Oh, THAT's who it is!
Er... I mean.. I never watched celebrity boxing, honest! :D :D :D
Although it was fun watching Joanie Laurer punch the hell out of Joey Butt-a-face-o.
Printable View
Oh, THAT's who it is!
Er... I mean.. I never watched celebrity boxing, honest! :D :D :D
Although it was fun watching Joanie Laurer punch the hell out of Joey Butt-a-face-o.
Romans 1:27-28Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Now here's where I have the problem with your statement... can you present to me any sort of convincing evidence that the Bible actually describes what God wants, and that He doesn't think it is a bunch of bullcrap as well?
"27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28: And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"
The purpose of Christ's presense on earth was not to get involved in the pseudo-political sctruggles against the oppressive priesthood of the day. Christ transcended these issues by coming to offer people a way out of the oppression. As he said, "I have come to seek and to save that which was lost".Quote:
Originally posted by NooNoo
That is an extremely important statement.
The fact that homosexuality is even mentioned in the Old Testament bears witness to how long homosexuality has been around. It is not going to go away regardless of punishment or restriction.
A lot of the "christians" I have met spout their love of Jesus, but have an Old Testament mentality.
From my point of view Jesus was a sensible guy that looked around him at the punishment and horrors perpertrated in God's name and called time on them, because he found that the priests and high officials enjoyed the power and the control and probably the punishment of others too.
My other concern is that if Jesus really did return would the Catholic and other christian churches believe? I say probably not.
Also, the verses reference in the post above specifically indicate that God is NOT trying to stop homosexuality. On the contrary, he is acknowledging that it exist and will continue to do so. Homosexuality is a sin like any other sin and sin without forgiveness and salvation is punishable by death. However, those who accept forgiveness and repent of their sins will never see punishment.
That is far from an Old Testament notion.
I am in no way sticking up for the pervert Catholic priests. I just think that because of their enourmous influence in their communities, priests who are charged with molesting children seem to get an inordinate amount of press attention, which often translates into a negative stereotype against all people of faith. I think these priests should get the maximum sentence and then some for what they did.Quote:
Originally posted by ilovetheusers
Never known you to ever say anything you couldn't back up but - how do you know that? I would bet almost any amount of $$ that you have a stat somewhere or you would not have said it, but... Are child molesters lining up to take a survey?:rolleyes: :D
The argument was that if they were not priests, more would have gone to jail. Further if this was say "procter and gamble" doing the ocver up you would be assured that there would have been a prosecuter nailing someone to the wall. The bishops (or whoever) who moved the priests around (and basically aided them in molesting others) were never held acountable. Having your name in the press does not make up for aiding molesters in raping and harming more children.
If this was a different, non major religious group they would have been nailed to the wall. That was what I was getting at. they got a pass because they were Christian. Any other group would have been persecuted. Any "persecution" that went on in the press was overwhelmingly deserved and honestly was no where near enough IMHO.
BTW - glad to see you posting again. :)
You're right. I don't have any stats at hand to back up my statement, but I'll bet they wouldn't be hard to find now.
ROFL!!!!!Quote:
Originally posted by meatwad
Look Cletus, if you want to sleep with your mother or sister, I'm fine with that. But sleeping with your brother. Eeeeeew. :p :D
In fact, God did NOT write the bible himself. He inspired godly men to write the books of the Bible. I arrived at this conclusion after reading the Bible all the way through several times. There are far to many elements of the architecture of the Bible that smack of divine design to believe any other explanation. To date, scholars have yet to refute this. They may have made specific arguments against specific passages, but the overwhelming preponderance of evidence rests on the side of divine inspiration.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
How do you know God wrote the Bible? The simple answer is, you don't. Your priests and your parents told you it was true, so you assume it must be.
