, but homosexuals can hurt people, especially children, mentally. They don't mean to, but they do. How am I going to explain to my son, who has always known that guys are meant to be with girls, where homosexuality fits in? He would be traumatized at how a man can intimately kiss another man.

Jamesypie, he may sarcastically support you. I'd appreciate seeing the colour of your money. Sorry, evidence.

Ahmedus, explain to me how someone can be persuaded to 'choose' to, in many situations in history, make themselves a social pariah, disowned by their family, etc, simply for a lifestyle choice? Even, e.g. in Iran recently, risk execution for it. That is not a choice a rational human would make. So either you;re saying most gays throughout history have been irrational, or you accept that it is at least partly innate.

why belive a silly little book written by people thousands of years ago. how do we know its real?

That "silly little book" has had more of an impact on Western society than you could ever begin to imagine. Your entire world is ruled by that "little book" and what it speaks of. How do we know it's not real?

That "silly little book" has had more of an impact on Western society than you could ever begin to imagine. Your entire world is ruled by that "little book" and what it speaks of. How do we know it's not real?


am sorry to say it doesnt rule my world. and fortuantly the world is starting to push religion aside. People are becoming aware that despite our differences we are equal. Proove to me that the 'bible' is real. its a story book thats always been badly misinterpreted. I mean I have always personally seen jesus as gay. living with all those men. Hmm perhaps in time the truth really will be told. and i really cant wait to see the bigots kicked out of the vatican

Maybe not physically, but homosexuals can hurt people, especially children, mentally. They don't mean to, but they do. How am I going to explain to my son, who has always known that guys are meant to be with girls, where homosexuality fits in? He would be traumatized at how a man can intimately kiss another man.

thats your fault for raising him in such a bigotted way. if you'd raised him teaching him that no matter what his sexuality was you'd still love him, then maybe he'd grow up to be a more tolerant, secure and happy individual.

thats your fault for raising him in such a bigotted way. if you'd raised him teaching him that no matter what his sexuality was you'd still love him, then maybe he'd grow up to be a more tolerant, secure and happy individual.


well said. and maybe when the bigots of the old generation die. maybe just maybe the people of this planet regardless of creed, colour, sex, sexuality disability will get on as equals!!

How can it be un-natural when everywhere you look in the world there are gay people? in essence how do we actually know whether hetrosexuality is the norm? unfortuantly that is something that will never be answered. At the end of the day we are all human beings and we all have something to offer.

If every man, woman, and child said 2+2=5, does it make it real? No. I will tell you how you can figure out if it is unnatural. Adam and Eve, first humans ever created. Man and woman. For those of you who do read the bible, what about Sodom and that other city its paired with? They were cities filled with homosexuals, and God destroyed them. What do you make of that?

Again, as I mentioned in my previous post, take a look at the physiology of human males and females, you find that they fit. They were made as complements of each other, therefore, heterosexuality is the norm and homosexuality is not.

If every man, woman, and child said 2+2=5, does it make it real? No. I will tell you how you can figure out if it is unnatural. Adam and Eve, first humans ever created. Man and woman. For those of you who do read the bible, what about Sodom and that other city its paired with? They were cities filled with homosexuals, and God destroyed them. What do you make of that?

Again, as I mentioned in my previous post, take a look at the physiology of human males and females, you find that they fit. They were made as complements of each other, therefore, heterosexuality is the norm and homosexuality is not.


again those two never existed. it was just a story. if u read the bible you will realise its a story. and it doesnt say that the city was full of gays. so please just grow up and join the 21st century

You think you can't decide who you're attracted to, but you do, if not consciously then subconsciously. Homosexuality is a lifestyle; people are not born with it, no matter how many people say it and no matter how hard they try to convince themselves of it.

Hint: study the anatomy of a human male and a human female, then tell me whether homosexuality can be inherent or not.




Maybe not physically, but homosexuals can hurt people, especially children, mentally. They don't mean to, but they do. How am I going to explain to my son, who has always known that guys are meant to be with girls, where homosexuality fits in? He would be traumatized at how a man can intimately kiss another man.

Hint: That study has already been done for the brain (which is where attraction comes from). Result - homosexual men have certain brain structures similar to females that straight men do not. Further studies relating to homosexual brains have given the same result - there is a physiological difference.

Second, the other part is only because said son has been taught that guys are meant to be with girls AND NOT GUYS. EVER. THAT IT IS EVIL. Believe it or not, the one who is harming your son is the one who is teaching him this. If you don't believe me, you should meet one of my friends, who tried to kill herself multiple times after she realized that she was bisexual instead of straight, on account that it meant that she was evil and everyone would hate her (BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT HER PARENTS AND EVERYONE ELSE SHE LOOKED UP TO WHEN SHE WAS YOUNG TOLD HER THIS). NOT on account of being bi.

Yes, I have. At least the first and most important one. Please care to read the other pages.

I did, and you haven't provided a single word of evidence. All you have said is, "I don't think it has a purpose, therefore it must be unnatural."

Unfortunately for you, the purpose or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether or not something is "natural". There are all sorts of things that are natural, but don't have a known "purpose".


You think you can't decide who you're attracted to, but you do, if not consciously then subconsciously.

So, at what point were you completely and totally equally attracted to both men and women, and made the decision to be attracted to one or the other? When, exactly, did the sexuality fairy visit you?

Homosexuality is a lifestyle; people are not born with it, no matter how many people say it and no matter how hard they try to convince themselves of it.

Hint: study the anatomy of a human male and a human female, then tell me whether homosexuality can be inherent or not.

I have studied anatomy and biology quite a bit. Guess what, homosexuality can be inherent. Why? Because it really has nothing to do with genitals and everything to do with the brain. There is quite a bit of evidence that the brains of homosexual men are closer to those of straight women than those of straight men. Homosexual men react to male pheromones, while straight men do not and straight women do. Increasing certain hormones in the womb can cause various animals to act as if they are members of the opposite sex, at least as far as mating behaviors go.

Not to mention that homosexuality and bisexuality (and even transgender) occur throughout the animal kingdom.

