A few months ago, I was having dinner with two of my friends in a restaurant. I think we were discussing Massachusetts granting gays the right to marry. I don't quite remember the conversation, but it ended with one friend saying, 'I have nothing against them, but I sincerely believe it is a medical condition' and the other friend denying it by saying 'They are born that way.'
I was thinking how could they be so sure of something they have no clue about. I don't say it to disrespect them, as both are very mature, intelligent and loving people. These two are only examples. This is like a scientist studying 1000 women who go through conception, pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood and concluding that this is what makes a woman a Mother. Doesn't it sound totally ridiculous? How can someone, especially a man, understand what it is to be a mother? He might know what it is to be a father, but definitely not a mother. Similarly how can someone who is straight know what makes gay people gay. Especially if they have never met or known one.
Most probably their conclusion is drawn from a concoction of ideas derived from religion or newspapers or television. Thanks to the latest sitcoms. Almost every one of them has a stereotyped gay character. I have a few close friends that are gay. They don't have sex every night or paint their nails. They are no different. If they didn't tell you they were gay, you wouldn't have the slightest cue to think they might be. Now don't go analyzing all your friends ;)
The point I am trying to make is; if one doesn't know about something, he needs to have the humility to accept that he doesn't know. Whether he takes steps to understand it or not is a separate story. It'll at least keep him from making stupid judgments. People who are unsure are far better than the people who have the wrong idea and believe they are right. Be it with gay people or with any other thing.
A few months ago, I was having dinner with two of my friends in a restaurant. I think we were discussing Massachusetts granting gays the right to marry. I don't quite remember the conversation, but it ended with one friend saying, 'I have nothing against them, but I sincerely believe it is a medical condition' and the other friend denying it by saying 'They are born that way.'
I was thinking how could they be so sure of something they have no clue about. I don't say it to disrespect them, as both are very mature, intelligent and loving people. These two are only examples. This is like a scientist studying 1000 women who go through conception, pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood and concluding that this is what makes a woman a Mother. Doesn't it sound totally ridiculous? How can someone, especially a man, understand what it is to be a mother? He might know what it is to be a father, but definitely not a mother. Similarly how can someone who is straight know what makes gay people gay. Especially if they have never met or known one.
Most probably their conclusion is drawn from a concoction of ideas derived from religion or newspapers or television. Thanks to the latest sitcoms. Almost every one of them has a stereotyped gay character. I have a few close friends that are gay. They don't have sex every night or paint their nails. They are no different. If they didn't tell you they were gay, you wouldn't have the slightest cue to think they might be. Now don't go analyzing all your friends ;)
The point I am trying to make is; if one doesn't know about something, he needs to have the humility to accept that he doesn't know. Whether he takes steps to understand it or not is a separate story. It'll at least keep him from making stupid judgments. People who are unsure are far better than the people who have the wrong idea and believe they are right. Be it with gay people or with any other thing.
To the moderators:
I am not sure if "Philosophy and Religion" is the right group for this article, but I am placing it here because I found other articles about Homosexuality under this group. Please let me know if I need to move this. Thanks.
| anand_gms wrote: |
| A few months ago, I was having dinner with two of my friends in a restaurant. I think we were discussing Massachusetts granting gays the right to marry. I don't quite remember the conversation, but it ended with one friend saying, 'I have nothing against them, but I sincerely believe it is a medical condition' and the other friend denying it by saying 'They are born that way.' |
Which a lot of medical research shows to be basically true. I'm not necessarily referencing a "gay gene", but the circumstances of the birth has been shown to have something to do with it, as well as the density of the local population (higher density, higher rate of homosexuality). Some homosexuals may gain that status through some other force, but usually "born that way" applies.
How did you think it happens?
| Quote: |
| women who go through conception, pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood and concluding that this is what makes a woman a Mother. Doesn't it sound totally ridiculous? |
So, I can be a "Mother" without having experienced any kind of child-raising? Again, what is your definition? If you're going to imply that your definition is different, at least give us an idea of how you are defining it...
| Quote: |
| Similarly how can someone who is straight know what makes gay people gay. Especially if they have never met or known one. |
What does meeting one or known one have to do with it? Not even a lot of gay men or women know why they are gay; they just are. And, again, you're ignoring the sheer amount of medical research that's gone into the subject. Just noting that we're discussing where gay people come from, not their individual stories, which are irrelevant to your point...
| Quote: |
Most probably their conclusion is drawn from a concoction of ideas derived from religion or newspapers or television. Thanks to the latest sitcoms. Almost every one of them has a stereotyped gay character. I have a few close friends that are gay. They don't have sex every night or paint their nails. They are no different. If they didn't tell you they were gay, you wouldn't have the slightest cue to think they might be. Now don't go analyzing all your friends  |
How does it feel to be stuck in the 80's?
| Quote: |
| The point I am trying to make is; if one doesn't know about something, he needs to have the humility to accept that he doesn't know. Whether he takes steps to understand it or not is a separate story. It'll at least keep him from making stupid judgments. People who are unsure are far better than the people who have the wrong idea and believe they are right. Be it with gay people or with any other thing. |
Valid point. Just bad example...
HMMOST people are not experts, so they have to rely on others for guidence. look a the bible, the "moral" guidence for at least 80% of americans, it says that 2 men sleeping together is an abombination. and says taht they should be stoned.
this is their guidence, reinforced by their religious leaders as well as political leaders. people will believe anything......dont act as if we should be surprised that a majority of the world has a multitude of irrational beliefs, not least of which are religion and superstition.
I don't really get how people say it could be a choice at all. Heterosexuals are born to genetically/mentally be attracted to those of the opposite sex. How is it THAT unlikely that homosexuals are born genetically/mentally to be attracted to those of the same sex? It's not. It just seems like common sense to me. There are defects and mutations within the creation of DNA all the time. They create significant differences in the person who has these mutations (sickle cell disease for one). I'm not saying homosexuality is a disease, but to say that it's 100% a choice just seems absurd to me. It just shows the fear and brainwashing that die hard religious people have. They'll base their entire lives and beliefs from a 2000 year old book written by a few humans.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| It just shows the fear and brainwashing that die hard religious people have. They'll base their entire lives and beliefs from a 2000 year old book written by a few humans. |
Or the lack of open-mindedness that others have. After all, most Christians acknowledge that The Bible is outdated in a number of areas (even if the basic ideas hold), but that's not convenient to your argument, so it's ignored. It's more important to demonstrate that you can attack something old in favor of something new, and that those that hold beliefs different than yours really are imbeciles. I always find it interesting that those that claim enlightenment usually do so by using the "believing in old things is not the way to enlightenment; believe what I believe to find it" argument...even various popes have stated that it's okay to hold non-Christian beliefs (pitiable, but still okay)...
HMBased on your experiences that may be true. Based on my experiences with people who follow the Christian faiths, they hold the Bible extremely close and think IT IS the word of God and that IT IS the supreme idea. I'm not talking about the people who go to church on Christmas and Easter and occasionally on Sundays.
How do I have a lack of open-mindedness toward those who think homosexuality is a sin and 100% choice? There's so much irony in that it's not even worth addressing in all honesty. Yes, I am attacking people who say homosexuality is a sin and a choice. I believe that's my right just as it is their right to seclude homosexuals and say they're going to hell for being genetically/mentally attracted to those of the same sex. At least I made my own decision in that situation rather than letting a 2000 year old book do it for me.
And no, most Christians who attend church consistently and follow the religion fully as it is a part of their duty do not denounce what the Bible says in hardly any aspect. Most see homosexuality as a sin and that homosexuals should go to hell if they continue to sin in that way.
Believing in old ways never has and never will be the way to enlightenment. How can you move further ahead when you're constantly being held back by old, outdated principles and logic? You can't. Pretty common sense.
Our local state priest has told us he supports homoweddings!
But there are still discussion in the swedish state church....
In my mind -> when is love not as great as another love?????
The bible is just a powertoy -> the most spread weapon on earth... It's time to plug that weapon!!!!
I have to do a RE module on homosexuality and so when i was revising it I found the some experts came up with a theory that although it is thought that the men did the hunting and gathering and the women made the food and looked after that children. however they came up with some evidence (I dont have a clue what this evidence is by the way) that there were some men that atually stayed with the women and were homosexuals.
now in a servial sense this would of been because if the main group of men were out hunting for food, without the 'homosexual' men with the women the women would be very vulnerable for attack for other tribes. and so it is thought by some people that it was a defence mechanism
and just like people having different genes with is 'mother nauture' defence mechanism - so sugesting that peoples sexual preferences are determined before their birth. it is basically an outdated defence mechanism (because there is no need for men to stay home because be do not live in tribal communities any more)
i hope i explained that ok, sorry about the spelling 
(i have no idea how true it is, it just seemed like an interesting theory that seems quite logical) HereticMonkey and Liljp617,
It seems the two of you are arguing about what MOST Christians believe (whether they think the Bible is becoming outdated or they fully believe in it).
Liljp617, I think your guess that most Christians fully believe in the Bible is from your own expierence. Truth be told, most Christians (especially those in the United States) are liberal. Granted, there are still some (more times than not the older believers) that believe that the Bible is the ACTUAL work of God. However, in today's younger generation, most believe that the Bible was written by men who put in their own inturrpretation of some things. Although they know this, they still hold to many of the beliefs within the Bible because they think most of them to be moraly correct (i.e. Thou shalt not murder).
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
As per the back and forth in here, most Christians are mistaken, most arn't really Christians at all but rather label themselves as such. If you actually read the bible and the teachings of Jesus, the second greatest commandment is to love others as yourself. Meaning no gay-bashing. Yes homosexuality is a sin but that doesn't mean to bash or look down upon, I hate it when people make that assumption. It is true that in the old testament there is written some rules on homosexuality and to stone them, however, those are laws for a different time and different people.
I just happened onto this topic since I was questioning my own orientation. And I'm not here to hijack the topic or anything but I think I need help. This may not be the right place or the right time to ask, but I'm just hoping for some honest replies, and please don't flame me.
I discovered my orientation wasn't straight during the time when I had my first love. In which I didn't know I had fallen in love till a later time when I noticed I missed the person practically every second and every hour. Nobody knows, cause I didn't tell, I behave like a normal kid, and I don't behave like a girl or a sissy. ( Stereotyped gays )
It's not that I haven't tried to change my orientation or anything, I did try, and try as I may, nothing happened. This includes getting a girlfriend ( Which was disastrous, I think I hurt the girl ), watching straight porn ( I don't endorse this, but I'm just trying ), going to the Church seeking answers through religious means. Yes I've tried in every way to be normal. I even swore that I would not have sex with a man. But I can't help but fantasize and stuff. Lets not go into details.
From the religious point of view, gay is a sin. Understood, so I'm sinning. But it's not written in the bible a solution to this. Psychologists do not help, advisors only go thus far, my parents weren't of much help since they don't understand how I feel.
What I wanna know is, is there any way in which I can change? Or do I just be me, and say screw the world? Or do I just live in delusion and keep myself unmarried and just concentrate on work? I don't know where to go from this point on. I'm trapped in a world where "If you ain't normal, you suck". I need an adult's point of view, an adult to help me, some mature advises that could possibly change me. What can I do?
Wow. OK, let's get some things straight (no pun intended).
Firstly it sounds like you are gay from what you say. Let's not go into details because we're not here to satisfy the prurient interest of readers, let's just say that I think it's pretty obvious from what you have posted, and I think, if you are honest with yourself, you'll agree.
Next question - is it sinful? Well, you don't say what religion you are, so I'll assume it's one of the Christian ones. Being gay is NOT a sin, according to most Christian sects. Practicing gay sex IS a sin, however. So it sounds to me as if you are not yet a sinner.*
Next question - can you change? You don't say how old you are, which could be important since many men go through a phase where they may be attracted/curious about homosexuality and later find that they are hetero-sexual. Sexuality is, I think, not a case of 'one or the other', rather it is a scale with most people grouped at one of the two ends and many people falling somewhere in between. It is possible to change sexual orientation by use of hormone and behavioural treatment, I believe, BUT personally I think that most of the reported cases are those involving repression of desire rather than genuine change in behaviour.**
Finally, should you try to change? This is a question that only you can answer. My personal opinion is no, you shouldn't. If your main motivation is religious, then obviously you have a problem. It is difficult to reconcile gay sex with most Christian religions and that is a problem that many gay men/women face. Since I am not a Christian it is difficult for me to advise on that. From a non-religious perspective, however, I would advise you to think very carefully about such an attempt since I personally believe there is nothing 'wrong' with your sexuality and would be concerned about the consequence of any attempt to change it via medicinal/psychotheraputic methods.
Personally I think it is unhealthy to live a lie, but that, as I say, is something only you can decide on.
* I should be clear at this point that I am not a believer myself and you should, when seeking advice, be clear about where your 'advisors' are coming from before you evaluate such advice.