Okay, now I am very interested. What sort of evidence are you talking about? How does one prove that a given piece of writing is divinely inspired, and another piece is not?Quote:
Originally posted by KINGofBLEH
In fact, God did NOT write the bible himself. He inspired godly men to write the books of the Bible. I arrived at this conclusion after reading the Bible all the way through several times. There are far to many elements of the architecture of the Bible that smack of divine design to believe any other explanation. To date, scholars have yet to refute this. They may have made specific arguments against specific passages, but the overwhelming preponderance of evidence rests on the side of divine inspiration.
For example, let's take a religious text written by a gay minister who feels that God has guided him to write it to explain how God loves and accepts gays for who they are. He would tell you that his writing is Divinely inspired.
What makes him wrong and you right? What evidence proves your Bible is better than his writing?
The only validity to your argument here is that I chose the name Ya_Know, the same that homosexuals chose to be gay. But this is still apples and oranges in comparison to the original argument I presented, so you will have to do better.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Who says?
What if I say that bottom line, people named Ya_Know are just strange, and I don't want to be a part of a society that so easily accepts them as normal?
What is the difference, Ya_Know?
To ILOVETHEUSERS, the suggestion you make that homophobes have a tendency to be gay themselves is a fallacy. It is a mindless retort in an effort to spark rage and anxiety in those that oppose the week view of acceptance. To start, people that oppose homosexuality don’t necessarily fear anything, and I know certainly that I am not a homophobe. I simply believe that this behavior is wrong.
I have heard it all from both sides, and studied this subject in Humanities where I gained a full perspective through some intense classroom arguments that never made it to name calling or disrespect from either side. You can make all of the cheep shots you want, but this only discredits your argument; and by the end of the day no one has proven this is an irreversible genetic occurrence, or that it should be openly accepted with good reason.
1. That four accounts of the life of Christ can be written by four different authors in different locations and different decades without any means of direct communication between them, and the four accounts have remarkable similarity.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Okay, now I am very interested. What sort of evidence are you talking about? How does one prove that a given piece of writing is divinely inspired, and another piece is not?
For example, let's take a religious text written by a gay minister who feels that God has guided him to write it to explain how God loves and accepts gays for who they are. He would tell you that his writing is Divinely inspired.
What makes him wrong and you right? What evidence proves your Bible is better than his writing?
2. That poor uneducated fishermen reference detailed texts in the Old Testament given they had little to no formal education.
3. That the majority of the New Testament writings are restatements of the words of Christ, some of which by authors who never knew Christ personally while here on earth.
There are many other somewhat less significant evidences that can be cited here.
Many Christian writings outside of the Bible have claimed to be divinely inspired, and some are. But for the most part these writings are just reinterpretations of the orginal source.
I do not claim to be a top notch scholar in these areas. There are people who have put in many years of research and analysis. In case you are interested, you may want to check out some of the writings by Josh McDowell and Ravi Zacharias (sp. "Evidence That Demands a Verdict"). I am not trying to promote these guys in any way, just giving a more articulate source of these arguments than myself.
I couldn't agree more. While on the debate team in college, my debate partner of two years was gay. For those who do not know, collegiate acedemic debate requires an average of 20-25 hours a week of debate topic research and practice. Additionally, we traveled to 10-15 debate tournaments a year where sometimes the guys were required to share hotel rooms due to school budget constraints. During that time I never once complained about sharing a hotel room with him or having to be on the same team with someone who was openly gay. I did not hate him or fear him or his homosexuality. In fact we became known as "The Odd Couple" of the debate circuit....he was the neat and clean gay guy and I was the filthy slob straight guy.Quote:
Originally posted by Ya_know
To ILOVETHEUSERS, the suggestion you make that homophobes have a tendency to be gay themselves is a fallacy. It is a mindless retort in an effort to spark rage and anxiety in those that oppose the week view of acceptance. To start, people that oppose homosexuality don’t necessarily fear anything, and I know certainly that I am not a homophobe. I simply believe that this behavior is wrong.
:D
I was and continue to be secure in my heterosexuality. He knew where I stood on the issue and there was no need for me to constantly badger him about it
This is a most relevent topic and has been a spirited debate on the subject. I am sorry I have not been able to post responses in a timely fashion, but we have been swamped with projects lately at work and one of my coworkers just quit and another is going out on jury duty for 60 days. Some nights I get home and I and just too beat to even turn on the PC. So if I dont respond to your posts in a timely fashion, please accept my apologies in advance.
