The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

And Duke, no religion could outdate Christianity if you believe in Creationism. I'm not getting into that argument again though because people refuse to listen.

By definition Christianity is the following of the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, who was the messiah promised to the Jews. So, unless you consider pre-Jesus's life Judaism as Christianity then no Christianity is not the oldest religion, mainly because it broke away from Judaism, which is where the creation story originated.

Hang on, you're going back to that same argument again- I'm getting good at recognising patterns. The Old Testament is not false- oh contrare, it's all true.

You hurt yourself by saying this after admitting you are not learned enough to explain the Bible, especially considering that those who are consider Jonah and Job to be parables, teaching stories, not historical events.

You think it's a sin because THE BIBLE says so.

I'm just jumping in here, because I believe I understand where nd 4 holden spd is trying to go with this. I also see the fallacy that he fails to see.

nd 4 holden spd, correct me if I am wrong here. You believe homosexuality is a sin because God created a man and a woman, and that is the natural order of things. Homosexuality does not follow the natural order in which God set up by creating a man and woman. I've got you. The old Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve argument.

Now, here is where I see your problems.

1) Genesis itself makes mentions of other humans outside of Adam and Eve's family. So, the Bible itself does not lay out Adam and Eve as the only humans. So this leaves a situation that points out that facts not known or understood by the author of Genesis exist. So, what you perceive as the natural order may not actually be the only way things could be.

2) Basing your thought on homosexuality as a sin because it defies natural order is you using the exact same process as Old Testament law was created using. If it was seen as unnatural or unclean it was considered a sin by law.


As a fellow Christian I would implore you to think about it more and really look at why it matters to you. That is why some people are questioning you. Trying to get someone who does not share your faith to understand that it is because of your faith is like a Muslim trying to get you to understand why women have to cover their faces.


I'll admit some people have pushed you hard on issues that you have admitted you don't understand well enough. You not understanding the Bible completely doesn't invalidate your belief anymore than their not understanding quantum physics invalidates their belief that the Big Bang happened. But you do encourage them when you then try to explain it after saying you don't understand it. I have witnessed and participated in plenty of discussions where it had to end because the extent of understanding by one party (myself included) had been reached.

 

[Danoff]

I Think Homosexuality Is Wrong Because God Created A Man And A Woman In The Beginning, No Other Combo. Can You All Read This Now? This Is Only Around The 4th Or 5th Time I've Posted It.

See, the mistake you're making here is that you think we're ignoring this. Quite the contrary, I heard you twice the first time. But we've refuted this in two distinct ways, neither of which you've properly addressed (although, in your credit, you have attempted to address them). Here are our arguments refuting what you wrote above.

1) The fact that God created Man and Woman first doesn't by-default make homosexuality a sin. It just means that he made each gender first. I really see no reason why that means that each gender is then forbidden to fornicate with their own gender - especially given the fact that God never said so in any area of the bible who's laws you respect.

2) You don't accept laws specifically written in the OT, so how can you derive a law from the OT and claim that it is iron-clad.

Now, you've tried to address both of these, but you've failed. Your response to (1) has always been "my pastor could tell you but I can't". Well that's just pure failure, and I'll explain why momentarily. Your response to (2) is that only the laws were overturned by Jesus, but the rest of the OT is correct - but that doesn't really explain how you can still obtain a law from the OT. If Jesus overturned the laws in the OT, then surely a) the 10 commandments are out the window and b) any laws you obtain from the bible should be derived from the NT.

Now, about you being unable to understand your own holy book. Your pastor telling you how to interpret the bible may seem to you to be very similar to a teacher. But teachers don't interpret things for you and expect you to follow THEM blindly and unquestioningly. You essentially have faith in a human being and are believing what that HUMAN BEING is telling you. Not the bible.

When a teacher tells you something is a noun, that's an arbitrary definition (I know I've lost you at this point, but I'm going to finish for completeness). So it doesn't require belief, it's just a convention. The convention could have been something else, but adopting one makes things simpler for everyone. Just like I don't "believe" that the word "boat" means a sea-going vessel. I simply adopt that convention so that we can all understand each other.

But teachers teach other things besides pure convention. And when they do, they teach understanding, not rote memorization or acceptance. That's the critical thing here, I understand what my education is based on. And the things I don't fully understand, I can still describe based on observation. You have none of this to stand on. You don't understand where you beliefs come from, and you have no evidence to support them... and they aren't simple conventions. You have nothing but your word that someone else understands it.

