NationStates Jolt Archive

nobody likes sarcasm. And nobody uses it around here, either. That would just be weird.

Not to mention performing in the act of sarcasm does not conceive children therefore it is wrong.

e) Fuck you I am not gay it is not normal it is morally wrong.

What are you doing Friday night? ;)

f) So civil partnerships now need to be judged on looks and what about guys are they not allowed?

Good for you but it is still morally wrong and is against natural law

I am pretty sure EoEofaerwic was joking and not what he was trying to say but I would like to know why you change your view when civil partnerships are discussed rather then simply being a homo?

of course it's not wrong. It's just another way of life..

What is it with this argument? Gay is a lifestyle? Well I'm sorry people but it is not a lifestyle, it is simply what you are and who you are attracted to. If the flamboyant gays want to say that they do such as going to gay clubs sleeping with as many people as possible and skipping around everywhere and they say that is their lifestyle, they are only right in the sense that is how they live their life but it is not because they are gay. A gay guy could be working down in the mines and goes to a pub and only drinks beer and is more interested in the footy score then if Jane Goody is dead or not doesn't mean he is not gay because he doesn't hang around on the gay scene. The way he lives his life is his lifestyle but it still doesn't change the fact that he is not attracted to other males. Gay is not a lifestyle gay is a sexuality. It is similar to when people say blonde is a lifestyle, no blonde is not a bloody l;ifestyle it is a hair colour.

Maybe not. This is something that I'll concede might depend on the individual relationship. \

I think we can agree however that in a lot of cases, it is harmful.


In those cases, though - wouldn't the REAL issue be the fact that adulterous behaviour took place WITHOUT CONSENT, rather than that it took place AT ALL?

I mean - we can assume that relationships where the partners are okay with adultery - or even encourage it - are not nearly as likely to find it 'harmful', no?

Which really makes it an issue of consent - and I'd be inclined to agree with you that non-consensual relationships, adulterous or otherwise, are likely to cause 'harm'.


I believe that its still emotionally and psychologically unhealthy. But I'm not a psychiatrist, and I haven't researched it greatly, so I might have trouble backing that up. Doesn't mean I'm changing my mind on it though.


Well, let's look at a thought experiment,then - I love those. :)

Case 1: Boy A and Girl B. They fall in love, they have children, they get old together, they die.

Case 2: Same again - in this case, they are related, and were never aware of it.

Case 3: Same again, except this time they became aware of it, and continued the relationship, anyway, because of how they feel about each other.

Case 4: Same again, except this time they are raised as brother and sister.

Case 5: Same again, except this time they are RAISED as brother and sister, but later find out they were NOT brother and sister.

Case 6: Same again, except this time, although they are not actually related, they NEVER find that out.


To me - it looks like there might be some conflicted feelings, at some point, in each of those relationships - but what it always comes down to in the end - in EVERY case - is how the couple actually feel about each other.


In any case, there's still the issue of health effects for any children resulting from such a relationship.

Maybe. It's unlikely that there would really be any significance in a single generation of incest. Maybe if there was a family history of some kind of genetic issue - but that's true of genetic problems whether the two people are related or not.

I see. So, being elderly is immoral, huh? Not to mention those disgusting "toddlers" - I mean, if being a toddler weren't wrong, two toddlers would be able to conceive a baby!

lol this is probably one of the best arguements I've seen

kudos to you

the argument? or homosexuality? Seeing as we're overpopulated, and committed homosexual relationships have proved to last longer than committed heterosexual relationships...I'd say that's some pretty smart fucking.

Got a source for that claim?

don’t be a dick toddlers cant physically conceive a baby because they are not fully mature but when they mature they can toddlers are still human they are not separate sexualities like straight and gay. Elderly people can usually no longer have babies because the mother runs out of eggs, not because they have a lack of sperm or eggs during sex.

Why the hell would you compare toddlers to gay people?
And why the hell would you compare elderly people to gay people?

epic lulz.

If you were trying to knock-off your cute cousin at the Christmas get-together, and you snuck into her room, and penetrated her roughly from behind...

...only to have your aunt start screaming that you were raping your uncle...

then it would be wrong.

lmao Gold.

God hates:
fags
rags
bags
hags
...
you

Play along, it's fun.

GAYS AND LEFT-HANDED PEOPLE ARE THE DEVIL'S MINIONS.

Wait, your whole raison d'etre is not to have sex with someone like you?

I wouldn't have sex with someone like him.

I wouldn't have sex with someone like him.

Neither would I, but I don't make that the center of my universe.

I was just wondering how people felt towards homosexuality, and also towards civil partnerships.

Maybe. Maybe not. Don't know. Don't care. Not my call to make.

Well clearly it is wrong if homosexuality is not wrong then two men/women should be able to conceive a baby and they cannot therfore it is wrong.

So conception is your barometer of morality, is it? I've read dumber things, but not lately.

Don’t be a dick toddlers cant physically conceive a baby because they are not fully mature but when they mature they can toddlers are still human they are not separate sexualities like straight and gay. Elderly people can usually no longer have babies because the mother runs out of eggs, not because they have a lack of sperm or eggs during sex.

Why the hell would you compare toddlers to gay people?
And why the hell would you compare elderly people to gay people?

First of all, the bolded part -- between your protesting too much and your obsession with dicks, it seems you're trying to tell us something. Let it out, big guy, it's okay to cry.

Secondly, we have no choice but to use your own logic against you. You bring up conception as the only way to judge morality, we bring up things that also cannot conceive. Seems pretty straightforward to me. In short, don't try and bullshit a legion of bullshitters, son.

True none of these can create a baby but if a man and a woman were to have regular sex then they could conceive a baby remove either the man or the women and replace so as to create a single sex relationship they cannot have babies between them.

So what? Apparently you've never heard of adoption. Seems to me we've "been fruitful and multiplied" plenty. There are far too many children who have never and possibly may never receive anything remotely resembling decent parenting or love. What's your problem with adoption?

No I bloody didn’t did it because I could not think of a different thread to start and I thought this might be interesting

Wow, sassy! You go, boy. Work all that anger and repression out.

Answers to

a) No male and female are made to be together

So what's with the common male obsession with anal sex? Hetero-oriented porn is laced with it.

b) No but as an argument against homosexuality it’s a good way to start

If by "start", you mean "start sabotaging your argument against homosexuality", then yes.

c) So you’re saying we all need to have sex with same sex partners to decrease the population of the world

No, but as an argument against overpopulation, it's a good way to start. See what I did there?

d) Was that between the two having sex or did someone else donate the sperm.

What difference does that make? Sperm banks were in existence long before homosexuals were allowed out of the closet. Try again. On second thought, you've tried enough.

e) Fuck you I am not gay it is not normal it is morally wrong.

Whoa, pack in those claws, champ. Methinks the boy doth protest too much.

f) So civil partnerships now need to be judged on looks and what about guys are they not allowed?

Swing and a miss. See: nuance and sarcasm. You're being embarrassed, and nobody here has had to lift a finger. Thanks for the entertainment!

Good for you but it is still morally wrong and is against natural law

Thou sayest. If that makes you happy, by all means indulge. Just remember who said what about throwing stones, and remember Matthew 7:3...if you can.

I know, but it's a bit of an Americanisation.

Uh...since the word OK originated in America and started as abbreviation for "orl Kerrect" (joke spelling of "all correct") in one etymology, and as a nickname for Martin Van Buren ("Old Kinderhook" from the name of his estate) in another, I think you can take your attempt to co-opt US slang and blow it out your gazoo.

The male homosexual sex act itself is kinda repulsive to hetero people,but if you can get past that,who really cares what adult people do. As long as its not pushed on schoolchildren as some kind of 'alternative' lifestyle,why not let civil partnerships occur?

You're right. It's not an alternative lifestyle at all. It's a lifestyle.

My church is non-denominational but we probably have the most similarities to Holiness/Pentacostal. Don't really know the exact beliefs of those churches though. I believe that the God defines morality and that the Bible is inerrant and says that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is a tough sin to explain since it involves emotions such as love but for whatever reason that is what God says it is. My closest guess right now is that God is a creative being and made us in His image to be creative in many ways including reproductively. Homosexuality distorts God's original intention for sex and marriage and is therefore a sin. I'm am not God so I cannot give the exact reason why but I can keep studying the Bible and praying to find out and hopefully help those that do struggle with homosexuality. But if I find out that churches like the United Church of Christ is right and homosexuality is fine then I will change, but so far that is not what I understand to be true.

If you're wearing two different fabrics right now, I'd avoid going out in public unless you like to be hit with stones. In short, bullshit.

You can study it all you want, but it was written in a primitive time to please, assuage and control primitive people. Some of the wiser of those people knew they needed rules to calm down some of the more wacky of their population. They knew that, along with being wacky, that they were superstitious. Throw in some pagan-borrowed imagery, and poof -- new rules. Well, many of those rules are still very applicable. Many are not. Next time you read it, read it all, and as yourself if every -- last -- word is inerrant according to the world as it exists now.

Homosexuality is something one is born with, how can it be wrong? We do not tell sociopaths they cannot marry.

Well, not without being behind a solid barrier, at any rate. Sociopaths tend not to like being told what not to do.

why would anyone think it is natual to be sexually excited by the smell and taste of $hit?

I don't know. Perhaps you should ask the legions of heterosexual males who seem to really enjoy fucking their women up the ass.

You prepare the orifice for entry, for cryin' out loud. Who is left still dumb enough to believe that unless one truly DOES enjoy that mess that you don't "prepare ye the way" for the anal sex? I swear, there are some stupid motherfuckers out there.

I wouldn't have sex with someone like him.

I have a feeling that you are far from the only one, regardless of gender. This could be the problem for that person. Can't get a date from the opposite sex and sees gay men with adoring women friends all the time and gets angry jealous. Of which, I'm not yet sure.

First of all, the bolded part -- between your protesting too much and your obsession with dicks, it seems you're trying to tell us something. Let it out, big guy, it's okay to cry.

Secondly, we have no choice but to use your own logic against you. You bring up conception as the only way to judge morality, we bring up things that also cannot conceive. Seems pretty straightforward to me. In short, don't try and bullshit a legion of bullshitters, son.

Wow, sassy! You go, boy. Work all that anger and repression out.

Oh for fuck's sake, I am so tired of this one. I am so very painfully fucking tired of people who assume that if you're against homosexuality it must be because you're an insecure closest gay. By that absurd and unfounded assumption, probably about half the United States is composed of closet homosexuals. Its a trite, baseless psychological cliche, but a reasoned argument it is not.

God damn it, now you've made me defend him.:mad:

Oh for fuck's sake, I am so tired of this one. I am so very painfully fucking tired of people who assume that if you're against homosexuality it must be because you're an insecure closest gay. By that absurd and unfounded assumption, probably about half the United States is composed of closet homosexuals. Its a trite, baseless psychological cliche, but a reasoned argument it is not.

God damn it, now you've made me defend him.:mad:

That's your own fault. Nobody asked you to.