** http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html Thank you for enlightening me from a non-religious point of view. I am personally not a religious man, I'm a free-thinker. And I'm aged 17. I've been experiencing this for close to 4 years now. And I was in a state of depression for 2 years I believe. After reading the article that you presented, somehow there isn't a "cure" right now. Truth is, I don't want to change for the sake of changing, I just want to be accepted in the society. So I can only hope the society changes for now. I understand. Thanks alot.
| JinTenshi wrote: |
| I just want to be accepted in the society. So I can only hope the society changes for now. |
I can only assume that you live in a particularly non-tolerant community - perhaps the 'Bible-Belt'?
Here in the UK things are different. I won't say that there is no homophobia - there still is in pockets -but it is the exception not the norm. It really would not be an issue for most people here (and, I suspect, for most people in the US). You may well live in a community where it IS an issue and in that case I can offer no better advice than maybe you should think about moving. On the other hand you may be projecting your own uncertainty and fears, and, perhaps, your sexuality is not such a big deal after all. I can't know which it is and therefore would not dream of councilling you on the best action. Have you/Can you talk to your parents/family/friends about this?
Last edited by Bikerman on Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:21 am; edited 1 time in total | JinTenshi wrote: |
| I'm trapped in a world where "If you ain't normal, you suck". |
This is absolutely not true. What is normal? Is it what the TV sitcoms try to feed us? Marriage, 2.5 kids, a mini-van and a white picket fence? The world is full of glorious, beautiful diversity, and there are many people who recognize this and even celebrate it. | Jinx wrote: |
| JinTenshi wrote: | | I'm trapped in a world where "If you ain't normal, you suck". |
This is absolutely not true. What is normal? Is it what the TV sitcoms try to feed us? Marriage, 2.5 kids, a mini-van and a white picket fence? The world is full of glorious, beautiful diversity, and there are many people who recognize this and even celebrate it. |
Replace normal with "in the majority" and it's extremely true as has been evident since the dawn of recorded history. | Bikerman wrote: |
| JinTenshi wrote: | | I just want to be accepted in the society. So I can only hope the society changes for now. |
I can only assume that you live in a particularly non-tolerant community - perhaps the 'Bible-Belt'?
Here in the UK things are different. I won't say that there is no homophobia - there still is in pockets -but it is the exception not the norm. It really would not be an issue for most people here (and, I suspect, for most people in the US). You may well live in a community where it IS an issue and in that case I can offer no better advice than maybe you should think about moving. On the other hand you may be projecting your own uncertainty and fears, and, perhaps, your sexuality is not such a big deal after all. I can't know which it is and therefore would not dream of councilling you on the best action. Have you/Can you talk to your parents/family/friends about this? |
Not exactly the bible belt. Supposedly the government here in SG are homophobes. No just kidding. But it's against the law to sex / marry a man. It's not that I've not though about moving, but I don't have what fits the requirement of moving yet, and I'm too young too. Moving takes alot of money too, which obviously a 17 would not be able to obtain.
I've talked about this with my mom. I approached the question very carefully with a statement "Mom, I could be bisexual". After some minor conversation, her final reply was "Try to concentrate more on the girls" and I knew I couldn't tell her anything anymore. My friends, some I've talked to, they support me the way I am, I appreciate it, and perhaps I should just delude myself that everyone is like that. And if I don't tell, no one knows anyway... | Quote: |
Based on your experiences that may be true. Based on my experiences with people who follow the Christian faiths, they hold the Bible extremely close and think IT IS the word of God and that IT IS the supreme idea. I'm not talking about the people who go to church on Christmas and Easter and occasionally on Sundays.
How do I have a lack of open-mindedness toward those who think homosexuality is a sin and 100% choice? There's so much irony in that it's not even worth addressing in all honesty. Yes, I am attacking people who say homosexuality is a sin and a choice. I believe that's my right just as it is their right to seclude homosexuals and say they're going to hell for being genetically/mentally attracted to those of the same sex. At least I made my own decision in that situation rather than letting a 2000 year old book do it for me.
And no, most Christians who attend church consistently and follow the religion fully as it is a part of their duty do not denounce what the Bible says in hardly any aspect. Most see homosexuality as a sin and that homosexuals should go to hell if they continue to sin in that way.
Believing in old ways never has and never will be the way to enlightenment. How can you move further ahead when you're constantly being held back by old, outdated principles and logic? You can't. Pretty common sense. |
I see a really big problem with your argument. The whole being held back by old, outdated principles and logic thing? Yeah. The problem with this is that the Bible is still relevant. Look at any chapter in the Bible and you can still find principles that apply to our life to day. WHy? because we still experience the same emotions, and have the same weaknesses(though they may come in different packages) such as sexuality and worshipping false gods. The lessons that you can learn, such as doing good to others, even though they dont do the same in return, faith ect... can all applied to my life today, so don't you dare tell me that it is old, outdated and irrelevant.I truly believe that know one really knows what makes homosexuals homosexual. I read one study where a biologist claimed to find chromosome that was different among gay people. I read a study done by a psychologist who said that everyone is born with the potential to be heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual and the difference between these people is development. So I honestly don't know and I don't think anyone really knows.
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | Based on your experiences that may be true. Based on my experiences with people who follow the Christian faiths, they hold the Bible extremely close and think IT IS the word of God and that IT IS the supreme idea. I'm not talking about the people who go to church on Christmas and Easter and occasionally on Sundays.
How do I have a lack of open-mindedness toward those who think homosexuality is a sin and 100% choice? There's so much irony in that it's not even worth addressing in all honesty. Yes, I am attacking people who say homosexuality is a sin and a choice. I believe that's my right just as it is their right to seclude homosexuals and say they're going to hell for being genetically/mentally attracted to those of the same sex. At least I made my own decision in that situation rather than letting a 2000 year old book do it for me.
And no, most Christians who attend church consistently and follow the religion fully as it is a part of their duty do not denounce what the Bible says in hardly any aspect. Most see homosexuality as a sin and that homosexuals should go to hell if they continue to sin in that way.
Believing in old ways never has and never will be the way to enlightenment. How can you move further ahead when you're constantly being held back by old, outdated principles and logic? You can't. Pretty common sense. |
I see a really big problem with your argument. The whole being held back by old, outdated principles and logic thing? Yeah. The problem with this is that the Bible is still relevant. Look at any chapter in the Bible and you can still find principles that apply to our life to day. WHy? because we still experience the same emotions, and have the same weaknesses(though they may come in different packages) such as sexuality and worshipping false gods. The lessons that you can learn, such as doing good to others, even though they dont do the same in return, faith ect... can all applied to my life today, so don't you dare tell me that it is old, outdated and irrelevant. |
With regards to homosexuality (which is the topic at hand) it's very outdated and completely illogical, so I stand by that. | liljp617 wrote: |
| I don't really get how people say it could be a choice at all. Heterosexuals are born to genetically/mentally be attracted to those of the opposite sex. How is it THAT unlikely that homosexuals are born genetically/mentally to be attracted to those of the same sex? It's not. It just seems like common sense to me. There are defects and mutations within the creation of DNA all the time. They create significant differences in the person who has these mutations (sickle cell disease for one). I'm not saying homosexuality is a disease, but to say that it's 100% a choice just seems absurd to me. It just shows the fear and brainwashing that die hard religious people have. They'll base their entire lives and beliefs from a 2000 year old book written by a few humans. |
I'm suprised that you've written "creation of DNA", not a evolution. that 's beside the point, now let me ask you this, are you a homosexual? if you are have you ever asked yourself if you're the one who is being brain washed by our society? We're all being brain wash on someway. And if you're not homosexual do yo believe in God? well obviously not. see the thing is you have to know if it's wrong that you're doing, if you knpw that being gay is wrong then you have an option not to be gay. otherwise serial killers, Pedophiles etc. would have their way because they can just say oh there are defects and mutation within the creation of DNA all the time. I am not trying to put Homosexuality on the same level of criminals I am merely trying to make my point. so who are these religious people you reffering to? 2000 year old book? you mean the Bible? umm I would rather base my living on the bible rather than something or someone that believes that it's ok to have sex with the same sex. | gr8inferno wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | I don't really get how people say it could be a choice at all. Heterosexuals are born to genetically/mentally be attracted to those of the opposite sex. How is it THAT unlikely that homosexuals are born genetically/mentally to be attracted to those of the same sex? It's not. It just seems like common sense to me. There are defects and mutations within the creation of DNA all the time. They create significant differences in the person who has these mutations (sickle cell disease for one). I'm not saying homosexuality is a disease, but to say that it's 100% a choice just seems absurd to me. It just shows the fear and brainwashing that die hard religious people have. They'll base their entire lives and beliefs from a 2000 year old book written by a few humans. |
I'm suprised that you've written "creation of DNA", not a evolution. that 's beside the point, now let me ask you this, are you a homosexual? if you are have you ever asked yourself if you're the one who is being brain washed by our society? We're all being brain wash on someway. And if you're not homosexual do yo believe in God? well obviously not. see the thing is you have to know if it's wrong that you're doing, if you knpw that being gay is wrong then you have an option not to be gay. otherwise serial killers, Pedophiles etc. would have their way because they can just say oh there are defects and mutation within the creation of DNA all the time. I am not trying to put Homosexuality on the same level of criminals I am merely trying to make my point. so who are these religious people you reffering to? 2000 year old book? you mean the Bible? umm I would rather base my living on the bible rather than something or someone that believes that it's ok to have sex with the same sex. |
No, I'm not a homosexual and it was never a choice in my life not to be one. You can base your living on whatever you wish, just keep it out of other people's lives and stop using the Bible as an excuse to be prejudice. It's called equality. I would think by now we would have learned something about it. Homosexuals hurt you in what way? They don't. So it's a sin in your opinion? Guess what? In no way does the Bible give you (or anyone) the right to judge someone and say they are a sinner. According to the Bible, you have no credibility in saying anything about them being sinners. According to the Bible, God is the determiner of sin and he is the only one who can pass judgment of how others live their lives. No, I'm not religious, I'm simply stating what the Bible/Christianity preaches..or what they're stereotyped to preach. You know, treating others how you wish to be treated, not passing judgment of others when it's not your place, respect others, etc. I guess that's been lost over the years though.
You can believe homosexuality is wrong. That's your freedom and choice. But your religion never has been and never will be an excuse to voice discrimination or prejudice against others. If you follow your religious teachings, I think you realize that.
On a side note: The comparison with pedophilia has been overplayed immensely. Each time it becomes a worse argument. There is no comparison to be had between pedophilia and homosexuality. Pedophilia is very much a known disease; homosexuality is not (based on the present description). Pedophilia is harmful to children who in no way can defend themselves; homosexuality is between two mature people who know what is going on and it is natural between both of them. A child being sexually molested is in no way natural to the child. A child being molested leads to insane amounts of mental instability; homosexuality does not. I fail to see any similarities. | Quote: |
| With regards to homosexuality (which is the topic at hand) it's very outdated and completely illogical, so I stand by that. |
It really is not irrelevant to this topic either. check out my post on all religion aside...is it wrong to be gay? I should be on the last page. | liljp617 wrote: |
No, I'm not a homosexual and it was never a choice in my life not to be one. You can base your living on whatever you wish, just keep it out of other people's lives and stop using the Bible as an excuse to be prejudice. It's called equality. I would think by now we would have learned something about it. Homosexuals hurt you in what way? They don't. So it's a sin in your opinion? Guess what? In no way does the Bible give you (or anyone) the right to judge someone and say they are a sinner. According to the Bible, you have no credibility in saying anything about them being sinners. According to the Bible, God is the determiner of sin and he is the only one who can pass judgment of how others live their lives. No, I'm not religious, I'm simply stating what the Bible/Christianity preaches..or what they're stereotyped to preach. You know, treating others how you wish to be treated, not passing judgment of others when it's not your place, respect others, etc. I guess that's been lost over the years though.
You can believe homosexuality is wrong. That's your freedom and choice. But your religion never has been and never will be an excuse to voice discrimination or prejudice against others. If you follow your religious teachings, I think you realize that.
On a side note: The comparison with pedophilia has been overplayed immensely. Each time it becomes a worse argument. There is no comparison to be had between pedophilia and homosexuality. Pedophilia is very much a known disease; homosexuality is not (based on the present description). Pedophilia is harmful to children who in no way can defend themselves; homosexuality is between two mature people who know what is going on and it is natural between both of them. A child being sexually molested is in no way natural to the child. A child being molested leads to insane amounts of mental instability; homosexuality does not. I fail to see any similarities. |
So I'm prejudice? Interesting. and no I do not equal my self to homosexuality sorry. I do not use the Bible as an excuse that the stupidiest thing I've ever heard. and no Homosexuals has ever hurt me in any way (no pun intented) . I do not judge them and saying they're all sinners because the bible does look up Leviticus 18:22. Treat others like you want to be treated and respect your neighbors etc. are still in play until today I don't know where you live but here in Wisconsin I see majority of it excluded Madison and Milwaukee.
