NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Man, it's a shame your son's such a pussy.

Now you are arguing natural = bad?

There are more than two options. Natural doesn't have to be either good or bad.

Ya. Though nature is sadly cruel sometimes.

Man, it's a shame your son's such a pussy.
Yeah, like those billions of american children who now are mentally deficient because they saw a bit of Janet Jackson's tit, or because they viewed two gay men kissing each other at the Oscars.

God forbid children are put into contact with harmless reality. Let's cocoon them up in religious inspired taboo, guilt and shame of their own bodily functions instead. That should work.

[/sarcasm]

Except homosexuality isn't a sin. Jesus said not a word against it.

Except it's against the Law God the Father gave the Jews. And Paul (who some see as the greatest Apostle) spoke against it also.

And according to biblical Christianity the Apostles were infallible when speaking on matters of religion.

Now you are arguing natural = bad?

There are more than two options. Natural doesn't have to be either good or bad.

When did I argue anything else? You are thinking of someone else's postion/statement.

Man, it's a shame your son's such a pussy.
Damn troll. Just leave before you get banned.

Personally I think its a beautiful thing when two men kiss passionately or even sweetly. Its not scary or disgusting or anything. Though I think people try to make it sound like its bad because their parents and everything from the Bible says its bad.

Except it's against the Law God the Father gave the Jews. And Paul (who some see as the greatest Apostle) spoke against it also.

And according to biblical Christianity the Apostles were infallible when speaking on matters of religion.
Paul also said sex was a sin, and marriage just made it less so; and Jewish law says you shouldn't eat shellfish. You had a point somewhere?

Except it's against the Law God the Father gave the Jews.

So is eating shellfish. So is menstruating. So is wearing a poly-cotton blend. So is a woman not bleeding on her wedding night, even though not bleeding is not a sign that she is not a virgin.

God, meanwhile, approves of slavery and sometimes orders genocide.

That is, of course, if you think that all of the laws of the ancient Hebrews came straight from the mouth of God and you go with the specific translations of today.

And Paul (who some see as the greatest Apostle) spoke against it also.

He spoke out against something, with a word that is not used in any other contemporary texts and is thus automatically unclear. Some think the word referred to homosexuality in general. Others think it referred to a common practice in which men took young boys as prostitutes. Others think it referred to another common practice in which heterosexuals would perform homosexual acts on priests of the temples in order to gain temple favor.

And according to biblical Christianity the Apostles were infallible when speaking on matters of religion.

Hardly. Paul never claimed infallibility.

Except it's against the Law God the Father gave the Jews. And Paul (who some see as the greatest Apostle) spoke against it also.

And according to biblical Christianity the Apostles were infallible when speaking on matters of religion.
You'd think if God cared that much about who shagged who, he'd had memo'ed Junior to slip in a word on two on the subject, no?

Paul isn't Jesus. He's neither God, nor the son of God. He's an ordinary human, capable of mistakes and failure like all of us. His writings often seem to convey personal opinions, even prejudice, particularly towards women and homosexuals. But hey, that's a question of interpretating the Bible.

screw religion. natural selection please.

heterosexuality: reproduction
homosexuality: population control
bisexuality: pornography that suits everyone's needs.

solved.

Paul also said sex was a sin, and marriage just made it less so; and Jewish law says you shouldn't eat shellfish. You had a point somewhere?

Not to mention the ABILITY to defy God is sin. (Original Sin) As humans we are BORN into sin THROUGH sin BY sin. Our whole lives is one big fat sin-fest! Even the Pope is still full of sin! Jesus sinned, all the apostles sinned, and you know what, EVERYONE HAS. So if your going to Hell for living, what's the point?

The Bible is full on contradictions, but that's the problem of taking an idea and making it a BELIEF and RELIGION. Just live your life as pure and good as you can and do not deny your morals or others. Being a homosexual has nothing to deal with how you are as a human being. :fluffle:

Really, I don't understand why people have such massive problems with gays.

Jeeze.

I have a SERIOUS question for all you anti-gay people, those who call it sin, those that say that gays will burn in hell for all eternity.

Don't you think that you would not have these prejudices if YOU were gay?
Call me crazy, but for all you vehement anti-gays, surely your feelings would change if you were gay, or if your son or daughter, or any relation or friend, were gay? One of my friends' parents were VERY traditional, and anti-gay, and were against lowering the age of consent for gay sex to 16. However, when they found out that my friend was gay, they completely changed any thoughts that they had of gay people. They had based all their opinions on stereotypes and utter nonsense published in the media. It wasn't until they met an actual gay person/realised that someone very close to them was gay, that they had opinions of gay people that had any foundation. And whilst I do not wish to offend any religious person gathered here, it really irritates me when people cite their religion for their anti-gay sentiments. Instead of hiding behind the Bible, Torah or Qur'an, just admit the real reason you don't like gays, whatever reason that may be.

But perhaps you should think about what your anti-gay sentiments might be doing to those easily-influenced youngsters, whose ears you fill with complete crap about why homosexuality is wrong. It caused my friend to attempt suicide, aged 15, just eighteen months ago, because his parents and all his family friends filled his ears with complete and utter bullsh*t. Thankfully, he's ok, but think about the detrimental effect your homophobia is having on the young gays of today's world.

Just learn to accept that homosexuality is as much a part of everyday-life as heterosexuality, and that homosexuality and heterosexuality are just as old as each other, and that it doesn't matter who you love, as long as you have found love and can share it with another human being in a way that makes you happy, and will allow you to flourish and succeed.

Jesus made it perfectly clear...

Matthew 19
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

They shall become one. They were separated from one, (Adam and Eve) and they shall become one together again (Husband and Wife). You can't cut two cars in half and then join both fronts together and both rear-ends together somewhere else, neither car combination will function properly. You need a front half and a back half for every car.

Not to mention the ABILITY to defy God is sin. (Original Sin) As humans we are BORN into sin THROUGH sin BY sin. Our whole lives is one big fat sin-fest! Even the Pope is still full of sin! Jesus sinned, all the apostles sinned, and you know what, EVERYONE HAS. So if your going to Hell for living, what's the point?

The Bible is full on contradictions, but that's the problem of taking an idea and making it a BELIEF and RELIGION. Just live your life as pure and good as you can and do not deny your morals or others. Being a homosexual has nothing to deal with how you are as a human being. :fluffle:
The problem is, some religious people try to categorize sins, and make some to be worse than others. I guess it's a way for some of them to comfort themselves by knowing that even though they sin(because everyone does), their sins are less sinful than their neighbour's.

It would seem homosexuality is sort of a "pet" sin for organized churches. For some reason, it's played out as one of the worst sins one can commit. Yet, interesting fact, homosexuality is mentionned only around 5-10 times in the bible, and never mentionned by Jesus, Mr. Son Of God himself. Adultery, or cheating on your spouse, is mentionned some 200+ times, and several of those being condemnations byt Jesus himself.

Funny how we don't hear those very religious persons, or religious leaders, ramble about how adultery is destroying the very fabric of society, no?

Jesus made it perfectly clear...

Matthew 19
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

They shall become one. They were separated from one, (Adam and Eve) and they shall become one together again (Husband and Wife). You can't cut two cars in half and then join both fronts together and both rear-ends together somewhere else, neither car combination will function properly. You need a front half and a back half for every car.

Way to take something out of context, considering that this was a response to a question about divorce, and had nothing at all to do with same-sex relationships.

Damn troll. Just leave before you get banned.

Personally I think its a beautiful thing when two men kiss passionately or even sweetly. Its not scary or disgusting or anything. Though I think people try to make it sound like its bad because their parents and everything from the Bible says its bad.

All I can say is, it dosent matter if its two men, two women, or a man and a woman, it is just disgusting to see couples sucking on each other faces out in public. Its rude, its disrespectful, and it should be kept at home or some private area. Its funny how the ones who cheer for homosexuality say that others cant do anything because it doesnt matter what you do in private. Yes, so please keep your affection private.

Jesus made it perfectly clear...

Matthew 19
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

They shall become one. They were separated from one, (Adam and Eve) and they shall become one together again (Husband and Wife). You can't cut two cars in half and then join both fronts together and both rear-ends together somewhere else, neither car combination will function properly. You need a front half and a back half for every car.

Your quote certainly makes a good point of Jesus supporting marriage. What it doesn't do is say that Jesus disapproved of gay relationships, or celibacy(priests anyone?), or any other way to live your life. Because Jesus says "hey, straight couples are nice" does not imply being in a straight couple is the one and only way to be in a relationship.

Supporting something doesn't mean being against all alternatives.

And, FYI, this particular car front-half functionned perfectly well with his other car back-half for three whole years, which a whole lot more that most of my straight friends can claim from their uncut SUV.

Way to take something out of context, considering that this was a response to a question about divorce, and had nothing at all to do with same-sex relationships.

And how do you figure Jesus words for the definition of marriage are somehow not related to human relationships that involve sex and marriage? It IS the definition of marriage in Jesus' own words.

All I can say is, it dosent matter if its two men, two women, or a man and a woman, it is just disgusting to see couples sucking on each other faces out in public. Its rude, its disrespectful, and it should be kept at home or some private area. Its funny how the ones who cheer for homosexuality say that others cant do anything because it doesnt matter what you do in private. Yes, so please keep your affection private.
Hey, everything's got to be taken with a grain of salt. Personally, everything that a man a woman can do in public without being indecent(holding hands, kissing goodbye, hugging, for example) two men or two woman should be able to do without anyone being scandalized.

I do agree, however, that nobody wants to see two persons sucking their faces out in public. Let's just not be anti-PDA nazis, though.

And how do you figure Jesus words for the definition of marriage are somehow not related to human relationships that involve sex and marriage? It IS the definition of marriage in Jesus' own words.

They weren't Jesus' words. They were the words of Scripture written before Christ, which He was quoting. And they don't define marriage. They describe it.

There is nothing at all there that would suggest that the same union couldn't possibly be found between two members of the same sex, although it is telling of a society who still thought that "male" and "female" were absolute terms.

Hey, everything's got to be taken with a grain of salt. Personally, everything that a man a woman can do in public without being indecent(holding hands, kissing goodbye, hugging, for example) two men or two woman should be able to do without anyone being scandalized.

I do agree, however, that nobody wants to see two persons sucking their faces out in public. Let's just not be anti-PDA nazis, though.

true, I dont mind a hug or a peck on the cheek or lips, but not the long tongue wrestling matches some people do, or the groping!

true, I dont mind a hug or a peck on the cheek or lips, but not the long tongue wrestling matches some people do, or the groping!
Yeah, you need something like a hide for that sort of thing :p

Does being born gay make it acceptable? Persons are born with diabetes: should we leave that alone as well?

Now one can argue that homosexuality is not harmful and is therefore different from diabetes. Yes, let's argue about that. But all I'm doing is showing that simply because one is born with something does not make it acceptable.

You have assumed too far and have stepped into the doors of fallacy. Homosexuality has neither been proven or disproven as a disease. You have compared homosexuality on the same level as a disease. Therefore you have assumed homosexuality is a disease. Your premise is wrong and non-sequitur.

Do you mean to go further to imply that those with diabetes are unacceptable in
society?

Jesus made it perfectly clear...

Matthew 19
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

They shall become one. They were separated from one, (Adam and Eve) and they shall become one together again (Husband and Wife). You can't cut two cars in half and then join both fronts together and both rear-ends together somewhere else, neither car combination will function properly. You need a front half and a back half for every car.

Yeah. That is perfect clear that homosexuality is a sin. You aren't reading anything into it at all. :rolleyes:

They weren't Jesus' words. They were the words of Scripture written before Christ, which He was quoting. And they don't define marriage. They describe it.

There is nothing at all there that would suggest that the same union couldn't possibly be found between two members of the same sex, although it is telling of a society who still thought that "male" and "female" were absolute terms.

It is telling is that you think any scripture can be turned and twisted to mean anything you want it to.

It is telling is that you think any scripture can be turned and twisted to mean anything you want it to.
Which is exactly what you are doing.

It is telling is that you think any scripture can be turned and twisted to mean anything you want it to.

I don't think any such thing. Nice strawman there.

I don't think any such thing. Nice strawman there.

Your the one that implied that Male and Female don't really mean the modern day version of Male and Female... that's not a strawman, that's you looking at the words straight in the face and saying that don't say what they say...

Which is exactly what you are doing.

All I did was quote what a marriage was/is, by the same words Jesus used to define it. That not twisting anything.

Your the one that implied that Male and Female don't really mean the modern day version of Male and Female... that's not a strawman, that's you looking at the words straight in the face and saying that don't say what they say...

No, I implied that "male" and "female" are not as cut and dried as most people, then or today, think they are. Most people use them the same way today that they would have then, but the concepts themselves are not as easy as everyone seems to think.

How exactly do you define "male" and "female", pray tell?

It is telling is that you think any scripture can be turned and twisted to mean anything you want it to.

Yeah, like you taking Jesus answering a question about divorce and turning into something else entirely.

No, I implied that "male" and "female" are not as cut and dried as most people, then or today, think they are. Most people use them the same way today that they would have then, but the concepts themselves are not as easy as everyone seems to think.

How exactly do you define "male" and "female", pray tell?


It's your game, you play it.

Yeah, like you taking Jesus answering a question about divorce and turning into something else entirely.

In case you haven't noticed, you can't define a divorce without describing what a marriage is.

All I did was quote what a marriage was/is, by the same words Jesus used to define it. That not twisting anything.
No, it woulnd't have been. But you then said it applied to all relationships and not just marriage.

All I did was quote what a marriage was/is, by the same words Jesus used to define it. That not twisting anything.

1. Did Jesus talk in English?

2. Did Jesus say "this is what marriage is, anything else is a sin"? (or either part of that?)

No, it woulnd't have been. But you then said it applied to all relationships and not just marriage.

Sexual relationships are reserved for marriages, to suggest otherwise you should produce a verse that says it's okay to have sex outside of marriage...

Homosexuality its a punish for sinners. God was angry with some people who were too calmed, so he decided to make men sodomize other men, God to make'em worry he established that they were sinners and they must be burned. So all the Homo's inmigrated to Sodoma. An utopy to mess each other. after a while, they were invaded by the barbarians and those sissys were too scared to fight back. so they were killed, but not all of 'em.
They hided since ever, and just in the 19 th century, they reapeared like hippies 'n stuff like that. D:
So Homo's are sinners and thats my point of view :fluffle: :sniper:

In case you haven't noticed, you can't define a divorce without describing what a marriage is.

In case, you haven't noticed: Jesus did.

Moreover, describing what a marriage is doesn't define all relationships.

Big thing is that we are not made to be "homosexual"

Penis goes into Vagina, reproduction occurs.