The assumption is levied, and rightfully so, against those who feel compelled to protest homosexuality with such great vigor and with such angry language that those reading have no choice but to wonder why they're so upset. One possible explanation is the turmoil in their own minds.

Just because you don't like the argument doesn't make it illegitimate. Tell you what -- you tell the people who so zealously attack homosexuality that they need to tone down the rhetoric, and I'll not use that tactic again. Since we both know that will never happen...well, there it is.

That's your own fault. Nobody asked you to.

Maybe, but when I see something stupid, I like to take a swing at it, regardless of its political affiliation.

The assumption is levied, and rightfully so, against those who feel compelled to protest homosexuality with such great vigor and with such angry language that those reading have no choice but to wonder why they're so upset. One possible explanation is the turmoil in their own minds.

A possible explanation, yes. That does not make it fair to assume it, as you seem to claim in the above paragraph. Nor is it nessissarily the most likely explanation, and anyways its a poor rebuttal. Hell, its probably more likely to provoke them to more radical flaming, if it is indeed accurate.

Just because you don't like the argument doesn't make it illegitimate. Tell you what -- you tell the people who so zealously attack homosexuality that they need to tone down the rhetoric, and I'll not use that tactic again. Since we both know that will never happen...well, there it is.

I probably responded too harshly, and since I haven't read or memorized every one of said individual's posts, its possible that he said something exceptional which justifies this accusation. But its so cliche that it just pisses me off. Being against gays is in no way proof of being gay yourself, no matter how vitriolic your rhetoric.

Ok, I really need to address something that has been niggling at me for a very long time. I consider myself a Bible scholar of sorts, and a very faithful Christian. Yet it irks me when people come around, in the name of Jesus and such not, claiming that the Bible explicitly states that being gay is a sin, by quoting Leviticus or another book. Perhaps no one has made that assertion yet, but I viewed this as a chance to test out my theory and see what people say. I'll address the procreative argument in a second.

People continually quote Leviticus and such, citing the verse, saying that two men that lay together need be put to death. Let us also remember that, according to Leviticus, if we touch someone else's blood, we need to be exiled, and if we eat shell-fish we are sinful as well. By merely quoting Old Testament, these individuals miss a very important consideration, the New Testament.

Jesus came, according to the Bible, so that He could absolve the world of it's sin. During the time of the Old Testament, there had been no sacrifice, so those that sinned could not be forgiven. Jesus Himself said, that no longer did the laws of Moses apply to man, but a new law was set. With His death, we became free of the Mosaic system, and those laws became invalid to an extent.

Thus you can no longer argue that the Bible says to be gay is wrong. One portion says this yes, but another portions absolves that dilemma. Sin is subjective now, there is nothing we can do that we can't be forgiven if we ask for it. That's why Jesus came, so that we wouldn't be unnecessarily separated from God's glory, without recourse.

I'm willing to do some research and find the direct verses to support my position, if any of you wish to ask for them.

In regards to procreative morality....what does procreation really have to do with morality? How can it be argued that homosexuality is inherently wrong due to lack of procreative morality, when morality really has no influence over procreation? Morality is a judgement of what is right and what is wrong, and the actions that you make in regards to those assessments. So...does not having children make the person that chose that option wrong? I'd say of course not, but again, morality is highly subjective, and open to each person's own interpretation.

I hope I've added a little bit of sense to the argument, and made you all respect how Christians really are a little more. We aren't all gay-bashing, war-mongering zealots out to make everyone believe us. I'm actually married to a Wiccan interestingly, and have always respected her personal choices and beliefs.

So, I'm going off topic, and I'll end this before I hijack the thread.

Oh for fuck's sake, I am so tired of this one. I am so very painfully fucking tired of people who assume that if you're against homosexuality it must be because you're an insecure closest gay.

If they werent so often closet homosexuals, maybe wed stop assuming?

If they werent so often closet homosexuals, maybe wed stop assuming?

Statistics that show more than a small percentage of anti-gay individuals are themselves gay?

Statistics that show more than a small percentage of anti-gay individuals are themselves gay?

Nah, but the really really vocal once have a habit of turning out gay. See Evangelical Ministers:p


Im mostly kidding.

Nah, but the really really vocal once have a habit of turning out gay. See Evangelical Ministers:p


Im mostly kidding.

Yes, those ones are the most amusing.;) But probably also the minority.

Two toasters cannot conceive a baby.

Toasters are wrong.


But I thought Cylons could conceive?

Ok, I really need to address something that has been niggling at me for a very long time. I consider myself a Bible scholar of sorts, and a very faithful Christian. Yet it irks me when people come around, in the name of Jesus and such not, claiming that the Bible explicitly states that being gay is a sin, by quoting Leviticus or another book. Perhaps no one has made that assertion yet, but I viewed this as a chance to test out my theory and see what people say. I'll address the procreative argument in a second.

People continually quote Leviticus and such, citing the verse, saying that two men that lay together need be put to death. Let us also remember that, according to Leviticus, if we touch someone else's blood, we need to be exiled, and if we eat shell-fish we are sinful as well. By merely quoting Old Testament, these individuals miss a very important consideration, the New Testament.

Jesus came, according to the Bible, so that He could absolve the world of it's sin. During the time of the Old Testament, there had been no sacrifice, so those that sinned could not be forgiven. Jesus Himself said, that no longer did the laws of Moses apply to man, but a new law was set. With His death, we became free of the Mosaic system, and those laws became invalid to an extent.

Thus you can no longer argue that the Bible says to be gay is wrong. One portion says this yes, but another portions absolves that dilemma. Sin is subjective now, there is nothing we can do that we can't be forgiven if we ask for it. That's why Jesus came, so that we wouldn't be unnecessarily separated from God's glory, without recourse.

I'm willing to do some research and find the direct verses to support my position, if any of you wish to ask for them.

In regards to procreative morality....what does procreation really have to do with morality? How can it be argued that homosexuality is inherently wrong due to lack of procreative morality, when morality really has no influence over procreation? Morality is a judgement of what is right and what is wrong, and the actions that you make in regards to those assessments. So...does not having children make the person that chose that option wrong? I'd say of course not, but again, morality is highly subjective, and open to each person's own interpretation.

I hope I've added a little bit of sense to the argument, and made you all respect how Christians really are a little more. We aren't all gay-bashing, war-mongering zealots out to make everyone believe us. I'm actually married to a Wiccan interestingly, and have always respected her personal choices and beliefs.

So, I'm going off topic, and I'll end this before I hijack the thread.



Very well said. I second this. I would add Jesus also said Matthew 7:1-5

Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

I thought turkeys could fly.


Sorry old WKRP reference.

Why am I bothering to answer this thread... the word NO comes to mind.

No, it is not wrong.

Homosexuality is something you're born with. Just as you have no control over your skin color, you have no control over your sexual orientation. It's like saying blacks count as three-fifths of an American citizen. What do homosexuals count as?

....um, yes, actually, it has. They're called "mammals."

Birds too. Actually, birds are probably a better example because I'm hard-pressed to think of a single species that isn't a K-strategist.

Yes, having fewer offspring is such a common evolutionary strategy that there's a bloody name for it.

Edit: Granted, I'm pretty sure all mammals are also K-strategists, but they tend to have larger litters and greater infant mortality rates than birds do, I believe.

Homosexuality is something you're born with. Just as you have no control over your skin color, you have no control over your sexual orientation. It's like saying blacks count as three-fifths of an American citizen. What do homosexuals count as?

fabulous. *nods*

But I thought Cylons could conceive?

Really? Well, I'm sure someday if you're a good Cylon, he'll reward you with a lovely little walking toaster of your very own.

Statistics that show more than a small percentage of anti-gay individuals are themselves gay?

Here, have a study. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014) It's only got the abstract, but it's a good abstract.

No, it is not wrong.

Put your morals where your mouth is.

Go get your dude, tell him you want to publicly protest homophobia, find the hottest willing girl within 155 km of your current position (topographically adjusted for curvature of the Earth) to include women aboard commercial aircraft but not active duty coast guard or personnel presently in the performance of law enforcement duties, including but not limited to police helicopters and secret government X-COM anti-alien patrol craft, and have hot, drenched, shuddering, slippery yet scratchy, wild wet raccoon sex with her.


Hell yeah.

No, how can a thing you're born with and have no choice about be wrong? That's like saying someone's hair colour is wrong.

Well, to be honest, I find the color snot green to be very wrong....

Gays arent wrong, but Snot Green Hair people, Prop 17 is coming for you!!!

Well, to be honest, I find the color snot green to be very wrong....

Gays arent wrong, but Snot Green Hair people, Prop 17 is coming for you!!!

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Emo-Steve!

No.


Watch "The Knowing" and everything will make sense.

Until the end atleast, then its just a big wtf..

Homosexual behavior: Wrong. Evil. Sinful.

Civil partnerships: No.

Homosexual behavior: Wrong. Evil. Sinful.

Civil partnerships: No.

Why?

Because he was spurned by his partner-hopeful, ;)

That could be construed as a flame.

An extremely plausible flame.

That could be construed as a flame.

An extremely plausible flame.

Possibly, but he'd need a really thin skin...

As well, im pretty sure he was joking considering he just said and left with no explanation...

I guess Ill take it off, spoil sport, lol...

Homosexual behavior: Wrong. Evil. Sinful.

Civil partnerships: No.

...and then the anti-gay Republican congressman was found in the bathroom stall of an airport trying to quench his thirst for a blow-job. With a male.

People who condemn a given harmless sexual behavior on no basis tend to be hiding a big urge to perform said behavior themselves.

There will be civil partnerships, NM, and gay marriage. Whether you want them or not.

...and then the Republican congressman was found in the bathroom stall of an airport trying to quench his thirst for a blow-job. With a male.

People who condemn a given harmless sexual behavior on no basis tend to be hiding a big urge to perform said behavior themselves.

rightfully so. They're fun!:p

Homosexual behavior: Wrong. Evil. Sinful.

Civil partnerships: No.

Hmmm?

How many people have homosexuals killed?

How many people have Christians killed?

Hmmm?

How many people have homosexuals killed?

How many people have Christians killed?

There was that crack-pot theory that Hitler was Gay.....

Possibly, but he'd need a really thin skin...

As well, im pretty sure he was joking considering he just said and left with no explanation...

I guess Ill take it off, spoil sport, lol...

Dude, s'okay, I was kidding. I don't care if you toss out a little flame.

A little very likely flame.

Dude, s'okay, I was kidding. I don't care if you toss out a little flame.

A little very likely flame.

lmao....

You had me looking back and forth at Moderation for the need to pounce at my detractors, :p

lmao....

You had me looking back and forth at Moderation for the need to pounce at my detractors, :p

I don't have a wealth of credibility with moderation.

Hmmm?

How many people have homosexuals killed?

How many people have Christians killed?

It's statement's like this that caused me to come out with my first post. As Christians, we somehow become unilaterally susceptible to blame, for things that have happened, by misled individuals in the past. Yes, I'm going off topic on this, and I duly apologize, but I feel it should be addressed.

