The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Venari]

All gods are, of course, false.

Amen, brother.

 

[Sureboss]

This to me seems to be one of the oddest arguments against homosexuality. Even if it is 'just a choice' it's really a matter of preference rather than a simple conscious decision. For example I like pineapple, the colour blue and Pink Floyd and cannot stand oysters, the colour purple or My Chemical Romance. I can't explain why I like or dislike these things, I just know that I do. I can make the conscious decision to seek or avoid these things as best I can, but I can't explain why I feel that way towards them in the first place.

In a similar way I can't explain why I feel attracted or repulsed by different people, I just am. I might like or dislike certain characteristics of that person, much like I might like or dislike certain parts of a song, but I cannot explain why I should feel that way about them. Saying homosexuality is 'just a choice' is a ridiculous as saying that being left handed is 'just a choice.' 👍

You could explain why you like or dislike those things if you thought about it hard enough. The reasons are obvious to me.

 

[jammyozzy]

Well ok, I can say I don't like oysters because the taste makes me feel physically ill. I can't explain why I should find the smell so revolting, when the rest of my family can wolf the things down without so much as a second thought. Does that make more sense, or am I confusing the situation further?

 

[Smoke_U_24/7]

I own a copy of Discover magazine's "the Brain" issue, and in an article it says that likes and dislikes are passed on from the mother to the offspring because of two things: 1, genetics and 2, (this will get you thinking) that music or other interests that the mother likes or dislikes are passed on to the offspring because of what the baby hears outside from the womb. I've talked to some poeple about it, and they all seem to agree with the article. But in your case jammyozzy, your families taste for oysters didn't seem to carry on in you, but that's normal.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Why don't we just make being offended illegal and get it over with.

You shouldn't be aloud to dislike anything...ever. Is this where the world is headed?

 

[Sage]

I don’t care if people hate homosexuality, are offended by it, or think people are going to Hell for it. My point is the exact opposite – just because you’re offended by it, doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

I’m offended by many things, including Jesus bumper stickers and Oliver Stone, but I don’t want anything illegal unless it causes physical, non-consensual harm. It’s the Christians who say they’re offended by homosexuality, thus they want it illegal.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

My post earlier it seems people read and didn't care, I provided my point of view, as to say it was my answer and you came up with the same questions
Eg. It's like me saying 1+1=2
and then you ask what does 1+1=?
How can I post my side of the argument if it gets completely dismissed and the same questions come up, a little bit rediculous. If people won't listen I won't post (not in these threads I mean), sayonara.....

 

[YSSMAN]

Yeah, but during those periods of Greek, and Roman times is when those empires started to fall. When humans don't have a structured religious foundations to keep them on the strait and narrow greed, and selfishness take over. I don't go into gay bars telling everyone I'm strait so treat me special, or I'll sue you, because you didn't treat me special!!!

Straight? Yes please. If you're going to talk about it, please spell it right.

Furthermore, I believe your understanding of the history of our ancient ancestors and the fall of both Greece and Rome is very short-sighted, and furthermore, your understanding of their religions is nearly comical. I highly suggest that you take a course on ancient history at some point in your life, its very important that you understand that homosexuality has been a part of our history since the begining, and has nothing to do with being "selfish" or whatever cocked-up idea your church put in your head.

If anything, the Greek and Roman societies were *gasp* some of the most stable in human history, but unfortunately petty wars and the invasions of *gasp* outsiders (!) eventually crippled their governments. It had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality or the lack of an organized religion, it came out of years of governmental neglect of infrastructure, threats of outside powers, and the constant need for expansion without the ability to control new territories.

===

This paradox that you suggest here, that the lack of religion spurs this "selfishness" is very sad indeed. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe it is religion that is placing a cap on basic human instinct? I mean, you've got to understand how much the religions of the world have managed to fudge up, right?

Playing the religious card is never a good idea. I may consider myself a Christian, but I'm always happy to condemn the outrageousness that its followers have on various subjects of "indecency" and "selfishness." One forgets that even the most-religious of people are indeed just as gay as those "godless" folks in Miami or San Francisco. They are just as moral as you or I, hell, maybe even more so.