Maybe not physically, but homosexuals can hurt people, especially children, mentally. They don't mean to, but they do. How am I going to explain to my son, who has always known that guys are meant to be with girls, where homosexuality fits in? He would be traumatized at how a man can intimately kiss another man.

Oh noes! I can't teach my kid to be a bigot!

Here's another one:

Maybe not physically, but black people can hurt people, especially children, mentally. They don't mean to, but they do. How am I going to explain to my son, who has always known that black people are inferior to his Aryan heritage, where the black kid in school fits in? He would be traumatized at how a black child can possibly interact with him.

Ahmedus, explain to me how someone can be persuaded to 'choose' to, in many situations in history, make themselves a social pariah, disowned by their family, etc, simply for a lifestyle choice? Even, e.g. in Iran recently, risk execution for it. That is not a choice a rational human would make. So either you;re saying most gays throughout history have been irrational, or you accept that it is at least partly innate.

I can't say how a person chooses to be homosexual, as I am not a psychiatrist. I can say, however, that God created the man for the woman and the woman for the man, not man for man or woman for woman. Homosexuality does not exist in human instincts, therefore, the individual chooses it. It would make more sense if this were a bit of a religious discussion. It would also be easier to explain.

Whether or not homosexuality is "correct" is an entirely subjective, arbitary, and emotional issue. I don't see why you guys are debating it.

If everyone said 2 + 2 = 5, '2' and '5' are arbitrary symbols. If a new generation were brought up for which '5' were our '4', that would be true.

No matter how you brought up a new generation, people would still be gay.
Just as people would still be left handed, despite the efforts down the centuries to prevent it as 'unnatural'. People do what feels right. For some, that means sexual relations with the same sex. For some, that means writing with the left hand. And so on. You can't change or prevent that, and nor should you want to.

And, I can say that the Spaghetti Monster created the penis in the form of his noodly appendage, and the vagina in the form of his penne orifice. That makes sod all difference to any argument about the real world.
Homosexuality does exist in human instincts, hence why there are gay people in all societies and all ages.
And if you want to make it a religious discussion, I can be more reasonable than that first sentece makes me appear. Try me.

I can't say how a person chooses to be homosexual, as I am not a psychiatrist. I can say, however, that God created the man for the woman and the woman for the man, not man for man or woman for woman. Homosexuality does not exist in human instincts, therefore, the individual chooses it. It would make more sense if this were a bit of a religious discussion. It would also be easier to explain.

It would also be a better support for your stance if you had evidence that the bible is anything more than a fairy tale.

If every man, woman, and child said 2+2=5, does it make it real? No. I will tell you how you can figure out if it is unnatural. Adam and Eve, first humans ever created. Man and woman. For those of you who do read the bible, what about Sodom and that other city its paired with? They were cities filled with homosexuals, and God destroyed them. What do you make of that?

Again, as I mentioned in my previous post, take a look at the physiology of human males and females, you find that they fit. They were made as complements of each other, therefore, heterosexuality is the norm and homosexuality is not.

1. if you're basing your argument on the bible then theres probably not alot anyone can say to make you change your opinion... if you based your opinions on logic, research and theory then you would more than likely change it drastically.

2. the penis does indeed fit inside the vagina. it also fits in the anus. and the mouth. and any other kind of hole... so its not really a very valid point.

Ummm ... wow ... just ... wow. I don't even know where to begin with what is wrong with that paragraph.

I guess I'll deal with it in parts ...


Maybe not physically, but homosexuals can hurt people, especially children, mentally.

Some can, sure, so can heterosexuals and even asexual priests and whatnot. I'm guessing the proportions are smaller when it comes to homosexuals, though ...

How am I going to explain to my son, who has always known that guys are meant to be with girls, where homosexuality fits in?

Gonna answer this with more questions:

1] What if your son is gay?
2] Your son probably knows men are supposed to walk, how do you explain someone in a wheelchair?
3] What's wrong with teaching your son that life is full of diversity and no one way is right?

He would be traumatized at how a man can intimately kiss another man.

No ... he wouldn't. If you raise him right, he won't honestly care who other men are with or what goes on in the bedrooms of other men. He'll see two men kiss and think, "Awww ... love. Nice." and move on.

If every man, woman, and child said 2+2=5, does it make it real? No. I will tell you how you can figure out if it is unnatural. Adam and Eve, first humans ever created. Man and woman. For those of you who do read the bible, what about Sodom and that other city its paired with? They were cities filled with homosexuals, and God destroyed them. What do you make of that?

Actually, there is nothing at all in the text to suggest that those cities were destroyed because of homosexuality. In fact, reading the story, and later commentary on it in other scriptures, it would seem that the sins of these cities were promiscuity, rape, and inhospitality.

Again, as I mentioned in my previous post, take a look at the physiology of human males and females, you find that they fit. They were made as complements of each other, therefore, heterosexuality is the norm and homosexuality is not.

Something that isn't the norm doesn't make it wrong. The norm is "right-handed", but there is nothing "wrong" with left-handed human beings.


I can't say how a person chooses to be homosexual, as I am not a psychiatrist. I can say, however, that God created the man for the woman and the woman for the man, not man for man or woman for woman. Homosexuality does not exist in human instincts, therefore, the individual chooses it. It would make more sense if this were a bit of a religious discussion. It would also be easier to explain.

In other words, "I dont' know what I'm talking about, but since some preacher told me that God doesn't like teh gays, I'm going to assume that it can't possibly be a trait, despite all of the volumes of biological evidence against my viewpoint."

Put it this way: Psychiatrist or not, if you were never presented with the choice - if you were never equally attracted to both men and women, and then chose only one, then you have no logical reason to believe that any other human being did so.

I can't say how a person chooses to be homosexual, as I am not a psychiatrist. I can say, however, that God created the man for the woman and the woman for the man, not man for man or woman for woman. Homosexuality does not exist in human instincts, therefore, the individual chooses it. It would make more sense if this were a bit of a religious discussion. It would also be easier to explain.


Prove to me there is a god? unfortuantly you cant and please i dont wanna here the nonsense of oh its the trees etc etc.