People constantly use the Inquisition and the Crusades, as reasons to hate Christians, or to just surreptitiously bash them. Yet, it should be noted, that the individuals behind these events, were people quite certainly didn't have the proper view of what Christianity really is.

How does someone justify war and murder in the name of Jesus, when Jesus himself said, "Love thy enemy as you would love thyself." They did it through self-delusion, and intentions that are anything but Christian.

I would never hope to sit here after reading about how an animal-rights activist blew up a cosmetics lab, killing loads of people, and thus claim that all animal-rights supporters are violent psychopaths. I've always believe that same virtue should be applied to Christians. Just because you belong to a group, does not implicitly mean you are answerable for the malfeasance of that groups past.

There, I've said my bit, and could rightly be called out for hijacking. I apologize again, and hope I hope I've brought some clarity to my ideals.

It's statement's like this that caused me to come out with my first post. As Christians, we somehow become unilaterally susceptible to blame, for things that have happened, by misled individuals in the past. Yes, I'm going off topic on this, and I duly apologize, but I feel it should be addressed..

Not to cut you off or anything, but I think I can tell you the 'how'

Its the Fundamentalist wing coming out against one group of people after another...

Until they stop advocating discrimination against people, noone's letting them live down their mistakes...

especially when they call those people "sinful" and say they will spend an eternity in hell for actions they themselves do (See: "Republicans")

Hmmm?

How many people have homosexuals killed?

How many people have Christians killed?

No, no, silly. Homosexuals don't kill people. They only eat babies. ;)

j/k

Not to cut you off or anything, but I think I can tell you the 'how'

Its the Fundamentalist wing coming out against one group of people after another...

Until they stop advocating discrimination against people, noone's letting them live down their mistakes...

especially when they call those people "sinful" and say they will spend an eternity in hell for actions they themselves do (See: "Republicans")

Then there is the Pope, parading his ignorance about the need of condoms to fight AIDS...

Then there is the Pope, parading his ignorance about the need of condoms to fight AIDS...

But condoms are EVIL! EVIL, I tell you! :eek:

Not to cut you off or anything, but I think I can tell you the 'how'

Its the Fundamentalist wing coming out against one group of people after another...

Until they stop advocating discrimination against people, noone's letting them live down their mistakes...

especially when they call those people "sinful" and say they will spend an eternity in hell for actions they themselves do (See: "Republicans")

I appreciate your points Skallvia, and thank you for your reply. Yet that brings me back to the main crux of my argument. You can not judge an entire group of people, based on the actions and words of a small portion of that group.

Christians are a very large and diverse population, and not all of us are Republicans, nor do all of us advocate discrimination. The Republicans/Right-Wing zealots you cite are not in my astute opinion, true Christians.

This goes back to my first post in this thread, which you can look at on page 19. The Right-Wingers go on with their discrimination and bigotry, using the Bible to assuage their guilty consciences. Yet as I showed, the Bible if correctly read, does not condemn homosexuality in any shape or manner. In fact the New Testament all but tells us as long as we live a life of general morality, we will be rewarded. Jesus made it so there is no sin that we aren't absolvable of.

In closing, I've met many Christians that are die-hard, dyed in the wool Democrats, who would sooner criticize someone's sexuality as they'd denounce Jesus. I am again merely trying to show, that the unilateral statements about Christians are generally bigoted themselves, and that we are not all alike.

*snip*

True, its the reason I usually say "fundamentalists" instead, because thats who Im really talking about...

But, Im just saying that unless more Christians actually come out against them then the perception, true or not, is going to be that they share their views...

What is needed, but has yet to be seen, at least by myself, is when these fundamentalists demonstrate against Abortion, Gay Rights, etc., is the Christian-Counter Demonstration to refute their statements...

True, its the reason I usually say "fundamentalists" instead, because thats who Im really talking about...

But, Im just saying that unless more Christians actually come out against them then the perception, true or not, is going to be that they share their views...

What is needed, but has yet to be seen, at least by myself, is when these fundamentalists demonstrate against Abortion, Gay Rights, etc., is the Christian-Counter Demonstration to refute their statements...

It does happen, but as you might expect, they tend to be less loud and annoying, and therefore get less time on the news and such. I do know that my friend's UCC church has organized quite a lot of counter-protests, and I have no doubt plenty of other reasonable Christian groups have done likewise.

It's statement's like this that caused me to come out with my first post. As Christians, we somehow become unilaterally susceptible to blame, for things that have happened, by misled individuals in the past.

Why do you say misled ? The Bible is pretty clear: God approves of all the atrocities committed in His name. God WANTS hate and destruction. God kills babies. God commits genocide with semi-regular intervals. God considers rape an acceptable action to force a spouse to marry you. God approves slavery, as long as you do not beat the slaves up too much. God is all for animal sacrifice. God thinks you can sell people.

That people in the past actually lived by that for most of Christianities history does not make them "misled". It makes them "people that actually respected the Bible".

Jesus FUCKING Christ.

I go away for a few hours and now there's 304 posts!?

Jesus FUCKING Christ.

If that were to happen, what would that be called, auto-theo-coitus?

How can homosexuality be "right" or "wrong"?

Sex between two (or more) consenting adults is legal independently of their gender, ethnicity, religion, social class, heritage, etc. AND should be a private business of theirs. Or, at least, none of my business if I'm not one of the adults involved.

As for "sin", well, I'm not religious, so I don't give a fuck about sin.
As for "it's a sin then it should be outlawed", religion(s) shouldn't dictate the standards of legality. When they do, the Islamic Republic of Iran happens. ;)

Fags, like left-handed people, hippies, and Muppet fans are the devil's minions.

If that were to happen, what would that be called, auto-theo-coitus?

rofl.

Maybe, but when I see something stupid, I like to take a swing at it, regardless of its political affiliation.

Your arms must be very, very sore.

A possible explanation, yes. That does not make it fair to assume it, as you seem to claim in the above paragraph. Nor is it nessissarily the most likely explanation, and anyways its a poor rebuttal. Hell, its probably more likely to provoke them to more radical flaming, if it is indeed accurate.

Oh, you mean as likely to provoke as just wandering in, dropping an anti-gay "question" and a few tissue-thin sentences by way of justification and then leaving? Sorry, you'll have to do better than that. Assumption of depravity and immorality against homosexuals has been around one hell of a lot longer than the "protests too much" assumption of vitriolic gay-bashers. If one is willing to subject logic to such torture as to genuinely stand behind such hate-invested rhetoric, then one should be willing to be subjected to the same from the opposition. I've never claimed the closeted bigot label was accurate, merely showing the bigot how stupid his argument is by making a counter-argument equally as stupid -- and inaccurate.

I realize that kind of subtlety is usually lost on the average homophobe, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. Offending you? Not a risk at all.

I probably responded too harshly, and since I haven't read or memorized every one of said individual's posts, its possible that he said something exceptional which justifies this accusation.

Hardly exceptional, just woefully stale and pathetically lame. But hey, why bother reading the thread you're so passionate about, right?

But its so cliche that it just pisses me off. Being against gays is in no way proof of being gay yourself, no matter how vitriolic your rhetoric.

Gee-golly, and using stone-age Biblical horseshit to denounce gays is not cliche? I'm having sincere difficulty seeing what your beef is, but that doesn't invalidate your beef. Knock yourself out -- just don't expect me to buy even a scintilla of it; it's not worth a damn.

Homosexual behavior: Wrong. Evil. Sinful.

Civil partnerships: No.

I rest my case.

I was just wondering how people felt towards homosexuality, and also towards civil partnerships.

It's a deeply personal choice, so the real answer is...

"Does it make you feel bad if you do it?" If the answer is no, then it's not wrong-it's consensual (that is, both parties agree to pursue the activity).

If the answer is "Yes", then it's wrong...for you. (or me), but not wrong for the guy who answers in the negative.

"civil Partnerships" means giving our gay citizens the opportunity to have their credit ruined by someone else, their heart broken, and the sensation of having to pay a Judge to let them break off a bad relationship. I'm in favour.

I'm still entertained by Dingle's idea that women can no longer become pregnant when they "run out of eggs".

When you understand basic human biology, you can maybe tell us what's "wrong" and "right" about sexuality.

The hard part will be writing a theme song.

I can't think of anything that rhymes with "lesbian", for instance.

Lesbian c'est très bien! :tongue:



And to answer the thread: of course it isn't.

I was just wondering how people felt towards homosexuality, and also towards civil partnerships.

Possible answers to this question:

"No."

"Yes it is because it's against the (Insert religious tome here.)"

"It can be considered wrong by some due to the human ability to feel guilty for something if one believes one should feel guilty for it."

"But does that mean that there is no such thing as right or wrong except as concepts in the human mind?"

"Yes, just like there is no good or evil except as concepts. It depends on us to choose what we see as right or wrong and live our our life based upon those conceptions."

"You're wrong because there is some sort of objective right or wrong because everyone agrees that murder is wrong or stealing is wrong!"

"Not true, because if everyone agreed then there would be no such crimes. And that doesn't change the fact that it is still belief. The act of everyone sharing such a belief does not somehow make it not a belief."

"Yeah well you're stupid."

"How delightfully astute of you."

"Ah, another American who is such a fag hater. (Insert long rant about Americans and about how much better the poster is by being from Sweden here. :D )

...

I could keep going but I won't.:tongue:

Oh, you mean as likely to provoke as just wandering in, dropping an anti-gay "question" and a few tissue-thin sentences by way of justification and then leaving?

I don't think that the question itself was anti-gay, except in the context of what followed.

Sorry, you'll have to do better than that. Assumption of depravity and immorality against homosexuals has been around one hell of a lot longer than the "protests too much" assumption of vitriolic gay-bashers.

So if someone does something stupid, the appropriate response is to return the stupidity?

If one is willing to subject logic to such torture as to genuinely stand behind such hate-invested rhetoric, then one should be willing to be subjected to the same from the opposition.

So basically you're justifying reducing yourself to the level of those you oppose?

I've never claimed the closeted bigot label was accurate, merely showing the bigot how stupid his argument is by making a counter-argument equally as stupid -- and inaccurate.

What you're showing is that you consider another's idiocy to be an excuse for your own..

Hardly exceptional, just woefully stale and pathetically lame. But hey, why bother reading the thread you're so passionate about, right?

How many pages is this thread? I mean, even if I had read it five times I doubt I'd memorize every damn post. I added a qualifier because I was aware of the possibility that their was something I missed. Is that a problem?

In any case, you've all but admitted here that you had no reason beyond his negative view of homosexuality to label him as a closet gay, so apparently I was right and you were just spouting idiotic and unfounded cliches.

Gee-golly, and using stone-age Biblical horseshit to denounce gays is not cliche? I'm having sincere difficulty seeing what your beef is, but that doesn't invalidate your beef. Knock yourself out -- just don't expect me to buy even a scintilla of it; it's not worth a damn.