Sorry Clammy I'm going to highjack this thread for just a second ;) .
I have a question(s) to all. Homosexuality is not confined to humans. Other mammals exhibit the trait, most notably Bottlenose Dolphins, and there are several others, how is this reconciled with the belief that homosexuality is a learned behavior? These behaviors have been observed for many, many years. It's been observed in the wild and in captivity.
My conclusion:
This perplexed me through my college years, when I first heard of it in biology classes, but as I have gotten a lot older :( I have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is predisposed, not to be legislated, condemned, or judged. It's not a religious moral, a social deviation, or family shame. It just is.
I may be mistaken, but I didn't get the impression it was being put forward in this thread that homosexuality is learned, I remember discussion suggesting whatever the cause, there are cases where it can be un-learned, and vociferous opposition to that suggestion. I would point out that establishing that a behaviour can be natural in no way proves that it cannot be un-learned, or that there is anything wrong or detrimental in un-learning it.Quote:
Originally posted by Major Kong
Sorry Clammy I'm going to highjack this thread for just a second ;) .
I have a question(s) to all. Homosexuality is not confined to humans. Other mammals exhibit the trait, most notably Bottlenose Dolphins, and there are several others, how is this reconciled with the belief that homosexuality is a learned behavior? These behaviors have been observed for many, many years. It's been observed in the wild and in captivity.
My conclusion:
This perplexed me through my college years, when I first heard of it in biology classes, but as I have gotten a lot older :( I have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is predisposed, not to be legislated, condemned, or judged. It's not a religious moral, a social deviation, or family shame. It just is.
However my reaction to the situation with animal behaviour is to note that although animals do a lot of things, it doesn't convince me that necessarily means anything in defining human behaviour.
Some animals eat dung, either their own or that of others. It's perfectly natural, it's not a religious moral, a social deviation, or family shame. It just is. But that does not convince me I should do the same, or that I should regard coprophilia as normal or sensible for humans.
So as a person, and as a Christian, I don't conclude that animal behaviour is any more useful in defining human sexual behaviour.
To add to Platypus's example, most males in the animal world use physical violence against and even kill other males of their species for the purpose of dominating the heard during breeding season. However, humans do not resort to such methods when on a date, for example. This is one of those things that distinguishes humans from the rest of the animals. We come up with much more crafty and less violent ways of wooing a breedmare (i.e. manipulation, etc.).Quote:
Originally posted by Major Kong
Sorry Clammy I'm going to highjack this thread for just a second ;) .
I have a question(s) to all. Homosexuality is not confined to humans. Other mammals exhibit the trait, most notably Bottlenose Dolphins, and there are several others, how is this reconciled with the belief that homosexuality is a learned behavior? These behaviors have been observed for many, many years. It's been observed in the wild and in captivity.
My conclusion:
This perplexed me through my college years, when I first heard of it in biology classes, but as I have gotten a lot older :( I have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is predisposed, not to be legislated, condemned, or judged. It's not a religious moral, a social deviation, or family shame. It just is.
You're missing my point. I didn't intend that as a cheap shot. Perhaps a better example would be for me to find out what hair color you have, and decide that that is wrong in the eyes of the Lord.Quote:
Originally posted by Ya_know
The only validity to your argument here is that I chose the name Ya_Know, the same that homosexuals chose to be gay. But this is still apples and oranges in comparison to the original argument I presented, so you will have to do better.
You're WRONG. Nobody chooses to be gay.
Kingofbleh, essentially your response to me boils down to "several people happen to have written similar things independently of each other", therefore God must have inspired them. Am I the only person who finds this spurious? I am entirely certain that throughout history, several people have written Anti-Semitic literature and pornographic stories and motherboard instruction manuals without direct inspiration from each other. Does that prove that God was guiding their hands?
