The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[nd 4 holden spd]

And what 'way' is that then?

To breed with the opposite sex, last time I checked males can't get pregnant, and unless it's unnatural, females can't get pregnant without a man.

So why can the ding-dong go so easily into the poop-chute? Can't be an accident in design, what with God being so perfect and everything...

But it's not what it is designed for, poop-chute is what you called it and that's what it is.

So there's absolutely, positively no way that God could have designed approximately 10% of the population to be homosexual? You claim to know God's mind well enough to be perfectly sure of this?

I don't claim to know God's mind in the slightest, at all. That's the curse of sin, that's like saying we are meant to kill because some % of the population are murderers.

Interesting stuff..

More interesting stuff to read..



I think that gives you something to think of before you let out more narrowminded opinions. but, each to their own..

I'm about to read it, but the Bible is normally concrete, and humans saying that it's not always right is always wrong. Humans are not God so they can't make up their own versions of what is sin and what isn't.

Edit: And again, I was just expressing my stance, I was not trying to change anyone's view. That's what the poll is there for.

 

[Sage]

The whole point of this forum is to discuss and critique each other’s opinions. To use a cliché, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

If the point of this forum were to just post your opinion and then everybody is all happy flowers and ponies and “Congrats, you have a wonderful opinion!”, then it’d be pointless.

 

[Joey D]

What's wrong with homosexuals? It's none of my business to say who someone can and can not have sex with. I may or may not agree with their actions but I don't think people should let their personal opinions mandate who people should have sex with (i.e. government).

 

[Pako]

What's wrong with homosexuals? It's none of my business to say who someone can and can not have sex with. I may or may not agree with their actions but I don't think people should let their personal opinions mandate who people should have sex with (i.e. government).

Fine and dandy, but if they want to get married, they should do it the old fashioned way......with a man and a woman. To think the government would stop homosexuals from having sex is absurd.

 

[Joey D]

I see nothing wrong with marriage, why do you care what people do? Does two men or two women getting married to each other really hurt anyone at all? I can't imagine it does. And before anyone says it there are ways to get married outside of a church...I plan on having a religious free wedding.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Fine and dandy, but if they want to get married, they should do it the old fashioned way......with a man and a woman. To think the government would stop homosexuals from having sex is absurd.

Then what's the purpose of marriage, notwithstanding the religious viewpoint? From a reasonable standpoint the only purposes for it are two: One: for the parties involved to express their eternal love and dedication to one another. How this could ever be immoral I have no idea. Two: to allow the country/state/city an accurate accounting of its citizens and the units they function in. In that context, it's absurd and in fact counterproductive to disallow gay marriage - or, if you prefer, gay civil union.

I don't believe any church that does not receive any public funding from the government of its own nation should be forced by the government to recognize any marriage or union it choses not to.

Likewise, the church should have no influence or say whatsoever in what marriages or unions the government of its nation recognizes.

Also, if the traditional way really is the best way, why is the divorce rate so high? Surely gay marriage couldn't do ANY worse than a 50% attrition rate.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

The whole point of this forum is to discuss and critique each other’s opinions. To use a cliché, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

If the point of this forum were to just post your opinion and then everybody is all happy flowers and ponies and “Congrats, you have a wonderful opinion!”, then it’d be pointless.

True, I agree, but then I also agree with this:

What's wrong with homosexuals? It's none of my business to say who someone can and can not have sex with. I may or may not agree with their actions but I don't think people should let their personal opinions mandate who people should have sex with (i.e. government).

It's not our business to dictate others what to do, even if we don't agree. (Unless of course it's taken to the extreme with murder, theft etc involved). Live and let live as the old saying goes- and that's what I'll do. I think it's nice to let people know what your stance is on the matter though. If you had to homo friends (that had only just come out of the closet so to speak) and didn't agree with their doings but didn't tell them aren't you doing wrong by them?

 

[Zrow]

Fine and dandy, but if they want to get married, they should do it the old fashioned way......with a man and a woman.

Why? Because that's just how it has always been?

My real question is "How does it effect YOU?" I think that's really what is important here.

 

[Sage]

If we really want to do marriage the old-fashioned way, we should be marrying men and women who have no sexual attraction whatsoever just so that we can make economic liaisons.

 

[Pako]

Why? Because that's just how it has always been?

My real question is "How does it effect YOU?" I think that's really what is important here.