Now I happened to have a Family member and Friends that are homosexuals and I don't hate them.
and I also have friends who are addicted to heroine but you're not gonna see me shootin' up with them. Now I don't know why you had to explained the definition of pedophilia, I do not make a literal comparison between homosesuality and pedophilia, I was merely making a point that convictions can make you think twice, therefore a pedophiles can opt out for committing the crime if s/he feels convicted of doing such action. The reason why you don't see this is because of what you believe, You do not believe in God nor the Bible (well ofcourse) , therefore you have a diferent definition of sins, or do you even believe in sins? hmm.
May God bless you and your Family | gr8inferno wrote: |
| see the thing is you have to know if it's wrong that you're doing, if you knpw that being gay is wrong then you have an option not to be gay. otherwise serial killers, Pedophiles etc. would have their way because they can just say oh there are defects and mutation within the creation of DNA all the time. |
Looks like you're the one who's brain washed. Accepting something and believing in it fully without actually going through the trouble to think for yourself about other possibilities; thats truly being brain washed.
Let me break it down for you.
Problems with Pedophilia:
Harms children
Destroys families
etc.etc.
Problems with Serial Killing:
Well, this one should be obvious.
Problems with homosexuality:
...
If you could, please list something that is a negative result of homosexuality.
Also statements like this:
| gr8inferno wrote: |
| and I also have friends who are addicted to heroine but you're not gonna see me shootin' up with them. |
makes you seem like a homophobe. Thats like saying you assume that your gay friends are going to want you to have sex with them... riiiight.So, if a pedophile is attracted to children, he is looked down upon, but its okay for a gay to be attracted to the same sex...?
Can't the pedophile just say "oh, I was born like this" and be done with? Or are gays superior?
In my eyes, a gay is the lowest form of human life ever to exist.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
So, if a pedophile is attracted to children, he is looked down upon, but its okay for a gay to be attracted to the same sex...?
Can't the pedophile just say "oh, I was born like this" and be done with? Or are gays superior?
In my eyes, a gay is the lowest form of human life ever to exist. |
The comparison is wrong and, actually, odious.
Firstly let us distinguish between attraction and action. A paedophile is one who is attracted to children, not necessarily one who has sex with children. We can debate how widespread this attraction is, especially since the advertising industry seems to reflect the fact that many males are sexually attracted to very young women and I'm sure that some here will have attended, or at least be familiar with, parties where women are dressed in 'schoolgirl vamp' outfits which are seen by many as sexually arousing. The point in question, however, is not the attraction itself but acting on that attraction by indulging in sexual acts with a minor.
Paedophilic sex involves sex with a person that is legally deemed to be incapable of making an informed decision. The objection is based on that, not on the gender or method of sex. We do not distinguish between a gay paedophile and a 'straight' paedophile, because the point is not the gender or type of sex, it is the fact that it is NON-CONSENSUAL sex. Paedophilic sex is, and should be seen as, a form of rape.
To compare that with consenting gay sex is inaccurate, insulting and, frankly, bigoted. Your final statement is an example of your bigotry. Presumably you regard gay people as worse than mass murderers or other 'evil' people, since you say they are the 'lowest form of human life'. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
So, if a pedophile is attracted to children, he is looked down upon, but its okay for a gay to be attracted to the same sex...?
Can't the pedophile just say "oh, I was born like this" and be done with? Or are gays superior?
In my eyes, a gay is the lowest form of human life ever to exist. |
In the eyes of the majority you would be right on par with them then. Are you by any chance a skinhead? People like you sicken me more than anything. Grow up...or at least stop being a hypocrite. | miacps wrote: |
Problems with homosexuality:
...
If you could, please list something that is a negative result of homosexuality.
|
Simply put; homosexuality doesn't produce offspring (obviously).
Is that a negative? Depends on your views, but for most who see life as offspring of offspring, obviously this is counterintuitive to life.
The other aspect is dependent on your family values, many, myself included, have a view that men and women were put on thie Earth to compliment eachother and each have gender specific roles in the family thus a homosexual couple would be lacking in that department having an abundance of some roles and a lack of others, which causes problems with teaching kids such values and having a complete family. Something this straight world screws up enough on it's own.
So... homosexualities problems are dependant on your beliefs. However from the species as a whole view I would see it as a negative due to the lack of being able to produce offspring. Kinda kills that branch on the tree. If everyone was gay, bye bye species.Why does everyone assume that homosexuals do not produce offspring? History is full of counter examples. The are many examples of gay men and women who have married and had children. Whether you regard this as a good thing or not is not really relevant to the point. Homosexuality does not preclude reproduction and heterosexuality does not guarantee it.
| Quote: |
| Why does everyone assume that homosexuals do not produce offspring? History is full of counter examples. The are many examples of gay men and women who have married and had children. Whether you regard this as a good thing or not is not really relevant to the point. Homosexuality does not preclude reproduction and heterosexuality does not guarantee it. |
I want examples other than adoption that you know for sure that are true. If you just say that they do and don't support it, no one can believe you b/c of lack of evidence. | Quote: |
liljp617 wrote:
No, I'm not a homosexual and it was never a choice in my life not to be one. You can base your living on whatever you wish, just keep it out of other people's lives and stop using the Bible as an excuse to be prejudice. It's called equality. I would think by now we would have learned something about it. Homosexuals hurt you in what way? You know, treating others how you wish to be treated, not passing judgment of others when it's not your place, respect others, etc. I guess that's been lost over the years though.
You can believe homosexuality is wrong. That's your freedom and choice. But your religion never has been and never will be an excuse to voice discrimination or prejudice against others. If you follow your religious teachings, I think you realize that. |
So I am prejudice? I don't think so. I am just trying to make the point that we weren't meant to be with someone of the same sex. It just isn't natural.
| Quote: |
| So it's a sin in your opinion? Guess what? In no way does the Bible give you (or anyone) the right to judge someone and say they are a sinner. According to the Bible, you have no credibility in saying anything about them being sinners. According to the Bible, God is the determiner of sin and he is the only one who can pass judgment of how others live their lives. |
Yes, in my opinion, it is a sin, and if you have actually read the Bible, then you would know what it says. It is not me that says that they are the sinner, it is the Bible. Romans 6:23 says eveyone sins (for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God), but where you are trying to quote the Bible, you are misquoting. It says not to "try to pick the speck out of your brother's eye when you have a plank in your own."(MAtthew 7:4) All that that means is that you shouldn't trying to tell someone that they need to repent to God of their sins, when you have much bigger unconfessed sins in your life. I am not saying that I don't sin, b/c I will admit that I do. WHat I am saying is that I have confessed mine, homosexuals are ignoring theirs and I am trying to show them that what they are doing is wrong and there is a God that loves them and wants to forgive them if they will let Him, that is all.
| Quote: |
| They don't...., I'm not religious, I'm simply stating what the Bible/Christianity preaches..or what they're stereotyped to preach. |
You are misquoting Remeber Davids sin with Bathsheba. Nathan pointed out his sin. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Why does everyone assume that homosexuals do not produce offspring? History is full of counter examples. The are many examples of gay men and women who have married and had children. Whether you regard this as a good thing or not is not really relevant to the point. Homosexuality does not preclude reproduction and heterosexuality does not guarantee it. |
lol, that's not homosexuality... that is someone with a homosexual gene who is passing it along through offspring...yes, however how could that account for the number and variety of homosexuals in the world today? Plus, are the truly homosexual if they married and had kids, wouldn't a true homosexual find sexual relations with a woman revolting? Just like I would find those with a man. So all they are passing along is not a truly homosexual gene, but rather a bi-sexual one, which, of course, is a different issue.
This is all assuming there is a homosexual gene. And that it is not socially generated. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
So, if a pedophile is attracted to children, he is looked down upon, but its okay for a gay to be attracted to the same sex...?
Can't the pedophile just say "oh, I was born like this" and be done with? Or are gays superior?
In my eyes, a gay is the lowest form of human life ever to exist. |
In my eyes, that is the lowest thing you can say and a prove of being completely narrow minded. I am not even going to try to counter it as, by making this statement, you have proven to be very sad. Religion has completely sickened your mind. Open your eyes! | coeus wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Why does everyone assume that homosexuals do not produce offspring? History is full of counter examples. The are many examples of gay men and women who have married and had children. Whether you regard this as a good thing or not is not really relevant to the point. Homosexuality does not preclude reproduction and heterosexuality does not guarantee it. |
lol, that's not homosexuality... that is someone with a homosexual gene who is passing it along through offspring...yes, however how could that account for the number and variety of homosexuals in the world today? Plus, are the truly homosexual if they married and had kids, wouldn't a true homosexual find sexual relations with a woman revolting? Just like I would find those with a man. So all they are passing along is not a truly homosexual gene, but rather a bi-sexual one, which, of course, is a different issue.
This is all assuming there is a homosexual gene. And that it is not socially generated. |
Many people do things everyday that they find distasteful or revolting.
There is some evidence for a genetic element to homosexuality but no evidence that I know of for a single gene. Sexuality is a complex issue and it may well have a genetic component but it certainly does have an environmental/social component.
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm | Bikerman wrote: |
Many people do things everyday that they find distasteful or revolting. |
This is true but do you think people would commit and marry into something they find distasteful or revolting? | coeus wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
Many people do things everyday that they find distasteful or revolting. |
This is true but do you think people would commit and marry into something they find distasteful or revolting? |
Why else would they divorce and become homosexual?
Many people, and there are numerous examples, married in the earlier years when homosexuality wasn't accepted, just because it was normal to marry. Not because they wanted too. | coeus wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
Many people do things everyday that they find distasteful or revolting. |
This is true but do you think people would commit and marry into something they find distasteful or revolting? |
Not only do I think that, it is beyond dispute since there are numerous examples (as coen states).
Societal/legal pressure was such, not that long ago, that there was no reasonable alternative for many gay men and women. Some men/women chose to remain batchelors/spinsters but that in itself carried a social stigma, so often the easier course was to marry. You should also bear in mind that the Victorian concept of marriage was very different from our ideas today.the divorce / homosexual thing doesn't display a revolt for sexual relations with the oppostie sex, it displays confusion, uncertainty. Which is my point, that they don't exhibit truly homosexual behavior, but rather a mix of that and of "normal".
I am revolted by the idea of laying with another man and I would never marry one(f I could) then divorce and marry straight. So the opposite would do the opposite, never marry straight then divorce for gay.
| coeus wrote: |
the divorce / homosexual thing doesn't display a revolt for sexual relations with the oppostie sex, it displays confusion, uncertainty. Which is my point, that they don't exhibit truly homosexual behavior, but rather a mix of that and of "normal".
I am revolted by the idea of laying with another man and I would never marry one(f I could) then divorce and marry straight. So the opposite would do the opposite, never marry straight then divorce for gay. |
No, it doesn't display confusion at all. It displays self-preservation. Just because you think a certain way does not mean that others also think the same way. We know that many homosexual men have married and had children - the point is not at issue. They often did this not because they were confused about their sexuality but because the legal and social pressures to conform overcame their reluctance to marry and have heterosexual intercourse. | Bikerman wrote: |
No, it doesn't display confusion at all. It displays self-preservation. Just because you think a certain way does not mean that others also think the same way. We know that many homosexual men have married and had children - the point is not at issue. They often did this not because they were confused about their sexuality but because the legal and social pressures to conform overcame their reluctance to marry and have heterosexual intercourse. |
I guess we just agree to disagree.
I refuse to believe that if someone was truly gay they would push aside their disgust for the sake of conformity. I would think a truly gay man...not bi here, would detest sex with a woman and thus wouldn't even marry to conform, would just stay single.
I am basing this on the fact that I am straight, not bi, and I detest the idea of sex with another man. I am using the definition of homosexual as someone with direct opposition to me and thus would detest sex with a woman. Even for the sake of social conformity, marriage isn't that important in our society...see the 60% divorce rate Well you can disagree all you like. This is another example of refusing to accept evidence which is contrary to your own beliefs. The fact is that there are numerous examples of gay men (who describe themselves as gay) who have married and had children. The fact that you refuse to accept they are gay is not really important and the fact that you refuse to believe this says more about you than it does about them...
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Well you can disagree all you like. This is another example of refusing to accept evidence which is contrary to your own beliefs. The fact is that there are numerous examples of gay men (who describe themselves as gay) who have married and had children. The fact that you refuse to accept they are gay is not really important and the fact that you refuse to believe this says more about you than it does about them... |
actually it doesn't refute anything I say at all.
I say a truly gay person is opposite sexually as one who is straight.
A straight person would never willingly go into a gay relationship (commitment type relationship, not a simple one night stand), if they were truly straight...by definition.
Thus when you have a "gay" person who lived a straight lifestyle before then they are by definition, not totally gay, rather confused with a hint of bi.
Just because you say your gay doesn't mean you are, just like lots of people say they are christian but they are not. It's word play and no one knows the definition.