And furthermore, where is your proof that "Divinely inspired" means "100% accurate"? the fact of the matter is, people are human beings. We are not perfect. Even if we are genuinely trying to do the right thing, we make mistakes. We screw up. Examples litter history and the present day of people who THOUGHT they were doing the work of God, but were in reality being extremely evil.
How do you know whether the writers of the Bible aren't these people as well?
That's why I apologized to Clammy before highjacking the thread, it was off topic of the original thought. Nor was it an argument supporting or opposing homosexuality.Quote:
Originally posted by Platypus
I may be mistaken, but I didn't get the impression it was being put forward in this thread that homosexuality is learned......
I was just injecting my er...evolutionary thoughts. :D
Says you, but there is no scientific proof to back that up...they have tried, but thus far all data is inconclusive. It is a choice that can be turned. Just like smoking, minus the chemical addiction.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
You're WRONG. Nobody chooses to be gay.
Here is another point...Even if it was proven that being homosexual is genetic and irreversible, what is to say that all gays are genetically gay, or for that matter that all heterosexuals are straight?Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
You're WRONG. Nobody chooses to be gay.
There is a plethora of thoughts that can be provoked by a discussion such as this, what is worse, there is no cut and dry conclusions, really. But one thing is sure, what I believe and what you believe are two unchanged points of view. (No sh!t, right)
To ILOVETHEUSERS, the suggestion you make that homophobes have a tendency to be gay themselves is a fallacy. It is a mindless retort in an effort to spark rage and anxiety in those that oppose the week view of acceptance.Quote:
Originally posted by Ya_know
Works pretty well huh? I kind of suspected that to be so but it's so cool to see a persons reaction to it when they hear it for the first time. We live to annoy.;)
To start, people that oppose homosexuality don’t necessarily fear anything, and I know certainly that I am not a homophobe. I simply believe that this behavior is wrong.
Good for you.
I mean, you admit that you are not religious so what's the hang up? I can see it if your god tells you to, I mean, it's your god so whatchagonnado, but if that's not it then what? Please explain in a non religious way what is wrong with 2 adults declaring love for one another. That's pretty much what the issue is isn't it> You are saying that if Greg meets Paul and they fall in love then it's somehow wrong? Why?
I have heard it all from both sides, and studied this subject in Humanities where I gained a full perspective through some intense classroom arguments that never made it to name calling or disrespect from either side. You can make all of the cheep shots you want, but this only discredits your argument;
Sure, ok. So you have senseofhumorphobia too... :rolleyes:
and by the end of the day no one has proven this is an irreversible genetic occurrence,
Yeah I've seen the scientific studies as well and you may be right but having lived in and around gay people for a long time I can tell you that most truly gay people didn't really have a choice. If it's not genetic I really don't know what is. Man I know some chicks that are more man than I will ever be and guys that are more woman than my girlfriend is or will be. I am telling you personally that there are a number of gay people that never, and I mean never had a choice in the matter.
or that it should be openly accepted with good reason.
How about just live and let live? Why dislike or even care what 2 consenting adults do when it doesn't have any impact upon you?
So back to the question. What is it that gets people down on homosexuals if it’s not religious? Seriously, what?
I have to side with WC and ILTU on this one. It's genetic. Their born with the right hardware...they're just wired different. An anology for your theory would mean Michael Jackson has proven that just because your born Black doesn't mean you have to stay that way. ;) :DQuote:
Originally posted by Ya_know
Here is another point...Even if it was proven that being homosexual is genetic and irreversible, what is to say that all gays are genetically gay, or for that matter that all heterosexuals are straight?
There is a plethora of thoughts that can be provoked by a discussion such as this, what is worse, there is no cut and dry conclusions, really. But one thing is sure, what I believe and what you believe are two unchanged points of view. (No sh!t, right)
The point of debate isn't to change the mind of the person you argue with all the time. Sometimes it's so you can understand what the other person is thinking.Quote:
Originally posted by Ya_know
There is a plethora of thoughts that can be provoked by a discussion such as this, what is worse, there is no cut and dry conclusions, really. But one thing is sure, what I believe and what you believe are two unchanged points of view. (No sh!t, right)
Besides, it's not too often you can find an educated person to argue with and it's kinda fun when you do.