You see how this is wholly unconvincing right?

 

[Metar]

Let me start by a simple statement regarding all Bible-arguments: The Bible is a complete mess. It is almost impossible to read a story, a chapter, an episode, a book or a phrase which doesn't contradict with something else, or somehow stands against something said or done elsewhere. After almost 10 years of bible-study, As a Story as YSSMAN's course would be called, I found it impossible to track down a story without something wrong in it.

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.

Which depends on your faith. Jews consider the Old Testament the only law, and different Christians regard it differently: Some will follow both the New and the Old Testament.

I don't understand basing the whole of your opinion on homosexuality on such a vague phrase ("God created Man and Woman"). First of all, they're not linked statements even in scripture. According to Genesis, God first created Man, then on a subsequent "day", when he saw Man was lonely, he created Woman. Apparently going by this God originally intended Man to exist unto himself - no woman necessary for procreation. Odd, huh?

Actually, the stories differ. In the first chapter of Genesis, god creates the man and the woman simultaneously. In the second chapter, as if in a different creation, he creates the man, then makes the woman from his rib.

@ Duke, I'm pretty sure Christianity outdates every other religion, let's try since the beginning of time.

Are you double, triple and quadruple-sure Jesus E. Christ wasn't hailed as "King of the Jews" by his followers? Which was, if I recall correctly, the main reason the romans wanted him dead?

Regarding your second comment later on about Creationism: I won't go into the fact that Creationism contains about zero evidence of anything to back itself up, but even the bible itself states that there are, were, and will be many religions other than Judaism, and later on, Christianity. In what, exactly, did Abraham believe before God spoke to him?
At the same time, we have solid, scientific, historically-accurate evidence of many religions predating Christianity. The fact that, when the romans crucified Jesus, they believed in something else, is probably the best point, since it's even says so in the New Testament.

Odder still, this suggests that God somehow failed to anticipate the nature and needs of his own creation. In what light does this cast the idea of an infallable God? The "free will" argument won't work in this instance; this is all taking place before the supposed "fall from grace", when God had not yet given up his creation to "free will".

Some people will tell you god created those needs. I just studied the passage about the Holy Fruit at school two weeks ago, but that's a whole subject enough to fill a medium-sized Bible-forum.

that's funny, I thought that christianity didn't appear as formal religion until the romans got a christian leader.. which was.. what, 30-50 years after Christs death?

Longer - Nero, who lived that the time you mentioned, still burned those on flaming torches. Constantine, around 300AD, was the one to accept Christianity. Though it was an underground movement long before that.

Don't you think we would have archaeological evidence if this was so? Not to mention evidence of a great flood?

C'mon Joey, we know that was just a mythical story common to many middle-eastern religions. Babylonian tales of Gilgamesh include a surprisingly similar version of that story, and they predate the bible.

* DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

Now that's a new one

You forgot, there's one that specifically forbids wanking off. Or not wasting semen. Which we all know is no longer relevant in today's world

Where did you guys some out with this Old Testament being the word of God bit anyway?

Because, assuming you believe in anything said in it, it is the work of God, given to the Israelites after Moses stood for a couple of days on top of a mountain during a storm in the desert, the poor sap.



Off-topic: I'm beginning to like this subforum.

 

[Touring Mars]

Excellent post FK 👍

You not understanding the Bible completely doesn't invalidate your belief anymore than their not understanding quantum physics invalidates their belief that the Big Bang happened.

I'm not quite so sure about this point - although it's a great analogy, it's not exactly true. Perhaps "their not understanding quantum physics invalidates their belief of how the Big Bang happened" is more accurate. Although it sounds a bit pedantic, the point is quite an important one - if someone claimed that they did know how the Big Bang happened, I'd expect them to understand quantum physics. Similarly, if someone makes a claim based entirely on their own beliefs, I'd expect them to be able to explain why they hold those beliefs. Unfortunately holden's explanation of why he holds the belief that homosexuality is wrong is self-contradictory.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

A factual matter to clarify - reputed archaeologists DO agree that there was a great flood of the Tigris and Euphrates very far back in the past - it would have been the distant past for the scribes of Genesis as well. I'd have to do a bit of digging around to find out more specific details, but it's safe to say that, while big considering the scope of the time (we're talking pre-Sumerian here), it was still a localized event. Certainly not the globe-spanning flood the story of Noah suggests.