But my point all along it is very important to get the right definition for in the sake of the human species a truly homosexual person would never reproduce unless the seed was forcefully taken and planted. so-to-speak. Thus truly homosexual genes, if they existed, would never get passes unless by force. But the gay with some bi would. | coeus wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Well you can disagree all you like. This is another example of refusing to accept evidence which is contrary to your own beliefs. The fact is that there are numerous examples of gay men (who describe themselves as gay) who have married and had children. The fact that you refuse to accept they are gay is not really important and the fact that you refuse to believe this says more about you than it does about them... |
actually it doesn't refute anything I say at all. |
Yes it does. Completely. | Quote: |
| I say a truly gay person is opposite sexually as one who is straight. |
No that is wrong. You seem incapable of accepting a standard definition for any word unless it conforms to your own view. This is a meaningless way to debate and is sometimes called the 'Humpty-Dumpty syndrome'.*
| Quote: |
| A straight person would never willingly go into a gay relationship (commitment type relationship, not a simple one night stand), if they were truly straight...by definition. |
Only if you accept your definition, which is not generally accepted. Humpty-dumpty syndrome again.
| Quote: |
| Thus when you have a "gay" person who lived a straight lifestyle before then they are by definition, not totally gay, rather confused with a hint of bi. |
yet again the HD syndrome...
| Quote: |
| But my point all along it is very important to get the right definition for in the sake of the human species a truly homosexual person would never reproduce unless the seed was forcefully taken and planted. so-to-speak. Thus truly homosexual genes, if they existed, would never get passes unless by force. But the gay with some bi would. |
That's quite comical - 'the right definition' presumably means 'your definition'?
Gay is defined as :
A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex.
A man whose sexual orientation is to men: an alliance of gays and lesbians.
It is not defined as a person who would never have intercourse with the opposite sex - that is your HD definition.
* 'When I use a word', said Humpty Dumpty, 'it means exactly what I wish it to mean, no more, no less'.Bikerman, there is no fallacy going on here, but I feel you want there to be.
Under your definitions and that of the "norm" you are right, I never disputed that, I said under these definitions it is disputed. Language is a funny thing and there can be many different ideas for what means what, hence why I laid out what my definitions were right away so as to not confuse.
But don't confuse that with disputing your view of the definition for I am not doing that.
It is just my personal view that someone who is gay has sexual preferance for ONLY their sex. When they have preferance for both, the term is bisexual.
A gay man just likes guys, would never have sex with a woman.
If he ever would consider it then he goes into the realm of bisexual.
But of course, your definition and that of the "norm" seems to mixthis up some and thus there is confusion. Unfortunatly language isn't as standard as we would all like it to be. 
| coeus wrote: |
| A gay man just likes guys, would never have sex with a woman.If he ever would consider it then he goes into the realm of bisexual. |
HD syndrome again. Just because one is attracted to one gender does not mean that one would not have sex with the other gender, even if the act were repulsive or distasteful to one. As I have frequently pointed out this is demonstrated by the fact that many men HAVE done so. Many such men are NOT bisexual - they feel no attraction to women, their intercourse with women was mechanistic and done only to confirm to a social expectation in order to father children. | Bikerman wrote: |
| HD syndrome again. Just because one is attracted to one gender does not mean that one would not have sex with the other gender, even if the act were repulsive or distasteful to one. As I have frequently pointed out this is demonstrated by the fact that many men HAVE done so. |
You are right, and I am saying that is the problem.
For you see there is already a term for a gay person like whom you are talking about, and they are refered to as being bisexual.
So, because both terms exist they shouldn't overlap, or else what would the point be of the term bisexual? Bi means both and is clearly geared for people who prefer or don't mind both. Gay is therefore does not and should not have to refer to people who do both sides for there is a term for it, but no term for stickly "same sex" thus gay means "same sex" and bisexual means "both".
You are describing someone that does both sides and thus would be bisexual, not stickly gay. While they are gay, they are more than that an belong under the bisexual umbrella.
Just because a lot of people say a word means something, doesn't means it was meant to mean it that way, what was that fallacy you tried to pin on be reguarding that same idea?It is pointless debating with you since you seem incapable of grasping simple semantics.
A bisexual is one who is physically attracted to both sexes. You do not need to feel a physical attraction to have sex with a person. A gay man having sex with a woman is not bi-sexual, he is a gay man having sex with a woman. End of story.
| Bikerman wrote: |
It is pointless debating with you since you seem incapable of grasping simple semantics.
A bisexual is one who is physically attracted to both sexes. You do not need to feel a physical attraction to have sex with a person. A gay man having sex with a woman is not bi-sexual, he is a gay man having sex with a woman. End of story. |
Would you have sex with a man right now? | coeus wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | It is pointless debating with you since you seem incapable of grasping simple semantics.
A bisexual is one who is physically attracted to both sexes. You do not need to feel a physical attraction to have sex with a person. A gay man having sex with a woman is not bi-sexual, he is a gay man having sex with a woman. End of story. |
Would you have sex with a man right now? |
This is exacly what he means. You do not get it. It isn't about desire but simply about the fact that it's possible. | Coen wrote: |
This is exacly what he means. You do not get it. It isn't about desire but simply about the fact that it's possible. |
possibility is a theory, i'm talking in reality.
It is physically possibly for a male and female to mate, no crap. It's also possible for me to eat a tomatoe but I don't like the taste so I won't do it. The fact is that we are driven by desires and for someone to go against their innner desire to COMMIT to a RELATIONSHIP and enter in something they disagree with, I am just not buying it. At least not on the suggested scale.
Thus my question is legit. Would bikerman marry a male? (assuming bikerman is a he) If the answer is yes well then, I bow down to society shaking my beliefs of how humans work. If no, then my point exactly, that you have no desire to do so and wouldn't do it to appeas society, for you can do the same thing being single.Would I marry a male? Yes, under certain circumstances. If, for example, the alternative was 20 years in prison. It would depend in each case whether I considered the alternatives worse than the marriage itself. That does not mean I am gay, of course, although I can comfortably live with any assertion you may make to the contrary.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Would I marry a male? Yes, under certain circumstances. If, for example, the alternative was 20 years in prison. It would depend in each case whether I considered the alternatives worse than the marriage itself. That does not mean I am gay, of course, although I can comfortably live with any assertion you may make to the contrary. |
Yeah, but your circumstance is unrealistic and you wouldn't commit to sexual relations. Unless of course there is something you are not telling us...lol
I hope you are seeing the parallel here.
There is no realistic circumstance forcing gay men to marry a woman, nor anything forcing them to have sex and have kids. It is all of their own will. | coeus wrote: |
Yeah, but your circumstance is unrealistic and you wouldn't commit to sexual relations. Unless of course there is something you are not telling us...lol
I hope you are seeing the parallel here.
There is no realistic circumstance forcing gay men to marry a woman, nor anything forcing them to have sex and have kids. It is all of their own will. |
Okay, lets go to a realistic example then: Unless you marry a woman you will be outlawed by the church. Your family and closed friends will hate you and find you the worst piece of crap that exists. Your entire social life will collapse and on top of that some people are being taught that it is sinfull to be gay. You will be hated by those you love. Can you imagine the pain that would cause? So you marry a woman to prevent all these things I just summorised. | Quote: |
| I hope you are seeing the parallel here. |
There is no parallel. In Victorian England it was illegal to practice homosexual acts punishable by life imprisonment. My example is entirely realistic and is based on examples in history.
As to whether I would commit to homosexual acts - again it would depend on the circumstances so I do no absolutely rule it out.
This whole conversation is rather pointless, however, since we don't need to guess, there are recorded examples of gay men having children and getting married. It's a fact, whether you wish to accept it or not.
End of conversation. | Coen wrote: |
Okay, lets go to a realistic example then: Unless you marry a woman you will be outlawed by the church. Your family and closed friends will hate you and find you the worst piece of crap that exists. Your entire social life will collapse and on top of that some people are being taught that it is sinfull to be gay. You will be hated by those you love. Can you imagine the pain that would cause? So you marry a woman to prevent all these things I just summorised. |
The gay men that married women were closet homosexuals, no one knew. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | I hope you are seeing the parallel here. |
There is no parallel. In Victorian England it was illegal to practice homosexual acts punishable by life imprisonment. My example is entirely realistic and is based on examples in history.
As to whether I would commit to homosexual acts - again it would depend on the circumstances so I do no absolutely rule it out.
This whole conversation is rather pointless, however, since we don't need to guess, there are recorded examples of gay men having children and getting married. It's a fact, whether you wish to accept it or not.
End of conversation. |
Yes it is a fact, no one is disputing that. But I am saying they wern't gay, they were bisexual. Obviously, by defination, they had sex with women, they had kids. Bisexual.Humpty Dumpty syndrome seems to be your only argument and, since I find it wearing to argue with someone who changes the definitions of words to suit their own point, then I think it would be best to just let you post whatever HD nonsense you like and add you to my 'ignore' list.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Humpty Dumpty syndrome seems to be your only argument and, since I find it wearing to argue with someone who changes the definitions of words to suit their own point, then I think it would be best to just let you post whatever HD nonsense you like and add you to my 'ignore' list. |
lol, fair enough.
In the words of Morpheous: "Free your mind." | coeus wrote: |
| Coen wrote: |
Okay, lets go to a realistic example then: Unless you marry a woman you will be outlawed by the church. Your family and closed friends will hate you and find you the worst piece of crap that exists. Your entire social life will collapse and on top of that some people are being taught that it is sinfull to be gay. You will be hated by those you love. Can you imagine the pain that would cause? So you marry a woman to prevent all these things I just summorised. |
The gay men that married women were closet homosexuals, no one knew. |
So now that also matters? I thought homosexuals would never marry or have sexual intercourse with a female.
On another point, why were they closet homosexuals? Because they were taught it was wrong to be by faith. While in fact it isn't at all. | Coen wrote: |
| coeus wrote: | | Coen wrote: |
Okay, lets go to a realistic example then: Unless you marry a woman you will be outlawed by the church. Your family and closed friends will hate you and find you the worst piece of crap that exists. Your entire social life will collapse and on top of that some people are being taught that it is sinfull to be gay. You will be hated by those you love. Can you imagine the pain that would cause? So you marry a woman to prevent all these things I just summorised. |
The gay men that married women were closet homosexuals, no one knew. |
So now that also matters? I thought homosexuals would never marry or have sexual intercourse with a female.
On another point, why were they closet homosexuals? Because they were taught it was wrong to be by faith. While in fact it isn't at all. |
Yeah, definatly worded that funny, my bad. I was implying that your statement made no sence. All of the cases of gay men that married and eventually divorced because they were "gay" were closet gays and no one knew they were gay and thus wern't forced into the marriage but rather chose it. Implying that they wern't fully gay and were confused.There are examples known of homosexual people who knew they were homosexual but did marry because they did not want to be outlawed by everyone. It is not uncommon.
| Coen wrote: |
| There are examples known of homosexual people who knew they were homosexual but did marry because they did not want to be outlawed by everyone. It is not uncommon. |
Not uncommon? And just how do you find a woman willing to go along with that? Also, do everyone one of those examples produce kids to further on the genes into the gene pool? I'm not buying it.
My point is that homosexuality is unnatural in the eyes of reproduction and thus our species as a whole. It is counter-intuitive to life and thus if natural selection is really how it happends (which makes sense) and there is a gay gene then there wouldn't be as many gays as there are, it would be quite rare. Which leads me to believe it is socially constructive. | coeus wrote: |
| Coen wrote: | | There are examples known of homosexual people who knew they were homosexual but did marry because they did not want to be outlawed by everyone. It is not uncommon. |
Not uncommon? And just how do you find a woman willing to go along with that? Also, do everyone one of those examples produce kids to further on the genes into the gene pool? I'm not buying it. |
That is your flaw, not mine. And the woman don't have to know. A man can keep it quiet.
| Quote: |
| My point is that homosexuality is unnatural in the eyes of reproduction and thus our species as a whole. It is counter-intuitive to life and thus if natural selection is really how it happends (which makes sense) and there is a gay gene then there wouldn't be as many gays as there are, it would be quite rare. Which leads me to believe it is socially constructive. |
The world is getting overcrowded. A little less humans would do wonders. If only the gay people would remain, if it is a gene, the world would be a lot better. Surely, as the main ideal of a species is to survive, the gene would dissapear or some of the gay men could have sexual intercourse with lesbian women. If both pairs have a child wish such a bargon is easily made. | Coen wrote: |
The world is getting overcrowded. A little less humans would do wonders. |
As natural selection would have you desire, yet we have desires and moral codes telling us the opposite. Interesting
And the gay gene would only take care of one person, the person "infected" (hate that word, but it fits)The word doesn't fit at all. It is no infection. Those desires also are a result of evolution as has been explained multiple times.
| Coen wrote: |
| The word doesn't fit at all. It is no infection. Those desires also are a result of evolution as has been explained multiple times. |
lol, homosexuality is a result of evolution?