OK I would like to ask an on topic question. I want someone to show me, like I had no knowledge of the bible, what are the anti-homosexual passages in the New Testament?
*proviso - you can't use I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:9. ;)
Absolutely not. The fact that two or more people write similar things does not make them divinely inspired. Lets take your examples. None of these example represents documentation of historical events. Human nature and human experience dictates that people recount events in their lives differently, often distorting the facts of the events themselves. The gospels represent a similarity that is unique in historical literature. The only was these similarity could have been reproduced would be for the authors to sit down at a table and write them together, which would have been physically impossible given that the books were written at different times in different locations.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Kingofbleh, essentially your response to me boils down to "several people happen to have written similar things independently of each other", therefore God must have inspired them. Am I the only person who finds this spurious? I am entirely certain that throughout history, several people have written Anti-Semitic literature and pornographic stories and motherboard instruction manuals without direct inspiration from each other. Does that prove that God was guiding their hands?
It is certainly true that many evil things have been done in the name of the "will of God". However, there is no evidence that the authors of the Gospels (or the rest of the Bible) had any knowledge that what they were writing would become a part of the most widely distributed book in history. Keep in mind that gospels were written as historical accounts of the life of Christ and most of the rest of the New Testament is a series of letters. The authors of these writings had not idea of the doctrinal and historical significance they would take on. In fact, it wasn't until one of the last books of the New Testament to be written (Acts) that we even see any mention that the New Testament writings might be canonized as "scriptural".Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
And furthermore, where is your proof that "Divinely inspired" means "100% accurate"? the fact of the matter is, people are human beings. We are not perfect. Even if we are genuinely trying to do the right thing, we make mistakes. We screw up. Examples litter history and the present day of people who THOUGHT they were doing the work of God, but were in reality being extremely evil.
As to the historical accuracy argument, over the last 2000 years we have yet to see another written account of the life of Christ dating from the first half of the first century AD that contradicts the gospels. There have been other writings in the last few centuries where the authors "assert" that the accounts of the gospels are questionable, but there assertions are unsubstantiated and based upon complex and tenuous reasoning instead of cold hard evidence.
The writers of the Bible were regular people just like us. Some were educated others uneducated. Some wealthy, some poor. All were imperfect sinners just like people today. It's a good thing that God doesn't require perfection from people in order to use them to get his message across.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
How do you know whether the writers of the Bible aren't these people as well?
Romans 1:27-28. Although I would suggest that you read the entire first chapter to get context. I hate it when people isolate scripture verses to make a point when they clearly do not understand the context.Quote:
Originally posted by Major Kong
OK I would like to ask an on topic question. I want someone to show me, like I had no knowledge of the bible, what are the anti-homosexual passages in the New Testament?
*proviso - you can't use I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:9. ;)
Again, you're essentially saying that because some people wrote the same thing as each other that proves it must have been God's doing. I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. Have you ever taken Logic in school? If you had, you would realize that your argument is spurious.Quote:
Originally posted by KINGofBLEH
Lets take your examples. None of these example represents documentation of historical events. Human nature and human experience dictates that people recount events in their lives differently, often distorting the facts of the events themselves. The gospels represent a similarity that is unique in historical literature. The only was these similarity could have been reproduced would be for the authors to sit down at a table and write them together, which would have been physically impossible given that the books were written at different times in different locations.
Hmmm, dya think if they had known they might have written it differently? :DQuote:
Originally posted by KINGofBLEH
...there is no evidence that the authors of the Gospels (or the rest of the Bible) had any knowledge that what they were writing would become a part of the most widely distributed book in history...
Ah, but it is interesting to see how much OTHER written history disagrees with the Bible, to say nothing of archaeological findings...Quote:
Originally posted by KINGofBLEH
As to the historical accuracy argument, over the last 2000 years we have yet to see another written account of the life of Christ dating from the first half of the first century AD that contradicts the gospels.