"homosexuality" breaks the whole trend. In Darwin terms, the "homosexuals" will die out anyway, so no need in killing them.



----

That is the big argument against it. (Not my own opinions on this matter.)

Sexual relationships are reserved for marriages, to suggest otherwise you should produce a verse that says it's okay to have sex outside of marriage...

First of all, you are out of context.

Secondly, nice try at shifting the burden of proof. Where did Jesus say any relationship other than marriage was sinful?

Big thing is that we are not made to be "homosexual"

Penis goes into Vagina, reproduction occurs.

"homosexuality" breaks the whole trend. In Darwin terms, the "homosexuals" will die out anyway, so no need in killing them.



----

That is the big argument against it. (Not my own opinions on this matter.)
The whole argument is utter, and forgive the colloquiallism, bollocks. If all we did was reproduce then we'd all die out! The kids need ooking after etc... you need someone not interseted in bonking as much, for example, and so on.

Big thing is that we are not made to be "homosexual"

Penis goes into Vagina, reproduction occurs.

"homosexuality" breaks the whole trend. In Darwin terms, the "homosexuals" will die out anyway, so no need in killing them.



----

That is the big argument against it. (Not my own opinions on this matter.)


Penis fits in lots of places.

It doesn't fit the vagina particularly well if efficiency in reproduction where the only goal.

there are lots of evolutionary advantages of homosexuality. It only ends the population if everyone stops breeding -- that wouldn't be necesssary even if everyone were homosexual (which they obviously aren't).

Next.

In case, you haven't noticed: Jesus did.


Ummm, perhaps you should go back and read that verse and chapter again... before you embarrass yourself further.

All I did was quote what a marriage was/is, by the same words Jesus used to define it. That not twisting anything.
Yes, and the meaning of the word marriage has changed much in the last centuries. It was considered for a long time a contract giving to man property of a woman's. Lately, the meaning of marriage has changed, and now people marry for love instead of marriages arranged by the parents. Yet even more recently, at least in my country, the meaning has officially been changed to include two persons of the same gender who marry for love.

It's not the first time the meaning of marriage has changed, and I suspect it isn't the last either.

Remember, though, that whether or not you agree with this, we're still talking about marriage. This is no way supports the theory that homosexuality can be considered a sin. All it can support is a position protecting the christian churches the right to refuse to perform marriages between two persons if there isn't a male and a female in the newlyweds-to-be. Funnily enough, legalized same-sex marriage in Canada does that and protects the freedom of religion in the process.

Meanwhile, other, more inclusive churches and civil authorities can marry same-sex couples without problem. Everyone wins.

It's your game, you play it.

It's rather difficult. It doesn't work if we do it genetically, as there are XY women, XXY androgynous people, etc. It doesn't work if we do it morphologically, since there are intersexed people and those who display characteristics of both sexes (XXY, XXXY, etc.).

Like I said, there is no real way to pin it down.

Big thing is that we are not made to be "homosexual"

Some quite clearly were.

Penis goes into Vagina, reproduction occurs.

Sometimes. Sometimes no reproduction occurs - most of the time, actually. Sometimes penis goes into mouth, or anus - and guess what, generally no reproduction.

"homosexuality" breaks the whole trend. In Darwin terms, the "homosexuals" will die out anyway, so no need in killing them.

Hardly. Anyone who makes this argument apparently doesn't understand evolutionary theory very well.

Sexual relationships are reserved for marriages, to suggest otherwise you should produce a verse that says it's okay to have sex outside of marriage...
No, they are not for the most of us.

Again, they might be defined as such BY YOUR RELIGION. In which case you're free to adhere to such tenets. But please, do be so presumptous as to impose upon all the tenets of your religion.

Especially when there is such diversity in the interpretation of the bible, and so many church split-offs and denominations. Don't assume your beliefs are the beliefs of everyone, and that everyone should live by their rules.

Big thing is that we are not made to be "homosexual"

Penis goes into Vagina, reproduction occurs.

"homosexuality" breaks the whole trend. In Darwin terms, the "homosexuals" will die out anyway, so no need in killing them.



----

That is the big argument against it. (Not my own opinions on this matter.)
Actually, evolutionary speaking, homosexuality seems a perfectly natural form of population control for a specie that has, until now, proven to be very damaging to it's habitat and overbreeding dangerously fast, overcrowding our planet in the process.

Actually, evolutionary speaking, homosexuality seems a perfectly natural form of population control for a specie that has, until now, proven to be very damaging to it's habitat and overbreeding dangerously fast, overcrowding our planet in the process.

And as has been said before, repeatedly, in other threads (and undoubtably this one), homosexuals have historically performed the role of caretaker in nature; the adults of a communal species who were not able to have children took care of the children of the 'pack'.

Okay, the so-called "Christians" who take the approach of "Kill them all" are not Christians. While I believe that homosexuality is a sin, not worse than any other (including lying, coveting, etc. etc.), I do not believe that they should be treated like they have some kind of horrible disease. It makes me sad to see all those "Christians" have the holier-than-thou attitude and do nothing to help them. That is what they are suppose to do! Help them.

Also, it gets me frustrated that people assume that if you are a Christian, you hate gays. That is not true. The Christian is suppose to be loving, kind, gentle, compassionate, etc., but because of the "churches" that do not do what they are suppose to do, many people act like those "christians" who criticize others.

Like I said before, homosexuality is a a sin and is detestable to God, but so is lying, lusting, coveting, murdering, stealing, dishonoring your parents, adultery, idolotry, etc. etc.

The OP said he is a Presbyterian I think...

http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-homosexual.htm

The reason why so many people call it a sin is because according to most religions you do not have sex for fun but so you can have a child (Thus there is abstenence in many religions). And since gays cannot have children while having sex they are sinners (whenever they have sex). And this is the reason that religious authorities call beieng gay a sin.

They weren't Jesus' words. They were the words of Scripture written before Christ, which He was quoting. And they don't define marriage. They describe it.

There is nothing at all there that would suggest that the same union couldn't possibly be found between two members of the same sex, although it is telling of a society who still thought that "male" and "female" were absolute terms.

Jesus probably didn't specifically describe "homosexuality" because there was no word for it in His time. And so, it was unnecessary to do so. The word "fornication" covers all forms of sex outside the bounds of marriage. The word "homosexuality" did not even exist until the late 19th century. You can interpret the words of Christ any way you want, and you certainly wouldn't be the first, nor the last. Biblical scholars and laypersons have been doing that for years and who's to say who's right or wrong? But the fact of the matter is that He was quite definitely against fornication, and homosexuality would qualify as a form of that sin.

1Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

I didn't see any qualifiers in there. Did you?

(waiting for a re-interpretation of "husband" and "wife" or "fornication", or "marriage")

Actually, evolutionary speaking, homosexuality seems a perfectly natural form of population control for a specie that has, until now, proven to be very damaging to it's habitat and overbreeding dangerously fast, overcrowding our planet in the process.

What are you saying? Mother nature is out to protect herself and she's going to turn us into homosexuals as the remedy? Cute.

...
(waiting for a re-interpretation of "husband" and "wife" or "fornication")


LOL :p

-Anything specifically not prohibited by Jesus Himself is okay. Just ignore the entire rest of the Bible.

-Anything animals do is natural and therefore morally acceptable.

-Any Christian Denomination is free to believe whatever it wants, as long as it acknowledges the moral superiority of the homosexual community

-Anyone who goes from being straight to gay is to be commended, anyone who goes the other way is repressed and didn't really change to begin with.

Wow. A lot to think about. So according to this new wisdom, I would be perfectly justified if I went and mated with my sister, then ate my own children with a side of feces. Later, I'll kill my neighbor because his house is better than mine, and all of it is perfectly alright because, after all, animals do it, and Jesus never prohibited it.

Jesus probably didn't specifically describe "homosexuality" because there was no word for it in His time. And so, it was unnecessary to do so. The word "fornication" covers all forms of sex outside the bounds of marriage. The word "homosexuality" did not even exist until the late 19th century. You can interpret the words of Christ any way you want, and you certainly wouldn't be the first, nor the last. Biblical scholars and laypersons have been doing that for years and who's to say who's right or wrong? But the fact of the matter is that He was quite definitely against fornication of all kinds, and homosexuality would qualify as a form of that sin.

1Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

I didn't see any qualifiers in there. Did you?

(waiting for a re-interpretation of "husband" and "wife" or "fornication", or "marriage")

1. Now you moved away from the words of Jesus.

2. There were words for homosexuality in Greek long before Jesus came along. Sorry to ruin the whole premise of your argument.

-Anything specifically not prohibited by Jesus Himself is okay. Just ignore the entire rest of the Bible.

-Anything animals do is natural and therefore morally acceptable.

-Any Christian Denomination is free to believe whatever it wants, as long as it acknowledges the moral superiority of the homosexual community

-Anyone who goes from being straight to gay is to be commended, anyone who goes the other way is repressed and didn't really change to begin with.

Wow. A lot to think about. So according to this new wisdom, I would be perfectly justified if I went and mated with my sister, then ate my own children with a side of feces. Later, I'll kill my neighbor because his house is better than mine, and all of it is perfectly alright because, after all, animals do it, and Jesus never prohibited it.

Depends to which side your listening to. x-x

-Anything specifically not prohibited by Jesus Himself is okay. Just ignore the entire rest of the Bible.

-Anything animals do is natural and therefore morally acceptable.

-Any Christian Denomination is free to believe whatever it wants, as long as it acknowledges the moral superiority of the homosexual community

-Anyone who goes from being straight to gay is to be commended, anyone who goes the other way is repressed and didn't really change to begin with.

Wow. A lot to think about. So according to this new wisdom, I would be perfectly justified if I went and mated with my sister, then ate my own children with a side of feces. Later, I'll kill my neighbor because his house is better than mine, and all of it is perfectly alright because, after all, animals do it, and Jesus never prohibited it.

Cute.

Falacious, but cute.

... That is what they are suppose to do! Help them.
...

And how is that to be accomplished?

1. Now you moved away from the words of Jesus.

2. There were words for homosexuality in Greek long before Jesus came along. Sorry to ruin the whole premise of your argument.

Jesus did not speak Greek.

Nice try, though.

I'm thinking the only way we'd settle this one was to go back in time and ask Jesus Himself in Aramaic whether or not He understood the concept.

Cute.

Falacious, but cute.

Rofl. Though it does make me wonder, in all the posts, how come people keep bringing up the SAME animal arguement? I am sure this is at least the 3rd time I've seen it.

Jesus did not speak Greek.

Nice try, though.

I'm thinking the only way we'd settle this one was to go back in time and ask Jesus Himself in Aramaic whether or not He understood the concept.

What language was the NT written in?

The concept was well established in the culture in which Jesus supposedly lived.

Big thing is that we are not made to be "homosexual"

Penis goes into Vagina, reproduction occurs.

"homosexuality" breaks the whole trend. In Darwin terms, the "homosexuals" will die out anyway, so no need in killing them.



----

That is the big argument against it. (Not my own opinions on this matter.)

And I guess you assume that homosexual relationships are based only on sex?

Ummm, perhaps you should go back and read that verse and chapter again... before you embarrass yourself further.

Putting aside religion, what concrete evidence against homosexuality exists?

Jesus did not speak Greek.

Nice try, though.

I'm thinking the only way we'd settle this one was to go back in time and ask Jesus Himself in Aramaic whether or not He understood the concept.

He would have spoken Arabic.

Let's see....at the time Arabs were very important and was nearing the great age of communication and the height of their power. So....Jesus came from one of the most civilized part of the western world.

Maybe its all this translating and retranslating that is killing us. :p

I know this is a really crapy joke that y'all have heard a million times before but I will post it anyway...



Homosexuality is gay!


OMG, there it is!

Oh, and also gay people are fag..... ok, sorry from that point it gets kinda mean....


You know whats funny is gay people come up with the most hillarious anti-gay rants you have ever heard...


well yea, I have nothing against gay people per-sey but I do view it as a wrong lifestyle... but as long as they don't hit on me I don't really care what they do in bed... Just don't tell me about it...


and yea... thats all I have to say for right now...

What language was the NT written in?

The main ones, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were written by Paul, in Greek. As were all the ones in the NT I looked up. None were written by Christ Himself, however. So we're still at odds, and with no way to prove the other wrong.

What are you saying? Mother nature is out to protect herself and she's going to turn us into homosexuals as the remedy? Cute.
I'm saying that homosexual behaviour in a part of a specie's population strikes me as completely natural and in accordance to the laws of evolution. That a fraction of humans do no reproduce because of their sexual preferences does not mean the specie will die out: far from it.

In our case, the fraction of the total population that doesn't reproduce because of that is not even enough to cause a shrink in world population. Not that a shrink in the 7 billion we are on this small ball of dirt in space would be a bad thing, minde you. We're exhausting the ressources of our habitat alarmingly fast.

To say mother nature is out to protect herself reeks of oversimplification and animism. But cram in enough animals in a finite space for long enough, and I'm pretty sure some will naturally develop homosexual behaviours. It's been done with penguins (manhattan zoo, if my memory is correct) and rats. Note that this happens in very small living spaces and very large numbers of animals, conditions in which humans are not living yet.

But yes, I believe homosexuality is a natural form of birth control. Instead of breeding like mad and having thousands of children die of malnutrition and disease and poverty, homosexual individuals can instead help their siblings care for their own children. Heck, I don't really want any kids of my own, but that doesn't mean I won't help my sister out and babysit her future brats and have fun playing videogames with the little runts or help them study their math.

Being gay doesn't make you live in a void, neither does it mean you hate/want to kill/molest/maim children.

That differs. The main ones, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were written by Paul, in Greek.

So you'd suggest Jesus was ignorant of homosexuality, but Paul wasn't?

Homosexuality is gay!
Don't go there, girlfriend.

Yes, and the meaning of the word marriage has changed much in the last centuries. It was considered for a long time a contract giving to man property of a woman's. Lately, the meaning of marriage has changed, and now people marry for love instead of marriages arranged by the parents. Yet even more recently, at least in my country, the meaning has officially been changed to include two persons of the same gender who marry for love.

It's not the first time the meaning of marriage has changed, and I suspect it isn't the last either.

Remember, though, that whether or not you agree with this, we're still talking about marriage. This is no way supports the theory that homosexuality can be considered a sin. All it can support is a position protecting the christian churches the right to refuse to perform marriages between two persons if there isn't a male and a female in the newlyweds-to-be. Funnily enough, legalized same-sex marriage in Canada does that and protects the freedom of religion in the process.

Meanwhile, other, more inclusive churches and civil authorities can marry same-sex couples without problem. Everyone wins.

Has anyone considered the legal ramifications of marriage? Marriage is a legal acknowledgement that two people share economic, sexual, and physical and physical relationships.

He would have spoken Arabic.