Not-so-strangely, almost all the major religions contemporary to the foundation of Judaism ALSO mention a great flood in their origin stories. Even 'The Epic of Gilgamesh' mentions it. This is where the idea of the foundation of religion is thrown into scientific doubt, and stands as support for a claim I made in a post in the Creation vs. Evolution thread that the natural order of the progress of religion is eventual demise. All these religions explained this great flood in various ways, but all of them are obviously wrong. All but one of these religions no longer exists, and most of the level-headed adherents of the one survivor consider the story more akin to one of Aesop's Fables.

<edit> Jesus you people post quickly...

 

[Metar]

<edit> Jesus you people post quickly...

And if there was a flood around the Euphrat-Tigris area, it's logical why such a tale appears in the Gilgamesh tale - and being the older of the stories, it obviously is the source of the Noah version.

And remember that in a small world as the world they lived in, if it was flooded as far as they could see, then, for them, the whole world was a flood

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Yep, exactly my points. 👍

Most of this translates to most any Biblical parable. It may have SOME basis in fact, but that's about the long and the short of it.

New and interesting related topic:

Some biblical scholars (albeit not very many) believe that David and Jonathan were gay lovers. Discuss!

 

[Metar]

Some biblical scholars (albeit not very many) believe that David and Jonathan were gay lovers. Discuss!

Oh yes, that's a theory they even bring up at school to make us raise our heads and listen

I don't remember those chapters well enough, though. I'd re-read them for the sake of this discussion, but some things are best done the day after.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Yeah, there's one specific verse or series of verses that most use to justify it, but the whole way through the story of the relationship, things DO have a very tender, loving, more-than-just-friends subtext.

I'll try to figure out which exact verse(s) are in question.

Besides which, later when be became king, David had a HUGE harem of concubines, as I recall. Hmmm, compensating for something?

<edit> Here we go. Their relationship spans 1 Samuel Chapter 18 through 2 Samuel Chapter 1. Just glancing over Wikipedia, there are some VERY interesting verses here...

"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan [son of Saul] was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (1 Sam. 18:1).

"And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." (1 Sam. 18:4)

"Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes." (1 Sam. 20:3) (David, in reference to Saul, Jonathan's father's, attempts to kill David out of anger and jealousy over their "close" relationship)

"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, 'Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness' " (1 Sam. 20:30) (Need I point out the EXTREMELY gay overtones here? Parental nakedness is a VERY common Biblical euphemism regarding sexual matters)

"David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city." (1 Sam. 20:41-42) (Sounds a bit like marriage vows, eh?)

And the final nail in the backsi... erm, coffin:

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women." (2 Sam. 1:26) (David lamenting Jonathan's death in battle)

 

[Metar]

Checking it up, Saul and David had quite the relationship as well...

However, Samuel 1 18:1 says, very roughly translated (can't be arsed to find the English version, and I like to think the older versions are more accurate), that Jonathan's soul became intertwined with David's, and that Jonathan loved him as he loved himself. The third verse mentions Jonathan sealing a pact with David in his love to him, while the next one tells Yonathan stripped himself of his weapons, uniform and coat...
Some of those interpreters also raise the possibility that this was Saul's reason for throwing his spear at David.

The whole deal spans over a couple of chapters, so I won't go deeper now.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

See my post above - I edited in most of the salient verses. I did however leave out the bits about collecting foreskins... that seemed a bit excessive

 

[Sureboss]

Wouldn't a worldwide flood be completely impossible? Surely if it was worldwide then there'd be nowhere for the water to run to, thus meaning the flooding wouldn't go away as we know how floods go away.

 

[Leonidae]

Whoa.. talk about innuendos there..

 

[CraftyLandShark]

It's actually a pretty sad, touching story if you read it from a romantic angle... kind of a biblical Romeo and ... Julio?

 

[Duke]

A factual matter to clarify - reputed archaeologists DO agree that there was a great flood of the Tigris and Euphrates very far back in the past - it would have been the distant past for the scribes of Genesis as well. I'd have to do a bit of digging around to find out more specific details, but it's safe to say that, while big considering the scope of the time (we're talking pre-Sumerian here), it was still a localized event. Certainly not the globe-spanning flood the story of Noah suggests.

There is solid physical evidence of a titanic earthquake less than 10,000 years ago in present-day Turkey. A large land mass to the north subsided between 10 and 30 feet, causing a fairly substantial portion of the Mediterranean Sea to pour through the Strait of Bosphorus and spread out over a wide swath of what had been settled territory.