A mutation mistake maybe, but surly you don't think homosexuality benefits the host?
Evolution is based on the idea of natural selection where random mutations that benefit the organisim live on, and those that don't die off. Homosexual desires prevent reproduction and thus offer no benefit to the organisms survival. I don't see how natural selection can explain homosexuality existing in anything but random rare forms. | coeus wrote: |
| lol, homosexuality is a result of evolution? |
Yes.
| coeus wrote: |
A mutation mistake maybe, but surly you don't think homosexuality benefits the host?
Evolution is based on the idea of natural selection where random mutations that benefit the organisim live on, and those that don't die off. |
You are wrong. That is the schoolchild's definition of evolution.
| coeus wrote: |
| Homosexual desires prevent reproduction and thus offer no benefit to the organisms survival. |
They do not prevent reproduction, and they do not need to benefit the organism's survival to be transmitted. They are more likely to be transmitted if they increase reproductive success. But if they don't they could just as well be transmitted anyway, especially if they are a by-product of other genes that do increase the reproductive efficiency of the organism - which homosexual behaviour almost certainly is.
| coeus wrote: |
| I don't see how natural selection can explain homosexuality existing in anything but random rare forms. |
i could recommend beginner's books on evolution by natural selection to act as primers. But you will have to unlearn everything you have been taught by anti-evolutionary propaganda. You may not be opposed to evolution, but you are using language that has been created by those people... and that has unfortunately fallen into the public consciousness.[quote="miacps"] | gr8inferno wrote: |
Let me break it down for you.
Problems with Pedophilia:
Harms children
Destroys families
etc.etc.
Problems with Serial Killing:
Well, this one should be obvious.
Problems with homosexuality:
...
If you could, please list something that is a negative result of homosexuality. |
Are you serious? .. you want negative results eh?
here we go,, note: I'm not going to include the One way ticket to Hell co'z I don't want to get all religious with ya,.
HIV virus ..why because study says that homosexual men are more likely to get infected by whopping %50 note: New york times published that in 1997.
Researchers conducted a study to assess how HIV infection and AIDS is impacting the mortality rates for homosexual and bisexual men.
According to Journal of the American Medical Association the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse.
Youth who identify themselves as homosexual, lesbian and bisexual are four times more likely than their peers to suffer from major depression. but wait before you blame me, homosexual activists point their finger at homophobia as the cause of these disorders, but the most extensive studies have been done in the Netherlands and New Zealand where homosexuality is widely accepted.
This is just to name the few.
| miacps wrote: |
Also statements like this:
| gr8inferno wrote: | | and I also have friends who are addicted to heroine but you're not gonna see me shootin' up with them. |
makes you seem like a homophobe. Thats like saying you assume that your gay friends are going to want you to have sex with them... riiiight. |
I strongly suggest that you read my previous post/s regarding my explanation between Pedophilia and Homosexuality, but I don't think it's gonna matter co'z you just labeled me a Homophobe. What I meant was the living in Homosexual lifestyle not because "I assume that they want to have sex me".
so what's your possitive views on homosexuals? c'mon humor me. | coeus wrote: |
| miacps wrote: |
Problems with homosexuality:
...
If you could, please list something that is a negative result of homosexuality.
|
Simply put; homosexuality doesn't produce offspring (obviously).
Is that a negative? Depends on your views, but for most who see life as offspring of offspring, obviously this is counterintuitive to life.
The other aspect is dependent on your family values, many, myself included, have a view that men and women were put on thie Earth to compliment eachother and each have gender specific roles in the family thus a homosexual couple would be lacking in that department having an abundance of some roles and a lack of others, which causes problems with teaching kids such values and having a complete family. Something this straight world screws up enough on it's own.
So... homosexualities problems are dependant on your beliefs. However from the species as a whole view I would see it as a negative due to the lack of being able to produce offspring. Kinda kills that branch on the tree. If everyone was gay, bye bye species. |
I have to disagree that this is a problem.
In a world that is so over populated, less children being born is a VERY good thing. As for the "If everyone was gay" statement, well thats simply not going to happen. | Indi wrote: |
| coeus wrote: | | lol, homosexuality is a result of evolution? |
Yes.
|
Yea use use evolution as a "theory" of Homosexuality, let's jump in to a band wagon of evolutionary theories so we don't have to be responsible for anything.
This theory is so flexible that it can be used to explain almost any outcome, but explains nothing.It depends what you mean by explain doesn't it. What I mean by explain is that it provides a plausible mechanism for the thing under consideration. What do you mean by explain?
| gr8inferno wrote: |
HIV virus ..why because study says that homosexual men are more likely to get infected by whopping %50 note: New york times published that in 1997.
Researchers conducted a study to assess how HIV infection and AIDS is impacting the mortality rates for homosexual and bisexual men.
According to Journal of the American Medical Association the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse.
|
These are all a result of heterosexual activity as well. That "homosexual men are more likely to get infected by whopping %50" may be due to more gay couples not using protection(due to obviously not having to worry about pregnancy) while more straight couples do. The fact is anytime you participate in unprotected sex with a HIV positive partner(male or female), you will almost always contract HIV.
| gr8inferno wrote: |
Youth who identify themselves as homosexual, lesbian and bisexual are four times more likely than their peers to suffer from major depression. but wait before you blame me, homosexual activists point their finger at homophobia as the cause of these disorders, but the most extensive studies have been done in the Netherlands and New Zealand where homosexuality is widely accepted.
|
Depression also occurs twice as frequently in women than men. A good reason not to be a woman perhaps? No doubt if all women were viewed to be sinners/going to burn for eternity in hell/inferior, the frequency of depression would be much higher.
| gr8inferno wrote: |
| miacps wrote: |
Also statements like this:
| gr8inferno wrote: | | and I also have friends who are addicted to heroine but you're not gonna see me shootin' up with them. |
makes you seem like a homophobe. Thats like saying you assume that your gay friends are going to want you to have sex with them... riiiight. |
I strongly suggest that you read my previous post/s regarding my explanation between Pedophilia and Homosexuality, but I don't think it's gonna matter co'z you just labeled me a Homophobe. What I meant was the living in Homosexual lifestyle not because "I assume that they want to have sex me". |
I'm not sure how a homosexual lifestyle differs from heterosexual other than sexual orientation...
| gr8inferno wrote: |
| so what's your possitive views on homosexuals? c'mon humor me. |
When you live in a highly overpopulated world, its always good to know that there are people that are less likely to contribute to the problem. Besides that, I don't know of any other positives to having homosexuals in our society, however I've got this crazy belief that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as they are not violating my rights or the rights of others. | miacps wrote: |
| These are all a result of heterosexual activity as well |
umm we all know that, however this is logically unconnected to the question of whether
Homosexuality has negative impact in our society.
| miacps wrote: |
| Depression also occurs twice as frequently in women than men. |
Again it's irrelevant. The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality,
but holiness in the Image of God, in which we are made, female and male.
Again , your previous post
[quote="miacps"]If you could, please list something that is a negative result of homosexuality[/qutoe]
Lists provided.
| gr8inferno wrote: |
| so what's your possitive views on homosexuals? c'mon humor me. |
| miacps wrote: |
don't know of any other positives to having homosexuals in our society. |
fair enough
[qutoe=miacps"]however I've got this crazy belief that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as they are not violating my rights or the rights of others[/qutoe]
yea that's crazy.Yeah, and, like, black people, you know. They're different! I've never seen a black baby coming into this world, so i'm not quite sure if they're like "that" from birth or if it develops later, but, really, they're just weird.
[/this is SARCASM!]
| gr8inferno wrote: |
| miacps wrote: | | however I've got this crazy belief that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as they are not violating my rights or the rights of others |
yea that's crazy. |
Let's just take a look at what you're saying here.
People should be able to do whatever they like as long as they are not violating my rights or the rights of others = crazy.
Clearly, you're saying :
People should NOT be able to do whatever they like as long as blah blah blah..
Were you friends with Mussolini or something? | Quote: |
The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality,
but holiness in the Image of God, in which we are made, female and male. |
OK..homosexuality is defined as being attracted to persons of the same gender.
The opposite would be being repulsed by persons of the same gender. So holiness is being repulsed by persons of the same gender? | gr8inferno wrote: |
| yea that's crazy. |
May I ask how old you are?[quote="liljp617May I ask how old you are?[/quote]
Old enough to distinguish between right and wrong. Prejudice is right? Wasn't aware of that. Hmm...news to me. I think most people who aren't blinded by religion would disagree with you. And I believe your inability to treat others how you wish to be treated negates everything you believe in.
Wrong is how you're acting, how you're treating homosexuals.
I haven't read a lot of your posts on this forum, but for now you look like one of two things. Either a troll or a reactionary retard.
| Quote: |
| Prejudice is right? Wasn't aware of that. Hmm...news to me. I think most people who aren't blinded by religion would disagree with you. And I believe your inability to treat others how you wish to be treated negates everything you believe in. |
So you are saying that it is right to be prejudice against Christians and those who happen to believe differently than you, but it is not okay for a Christian to warn somebody that they are headed into or already involved in something that isn't right? Or as you say, to be "prejudiced" against. I don't think you are treating the people who are believing in something different than you the way you would want to be treated, so doesn't that | Quote: |
| negates everything you believe in |
hmm..gr8inferno, most of your quote tags are broken...if you fix them it might be a little easier to understand what you're saying and what you aren't.
| gr8inferno wrote: |
| miacps wrote: | | These are all a result of heterosexual activity as well |
umm we all know that, however this is logically unconnected to the question of whether
Homosexuality has negative impact in our society.
|
No, you're saying one sexuality is right and the other is wrong. If that were truly the case, they wouldn't both have the same negative consequences. This is completely relevant.
| gr8inferno wrote: |
| miacps wrote: | | Depression also occurs twice as frequently in women than men. |
Again it's irrelevant. The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality,
but holiness in the Image of God, in which we are made, female and male.
|
We've already established that a gay person can not pick who they're attracted to anymore than a straight person. Guess you're going to have to accept the fact that, for some reason, your God keeps creating homosexuals.
| gr8inferno wrote: |
Old enough to distinguish between right and wrong. |
I can never understand how someone can refuse to question a religion that is a matter of "pick and choose which parts you agree with/let a preacher pick for you". If this world was free from organized blind followings and people had to actually come up with answers on their own, it would truly be a better place. | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | | Prejudice is right? Wasn't aware of that. Hmm...news to me. I think most people who aren't blinded by religion would disagree with you. And I believe your inability to treat others how you wish to be treated negates everything you believe in. |
So you are saying that it is right to be prejudice against Christians and those who happen to believe differently than you, but it is not okay for a Christian to warn somebody that they are headed into or already involved in something that isn't right? Or as you say, to be "prejudiced" against. I don't think you are treating the people who are believing in something different than you the way you would want to be treated, so doesn't that | Quote: | | negates everything you believe in |
hmm.. |
Perhaps you can point out where I said Christians as a whole are inferior? I'll save you some time..I didn't. No where on this topic have I said that Christians are, for instance, the lowest forms of life. I have not said Christians should be singled out and pushed away from society because of their beliefs I am not singling out Christians, I am singling out prejudice individuals who just so happen to base their thoughts on Christianity. I don't care if you're Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., I will never accept intolerance or prejudice of an entire group of people because of something they can't help (it is my responsibility as a human being to fight against discrimination). It's as idiotic as singling out an entire race, culture, ethnicity, or gender. There is no justification for it, there is no excuse for it, there is no room for it in this world. People can believe as they wish and they can follow those beliefs UNTIL those beliefs become hateful, discriminatory, and hurtful toward others. I know for a fact that is not what Christianity preaches in any situation. To self-proclaim one's self as a devout Christian (as I would say inferno has), then go on to say that certain people shouldn't be allowed to do as they wish as long as it's not hurting others is absurd (especially when it involves something they're not choosing). To self-proclaim one's self as a devout religious person, then go on to say that homosexuals are the lowest forms of life is beyond absurd. There is nothing anyone can say to justify statements such as these...religion, again, is not a backing for discrimination (as much as people seem to want it to be).
I have absolutely no problem with people having different followings from my own, but I do have a problem with hate, intolerance, and bigotry. If those people depend on their religion to defend their position involving the previously mentioned, I will attack their individual religion and plead my case that religion does not justify hateful mentalities. It's not an attack on all religious people, it's an attack on an individual's twisted thoughts. The fact that people along the lines of Hitler, the Nazis, skinheads, and the KKK followed these exact thoughts for motivation make these beliefs twisted. If you agree with these people, then we have bigger issues on the table outside of debating about homosexuals. | Philou wrote: |
Wrong is how you're acting, how you're treating homosexuals.
I haven't read a lot of your posts on this forum, but for now you look like one of two things. Either a troll or a reactionary retard. |
Can I take both? hmm.. A retarded Troll is the hizzy! 