That's already been covered at length, but to summarize I will say that there is an already degrading idea of what marriage is by the overwhelming divorce rates today, I see the attempt at changing what marriage is only continues to erode the sanctity of marriage. Direct effects of divorce are broken homes, dis-functional families, which studies say increase the percentages of crime, welfare, and products of a non contributing members of society. I think marriage is taken too lightly, and likewise divorce is taken too lightly. I would like society to get back to some core family values and see what the next generation can produce. What does this have to do with homosexuality? Not much....

 

[Leonidae]

To breed with the opposite sex, last time I checked males can't get pregnant, and unless it's unnatural, females can't get pregnant without a man.

actually, I recently did read an article where scientists had made sperm out of female's bone marrow.. science rocks, no? thus, they can get pregnant without a man.. and in theory, men could get pregnant too, we just lack some small things.. which is a good thing, I'd kill myself if I'd have to bleed for a week without dying.

But it's not what it is designed for, poop-chute is what you called it and that's what it is.

it's also used rectal examinations and extracting semen from braindead with electric stimulation. man can't help it that his sweet spot is in his butt.

I'm about to read it, but the Bible is normally concrete, and humans saying that it's not always right is always wrong. Humans are not God so they can't make up their own versions of what is sin and what isn't.

Prove first that there is some sort of intelligent, higher force that prevents from doing this or doing that.. IMO, there is only just one helluva big coincidence. and bible? that could as well be just a bunch of nonsense by drunk sheep herders.

Edit: And again, I was just expressing my stance, I was not trying to change anyone's view. That's what the poll is there for.

Standing out puts you, or anyone who does so, on the crosshairs of oppositions sharpshooters..

 

[Kylehnat]

I don't claim to know God's mind in the slightest, at all. That's the curse of sin, that's like saying we are meant to kill because some % of the population are murderers.

Can we please stop comparing homosexuality to murder? (Everyone, not just you, holden). The "slippery-slope" nonsense is a weak-ass argument. If you let gays marry, it is not going to lead to me trying to marry a goat, and it is not going to lead Johnny into a life of collecting others' eyeballs.

 

[Zrow]

That's already been covered at length, but to summarize I will say that there is an already degrading idea of what marriage is by the overwhelming divorce rates today, I see the attempt at changing what marriage is only continues to erode the sanctity of marriage. Direct effects of divorce are broken homes, dis-functional families, which studies say increase the percentages of crime, welfare, and products of a non contributing members of society. I think marriage is taken too lightly, and likewise divorce is taken too lightly. I would like society to get back to some core family values and see what the next generation can produce. What does this have to do with homosexuality? Not much....

I agree that marriage and divorce are probably taken too lightly, but that's a problem with the attitudes of our (heterosexual) society in general, and I fail to see how allowing homosexuals to marry will do anything to change this for the worse. Just because it's a change doesn't mean it's a bad one. It's sure not bad for the couples who would like to marry.


EDIT: I guess I'm treading on ground that's already been covered, I just wanted to get my two cents in.

 

[Touring Mars]

Should there be exemption of accountability for our actions if they are the product of pre-disposed genetic decisions?

What if someone has a genetic disposition to kill anybody he sees? You still have to hold that person morally responsible for his actions.

I did consider that as I was posting - and I am pretty sure that some people are genetically predisposed to certain mental illnesses that make you far more of a risk to society than other people... but the difference is in the consequences of the action. What harm does homosexual intercourse cause between two consenting and loving adults? None. Infact it causes the opposite of harm.

In the case of people with psychotic illnesses who do commit a murder, this is taken into account as a factor - commonly referred to as 'diminished responsibility'.

 

[TheCracker]

Humans are not God so they can't make up their own versions of what is sin and what isn't.

I know this line of questioning is taking the thread a little off topic. But.

Who was who wrote the bible? Was it God or was it humans?

Humans wrote the bible and therefore decided what was to be concidered a sin.

 

[Famine]

But it's not what it is designed for, poop-chute is what you called it and that's what it is.

It's not designed for anything.

weak-ass argument

I thought that's what this thread was...

*giggles like an idiot*

 

[Sureboss]

If you let gays marry, it is not going to lead to me trying to marry a goat.

You prefer 'no strings' relationships anyway, don't you?

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

actually, I recently did read an article where scientists had made sperm out of female's bone marrow.. science rocks, no? thus, they can get pregnant without a man.. and in theory, men could get pregnant too, we just lack some small things.. which is a good thing, I'd kill myself if I'd have to bleed for a week without dying.