Remember we're talking about people whose fastest form of communication is a donkey, and who likely lived their entire lives within a 50-mile radius. That could easily explain how you'd think the entire planet was flooded, without having to worry about where that water drained away to when the flood went down.

 

[Metar]

"Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes." (1 Sam. 20:3) (David, in reference to Saul, Jonathan's father's, attempts to kill David out of anger and jealousy over their "close" relationship)

This verse is even more direct in the Hebrew text, where a stronger expression of 'to like', mostly used between lovers, is used.

Parental nakedness is a VERY common Biblical euphemism regarding sexual matters

Lest we forget how Noah's son, Cham, who's sons were punished with lifelong slavery, because he saw his father asleep, nude and drunk - and more importantly, for some reason Noah knew he was "watched" despite passing out after drinking too much wine. This point was raised by Bible-scholars, some of which claim that the son, in fact, raped Noah.

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women." (2 Sam. 1:26) (David lamenting Jonathan's death in battle)

This verse is far less controversial - 'surpassing the love of women' was also used by others to describe a warrior's brotherhood in the text. It is also said in the middle of a poem, or song, in memory of the dead heroes.

Wouldn't a worldwide flood be completely impossible? Surely if it was worldwide then there'd be nowhere for the water to run to, thus meaning the flooding wouldn't go away as we know how floods go away.

Yes, it's pretty sure that it wasn't a worldwide flood - just "worldwide" from the ancient viewer's perspective.

There is solid physical evidence of a titanic earthquake about 10,000 years ago in present-day Turkey. A large land mass to the north subsided between 10 and 30 feet, causing a fairly substantial portion of the Mediterranean Sea to pour through the Strait of Bosphorus and spread out over a wide swath of what had been settled territory.

Off-topic, but could this be a cause for the Black and Caspian seas?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

There is solid physical evidence of a titanic earthquake less than 10,000 years ago in present-day Turkey. A large land mass to the north subsided between 10 and 30 feet, causing a fairly substantial portion of the Mediterranean Sea to pour through the Strait of Bosphorus and spread out over a wide swath of what had been settled territory.

Thanks 👍 and to Metar as well - always great to have someone with the material in its source language.

 

[Duke]

Off-topic, but could this be a cause for the Black and Caspian seas?

I don't believe it caused those seas to appear, but it definitely enlarged them quite a bit.

 

[Joey D]

A factual matter to clarify - reputed archaeologists DO agree that there was a great flood of the Tigris and Euphrates very far back in the past - it would have been the distant past for the scribes of Genesis as well. I'd have to do a bit of digging around to find out more specific details, but it's safe to say that, while big considering the scope of the time (we're talking pre-Sumerian here), it was still a localized event. Certainly not the globe-spanning flood the story of Noah suggests.

I know that, but I was talking about the global one. People claim because they find seashell fossils in the Rocky Mountains that there was a global flood. I guess I was a bit vague.

C'mon Joey, we know that was just a mythical story common to many middle-eastern religions. Babylonian tales of Gilgamesh include a surprisingly similar version of that story, and they predate the bible.

I see it as mythical and the message being "either live a moral life or everything could get wiped out" but many many many people think that it's true and it concerns me a little. Myths and stories on how to live your life are fine, taking them for fact however isn't. That would be like me claiming the race between the tortoise and the hare is true.

 

[YSSMAN]

Let me start by a simple statement regarding all Bible-arguments: The Bible is a complete mess. It is almost impossible to read a story, a chapter, an episode, a book or a phrase which doesn't contradict with something else, or somehow stands against something said or done elsewhere. After almost 10 years of bible-study, As a Story as YSSMAN's course would be called, I found it impossible to track down a story without something wrong in it.

That class made my head hurt every Tuesday and Friday that semester. All of this backtalk and double-speak found in the book managed to confuse the hell out of me, and not being a seasoned veteran of the Bible (family issues with churches, a "catholic" Mom marrying a "protestant" Dad), yeah, it was a crash-course. Needless to say, my professor liked my effort even if I didn't do too well on everything, and just passed me anyway.

Someone mentioned earlier that the God that we have come to known as Christians is the same God that Jews and Muslims worship too is a totally valid point, one that far too many people don't understand and don't take to heart. Furthermore, the concept that God as we know it technically has been (in theory) three different identities. First, Elohim, then Yahweh, and then of course Jesus himself (if you buy into the Jesus deal, being a Christian and such).