And you say God created man for women etc etc and its not in human instintcs? then why have i who am half italian half british born to an italian fascist father and a very right wing conservative mother and in a private catholic school (bear in mind I am not catholic but infact a buddist) and i was brought up in the ever so great christian way of life yet i was born gay. and i am attracted to men. so am sorry to say it is human nature to be gay and not a desision

I can't say how a person chooses to be homosexual, as I am not a psychiatrist. I can say, however, that God created the man for the woman and the woman for the man, not man for man or woman for woman. Homosexuality does not exist in human instincts, therefore, the individual chooses it. It would make more sense if this were a bit of a religious discussion. It would also be easier to explain.

Then you are saying that God did not create us, as He would not have created us a gay or bi by your argument, but, as shown by all my other arguments, gay and bi people are physiologically the way they are.

Furthermore, if you'd like the religious part, read my first post on this thread (page two, I think). Apparently, God did create gay and bi people as they are, and He's fine with it.

It seems to me like you guys think that homosexuality is naturally terrifying and scary to humans. This is not true, and even if it was, we should overcome this. As some of you may now, in ancient Greece and Japan, homosexual relations were as common as heterosexual ones. The fact that Westerners consider it a bad thing is mainly because it seems wierd to them, as they were raised from childhood to see it as a bad thing.

I can say, however, that God created the man for the woman and the woman for the man, not man for man or woman for woman.

I'm gonna need proof from at least 3 scholarly sources on that one.

Otherwise, I call bullshit.

That quote was from Ahmedus, not me.

Please change it, the last thing I need is all this bigotry attributed to me.

I know ... I realised what happened and corrected it. :)

I have studied anatomy and biology quite a bit. Guess what, homosexuality can be inherent. Why? Because it really has nothing to do with genitals and everything to do with the brain. There is quite a bit of evidence that the brains of homosexual men are closer to those of straight women than those of straight men. Homosexual men react to male hormones, while straight men do not and straight women do. Increasing certain hormones in the womb can cause various animals to act as if they are members of the opposite sex, at least as far as mating behaviors go.

Not to mention that homosexuality and bisexuality (and even transgender) occur throughout the animal kingdom.


Maybe not physically, but black people can hurt people, especially children, mentally. They don't mean to, but they do. How am I going to explain to my son, who has always known that black people are inferior to his Aryan heritage, where the black kid in school fits in? He would be traumatized at how a black child can possibly interact with him.

First of all, in order for a man to act like a woman, he would have to be exposed to female hormones. Testosterone is a male hormone, that's why there is very little of it in females. Second, how can a brain be closer to that of another, they have the same structures. It's the hormones and nerve impulses that dictate what we feel. Homosexuality and bisexuality do not occur naturally in the animal kingdom. If you're referring to frogs, I would like to remind you that that is a natural characteristic for them to completely change gender. That is also a survival characteristic. Now, bring me examples of animals being gay. Don't bring me pictures from magazines or whatnot, since its most likely a farce. Bring me cold, hard evidence in the form of footage of animals of the same sex in the wild committing acts of sexuality and prove to me that they are of the same sex.

I'm gonna need proof from at least 3 scholarly sources on that one.

Otherwise, I call bullshit.


three scholarly sources huh, read a physiology book, take a look at diagrams, go over reproduction in humans. it doesnt take much effort to see that.

Don't bring me pictures from magazines or whatnot, since its most likely a farce. Bring me cold, hard evidence in the form of footage of animals of the same sex in the wild committing acts of sexuality and prove to me that they are of the same sex.

Geez, religious nuts can be kinky can't they?

Depression? "Risk?" Gee, so I'm not just hell-bent and twisted sinner, I have a disease now, too?

You didn't know? You've got gay. I hear that's going around now.

You better not have a disease. That will put quite the damper on my eventual vacation to Sweden if you do.

First of all, in order for a man to act like a woman, he would have to be exposed to female hormones.

Then explain all those Monty Python sketches. All a man needs to do to act like a woman is to act like a woman. Hormones have nothing to do with that.

However, gay men =/= women. Gay men are men. Period. Nothing hormonal about it. I'll even go so far as to bet large sums of money that I'm bigger than you, hairier than you, and more manly than you could handle. Yet, I'm bisexual. Go figure.

three scholarly sources huh, read a physiology book, take a look at diagrams, go over reproduction in humans. it doesnt take much effort to see that.

I don't see any "God created" or "man for woman/woman for man" in any of those things.

Then you are saying that God did not create us, as He would not have created us a gay or bi by your argument, but, as shown by all my other arguments, gay and bi people are physiologically the way they are.

Furthermore, if you'd like the religious part, read my first post on this thread (page two, I think). Apparently, God did create gay and bi people as they are, and He's fine with it.

I did not say that God did not create you. He created you like he created me, you chose to change. God did not create people to be inherently homosexual.

three scholarly sources huh, read a physiology book, take a look at diagrams, go over reproduction in humans. it doesnt take much effort to see that.

So a physiology book will tell me that God created man?

You're losing very badly here, you know. I suggest leaving rapidly.

I did not say that God did not create you. He created you like he created me, you chose to change. God did not create people to be inherently homosexual.

Well then, he messed up, he should fix that problem in his creations where they can be gay.

I don't see any "God created" or "man for woman/woman for man" in any of those things.


Use a bit of brainpower. Infer! Do I have to lay it out in layman's terms?
Fine, I'll give you another hint. Take a look at male and female genitals and then think about it a bit.

He created you like he created me

Boy is my dad gonna be pissed.

Use a bit of brainpower. Infer! Do I have to lay it out in layman's terms?
Fine, I'll give you another hint. Take a look at male and female genitals and then think about it a bit.

Male genitalia fits quite nicely into the male rectal cavity.

Fine, I'll give you another hint. Take a look at male and female genitals and then think about it a bit.

The mouth and anus are perfectly good recepticles for the penis. Your argument holds no water.

Male genitalia fits quite nicely into the male rectal cavity.

Not only is that disgusting, it's unhygenic.

Male genitalia fits quite nicely into the male rectal cavity.