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | | Prejudice is right? Wasn't aware of that. Hmm...news to me. I think most people who aren't blinded by religion would disagree with you. And I believe your inability to treat others how you wish to be treated negates everything you believe in. |
So you are saying that it is right to be prejudice against Christians and those who happen to believe differently than you, but it is not okay for a Christian to warn somebody that they are headed into or already involved in something that isn't right? |
No, that isn't right for christians to do as they do it out of what they believe but is utter nonsense to some of us who don't believe. Your prejudices are your motives to warn those people while I believe them to be false whilst science and rational thinking creates our "prejudices" towards christians. There is a big diffrence there. | Quote: |
| Rolling Eyes We've already established that a gay person can not pick who they're attracted to anymore than a straight person. Guess you're going to have to accept the fact that, for some reason, your God keeps creating homosexuals. |
God may create the person, but He does not create the sin. | Quote: |
| To self-proclaim one's self as a devout religious person, then go on to say that homosexuals are the lowest forms of life is beyond absurd. |
Never said that. I do think that I said before that God loves everyone, including the gays, but just because He loves them doesnt mean that He approves of their actions.
| Quote: |
| Perhaps you can point out where I said Christians as a whole are inferior? |
| Quote: |
| But your religion never has been and never will be an excuse to voice discrimination or prejudice against others. |
That is discriminating me and my religion by telling me that I can't use what
I know to be the truth to point out a sinful and unatural lifestyle. | Quote: |
| I have absolutely no problem with people having different followings from my own, but I do have a problem with hate, intolerance, and bigotry. If those people depend on their religion to defend their position involving the previously mentioned, I will attack their individual religion and plead my case that religion does not justify hateful mentalities. It's not an attack on all religious people, it's an attack on an individual's twisted thoughts. The fact that people along the lines of Hitler, the Nazis, skinheads, and the KKK followed these exact thoughts for motivation make these beliefs twisted. If you agree with these people, then we have bigger issues on the table outside of debating about homosexuals. |
THere is more wrong with homosexuality than just what the bible says about it. It isn't natural at
all. If we were meant to be with someone of the opposite sex, then we would be able to reproduce
with them without the help of modern day technology. A hundred years ago, would we have been able to procreate with someone of the same sex? No. So, even though gays can have children today with the help of modern day technology, it isn't natural.
I don't believe in what hitler and all those people did, but what I am doing is not the same. I am not mass slaughtering homosexuals because of their lifestyle. | aames_prov356 wrote: |
THere is more wrong with homosexuality than just what the bible says about it. It isn't natural at
all. If we were meant to be with someone of the opposite sex, then we would be able to reproduce
with them without the help of modern day technology. A hundred years ago, would we have been able to procreate with someone of the same sex? No. So, even though gays can have children today with the help of modern day technology, it isn't natural.
I don't believe in what hitler and all those people did, but what I am doing is not the same. I am not mass slaughtering homosexuals because of their lifestyle. |
No, you're only saying they'll go to hell because they are sinners.
If it isn't natural then how come there are homosexuals, they are (as are we all) a product of nature after all. And plus, your god MADE them as people say he makes all of us. He made homosexuals too and then goes blaming them for his mistakes...Then it comes down to a matter of opinion, interaction, and science. Homosexuals are naturally attracted to those of the same sex the same as you're, I assume, attracted to those of the opposite sex. They are both equally as natural. Homosexuality is not a choice. Who would choose to be homosexual when it is obviously one of the most discriminated groups of people in the present day? Who would choose to have constant jokes thrown at them and have loads of daily prejudice shoved in their face? Nobody. If you're born being attracted to the opposite sex, who are you to say they aren't born being attracted to those of the opposite sex? And if God creates everyone as you say, then why would he create a homosexual, a person who is naturally attracted to the same sex, when he knows it is a sin? And again, you can believe what you wish until it invades the liberties and rights that everyone is deserving of...one of those is equality.
| Quote: |
No, you're only saying they'll go to hell because they are sinners.
If it isn't natural then how come there are homosexuals, they are (as are we all) a product of nature after all. And plus, your god MADE them as people say he makes all of us. He made homosexuals too and then goes blaming them for his mistakes... |
No one is a mistake. GOd loves us all. God created the people not the sin. God is perfect and cannot sin, thus He cannot create it. We create the sin. God may allow it, but with the sin comes the penalty. That is Hell. No matter who you are, what your sin is, we are all destined for Hell if we have not accepted Christ. IT is simple as that. I am not saying that homos are the only ones going to hell. God named it homsexuality as a sin in Leviticus 18:22: " Do not lie with a man as you would a woman; it is an abomination."Leviticus 20:13: If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." That makes it a sin does it not? THe penalty for sin is Hell, unless you turn from it and follow God. Yes, they will go to Hell bcause they are sinners, but my point is that you have to realize homsexuality is a sin. It isn't simply another activity that God doesn't care whether they participate in or not and is sending them to hell for kicking their brother when they were 11. No. It is a sin. | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| No one is a mistake. GOd loves us all. God created the people not the sin. God is perfect and cannot sin, thus He cannot create it. |
That is per definition wrong. God has created everything, according to the bible, and thus he has also created sin as there was no one else to create it. According to the bible he made us, according to the bible we sin and so god has created sin. The bible says he created everything, that would include sinning. | Coen wrote: |
| aames_prov356 wrote: | | No one is a mistake. GOd loves us all. God created the people not the sin. God is perfect and cannot sin, thus He cannot create it. |
That is per definition wrong. God has created everything, according to the bible, and thus he has also created sin as there was no one else to create it. According to the bible he made us, according to the bible we sin and so god has created sin. The bible says he created everything, that would include sinning. |
Are you an idiot? He created the concept of sinning, that does NOT mean he sins. He created creatures that can sin. Man created computers that can perform millions of mathematical calculations in a split-second, but that doesn't mean a man can perform a million mathematical calculations in a split-second. | Quote: |
| Are you an idiot? He created the concept of sinning, that does NOT mean he sins. He created creatures that can sin. Man created computers that can perform millions of mathematical calculations in a split-second, but that doesn't mean a man can perform a million mathematical calculations in a split-second |
no I am not an idiot, thank you. Satan created the concept of sin, not God. How can someone who is perfect create an idea(sin) that is imperfect? Impossible. God himself cannot sin, thus He could not create it.I was not referring to you, I was referring to Coen.
God created Humans, too, but are humans perfect? If we were perfect, we would never get sick, never feel disease, etc...
The only perfect thing in the universe and beyond is God. Satan, like humans, was given a choice to obey or disobey. Satan was given the ability to sin and make others (humans) sin, but he did not create the concept of sinning. He was merely given the ability to sin, and to make Humans sin. An angel cannot say "No" to God, nor can an angel be convinced by Satan to sin. But humans and Satan (djinn) can, and they will be punished for it later. By "can" I don't mean they are allowed to, of course, I mean that they are able to. (but will be punished)
So, summarizing it, God is perfect, but His creations aren't necessarily perfect, because he doesn't want them to be. We are his creations, but are we perfect? No. Perhaps the only humans that could remotely be called "perfect humans" were Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, and maybe some other prophets. (peace be upon them all)
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
| How can someone who is perfect create an idea(sin) that is imperfect? Impossible. God himself cannot sin, thus He could not create it. |
You seriously need to think about exactly what it is you believe in. Your last few statements are a total paradox.
1.) God does create imperfection, he creates humans right?
2.) If God cannot create sin, then he is NOT omnipotent.
3.) You seem to ignore the fact that God did technically create sin, after all he is the one who outlined right and wrong to everyone, right? If God didn't create it, there would be no such thing as sin.
Thats 3 different ways to prove that your statements are incorrect.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| He created the concept of sinning, that does NOT mean he sins. |
If thats what you really believe then you must accept that by creating the concept of sin, he is responsible for all sins that have ever happened. Your God must enjoy sin/sending people to burn for all eternity, after all he went to the trouble of creating the concept. What a funny guy he is, so full of conflict. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
I was not referring to you, I was referring to Coen.
God created Humans, too, but are humans perfect? If we were perfect, we would never get sick, never feel disease, etc...
The only perfect thing in the universe and beyond is God. Satan, like humans, was given a choice to obey or disobey. Satan was given the ability to sin and make others (humans) sin, but he did not create the concept of sinning. He was merely given the ability to sin, and to make Humans sin. An angel cannot say "No" to God, nor can an angel be convinced by Satan to sin. But humans and Satan (djinn) can, and they will be punished for it later. By "can" I don't mean they are allowed to, of course, I mean that they are able to. (but will be punished)
So, summarizing it, God is perfect, but His creations aren't necessarily perfect, because he doesn't want them to be. We are his creations, but are we perfect? No. Perhaps the only humans that could remotely be called "perfect humans" were Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, and maybe some other prophets. |
You are actually contradicting yourself by proving god is perfect as perfect would mean he would make no mistakes. However, by creating us he created imperfect beings with the ability to sin and do wrong while he would want us to behave. The simply fact that he made creatures that are imperfect whilst he did not intend it, as you can read in the bible for yourself, that would mean that god is not perfect at all. | Coen wrote: |
| You are actually contradicting yourself by proving god is perfect as perfect would mean he would make no mistakes. |
Creating the concept of sin was not a mistake. It was placed as a test for us.
| Quote: |
| However, by creating us he created imperfect beings with the ability to sin and do wrong while he would want us to behave. |
Unlike angels, we are able to sin, and it is a test for us.
| Quote: |
| The simply fact that he made creatures that are imperfect whilst he did not intend it... |
Oh, but He did intend it. He has stated that He is the only perfect being.
| Quote: |
| as you can read in the bible for yourself, that would mean that god is not perfect at all. |
Of course he is perfect. He wanted us to have flaws. What we make of those flaws defines who we really are.
Just a note, I believe in the Old, New, and Final Testaments. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Coen wrote: | | You are actually contradicting yourself by proving god is perfect as perfect would mean he would make no mistakes. |
Creating the concept of sin was not a mistake. It was placed as a test for us.
| Quote: | | However, by creating us he created imperfect beings with the ability to sin and do wrong while he would want us to behave. |
Unlike angels, we are able to sin, and it is a test for us. |
Wrong on both points. One: according to the bible, Satan was also an angel who fell. And two: the bible does not mention sin is made as a test for us. It is stated that humans are sinning creatures made by god. The twist you're giving it is incorrect as it is not stated as such in the bible, in which you claim to believe.Satan was a special angel who was able to sin...do you think Gabriel could defy God? We were made as 'sinning creatures', ie. creatures with the ability to sin. Ability given by God.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Satan was a special angel who was able to sin...do you think Gabriel could defy God? We were made as 'sinning creatures', ie. creatures with the ability to sin. Ability given by God. |
Given, meaning created and thus God created sin. In contradiction to what you've said before. And what use would there be in creating a special angel as god simply created the angels (for you at least). It sounds to me like you are searching ways out that aren't there.He created the ability to sin. To sin is to defy God. How can God defy God? There's no such thing. As for the concept of making a special, able-to-defy angel (Satan), well, while you're on Earth, either do what God wants you to or do what Satan wants you to. Do what Satan wants you to do (sin) and you will be punished...like two forces.
Sinning simply means to defy God. He created this concept by giving people (and satan) the ability to defy him, which Satan did and most people do.
Simply put, obey God gave us a choice to obey him and be rewarded later on, or defy him (ie. obey Satan) and be punished later on. So how does this mean that God sins?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
He created the ability to sin. To sin is to defy God. How can God defy God? There's no such thing. As for the concept of making a special, able-to-defy angel (Satan), well, while you're on Earth, either do what God wants you to or do what Satan wants you to. Do what Satan wants you to do (sin) and you will be punished...like two forces.
Sinning simply means to defy God. He created this concept by giving people (and satan) the ability to defy him, which Satan did and most people do.
Simply put, obey God gave us a choice to obey him and be rewarded later on, or defy him (ie. obey Satan) and be punished later on. So how does this mean that God sins? |
If someone happens to murder you later on in life (or any other person), that means God created that person with full knowledge that he was going to kill you one day.
Can we agree that by definition of omnipotence, God can tell the future and knows everything that you're going to do before you do it?
Now if I were to put the idea to murder in someones head, would I be any less accountable for that crime?
The things you are saying do not make sense. Its not that surprising since it comes from a book that was written in a time where if you acted strangely they would drill a hole in your head to let out the evil spirits(fluid).
Go ahead with the "God isn't supposed to/doesn't have to make sense" retort. If you really believed that, you wouldn't be trying so hard to justify his irrational actions in a logical way. | Quote: |
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
He created the ability to sin. To sin is to defy God. How can God defy God? There's no such thing. As for the concept of making a special, able-to-defy angel (Satan), well, while you're on Earth, either do what God wants you to or do what Satan wants you to. Do what Satan wants you to do (sin) and you will be punished...like two forces.
Sinning simply means to defy God. He created this concept by giving people (and satan) the ability to defy him, which Satan did and most people do.