But that's unnatural. Game, set. It requires man made doings to achieve that. My point of view is that homosexuals can live the way they want to live- completely up to them. But it's certainly not something I want to do.

 

[Famine]

But that's unnatural. Game, set. It requires man made doings to achieve that.

As do most modern medical and technological advances.

I trust you don't use antibiotics ever, or a computer?

 

[Danoff]

or a computer?

OH SNAP!!!

That's already been covered at length, but to summarize I will say that there is an already degrading idea of what marriage is by the overwhelming divorce rates today, I see the attempt at changing what marriage is only continues to erode the sanctity of marriage. Direct effects of divorce are broken homes, dis-functional families, which studies say increase the percentages of crime, welfare, and products of a non contributing members of society. I think marriage is taken too lightly, and likewise divorce is taken too lightly. I would like society to get back to some core family values and see what the next generation can produce. What does this have to do with homosexuality? Not much....

You really should stop letting your government and the people you live around control the sanctity of your personal relationship with your wife.

Yeeeaaahhhh, buuuutttt… The problem I have with it is that, on an ideological level, it’s a very slippery slope – if you even mention the genetic pre-disposition thing when discussing gay marriage, you give some credence to the Christians’ morality argument, which means that you acknowledge Christian morality’s place in government. (Well, Christianity currently is entangled in our government, but you know what I mean.)

I know it’s a less practical position to take in a country with a Christian majority, but it just feels ideologically dishonest to me to not argue what’s true to your heart.

I firmly believe that gay people are born that way. It is true to my heart. Having a sibling who is gay makes it easier for me to say that I've been exposed to the issues and predisposition of a gay person from childhood on. At no point do I think that my sister was ever really heterosexual. But I also don't see how mentioning it being genetic gives any credence to the Christian "morality" angle. I agree that it shouldn't be necessary, but I think it's a valid argument. If it were necessary, it would be sufficient.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

As do most modern medical and technological advances.

I trust you don't use antibiotics ever, or a computer?

That's different, it's to help when something is wrong (in the case of antibiotics) and to make life easier (in the case of computers). You could argue that it makes life eaiser for homos but really, should a gay couple be allowed children? The child would miss out on a presence of the opposite sex in the household and could potentially end up in a bad condition, mental even, when they get older.

 

[Joey D]

As long as the parents are loving and aren't neglectful or abusive to the child I do not see why homosexuals can not be parents.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Because a young boy with 2 female parents would grow up thinking like a girl, he would be an outcast at school because most people will reject him for his parentage, and a rough life, or a lonesome life messes with a human's head and can send them crazy.

 

[Joey D]

Do you know this as a 100% fact?

 

[Gil]

This has been really busy since I last posted.
Back in #327 CraftyLandShark refers to a post he made back in the 200's (244) detailing what the Bible says about Homosexuality.

Yes the new testament is a new covenant between God and Man.
The new testament also says in the book of Hebrews (ch. 11) That "God is the same today, tomorrow and forever."

So, why would something that was an "abomination" in Leviticus, be okay after the book of Matthew?

Hell, in one fell swoop, you've proposed the negation of the 10 Commandments.

The new testament also tells us to "Flee from Fornication"
The new testament hits on all of the 10 commandments somewhere.
It also adds a few other "rules" for us to live by.

My point is that while the new Testament is indeed a new Covenant, the gist of the covenant was/is that repentance, and coming to God/Back to God does not require a burnt offering for a sacrifice, because Christ died on the cross to cleanse us all.

The new Testament doesn't make any of the things that were considered sin in the old Testament ok in the New.

We often act as if it does, but that just isn't the case.

I guess, IMO we are back to love the sinner, not the sin.

 

[Duke]

That's different, it's to help when something is wrong (in the case of antibiotics) and to make life easier (in the case of computers). You could argue that it makes life eaiser for homos but really, should a gay couple be allowed children? The child would miss out on a presence of the opposite sex in the household and could potentially end up in a bad condition, mental even, when they get older.

Let's see - loving gay couple or single parent household? I think the former would be better than the latter. And there are plenty of people of other sexes in the world to help that child understand them.

Pako was (and may still be) very concerned that the child would grow up "confused" about his home life, but I can't see why that would be so. it may grow uo with a very different way of thinking than he (or you) might have, but that doesn't mean it would be "confused".