Are you suggesting I am not sincere in my annoyance? If so, why? I mean, I enjoy a good argument, but I try not to pick one without reason. Also, if you think I'm making too big a deal out of this, remember that I wouldn't be posting about it any more if you weren't defending it.

Hell, maybe I am overreacting. Most people probably wouldn't find it very annoying. Its just that that cliche really irritates me.

I rest my case.

"Stupid from others justifies stupidity from me.":rolleyes:

Allow me to answer a question with a question:

I'm a female human being. Is there any kind of fucking I could ever do that wouldn't be considered wrong by at least 90% of the jerkwads on this planet?

Allow me to answer a question with a question:

I'm a female human being. Is there any kind of fucking I could ever do that wouldn't be considered wrong by at least 90% of the jerkwads on this planet?

Yes when it is not with me. :p

Not to cut you off or anything, but I think I can tell you the 'how'

Its the Fundamentalist wing coming out against one group of people after another...

Until they stop advocating discrimination against people, noone's letting them live down their mistakes...

especially when they call those people "sinful" and say they will spend an eternity in hell for actions they themselves do (See: "Republicans")

Yeah except people tend to take this 'their' to mean all Christians rather then just the fundamentalist wing.

I have a feeling that you are far from the only one, regardless of gender. This could be the problem for that person. Can't get a date from the opposite sex and sees gay men with adoring women friends all the time and gets angry jealous. Of which, I'm not yet sure.

The good thing about having an exclusively gay friend is that all their hot female friends who like to hang with them aren't going to be able to sleep with them even if they want to. Perfect time to be there. :tongue:

...and then the anti-gay Republican congressman was found in the bathroom stall of an airport trying to quench his thirst for a blow-job. With a male.

People who condemn a given harmless sexual behavior on no basis tend to be hiding a big urge to perform said behavior themselves.

There will be civil partnerships, NM, and gay marriage. Whether you want them or not.

Basing this on a few people?

Allow me to answer a question with a question:

I'm a female human being. Is there any kind of fucking I could ever do that wouldn't be considered wrong by at least 90% of the jerkwads on this planet?

I would think 90% to be a rather high estimate, Bottle...more like 65% or so.

People constantly use the Inquisition and the Crusades, as reasons to hate Christians, or to just surreptitiously bash them.


I dunno, give that Richard I was having it off with King Phillip of France at the time (or at the least most certainly had a number of homosexual lovers), you could probably spin it to blame gays too :P

Of course the original question was wrong - even more so than a religion, sexuality groups are not homogenous with unified beliefs and values. Some of us are complete bastards, other saints - most are somewhere in between.

Just remeber this, if you really, really hate gay people - get the hell off your computer. Because you owe it's existence to this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing)

Fags, like left-handed people, hippies, and Muppet fans are the devil's minions.

I hate cigarettes too, but what's that got to do with the current topic :eek:

why would anyone think it is natual to be sexually excited by the smell and taste of $hit?

I thought we were talking about homosexuality, not coprophilia.

I would also note that homosexuality is directly contrary to the idea of "survival of the fittest", so any argument for evolution necessarily flies in the face of homosexuality. Nothing against either evolution or gays, but it is a cautionary tale from following any party line too closely.
Not true. Species do not need every member to breed: in many species, only a tiny minority breed. As long as non-breeders contribute to the survival of the others, a diversity of traits will help the entire species to propagate.

Basing this on a few people?

Nah, most gay-bashers are like that.

.....

That people in the past actually lived by that for most of Christianities history does not make them "misled". It makes them "people that actually respected the Bible".

....based on your interpretation.

Now, do you have any reason to believe that your particular interpretation is the correct one? I ask this because the Bible is somewhat contradictory, so a lot of it boils down to interpretation. To tie it back to the OP, can you provide some sort of reasoning why you believe the Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality? Of course you can. Can others provide some sort of reasoning why they believe the Bible does not? Of course they can.

In terms of the social struggle to get the rest of society to acknowledge the inherent equality of all those who don't follow the hetero norm, would it not make more sense to support those Christians who take a more progressive interpretation of the Bible than to condemn them for not being as homophobic as they should be according to certain Biblical interpretations?

I remember reading an essay once, you may have seen it... Written by a preacher in a colonial era church up north to his congregation. In it, he outlines the idea that married couples should avoid sex in general, doing it only to try and procreate. The wife was advised to nag her husband constantly so that he'd be too annoyed with her to want sex. When the time came to actually do it, they were to remove as little clothing as possible. No noises, no enjoyment, and to get it over with quickly.

*shudder*
Then perhaps you can understand how repulsive Mormonism's teachings come across to me?

Uh...since the word OK originated in America and started as abbreviation for "orl Kerrect" (joke spelling of "all correct") in one etymology, and as a nickname for Martin Van Buren ("Old Kinderhook" from the name of his estate) in another, I think you can take your attempt to co-opt US slang and blow it out your gazoo.
Both of those are "folk etymologies" ("orl Kerrect" being a joke directed at Andrew Jackson, first to use "OK" formally when he signed bills). The more plausible etymology is Cherokee oke "yes; I agree".

Then perhaps you can understand how repulsive Mormonism's teachings come across to me?

Or indeed to any rational or caring human being.

I don't think that the question itself was anti-gay, except in the context of what followed.

Right. That's a really nice fantasy world you're living in, but that's your prerogative.

So if someone does something stupid, the appropriate response is to return the stupidity?

If that is all the first "someone" will ever understand, then yes.

So basically you're justifying reducing yourself to the level of those you oppose?

Again, for one's message to be effective, one must couch it in terms that will get the most attention. Or haven't you noticed that nuance, subtlety and reason are lost on the vast majority of gay-bashers?

What you're showing is that you consider another's idiocy to be an excuse for your own...

Or I'm fighting stupid fire with stupid fire. Again, you're more than free to denounce the use of cliche. The difference is, you're nitpicking; they don't bother.

How many pages is this thread? I mean, even if I had read it five times I doubt I'd memorize every damn post. I added a qualifier because I was aware of the possibility that their was something I missed. Is that a problem?

Who asked you to "memorize" anything? What's the matter with you? Since when does thread length have anything to do with whether or not one should read the whole thing before posting with regard to the thread's context and content? If you like skimming or not reading at all and then pontificating, that's perfectly fine. Also fine is me calling you on it. I think it's a problem, but I also think rain is wet, so there you go.

In any case, you've all but admitted here that you had no reason beyond his negative view of homosexuality to label him as a closet gay, so apparently I was right and you were just spouting idiotic and unfounded cliches.

When the aforementioned "negative view of homosexuality" (so much credit you've given the OP -- it's beyond generous and approaching foolhardy) is baseless, simplistic and reactionary, how much sophistication should I waste my time generating in response? If you're in a room full of paper, and there's a fire, are you going to spend any time wrrying about whether or not the water bucket you've got is the right kind of fire extinguisher? No. The room's full of paper, you needn't worry about sodium or magnesium or oil, which demand consideration of other extinguishers.

In short, why waste time with anything more thoughtful than the OP? A) Others have covered that quite well, and I don't see the need to duplicate, and B) I know the "protest too much" assessment irritates gay bashers. Since all the overwhelming majority of gay bashers want to do is annoy gay people and those who aren't idiots with regard to the topic, why not reply with the one tack that is certain to get a rise out of the bigot instead? Do you honestly believe that your oh-so polished rhetoric on the topic is going to convince someone who's Biblical devotion precludes all logic? You can bang your head on that wall, but don't expect others to join you just because you like the dull, wet thud of cracking skull and mushed skin on brick.

Are you suggesting I am not sincere in my annoyance? If so, why? I mean, I enjoy a good argument, but I try not to pick one without reason. Also, if you think I'm making too big a deal out of this, remember that I wouldn't be posting about it any more if you weren't defending it.

I don't have to suggest it, it's obvious. You're trying so hard to appear fair-minded (for what reason I can only imagine) that you're offering acres of shrift to a viewpoint that clearly doesn't deserve it. Once more -- this is something you're perfectly entitled to do. What I'll get perturbed about is when you start getting more-secular-than-thou than me for giving as good as I saw fit to give.

Hell, maybe I am overreacting. Most people probably wouldn't find it very annoying. Its just that that cliche really irritates me.

I understand that, but this irritated? Really? Jeez, if I got that worked up over every anti-gay cliche I hear damn near every day, I'd explode.

"Stupid from others justifies stupidity from me.":rolleyes:

Feel superior now? That's the only reason for you to have posted that little piece of tripe. Oh, Romulus, you are sooooo vastly better than I am at giving assholes a fair shake. I tremble before your mighty beneficence. I can grovel if that'll help.

I would think 90% to be a rather high estimate, Bottle...more like 65% or so.

I think Bottle's spot on. Remember, the world's a big place, but the treatment of women as chattel is damn near ubiquitous. You might be closer than she if we're talking surface area. But not population...unfortunately.

Until the end atleast, then its just a big wtf..

Yeah, what was up with that planet thing?

Both of those are "folk etymologies" ("orl Kerrect" being a joke directed at Andrew Jackson, first to use "OK" formally when he signed bills). The more plausible etymology is Cherokee oke "yes; I agree".

Context.

Someone from outside the US (the UK? I can't remember) was telling someone to stop "Americanising" what they think of exclusively as "okay" into "OK". The fact that the word IS American, and likely started as those initials rather than as a full spelling, was what I was setting straight. The possible Cherokee etymology merely reinforces my argument (and thanks, btw).

What happens behind closed doors is no business of the state. However Marriage should be between a man and a woman and they should not be able to adopt.

There is a proposal in the WA you can endorse if you agree with me.

Allow me to answer a question with a question:

I'm a female human being. Is there any kind of fucking I could ever do that wouldn't be considered wrong by at least 90% of the jerkwads on this planet?

No. Ladies don't fuck; they lie back and think of England.

If you're a woman and you're enjoying it, you're doing it wrong.

What happens behind closed doors is no business of the state. However Marriage should be between a man and a woman and they should not be able to adopt.

There is a proposal in the WA you can endorse if you agree with me.

Ah, I see. So gays shouldn't have any rights, but we shouldn't lynch them, either. Very generous of you.

What happens behind closed doors is no business of the state. However Marriage should be between a man and a woman and they should not be able to adopt.

There is a proposal in the WA you can endorse if you agree with me.

You're wrong, and nobody agrees with you.

No. Ladies don't fuck; they lie back and think of England.

If you're a woman and you're enjoying it, you're doing it wrong.

I've always wondered about those women who get turned by the thought of England and laying still. Should they not enjoy it as well, or can they do a sort of 'following the letter rather than the spirit of the law' thing?

No. Ladies don't fuck; they lie back and think of England.

England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England)?

No. Ladies don't fuck; they lie back and think of England.


Even ladies in America? Can't you think of somewhere else, it's giving England bad connotations.