Simply put, obey God gave us a choice to obey him and be rewarded later on, or defy him (ie. obey Satan) and be punished later on. So how does this mean that God sins?
-------- miacps wrote:-------
If someone happens to murder you later on in life (or any other person), that means God created that person with full knowledge that he was going to kill you one day.
Can we agree that by definition of omnipotence, God can tell the future and knows everything that you're going to do before you do it?
Now if I were to put the idea to murder in someones head, would I be any less accountable for that crime?
The things you are saying do not make sense. Its not that surprising since it comes from a book that was written in a time where if you acted strangely they would drill a hole in your head to let out the evil spirits(fluid).
Go ahead with the "God isn't supposed to/doesn't have to make sense" retort. If you really believed that, you wouldn't be trying so hard to justify his irrational actions in a logical way. |
God does know everything that anyone is going to do, yes. However, He gives us all a choice. He would be giving that person that murdered so and so a fair chance to not do so. By creating humans as beings that could sin, did He not also create us as beings who could also refrain from sin? Yes, as a matter of fact He did. Everyone sins from time to time, but did you ever notice the difference between those who actually try to control themselves and those who don't? There is a distinct difference. How is this possible? Free choice. God doesn't put the idea into a criminals mind. That would be Satan aka the Devil. God told us that we have free choice, and the criminal obviously exercises free choice. Just because God grants us free choice, doesn't mean that He put the idea of ie murder as you said into someone's head. Your parents probably allow you to or did allow you to do as you wished, but you would be recieving the consequences. Not saying that you did this, but there are kids out there that kill their parents by burning the house down. The parents told them to not play with fire. Is this the same as putting the idea into their heads to burn their house down and kill them? I don't think so. Look at what happened at Columbine. I don't think that the parents or God put that into their heads. THey were probably told to not play with guns or if they did have a weapon, to never point it at someone else. obviously they did as they wished. But what they did was not the parents fault. They killed the people, innocents, not the parents nor God.The argument "It's their choice" makes me laugh.
When did you choose to be straight?
Just my 2 cents.
It is distasteful to me that a thread which started out about homosexuality is now concentrating on killers. This implies some sort of equivalence.
I understand how the discussion got to this point and I am not criticising, per se, but I think it would be helpful if it now returned to the issue of homosexuality and left behind the references to murder and killing....
| Soulfire wrote: |
The argument "It's their choice" makes me laugh.
When did you choose to be straight?
Just my 2 cents. |
exactly, if you CHOOSE to be homosexual then you should also CHOOSE to be straight.
but also if it is about choice then doesn't it apply to all forms of sexual orientation i.e if i choose to be gay or straight then i also have a choice of zoophillia and other forms of evil sex fetishes.... | Soulfire wrote: |
The argument "It's their choice" makes me laugh.
When did you choose to be straight?
Just my 2 cents. |
It's not a choice. People simply fight against those feelings as has been shown the past few years with married men coming out and revealing they're homosexuality, because it's at least semi-accepted these days in society..and it wasn't acceptable even as short as 6-7 years ago. People defending it by saying it's a choice are obviously not using their words wisely. | miacps wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | He created the ability to sin. To sin is to defy God. How can God defy God? There's no such thing. As for the concept of making a special, able-to-defy angel (Satan), well, while you're on Earth, either do what God wants you to or do what Satan wants you to. Do what Satan wants you to do (sin) and you will be punished...like two forces.
Sinning simply means to defy God. He created this concept by giving people (and satan) the ability to defy him, which Satan did and most people do.
Simply put, obey God gave us a choice to obey him and be rewarded later on, or defy him (ie. obey Satan) and be punished later on. So how does this mean that God sins? |
If someone happens to murder you later on in life (or any other person), that means God created that person with full knowledge that he was going to kill you one day.
Can we agree that by definition of omnipotence, God can tell the future and knows everything that you're going to do before you do it?
Now if I were to put the idea to murder in someones head, would I be any less accountable for that crime? |
Well, you need to know that God is outside of the laws of time and space, and so He knows everything that's going to happen. If I killed someone today, God had always known I would, but it was my choice. If I chose not to kill this person, God would have always known that I would not kill this person.. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| miacps wrote: | | HalfBloodPrince wrote: | He created the ability to sin. To sin is to defy God. How can God defy God? There's no such thing. As for the concept of making a special, able-to-defy angel (Satan), well, while you're on Earth, either do what God wants you to or do what Satan wants you to. Do what Satan wants you to do (sin) and you will be punished...like two forces.
Sinning simply means to defy God. He created this concept by giving people (and satan) the ability to defy him, which Satan did and most people do.
Simply put, obey God gave us a choice to obey him and be rewarded later on, or defy him (ie. obey Satan) and be punished later on. So how does this mean that God sins? |
If someone happens to murder you later on in life (or any other person), that means God created that person with full knowledge that he was going to kill you one day.
Can we agree that by definition of omnipotence, God can tell the future and knows everything that you're going to do before you do it?
Now if I were to put the idea to murder in someones head, would I be any less accountable for that crime? |
Well, you need to know that God is outside of the laws of time and space, and so He knows everything that's going to happen. If I killed someone today, God had always known I would, but it was my choice. If I chose not to kill this person, God would have always known that I would not kill this person.. |
If everything is predestined then what is this silly "free will" stuff? If God basically writes your life story and what you will amount to, then is he not creating evil individuals who he knows will end up murdering somebody or something of the sort?This is why God is above us.
What you do is up to you, it's just that God already knows what judgment you will come to.
If I am in a position to kill someone, and choose not to kill them, well that was my own, free decision, but God knew I was going to reach that decision.
What has this got to do with homosexuality?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
This is why God is above us.
What you do is up to you, it's just that God already knows what judgment you will come to.
If I am in a position to kill someone, and choose not to kill them, well that was my own, free decision, but God knew I was going to reach that decision. |
Then he also knows the individuals who will actually commit the crime rather than move away from the situation. Therefore, he creates individuals who he knows will commit murder or other crimes? I fail to see how the logic applies to people who perform the "right" action and doesn't apply to people who perform the "wrong" action.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| What has this got to do with homosexuality? |
Not sure.
But it's apparent most people have put their views on homosexuality out there and they don't intend to change their minds.Sorry if I contributed to this thread going a little off topic.
I think I've said all I need to on the subject so I'll leave the discussion to you guys.
The bottom line in my opinion is, homosexuality is not a choice so people shouldn't have a problem with it. Its not hurting anyone.
| miacps wrote: |
Sorry if I contributed to this thread going a little off topic.
I think I've said all I need to on the subject so I'll leave the discussion to you guys.
The bottom line in my opinion is, homosexuality is not a choice so people shouldn't have a problem with it. Its not hurting anyone. |
so if it isnt a choice and it something you are born with or something you just are then shouldnt like i said before ALL sexual preference be the same ..
i.e.- if gay is ok then why isn't bestiality?
just because its not a choice doesnt mean people wont have problems with it.
I don think homosexuality is ok, no I am not religious I dont believe in god in any way but I still think homosexuality is wrong but I am not going to do anything about it since i really don't care if someone likes it up the south side.Well, personally speaking I see no major problems with any sexual activity that does not expoit. Whether that would include bestiality depends, I suppose, on your view of animals (is it more exploitative to have sex with an animal than it is to raise it for food and eat it?). Vegatarians could probably make a convincing case against bestiality but I think meat eaters would have a harder time, if they were to avoid hypocrisy.
It's not a simple comparison, however. We know that a fairly high proportion of people are gay (percentages vary from 5-15% - The Kinsey report, for example, put it around 10%). Other sexual preferences are much rarer.
For me it is an issue of personal freedom, pure and simple. Talk of 'un-natural' is, as already shown, neither accurate nor useful.
For religious people there are potential religious objections based on scripture but since I'm not such a person I have no such objections.
| Bannik wrote: |
| miacps wrote: | Sorry if I contributed to this thread going a little off topic.
I think I've said all I need to on the subject so I'll leave the discussion to you guys.
The bottom line in my opinion is, homosexuality is not a choice so people shouldn't have a problem with it. Its not hurting anyone. |
so if it isnt a choice and it something you are born with or something you just are then shouldnt like i said before ALL sexual preference be the same ..
i.e.- if gay is ok then why isn't bestiality?
just because its not a choice doesnt mean people wont have problems with it.
I don think homosexuality is ok, no I am not religious I dont believe in god in any way but I still think homosexuality is wrong but I am not going to do anything about it since i really don't care if someone likes it up the south side. |
Well, there's quite the difference between wanting to marry a camel and wanting to marry a consenting adult =/ The subject involves more than just homosexual sex in my opinion. That's just a subtopic of homosexuality. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Bannik wrote: | | miacps wrote: | Sorry if I contributed to this thread going a little off topic.
I think I've said all I need to on the subject so I'll leave the discussion to you guys.
The bottom line in my opinion is, homosexuality is not a choice so people shouldn't have a problem with it. Its not hurting anyone. |
so if it isnt a choice and it something you are born with or something you just are then shouldnt like i said before ALL sexual preference be the same ..
i.e.- if gay is ok then why isn't bestiality?
just because its not a choice doesnt mean people wont have problems with it.
I don think homosexuality is ok, no I am not religious I dont believe in god in any way but I still think homosexuality is wrong but I am not going to do anything about it since i really don't care if someone likes it up the south side. |
Well, there's quite the difference between wanting to marry a camel and wanting to marry a consenting adult =/ The subject involves more than just homosexual sex in my opinion. That's just a subtopic of homosexuality. |
erm this is not about marriage and the point I was making is that if someones sexual preference is not determined by choice and is partially genetic then shouldn't that apply to all sexual preferences not just straight and gay...of course I understand that homosexuality is between consulting adults (in some cases even teens) but that has nothing to do with the sexual preference especially if its genetic.
think about it, how can you at one point say "gay is ok because its genetic" then turn around and tell someone with a different sexual preference "oh what you do is wrong you need psychiatric help"I agree that this is not about marriage - that is a separate institution.
Notice, however, that I did not make the argument for freedom of sexual preference based on genetics. To me, as I said, it is an issue of basic human freedoms. There is thought to be some genetic component in sexuality, I agree. How important it is as opposed to environmental issues I don't know - sexuality is a complex thing.
I think, however, that you are on a slippery slope once you start arguing issues of choice based on genetic grounds. What happens, for example, if a genetic component of criminality is finally isolated? Is it then necessary to distinguish genetic criminals from non-genetic? Should we separate obese people with the 'fat gene' and give them our sympathy whilst stigmatising obese people without it?
| Bikerman wrote: |
I agree that this is not about marriage - that is a separate institution.
Notice, however, that I did not make the argument for freedom of sexual preference based on genetics. To me, as I said, it is an issue of basic human freedoms. There is thought to be some genetic component in sexuality, I agree. How important it is as opposed to environmental issues I don't know - sexuality is a complex thing.
I think, however, that you are on a slippery slope once you start arguing issues of choice based on genetic grounds. What happens, for example, if a genetic component of criminality is finally isolated? Is it then necessary to distinguish genetic criminals from non-genetic? Should we separate obese people with the 'fat gene' and give them our sympathy whilst stigmatising obese people without it? |
Openly practicing homosexual relationships isn't a crime however. Doing so harms no one as a criminal act would and it is between two consenting people. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Openly practicing homosexual relationships isn't a crime however. |
Oh, i beg to differ.
In the US, even having a homosexual relationship was a crime in 14 states until 2003, when a SCOTUS ruling Lawrence v. Texas found that such laws are unconstitutional. Three states still continue to enforce anti-homosexual laws under "crime against nature" statutes even today (unconstitutionally).
And that's in the US. Many other countries still have laws that make being gay illegal.
Perhaps you meant to say that practising homosexual relationships shouldn't be a crime?
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Doing so harms no one as a criminal act would and it is between two consenting people. |
So you say, but the thing is, those who wish to enforce anti-homosexual laws argue that homosexuality does harm people (other than those actively involved in it).
Their argument stems from indecency laws. Consider: do you think there should be a law against two people having (heterosexual) sex in public? Why (or why not)?
The normal answers are "yes" and "because witnessing the act somehow harms those who see it" (if someone could explain to me in detail how it harms those people, i'd be grateful, because i can't figure it out). The result: indecency laws that prevent nudity in public, sex in public, obscene media, and so on.
If you argued that witnessing homosexual acts (even implied homosexual acts) in public is similarly damaging, then you'd have your law against homosexuality.
Anyone want to take a stab at it? | Indi wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Openly practicing homosexual relationships isn't a crime however. |
Oh, i beg to differ.
In the US, even having a homosexual relationship was a crime in 14 states until 2003, when a SCOTUS ruling Lawrence v. Texas found that such laws are unconstitutional. Three states still continue to enforce anti-homosexual laws under "crime against nature" statutes even today (unconstitutionally).
And that's in the US. Many other countries still have laws that make being gay illegal.