So what if they have been born with a different sexual preference. As long as they are productive members of society that can be just as rational and loving as any other citizen, where exactly is the problem? Oh, the fact that they want to get married and maybe adopt a child?

God forbid kids actually get out of the horrendous foster care system and be placed in a stable home with two loving parents who can likely afford to give them things that they would otherwise not have. God forbid that financially sound people with no criminal recored be given the ability to take care of these people and take a burden off the government.

So a man may love a man and a woman may love a woman, but what may I ask, does that do to you? How are you affected by it? Unless they are making love on your living room floor, I have no understanding of how people can be so upset by something that would be an otherwise natural occurance in the human life.

 

[JohnBM01]

It's still important to get your point across regardless. I'm very much heterosexual, but I've had some very faint curiousity in becoming bisexual. Not ready for relationships, but friends. I still think even if someone has curiousity in a same-sex relationship, let them. I'm more of a social thinker, so I always put people and their thoughts first. That even includes stuff like this. I still think homosexuality can be better respected and understood rather than immediately lashing out at anyone who isn't heterosexual. We can't let the talons of society pierce into what people believe in or want to take part in, especially in respects to dating, love, and that sort of thing as far as this thread is concerned.

 

[Kylehnat]

I'm guessing that the people most opposed to homosexuality have never had openly gay friends, or even know anyone who is openly gay. Though I do admit, it's really hard to keep my gay friends from having sex on my living room floor while I'm trying to watch TV .

 

[Rykon Zero]

Yeah. I know. Such a hinderance.

 

[Sage]

Okay, still nobody has satisfactorily addressed Famine’s point. I’m going to make it explicit:

These you may eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, that you may eat. All that don't have fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination to you, and you detest them. You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Whatever has no fins nor scales in the waters, that is an abomination to you.

You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestable.

You shall not cut the hair on the sides of your heads, neither shall you clip off the edge of your beard.

If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

It’s the same damn book – this isn’t even an Old vs. New Testament argument. You either decide that it’s a sin to eat prawns, trim your sideburns, and screw someone with the same anatomy as you, or you decide that all of it is bogus. You can’t just decide that you sort of hate queers, so you’re going to support that part of Leviticus, but you quite like shrimp cocktail, so you’ll conveniently forget about that part of Leviticus.

 

[YSSMAN]

Unfortunately far too many people have no understanding of the Bible, but certainly claim that they do. I'm not even remotely religious, but I attend a "Catholic" private college (it really isn't a religious institution anymore), and I certainly think I could hold my own against the religious nutjobs that go on and on about whats in the Bible and yet have a very small understanding of what it likely meant. Or furthermore, what ramifications those passages would have on our world today.

Like you said, you can't have it both ways. You can take the Bible for what it is, suggestions on how to live a better life, or you can take it literally, and likely seem a rather odd person not having much "fun" at all.

God, whatever it may be, wants us to be happy. If we were all created in its image, maybe God is a little gay too.

*prepare the flames!*

 

[Famine]

My post earlier it seems people read and didn't care, I provided my point of view, as to say it was my answer and you came up with the same questions

The questions remain, as yet, unanswered.

It's not about what your opinion is, but why you hold that opinion. You say you "believe" that being gay is wrong. That's fine. You say it's against your religion. That's not fine. The only part of your religion which specifically deals with being gay says that it is a sin punishable by stoning to death - but it also says, in the same passage, that eating lobster is a sin punishable by stoning to death.

Either the Old Testament "counts" - Leviticus specifically - and both are sins punishable by stoning to death, or it doesn't and neither are (along with a few other quite ridiculous things). Your "religion" offers absolutely no room for manouevre on this - both are wrong or neither are. So which is it?

You can hate homosexuality all you want, but don't pretend it's for religious reasons unless you follow all of Leviticus (in which case, shalom).

How can I post my side of the argument if it gets completely dismissed and the same questions come up, a little bit rediculous.

Because you are not answering the questions. You aren't posting any side of any "argument". You're saying "I believe THIS" and refuse to clarify the reasons behind your belief despite evidence that your justifications for it are not wholly correct.

