The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Year.Zero]

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.

PROOF.​

(You need it.)​

 

[Famine]

The electronic gismo was invented without messing with nature

Really? Would you like to hazard a guess where the components come from?

I would not support man-made pregancy for heterosexual couples

Whoah. You'd deny childless straight couples the chance of having children, if it meant using assisted conception methods?

Why on Earth is that?

and GTP is an innocent website, kiddyporn is just downright evil in all cultures around the world.

"All" is a bit of a stretch.

Nevertheless, it's an example of how a technology which is fine in your book (computers) can be used for "evil" means.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Really? Would you like to hazard a guess where the components come from?



Whoah. You'd deny childless straight couples the chance of having children, if it meant using assisted conception methods?

Why on Earth is that?



"All" is a bit of a stretch.

Nevertheless, it's an example of how a technology which is fine in your book (computers) can be used for "evil" means.

Materials coming from nature and doing things nature never intended are different again. That's like saying we can't eat fruit because it came from nature.
I understand how a good thing can be used for evil purposes, but then I could say that man-made pregnancy could be used by terrorists to make an army (a long shot I know but still an example)

 

[Famine]

Materials coming from nature and doing things nature never intended are different again. That's like saying we can't eat fruit because it came from nature.

Quite so. So how did nature intend us to make computers? How is using materials from nature to create a pregnancy different from making a computer?

 

[FoolKiller]

Ooooohhhh. Nice one! How long did it take you to come up with that?

I don't remember typing it. Looking back at some of the typos in that post it seems as if I was just on a typing frenzy while still jet lagged (which I am still recovering from) and I am surprised I didn't say anything truly offensive without realizing it. It was most likely just one of those unconscious thoughts that came out and sounds good after you say it.

In the age we live in, it's unbelievable that people can't wrap their heads around the biological concept of homosexuality.

It is completely believable. Think about it, you naturally have preferences and dislikes for things that are different from other people. For example, I hate oysters but my wife will eat them raw. Just the smell can make me sick. On the other hand my wife thinks milk is the most disgusting thing and has trouble watching em drink it. I can't explain or even grasp the concept of why our taste buds differ.

Now apply those same natural differences to something that has been given social morality implications for generations and suddenly you go from just thinking, "That's gross. I don't know how you can do that," to, "That offends my moral fiber."

I understand why people can't wrap their heads around it and the trick to get them to calm down is not to force them to understand but to break the generations old moral taboo that has been associated with it.

I'm sorry but the more I think about this the more I get pissed. The fact that his is even a topic of discussion pisses me off. On top of that it has made it to 20 pages long. Why!?!? How is a person's choice of sexuality even prevelant?

It is the generations of moral taboo that has been associated with it. Racism still exists, albeit not popular anymore, but it still exists. So, of course a difference with a moral taboo will still be up for public discussion, and those who see that the moral problem is with those who are prejudiced feel the need, or even responsibility, to point out the error in seeing it as a moral taboo.

Do we no longer have the right to make private decisions that effect no one but ourselves without it being questioned?

Have you ever looked at someone dressed weird and at least thought a joke? Now add a moral taboo to that same thought process.

Yes, we have that right, but even innocent things different from us make us think negatively about them.

You seem completely taken aback by the fact that people have prejudices against things they do not understand. You are human right? You have been living on Earth for your entire life, right? These debates have gone on since civilization began. A discussion like this is extremely important because those with prejudices born from a million innocent places may stop and look at it from a different angle. And those who do not oppose a lifestyle (choice or otherwise) may learn to see things from the side of the offended. If I thought that state marriage and church marriages were the same thing I would probably have a different take on this myself, but for me I think the trick is to make people understand that the wedding ceremony performed by a priest (or what have you) has nothing to do with the legal binding that comes with the marriage certificate and allowing homosexuals perform legal vows with a marriage certificate will not affect a single thing in a religious ceremony.

In fact, I would defend a church's right to refuse to perform a ceremony for homosexual couples if it goes against the teachings of said church.