Let's see....at the time Arabs were very important and was nearing the great age of communication and the height of their power. So....Jesus came from one of the most civilized part of the western world.

Maybe its all this translating and retranslating that is killing us. :p

Jesus spoke Aramaic.

So you'd suggest Jesus was ignorant of homosexuality, but Paul wasn't?

I would say unconcerned. He was against fornication of ALL kinds. All forms thereof would be considered sins.

The main ones, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were written by Paul, in Greek. As were all the ones in the NT I looked up. None were written by Christ Himself, however. So we're still at odds, and with no way to prove the other wrong.

The NT was written in Greek, but the 4 Gospels were not written by Paul. They were named after their authors.

He would have spoken Arabic.
..

Actually the options are, Aramaic, or Hebrew or Greek.


The main ones, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were written by Paul, in Greek. As were all the ones in the NT I looked up. None were written by Christ Himself, however. So we're still at odds, and with no way to prove the other wrong.

You have to fix your post. Paul did NOT write the gospels, he wrote the epistles

Putting aside religion, what concrete evidence against homosexuality exists?
None. Religion is pretty much the only argument against it. And, a pretty weak argument, at that, at least in the christian faith.

Personally, I think most of those convinced "homosexuality is a sin" simply use their faith and the bible as a shield to avoid being called on their own prejudice and bigotry. The religious arguments just aren't very convincing, but since you can't argue about faith... *shrug*

Has anyone considered the legal ramifications of marriage? Marriage is a legal acknowledgement that two people share economic, sexual, and physical and physical relationships.
or at the very least sexual and physic, since a couple can sign prenups (or postnups now are becoming a fad). legal status of marriage is less important to most people (except gays probably) than the 'moral' side of it.

Don't go there, girlfriend.
I am a GUY :upyours:

lol not tryin to be mean... just thought I would post something... lol :headbang:

Actually, evolutionary speaking, homosexuality seems a perfectly natural form of population control for a specie that has, until now, proven to be very damaging to it's habitat and overbreeding dangerously fast, overcrowding our planet in the process.

Several mammal species have been known to engage in homosexuality. Darwin's Theory (of natural selection) is just that----a theory, which has yet to be accepted as completely true or false. Darwin's Theory shouldn't necessarily be used to analyze homosexuality.

The NT was written in Greek, but the 4 Gospels were not written by Paul. They were named after their authors.

So at least five apostles would be familiar with the words for homosexuality.

Jesus must have been the slow one.

I am a GUY :upyours:

lol not tryin to be mean... just thought I would post something... lol :headbang:
hence the incredible hilarity of my rather inane post. for a long time i found stereotypical gay talk to be a highly amusing diversion, since many people can't handle it. less so now.

Several mammal species have been known to engage in homosexuality. Darwin's Theory (of natural selection) is just that----a theory, which has yet to be accepted as completely true or false. Darwin's Theory shouldn't necessarily be used to analyze homosexuality.
If Darwins theory wasn't a theory it would mean that all homosexuals are weak and would soon die out... So, this sorta disproves some of Darwins stuffs... :sniper:

If Darwins theory wasn't a theory it would mean that all homosexuals are weak and would soon die out... So, this sorta disproves some of Darwins stuffs... :sniper:

Only if homosexuality was completely genetic...

I know this is a really crapy joke that y'all have heard a million times before but I will post it anyway...



Homosexuality is gay!


OMG, there it is!

Oh, and also gay people are fag..... ok, sorry from that point it gets kinda mean....


You know whats funny is gay people come up with the most hillarious anti-gay rants you have ever heard...


well yea, I have nothing against gay people per-sey but I do view it as a wrong lifestyle... but as long as they don't hit on me I don't really care what they do in bed... Just don't tell me about it...


and yea... thats all I have to say for right now...


That shouldn't be a worry, as scientific research has proven that homosexuals are more likely to be attracted and able to some degree detect fellow homosexuals via subtle chemicals released from the skin.

So at least five apostles would be familiar with the words for homosexuality.

Jesus must have been the slow one.
well it IS thought by some historians that christianity would have come about without Jesus, but not without Paul (i think it's Paul). Jesus may have been more of a charismatic figurehead than anything else.

If Darwins theory wasn't a theory it would mean that all homosexuals are weak and would soon die out... So, this sorta disproves some of Darwins stuffs... :sniper:

The error in this thinking has been explained several times.

And go easy on the smilies. It's not a contest to see who can use them all.

Only if homosexuality was completely genetic...
I will concede that you are correct... I forgot that... I refuse to believe that Homosexuality is genetic... You have a choice! USE IT! You can decide what you want to have sex with or what you want to call the love of your life. It is not chosen for you! :eek:

Paul did NOT write the gospels, he wrote the epistles

I stand corrected.

Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter."

Nevertheless, even though the author may have been a disciple of Peter at some point, the author of the Gospel of Mark needn't have limited himself to Peter's preaching for his material.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

If Darwins theory wasn't a theory it would mean that all homosexuals are weak and would soon die out... So, this sorta disproves some of Darwins stuffs... :sniper:

Darwin's theory refers to species. Homosexuals are not a new species of humans; therefore, any assumptions made with Darwin's theory and homosexuals would reflect the entire human species.

Only if homosexuality was completely genetic...
or if you believe that mutations never occur in the genome.

That shouldn't be a worry, as scientific research has proven that homosexuals are more likely to be attracted and able to some degree detect fellow homosexuals via subtle chemicals released from the skin.
lol or what they wear! I can tell 20 homosexuals in my school just by the clothes they wear.

If Darwins theory wasn't a theory it would mean that all homosexuals are weak and would soon die out... So, this sorta disproves some of Darwins stuffs... :sniper:

No it doesnt, it just suggests that either homosexuality isnt genetic, or if it is genetic then it is probebly a beneficial recessive gene, like the sickle cell gene. 2 copies: your gay and therefore cant, or at least probably wont, reproduce.
One copy: and perhaps you get some advantage, like increased fertility, better hair, good dress sense or something else that increases your chances of reproducing and the number of offspring you have.

In this case homosexuality would be an evolutionary trait which would both keep the population down and provide an advantage.

No it doesnt, it just suggests that either homosexuality isnt genetic, or if it is genetic then it is probebly a beneficial recessive gene, like the sickle cell gene. 2 copies: your gay and therefore cant, or at least probably wont, reproduce.
One copy: and perhaps you get some advantage, like increased fertility, better hair, good dress sense or something else that increases your chances of reproducing and the number of offspring you have.

In this case homosexuality would be an evolutionary trait which would both keep the population down and provide an advantage.

lol so sensitive men are one copy short of being gay? evolution does not act to keep the population down. this is called group selection, and is believed by a handful of people on the planet.

No it doesnt, it just suggests that either homosexuality isnt genetic, or if it is genetic then it is probebly a beneficial recessive gene, like the sickle cell gene. 2 copies: your gay and therefore cant, or at least probably wont, reproduce.
One copy: and perhaps you get some advantage, like increased fertility, better hair, good dress sense or something else that increases your chances of reproducing and the number of offspring you have.

In this case homosexuality would be an evolutionary trait which would both keep the population down and provide an advantage.
I understand your point but for some reason I don't see the advantage of not being turned on by and getting laid with the opposite sex

Several mammal species have been known to engage in homosexuality. Darwin's Theory (of natural selection) is just that----a theory, which has yet to be accepted as completely true or false. Darwin's Theory shouldn't necessarily be used to analyze homosexuality.
Still, if the theory be exact, which I believe it is, homosexuality still fulfills in a role in it.

That post was in response to another poster saying homosexuality would "die out" because of evolution: I just pointed out that it might very well be simply a part of the natural selection process.

I personally think homosexuality is not wrong in any way. I know as I am culturally jewish, I find it is not very much a great thing, though I know it isn't banned.
People are made the way they are:) , and if you just happen to be part of a religion that doesn't appreciate homosexuality (most religions) and you find out you are one, that doesn't mean you're a hypocrite to your faith.

You know I wrote a 7 page paper on this subject that presented the main points of both sides... I was just now going to post here but I seem to have not saved it when I transferred all my files to this new computer... damn! eh, in the end it proved why gaying around is wrong but yea... Or more specifically why gay marriage is wrong... DAMN!

Still, if the theory be exact, which I believe it is, homosexuality still fulfills in a role in it.

That post was in response to another poster saying homosexuality would "die out" because of evolution: I just pointed out that it might very well be simply a part of the natural selection process.

there is no 'role' in evolution, there is only selective advantage. evolution is sounding dangerously like having a purpose in these posts. people are not like insects, developing new social castes to take care of the young, which only happened because weird genetics in insects mean that sisters are more closely related to each other than they are to their mothers.

I understand your point but for some reason I don't see the advantage of not being turned on by and getting laid with the opposite sex
Here's some of those advantages:

-No accidental pregnancies
-No fear of breaking your girlfriend's ribs while hugging
-No PMS
-Being turned on and generally getting laid more often by the same sex( since guys usually have larger sex drives)
-Being able to play violent videogames, sports, and do other fun guy-stuff with your significant other

The list could on for a while. Of course, there are also disadvantages, but all in all I don't think being gay is any better or worse than being straight.

You know I wrote a 7 page paper on this subject that presented the main points of both sides... I was just now going to post here but I seem to have not saved it when I transferred all my files to this new computer... damn! eh, in the end it proved why gaying around is wrong but yea... Or more specifically why gay marriage is wrong... DAMN!
proved eh? i can only assume there was not a great deal of science in it then.

lol so sensitive men are one copy short of being gay? evolution does not act to keep the population down. this is called group selection, and is believed by a handful of people on the planet.

I understand your point but for some reason I don't see the advantage of not being turned on by and getting laid with the opposite sex

No my point is if a person only had one copy of the recessive gene they wouldnt be gay, just as someone with one sickle cell gene doesnt have the disease. but with one SC gene people are resistant to malaria, which gives them a survival advantage, so SC doesnt die out even though the disease itself is a disadvantage.

and sensitive men might be one gene short. or maybe handsome ones, or women with really big breasts. Any number of things that are a reproductive advantage could be the effect. or it could be something else entirely, or not even genetic.

I dont mean it would evolve to keepthe population down, that would just be a possibly useful side effect. traits evolve because they give the individual an advantage. (well they evolve for no reason but become more widespread if they help).

Here's some of those advantages:

-No accidental pregnancies
-No fear of breaking your girlfriend's ribs while hugging
-No PMS
-Being turned on and generally getting laid more often by the same sex( since guys usually have larger sex drives)
-Being able to play violent videogames, sports, and do other fun guy-stuff with your significant other

The list could on for a while. Of course, there are also disadvantages, but all in all I don't think being gay is any better or worse than being straight.
Ah, yes, point taken with the PMS... But the others (except for sex) can be done any time when wife or GF are away or out of the house... You can have friends over and stuff...

there is no 'role' in evolution, there is only selective advantage. evolution is sounding dangerously like having a purpose in these posts. people are not like insects, developing new social castes to take care of the young, which only happened because weird genetics in insects mean that sisters are more closely related to each other than they are to their mothers.
Still, by helping my sister care for her children, a lot of my genetic material, which I share with her, is being transmitted. So it really doesn't go against natural selection.

Still, by helping my sister care for her children, a lot of my genetic material, which I share with her, is being transmitted. So it really doesn't go against natural selection.
as long as your sister's children also carry the gay gene, in which case you are helping to propagate it.

Ah, yes, point taken with the PMS... But the others (except for sex) can be done any time when wife or GF are away or out of the house... You can have friends over and stuff...
You obviously never have had the joy of doing all those things with your girlfriend. They're just that much more enjoyable when you do them with your significant other. And while it's not impossible to find a girl who likes to do all these things with you, it's rarer than for guys.

You know, chopping zombie heads with chainsaws just becomes so damn romantic when the zombie's being held down by the one you love :p

proved eh? i can only assume there was not a great deal of science in it then.
Yes, there was some but I mostly went on the side of what most people I interviewed thought. I presented the churches points of view as well but I did not let it bias my writing untill the conclusion where I threw in my point of view on everything... You have to remember I am only 16 and most of the people I interviewed are in highschool sooooo..... that would have effected some stuff...

Still, by helping my sister care for her children, a lot of my genetic material, which I share with her, is being transmitted. So it really doesn't go against natural selection.
your sister's children are 1/4 related, your own children are 1/2 related. from the point of view of natural selection, you have to help raise twice as many of her kids to get the same genetic benefit.

as long as your sister's children also carry the gay gene, in which case you are helping to propagate it.
My "gay gene", if it exists(which is still being debated in the scientific community) isn't the only gene I have, you know. Our sense of self-preservation doesn't care which genes are being carried: it only wants our genetic material not to completely go to waste and disappear.

So whether my sister passes on my gay gene, my incredible good looks, my great compassion or intelligence and cunning doesn't really matter. [/narcissism]

You obviously never have had the joy of doing all those things with your girlfriend. They're just that much more enjoyable when you do them with your significant other. And while it's not impossible to find a girl who likes to do all these things with you, it's rarer than for guys.

You know, chopping zombie heads with chainsaws just becomes so damn romantic when the zombie's being held down by the one you love :p
But I don't really plan on spending time on video games when I have the "love of my life" around... I plan on spending my time with her and doing stuff that make the both of us happy together! (sex anytime possible... lol)

My "gay gene", if it exists(which is still being debated in the scientific community) isn't the only gene I have, you know. Our sense of self-preservation doesn't care which genes are being carried: it only wants our genetic material not to completely go to waste and disappear.

So whether my sister passes on my gay gene, my incredible good looks, my great compassion or intelligence and cunning doesn't really matter. [/narcissism]
for gayness to arise as a significant factor in a population, in the manner you have described of staying to take care of children, it has to be in the children you are helping raise. and it has to outweigh the benefit of having your own children.

Ok I am tired and signing off of the forum for today... If you want to continue you discussions with me PM me in NationStates... and stuff...

your sister's children are 1/4 related, your own children are 1/2 related. from the point of view of natural selection, you have to help raise twice as many of her kids to get the same genetic benefit.
Alright, so I'll tell her to have 4 kids so most of my genome is transmitted. I'm sure she won't mind me dictating how many offsprings she need to spout out of her loins :p

Alternatively, I've thought about being a sperm donor. It would be a waste for all my nice, shiny genes to go down the drain, but I really don't think I have it in me to raise kids. I'm more of a "I don't mind taking care of them for the weekend" type. I always end up having lots of fun with kids, but after a day or two I just want the little demons to go back to their parents and give me a break for a week. :p

Alright, so I'll tell her to have 4 kids so most of my genome is transmitted. I'm sure she won't mind me dictating how many offsprings she need to spout out of her loins :p

Alternatively, I've thought about being a sperm donor. It would be a waste for all my nice, shiny genes to go down the drain, but I really don't think I have it in me to raise kids. I'm more of a "I don't mind taking care of them for the weekend" type. I always end up having lots of fun with kids, but after a day or two I just want the little demons to go back to their parents and give me a break for a week. :p

Sounds like you'd make good for grandparent materal...Maybe godfather.