Aren't you essentially admitting that the Bible is imperfect here?Quote:
Originally posted by KINGofBLEH
It's a good thing that God doesn't require perfection from people in order to use them to get his message across.
Ah, understood. Anyway, hope my response was relevant.Quote:
Originally posted by Major Kong
That's why I apologized, it was off topic
I agree with your quote...as to Paul's Letter to the Church of Rome I have always found it interesting that in his gospel for salvation of faith and retribution of God against the gentile and jew he speaks of people rejecting God. God in turn abandons them to their vices. Basically Paul is telling the church in Rome those who foresake god should die. The original Latin traditonal text of v.31 & 32 states:Quote:
Originally posted by KINGofBLEH
Romans 1:27-28. Although I would suggest that you read the entire first chapter to get context. I hate it when people isolate scripture verses to make a point when they clearly do not understand the context.
I have always found Romans a most interesting gospel, especially Romans 11.Quote:
They knew that God is just, and yet they they did not understand that those who behave like this deserve to die, and not only those who did this but those who encourage them.
Years ago, in a conversation with a Methodist Minister, Romans 1 was discussed at some length. An interesting part of conversation centered on v. 22 & 23 was that Paul's wrath was pointed at those who had enbraced imitation (Rome had many Pagan dieties). It was never Paul's intention to condemn those who still embraces the word of God even those who were homophilia.
The reason for my singling out of I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:9 is that these two passages are most frequently cited condemning homophilia. The problem is that the Greek has been "twisted" from it's original meaning to the connotation we have now. The word arsenokoita has been wrongly interpreted as "meaning" homophilia. The true meaning of the word is defiler of children.
Honestly Clam, in the end, there is one major thing that you are missing. Your logic, your arguments, everything will in one way or another fail in this one small concept. To be religious, to take the fervor, the feeling into your heart you must have FAITH. It is through that faith that you take the blind step beyond logic, it is through faith that you accept.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Again, you're essentially saying that because some people wrote the same thing as each other that proves it must have been God's doing. I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. Have you ever taken Logic in school? If you had, you would realize that your argument is spurious.
Some take faith so blindly and so fully that they are blind to all the world, and yet some barely know or understand what faith is.
But, that is why this argument can go for an eternity on this board. Faith, at its core can't be fully defended, it can't fully be rationlized or be explained by logic.
For some, their faith their devotion tells them that all the words of the bible are true, and in that truth homosexuality is bad(a sin), for others their faith is in the feel of the bible and that homosexuality is not that bad, and others have a faith more in their gov't that will tell everyone what is good and what is bad. When mixing it all up, the gov't will always look and be the bad guy when they try to legislate morality by either accepting homosexuality or outlawing portion of any religion.
As for the cleetus, well, I think I had some bad milk on my cereal this morning.
I actually had a friend in High School who was a devout Christian ( not sure what denomination ) We talked about science at one point. Which of course ended up in a debate on Evolution. Of course he was Adam and Eve and I was Monkey into man. the point is he was told by his church/ pastor that science was created to defeat the bible/god.Quote:
Ah, but it is interesting to see how much OTHER written history disagrees with the Bible, to say nothing of archaeological findings...
The Evolution debate i gave up on but i SH*T myself when he told me the Dinosaurs never existed and they were made up by science.
WTF
so like Thousands of scientists around the world made fake bones and burried them... ok makes sense to me
:confused:
Cheers Cleetus.:cool:
I never missed your point.
The problem I have is exactly the point you just made: that faith by DEFINITION requires you to believe in something that cannot be proved.
Therefore it is wrong for anyone to impose their faith on anyone else.
Christianity is cureable.
The average gay person is 1500% more tolerant of his her fellow human being than the average christian.
2 of the apostles were gay or at least bi.
All this going back and forth about a book written about events that happened centuries before it was compiled into text. All this about people that have sex different than you, thats all. And when we are done denoucing homosexuality who next? Anal Sex? Oral Sex?