Even ladies in America? Can't you think of somewhere else, it's giving England bad connotations.

http://media.news.com.au/travel/lp/maps/wg-england-5182-400x300.gif

Ooooh, yeah, baby!

http://media.news.com.au/travel/lp/maps/wg-england-5182-400x300.gif

Ooooh, yeah, baby!

That map is highly inaccurate.

No.

What happens behind closed doors is no business of the state.
Agreed, you seem reasonable...
However Marriage should be between a man and a woman
...then you say this...
and they should not be able to adopt.
...and this.

Why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to adopt?

England: the proud nation that gave the world Oscar Wilde, which didn't stop the Brits from prosecuting said writer for his "indiscretions". Victorians frowned upon sexual activities in general, unless prostitution was involved. Never in the history of the United Kingdom have there been so many prostitutes walking the streets of fair Albion as in the Victorian age.

I'm still entertained by Dingle's idea that women can no longer become pregnant when they "run out of eggs".

When you understand basic human biology, you can maybe tell us what's "wrong" and "right" about sexuality.
I lol'd
You're wrong, and nobody agrees with you.
Seconded.

it is sexual perversion and like most everything else it is a choice. Just because someone is born with a bent towards say "addiction" doesn't mean they have to chase the dragon.
The homosexuals I know and love are good trust worthy people, but it doesn't make their unnatural wants exceptionable.

Is homosexuality wrong? It is unproductive, unhealthy, and therefore unwise.
in a word yes it is wrong. I'm in no position to judge people, and so I'm not, just the action, and agenda.

It is unproductive, unhealthy, and therefore unwise.

You just defined what are people speaking out against a harmless practice.

it is sexual perversion and like most everything else it is a choice. Just because someone is born with a bent towards say "addiction" doesn't mean they have to chase the dragon.
The homosexuals I know and love are good trust worthy people, but it doesn't make their unnatural wants exceptionable.

Is homosexuality wrong? It is unproductive, unhealthy, and therefore unwise.
in a word yes it is wrong. I'm in no position to judge people, and so I'm not, just the action, and agenda.

Explain how it is unproductive, also how it is unhealthy.

Explain how it is unproductive, also how it is unhealthy.

It doesn't make babies. Ergo, it's unproductive.

Y'know, like composing a symphony. It doesn't make babies either.

I was just wondering how people felt towards homosexuality, and also towards civil partnerships.

TL: DR

It's wrong if it's not for you. but it might be right for others.

as for Civil Unions? I'm ok with it.

it is sexual perversion and like most everything else it is a choice. Just because someone is born with a bent towards say "addiction" doesn't mean they have to chase the dragon.
The homosexuals I know and love are good trust worthy people, but it doesn't make their unnatural wants exceptionable.

Is homosexuality wrong? It is unproductive, unhealthy, and therefore unwise.
in a word yes it is wrong. I'm in no position to judge people, and so I'm not, just the action, and agenda.

Are you a crazy person? Or just stupid?

I agree

With what?

Now, do you have any reason to believe that your particular interpretation is the correct one? I ask this because the Bible is somewhat contradictory, so a lot of it boils down to interpretation.

The bible certainly is not contradictory when taken as a whole. Most cases of ambiguity are caused by improper translation (the oft quoted "thou shalt not kill" is actually "thou shalt not murder" in original Hebrew) or caused by people taking the words out of context.

To tie it back to the OP, can you provide some sort of reasoning why you believe the Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality? Of course you can.

Of course. In the book Leviticus:
18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Can others provide some sort of reasoning why they believe the Bible does not? Of course they can.

Others may provide some reason, but those reasons probably aren't very sound. According to the laws of God, which is very, very clear in its wording, followers of God should not practice homosexuality. If anyone interpret these two passages as a permission to commit homosexuality, I think we can agree that they are crazy.

Unless you can find a passage that actively encourages homosexuality in the bible, your arguments about different interpretations falls flat.

In terms of the social struggle to get the rest of society to acknowledge the inherent equality of all those who don't follow the hetero norm, would it not make more sense to support those Christians who take a more progressive interpretation of the Bible than to condemn them for not being as homophobic as they should be according to certain Biblical interpretations?

There is a difference between a "progressive interpretation" and an outright wrong interpretation.

That being said though, I don't agree that we should go out and stone homosexuals, lynch them, or shun them in a cruel way. Jesus forgave us for our sins, and so the followers of God should forgive(?) homosexuals by trying to treat them as fellow human beings.

No, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality or homosexual behavior. If you disagree, you are a homophobic bigot.

Is homosexuality wrong? It is unproductive, unhealthy, and therefore unwise.
in a word yes it is wrong. I'm in no position to judge people, and so I'm not, just the action, and agenda.

Unproductive maybe in that it doesn't produce babies (see above arguments as to why that isn't a bad thing) but unhealthy? Not if done right for men and lesbians have the lowest level of STDs of a sexually active group.

Are you a crazy person? Or just stupid?

I'm thinking puppet wank

The bible certainly is not contradictory when taken as a whole. Most cases of ambiguity are caused by improper translation (the oft quoted "thou shalt not kill" is actually "thou shalt not murder" in original Hebrew) or caused by people taking the words out of context.

Explain then how the first two chapters of genesis give completely differing views on how the world was created? Or indeed any of the other contradictions listed here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Even if we're going to say any contradictions are due to mistranslations or copy errors, then how are you going to find the 'true' version, since I'm pretty certain the oldest fragments of the bible found are about 100BC - given when the old testament was meant to have been written - that's a lot of time in between.

Of course. In the book Leviticus:
18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.



Shellfish, polycotton shirts, eating pork... all stoneable offences in Leviticus - and that's just to start. Didn't the Old Testament rules get thrown out when Jesus created a new covenant with man?

A large number of very famous saints and biblical scholars throughout the ages have always warned against interpreting the bible literally (St Augustus most famously) - surely you should instead be considering the underlying meaning of the bible given the context at the time. Now I'm not a Christian but when I read what Jesus said it seems to me the underlying message is "love each other" and "judge not lest yea be judged".

You just defined what are people speaking out against a harmless practice.
Both I guess
Unproductive: no babies. Unhealthy: One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime,78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs.

The bible certainly is not contradictory when taken as a whole. Most cases of ambiguity are caused by improper translation (the oft quoted "thou shalt not kill" is actually "thou shalt not murder" in original Hebrew) or caused by people taking the words out of context.



Of course. In the book Leviticus:
18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.



Others may provide some reason, but those reasons probably aren't very sound. According to the laws of God, which is very, very clear in its wording, followers of God should not practice homosexuality. If anyone interpret these two passages as a permission to commit homosexuality, I think we can agree that they are crazy.

Unless you can find a passage that actively encourages homosexuality in the bible, your arguments about different interpretations falls flat.



There is a difference between a "progressive interpretation" and an outright wrong interpretation.

That being said though, I don't agree that we should go out and stone homosexuals, lynch them, or shun them in a cruel way. Jesus forgave us for our sins, and so the followers of God should forgive(?) homosexuals by trying to treat them as fellow human beings.

I love religious nuts. There so... one dimensional.

Both I guess
Unproductive: no babies. Unhealthy: One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime,78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs.

Source?

In the book Leviticus

I'll say this once:

SCREW Leviticus.

Leviticus means JACK SHIT.

Leviticus is worth NOTHING.

Leviticus is CRAP.

FUCK Leviticus.

You just defined what are people speaking out against a harmless practice.
if the practice is harmless, the lifestyle is not.
Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex

Of course. In the book Leviticus:
18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Charming. But tell me, do you eat meat products such as pork, bacon and other types of pig meat? According to the Old Testament, that's also a grave sin. But as usual, fundies only quote what's usable for their nefarious schemes. Never mind the many instances the Bible contradicts itself. God works in mysterious ways, right?

Source?

My guess would be Conservapedia, information source for the batshit insane.

I'll say this once:

SCREW Leviticus.

Leviticus means JACK SHIT.

Leviticus is worth NOTHING.

Leviticus is CRAP.

FUCK Leviticus.

Not a god-fearing man are you Heikoku?

Both I guess
Unproductive: no babies. Unhealthy: One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime,78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs.

if the practice is harmless, the lifestyle is not.
Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex

*squints* I'm about to call Poe on this one

But still I must ask: SOURCE? You can link me to proper journals - I have access to a lot of them through uni, I don't need to rely on an abstract.

Source?
I can give you my sources right after this post

if the practice is harmless, the lifestyle is not.
Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex

Wrong.

Charming. But tell me, do you eat meat products such as pork, bacon and other types of pig meat? According to the Old Testament, that's also a grave sin. But as usual, fundies only quote what's usable for their nefarious schemes. Never mind the many instances the Bible contradicts itself. God works in mysterious ways, right?

Technically, I believe Paul actually reinforced the anti-gay prohibition in the New Testament.

Not a god-fearing man are you Heikoku?o
I. AM. GOD!

Source?
Ok more fun facts and sources. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

*squints* I'm about to call Poe on this one

But still I must ask: SOURCE? You can link me to proper journals - I have access to a lot of them through uni, I don't need to rely on an abstract.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

If you look at the facts it's just a little bit damning.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

My guess would be Conservapedia, information source for the batshit insane.

ROFLMFAO.

I just went on that site. http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_Bomb

They're not to fond of Obama either. http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama

Ok more fun facts and sources. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

That is perhaps the most unreliable- bullshit source I've ever seen.
* 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs
:eek:
25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics
Yep, that's some grade a bullshit you got there.

Ok more fun facts and sources. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

A), I call Poe.

and B), according to this, gays make more money on average (20 years ago, according to one study).

See what the leadership of Tim Gunn could do for this country?


10% is NOT ENOUGH! RECRUIT RECRUIT RECRUIT!

Are you a crazy person? Or just stupid?
Both. I'm not even going to bring God into this. Read em and weep.
facts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts)

well it seems everyone's made up their mind about this. good luck.

Both. I'm not even going to bring God into this. Read em and weep.
facts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts)

I am weeping- with tears of laughter.

If you look at the facts it's just a little bit damning.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

And gays are shitty drivers, too...

"19 times more likely to die in a car accident".

well it seems everyone's made up their mind about this. good luck.

Thanks, Poe.

well it seems everyone's made up their mind about this. good luck.

With what? Getting into heaven?
There is more chance of Heikoku being god than there is of me or anyone else getting there.

Ok more fun facts and sources. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

If you look at the facts it's just a little bit damning.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

And when you feel like linking to some actual studies we can talk. I suggest a look through PubMed - preferably anything more recent than the 90s (because of more evolved and valid research practices and increased safe sex use in gay men - bringing them more on line with heterosexual sexual behaviour on that scale).


Edit: Ohhh... are we calling Poe on this one? May I say I called it first two pages ago :p

Both I guess
Unproductive: no babies. Unhealthy: One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime,78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs.

This one study showed that 96.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

I hate lazy trolls.

Technically, I believe Paul actually reinforced the anti-gay prohibition in the New Testament.

out of curiosity... can you show where?