Because a young boy with 2 female parents would grow up thinking like a girl, he would be an outcast at school because most people will reject him for his parentage, and a rough life, or a lonesome life messes with a human's head and can send them crazy.

So, being a homosexual is bad because... people think being a homosexual is bad? I don't get it.

I'm the father of two girls and no boy. Does that mean I cannot relate to them as a parent because they are girls and I'm a man? Are they going to grow up thinking like a man and being ostracized?

 

[Joey D]

Let's see - loving gay couple or single parent household? I think the former would be better than the latter. And there are plenty of people of other sexes in the world to help that child understand them.

Pako was (and may still be) very concerned that the child would grow up "confused" about his home life, but I can't see why that would be so. it may grow uo with a very different way of thinking than he (or you) might have, but that doesn't mean it would be "confused".

Wouldn't culture as a whole have a profound affect on the child and pretty much make them like anyone else as well? I mean unless a homosexual couple locked their child inside and forced views upon them I do not really see how they would turn out any different. It really would be an interesting study to see what happens to a child reared in different types of environments.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Yes the new testament is a new covenant between God and Man.
The new testament also says in the book of Hebrews (ch. 11) That "God is the same today, tomorrow and forever."

So, why would something that was an "abomination" in Leviticus, be okay after the book of Matthew?

Because the context in which its called an abomination is severely flawed.

Not to beat a dead horse seeing as how I've used these same examples in two different threads probably three times now, but lifting directly from the EXACT same context in Leviticus ...

You eat shrimp, yes? Or at least don't consider those who do engaging in an abomination.

Have you ever at any time during your marriage had sex with your wife during her period?

Have you ever masturbated? (If you say no, I'm pretty sure, as a living breathing male, you're lying.)

These are all things mentioned as abominations in Leviticus that "magically" seem to become okay in Matthew. You can argue that more weight should be given to homosexuality as it's a bit more "severe", but God didn't seem to consider it any less severe. The penalty for most of these infractions was death by stoning.

 

[Gil]

Joey
In truth, once the kids are older than 12 or so, you go from "director" to "guide".
Hopefully, your kids will talk to you about important stuff, such as sexuality in all aspects.
From preferences, responsibilities, choices, safety, and reproduction.

I've discovered from my own kids that by being willing to answer their questions they will continue to bring them to you.
I've also found that my guys would tell me that the information that they were seeking was not as in depth as what I was ready to tell them, in some cases.

I've had them say, "Okay, I'm not ready for that particular information, can we take a rain-check and talk about this in a couple of years?"


Crafty
I see your point, but as for the shrimp example (I don't like shrimp, BTW) In the book of Matthew Jesus says that if your neighbor doesn't eat meat because he feels it is a sin, don't tempt him by eating meat in his presence.

That same passage in Leviticus talks about bestiality as well. Most of us, still agree that "hitting" the sheep is wrong.
What you're saying is based on good logic, but in this case it isn't logical.
You are saying that now everything in that particular passage is okay? or just getting busy during menstruation, and homosexuality are okay?

AS far as Onanism. Onan's sin was "spilling his seed on the ground", when he was supposed to produce an heir.
So, he was getting some booty and shot his wad on the ground.
So, he was willing to get the booty, but not willing to live up to the responsibility of producing an heir to inherit for his dead brother. (A strange law/requirement in and of itself. And one to be discussed at another time.)

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Crafty
I see your point, but as for the shrimp example (I don't like shrimp, BTW) In the book of Matthew Jesus says that if your neighbor doesn't eat meat because he feels it is a sin, don't tempt him by eating meat in his presence.

That same passage in Leviticus talks about bestiality as well. Most of us, still agree that "hitting" the sheep is wrong.
What you're saying is based on good logic, but in this case it isn't logical.
You are saying that now everything in that particular passage is okay? or just getting busy during menstruation, and homosexuality are okay?

AS far as Onanism. Onan's sin was "spilling his seed on the ground", when he was supposed to produce an heir.
So, he was getting some booty and shot his wad on the ground.
So, he was willing to get the booty, but not willing to live up to the responsibility of producing an heir to inherit for his dead brother. (A strange law/requirement in and of itself. And one to be discussed at another time.)

I'm not saying that everything in the passage becomes okay. I'm saying that you can't say that everything in that passage holds water from a biblical standpoint. It's not a "baby with the bathwater" situation. All of it still needs to be held to a standard of ethics.