Boy, do they ever!

*daydreams a bit*

is it not true to your teachings that god created us all in his likeness? so surely got must have been bisexual at the very least?

Not only is that disgusting, it's unhygenic.

Male genitalia fits into female rectal cavities quite well also.

And sex in general is quite unhygenic if you stop to think about it.

Not only is that disgusting, it's unhygenic.

You obviously know nothing about sex, anal or vaginal or oral.

Not only is that disgusting, it's unhygenic.

Maybe if you washed now and then ....

god doesn't exist.

the bible is a lie.

realise this and you might become less insecure and bent on forcing your repressive and fascistic views on everyone else.

Maybe if you washed now and then ....

I don't know, religious nutjubs sure do tend to love santorum.

"Unhygienic"
As a straight male, I think about the number of diseases you can catch from 'natural' 'hygienic' straight intercourse, and I shudder if that is your idea of hygiene. On the good clean fun scale, it gets a good and a fun.

So a physiology book will tell me that God created man?

You're losing very badly here, you know. I suggest leaving rapidly.
So everything you say is right, and everyone who opposes you is wrong? You ask for "scholarly" and documented sources from everyone who doesn't agree with you, yet you never state yours when you claim something.

Use a bit of brainpower. Infer! Do I have to lay it out in layman's terms?
Fine, I'll give you another hint. Take a look at male and female genitals and then think about it a bit.

Lesse, we could put a penis into a vagina, a mouth, an anus...

Into a vagina could go a penis, a finger, a toungue, most any cyclinder...

Not only is that disgusting, it's unhygenic.

in what way? elaborate please...

So everything you say is right, and everyone who opposes you is wrong? You ask for "scholarly" and documented sources from everyone who doesn't agree with you, yet you never state yours when you claim something.

If someone is saying "God created man" as a fact, then yes, I am going to question it.

As for my sources, give me a claim I've made and ask for sources.

So everything you say is right, and everyone who opposes you is wrong? You ask for "scholarly" and documented sources from everyone who doesn't agree with you, yet you never state yours when you claim something.

What's been claimed is that there is no other difference between homo- and hetero- sexuals, based on the lack of evidence to the contrary. Provide evidence to the contrary.

The mouth and anus are perfectly good recepticles for the penis. Your argument holds no water.


That right there is unnatural. Might I remind you that living organisms are defined as having the capability to metabolize, respond to stimulus, and among other things reproduce. Homosexuals cannot reproduce unless they go against their "nature."

That right there is unnatural. Might I remind you that living organisms are defined as having the capability to metabolize, respond to stimulus, and among other things reproduce. Homosexuals cannot reproduce unless they go against their "nature."


I believe its called IVF!

That right there is unnatural. Might I remind you that living organisms are defined as having the capability to metabolize, respond to stimulus, and among other things reproduce. Homosexuals cannot reproduce unless they go against their "nature."

8 year olds can't either, at all. Think they aren't living?

Male genitalia fits into female rectal cavities quite well also.

And sex in general is quite unhygenic if you stop to think about it.


go think about that some more. There are certain characteristics of sexual fluids that do neutralize antigens.

I don't know, religious nutjubs sure do tend to love santorum.

I know! Crazy isn't it? They also like to jack off to kiddie porn while praying to Jesus to damn the photographer for making them sin. Delicious.

That right there is unnatural. Might I remind you that living organisms are defined as having the capability to metabolize, respond to stimulus, and among other things reproduce. Homosexuals cannot reproduce unless they go against their "nature."

Homosexuals are just as capable of reproducing as heterosexuals. They just choose not to. Old people can't reproduce either. They'll be disappointed to know you think they're unnatural.

First of all, in order for a man to act like a woman, he would have to be exposed to female hormones.

Substitute pheremones for hormones. I'll go back and change it.

Second, how can a brain be closer to that of another, they have the same structures.

How little you know about biology. The average female brain is quite different from the average male brain.

It's the hormones and nerve impulses that dictate what we feel.

And the way the connections in the brain form.

Homosexuality and bisexuality do not occur naturally in the animal kingdom. If you're referring to frogs, I would like to remind you that that is a natural characteristic for them to completely change gender. That is also a survival characteristic. Now, bring me examples of animals being gay. Don't bring me pictures from magazines or whatnot, since its most likely a farce. Bring me cold, hard evidence in the form of footage of animals of the same sex in the wild committing acts of sexuality and prove to me that they are of the same sex.

I can't give you footage, but I can give you studies and such, if you have access to them. A good reference is a book called Biological Exuberance. Just a small list of animals in which such behavior has been seen:

Apes (all kinds, really), especially Bonobos Chimpanzees

Elephants

Sheep (In bighorn sheep, transgendered sheep are not uncommon)

Cats

Dogs

Cattle (Farmers will often use a young bull to get an older bull "horny" in order to collect sperm for artificial insemination)

Girraffes (In fact, girraffe heterosexual mating has not been seen in the wild, while male-male contact has)

Dolphins (dolphins actually form lifelong bonds sometimes in male-male pairs, males will sometimes retract their penises to form a "slit" for the other male to use in sex)

Various birds - both male-male and female-female pairings have been observed and have even raised young together. Interestingly enough, a male bird will often have a completley different mating dance when trying to attract a male than a female.

Rodents (mice, rats, guineau pigs, hamsters, etc.)

Whiptail lizards - actually developed from a species in which there were both male and female, but now only females exist. They simulate copulation, resulting in the female on the bottom self-fertilizing and laying eggs.

I could go on, if you like.....

As for studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15883379&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15749269&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15724806&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15152371&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14745103&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14739151&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12458191&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15539346&query_hl=24&itool=pubmed_docsum

Now, come back when you've done your research.

god doesn't exist.

the bible is a lie.

realise this and you might become less insecure and bent on forcing your repressive and fascistic views on everyone else.


if god does not exist, then neither do you.

First of all, in order for a man to act like a woman, he would have to be exposed to female hormones. Testosterone is a male hormone, that's why there is very little of it in females.

Inaccurate. While in the womb, they have to be exposed to a higher amount, but once they're out, it's testosterone, because that drives male sexual interest (regardless of the gender of attraction).