Well...
There is no choice in the matter!!
It is pointless in hating someone because of
Skin colo(u)r
Religion
Sex
AND SEXUAL PREFERENCE!
IT IS NOT WRONG!
It is just not allowed in society!

out of curiosity... can you show where?

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis added)

This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed. The two activities of interest here have been variously translated as:

effeminate. In the English language, this covers a wide range of male behavior such as being unmanly, lacking virility.

homosexuals, variously described as:

"men who practice homosexuality," (ESV);
"those who participate in homosexuality," (Amplified);
"abusers of themselves with men," (KJV);
"practicing homosexuals," (NAB);
"homosexuals," (NASB, CSB, NKJ, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English);
"homosexual perversion," (NEB);
"homosexual offenders," (NIV);
"liers with mankind," (Rhiems); and
"homosexual perverts." (TEV)

though my source also notes

Although "homosexual" is a very common translation, it is almost certain to be inaccurate:

If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.

The second term is "arsenokoitai" in Greek. The exact meaning of this word is lost. It seems to have been a term created by Paul for this verse. "Arsen" means "man" in Greek. So there is no way that "arsenokoitai" could refer to both male and female homosexuals. It seems that the translators gave in to the temptation to widen Paul's condemnation to include lesbians as well as gay males.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

The New Testament clearly and uncompromisingly affirms that homosexual practice is sin and unacceptable to God (Romans 1: 24-28; I Corinthians 6: 9-11). Jesus often condemns "pornia" which we translate as "immorality." The Greek word includes both unfaithfulness in marriage and homosexuality.

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/300-new-testament-and-homosexual-practice

Well...
There is no choice in the matter!!
It is pointless in hating someone because of
Skin colo(u)r
Religion
Sex
AND SEXUAL PREFERENCE!
IT IS NOT WRONG!
It is just not allowed in society!

It still happens though.++++

out of curiosity... can you show where?

Hmm, I'll have to look really quick.

Ok, got it:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

out of curiosity... can you show where?

Romans 1
1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
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
1:31-32 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

though my source also notes

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

http://www.pfrenewal.org/issues/300-new-testament-and-homosexual-practice

Hmm, I'll have to look really quick.

Ok, got it:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Romans 1
1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
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
1:31-32 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Thanks.

Thanks.

I always enjoy trotting out proof of christianity being being started by intolerant fuckwads :D

Oh for fuck's sake, I am so tired of this one. I am so very painfully fucking tired of people who assume that if you're against homosexuality it must be because you're an insecure closest gay. By that absurd and unfounded assumption, probably about half the United States is composed of closet homosexuals. Its a trite, baseless psychological cliche, but a reasoned argument it is not.

God damn it, now you've made me defend him.:mad:

Seems like a reasonable assumption to me, but then I buy into the 'spectrum sexuality' idea - which means 50% of America probably IS more gay than not. And since the out figures don't compare - almost half the nation MUST be in the closet, no?

Homosexual behavior: Wrong. Evil. Sinful.


Homosexual behaviour?

Like... shopping at Ikea, matching the drapes with the carpets, and drinking lattes?


Civil partnerships: No.

I agree with you here. Every consenting adult should be legally free to marry any other consenting adult(s), or none should.

Homosexual behaviour?

Like... shopping at Ikea, matching the drapes with the carpets, and drinking lattes?

Yes

I agree with you here. Every consenting adult should be legally free to marry any other consenting adult(s), or none should.

Agreed

Thanks.

No problem. I just take exception to people claiming that the bible prohibition of homosexuality/adultery/blood/whatever is not supported by the new testament. It generally comes from a position of ignorance, and makes them look like they have no idea what they're talking about.

Homosexual behaviour?

Like... shopping at Ikea, matching the drapes with the carpets, and drinking lattes?


I thought that was Yuppie behavior? :confused:

I'm still entertained by Dingle's idea that women can no longer become pregnant when they "run out of eggs".

When you understand basic human biology, you can maybe tell us what's "wrong" and "right" about sexuality.

I liked that one, too.

I can't act too surprised - it usually becomes immediately clear in creation/evolution debates that it's practically impossible to actually understand the science, and still accept a literal creationism...

...I can't really be too shocked that the same rules apply in 'the ghey' debates - you have two choices - those who argue against the discrimination and the hate... and those who haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

Homosexual behaviour?

Like... shopping at Ikea, matching the drapes with the carpets, and drinking lattes?

It's not just gay men that can do that. I can.

I agree with you here. Every consenting adult should be legally free to marry any other consenting adult(s), or none should.

Did they ban that in California in the end?

I thought that was Yuppie behavior? :confused:

Yuppie = homosexual?

I thought that was Yuppie behavior? :confused:

Why would someone with more money than sense shop at Ikea of all places?

I thought that was Yuppie behavior? :confused:

Duh! Yuppies are gay!

....based on your interpretation... the Bible is somewhat contradictory, so a lot of it boils down to interpretation.

Ta daa!

How can people be 'misled', if there are multiple interpretations that are valid?

Far more importantly - am I the only person who automatically hears 'misled' to rhyme with 'drizzled'?

I always enjoy trotting out proof of christianity being being started by intolerant fuckwads :D

as a christian, when questioned why I don't fight [sin] as [they think I] should. My reply is...
"I am a Christian. I follow the teachings of Christ. I will not expect anyone who is not a Christian to follow those teachings. if they choose to, then I will assist them. I will make the teachings available to those who wish to learn them, but I will NOT force them onto others."

Why would someone with more money than sense shop at Ikea of all places?
... We don't have an Ikea here... so I have no idea what the place is like. :(

... We don't have an Ikea here... so I have no idea what the place is like. :(

Its a home store for the terminally short of cash.

England: the proud nation that gave the world Oscar Wilde, which didn't stop the Brits from prosecuting said writer for his "indiscretions". Victorians frowned upon sexual activities in general, unless prostitution was involved. Never in the history of the United Kingdom have there been so many prostitutes walking the streets of fair Albion as in the Victorian age.

Actually, Victorians were pretty much 'up for anything' - so long as you didn't do it in the stret and scare the horses. Victorian England was a golden age of whoring, adultery and pornography - which always makes me smile when politicians talk about returning to 'a more innocent time'.

Far more importantly - am I the only person who automatically hears 'misled' to rhyme with 'drizzled'?

Probably

Actually, Victorians were pretty much 'up for anything' - so long as you didn't do it in the stret and scare the horses. Victorian England was a golden age of whoring, adultery and pornography - which always makes me smile when politicians talk about returning to 'a more innocent time'.

I read a sociologist once, who divided the Victorian era into two parts - the first part was full of platonic love and no sex, while the second was more like you described it.

The bible certainly is not contradictory when taken as a whole. ...

Unless you can find a passage that actively encourages homosexuality in the bible, your arguments about different interpretations falls flat....

Thank you for providing an example of the conservative interpretation that Alma Mater implied and rightfully finds disgusting.

The progressive interpretation can be found here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom6beli3.htm):


The genocide of Sodom described in Genesis 19 was motivated by the inhabitants' uncharitable treatment of strangers and uncaring attitude towards the poor. Homosexual rape is condemned. But this is unrelated to same-sex behavior in a loving relationship.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 condemn cultic homosexual behavior in a Pagan temple. They are part of the Holiness Code, and are not binding on Christians today.
Judges 19 is a reworked version of Genesis 19, and contains no additional information about homosexual behavior.
The Deuteronomy and Kings passages are mistranslations in the King James Version of the Bible; the passages refer to prostitution, not to homosexual behavior.
Romans 1:26-27 condemns heterosexuals who depart from Christianity, embrace Paganism, worship idols, and act against their nature by engaging in homosexual behavior.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is somewhat ambiguous, but apparently refers to men who sexually abuse boys, and is unrelated to consensual homosexual behavior in a committed relationship.
1 Timothy 1:9-10 carries the same ambiguous message as 1 Corinthians.
bullet Jude 7 refers back to the attempted rape of angels in Sodom -- again unrelated to consensual homosexual behavior.
1 Corinthians 6:11 does hold out hope that sinners can be reformed and sanctified. However, this would seem to refer to child molesters deciding to abandon their criminal. abusive practices.


Of course, there are other interpretations other than these two.

it is sexual perversion


That rather depends on your definitions, doesn't it?

Perversion meaning something that is contrary to it's common intent - and the common intent of sex being pleasure and companionship...

Then no, it's not.


...and like most everything else it is a choice.


Really, so you were happily gay, and then suddenly CHOSE to act straight?


Is homosexuality wrong? It is unproductive,


In what way? Homosexual relationships are about bringing compatible people together to form close unions - just like heterosexual relationships.

That's productive, in and of itself.


...unhealthy,


Given that straight women are the highest risk vector for AIDS, for example - it would be interesting to see how same sex couples could even be AS unhealthy as opposite sex couples.


and therefore unwise.
in a word yes it is wrong. I'm in no position to judge people, and so I'm not, just the action, and agenda.

The agenda? Having another coffee, doing the recycling, and going to work?

Why should other people stop homosexuals from being happy? They're not bothering anyone, If you have a problem with it, don't do it, or don't associate yourselves with gay people. But you can't tell other people not to follow their hearts. and this is from a completely straight young woman. I think that it's about time things changed.

Far more importantly - am I the only person who automatically hears 'misled' to rhyme with 'drizzled'?

Yes.

Freak.

It's not just gay men that can do that. I can.


Wow, what a way to out yourself!

Don't worry, you're among friends. We'll love you for you, and we won't judge.


Did they ban that in California in the end?

The gay marriage ban thing? I don't think a hard answer had arrived yet.

Yes.

Freak.

Bwah ha ha.

You'll hear it rhyme with 'drizzled', in your head, from now on.

This is how we spread the disease.

Misled

Misled

Misled

See?

Bwah ha ha!

I think the real question is - is a three-way involving myself and two women wrong?

If it is, I don't want to be right.

:hail:

Has anyone ever told you that you're fucking hilarious?

Its a home store for the terminally short of cash.

oh... here we call it K-mart. :tongue:

:hail:

Has anyone ever told you that you're fucking hilarious?

Actually, I think you're the first one.

I think the real question is - is a three-way involving myself and two women wrong?

No, not wrong, probably just unlikely...

No, not wrong, probably just unlikely...

You hush.

You hush.

:p :p

Wow, what a way to out yourself!

Don't worry, you're among friends. We'll love you for you, and we won't judge.


Ha, it's possible to be strait and have a sense of style. It's also possible to be strait and have a Gay-dar.

Ha, it's possible to be strait and have a sense of style. It's also possible to be strait and have a Gay-dar.

Like the Straits of Florida

Like the Straits of Florida

Lol.

we are all born with a sinful nature and the desire to do evil. We steal, we lie, we kill and yet even though these things are in our nature and a desire we are born with, we attempt to defy that desire with some success. why would homosexuality be different. It is not fine. It is a sin and one that homosexuals should try to defy(as one would any other temptational issue) instead of embracing it.