But I don't really plan on spending time on video games when I have the "love of my life" around... I plan on spending my time with her and doing stuff that make the both of us happy together! (sex anytime possible... lol)
You'll find out that, even though sex 3 times a day is all fine and dandy(fun too!) the first 6 months, you really have to find more common interests than that if you want your relationship to last a lifetime.

The initial passion wears off eventually, but love, commitment and affection lasts forever.

for gayness to arise as a significant factor in a population, in the manner you have described of staying to take care of children, it has to be in the children you are helping raise. and it has to outweigh the benefit of having your own children.
My goal isn't to bolster gayness rates in the population. Where'd you get that absurd notion?

Like I said, our sense of preservation doesn't try to push some of our qualities and make them more common in the world. It only encourages us to find ways by which we can transmit part of our genome to next generations. Since my sense of preservation doesn't care which genes get to live on, there is no issue about my children or my sister's being gay or not.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, a genetic link to homosexuality has yet to be found.

Sounds like you'd make good for grandparent materal...Maybe godfather.
my mom keeps telling me to have kids so she can have them for a day, rile em up, and send them back home again. revenge for when i went to visit my grandparents and didn't have a bath for two weeks. :fluffle: grandparents!

Sounds like you'd make good for grandparent materal...Maybe godfather.
Thanks for the compliment, and yes, I think I'm gonna be a great uncle/godfather/whatever. Grandparent is much less likely, what with me not really planning on having children of my own.

All I have to say is... let people love who they want to love. Are they hurting anybody by marrying someboy of the same sex?? If so I'd love to hear how... bc i dont see anything. I am not a lesbian/gay and i feel that hell what if someone tried to tell me that i couldn't marry my husband? I'd be very upset... wouldn't you? All I am saying is if it is not hurting you why is it such a big deal? Why cause more stress, anger, or problems that do not need to be there... we already have too many in the world as it is.

Here's some of those advantages:

-No accidental pregnancies
-No fear of breaking your girlfriend's ribs while hugging
-No PMS
-Being turned on and generally getting laid more often by the same sex( since guys usually have larger sex drives)
-Being able to play violent videogames, sports, and do other fun guy-stuff with your significant other

The list could on for a while. Of course, there are also disadvantages, but all in all I don't think being gay is any better or worse than being straight.

Disadvantage.....no kids naturally?
Being gay seems a better choice then being straight at this point, if you removed the tabooness of it.

Disadvantage.....no kids naturally?
Being gay seems a better choice then being straight at this point, if you removed the tabooness of it.
Well, technically I can still have kids naturally. Gay doesn't mean sterile. All I need is a willing mother for the child, and a gay porn flick, really. Actually, I could even do without the porn, if I closed my eyes and thought about nice boys hard enough. Pun intended.

lol or what they wear! I can tell 20 homosexuals in my school just by the clothes they wear.

Yea, some but not all, tho. I know several people (myself included) who prefer to dress and act normally. I don't find being homosexual anything to be proud of, or (hopefully) anything to be ashamed of either; it's just who I am.

In some cases in nature (usually in primates or monkeys, though it may occur in some species of birds too) sex, no matter the sex of the partners involved, is used to strengthen the ties between the participants. The most well-known example is the bonobo, which is about as equally related to the chimpanzee as humans are, and which eats the same types of things and lives in the same sort of environment. Unlike chimps, though, who are warmongering and confrontational, bonobos rarely have conflicts with other bonobo groups or with each other. Instead, they have sex.

Vanginal-penal, anal, oral, same-sex, opposite sex, foreplay, more than one partner...they do it all.

Biologically it is possible for humans, at least, to become aroused to the point of orgasm by both sexes, or else well-known gay men such as Oscar Wilde would not be fathers. (And I've never read anything about his wife cheating on him.) At least this is true for gay men; of course women don't need orgasm to reproduce, and straight people are not forced have sex with the same sex by society, so perhaps this is not true for them (although I severely doubt it.)

So perhaps bisexuality is the possible state that nature allows, with some leeway for orientation due to genes/environment that the person was born into (some gay people never have the opportunity to have same sex relations; some people don't have sex, ever), in order to promote group co-operation rather than conflict. Rather like very intense grooming. Of course this has (like most evolutionary arguments) little bearing on the way we live now; we don't live like bonobos and chimps anymore. But since biology was brought up it seemed relevant.

Legitimate scientific discussions of this (with studies referenced) can be found in: Natalie Angier's Woman: An Intimate Geography and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's The Woman That Never Evolved.

So perhaps bisexuality is the possible state that nature allows, with some leeway for orientation due to genes/environment that the person was born into (some gay people never have the opportunity to have same sex relations; some people don't have sex, ever), in order to promote group co-operation rather than conflict. Rather like very intense grooming. Of course this has (like most evolutionary arguments) little bearing on the way we live now; we don't live like bonobos and chimps anymore. But since biology was brought up it seemed relevant.

Unfortunately there isn't any evidence left as to whether or not such relationships existed when we were on the same level as chimps, however your speculation does seem reasonable.

Well if you want to get into the debate of what's natural, monogamy isn't. There are only a handful of species that are actually monogamous. Humans are to a greater or lesser degree, but our pair bonds don't typically last a lifetime. Granted we're genetically predisposed to a certain level of monogamy, but it's far from determined.

Ever wonder why estrus in humans is suppressed when in most species it's very pronounced? It's a good way to get males to stick around, if you want to be sure you've reproduced you've got to stick around and make sure. Then there's the fact we're born so vulnerable, again, favoring the males that stick around a bit, but then other species are born vulnerable and their males cope by having mass sex and spawning immunerable offspring.

I don't hear the church ranting about what's natural at a wedding.
:fluffle:

Unfortunately there isn't any evidence left as to whether or not such relationships existed when we were on the same level as chimps, however your speculation does seem reasonable.

Speculation it is, like most arguments. Heck, we can't figure out relatively simple biological things like why women menstruate (it's a very expensive loss of nutrients) or predict what color a baby's eyes will be if the parents' eyes are different. So to think about the relationship of genes, hormones, evolution, environment and come to a solid conclusion? No way.

Personally, though, I love that argument. It's fun, and we can't "prove" it anyway.

Well if you want to get into the debate of what's natural, monogamy isn't. There are only a handful of species that are actually monogamous. Humans are to a greater or lesser degree, but our pair bonds don't typically last a lifetime. Granted we're genetically predisposed to a certain level of monogamy, but it's far from determined.

Ever wonder why estrus in humans is suppressed when in most species it's very pronounced? It's a good way to get males to stick around, if you want to be sure you've reproduced you've got to stick around and make sure. Then there's the fact we're born so vulnerable, again, favoring the males that stick around a bit, but then other species are born vulnerable and their males cope by having mass sex and spawning immunerable offspring.

I don't hear the church ranting about what's natural at a wedding.
:fluffle:

My reasoning against monogamy is statistical. There's over 6 billion people in the world. If the kind of person you like is one in a million, there's more than 6 thousand of them.

Why do so many Christians, "Christians," and other persons attack homosexuals so much?
Because stupid people like to show off their IQs.

:cool:

I just think it's sweet sweet irony that they defend a most unnatural institution as marriage by saying the queers are against god's plan for wanting in on the action.;)

I just think it's sweet sweet irony that they defend a most unnatural institution as marriage by saying the queers are against god's plan for wanting in on the action.;)
That's a very unusual wording for it. :eek:

But yeah. Anyway, nobody ever told them they had to be consistent, so why should we expect them to be?

Being usual is hardly entertaining.

Being usual is hardly entertaining.
Flaming queen. :rolleyes:

Being usual is hardly entertaining.
By usual I assume you mean normal. ;)

Flaming queen. :rolleyes:

Not so much, I'm actually quite butch. :cool: I drive a pickup truck and everything, I even know how to change a tire, and oil, brakes, distributor cap, I don't do carboratuers though, it's fuel injected. Not to mention all the little pieces.

And yes I meant normal.

-Anything specifically not prohibited by Jesus Himself is okay. Just ignore the entire rest of the Bible.

Strawman. No one has said this.

-Anything animals do is natural and therefore morally acceptable.

Strawman. The only people equating "natural" and "acceptable" were the people trying to claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" just because they find it unacceptable. No one ever said that everything that is natural is morally acceptable.

-Any Christian Denomination is free to believe whatever it wants, as long as it acknowledges the moral superiority of the homosexual community

Strawman yet again. No one has even come close to suggesting this.

-Anyone who goes from being straight to gay is to be commended, anyone who goes the other way is repressed and didn't really change to begin with.

Wow. Four for four. Good to know that you are either really fond of strawman, or have a serious problem with reading comprehension. Anyone who goes from "straight to gay" or from "gay to straight" is either bisexual, or wasn't one of them.


2. There were words for homosexuality in Greek long before Jesus came along. Sorry to ruin the whole premise of your argument.

Indeed. And, interestingly enough, Paul didn't use them, despite the fact that he did speak Greek. He instead made up his own word, suggesting that homosexuality was not really what he was opposed to....

Not so much, I'm actually quite butch. :cool: I drive a pickup truck and everything, I even know how to change a tire, and oil, brakes, distributor cap, I don't do carboratuers though, it's fuel injected. Not to mention all the little pieces.

And yes I meant normal.
Wait, are you a girl? If so, my bad, I thought you were male.

Jesus probably didn't specifically describe "homosexuality" because there was no word for it in His time. And so, it was unnecessary to do so. The word "fornication" covers all forms of sex outside the bounds of marriage.

And without a specific prohibition against same-sex marriage, we cannot say for certain that it is, well, prohibited.

The first instance in which marriage is described in the Bible, there are two reasons given for it. One is procreation ("Be fruitful and multiply," and all that). The other is the fact that "man should not be alone." To suggest that homosexuals should not seek out relationships is to state, point blank, that they should remain alone.

You can interpret the words of Christ any way you want,

I wouldn't say "any way you want." You won't, for instance, find any justification for Christ supporting genocide.

But the fact of the matter is that He was quite definitely against fornication, and homosexuality would qualify as a form of that sin.

(a) Homosexuality is not sex. It is a trait - a sexuality.

(b) Homosexual sex is only an instance of fornication if you first assume that homosexuals cannot get married.

or at the very least sexual and physic, since a couple can sign prenups (or postnups now are becoming a fad). legal status of marriage is less important to most people (except gays probably) than the 'moral' side of it.

The fact that a couple *can* sign prenuptials hardly discounts the 1049 rights and responsibilities afforded by marriage. Don't mistake - the civil rights movement is not about changing what a church believes, but is about ensuring that all citizens are treated equally under the law.

Darwin's Theory (of natural selection) is just that----a theory, which has yet to be accepted as completely true or false. Darwin's Theory shouldn't necessarily be used to analyze homosexuality.

Darwin's theory has been expanded on and corrected until we have evolutionary theory. No theory is ever accepted as completely true, and is only considered false if it is falsified (at which point it ceases to be a valid theory). Evolutionary theory is as true as just about any scientific theory, and all of modern biology is based in it.

That said, anyone who tries to use evolutionary theory to "disprove" homosexuality obviously doesn't understand it. Because of the way genetics works, the reproductive success of a given creature is linked to passing on its genes, something it does not necessarily have to do directly. A person is just as closely related to a sibling as to a child they have. They are just as related to a niece or nephew as to a grandchild. Thus, a homosexual person who does not reproduce, but does help raise siblings and siblings' children is just as reproductively successful as someone who has their own children and grandchildren.

I will concede that you are correct... I forgot that... I refuse to believe that Homosexuality is genetic... You have a choice! USE IT! You can decide what you want to have sex with or what you want to call the love of your life. It is not chosen for you! :eek:

So you are bisexual then? You are equally attracted to both males and females?

Of course you can decide who to have sex with. What you cannot decide is who you are attracted to and *want* to have sex with.

No it doesnt, it just suggests that either homosexuality isnt genetic, or if it is genetic then it is probebly a beneficial recessive gene, like the sickle cell gene.

Not all traits are controlled by a single gene. In fact, most are not. Skin color, for instance, is controlled by no less than five genes, plus dietary and environmental factors. There is no reason to believe that a single gene would cause homosexuality, especially considering that sexuality exists along a spectrum. Most likely, multiple genetic factors contribute, as well as in utero environmental factors. Evidence has been found for both cases.

And, as for some of said genes being otherwise beneficial, there is evidence that at least one genetic factor contributing to male homosexuality increases fertility when carried by women.

for gayness to arise as a significant factor in a population, in the manner you have described of staying to take care of children, it has to be in the children you are helping raise. and it has to outweigh the benefit of having your own children.

Another person who doesn't understand evolutionary theory. It wouldn't have to "outweigh the benefit of having your own children" to stick around in the population. It would simply have to be a trait that didn't harm your ability to pass on your genes. Evolutionary theory does not state that only the most reproductively successful pass on their traits - just that they will do so to a greater degree.

Wait, are you a girl? If so, my bad, I thought you were male.

Nope, definately male, got all the dangly bits that implies. ;)

Nope, definately male, got all the dangly bits that implies. ;)
Oh, good, then I can keep pretending to flirt with you and try to insult your masculinity ;)

Indeed. And, interestingly enough, Paul didn't use them, despite the fact that he did speak Greek. He instead made up his own word, suggesting that homosexuality was not really what he was opposed to....

It does no such thing. YOU have to make up your mind. Either homosexuality is the simple act of a sexual relation between two people of the same sex OR it is a lifestyle. YOU said that it is a lifestyle but THEN you say there was a word for homosexual in the ancient Greek. There was not. There were words for man-on-man sex and man-on-boy sex and prostitution sex, and Paul did not use those words. There was no ancient Greek word for the “homosexual only lifestyle” (the homosexuals then were more along the lines of what call bisexuals today) ... You've taken what little bit of information GnI has told you but you've misconstrued it, as he has if he says the same thing you are saying about it, and have taken this tidbit of information and tried to form it into meaning something that it does not about the overall meaning of the passages.

The English word "homosexual" may look like an ancient Greek expression, but the English word and word concept are modern: penned in the nineteenth century. Even then, it would take dozens of years for the word become what it means today. In ancient Greece, there never was a word to describe 'homosexuality' as we describe it, they even had separate words for the passive and active homosexual partners. The ancient Greeks simply described different parts of aphrodisiac (love) which was not exclusive to men and women alone. Paul used Malakoi and Arsenokoitai, which didn't have English equivalents for the King James translators so they used “effeminate” and "abusers of themselves," because the English language didn't have the word 'homosexual' yet to use it. But we can see when we read the entire passages that Paul did NOT use the words boy and prostitution (which he could have) IF that's what he was talking about. But he did not use them, probably because he wasn't actively talking about them.