Second, how can a brain be closer to that of another, they have the same structures. It's the hormones and nerve impulses that dictate what we feel.

Inaccurate. Brain structure CAN vary. People with one of the schizophrenias have different brain structure (enlarged fluid-filled cavities). Homosexual men, like women, have a certain cell cluster that is significantly smaller than in heterosexual men. (LeVay, 1994). Furthermore, homosexual men, like women, have a section of fibers connecting the left and right hemispheres that is 1/3 larger than in heterosexual men.
Also, brain structure is important, because it dictates where those nerve impulses are going. If the brain is wired differently than the norm, something different will occur.

Homosexuality and bisexuality do not occur naturally in the animal kingdom. If you're referring to frogs, I would like to remind you that that is a natural characteristic for them to completely change gender. That is also a survival characteristic. Now, bring me examples of animals being gay. Don't bring me pictures from magazines or whatnot, since its most likely a farce. Bring me cold, hard evidence in the form of footage of animals of the same sex in the wild committing acts of sexuality and prove to me that they are of the same sex.

Studies have shown it in all mammalian animals. The most famous studies were in goats - go look it up. It's so set down in fact that I shouldn't have to have that one in my hands anymore.

TAKE INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY. This is all in the FIRST psych class. If you took any psych whatsoever, you should KNOW this. ALL of it. Or, to make things simple, you can just read David G. Myers' Psychology which is the textbook generally used.

I believe its called IVF!
reproduce NATURALLY

That right there is unnatural.

So is your computer. So is your religion. So is your archaic way of thinking.

Homosexuals cannot reproduce unless they go against their "nature."

Last I checked, homosexual men still produce sperm and homosexual women still produce ovum. Last I checked anyway. You're supposed to be the one who knows about physiology and whatnot.

reproduce NATURALLY

Define "naturally" without using your religious dogma.

Use a bit of brainpower. Infer! Do I have to lay it out in layman's terms?
Fine, I'll give you another hint. Take a look at male and female genitals and then think about it a bit.

You still ignore the fact that attraction has little to nothing to do with genitals. I've never seen Brad Pitt's genitals, and yet I find him attractive. I was attracted to my fiance long before I ever saw his genitals.

if god does not exist, then neither do you.

Well, there's some intresting logic.

reproduce NATURALLY


unfortuantly not all people women etc can reproduce naturally due to illness etc. should they be not allowed to live? because if we all worshipped your all loving god then unfortuantly those people wouldnt be allowed to have children.

Your god gave us brains to think! we created technology to save lives and create new life!

go think about that some more. There are certain characteristics of sexual fluids that do neutralize antigens.

No, I don't think I will. I think I'll think about it exactly as much as I thought about it before, when I thought about all the STDs that can be transmitted by completely heterosexual vaginal penetration. What I will think, however, is that you're an idiot for your opinion on anal sex, because I am fairly confident that all you're actually thinking about is getting shit on your dick. Literally.

Define "naturally" without using your religious dogma.

naturally, as in the act of sex between one man and one woman, as in sticking a male's penis in a female's vagina and ejaculating. that is natural. IVF is not natural.

If every man, woman, and child said 2+2=5, does it make it real? No. I will tell you how you can figure out if it is unnatural. Adam and Eve, first humans ever created. Man and woman.

Not only Man and Woman, but Dumb and Dumber.
Just because the first humans discussed in the Bible were hetero doesn't mean that everybody should be.
Just like the fact that they took dietary advice from talking snakes doesn't mean that we should.

For those of you who do read the bible, what about Sodom and that other city its paired with? They were cities filled with homosexuals, and God destroyed them. What do you make of that?

Having actually read the Bible, what I make of it is this:
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had absolutelty NOTHING to do with homosexuality.
The basic scenario is that the cities were pits of sin and evil. God sent a couple of angels down to scout things out, and they took up with Lot and his family. Soon a large gang of men showed up and said, "bring those two strangers out so that we may know them."
People read "know" in this context to mean "rape."
That's debatable, but let's say that they're right (for the moment).
Lot says, "Hey, I have virgin daughters! Wouldn't you rather rape them?"
They angry mob says, "Nope. We want those two strangers."

And people think that this means that homosexuality is bad, a line of thought that is simply unfathomable.
What's the thinking here, that if the angry mob had taken Lot up on the offer to gang-rape his virgin daughters, then God would have let the city live?
That if the angels were female (and I don't believe that their gender is mentioned), that God would have though it was all in good fun?
No.
The moral of the story is that gang-raping strangers as a matter of course is BAD.
Not that homosexuality is.

It has to do with the guest/host relationship.

Again, as I mentioned in my previous post, take a look at the physiology of human males and females, you find that they fit. They were made as complements of each other, therefore, heterosexuality is the norm and homosexuality is not.

If you look at the physiology of males and males, you'll find that they fit too.
Do you need a diagram?

As for "the norm', what's normal is for about 10% of a species to be gay. This applies to most (IIRC) species of mammals, humans included.

if god does not exist, then neither do you.

AHAHAHAHA!!! Oh that's rich. Now prove it.

naturally, as in the act of sex between one man and one woman, as in sticking a male's penis in a female's vagina and ejaculating. that is natural. IVF is not natural.

If a gay man sticks his penis into a gay woman's vagina and ejaculates, both are just as capable of reproducing in that scenario as if it were heterosexual man and woman.

You still ignore the fact that attraction has little to nothing to do with genitals. I've never seen Brad Pitt's genitals, and yet I find him attractive. I was attracted to my fiance long before I ever saw his genitals.
You deny that you felt an attraction to Brad Pitt from deep within your uterus????

naturally, as in the act of sex between one man and one woman, as in sticking a male's penis in a female's vagina and ejaculating. that is natural. IVF is not natural.

I see. What a strange point of view you have, but I'll go with it. So, tell me, in your mind, does unnatural = bad?

Okay, so let's say a straight couple have sex seven times a week (once per day seems reasonable to me within a stale marriage). That's 365 times a year. For, let's say, 60 years. That makes a grand total of 21900 times they have sex.