Ha, it's possible to be straight and have a sense of style. It's also possible to be straight and have a Gay-dar.

fixed

it is sexual perversion and like most everything else it is a choice. Just because someone is born with a bent towards say "addiction" doesn't mean they have to chase the dragon.

Wow -- it's a good thing addiction and sexual preference aren't related, otherwise you might have stood a chance at making sense.

The homosexuals I know and love are good trust worthy people, but it doesn't make their unnatural wants exceptionable.

That's okay, I'm sure they think the same of you.

Is homosexuality wrong?

No.

It is unproductive,

So, two gay men or women who pool their resources to attentively and responsibly raise an adoptive, foster or in-vitro child and who work at, say, a food bank or soup kitchen, or invent the cure for some disease...are somehow...unproductive? You're madder than a shit-house rat, you are.

unhealthy,

You've not shown this beyond a horribly misrepresentative blog link, and I find it difficult to believe that heterosexual couples who engage in vaginal or anal sex are in any way cleaner than any other couple.

and therefore unwise.

No more unwise than falling in love or otherwise loving the person of your choice. "Unwise" is subjective, then.

in a word yes it is wrong. I'm in no position to judge people,

Massive contradiction here, but you're probably used to that.

and so I'm not, just the action, and agenda.

So...because you say you're not judging, that means you're not. Got it. I'm not calling you a bigoted asshole then.

The bible certainly is not contradictory when taken as a whole. Most cases of ambiguity are caused by improper translation (the oft quoted "thou shalt not kill" is actually "thou shalt not murder" in original Hebrew) or caused by people taking the words out of context.

Well, the fact that the word "maiden" in Hebrew was mistranslated to "virgin" in Greek seems to contradict you and sheds a lot of doubt on the whole virgin birth idea. But hey, believe what you like.

Of course. In the book Leviticus:
18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus is beyond crap, and utterly vacated by the NT.

Others may provide some reason, but those reasons probably aren't very sound. According to the laws of God, which is very, very clear in its wording, followers of God should not practice homosexuality. If anyone interpret these two passages as a permission to commit homosexuality, I think we can agree that they are crazy.

Uh...clear? Really? Read on.**

Unless you can find a passage that actively encourages homosexuality in the bible, your arguments about different interpretations falls flat.

Wait, so in order to show that there's no explicit mention of homosexuality being wrong, we have to show where the Bible says it's right? Are you for real?

There is a difference between a "progressive interpretation" and an outright wrong interpretation.

Good of you to notice. Now apply it to your own interpretation and see what happens.

That being said though, I don't agree that we should go out and stone homosexuals, lynch them, or shun them in a cruel way. Jesus forgave us for our sins, and so the followers of God should forgive(?) homosexuals by trying to treat them as fellow human beings.

Oh, golly. How very white of you.

Romans 1
1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
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.

**Aha, this must be that "clarity" of which Aberiska spoke. Huh? I've heard less circular speeches at a Pi convention.

Romans 1
1:31-32 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Yeah. How to control the masses once they've learned to read: write your book of irrational prohibitions in language so impossibly florid and circumlocutory that they have no choice but to rely on the clergy for interpretation.

we are all born with a sinful nature and the desire to do evil.

I knew babies are evil, you can see it in their little eyes, but did anyone take my warning seriously?

fixed

Stupid fucking English language!

we are all born with a sinful nature and the desire to do evil. We steal, we lie, we kill and yet even though these things are in our nature and a desire we are born with, we attempt to defy that desire with some success.

See, this is one of the arguments that really creeps me out from the "homosexuality is a sin" crowd. Do you people really have to struggle to avoid murdering people? Do you honestly walk past a store and think, "Oh, man, I really want to run in there, bash the cashier's head in with a brick, and take their expensive stuff, but I will force myself not to because the Bible tells me to"?

we are all born with a sinful nature and the desire to do evil. We steal, we lie, we kill and yet even though these things are in our nature and a desire we are born with, we attempt to defy that desire with some success. why would homosexuality be different. It is not fine. It is a sin and one that homosexuals should try to defy (as one would any other temptational issue) instead of embracing it.

That's nice. You're wrong, but that's nice.

Can you defy your lust for your preference?

Also, "we steal?" Those brought up not to respect others and their property do, and that doesn't need Biblical authority to be enforced. We're born seeking what we need to survive, and then wanting what we want to enhance our lives. We do need to be taught to respect others, but that need doesn't mean we're born evil or sinful. Needing to be taught consideration doesn't automatically render the pupil sinful. That only applies if you're looking to instill a sense of guilt at the same time you're instilling responsibility. I suppose that method is effective -- what better way to bring home the lessons you want inculcated than to set up everyone with an abusive conscience? But is it the best method?

See, this is one of the arguments that really creeps me out from the "homosexuality is a sin" crowd. Do you people really have to struggle to avoid murdering people? Do you honestly walk past a store and think, "Oh, man, I really want to run in there, bash the cashier's head in with a brick, and take their expensive stuff, but I will force myself not to because the Bible tells me to"?

Your point is well said, however, that brings me around to another question. Does anybody else get those brief psychotic urges? Maybe not that one in particular, but, you know, the thought flashing through your head of how you could murder someone who's annoyingly happy, for instance.

"Oh, man, I really want to run in there, bash the cashier's head in with a brick..."?

I'll admit I've thought that before... :(

It wasn't just a random thought and my not doing it had nothing to do with the bible though....

See, this is one of the arguments that really creeps me out from the "homosexuality is a sin" crowd. Do you people really have to struggle to avoid murdering people? Do you honestly walk past a store and think, "Oh, man, I really want to run in there, bash the cashier's head in with a brick, and take their expensive stuff, but I will force myself not to because the Bible tells me to"?

THIS, O God, THIS. ^

No problem. I just take exception to people claiming that the bible prohibition of homosexuality/adultery/blood/whatever is not supported by the new testament. It generally comes from a position of ignorance, and makes them look like they have no idea what they're talking about.

I don't think there's much doubt that Paul abhorred homosexual behavior, particularly in men, and many of his writings made it into the NT (although some of the words he used were apparently a bit ambiguous). Of course, it might also be important to point out that Paul seemed to abhor sex in general - and saw marriage as something you did only if you couldn't keep it in your pants. But whether or not Paul's opinion on this matter matched Christ's is certainly an open question, as is the question of whether or not Paul would have recognized homosexuality as we understand it to have even existed.

Your point is well said, however, that brings me around to another question. Does anybody else get those brief psychotic urges? Maybe not that one in particular, but, you know, the thought flashing through your head of how you could murder someone who's annoyingly happy, for instance.

But it doesn't take an invisible avenger in the clouds to make one realize that such an action would be inherently wrong. All one need do is realize that others might find you just as annoying as you find that chronically happy person, and couple that with the natural desire to stay alive yourself. Consideration of others needn't be Biblical to be instilled.

I don't think there's much doubt that Paul abhorred homosexuality, and many of his writings made it into the NT (although some of the words he used were apparently a bit ambiguous). But whether or not Paul's opinion on this matter matched Christ's is certainly an open question, as is the question of whether or not Paul would have recognized homosexuality as we understand it to have even existed.

Given that Paul was writing LONG after Christ had gone, I must agree.

But it doesn't take an invisible avenger in the clouds to make one realize that such an action would be inherently wrong. All one need do is realize that others might find you just as annoying as you find that chronically happy person, and couple that with the natural desire to stay alive yourself. Consideration of others needn't be Biblical to be instilled.

Ah shite. New thread time! *runs off*

we are all born with a sinful nature and the desire to do evil. We steal, we lie, we kill and yet even though these things are in our nature and a desire we are born with, we attempt to defy that desire with some success. why would homosexuality be different. It is not fine. It is a sin and one that homosexuals should try to defy(as one would any other temptational issue) instead of embracing it.

Wrong, homosexuality is perfectly fine.

Wrong, homosexuality is perfectly fine.

No, it's EVIL. Wicked and EVIL! Fred Phelps even says so!

[/obvious sarcasm]

:p

Wrong, homosexuality is perfectly fine.

It's just you that isn't :p

we are all born with a sinful nature and the desire to do evil. We steal, we lie, we kill and yet even though these things are in our nature and a desire we are born with, we attempt to defy that desire with some success. why would homosexuality be different. It is not fine. It is a sin and one that homosexuals should try to defy(as one would any other temptational issue) instead of embracing it.

I don't steal. I don't lie. I don't kill.

I don't even desire to do those things.

Am I really that much a better person than you?

Ha, it's possible to be strait and have a sense of style. It's also possible to be strait and have a Gay-dar.

It's possible to be straight and suck cock... It's possible to be straight and take it in the ass occassionally...

I know, I've heard it all before.

But it doesn't take an invisible avenger in the clouds to make one realize that such an action would be inherently wrong. All one need do is realize that others might find you just as annoying as you find that chronically happy person, and couple that with the natural desire to stay alive yourself. Consideration of others needn't be Biblical to be instilled.

I did a whole thread on this, at one point...

It's possible to be straight and suck cock... It's possible to be straight and take it in the ass occassionally...

I know, I've heard it all before.

Women and pegging, man.

Women and pegging, man.

Context, dude!

But, yeah. I know. :)

See, this is one of the arguments that really creeps me out from the "homosexuality is a sin" crowd. Do you people really have to struggle to avoid murdering people? Do you honestly walk past a store and think, "Oh, man, I really want to run in there, bash the cashier's head in with a brick, and take their expensive stuff, but I will force myself not to because the Bible tells me to"?

well... I do work in Tech Support... :p

See, this is one of the arguments that really creeps me out from the "homosexuality is a sin" crowd. Do you people really have to struggle to avoid murdering people? Do you honestly walk past a store and think, "Oh, man, I really want to run in there, bash the cashier's head in with a brick, and take their expensive stuff, but I will force myself not to because the Bible tells me to"?

If anything there is very strong evidence that moral socialization based on empathy is lor more effective than that based on fear. One of the major differences found between psychopaths and normals is a lack of empathy and an inability to divide 'morally' wrong actions (those that result in harm to others) from 'conventional' transgressions (those only wrong because of the rules/punishment). Given that context the idea that that only fear of retribution stops a person from committing crimes is kinda worrying.

Context, dude!

But, yeah. I know. :)

Maybe we're approaching this from the wrong direction. Perhaps he didn't misspell anything. Gibraltar is on a pretty snazzy passage of water.

Maybe we're approaching this from the wrong direction. Perhaps he didn't misspell anything. Gibraltar is on a pretty snazzy passage of water.

It would explain a lot. Why practically war over a chunk of rock? Makes sense if it's got cutting edge gay-dar technology... after all - who wants to be infiltrated by unexpected seamen?

I'll say this once:

SCREW Leviticus.

Leviticus means JACK SHIT.

Leviticus is worth NOTHING.

Leviticus is CRAP.

FUCK Leviticus.

I have said it before and I have said it again. You are one angry little man. You shoudn't talk about people like this.