Here some more detailed (and patient descriptions then I am willing to try and write right now) of why the modern translators that try and change these verses to say something like, "it's not real homosexual condemnation” arguments are just plain wrong.

http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D156498%2526X%253D1%2526M%253D200166,00.html

It does no such thing. YOU have to make up your mind.

If I want to describe homosexuality to people, would I make up a new word? For instance, would it make sense for me to say, "Sijnjioewn is a natural trait of some people, and should not be condemned," and then expect you to know that I was talking about homosexuality? Or would the fact that I had to make up a new word imply that I was talking about something else?

Either homosexuality is the simple act of a sexual relation between two people of the same sex OR it is a lifestyle.

Actually, homosexuality is a sexuality - a trait of a person. It is not a sexual relation or a lifestyle.

YOU said that it is a lifestyle

I never said any such thing.

but THEN you say there was a word for homosexual in the ancient Greek.

I've been told there was. I don't speak ancient Greek.

You've taken what little bit of information GnI has told you but you've misconstrued it, as he has if he says the same thing you are saying about it, and have taken this tidbit of information and tried to form it into meaning something that it does not about the overall meaning of the passages.

What makes you think GnI has anything to do with it? I look to GnI becauseI have seen little else on it. The disputes over the meaning of the word Arsenokoitai are widely published. When someone siimply makes up a word, translators can only guess as to what was meant. Since there was no contemporary use of the word....

http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D156498%2526X%253D1%2526M%253D200166,00.html[/quote]

Hmmm, lets look at this, shall we.

First obvious lie:

First, regarding the claim that homosexuals were "born that way," there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is biologically determined.

In truth, *all* available evidence points to the fact that sexuality, of any sort, is biologically determined.

Second, this interpretation introduces a concept – constitutional homosexuality – that is entirely foreign to the text, a detail Boswell himself admits: "It is in fact unlikely that many Jews of [Paul’s] day recognized such a distinction," and that possibly even Paul himself was in the dark. If Paul was ignorant of the notion of "natural" homosexuality, then he could not very well be letting men who were "born gay" off the hook when he wrote that they "exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural." This argument self-destructs.

Actually, Paul didn't have to be "letting them off the hook" for the argument to hold. The fact that he didn't know the basis of actual homosexuality means that he thought all homosexuals were giving up their "natural functions." We now know this to be untrue, and must look at Paul's inspiration through the light of our better informed position. As such, his argument that it is wrong only works if the inclination is not natural - if the person is actually a heterosexual engaging in homosexual acts.

? If all those who engage in homosexual acts are merely following their natural desires, then who falls under Paul’s ban? Those heterosexual men who are not aroused by other men, but have sex with them anyway? Hardly. For men, if there is no arousal, there is no sex.

Stupid argument. A man can get an erection by thinking about someone other than who he is with. Gay men have done it for quite some time when they were pushed into heterosexual relationships.

Men who are heterosexual would never be inclined to have sex with other men;

Considering that heterosexual men could obtain temple favors by having homosexual sex, this is also a stupid argument. The guy is basically trying to argue that the only reason anyone ever has sex is personal attraction to the other person. This is untrue.

Paul was not unclear about what he meant by "natural." According to him, the problem is not that men abandon natural desires. The problem is they abandon natural functions: "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions, for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another...." (1:26-27)

For this argument to work in the context of what we now know about sexuality, you must believe that God made certain people who were "designed", as it were, to give up their "natural functions." We know that sexuality is not a choice, so it can't be that they abandoned God and ended up that way.

One thing I have to give you credit for. You did not immediately go to name calling to defend your position. I have to respect you for that. Thank you. You have no idea how rare that has become.

...
For this argument to work in the context of what we now know about sexuality, you must believe that God made certain people who were "designed", as it were, to give up their "natural functions." We know that sexuality is not a choice, so it can't be that they abandoned God and ended up that way.

For your position to hold true, there is no such thing as a 'sexual' perversion, for we are all what we are made.

I beg to differ. There ARE sexual perversions that HAVE to be overcome if we are to become Christians.

We are ALL told to ‘focus’ our sexual desires on permissible objectives only. Heterosexual or otherwise, A husband is to think sexually of ONLY his wife and no other (said: Jesus), he is not to go around fantasizing about other women or other wives, he is to limit himself to his spouse. It doesn’t say: only so long as you continue to find her sexually attractive – if that changes find a new spouse as you may find you have developed desires for other younger girls and you are not to deny yourself your ‘natural sexuality,’ heaven forbid.

It’s a nonsensical rationalization to try and allow inclinations as the way it has to be.

Even though the much taunted APA rulings of what is and what is not a disorder does not list some things like nymphomania and bestiality and pedophilia as disorders, Christianity does, as well we all should for the sake of a healthy society.

For your position to hold true, there is no such thing as a 'sexual' perversion, for we are all what we are made.

Precisely. You have it.

Precisely. You have it.

And that's why you are dead wrong. There ARE sexual perversions. Try reading a newspaper once in awhile.

And that's why you are dead wrong. There ARE sexual perversions. Try reading a newspaper once in awhile.

They aren't "perversions." Variety in human sexuality is perfectly natural; it's how we are. Intolerant people might attack departures from heterosexual monogamy, and sometimes certain fetishes, like pedophilia, can cause harm, but they aren't really "perversions."

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?

i am christian,and my father,after being a succesfull corporate leader,retired and became a deacon.

not one person in our church or my family..and certainly not myself...have ever had negative feelings towards homosexuals or anyone for that matter.

true christians should believe in love thy neighbor.
some may dissaprove of the actions(i do not) but all the christians i know or knew,never ever felt any hostility or anger towards homosexuals.

i submit...these people that claim to be christians and hate or attack gays...ARE NOT CHRISTIANS,but bigoted ,small minded, scared people hiding behind religion to mask their own shortcomings they percieve in themselves.

it is akin to the klan claiming to be christians while they lynch a black man or burn his home...or that super twit phelps claiming to be a christian.

as for the followers?your guess is as good as mine for the sorry ones that buy the b.s. sold by the fringe..maybe so lost and insecure with themselves they grab onto anything to call their own..or just the may have been miswired and have a bad brain.

They aren't "perversions." Variety in human sexuality is perfectly natural; it's how we are. Intolerant people might attack departures from heterosexual monogamy, and sometimes certain fetishes, like pedophilia, can cause harm, but they aren't really "perversions."

Oh, wow. So what, if anything would you call a perversion? Let me know when you are planning to visit the state of Indiana, so I can hide my wife, children, cat, dog, and gerbils prior to your visit.

This is truly a sick world we live in. Check, please.

For your position to hold true, there is no such thing as a 'sexual' perversion, for we are all what we are made.

There certainly can be sexual perversion. But one must go outside of a loving relationship to find it

Even though the much taunted APA rulings of what is and what is not a disorder does not list some things like nymphomania and bestiality and pedophilia as disorders, Christianity does, as well we all should for the sake of a healthy society.

I love it when people immediately jump to mental illnesses (all of the above being listed as such) when talking about homosexuality. There is a huge difference between a natural attraction to members of the same sex - which can result in a fulfilling and loving relationship, just as heterosexual sex can, and nonconsentual relationships such as bestiality and pedophilia. They cannot actually be compared. Nymphomania is an obsession with sex, using it as an addiction, rather than as pleasure or an expression of love, and is thus, again, outside the realm of the discussion.

...I love it when people immediately jump to mental illnesses (all of the above being listed as such) when talking about homosexuality...

Nice try, but you missed. None of those things (pedophilia, nymphomania or bestiality) are listed as mental illnesses or disorders by the APA.

Oh, wow. So what, if anything would you call a perversion?

Mostly, I use it in regard to ideologies, when you have clear ideals and principles and they are distorted by those claiming to practice it. Bush believes in a perversion of Christianity, Stalin practiced a perversion of Leninism, etc.

Let me know when you are planning to visit the state of Indiana, so I can hide my wife, children, cat, dog, and gerbils prior to your visit.

This is truly a sick world we live in. Check, please.

Too late. We are everywhere, and no one can be saved from our evil, perverse agenda.

For your position to hold true, there is no such thing as a 'sexual' perversion, for we are all what we are made.

If anything "sexual perversions" are a socially constructed term. Its like other deviant behavior. Society doesn't like it so they label it as wrong or deviant.

Nice try, but you missed. None of those things (pedophilia, nymphomania or bestiality) are listed as mental illnesses or disorders by the APA.

I'm fairly certain that you are wrong, especially considering the conversation in this very thread about pedophilia and its current listing, but I'll have to check into it later - it's way too late right now.

Actually, I went ahead and did it. Unless the facts have changed since 2003:

http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/diagnosticcriteriapedophilia.pdf

Pedophilia, included in the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since 1968, continues to be classified as a mental disorder. The DSM is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals and provides clear, objective descriptions of mental illnesses, based upon scientific research. Pedophilia is categorized in the DSM-IV-TR as one of several paraphilic mental disorders. The essential features of a Paraphilia are recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors that generally involve nonhuman subjects, children, or other nonconsenting adults, or the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner.

Interestingly enough, it also lists sexual urges towards nonhuman subjects (aka bestiality) as a disorder.

Edit: From what I have been able to find, "nymphomania" has been regarded for quite some time as essentially a myth. There is a possibly related disorder, known as "hypersexuality" which is largely attributed to bipolar disorder or a "sex addiction", and is considered to be a disorder.

Even though the much taunted APA rulings of what is and what is not a disorder does not list some things like nymphomania and bestiality and pedophilia as disorders, Christianity does, as well we all should for the sake of a healthy society.
To be clear, the APA does still consider pedophelia to be a disorder. (I don't know about the others you mentioned.) There was a rather lively arguement about twenty pages back about it.

I am a Christian, and I believe homosexuality to be wrong.

"Though shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." - Leviticus 18:22

The fact that God felt the need to declare it an abomination, instead of just saying don't do it, tells me that it is unnatural, and is, in itself, a sin. To those who would claim that it can't be, on the grounds that people are born that way, I would point out that people are born with sin. However, to those who condemn homosexuals, I would add this:

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." - James 2:10

Basically, this means that if someone commits ANY sin in their entire life, it's as if they've committed every sin. And since:

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." - Romans 3:23

There is no such thing as someone being "better" than someone else. There are only those who are slaves to sin and those who have been saved from sin. This doesn't mean we need to condone homosexuality (or any other sin). However, it does mean that we need to be sure we are condemning the sin, not the sinner. In the words of John Bradford:

"There but for the grace of God go I."

"Though shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." - Leviticus 18:22

The fact that God felt the need to declare it an abomination, instead of just saying don't do it, tells me that it is unnatural, and is, in itself, a sin. To those who would claim that it can't be, on the grounds that people are born that way, I would point out that people are born with sin.

The Hebrew word "toevah" does not carry the extreme negative connotation "abomination" has in English. If I recall correctly, "toevah" is also the term used to condemn eating shellfish. It is a term used to condemn pagan cultural practices or ritual violations, not necessarily moral wrongs.

I am a Christian, and I believe homosexuality to be wrong.

"Though shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." - Leviticus 18:22

The fact that God felt the need to declare it an abomination, instead of just saying don't do it, tells me that it is unnatural, and is, in itself, a sin. To those who would claim that it can't be, on the grounds that people are born that way, I would point out that people are born with sin.

What that tells me is that you rely too heavily on translations of an ancient text as a source of truth.

EDIT: Consider:
http://www.whosoever.org/bible/lev18.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm
http://www.christiangay.com/he_loves/lev_18.htm

What that tells me is that you rely too heavily on translations of an ancient text as a source of truth.

Indeed. Why don't most Christians ever bother learning Hebrew and Greek so they can read the originals?

Some things just don't translate cleanly, and unless you know the languages you don't really understand it, even if you think you do.

It does no such thing. YOU have to make up your mind. Either homosexuality is the simple act of a sexual relation between two people of the same sex OR it is a lifestyle.

Why can't it be as simple as I prefer guys rather than women? It's not a lifestyle, I mean, aside from the fact there's two men involved I don't want anything different than anyone else. Just because you've had sex with a man doesn't make you gay, there's plenty of guys around who are perfectly straight that wouldn't turn down a sexual favor from another guy.

Why can't it be as simple as I prefer guys rather than women? It's not a lifestyle, I mean, aside from the fact there's two men involved I don't want anything different than anyone else. Just because you've had sex with a man doesn't make you gay, there's plenty of guys around who are perfectly straight that wouldn't turn down a sexual favor from another guy.
Plus of course sexual preference does not alter how one lives one's life significantly or even, to be honest, minorly, in my experience... except when others try to infringe upn one!

Plus of course sexual preference does not alter how one lives one's life significantly or even, to be honest, minorly.

Exactly, I'd like to fall in love, had a kid or two eventually. Live out the rest of my days with a guy, the only difference between that and "normal" is that I happen to be male.

Nice try, but you missed. None of those things (pedophilia, nymphomania or bestiality) are listed as mental illnesses or disorders by the APA.

Are you lying or ignorant?
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/paraphilias.htm
http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Paraphilias.html
http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/diagnosticcriteriapedophilia.pdf

Oh, wow. So what, if anything would you call a perversion? Let me know when you are planning to visit the state of Indiana, so I can hide my wife, children, cat, dog, and gerbils prior to your visit.

This is truly a sick world we live in. Check, please.

Based on your post, I personally would call *you* perverted.

Based on your post, I personally would call *you* perverted.

I wouldn't say perverted, he's just overly paranoid... And probably closeted.

I wouldn't say perverted, he's just overly paranoid... And probably closeted.

I disagree. He actually sat down and thought about things a "pervert" could do, instead of having an urge dictated by his body to do something most people consider "abnormal" at best. He in other words made a concious choice to be a pervert; while the people he calls perverts can only choose not to act on their feelings.

=there's plenty of guys around who are perfectly straight that wouldn't turn down a sexual favor from another guy.

Yes, and those guys are either in the closet, bi, or have been in prison so long they have become desperate.

Yes, and those guys are either in the closet, bi, or have been in prison so long they have become desperate.


You don't have to be desperate to take a quick no strings attached blowjob, just a slut. Which honestly a fair number of men in all ranges of the sexuality spectrum are.

Are you lying or ignorant?
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/paraphilias.htm
http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Paraphilias.html
http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/diagnosticcriteriapedophilia.pdf


Why do you list three links to the same condition, pedophilia?