 

[Duke]

In fact, I would defend a church's right to refuse to perform a ceremony for homosexual couples if it goes against the teachings of said church.

As would I (and I have). That doesn't extend to completely co-opting the word "marriage" though. You may not have a Catholic marriage (or whatever) if you're gay, but it can still be a marriage (ie a commitment of fidelity to a partner).

 

[FoolKiller]

As would I (and I have). That doesn't extend to completely co-opting the word "marriage" though. You may not have a Catholic marriage (or whatever) if you're gay, but it can still be a marriage (ie a commitment of fidelity to a partner).

Yeah that's what I was saying. The term marriage can be a religious binding and/or a legal one and as it applies to homosexuality it would only affect one.

 

[Kylehnat]

Have you ever looked at someone dressed weird and at least thought a joke? Now add a moral taboo to that same thought process.

But I'm not trying to pass legislation to ban them from dressing that way, nor am I publically denouncing their sense of style. It makes no difference to what I wear, so I don't care what they do.

Yay metaphors!

 

[FoolKiller]

But I'm not trying to pass legislation to ban them from dressing that way, nor am I publically denouncing their sense of style. It makes no difference to what I wear, so I don't care what they do.

And no one is trying to ban being gay.....in America at least, well no sane people at least.

Anyway, the point is you said that you don't understand why some people can't wrap their heads around the concept that it is biological. I can't wrap my head around why my dad wears a powder blue suit sometimes either. Now if I, and generations before me, had been told that it was morally wrong to wear a powder blue suit I may have more negative thoughts about it than just thinking he naturally has bad taste.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Quite so. So how did nature intend us to make computers? How is using materials from nature to create a pregnancy different from making a computer?

I guess I just don't like it when people try and play God, I tried finding a different reason but it comes back to my beliefs- sorry for wasting your time

 

[SS69]

It is the generations of moral taboo that has been associated with it. Racism still exists, albeit not popular anymore, but it still exists. So, of course a difference with a moral taboo will still be up for public discussion, and those who see that the moral problem is with those who are prejudiced feel the need, or even responsibility, to point out the error in seeing it as a moral taboo.


Have you ever looked at someone dressed weird and at least thought a joke? Now add a moral taboo to that same thought process.

Yes, we have that right, but even innocent things different from us make us think negatively about them.

You seem completely taken aback by the fact that people have prejudices against things they do not understand. You are human right? You have been living on Earth for your entire life, right? These debates have gone on since civilization began. A discussion like this is extremely important because those with prejudices born from a million innocent places may stop and look at it from a different angle. And those who do not oppose a lifestyle (choice or otherwise) may learn to see things from the side of the offended. If I thought that state marriage and church marriages were the same thing I would probably have a different take on this myself, but for me I think the trick is to make people understand that the wedding ceremony performed by a priest (or what have you) has nothing to do with the legal binding that comes with the marriage certificate and allowing homosexuals perform legal vows with a marriage certificate will not affect a single thing in a religious ceremony.

In fact, I would defend a church's right to refuse to perform a ceremony for homosexual couples if it goes against the teachings of said church.

I'm not taken aback at the prejudice or others point of view on this subject. I'm taken aback by the popularity of this subject. I'm taken aback by the notion that any of this could be a problem. Compared to all things going wrong in this world, and there are this many people pouring thier efforts into this.

The point I was trying to make was the topic of this thread is almost as absurd as if I created a thread with the topic: "Black people - Do they really deserve that front seat on the bus?"

Look my stance on homosexuality or gay marriage is pretty much irrelevant to my life. I don't mind if someone is gay or not, but I don't really know any gay people. The few I've met annoyed me to no end. I don't care if they can get married or not. If they do fine, If they don't, sucks for them (no pun intended). Doesn't really affect me. You know why I don't give a crap about it? Because it's not a problem. Just as I said two sentences ago; it doesn't affect me. You know what does?