Let's say they end up having three children. That's 0.014% of the times they have sex that will result in procreation.

0.014%. That's it. That's what's supposed to justify heterosexuality.

AHAHAHAHA!!! Oh that's rich. Now prove it.

im asking you to prove it. if god does not exist then how have you come to being?

if god does not exist, then neither do you.

explain...

I did not say that God did not create you. He created you like he created me, you chose to change. God did not create people to be inherently homosexual.

You obviously did not understand what I was saying. By "us" I meant everyone, of any sexual orientation.
And how dare you think you know my sexual orientation? You just made one big assumption there! How dare you!!! Just because I defend the rights and equality of my fellow human beings does not make me part of whatever group I am defending (nor does it make me NOT among them)! You do NOT have the right to make any assumption about me without knowing who I am!

im asking you to prove it. if god does not exist then how have you come to being?

If Keruvalia needs a creator, why does his creator not need a creator?

That right there is unnatural. Might I remind you that living organisms are defined as having the capability to metabolize, respond to stimulus, and among other things reproduce. Homosexuals cannot reproduce unless they go against their "nature."

(a) The ability to reproduce is a requirement placed upon species, not individuals. Otherwise, we would have to say that mules, sterile animals of all sorts, most ligers, etc. are not alive. They are, however.

(b) It is not against nature to have sex with someone you aren't attracted to. It won't be as enjoyable, but anyone can do it. Women used to be forced into marriage with men they cared nothing for. Were they then, automatically unnatural as they were "going against their nature"?

(c) In social animals, there is less of an imperative for every individual to reproduce. In fact, if every single individual did, most of the offspring (or adults, or both) would die off. Having homosexual members actually increases the chance of the offspring to survive, as there are more adults to take care of the offspring.

im asking you to prove it. if god does not exist then how have you come to being?

Our parents decided to fuck.

If a gay man sticks his penis into a gay woman's vagina and ejaculates, both are just as capable of reproducing in that scenario as if it were heterosexual man and woman.

but that goes against homosexuality

Our parents decided to fuck.

fine, lets take it to even simpler terms. If god does not exist then how did everything come into being?

im asking you to prove it. if god does not exist then how have you come to being?
I believe that two Giant Male Dogs mate for eternity and that we as people are fleas in his divine fur.

You obviously did not understand what I was saying. By "us" I meant everyone, of any sexual orientation.
And how dare you think you know my sexual orientation? You just made one big assumption there! How dare you!!! Just because I defend the rights and equality of my fellow human beings does not make me part of whatever group I am defending (nor does it make me NOT among them)! You do NOT have the right to make any assumption about me without knowing who I am!


big applause at you ! xx

but that goes against homosexuality

No, it doesn't. You only think it does because of your retarded views on sex. Two people can engage in intercourse even if they are not necessarily attracted to one another. And the fact remains that homosexuals are just as physically capable of reproduction as heterosexuals, so your equally retarded qualification of reproduction for consideration as "natural" is bunk. Try again with a better thought out premise.

You obviously did not understand what I was saying. By "us" I meant everyone, of any sexual orientation.
And how dare you think you know my sexual orientation? You just made one big assumption there! How dare you!!! Just because I defend the rights and equality of my fellow human beings does not make me part of whatever group I am defending (nor does it make me NOT among them)! You do NOT have the right to make any assumption about me without knowing who I am!

no offense was intended.

naturally, as in the act of sex between one man and one woman, as in sticking a male's penis in a female's vagina and ejaculating. that is natural. IVF is not natural.

What about oral sex, is that natural or unnatural?
What about manual stimulation?
What about sex with somebody who is infertile?

fine, lets take it to even simpler terms. If god does not exist then how did everything come into being?

If God exists then how did He come into being?

fine, lets take it to even simpler terms. If god does not exist then how did everything come into being?

How did God come into being?

fine, lets take it to even simpler terms. If god does not exist then how did everything come into being?

His Noodly Apendage.

fine, lets take it to even simpler terms. If god does not exist then how did everything come into being?


the gases in the sub space combusted etc and the big bag theory comes into play planets stars moons etc scattered across the planets. Humans over many miillions of years formed from mammals, birds etc. thats how!

No, it doesn't. You only think it does because of your retarded views on sex. Two people can engage in intercourse even if they are not necessarily attracted to one another. And the fact remains that homosexuals are just as physically capable of reproduction as heterosexuals, so your equally retarded qualification of reproduction for consideration as "natural" is bunk. Try again with a better thought out premise.

you have just said that gays can reproduce if they have sex with lesbians! homosexuality is sex between gays! Male-male, not male-female!

but that goes against homosexuality

And you think that going against homosexuality is unnatural?

you have just said that gays can reproduce if they have sex with lesbians! homosexuality is sex between gays! Male-male, not male-female!
So, once a homosexual has sex with someone of the opposite sex, he ceases to be a homosexual?

you have just said that gays can reproduce if they have sex with lesbians! homosexuality is sex between gays! Male-male, not male-female!

Homosexuality is being attracted to a member/members of the same sex. You can have sex with someone you're not attracted to.

you have just said that gays can reproduce if they have sex with lesbians! homosexuality is sex between gays! Male-male, not male-female!

How is it that you can use punctuation but not capitalization?

What is your point, by the way? Just because homosexuals do not choose to reproduce does not mean they are incapable.

fine, lets take it to even simpler terms. If god does not exist then how did everything come into being?

Who knows?
Just because people don't know the answer to something does NOT mean that the logical conclusion is "An Invisible man in the sky made it happen".

you have just said that gays can reproduce if they have sex with lesbians! homosexuality is sex between gays! Male-male, not male-female!

Since when do I have to have sex with a woman to impregnate her? Do you know nothing about biology? And how does fucking a woman make me less gay? If I want a child, I know how to get one. Nothing about being gay precludes me from having one.

no offense was intended.

It better have not been intended! I'll take that as an acceptable apology. Barely.