Bestiality is not classified as a pathology under DSM-IV unless the person is self described as having distress or a loss of control with normal daily functioning and responsibility performance. DSM-III-R (APA, 1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is not a problem in and of itself. The more recent DSM-IV you linked to lists it in the "paraphilias not otherwise specified" only so that people could seek 'help' for the condition if they so choose.

Nymphomania is not listed as a disorder at all anymore, but again, a version for 'self-diagnosis' is provided so that a person that does like their own behavior can seek help with a diagnosis for their insurance claim.

And Pedophilia is treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy and "reparative strategies." Most criminals who’s acts involve sexual attacks on children are not listed as pedophilias but situational offenders, and as such, they are considered to have a behavioral disorder along the lines of petty criminals. However, I do concede this last one. Apparently it the non-criminal pedophilia is still listed as a mental disorder, I stand corrected. But the movement to call it a sexual orientation is gaining momentum because the "reparative strategies" used to 'cure' it are the same strategies and methodologies used to cure 'homosexuality' and as most people here will say, that's bullshit.


So in the end, my original statement still stands, with the modification/correction to the pedophilia disorder.

Why do you list three links to the same condition, pedophilia?

Bestiality is not classified as a pathology under DSM-IV unless the person is self described as having distress or a loss of control with normal daily functioning and responsibility performance. DSM-III-R (APA, 1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is not a problem in and of itself. The more recent DSM-IV you linked to lists it in the "paraphilias not otherwise specified" only so that people could seek 'help' for the condition if they so choose.

Nymphomania is not listed as a disorder at all anymore, but again, a version for 'self-diagnosis' is provided so that a person that does like their own behavior can seek help with a diagnosis for their insurance claim.

And Pedophilia is treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy and "reparative strategies." Most criminals who’s acts involve sexual attacks on children are not listed as pedophilias but situational offenders, and as such, they are considered to have a behavioral disorder along the lines of petty criminals. However, I do concede this last one. Apparently it the non-criminal pedophilia is still listed as a mental disorder, I stand corrected. But the movement to call it a sexual orientation is gaining momentum because the "reparative strategies" used to 'cure' it are the same strategies and methodologies used to cure 'homosexuality' and as most people here will say, that's bullshit.


So in the end, my original statement still stands, with the modification/correction to the pedophilia disorder.

Paraphilia, not pedophilia. Paraphilia includes bestiality.

So your original statement was a lie as to 2 of the 3 "conditions" you named.

Nymphomania is, to the extent it even can be said to exist, merely sex addiction.

Get your information from the DSM and not from "traditional values" websites.

The more recent DSM-IV you linked to lists it in the "paraphilias not otherwise specified" only so that people could seek 'help' for the condition if they so choose.


Paraphilia, not pedophilia. Paraphilia includes bestiality.


Try reading the posts before responding to them.

Try reading the posts before responding to them.

I did. You accused me of making 3 links to pedophilia. As your own post shows, that was another lie.

Try reading the DSM IV before acting like you know what it says.

Isn't lying a sin equal to a homosexual act?

Actually I think lying is a bigger sin, it's one of the 10 commandments afterall. There's no "Thou shalt not take it up the pooper".

Isn't lying a sin equal to a homosexual act?


Only if you lie about being a homosexual. Or steal one. Or covet one.

I did. You accused me of making 3 links to pedophilia. As your own post shows, that was another lie.

Try reading the DSM IV before acting like you know what it says.

Isn't lying a sin equal to a homosexual act?

Isn't a non-Christian pretending to care what the NT says an impostor?

Isn't a non-Christian pretending to care what the NT says an impostor?

Nope. I can read the book as well as you can. I've never claimed it had magical powers.

But nice try at changing the subject away from your embarassment.

Nope. I can read the book as well as you can. I've never claimed it had magical powers.

But nice try at changing the subject away from your embarassment.

You're the one that changed to subject. And you use "deliberate nastiness" to try and cover up the fact that you don't really understand what you are talking about.

You're the one that changed to subject. And you use "deliberate nastiness" to try and cover up the fact that you don't really understand what you are talking about.

Um. The thread speaks for itself as to the subject and who has been shown to know what they are talking about.

I've studied both the Bible and the DSM-IV. That makes one of us.

Only if you lie about being a homosexual. Or steal one. Or covet one.
Or bear false witness. Wait... that's lying.

Exactly, I'd like to fall in love, had a kid or two eventually. Live out the rest of my days with a guy, the only difference between that and "normal" is that I happen to be male.

See? He's normal except for that one small part of his relationship: who he choses to love. (And if you want to see what love is like when all aspects of it are regulated, please read Brave New World).

Or bear false witness. Wait... that's lying.

Yea, but then you can't lie about being homosexual, so you shouldn't deny it, but then not denying it is a sin as well? The bible seems to be contradicting itself...

See? He's normal except for that one small part of his relationship: who he choses to love. (And if you want to see what love is like when all aspects of it are regulated, please read Brave New World).
Surely he is also normal in that respect as well, to all intents and purposes? Or is normality purely defined by the majority?
Yea, but then you can't lie about being homosexual, so you shouldn't deny it, but then not denying it is a sin as well? The bible seems to be contradicting itself...
It does that a lot...

Why do you list three links to the same condition, pedophilia?

Only the last article was specifically about pedophelia, and even that article made mention of the broader category of paraphelia which includes such things as necrophelia and bestiality as well. The other two simply listed pedophelia as one of several paraphelias.

Bestiality is not classified as a pathology under DSM-IV unless the person is self described as having distress or a loss of control with normal daily functioning and responsibility performance. DSM-III-R (APA, 1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is not a problem in and of itself. The more recent DSM-IV you linked to lists it in the "paraphilias not otherwise specified" only so that people could seek 'help' for the condition if they so choose.

So what? If it isn't hurting anyone, including the pervert, why should it be classified as a pathology? Just because something is abnormal does not make it neccisarily the product of a deranged mind.

Nymphomania is not listed as a disorder at all anymore, but again, a version for 'self-diagnosis' is provided so that a person that does like their own behavior can seek help with a diagnosis for their insurance claim.

Again, if it isn't causing any problems, there are no grounds for it being classified as a mental disorder.

And Pedophilia is treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy and "reparative strategies."

Meaning, what? That the treatment prescribed has been as good as proven worthless? I don't see what this has to do with anything.

Most criminals who’s acts involve sexual attacks on children are not listed as pedophilias but situational offenders, and as such, they are considered to have a behavioral disorder along the lines of petty criminals.

They are also considered rapists, and thus while their pathologies do suggest something similar to those of petty criminals, (such as a disregard for common ethics and lack of fear of the law in pursuit of their own gratification) there is no one who seriusly puts a child molester on the same level as a pickpocket, criminally or psychologically.

However, I do concede this last one. Apparently it the non-criminal pedophilia is still listed as a mental disorder, I stand corrected.

Finally, you can make informed statements about the subject. While I may not like the classification, it serves no one's interests that you remain ignorant of the facts.

But the movement to call it a sexual orientation is gaining momentum because the "reparative strategies" used to 'cure' it are the same strategies and methodologies used to cure 'homosexuality' and as most people here will say, that's bullshit.

Yep. Bullshit. That "movement" is gaining no momentum at all. It is only an explaination and analogy some of us use when debating, and is not gaining wider accpetance as far as I can see. The subject is still too taboo to allow serius research, as proven by the incredible political contravercy after the Rind "study" was released.

What are you basing this supposed momentum on? From my prospective, people are just as biggoted against my sexuality as they have been all my life.

So in the end, my original statement still stands, with the modification/correction to the pedophilia disorder.
And what was that original statement agian? Oh yes. You stated that because christianity lists such things as sins, we should all consider them immoral, and their repression and persecution neccisary for a healthy society.

Excuse me while I point and laugh at you.
Isn't a non-Christian pretending to care what the NT says an impostor?
Nope. The New Testiment has a lot of stuff that even us atheists would consider worthwhile. (Atheist does not equal amoral, after all.) I'm agnostic, but from what I've heard of him, I think I would have found Jesus to be a very good person, and a role model on a level similar to King and Ghandi.

It is also clearly an attempt to frame the arguement in terms that you will understand and consider, since your side of the homosexuality arguement has consistently proven that the only thing they'll listen to is direct biblical evidence.

Normal is always defined by the majority. At one point it was abnormal not to treat women as property.

Normal is always defined by the majority. At one point it was abnormal not to treat women as property.
In that case we are by definition abnormal. As is everyone else. There is no real majority unless we look at generalities as terms...

Being right handed is normal, left handed is abnormal.
Being straight is normal, gay is abnormal.
Being christian is normal, atheist is abnormal.

Depending on what you're talking about a lot of folks are abnormal. Just changes based on the subject.

Being right handed is normal, left handed is abnormal.
Being straight is normal, gay is abnormal.
Being christian is normal, atheist is abnormal.

Depending on what you're talking about a lot of folks are abnormal. Just changes based on the subject.
That was rather the point, we're all abnormal in at least one way so why bother to look the normality of something? Prevalence does not mean moral superiority (look at left-handedness!)

Morality, like normalacy is all relative. Just because the majority believes something is moral does not make it so.

Um. The thread speaks for itself as to the subject and who has been shown to know what they are talking about.


Really? You mean like when you say things along the lines of;
Except homosexuality isn't a sin. Jesus said not a word against it.

And then you claimed straight up that homosexuality isn’t even implied to be a sin…
1. Did Jesus talk in English?

2. Did Jesus say "this is what marriage is, anything else is a sin"? (or either part of that?)

And then you go off saying this?
...
Isn't lying a sin equal to a homosexual act?

You should make up your mind, but we both know that you won’t. The truth is more likely that you’re just making stuff up or saying whatever you want about what the Bible says because you don’t really care what the Bible really says. And yet you keep spouting off stuff about what the Bible says in threads like this simply to try to be insulting and utilize deliberate nastiness again, like that was the goal in and of itself.

Really? You mean like when you say things along the lines of;


And then you claimed straight up that homosexuality isn’t even implied to be a sin…


And then you go off saying this?


You should make up your mind, but we both know that you won’t. The truth is more likely that you’re just making stuff up or saying whatever you want about what the Bible says because you don’t really care what the Bible really says. And yet you keep spouting off stuff about what the Bible says in threads like this simply to try to be insulting and utilize deliberate nastiness again, like that was the goal in and of itself.

I'm a Christian and I notice that you seem to be deliberately obscuring the truth and then blaming others when you get caught. Personally responsibility is a recurring theme in Christianity. You aren't simply absolved of your sins. You are supposed to accept that you sinned and repent. So repent already and quit spinning.

You know he was merely using your own beliefs against you in that last statement yet you twist to try and make it mean something else. You got caught. Take your castor oil and be done with it.

Normal is always defined by the majority. At one point it was abnormal not to treat women as property.

Incorrect. Women have always been the majority gender on earth. Therefore, if men thought women should be treated as property (and women didn't), the opinion of men was a minority report. Did women treat other women like property?

In the case of homosexuality, once again, it is the case of the minority attempting to exploit the majority--According to Kinsey's work, we can ascertain that most people are bisexual to some degree or another by nature, with only a handful at the pure heterosexual and pure homosexual extremes. Now, the opinion tha one should deny any homosexual activity and supress such motivations is present (indeed, the majority opinion) in many cultures, but if you segment the population into geographic or political areas, you'll find that there is wide discord. The Netherlands, within its borders, allows same-sex marriage. Zimbabwe won't allow same-sex marriage until hell freezes over.

We can't determine anything by the aggregate of all people in the world because the range of opinions is so vast and the number of ideas so great that considering any of them particularly is foolish. So we segment that population into smaller and smaller groups, who can and often do come up with different answers to perceived issues.

"Normal" with regards to human beings does not exist, nor does its converse "abnormal". Everyone wants to believe that they are normal, but they're all patently incorrect. Being straight is not "normal" any more than being gay is not "normal". People are physically attracted to other people. Sometimes it's the same sex, sometimes the other and for most people both happens at some point.

The people who set policy with regards to what is right or wrong are the ones in power. In a republic, the ones in power are the ones motivated and charismatic enough to get elected. Republic is not a perfect system of government. Ideally we would have a true democracy, which is by nature absolute majority rules. Unfortuantely, democracy is impossible to implement outside of small communities because having everyone vote on every issue becomes impossible as the amount of complexity needed for such a system increases exponentially as the number of people involved increases. Additionally, many times voters do not have the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions about a particular subject. How much does a banker know about agriculture, for example? We could ask them their opinion, but opinions are incorrect if they lack basis in facts and education on the subject.

So, instead, we opt for a republic, which allows us to express our opinions without having to be knowledgable about what is being discussed, letting our elected officials decide for us. Our elected officials will not always agree with everything that we do. The politician is not a mirror image of us but rather a "best fit". This is why, at least in America, the people in Washington are often out of sync with voters, regardless of which party is in power. Voters agree to leverage some level of control for simplicity and that creates disparity.

At least 60% of Americans support civil unions or same-sex marriage for American same-sex couples, only 30% state opposition, but the government has not acted with the majority of the public. That statement, that understanding, is the bottom line of everything I've just said.

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." - Romans 1:27

That, to me, sounds like a pretty clear condemnation of homosexuality.

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." - Romans 1:27

That, to me, sounds like a pretty clear condemnation of homosexuality.
If you go back about one line, to get a clearer view of context, it describes this as a curse levied by God for the sinful behavior of the people in question, not as a sin in and of itself.

And since Jesus later comes along and puts down the notion of punishment from on high while still on earth, we have to conclude that gays aren't the recipients of punishments levied by a just God for their sins, we can pretty much ignore this passage.

I am a christian and I think that is simply they're business. It is between them their partner and God. I believe in gay marriage, and protection of discrimination under title 7. If you don't like gay marriage dont go to the wedding.

Really? You mean like when you say things along the lines of:

And then you claimed straight up that homosexuality isn’t even implied to be a sin…


And then you go off saying this?


You should make up your mind, but we both know that you won’t. The truth is more likely that you’re just making stuff up or saying whatever you want about what the Bible says because you don’t really care what the Bible really says. And yet you keep spouting off stuff about what the Bible says in threads like this simply to try to be insulting and utilize deliberate nastiness again, like that was the goal in and of itself.

I saying what the Bible actually says, which frustrates you -- particularly when we look at just what Jesus said -- because it doesn't support your prejudices. The goal of my "spouting off" is to undermine your insults and nastiness towards homosexuals.

I correctly stated that Jesus himself never spoke about homosexuality. You have not contradicted this.

I correctly stated that your quote about divorce didn't imply anything about homosexuality. You dropped this.

You got caught making statements you didn't know the truth off about what is considered a mental illness. Rather than admit ignorance, you tried to bluff your way through, making false statements.

I pointed out lying is, according to the Bible, a sin. Just like you allege homosexuality to be. Again, you do not contradict me.