If people won't listen I won't post (not in these threads I mean), sayonara.....

You find such a small challenge to your thoughts so offensive that you aren't even willing to answer a single question about it?

 

[Touring Mars]

Is there anyone who thinks that homosexuality is wrong for any reasons that have nothing to do with the Bible?

As for the Leviticus argument highlighted by CraftyLandShark, Sage and Famine, I'd have to say that the answer you are looking for is pretty self-evident - you can't justify one and not the other from a strictly biblical literalist interpretation. That being the case, I expect to see seafood restaurant windows boarded up the world over from now on.

 

[Famine]

Is there anyone who thinks that homosexuality is wrong for any reasons that have nothing to do with the Bible?

I only think it's wrong when I see two blokes in a TV programme kissing. They should have a warning before showing that:

"Caution: This programme contains scenes of dudes locking lips. Have the mindbleach and remote control to hand."


If you love someone, you love them. It doesn't matter where their genitalia are sited - and we haven't even touched on the thorny issue of transsexuals...

Actually, let's have some fun. Is a male-to-female (starts male, ends up female) transsexual having a relationship with a female-to-male (other way round) transsexual a homosexual relationship - since the person who was originally a man loves the person who now is a man, and the person who was a woman loves the person who now is a woman - or a heterosexual one - since they started and ended as differing genders?

 

[Joey D]

My post earlier it seems people read and didn't care, I provided my point of view, as to say it was my answer and you came up with the same questions
Eg. It's like me saying 1+1=2
and then you ask what does 1+1=?
How can I post my side of the argument if it gets completely dismissed and the same questions come up, a little bit rediculous. If people won't listen I won't post (not in these threads I mean), sayonara.....

I'd still like to know if a giant statue of Jesus makes him a false god.

 

[Touring Mars]

Actually, let's have some fun. Is a male-to-female (starts male, ends up female) transsexual having a relationship with a female-to-male (other way round) transsexual a homosexual relationship - since the person who was originally a man loves the person who now is a man, and the person who was a woman loves the person who now is a woman - or a heterosexual one - since they started and ended as differing genders?

Were you watching BBC2 at 9pm last night by any chance?

Annoyingly, the two best programmes on TV were on simultaneously - "Life In Cold Blood" on BBC1, and "Transsexuals in Iran"... I missed the latter but know that homosexuality is punishable by death in Iran, but sex change ops are legal (and Iran has the 2nd highest number of sex change ops in the world).

I can only guess as to the logic behind the Islamic law which sanctions sexual reassignment surgery - but it might go something like this: You can only be one sex at any one time, and your sexual orientation can only be assigned relative to your sex at any particular time. Islamic Law seems to appreciate the fact that love between members of the same sex exists, but at the same time states that it is against the word of Allah, so you have to do something about it. In other words, if you are a homosexual male in Iran, but wish to escape death for being in love with your partner, one of you is compelled to 'snip and tuck'.

With that in mind, I guess that you are not technically homosexual if you are (now) male and your partner is (now) female, or vice versa. Just burn the family photo albums and your done.

 

[Sureboss]

Well ok, I can say I don't like oysters because the taste makes me feel physically ill. I can't explain why I should find the smell so revolting, when the rest of my family can wolf the things down without so much as a second thought. Does that make more sense, or am I confusing the situation further?

You associate the smell of the oysters with you feeling physically sick. Perfectly logical.

To further on from Famine's dab into transsexuals...

Can someone be 'born the wrong gender'?

Science will say no and I agree with it.

 

[Famine]

You associate the smell of the oysters with you feeling physically sick. Perfectly logical.

To further on from Famine's dab into transsexuals...

Can someone be 'born the wrong gender'?

Science will say no and I agree with it.

Interestingly, male-to-female transsexuals tend to have brain physiology which more closely resembles typical female brains than typical male brains...

 

[Diego440]

Interestingly, male-to-female transsexuals tend to have brain physiology which more closely resembles typical female brains than typical male brains...

and you know this because...?

 

[Famine]

and you know this because...?

Science.

 

[Metar]

trim your sideburns

Which is a whole story in itself, since the older text in Hebrew doesn't mention what side of the head. As a result, orthodox people have shaved heads and very long beards.