But that leaves you with what I said before. Your logic requires God to have not created us (meaning everyone). Which directly goes against the Bible. Consequently, either your logic, or some part of the Bible is inaccurate. Possibly both.

im asking you to prove it. if god does not exist then how have you come to being?

Well, my dad loved my mom very much and he put his penis into her vagina ...

Do I *really* need to explain biology to you?

You are the one who makes the claim that if god didn't exist, neither would I. You back up your claim with evidence.

... And how does fucking a woman make me less gay?

I don't know how, but it does. Every time you make sweet love to a lady, it makes you 3% less gay.

How did God come into being?

This should be another thread, but I'll answer anyway.

-God created the universe.
-The universe includes everything in the space/time continuum.
-A part of something cannot be responsible for the creation of that something. For example, you can't claim that an egg laid itself.

Therefore, God (having created the universe) cannot logically be a part of the universe. He is outside of it.

If God is outside of the universe, then He is outside of space and time.
If God is outside of time, then the question of God's creation is rendered nonsensical.
"Before God" and "After God" are concepts that can only make sense in an environment with time. Outside of time, there is no before or after; only during.
Which is why God is Eternal.

you have just said that gays can reproduce if they have sex with lesbians! homosexuality is sex between gays! Male-male, not male-female!

Homosexuality is not "sex" at all. Sexuality is a trait that refers to the attractions of a creature. A celibate person can be hetero-, homo-, or bisexual without ever having sex.

A gay man can reproduce by having sex with any woman (outside of more clinical means), whether she is lesbian, bisexual, or straight. His purpose will not be pleasure or fulfilling an attraction, but will be reproduction.

I don't know how, but it does. Every time you make sweet love to a lady, it makes you 3% less gay.

Which would make me, I guess, -10% gay, were it not for the fact that I love cocks and rimjobs and having my brains fucked out.

Not that the "woman loving" was sweet. *shudders at the flashbacks*

This should be another thread, but I'll answer anyway.

-God created the universe.
-The universe includes everything in the space/time continuum.
-A part of something cannot be responsible for the creation of that something. For example, you can't claim that an egg laid itself.

Therefore, God (having created the universe) cannot logically be a part of the universe. He is outside of it.

If God is outside of the universe, then He is outside of space and time.
If God is outside of time, then the question of God's creation is rendered nonsensical.
"Before God" and "After God" are concepts that can only make sense in an environment with time. Outside of time, there is no before or after; only during.
Which is why God is Eternal.

So, basically you're just making shit up to avoid answering why the universe would need a creator but not the creator need a creator, and going "he doesn't need one, because, well, I say so."

Which would make me, I guess, -10% gay, were it not for the fact that I love cocks and rimjobs and having my brains fucked out.
I'm alerting the committee of the Gay Agenda of your infractions.

Biblically speaking, as has been pointed out, male homosexuality is not regarded as a sin. Simply as something that is "uncleann."
Which is true, in the sense that it is pretty easy to spread disease through anal intercourse (something gay men commonly engage in).
With modern methods of safe sex, and a better understanding of hygene and biology, anal sex isn't really much of a hazard anymore if done right.

This should be another thread, but I'll answer anyway.

-God created the universe.
-The universe includes everything in the space/time continuum.
-A part of something cannot be responsible for the creation of that something. For example, you can't claim that an egg laid itself.

Therefore, God (having created the universe) cannot logically be a part of the universe. He is outside of it.

If God is outside of the universe, then He is outside of space and time.
If God is outside of time, then the question of God's creation is rendered nonsensical.
"Before God" and "After God" are concepts that can only make sense in an environment with time. Outside of time, there is no before or after; only during.
Which is why God is Eternal.

So you dismiss the question. If God does not need a creator, then why do the universe, the solar system, life, human life, your mom, and Doritos need God to create them?

Which would make me, I guess, -10% gay, were it not for the fact that I love cocks and rimjobs and having my brains fucked out.

Not that the "woman loving" was sweet. *shudders at the flashbacks*

You've slept with women? So when exactly did you catch gay?

So you dismiss the question. If God does not need a creator, then why do the universe, the solar system, life, human life, your mom, and Doritos need God to create them?

I answered the question, which was "who created God".
The question was NOT "where did the universe come from."

As for whether the universe (etc) needs God to have created them, it doesn't. Not really.
I just happen to find that it's the most plausible explanation, but I don't expect everybody to agree with me.

So, basically you're just making shit up to avoid answering why the universe would need a creator but not the creator need a creator, and going "he doesn't need one, because, well, I say so."

What do you think I was making up?
What mases you think that I insist that the Universe must have a creator?

I'm alerting the committee of the Gay Agenda of your infractions.

Seeing as I'm on it, and directing our conversion campaigns (used to be secretary in charge of bringing civilisation to an end, but I missed corrupting young men), I'll be expecting only a limp-dicked slap on the cheek.

I answered the question, which was "who created God".
The question was NOT "where did the universe come from."

As for whether the universe (etc) needs God to have created them, it doesn't. Not really.
I just happen to find that it's the most plausible explanation, but I don't expect everybody to agree with me.

The statement was originally that if God did not exist then we did not exist, because without God there would be no way we were created. If God does not need a "creator", then why do we?

Which would make me, I guess, -10% gay, were it not for the fact that I love cocks and rimjobs and having my brains fucked out.

Not that the "woman loving" was sweet. *shudders at the flashbacks*

Aww a side of Fass I never seen before. ;)

The statement was originally that if God did not exist then we did not exist, because without God there would be no way we were created.

The statement originally was about homosexuality, actually.
I took a specific question that somebody posed, quoted it, and answered it.
Where's the confusion?

If God does not need a "creator", then why do we?

Because we exist within space/time.
We can't have created ourselves. That's why we have parents.

Seeing as I'm on it, and directing our conversion campaigns (used to be secretary in charge of bringing civilisation to an end, but I missed corrupting young men), I'll be expecting only a limp-dicked slap on the cheek.
Egads! I had no idea, Herr Fass!
(I don't know why the German, it just seemed suitable.)

You've slept with women?

Yes. The shame consumes me.

So when exactly did you catch gay?