As I said, the record is quite clear.

We ought to help homosexuals overcome their problem, not condemn them.

How about you stop calling it a problem?!

To him it is a problem, he's gay afterall. Now wether he decides to stop seeing it as a problem is entirely up to him. He doesn't even need to change his religion, he just has to change the emphasis.

I saying what the Bible actually says, which frustrates you -- particularly when we look at just what Jesus said -- because it doesn't support your prejudices. The goal of my "spouting off" is to undermine your insults and nastiness towards homosexuals.

You really do overestimate the value of your own posts don’t you? You mistake annoyance of repeating oneself with frustration, you mistakenly think you’ve said something insightful about Jesus words and you justify your insults and nastiness by pretending that someone else started it. For shame.

I correctly stated that Jesus himself never spoke about homosexuality. You have not contradicted this.

I already pointed out that Jesus defined marriage as a man and a woman and that sex is reserved for the institution of marriage. And yes, you continue to bark at a strawman and throw red herrings.

I correctly stated that your quote about divorce didn't imply anything about homosexuality. You dropped this.

You choose to play the game of “repeat myself over and over ignoring all arguments,” and you think you’ve won because you eventually find you’re the last one still playing? Sad.

You got caught making statements you didn't know the truth off about what is considered a mental illness. Rather than admit ignorance, you tried to bluff your way through, making false statements.

I confirmed that I stood corrected on the one issue that I was mistaken on (thinking of criminal pedophilia and not clinical pedophilia fixation). You over-play your cards though and seem to think that this gave you the winning hand. But that is not the case.

I pointed out lying is, according to the Bible, a sin. Just like you allege homosexuality to be. Again, you do not contradict me.

You sure like to accuse a lot don’t you. Pointing your finger at many things and hoping something sticks. However, your vision is not clear and you are incapable of debating without pretending that those that don’t agree with you must be lying. It’s bad form and falls well short of making it worthwhile to debate with your. I have not lied and you are a false accuser.

As I said, the record is quite clear.

Yes, yes it is.

I confirmed that I stood corrected on the one issue that I was mistaken on (thinking of criminal pedophilia and not clinical pedophilia fixation). You over-play your cards though and seem to think that this gave you the winning hand. But that is not the case.

I'll ignore the rest of your rant. Whatever makes you sleep better.

But you were also mistaken on whether bestiality is a listed disorder. It is a form of paraphilia. That was 2 of 3.

You have yet to produce any evidence that nymphomania is a real condition.
http://www.sexinfo101.com/sd_nymph.shtml

I'll ignore the rest of your rant. Whatever makes you sleep better.

But you were also mistaken on whether bestiality is a listed disorder. It is a form of paraphilia. That was 2 of 3.

You have yet to produce any evidence that nymphomania is a real condition.
http://www.sexinfo101.com/sd_nymph.shtml

Wikipedia certainly isn't an end-all be-all source, but I did find this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersexuality

Apparently, the term "nymphomania" has been dropped, but it is still possible for someone to have a "clinically significant" level of sexual activity.

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

From your posts it would appear that you believe in God as the source of all of "Creation," and the proof for your belief is to be found in religious doctrine (ie. the Bible). Your faith in this 'proof' is insurmountable because no one thus far can conclusively verify or disprove it in its entirety.

Many of those of us who favour science and reason over religion believe in cosmology (ie. the Big Bang theory) and other fields of science (physics, biology, et al) to explain our beliefs. Our 'faith' is insurmountable because no one thus far can conclusively verify or disprove it in its entirety.

Fortunately for you, your faith doesn't demand rationality or linearity, whereas adherents of science prescribe to a doctrine that insists on proofs and therefore demands more 'faith' because the missing data in our models of the universe aren't satisfied with "divine mystery." You don't require your "God" to explain himself.

From your posts it would appear that you believe in God as the source of all of "Creation," and the proof for your belief is to be found in religious doctrine (ie. the Bible). Your faith in this 'proof' is insurmountable because no one thus far can conclusively verify or disprove it in its entirety.

Many of those of us who favour science and reason over religion believe in cosmology (ie. the Big Bang theory) and other fields of science (physics, biology, et al) to explain our beliefs. Our 'faith' is insurmountable because no one thus far can conclusively verify or disprove it in its entirety.

Fortunately for you, your faith doesn't demand rationality or linearity, whereas adherents of science prescribe to a doctrine that insists on proofs and therefore demands more 'faith' because the missing data in our models of the universe aren't satisfied with "divine mystery." You don't require your "God" to explain himself.

Be careful about trying to create a dichotomy between science/reason and religion. The two are not mutually exclusive. One can certainly be a scientist and still be religious. Science is used to describe and explain the natural - the universe and the way it works. Religion is the way we examine the supernatural - God (if God exists), etc.

Yes, you have a very good point. I see being homosexual kinda as like being mentally retarded (sexually retarded). They need help not punishment. It is a survival disadvantage (as a species) and therefore is not correct. Someone needs to invent some kind of therapy or something. They could have been abused, but some are born that way. One thing I cannot stand is when they try to get others to accept them, but they go to extremes. Teaching homosexuality in elementary schools stating that they are "special" is absolutly unacceptable (that actually happened). That's like a two headed turtle telling all the other turtles that he's better because he has two heads (a survival disadvantage). Accepting is one thing, teaching that it's better is another.

Sadly, it's part of our society to make fun of everyone else to boost our own self esteem. Saying something is "retarded" or "gay" is very common. We should get out of the noticing the problem phase, and do something about it.

Be careful about trying to create a dichotomy between science/reason and religion. The two are not mutually exclusive. One can certainly be a scientist and still be religious. Science is used to describe and explain the natural - the universe and the way it works. Religion is the way we examine the supernatural - God (if God exists), etc.

I see science and religion as one thing: Beliefs. Everyone (hopefully) has their own individual beliefs. One reason church and state are seperate in the US is that religions were destroyed by governments. England went from catholic to protestant many times and many times the people on the loosing side were discriminated against. In the argument of religion vs evolution, that is an argument of one belief against another. The government supporting religion alone is illegal, as is the government supporting evolution alone. Both are beliefs and are "religions". Athiests have a beilief that no God exists-that in my eyes is a religious belief. Everyone's ideas should be treated fairly.

Yes, you have a very good point. I see being homosexual kinda as like being mentally retarded (sexually retarded). They need help not punishment. It is a survival disadvantage (as a species) and therefore is not correct. Someone needs to invent some kind of therapy or something. They could have been abused, but some are born that way. One thing I cannot stand is when they try to get others to accept them, but they go to extremes. Teaching homosexuality in elementary schools stating that they are "special" is absolutly unacceptable (that actually happened). That's like a two headed turtle telling all the other turtles that he's better because he has two heads (a survival disadvantage). Accepting is one thing, teaching that it's better is another.

Sadly, it's part of our society to make fun of everyone else to boost our own self esteem. Saying something is "retarded" or "gay" is very common. We should get out of the noticing the problem phase, and do something about it.

Though myself am straight, geing homosexual is not a mental problem. I know several homosexual people and they are perfectly intelligent and normal other than that one difference.

Yes, you have a very good point. I see being homosexual kinda as like being mentally retarded (sexually retarded). They need help not punishment. It is a survival disadvantage (as a species) and therefore is not correct. Someone needs to invent some kind of therapy or something. They could have been abused, but some are born that way. One thing I cannot stand is when they try to get others to accept them, but they go to extremes. Teaching homosexuality in elementary schools stating that they are "special" is absolutly unacceptable (that actually happened). That's like a two headed turtle telling all the other turtles that he's better because he has two heads (a survival disadvantage). Accepting is one thing, teaching that it's better is another.

Sadly, it's part of our society to make fun of everyone else to boost our own self esteem. Saying something is "retarded" or "gay" is very common. We should get out of the noticing the problem phase, and do something about it.

They are not sexually retarded...they may infact be smarter. >.> Ever see a bunch of gay guys as a couple? They are always happy and fun-loving and they don't have any pregancies. :D

They are not sexually retarded...they may infact be smarter. >.> Ever see a bunch of gay guys as a couple? They are always happy and fun-loving and they don't have any pregancies. :D

I hope that was a joke.

Though myself am straight, geing homosexual is not a mental problem. I know several homosexual people and they are perfectly intelligent and normal other than that one difference.

I'm not saying they're dumb, I'm saying they have a survival disadvantage(as we all do), but this particular one is severe. No children=no human race. No one is perfect, they have a problem we don't have, but we have problems they don't.

From your posts it would appear that you believe in God as the source of all of "Creation," and the proof for your belief is to be found in religious doctrine (ie. the Bible). Your faith in this 'proof' is insurmountable because no one thus far can conclusively verify or disprove it in its entirety.

Many of those of us who favour science and reason over religion believe in cosmology (ie. the Big Bang theory) and other fields of science (physics, biology, et al) to explain our beliefs. Our 'faith' is insurmountable because no one thus far can conclusively verify or disprove it in its entirety.

Fortunately for you, your faith doesn't demand rationality or linearity, whereas adherents of science prescribe to a doctrine that insists on proofs and therefore demands more 'faith' because the missing data in our models of the universe aren't satisfied with "divine mystery." You don't require your "God" to explain himself.

Some people have actually expeienced supernatural things (such as a few of my family members). It's true no one can prove to everyone one way or the other, but if God explained to everyone that he existed, what's the point of life? What kind of test would that be? Faith doesn't REQUIRE rationality, but science doesn't require spirituality. Many smart people are religious, and many "smart" people aren't. Science and religion do not conflict unless you let them. It's all in your point of view. Science IS God's explanation of himself.

I hope that was a joke.

Not really...we have a few couples around here. And my God...they are so fucking HAPPY. New car, dogs, new clothes and hot pants and always so nice to each other! Everytime I see them they look sooooo happy! Its like as if they don't have a care in the world! They are in love that much!

I hope that was a joke.



I'm not saying they're dumb, I'm saying they have a survival disadvantage(as we all do), but this particular one is severe. No children=no human race. No one is perfect, they have a problem we don't have, but we have problems they don't.
Yeah cause we are so close to extinction that we need to change perfectly happy people

Fuck that

Yeah cause we are so close to extinction that we need to change perfectly happy people

Fuck that

Mentally retarded people are happy.

Maybe they are just happy people. (not due to gayness)

Not really...we have a few couples around here. And my God...they are so fucking HAPPY. New car, dogs, new clothes and hot pants and always so nice to each other! Everytime I see them they look sooooo happy! Its like as if they don't have a care in the world! They are in love that much!

Retards don't have a care in the world

I see science and religion as one thing: Beliefs. Everyone (hopefully) has their own individual beliefs. One reason church and state are seperate in the US is that religions were destroyed by governments. England went from catholic to protestant many times and many times the people on the loosing side were discriminated against. In the argument of religion vs evolution, that is an argument of one belief against another. The government supporting religion alone is illegal, as is the government supporting evolution alone. Both are beliefs and are "religions". Athiests have a beilief that no God exists-that in my eyes is a religious belief. Everyone's ideas should be treated fairly.

Except for the part where Evolution is a theory with scientific support and Atheism would be a lack of belief in a god.

Mentally retarded people are happy.

Maybe they are just happy people. (not due to gayness)



Retards don't have a care in the world

They aren't retarded. Honest intelligent people with good paying jobs, amazing cleanliness.

Gays are of no importance...

Religions are on the side of the largest crowd...
Gays are a minority, forget it.

Laugh with your 20 friends when one is falling down.
Do NOT laugh when 20 are falling down and you alone stands up.

But politically, a minority added to another minority makes enough votes needed to win.

Gays are of no importance...

Religions are on the side of the largest crowd...
Gays are a minority, forget it.

Laugh with your 20 friends when one is falling down.
Do NOT laugh when 20 are falling down and you alone stands up.

But politically, a minority added to another minority makes enough votes needed to win.
Not unless both minorities are more then the majority....which by definition wouldn't happen.

Not unless both minorities are more then the majority....which by definition wouldn't happen.

No, it meant a minority (blacks) and another minority (Hispanics) together would make a majority...Not sure if that's statistically true in this instance, but it's the general idea.

http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa02/images/graph-pg13a.gif

All I found was this one of women...but its pretty clear it wouldn't be.

A majority is more then 50% so even combined the minority could never beat the majority.

http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa02/images/graph-pg13a.gif

All I found was this one of women...but its pretty clear it wouldn't be.

A majority is more then 50% so even combined the minority could never beat the majority.

Who said American?

Okay, listen. Hypothectical minorities, measuring in at, let's say, 25% and 30%. Obvouisly mintorites. Together, they make 55%. Clearly a majority. m+m=M. See?

Gays are of no importance...

Religions are on the side of the largest crowd...
Gays are a minority, forget it.

Laugh with your 20 friends when one is falling down.
Do NOT laugh when 20 are falling down and you alone stands up.

But politically, a minority added to another minority makes enough votes needed to win.

Setting aside how this cynical view trivializes the fundamental rights of our fellow human beings and treats humans as mere political cattle, you forget that not just members of a minority can recognize the value of equal protection under the law.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't pass because blacks (or any combination of minorities) were a majority. It passed because the majority recognized it was the right thing to do.

Who said American?

Okay, listen. Hypothectical minorities, measuring in at, let's say, 25% and 30%. Obvouisly mintorites. Together, they make 55%. Clearly a majority. m+m=M. See?

Majority by defintion is more then 50%. So it never will.

Majority by defintion is more then 50%. So it never will.

*sigh* Let me try again.

M. This will represent a majority...A value greater than 50%, as in >.5
m. This will represent a minority...A value less than 50%, as in <.5

Now, a minority can be 40% right? As in .4? Let's use that for our first minority, m1.

1) m1 = .4

A minority could also be 20%, as in .2. This can be our second minority, m2.

2) m2 = .2

Now, these two minorities, together, as in added, the sum, the result of a plus sign, would be something like this:

3) m1 + m2 = .6

Together, 60%. 60% happens to be greater than 50%, or:

4) .6 > .5

And what is something greater than 50%? A majority.

5) .6 = M

So, combining equations 3 and 5, we get:

6) m1 + m2 = .6 = M

Or, two minorities equaling a majority. It is possible, see?


God, I can't believe I wasted my time doing that....

Moron.

40% + 20% = 60%.... All nice and swell until you forget one thing. The other side isn't a majority. Its also 40%. Meaning there is no majority in the first place!

Majority means more then 50%, its in the dictionary. There is no way to beat a majority! This is my last post for tonight. Do realize that you math was a poor excuse.

You can't have more then 50% by two combined minorities at the very least to oppose a majority. So two combined minorities = X<51%. Where X is the sum of the two minorities.

Moron.