Perhaps you meant to say that practising homosexual relationships shouldn't be a crime?
| liljp617 wrote: | | Doing so harms no one as a criminal act would and it is between two consenting people. |
So you say, but the thing is, those who wish to enforce anti-homosexual laws argue that homosexuality does harm people (other than those actively involved in it).
Their argument stems from indecency laws. Consider: do you think there should be a law against two people having (heterosexual) sex in public? Why (or why not)?
The normal answers are "yes" and "because witnessing the act somehow harms those who see it" (if someone could explain to me in detail how it harms those people, i'd be grateful, because i can't figure it out). The result: indecency laws that prevent nudity in public, sex in public, obscene media, and so on.
If you argued that witnessing homosexual acts (even implied homosexual acts) in public is similarly damaging, then you'd have your law against homosexuality.
Anyone want to take a stab at it? |
Two men walking down the street holding hands or giving each other a kiss (as much as one may not care to see it) doesn't fit the definition of a crime in any way. It is neither physically nor mentally harmful to anyone of any age. I can't say I care what some absurd law in a BibleBelt state (most likely) says about it...there's no harm done to anyone in that situation. It's not indecent for a heterosexual couple to do such a thing in public, so how does the scene change when it's a homosexual couple? However, there's an obvious big difference between a couple holding hands/kissing in public and a couple having sex in public. To put them on equal grounds is silly. A five year old seeing any couple having sex in public is not psychologically ready to see that. There is very distinct scientific proof that children at young ages should not be exposed to something of that nature. That's a far cry from a homosexual couple making it known that they're affectionate of each other. Obviously there is unnecessary behavior in public...but that goes for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. The thing with anti-homosexual people claiming that seeing homosexuals interact with each other in public hurts those around is that these anti-homosexual people never provide any evidence or proof that this is true. I can provide proof that says seeing any couple having sex in public is psychologically harmful to any one who is still maturing (specifically young children). Until there is credible evidence/studies that show seeing a homosexual show affection in public harms others physically or psychologically, the theory has no grounding.
But I understand that you're basically just stating where the laws/ideas come from. The fact is, indecency is (should be) equal for any couple. If a heterosexual couple has different standards and limits than a homosexual couple, that's prejudice and discrimination. And based on the US Constitution and the US justice system, prejudice and discrimination based on sex/gender/race/etc. is illegal and unacceptable. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Two men walking down the street holding hands or giving each other a kiss (as much as one may not care to see it) doesn't fit the definition of a crime in any way. |
Says who? ^_^; You keep throwing down assertions as if they cannot be questioned: "this is not a crime", "this doesn't harm anyone", etc. but you don't do much to back them up. Watch:
| liljp617 wrote: |
| It is neither physically nor mentally harmful to anyone of any age. I can't say I care what some absurd law in a BibleBelt state (most likely) says about it...there's no harm done to anyone in that situation. |
If i show that it implies sexuality in an indecent way - the same as a nude person in public, or someone giving someone else a handjob in public - and if those things are somehow harmful (as you go on to say, but i will challenge in a bit), then yes, "harm" can be done.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| It's not indecent for a heterosexual couple to do such a thing in public, so how does the scene change when it's a homosexual couple? |
Apples and oranges. It may be that it is indecent for heterosexuals to publicly display affection... however, since heterosexual breeding partners are required for there to be a next generation, tolerance of these mating behaviours may be required. If we put a complete social lock down on heterosexual hand-holding and kissing, the birth rate may drop. Homosexual relationships are not required to keep society alive, so there is no reason that we must tolerate their mating behaviours or public displays of affection.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| However, there's an obvious big difference between a couple holding hands/kissing in public and a couple having sex in public. To put them on equal grounds is silly. |
Why?
And you completely ignored the other examples. Nudity? Obscenity?
And what about the newest example - a public handjob?
| liljp617 wrote: |
| A five year old seeing any couple having sex in public is not psychologically ready to see that. There is very distinct scientific proof that children at young ages should not be exposed to something of that nature. |
Distinct scientific proof? Can you supply that distinct scientific proof?
The only "proof" of that sort that i know of suggests that children who witness sexual acts as a child are more likely to be more sexually active in later life. And that's a problem... because...?
| liljp617 wrote: |
| That's a far cry from a homosexual couple making it known that they're affectionate of each other. Obviously there is unnecessary behavior in public...but that goes for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. |
"Necessary behaviour". As i said, heterosexual flirting can be considered "necessary" by a society in order to continue the society - in that heterosexual flirting increases the probability of heterosexual sex, which increases the probability of children.
Why is it necessary for two gay men or two gay women to hold hands and kiss in public?
| liljp617 wrote: |
| The thing with anti-homosexual people claiming that seeing homosexuals interact with each other in public hurts those around is that these anti-homosexual people never provide any evidence or proof that this is true. I can provide proof that says seeing any couple having sex in public is psychologically harmful to any one who is still maturing (specifically young children). Until there is credible evidence/studies that show seeing a homosexual show affection in public harms others physically or psychologically, the theory has no grounding. |
i am not "anti-homosexual", and nothing of what i have said is either. If homosexuality is damaging to the public, it should be restricted. Isn't that logical?
And i may not be providing scientific proof (yet ^_^), but i am providing a plausible hypothesis, based on the evidence that you yourself are providing! If public sexuality is harmful, it should be restricted... except in cases where the benefits outweigh the harm. That would be true for heterosexual flirting... how would it be true for homosexual flirting?
| liljp617 wrote: |
| But I understand that you're basically just stating where the laws/ideas come from. The fact is, indecency is (should be) equal for any couple. If a heterosexual couple has different standards and limits than a homosexual couple, that's prejudice and discrimination. And based on the US Constitution and the US justice system, prejudice and discrimination based on sex/gender/race/etc. is illegal and unacceptable. |
Wanna bet? | Quote: |
| I can't say I care what some absurd law in a BibleBelt state (most likely) says about it...there's no harm done to anyone in that situation. |
It makes me physically ill to see two men or two women all over each other in public. Just thinking about it makes me want to throw up right now. I don't think that that kind of reaction is beneficial or neutral. That does me harm. | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | | I can't say I care what some absurd law in a BibleBelt state (most likely) says about it...there's no harm done to anyone in that situation. |
It makes me physically ill to see two men or two women all over each other in public. Just thinking about it makes me want to throw up right now. I don't think that that kind of reaction is beneficial or neutral. That does me harm. |
There are principles for all relationships in public. Define "all over each other." Based on my views of that phrase, I don't care to see any couple all over each other in public. If it makes you physically sick I think you have other things to worry about than people being homosexual. How it could make anyone physically want to throw up is beyond me...
People make it seem like if homosexuals are allowed to go into marriage together and be openly integrated into society they'll go around ****** each other in the ass in the middle of the sidewalk. Sorry to be so blunt and using those words, but it's the way some of the people here come across with their ideas (not solely directed toward the post I quoted). | Indi wrote: |
| i am not "anti-homosexual", and nothing of what i have said is either. If homosexuality is damaging to the public, it should be restricted. Isn't that logical? |
Logical, yes. Practical, maybe not so much.
The problem I have is this:
Person A says "homosexuality is not a crime"
You say "homosexuality could be perceived as a crime"
But what is perception but (almost) pure subjection? Couldn't many other things be perceived as a crime? What about heterosexuals holding hands, what if a gay person finds that to be "criminal" ... does that mean the law should reflect as such?
Not necessarily.
So who are you arguing for, Indi? If we allow it up to "everyone's interpretation" then all laws should cease to exist, or (on the other extreme) every act should be considered illegal because SOMEONE out there may perceive it to be a crime. | Soulfire wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | i am not "anti-homosexual", and nothing of what i have said is either. If homosexuality is damaging to the public, it should be restricted. Isn't that logical? |
Logical, yes. Practical, maybe not so much.
The problem I have is this:
Person A says "homosexuality is not a crime"
You say "homosexuality could be perceived as a crime"
But what is perception but (almost) pure subjection? Couldn't many other things be perceived as a crime? What about heterosexuals holding hands, what if a gay person finds that to be "criminal" ... does that mean the law should reflect as such?
Not necessarily.
So who are you arguing for, Indi? If we allow it up to "everyone's interpretation" then all laws should cease to exist, or (on the other extreme) every act should be considered illegal because SOMEONE out there may perceive it to be a crime. |
Er... i don't recall saying that homosexuality can be perceived as a crime - and i certainly didn't imply anywhere that crimes should be defined subjectively.
What i said is that if you can find a way to define homosexual behaviour as harmful, then it should be a crime. i then went on to point out that "indecency laws" could possibly be used to define homosexual behaviour as harmful (and i didn't say anything about what i thought about indecency laws - personally i think they're idiotic - but if they really do protect from harm... then...), and if you could then you'd have your anti-homosexual law.
i also said that just because heterosexual acts are legal it doesn't necessarily follow that homosexual acts have to be legal as well. You could argue that heterosexual acts are dangerous to society just as much as homosexual acts (using indecency laws, for example), but that society requires heterosexual acts as a necessary evil, so they should not be made illegal while homosexual acts could.
Basically my thesis is that if laws are defined to protect individuals and/or society from harm, emphasis on the latter - and the should be defined in that way, i think, unless someone can suggest some other way to do it - and if sex (all sex, hetero and homo) is somehow harmful to individuals (as indecency laws suggest), then sex should be against the law. However, heterosexual sex could be excused because even though it harms individuals it is required by society - but homosexual sex cannot be excused this way. | Indi wrote: |
| Soulfire wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | i am not "anti-homosexual", and nothing of what i have said is either. If homosexuality is damaging to the public, it should be restricted. Isn't that logical? |
Logical, yes. Practical, maybe not so much.
The problem I have is this:
Person A says "homosexuality is not a crime"
You say "homosexuality could be perceived as a crime"
But what is perception but (almost) pure subjection? Couldn't many other things be perceived as a crime? What about heterosexuals holding hands, what if a gay person finds that to be "criminal" ... does that mean the law should reflect as such?
Not necessarily.
So who are you arguing for, Indi? If we allow it up to "everyone's interpretation" then all laws should cease to exist, or (on the other extreme) every act should be considered illegal because SOMEONE out there may perceive it to be a crime. |
Er... i don't recall saying that homosexuality can be perceived as a crime - and i certainly didn't imply anywhere that crimes should be defined subjectively.
What i said is that if you can find a way to define homosexual behaviour as harmful, then it should be a crime. i then went on to point out that "indecency laws" could possibly be used to define homosexual behaviour as harmful (and i didn't say anything about what i thought about indecency laws - personally i think they're idiotic - but if they really do protect from harm... then...), and if you could then you'd have your anti-homosexual law.
i also said that just because heterosexual acts are legal it doesn't necessarily follow that homosexual acts have to be legal as well. You could argue that heterosexual acts are dangerous to society just as much as homosexual acts (using indecency laws, for example), but that society requires heterosexual acts as a necessary evil, so they should not be made illegal while homosexual acts could.
Basically my thesis is that if laws are defined to protect individuals and/or society from harm, emphasis on the latter - and the should be defined in that way, i think, unless someone can suggest some other way to do it - and if sex (all sex, hetero and homo) is somehow harmful to individuals (as indecency laws suggest), then sex should be against the law. However, heterosexual sex could be excused because even though it harms individuals it is required by society - but homosexual sex cannot be excused this way. |
I know indi you are godlike in knowledge but you made a little mistake, heterosexual sex is not required by society, reproduction of the species is, even a homosexual can have sex with a woman and bare a child and still be homosexual.
i don't know if its true but i heard the ancient spartan or greeks had a saying
a man for respect
a boy for pleasure
a woman for duty..... don't quote me, a student of mine who studied ancient lit told me this, i don't know if its true but i am using this as a point that sex is not the same as reproduction. | Bannik wrote: |
| I know indi you are godlike in knowledge but you made a little mistake, heterosexual sex is not required by society, reproduction of the species is, even a homosexual can have sex with a woman and bare a child and still be homosexual. |
Godlike in knowledge? ^_^; Hardly.
However... anytime a man and a woman have sex, that's heterosexual sex, even it's a gay man and a lesbian that do it. There's heterosexual people - people who prefer heterosexual relationships (and probably heterosexual sex) - then there's heterosexual sex.
So a homosexual person could have heterosexual sex, and vice versa, a heterosexual person can have homosexual sex. As you say, a homosexual man can have sex with a woman and still be "as queer as a nine bob note"... but while he's doing it (*ahem*, or doing her - pardon me, but there was just no way to make that sentence polite), he's a homosexual person doing heterosexual sex.
In order to make babies the old fashioned way, you need heterosexual sex. You don't need heterosexual people - you could have a country that is all gay men and women, but you're not going to have any babies unless they have some heterosexual sex to make those babies. That's why i said heterosexual sex is required by society. Even a completely gay society needs heterosexual sex if they want to make babies (the old fashioned way).