I read of some gay couple marrying each other a few years back. By the time I finished the article, the gaydiation had gotten to me, and I was a full fledged butt pirate.

Yes. The shame consumes me.



I read of some gay couple marrying each other a few years back. By the time I finished the article, the gaydiation had gotten to me, and I was a full fledged butt pirate.

Hmm. I didn't know you could catch gay like that. I must have an excellent immune system, to read your posts as often as I do without catching it.

I read of some gay couple marrying each other a few years back. By the time I finished the article, the gaydiation had gotten to me, and I was a full fledged butt pirate.

I got it from the toilet seat.

I got it from the toilet seat.
...the most lethal form of gay.

Hmm. I didn't know you could catch gay like that. I must have an excellent immune system, to read your posts as often as I do without catching it.

That's what you think.

I can imagine some ignorant person reading this sarcasm and using it as "proof" that being gay is something that is chosen, or able to actively be "done" rather than something that happens naturally.

I got it from the toilet seat.

Ah, the glory we call "hole."

I can imagine some ignorant person reading this sarcasm and using it as "proof" that being gay is something that is chosen, or able to actively be "done" rather than something that happens naturally.

It wouldn't matter. By the time they picked up on the sarcasm they'd have come down with a serious case of gay themselves.

I read of some gay couple marrying each other a few years back. By the time I finished the article, the gaydiation had gotten to me, and I was a full fledged butt pirate.

Well, at least you can tell the Pastafarians that you contribute to the fight against global butt-warming.

Ah, the glory we call "hole."

Roflmao Fass.

And what about us Bi's? :D:fluffle:

It wouldn't matter. By the time they picked up on the sarcasm they'd have come down with a serious case of gay themselves.
It's cool though. They just have to attempt to reproduce with a woman and the gay goes away.

Well, at least you can tell the Pastafarians that you contribute to the fight against global butt-warming.

Butts are hot. Far be it from me to ever imply anything else. The pastafarians can rot in mac&cheese.

It's cool though. They just have to attempt to reproduce with a woman and the gay goes away.
Nope! Not even if your gay does the gay go away. :p

Roflmao Fass.

And what about us Bi's? :D:fluffle:

Bisexuality does not exist. Women who claim to be bi are attention whores, the men who claim to be bi are poofs in denial.

I'm surprised this discussion continues. The only proper response is to say that homosexuality, anything else and you will be accused of some kind of prejudice correct? Doesn't exactly leave any kind of room for debate.

i need an instant cure for gay... i just took a sneaky peak in le bible and apparently... its not good for you! any help?

It's cool though. They just have to attempt to reproduce with a woman and the gay goes away.

We've already proved that pussy is powerless against the love of the cock up the poop chute.

Bisexuality does not exist. Women who claim to be bi are attention whores, the men who claim to be bi are poofs in denial.

That's a load of hooey!
I worship women and all their tasteyness. Also how snuggly and warm and just plain HOT they are. Weird thing....it can apply to men to.

Bisexuality does not exist. Women who claim to be bi are attention whores, the men who claim to be bi are poofs in denial.
I'm bi... but I'd rather not get into an argument about it.

I'm bi... but I'd rather not get into an argument about it.

:fluffle:

Best way to be though. :)

I'm surprised this discussion continues. The only proper response is to say that homosexuality, anything else and you will be accused of some kind of prejudice correct? Doesn't exactly leave any kind of room for debate.

I think you left out some of your sentence there.

Anyway, yes, prejudice abounds. It should be exposed and erradicated.

We've already proved that pussy is powerless against the love of the cock up the poop chute.
I'd say that depends on which cock and pussy we're talking about.

That's a load of hooey!
I worship women and all their tasteyness. Also how snuggly and warm and just plain HOT they are. Weird thing....it can apply to men to.

So sad to see people stuck half-way in the closet thinking themselves less gay if they keep appearances up.

I'd say that depends on which cock and pussy we're talking about.

Not really, no.

So sad to see people stuck half-way in the closet thinking themselves less gay if they keep appearances up.
What you're talking about does exist but it doesn't apply to me. I have a fiance that I love and have no regrets about anything I've done in my past. We're thinking about having a three way and (I don't know why I'm going into all this)... anyway...
sometimes a cock is just a cock.

I think you left out some of your sentence there.

Anyway, yes, prejudice abounds. It should be exposed and erradicated.

So my first sentence isn't complete, I have argued that grammer nazis should take their red pens elsewhere. Still I would think that those who are against homosexuality on religious reasons would still not feel any hatred towards them or shouldn't. The Bible tells you to love your neighbor and your enemies, even the most vile sinners so hating them should be against the teachings of Christianity. Disapproval being one thing but hatred quite another.

So sad to see people stuck half-way in the closet thinking themselves less gay if they keep appearances up.

Haha...sure.. :p

Me likey both! Me likey both!

Not really, no.
Its all in the hole of the beholder?

I don't think that made a lick of sense.

What you're talking about does exist but it doesn't apply to me. I have a fiance that I love and have no regrets about anything I've done in my past. We're thinking about having a three way and (I don't know why I'm going into all this)... anyway...
sometimes a cock is just a cock.

And sometimes denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

So my first sentence isn't complete, I have argued that grammer nazis should take their red pens elsewhere. Still I would think that those who are against homosexuality on religious reasons would still not feel any hatred towards them or shouldn't. The Bible tells you to love your neighbor and your enemies, even the most vile sinners so hating them should be against the teachings of Christianity. Disapproval being one thing but hatred quite another.
There was also something to do with stones in there. Which you seem to forget.

And sometimes denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Well, I said I didn't want to argue about it, so... whatever. Theres really no reason to change your mind.

Gay men, girlier. And presumably lesbians more butch? People actually think that these days do they? Well, that's NS General I guess. Your friendly neighbourhood window into total ignorance, stated with utter certainty. And that quote is almost siggable, though I say it myself.
Sigged it is, even though you said it yourself. :p

I was totally going to go to bed, but I actually read all 16 pages of this thread.
Good work, everybody! :)

Its all in the hole of the beholder?

I don't think that made a lick of sense.

That's heterosexuality for you. Senseless.