40% + 20% = 60%.... All nice and swell until you forget one thing. The other side isn't a majority. Its also 40%. Meaning there is no majority in the first place!

Majority means more then 50%, its in the dictionary. There is no way to beat a majority! This is my last post for tonight. Do realize that you math was a poor excuse.

You can't have more then 50% by two combined minorities at the very least to oppose a majority. So two combined minorities = X<51%. Where X is the sum of the two minorities.

You are playing a rather sad game of semantics.

We call minority groups minorities because they are a smaller portion of the population, not necessarily because there is an unassailable majority. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/minority

In time, whites will not be the majority in America.

Yes, you have a very good point. I see being homosexual kinda as like being mentally retarded (sexually retarded). They need help not punishment. It is a survival disadvantage (as a species) and therefore is not correct. Someone needs to invent some kind of therapy or something. They could have been abused, but some are born that way.

Your view is very ignorant.

Homosexual behavior is not a survival disadvantage for a species. Homosexual behavior is common in nature because it is sometimes advantageous to a species.


One thing I cannot stand is when they try to get others to accept them, but they go to extremes. Teaching homosexuality in elementary schools stating that they are "special" is absolutly unacceptable (that actually happened). That's like a two headed turtle telling all the other turtles that he's better because he has two heads (a survival disadvantage). Accepting is one thing, teaching that it's better is another.

Please provide evidence that it has been taught in our public elementary schools that homosexuality is superior to heterosexualtiy.

Heaven forbid we teach that everyone is equal.

I see science and religion as one thing: Beliefs. Everyone (hopefully) has their own individual beliefs. One reason church and state are seperate in the US is that religions were destroyed by governments. England went from catholic to protestant many times and many times the people on the loosing side were discriminated against. In the argument of religion vs evolution, that is an argument of one belief against another. The government supporting religion alone is illegal, as is the government supporting evolution alone. Both are beliefs and are "religions". Athiests have a beilief that no God exists-that in my eyes is a religious belief. Everyone's ideas should be treated fairly.

First, you babble on about species advantages and then you deny evolution. Care to explain?

Second, evolution is not a religious viewpoint. Athiesm is, but the two are not synonymous. Evolution is, in fact, accepted by a majority of Christian denominations -- including the Roman Catholic Church. Only a very narrow set of religious views known as creation science are incompatible with evolution, but those views are also incompatible with the majority of Christian denominations. Evolution is factually based and is generally neutral on the question of religion. Thus, it does not violate the separation of Church and State to teach evolution. But it would be a violation to teach Creation Science. See, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/482/578.html), 482 US 578 (1987) (7-2 decision striking down a Louisiana law that required if evolution is taught in public schools then creationism must also be taught).

Moron.

40% + 20% = 60%.... All nice and swell until you forget one thing. The other side isn't a majority. Its also 40%. Meaning there is no majority in the first place!

Majority means more then 50%, its in the dictionary. There is no way to beat a majority! This is my last post for tonight. Do realize that you math was a poor excuse.

You can't have more then 50% by two combined minorities at the very least to oppose a majority. So two combined minorities = X<51%. Where X is the sum of the two minorities.

I never said anything about another majority, I said two minorities can become a majority together, as you have so kindly demonstrated with 40% + 20% = 60%. That's all, never said anything about beating some other majority.

I never said anything about another majority, I said two minorities can become a majority together, as you have so kindly demonstrated with 40% + 20% = 60%. That's all, never said anything about beating some other majority.

*groan*

You realize there is no majority in the first place though? WHY DO I HAVE TO KEEP SAYING THIS!

40% + 20% + 40% = 100%
Note the two 40%! There is NO majority in the first place.
A majority is more then 50%.

Majority:
1# The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.

Under this a majority will never be challenged by two minorities.

It is a survival disadvantage (as a species) and therefore is not correct.

As has already been discussed several times, it is not actually a survival disadvantage at all. In fact, in social species (like our own), having some non-breeding members that help to take care of the children of others is actually a survival advantage. If a non-breeding animal helps take care of his siblings and nieces/nephews, he has passed on just as much of his genetic material as if he took care of his own children and grandchildren.

I see science and religion as one thing: Beliefs.

Science isn't a belief. It is a process used to gain knowledge about the material world. The only "belief" you have to have is that inductive reasoning works - ie. if something happens exactly the same 1000 times, it is very unlikely to do the exact opposite on the 1001st.

In the argument of religion vs evolution, that is an argument of one belief against another.

Actually, it as an argument between religious belief and empirical evidence.

I would like to point out not all mutations are advantageous. It's entirely possible for homosexuality to have no advantage, but for it to persist simply because it has so many causes. That doesn't in any way invalidate evolution.

*groan*

You realize there is no majority in the first place though? WHY DO I HAVE TO KEEP SAYING THIS!

40% + 20% + 40% = 100%
Note the two 40%! There is NO majority in the first place.
A majority is more then 50%.


Under this a majority will never be challenged by two minorities.

Of course a majority wont be challenged. A plurality, maybe, but that's beside the point. The point is that two minorities can come together and be more than 50%. Don't put more into it, that's all. Whether or not there was a majority in the first place is beside the point.

Of course a majority wont be challenged. A plurality, maybe, but that's beside the point. The point is that two minorities can come together and be more than 50%. Don't put more into it, that's all. Whether or not there was a majority in the first place is beside the point.

Are you mentally retarded or something?

40% is not a majority and more so when there is two of them. You cannot have two majorities! OPEN YOUR EYES MAN! Two minorities can never beat a TRUE majority by DEFINITION.

Are you mentally retarded or something?

40% is not a majority and more so when there is two of them. You cannot have two majorities! OPEN YOUR EYES MAN! Two minorities can never beat a TRUE majority by DEFINITION.

One can always find the strong arguments because they start with "Are you mentally retarded or something?"

Can we leave the ****ing semantics behind (they are irrelevant) and turn back to a more logical matter of debate given the thread title?

In any matters where religion attempts to hold sway, you can throw logic to the wayside.

In any matters where religion attempts to hold sway, you can throw logic to the wayside.
True, but we can always try and persuade them using the logic that they are wrong. It might, against all the evidence, work for once.

One can always find the strong arguments because they start with "Are you mentally retarded or something?"

When you have been arguing this over the course of DAYS with 40% being both a minority and majority to him....I really start to wonder. That's akin to saying 4 is 4 and 6. >.>

If logic worked on homo-bashers, we wouldn't need this convo.

When you have been arguing this over the course of DAYS with 40% being both a minority and majority to him....I really start to wonder. That's akin to saying 4 is 4 and 6. >.>

If logic worked on homo-bashers, we wouldn't need this convo.

"homo-bashers" You're argument continues to get more sound. Is Dinaverg one of these "homo-bashers" you speak of?

"homo-bashers" You're argument continues to get more sound.

Uh, that's what a term is for them. >.> People who hate homosexuals and attack them.

Sometimes call 'em breeders, but I personally don't. No need to stop to their level.

Sometimes call 'em breeders, but I personally don't. No need to stop to their level.

Huh!? What are you talking about?

Referencing:"homo-bashers" You're argument continues to get more sound. Is Dinaverg one of these "homo-bashers" you speak of?

There are several offensive terms used by the gay community against those who attack them. Hypocritical in my mind.

Uh, that's what a term is for them. >.> People who hate homosexuals and attack them.
Meh, I just don't like the term and wasn't aware that Dinaverg was doing such a thing.

The fact that a couple *can* sign prenuptials hardly discounts the 1049 rights and responsibilities afforded by marriage. Don't mistake - the civil rights movement is not about changing what a church believes, but is about ensuring that all citizens are treated equally under the law.



Darwin's theory has been expanded on and corrected until we have evolutionary theory. No theory is ever accepted as completely true, and is only considered false if it is falsified (at which point it ceases to be a valid theory). Evolutionary theory is as true as just about any scientific theory, and all of modern biology is based in it.

That said, anyone who tries to use evolutionary theory to "disprove" homosexuality obviously doesn't understand it. Because of the way genetics works, the reproductive success of a given creature is linked to passing on its genes, something it does not necessarily have to do directly. A person is just as closely related to a sibling as to a child they have. They are just as related to a niece or nephew as to a grandchild. Thus, a homosexual person who does not reproduce, but does help raise siblings and siblings' children is just as reproductively successful as someone who has their own children and grandchildren.

Expanding on the above (to an extent):


When examining a species, no one specific group or a species, or in this case, a group of people can account for the entire group. When saying that Homosexuality is "wrong," by using Darwin's Theory, one needs to account for the entire species.

How does this species fit into its niche?
How well can this species symbiotically interact within its niche?

Those are just a few questions to ask among, How well can a species reproduce. But one must realize that overpopulation can be just as harmful as underpopulation. One theory may state that homosexuality is a way of the Human species curtailing the population so as not to be over populated.

Most references made on this forum look soley at homosexuals themselves and say that they will fail; however, assuming that one is born homosexual or assuming one is predisposed to be homosexual, one may find that homosexuals depend upon the survival of heterosexuals, as heterosexuals give rise to homosexuals.

Still others try to analyze homosexuality under the light of Social Darwinism, which has in countless examples, been proven unreliable in terms of predicting the success of a certain group in a society.

They aren't retarded. Honest intelligent people with good paying jobs, amazing cleanliness.

You are thinking of mentally retarded-that has nothing to do with it. The word retarded means slow. They are a specific type of mentally retarded. (BTW, everyone is slow in some way, so everyone is kinda retarded in a way)

Your view is very ignorant.

Homosexual behavior is not a survival disadvantage for a species. Homosexual behavior is common in nature because it is sometimes advantageous to a species.
How?

Please provide evidence that it has been taught in our public elementary schools that homosexuality is superior to heterosexualtiy.

Heaven forbid we teach that everyone is equal.
Sorry, can't really back that up, you'll just have to belive what you want. I can tell you that it wasnt the teacher, but the gay "parents" that were saying that.[/quote]

First, you babble on about species advantages and then you deny evolution. Care to explain?

Sorry, I meant to say that if the government only supports the theory of evolution, they are supporting a "religion". I myself belive evolution. They support only one view of where we came from-evolution, and neglect the others because they are religious, but evolution is a belief just like evolution.

Second, evolution is not a religious viewpoint. Athiesm is, but the two are not synonymous. Evolution is, in fact, accepted by a majority of Christian denominations -- including the Roman Catholic Church. Only a very narrow set of religious views known as creation science are incompatible with evolution, but those views are also incompatible with the majority of Christian denominations. Evolution is factually based and is generally neutral on the question of religion. Thus, it does not violate the separation of Church and State to teach evolution. But it would be a violation to teach Creation Science. See, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/482/578.html), 482 US 578 (1987) (7-2 decision striking down a Louisiana law that required if evolution is taught in public schools then creationism must also be taught).

I'm trying to say that evolution is a belief-just like religion.

They arn't exactly "neutral", do they talk about God, no. So it works in favor of athiests. Being silent on the topic of religion supports athiesm.

I'm trying to say that evolution is a belief-just like religion.

They arn't exactly "neutral", do they talk about God, no. So it works in favor of athiests. Being silent on the topic of religion supports athiesm.

Two things. First evolution is a theory so its got much more backing it up then belief. Now secondly science is the study of the natural world so it doesn't take a position either way on religion. Its completely neutral and to say its not is such bull**** its not even funny.

How?

In nature, homosexuals are adults in a tribe who are free to help gather food and to help with everyone else's children without having to be burdened by children of their own. As a result, the genes of said tribe are more likely to be passed on since new generations are more likely to survive, and while the exact genetic traits of the homosexuals themselves are not passed on the genes of those who are very similar to them are, and they're allowed to thrive to boot.

How?

I believe I have answered that question on this very thread. You may be able to use the "search" feature to find my posts about it.

In nature, homosexuals are adults in a tribe who are free to help gather food and to help with everyone else's children without having to be burdened by children of their own. As a result, the genes of said tribe are more likely to be passed on since new generations are more likely to survive, and while the exact genetic traits of the homosexuals themselves are not passed on the genes of those who are very similar to them are, and they're allowed to thrive to boot.
Incorrect, I'm afraid. Altruism is NOT a trait that is selected for. Natural selection works on the INDIVIDUAL, not on a species or "tribe" level. An animal that sacrificed its own reproductive success for the group would not produce as many young of its own (logically), and thus would not pass on as many genes. The trait for altruism would be selected OUT of the population, while those animals which benefit from the altruism without showing it would flourish. This has been demonstrated countless times, both with models and in the field.

However, this has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is a successful or evolutionarily advantageous trait. There are numerous documented situations in which homosexuality has been shown to increase the INDIVIDUAL'S reproductive fitness. Just a few examples:

1) Male penguins often form "gay" relationships, in which they cooperate in mutual brood care. This increases the likelihood that their young will survive. This pattern has also been demonstrated in several other bird species.

2) Bottlenose dolphins do not form life-long heterosexual partnerships, but they do form life-long homosexual partnerships. These partnerships have been shown to increase the survival of the animals, thereby increasing the likelihood that they will be able to mate again and produce more offspring. This pattern has been shown in several large mammal species, including (of all things) kangaroos.

3) Bonobo chimpanzees, our closest genetic cousins, have homosexual relations more frequently than heterosexual relations. "Lesbian" sexual encounters occur more frequently among bonobos than any other kind of sexual contact. These encounters have been shown not only to increase social bonding and improve collective brood care, but also have a "psychological" impact...animals that don't get this contact appear to become "depressed," as near as we can tell, and tend to live shorter and less reproductively successful lives. Homosexual sex is also used as a way to diffuse conflicts without fighting, which decreases the rates of injury and thereby increases survival and health of the individuals.

These are just a few examples. I can keep going if you like :).

I'm trying to say that evolution is a belief-just like religion.
This claim is like saying that gravity is a belief, just like Santa.

"Love the sinner; hate the sin!"

Any thoughts?


I agree with this 100%. Where I don't really agree with homosexuality, I don't have anything against homosexuals. Anyone who 'Hates' homosexuals should think about what they would do if they had/found out that their best friend/brother/sister/even father or mother was gay...

That would *most likely* change their view.

How?

Population control maybe?

I'm trying to say that evolution is a belief-just like religion.

Except evolution has more to back it up than some magical creature in the sky making one human from dust and the other from that human's rib.

Population control maybe?

Again, homosexuality as a BIOLOGICAL phenomenon has nothing to do with species-wide population control. That's not how natural selection works.

However, I suddenly realized that one could make the argument that human society (theoretically) could encourage homosexuality for a variety of species-wide benefits. We encourage heterosexual unions, often under the umbrella of some kind of religious ritual, because we perceive certain society-wide benefits to these unions. In theory, it is possible that human society could encourage homosexual unions for similar reasons, and that such encouragement would increase the proportion of humans choosing to live in homosexual unions.