If there is anything you should take from that book written so long ago after the events happened and has been retranslated many a time since then, it is the Golden Rule: do onto others as you would have them do onto you.
It's such a simple rule that covers so much. It tells you that you are no better than anyone else and no one else is better than you. It takes all of the persecution out of your hands and let's someone/something else deal with it while you just live your life respecting others.
Anyone that says they do not want gays or lesbians around them obviously never had a family member or friend "come out of the closet." You have no experience with homosexuality so why do you feel the need to comment on it from what have have heard or read from a book?
Have you ever been around a person with no experience trying to tell someone how to fix their computer? You probably laughed at their explanations....
And anyway this is such a small topic to discuss, what does your book say about life on other planets?
Tony
I'm not Christian. I would probably say I'm agnostic, but in reality don't consider myself religious. Here's how I see it.
If homosexuality IS genetic, than it is a flaw that should have been breeded out of the species long ago or will be at some point in the future.
Now what if it's a choice? If my son or daugher (keeping in mind that I don't have children) told me they were gay, I would still love them, but I would be very dissapointed in them, the same as if my child chose never to get married and have children and it would put a strain on our relationship.
And your children would be truly hurt and disappointed by you as a parent...Quote:
Originally posted by meatwad
Now what if it's a choice? If my son or daugher (keeping in mind that I don't have children) told me they were gay, I would still love them, but I would be very dissapointed in them, the same as if my child chose never to get married and have children and it would put a strain on our relationship.
On a purely side point, let's look at this logically.
IF being gay WAS a choice...
What heterosexual would willingly choose it?
:confused: :confused: :confused:
exactly. why would someone willingly put themselves through the harassment, ridicule, and intolerance that homosexuals go through. just because they are different doesn't make them any better or any worse than anyone else.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
On a purely side point, let's look at this logically.
IF being gay WAS a choice...
What heterosexual would willingly choose it?
:confused: :confused: :confused:
As a parent I agree with Meatwad. I would be disappointed in the decision, and would be very clear to my children about it. I would also talk to them and learn to understand what feelings they have, but ultimately, smoking, drugs, getting in trouble, homosexuality, they will all disappoint me. When they are all grown up and can make decisions on their own, I will probably give in on the smoking but everything else I will stand firm. It certainly wouldn't change the love I feel for them, even if they did something heinous like murder in cold blood. I would always love them, but I wouldn’t support their decisions.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
And your children would be truly hurt and disappointed by you as a parent...
My honest answer...because of the widely publicized cry for acceptance. Some people are looking for attention, and lets face it, there are a lot of people out there looking for something to believe in. Homosexuality is a social problem just as smoking could be considered a problem, but obviously apples and oranges so please no one take this tangent, please.Quote:
Originally posted by Buddy Holly
exactly. why would someone willingly put themselves through the harassment, ridicule, and intolerance that homosexuals go through. just because they are different doesn't make them any better or any worse than anyone else.
Back to the need for attention…people do all sorts of strange things, and to have sex with someone of the same gender is a cry for help, if it isn’t genetic. So far still noone has any proof that this behavior is genetic. Anyone…
I'm sorry dude but if you think homosexuality is worse than smoking then all that proves is a failure to think on your part.
Homosexuality is HARMLESS from a practical basis. It doesn't harm anybody. You could argue that it can cause STDs to spread, but heterosexual sex does too, and heterosexual sex is more risky, because you run the risk of pregnancy as well.
Smoking causes all manner of diseases and death, to say nothing of wasting a huge part of your income. Homosexuality, at worst, could cause a slight pain in the ***.
...
And I can't believe that you would seriously think a man would sleep with another man for the purpose of getting attention.
That's just so far beyond realistic that I don't know what to say anymore.
I guess there isn't much point in continuing this discussion.
i don't know personally, but i would think it would cause more than a slight pain in the *** :D :DQuote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Homosexuality, at worst, could cause a slight pain in the ***.