Gas prices. Pollution. The future leader of my country. The international relations of this country. The economy. My career. What I'm going to eat for supper. Do I want single, or double roll toilet paper?

The negative effects of all these pose FAR greater problems for me, or anyone else for that matter, than what someone decides to lick or stick inside of them. If I was religious, this would not affect my faith. If I was married, it would not change my vows. "Oh honey, I slept with your sister. What did you expect? I mean the gays are allowed to get married now." Do you realize how inane any of this sounds?

My argument is for the side that this is not a problem. Who the F cares?

On top of that, no one has yet to answer my quesion. How, in all plausibility, is this a problem? How does this affect you, this country, or the future? All you guys can give me is what it affects, but not how, or to what degree. The same rhetoric. How exactly does this alter your faith in religion? How does it ruin the sanctity of your marriage? Please, anyone, give me a reason for concern. Because if the gays are the ones that siphered my gas tank, I want them hung.

 

[Year.Zero]

I guess I just don't like it when people try and play God, I tried finding a different reason but it comes back to my beliefs- sorry for wasting your time

Would you rather we try and play monkey?

Then we wouldn't be any better than "them", and God can't have that.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Would you rather we try and play monkey?

Then we wouldn't be any better than "them", and God can't have that.

How about we try and play human

 

[Wenders]

A person's sexuality has no effect on the economy. It has no effect on the crime rates. It has no effect on homeland security. How is this a problem? Because it defies religion? Who cares?
Please, someone give me a scenario in which this a problem. In which it's a problem that effects you, the country, and everyone else as a whole. I seriously doubt you can.

Well apparently earthquakes are caused by gays. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7255657.stm

An Israeli MP has blamed parliament's tolerance of gays for earthquakes that have rocked the Holy Land recently.
Shlomo Benizri, of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish Shas Party, said the tremors had been caused by lawmaking that gave "legitimacy to sodomy

 

[Famine]

The Romans believed sodomy caused earthquakes. And that static electricity was caused by invisible bees...

I guess I just don't like it when people try and play God, I tried finding a different reason but it comes back to my beliefs- sorry for wasting your time

So your beliefs tell you that computers = 👍 and in vitro fertilisation = 👎?

Which passage of the Bible is that in again?

 

[BayConRong]

i know a couple who are homo and they told me that they honestly wish that they weren't gay. i don't know which catagory that would fall under. hows about a "i feel sory for some of them" option?

 

[Touring Mars]

Well apparently earthquakes are caused by gays. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7255657.stm

And Ellen DeGeneres caused Hurricane Katrina!

i know a couple who are homo and they told me that they honestly wish that they weren't gay.

That says alot about homosexuality being a lifestyle "choice"...

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

The Romans believed sodomy caused earthquakes. And that static electricity was caused by invisible bees...



So your beliefs tell you that computers = 👍 and in vitro fertilisation = 👎?

Which passage of the Bible is that in again?

In making man-made pregnancy man is trying to be God, I think the whole Bible pretty much objects to that.

LOL at the gays causing earthquakes, maybe they should start checking for volcanos in the area before it becomes one of those action movies.

 

[Famine]

In making man-made pregnancy man is trying to be God, I think the whole Bible pretty much objects to that.

The only passage about homosexuality is that man should not "lay with man" as if he laid with woman. IVF is a pregnancy without having "laid" with anyone.

That aside, you also stated you object to IVF in childless heterosexual couples, because of your beliefs. What about your Bible-derived beliefs say that childless heterosexual couples may not have children?

 

[Duke]

He already stated that he didn't like the idea of people playing God. In other words, if you're not getting pregnant in the natural way, then you aren't meant to be getting pregnant at all.

Points for consistency there. 👍

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

He already stated that he didn't like the idea of people playing God. In other words, if you're not getting pregnant in the natural way, then you aren't meant to be getting pregnant at all.

Points for consistency there. 👍

Thanks for answering that for me 👍 It's the same deal with cloning, but let's not get into that here.

 

[TheCracker]

Thanks for answering that for me 👍 It's the same deal with cloning, but let's not get into that here.