Claiming things are right or wrong because "the bible says so" is almost ridiculous. Even assuming a strong belief in god and the bible, almost every rule has some sort of mis-translation to English, or isn't exactly clear.

One rule, for example, tells us not to eat "a lamb in his mother's milk" - and the common consensus among Jews is that this rule forbids the eating of milk and meat at the same time. However, one could interpret it as a rule forbidding something as immoral as eating said lamb in the his mother's milk.

 

[Duke]

I have to warn him, frestkd, these guys will attack anyone and everyone who tries to say homosexuality is not OK.

No, we will attack anyone with weak, illogical arguments. There's a big difference.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

I'd still like to know if a giant statue of Jesus makes him a false god.

You guys never understood what I meant, the statue was what those ancient civilisations worshipped, the staues of Jesus is a statue of who we worship.

The questions remain, as yet, unanswered.

It's not about what your opinion is, but why you hold that opinion. You say you "believe" that being gay is wrong. That's fine. You say it's against your religion. That's not fine. The only part of your religion which specifically deals with being gay says that it is a sin punishable by stoning to death - but it also says, in the same passage, that eating lobster is a sin punishable by stoning to death.

Either the Old Testament "counts" - Leviticus specifically - and both are sins punishable by stoning to death, or it doesn't and neither are (along with a few other quite ridiculous things). Your "religion" offers absolutely no room for manouevre on this - both are wrong or neither are. So which is it?

You can hate homosexuality all you want, but don't pretend it's for religious reasons unless you follow all of Leviticus (in which case, shalom).



Because you are not answering the questions. You aren't posting any side of any "argument". You're saying "I believe THIS" and refuse to clarify the reasons behind your belief despite evidence that your justifications for it are not wholly correct.



You find such a small challenge to your thoughts so offensive that you aren't even willing to answer a single question about it?

I told you, I don't go by that passage, I said a couple pages back now that I see homosexuality as wrong because in the beginning God created a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Man with woman is how He intended it to be, and that's how I think it should be. I have not once used that passage in the Old Testament as my evidence, and this is what my view has always been. But you guys keep rambling on about that passage saying it's the only evidence for Christians. I told you you were dismissing my posts.

 

[Loon]

I told you, I don't go by that passage...

Do you go by any of the other passages in that book?

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Do you go by any of the other passages in that book?

Explain what you mean there. If it's the Bible you're talking about then the Old Testament is not law, the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus is what you should mostly look at. If it's Leviticus you meant then probably not, nothing in that Book I go by.

 

[Loon]

Explain what you mean there. If it's the Bible you're talking about then the Old Testament is not law, the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus is what you should mostly look at. If it's Leviticus you meant then probably not, nothing in that Book I go by.

The book I was talking about was the one that contains the quote about shellfish and being gay.

 

[Duke]

You guys never understood what I meant, the statue was what those ancient civilisations worshipped, the staues of Jesus is a statue of who we worship.

You're quite certain of this? So the Greeks and Romans definitely worshipped statues, not gods that were represented by statues?

If so, how do you explain the fact that the Romans built temples to The Unknown God and Goddess, just in case? They wanted those deities to understand that it wasn't that they were not worshipped, just that the Romans didn't know them specifically and so could not worship by name.

And how do you explain that there are temples to Zeus, or Athena, or any other Greek deity, all over the Mediterranean? How can Zeus be this statue here in Athens, if he is also that statue over there in Sparta?

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

You're quite certain of this? So the Greeks and Romans definitely worshipped statues, not gods that were represented by statues?

If so, how do you explain the fact that the Romans built temples to The Unknown God and Goddess, just in case? They wanted those deities to understand that it wasn't that they were not worshipped, just that the Romans didn't know them specifically and so could not worship by name.

And how do you explain that there are temples to Zeus, or Athena, or any other Greek deity, all over the Mediterranean? How can Zeus be this statue here in Athens, if he is also that statue over there in Sparta?

Different time periods I believe. Sometimes they were "Gods" represented by statues, sometimes they were just statues and the leaders claimed that they were Gods.