See, this is one of the arguments that really creeps me out from the "homosexuality is a sin" crowd. Do you people really have to struggle to avoid murdering people? Do you honestly walk past a store and think, "Oh, man, I really want to run in there, bash the cashier's head in with a brick, and take their expensive stuff, but I will force myself not to because the Bible tells me to"?
In addition to being one of the creepiest, I also suspect it is one of the fakest.

I mean, I'm sure there are a few sociopaths out there lacking the usual sociopathic self-confidence who actually do have to constantly suppress the urge to KILL KILL KILL!!!! AAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! out of fear of getting caught by the Bible referees or something. (Though of course, a REAL sociopath would not be put off by the wrath of a mere god).

But in general, I think the people who say that crap are just spouting...well...crap. It's BS that they have learned by rote and just repeat back like moralistic parrots. And it's about as meaningful as the words spoken by parrots. It really serves no purpose but to indirectly insult people who are different from them, and it adds nothing to any discussion.

if the practice is harmless, the lifestyle is not.
Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. If however you are talking about people have a lot of unprotected sex with as many people as possible then yes it is unhealthy but that also applies to hetrosexuals who also decide to engage in that sort of lifestyle.

I have said it before and I have said it again. You are one angry little man. You shoudn't talk about people like this.

Leviticus is not a person.

Leviticus is not anything.

Leviticus is worth less than the bacteria in my navel lint.

Homosexual behaviour?

Like... shopping at Ikea, matching the drapes with the carpets, and drinking lattes?

No, that is cheap wannabe behaviour.

Leviticus is not a person.

Leviticus is not anything.

Leviticus is worth less than the bacteria in my navel lint.

Leviticus was a person.

Leviticus was a person.
You know this for a fact?

And even if there really was a person called Leviticus, he is long dead. One cannot libel the dead, nor harm them in any other way. Although H2's rhetoric could use some variation of temperature, he can say whatever he likes about Leviticus.

See, this is one of the arguments that really creeps me out from the "homosexuality is a sin" crowd. Do you people really have to struggle to avoid murdering people? Do you honestly walk past a store and think, "Oh, man, I really want to run in there, bash the cashier's head in with a brick, and take their expensive stuff, but I will force myself not to because the Bible tells me to"?

Actually I do if said cashier has done an injustice towards me but I don't not because the Bible said no but because I feel it is wrong to go do.

You know this for a fact?

And even if there really was a person called Leviticus, he is long dead. One cannot libel the dead, nor harm them in any other way. Although H2's rhetoric could use some variation of temperature, he can say whatever he likes about Leviticus.

Yes he can, and I understand Leviticus was a prophet, though I can't actually even go see what this book says as it isn't in my Bible. But I suppose I deserve this post when I try to make a joke towards someone who has some anger in him, not you Mur, H2.

Actually is Leviticus (the book) a protestant book that is included in the Bible or what?

Although H2's rhetoric could use some variation of temperature

Aww, there is some. Hot and hotter. :D

Yes he can, and I understand Leviticus was a prophet, though I can't actually even go see what this book says as it isn't in my Bible. But I suppose I deserve this post when I try to make a joke towards someone who has some anger in him, not you Mur, H2.

Actually is Leviticus (the book) a protestant book that is included in the Bible or what?
It's Old Testament.

But I suppose I deserve this post when I try to make a joke towards someone who has some anger in him, not you Mur, H2.

It's more sadism than anger. *Shrugs*

Leviticus was a person.

Eh, nope.

I did a whole thread on this, at one point...

You did, and as I recall, it was a good'n.

If anything there is very strong evidence that moral socialization based on empathy is lor more effective than that based on fear. One of the major differences found between psychopaths and normals is a lack of empathy and an inability to divide 'morally' wrong actions (those that result in harm to others) from 'conventional' transgressions (those only wrong because of the rules/punishment). Given that context the idea that that only fear of retribution stops a person from committing crimes is kinda worrying.

Exactly -- and that goes some way toward explaining the US's world-leading incarceration rate. Retribution, whether divine or state derived, is not nearly as effective as putting yourself in the potential victim's place.

I thought Leviticus was named after (or from) the Levite/the Hebrew tribe of Levi.

And no, homosexuality is not wrong.

You did, and as I recall, it was a good'n.


*Bows* Merci, mon ami.

It's Old Testament.

I am aware of that I am saying that it is not in my copy. I am aware that some books are in different copies depending on the denomination, hence, my question.

It's more sadism than anger. *Shrugs*

Fair enough, it just comes acros that you do have some anger and hate in you.

Not that I really care H2, I think you're a decent bloke.

I am aware of that I am saying that it is not in my copy. I am aware that some books are in different copies depending on the denomination, hence, my question.
Maybe you got a broken one.

no its not wrong. everyone should have rights and not be judge. We as people should learn how to accept everyone as they are and how they will be.

Damn scratch that I looked at it again and it actually is in the Bible :$

Because I was thinking it was a prophet I was looking in the wrong area.

I am aware of that I am saying that it is not in my copy. I am aware that some books are in different copies depending on the denomination, hence, my question.

A... Bible without Leviticus?

Are you sure? Does your Bible have Genesis?

(You're not talking about a New Testament, here, right?)

Maybe you got a broken one.

Haha, yeah I just looked at it again. I got confused as to what it actually was, myself thinking it was a prophet made me look amongst the books of the prophets and not the entire list. :$

OI H2, Sorry about that mate.

Damn scratch that I looked at it again and it actually is in the Bible :$

Because I was thinking it was a prophet I was looking in the wrong area.

Doh. I was really interested, then. :( I wanted to know who was putting out Bibles without Leviticus.

Doh. I was really interested, then. :( I wanted to know who was putting out Bibles without Leviticus.

Haha, maybe my school didn't want us knowing about the laws of the Jews. But no I simply made a mistake.

OI H2, Sorry about that mate.

Oh yeah? Your "sorry" is worth n*gets shot*.

*Ahem*

No problem. :p

Oh yeah? Your "sorry" is worth n*gets shot*.

*Ahem*

No problem.

That was a remarkably rapid recovery from a bullet wound.

That was a remarkably rapid recovery from a bullet wound.

It was a flesh wound. He's had worse.

That was a remarkably rapid recovery from a bullet wound.

What are you talking ab*dies*

Oh yeah? Your "sorry" is worth n*gets shot*.

*Ahem*

No problem. :p

lol, gold

Oh yeah? Your "sorry" is worth n*gets shot*.

*Ahem*

No problem. :p

You've been getting shot an awful lot lately.

I'm starting to worry about you. :p

What are you talking ab*dies*

*resurrects*

Homosexuality is fine in my opinion, it doesn't effect anybody and anybody who takes a religious standpoint against it is simply a fucking idiot. In this over populated world there is less wrong with homo sexuality than ever. Consider this, in a small tribe thousands of years ago homosexuality meant that there was something biologically 'wrong' with a person. They would not reproduce which is the purpose of existence. In this day of over population, however, homosexuality will only help to preserve the human race. Since they are not bringing more people in this world they are helping to protect it, there is nothing wrong with that as the role for people as reproducers has diminished.

*resurrects*

*Founds a religion. Two thousand years later, some people are peddling intolerance based on distortions thereof, especially a book named "Dinglenationiticus".*

homophobia is wrong

I'll say this once:

SCREW Leviticus.

Leviticus means JACK SHIT.

Leviticus is worth NOTHING.

Leviticus is CRAP.

FUCK Leviticus.

I totally and unreservedly second that.

*Founds a religion. Two thousand years later, some people are peddling intolerance based on distortions thereof, especially a book named "Dinglenationiticus".*

Oh dear. :(

*retcons your resurrection*

j/k

Oh dear. :(

*retcons your resurrection*

j/k

Hey, not my fault, man! I preached tolerance! Did the fuckers listen? NOOOOO!

I'll say this once:

SCREW Leviticus.

I would, if she was a hot chick.

FUCK Leviticus.

Admit it, you would, too. ;)

*Founds a religion. Two thousand years later, some people are peddling intolerance based on distortions thereof, especially a book named "Dinglenationiticus".*

No need to. CTHULHU IS THE WAY! CTHULHU FTHAGN! :hail:
Ph’nglui mglw’nfah Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn! IÄ! IÄ!

http://asset.soup.io/asset/0263/2592_8317.gif

Holy Moly.

Snip.

Ok, bacana. Achou a informação sobre o Baré que eu te pedi? :D

I think at this point we've all argued over this at least once and if youre a first time homosexuality arguer then where the hell have you been, under a rock?

I was worshipping the Great Old Ones, waiting for the stars to be right... that can take some time, you know.

Y'all should read through this thread while playing Danny Elfman's 'Beetlejuice' theme. It's far more entertaining.

Not. At. All.

You're born with it, so it's not wrong. Why would religious people like the TC think that "God's" will is wrong?

Just because your born with it doesn't make it right (httphttp://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/hemophilia/hemophilia_what.html). I Pope Urban II hasn't been sincerely quoted since the fourth crusade. God wills it! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult)

Just because your born with it doesn't make it right (httphttp://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/hemophilia/hemophilia_what.html). I Pope Urban II hasn't been sincerely quoted since the fourth crusade. God wills it! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult)

I'm trying to figure out whether you just seriously argued that being a hemophiliac is immoral.

The fact that this is a real possibility is what makes the internet such a strange and scary place...

Just because your born with it doesn't make it right (httphttp://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/hemophilia/hemophilia_what.html). I Pope Urban II hasn't been sincerely quoted since the fourth crusade. God wills it! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult)

And if you're not born with it, it's still not wrong.

*Bows* Merci, mon ami.

C'est rien.

Doh. I was really interested, then. :( I wanted to know who was putting out Bibles without Leviticus.

People with both a sense of humor and perspective?

Leviticus was a person.

Actually there wasn't a person named Leviticus. It comes from a translation of a word(I forget) which I think was matters of the Levites.

Actually there wasn't a person named Leviticus. It comes from a translation of a word(I forget) which I think was matters of the Levites.

Yeah I know I forgot what Leviticus was actually about.


It can also be used a swear word. *Cookie for the reference*

There was that crack-pot theory that Hitler was Gay.....
According to Tvtropes.org's Foe Yay (open the Real Life folder) (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FoeYay) section, Hitler and Stalin had a big thing going.

I tell you, if yaoi fangirls lived in the 1940's, Germany/Russia slash would be all the rage! :D

and then there's America/Britain *and* America/Russia.

Yeah, I'm crazy for shipping nations like that. Blame history homoeroticism (and Axis Powers Hetalia) for that. :D

we are all born with a sinful nature and the desire to do evil. We steal, we lie, we kill and yet even though these things are in our nature and a desire we are born with, we attempt to defy that desire with some success. why would homosexuality be different. It is not fine. It is a sin and one that homosexuals should try to defy(as one would any other temptational issue) instead of embracing it.
Two words: God/Mankind.

God loves Mankind. God is considered Male. Do the math. :D

(btw, I'm male.)

lol