How do you stand on prosthetic arms and legs for amputees or artificial heart valves? - should these people be condemed to early death or life without a full complement of limbs?

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

How do you stand on prosthetic arms and legs for amputees or artificial heart valves? - should these people be condemed to early death or life without a full complement of limbs?

That's helping someone to do something that they can't do because of an accident, it is not artificially creating life or anything, it's helping others and is a good thing. That kind of stuff is like helping someone up when they fall over.

 

[Famine]

Or stopping cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or any other disease. Surely it's unnatural to stop these disorders too?

IVF isn't "artificially creating life". It's a union of sperm and egg that, for some reason, can't take place inside the body as it usually does. IVF kids are identical to normally conceived kids.

Plus IVF removes the need for dirty, dirty sex. And handily gets round the contraception/spilling seed on the ground issue for having sex knowing you won't conceive because one or both of you are sterile.

 

[sn00pie]

That's helping someone to do something that they can't do because of an accident, it is not artificially creating life or anything, it's helping others and is a good thing. That kind of stuff is like helping someone up when they fall over.

What about organ transplants?

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Or stopping cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or any other disease. Surely it's unnatural to stop these disorders too?

IVF isn't "artificially creating life". It's a union of sperm and egg that, for some reason, can't take place inside the body as it usually does. IVF kids are identical to normally conceived kids.

Plus IVF removes the need for dirty, dirty sex. And handily gets round the contraception/spilling seed on the ground issue for having sex knowing you won't conceive because one or both of you are sterile.

I'm tired when I'm on here most of the time, and I was still hung up on the creating sperm from bone marrow part. So when you put it that way, it's just using the male's seeds and putting it in the female, that's alright. Same as sex without the pleasure.

What about organ transplants?

Same difference as what I said, helping people. Not creating life.

 

[Duke]

IVF isn't "artificially creating life". It's a union of sperm and egg that, for some reason, can't take place inside the body as it usually does. IVF kids are identical to normally conceived kids.

But that "for some reason" is the crucial bit here. He's saying the "some reason" is God making it not happen. Like I said, I disagree with his beliefs, but I respect his consistency of thought here.

Plus IVF removes the need for dirty, dirty sex. And handily gets round the contraception/spilling seed on the ground issue for having sex knowing you won't conceive because one or both of you are sterile.

But you can't know that you're permanently sterile. God might change His mind or just be waiting until when He originally planned it, and then you will get pregnant. Being willing to conceive at any time is the important part here that avoids the question of recreational sex.

 

[sn00pie]

Same difference as what I said, helping people. Not creating life.

Now what about when transplanting cloned organs? Surely you've been following the latest advancements in this field, and I think you would agree with me it can't be very far now!

 

[Famine]

But that "for some reason" is the crucial bit here. He's saying the "some reason" is God making it not happen. Like I said, I disagree with his beliefs, but I respect his consistency of thought here.

But you can't know that you're permanently sterile. God might change His mind or just be waiting until when He originally planned it, and then you will get pregnant. Being willing to conceive at any time is the important part here that avoids the question of recreational sex.

By that train of though, the scientific discoveries that allow "cure" for the conditions could be sent from God...

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

But that "for some reason" is the crucial bit here. He's saying the "some reason" is God making it not happen. Like I said, I disagree with his beliefs, but I respect his consistency of thought here.

But you can't know that you're permanently sterile. God might change His mind or just be waiting until when He originally planned it, and then you will get pregnant. Being willing to conceive at any time is the important part here that avoids the question of recreational sex.

And again you formulated my tired thoughts for me, well done 👍 God has made you unable to conceive for a reason, and times do change at God's will. So maybe IVF still is bad IMO. Look guys, I'm tired- I'm going to bed and will read posts tomorrow. It's 1:15AM here.

Edit: sn00pie and Famine, both of what you said is true, but who knows, no one knows how God works. The cloning an organ is still not creating a being artificially, it's just an organ for Pete's sake.