Of course, me being a bit of a Deist and all, I end up just believing in that there is just something there moving us about, but leaving plenty of room for self determination, and in the end, the ability to make better decisions for one's self without consequence of these otherwise befuddled questions of whats in the Bible or Quran, or whatever other religious text out there...

So, let me put this clearly for the Bible-thumpers:

As we've demonstrated, the Bible doesn't have any strong support in the arguement against homosexuality. You as a person can say that it is "wrong" and don't like it, thats your own right as a human being, but to condemn people for what is an otherwise naturally occurring phenomenon is just plain wrong. If you believe in Jesus so much, you should have taken to heart his teachings to love thy neighbor, be you in disagreement with people's beliefs/actions/whatnot. Shame on you, friend, because even if by your logic that homosexuals are violating the word of God, so too are you, especially if the New Testament "counts" while other portions of it do not.

I constantly thank my parents for not shoving me into a church every Sunday, I like being able to look at things from different perspectives.

I vote to go Jedi for my religion... We all know Anakin was a little gay anyway...

 

[Metar]

Oh, they mean it literally?

It is indeed a fact that seashell, but that could just as well have been due to shifts in the earth's surface - or just something left there by prehistoric creatures. Sometimes we find seashells in the middle of nowhere here in Israel, even in areas above sea-level.

Elohim, then Yahweh, and then of course Jesus himself (if you buy into the Jesus deal, being a Christian and such)

Elohim and Yahweh are different names used for the same god in the old testament. You probably means to replace one with Allah

'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.'

 

[Venari]

*random*stoning*

This is about the sum total of my intellectual contribution to this thread.

I had some popcorn, drank tea, it's fun reading.

Now, Mark Walliams in a wetsuit - serious problem, or alternative lifestyle?

 

[Sureboss]

It's actually a pretty sad, touching story if you read it from a romantic angle... kind of a biblical Romeo and ... Julio?

I'm wondering whether we could do with a new thread about the use of New and Old Testament. Should one only use either or? Or can you use bits of both?

 

[YSSMAN]

Elohim and Yahweh are different names used for the same god in the old testament.

Actually no, our professor went down the path of the three identities. I can't remember the specifics of his arguement, I should dig up my old notes... Seemed that he made an arguement that Jesus was the reincarnate of Elohim, who predated and created Yahweh/God.

It was in the final days of the class where he went a bit more into the hypothetical nature of the study of the Bible. It was really interesting, but I'm not sure how many people subscribe to the similar idea. Apparently he has a book coming about it...

 

[frestkd]

Because a man and a woman never have sex to gratify their desires. It's all about reproduction baby.

There's selfish strait people too ... When we as a sociality promote selfish lifestyles one of the results is homosexuality. So I view Homosexuality as selfish act nothing more. It could be a sin in Gods eyes, but I'm not God so I don't worry about it. That's God's concerned and everyone has to face him/her at the end anyway.

 

[frestkd]

There's selfish strait people too, and yes In my opinion homo's are selfish, because for every homo that I have met, known, and are friends with all they think about is themselves.

And the same thing happens when a heterosexual couple use birth control methods to allow them to have sex whilst purposefully avoiding conception. So homosexuals certainly don't have the monopoly on "selfish gratification" as you put it. The fact that you think that sex between two loving adults (of whatever gender) can be simplified to mere "selfish gratification" is, IMO, a fundamental misunderstanding of what relationships are all about.

You seem to be failing to make any distinction between casual sex and non-procreational sex between partners in a well-established relationship... there is a huge difference, and to suggest that homosexuals can only engage in casual sex simply because they cannot procreate is plain wrong. By that logic, heterosexuals are somehow admonished from being "selfish" simply because they are capable of reproducing - and that is pretty far from the truth, if you ask me.


To me, that statement doesn't sound like an opinion, but something you believe to be factually correct. As such, you need to back it up with some evidence, and that I would like to see...

 

[Danny]

There's selfish strait people too, and yes In my opinion homo's are selfish, because for every homo that I have met, known, and are friends with all they think about is themselves.

And it's a well established fact that everyone is identical, right?

That's why we all have biggoted views, just like you.

 

[frestkd]

I did spell it right you do know there's different spellings of strait .. I used the body of water strait not the straight and narrow one .... hehe

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.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

There's selfish strait people too, and yes In my opinion homo's are selfish, because for every homo that I have met, known, and are friends with all they think about is themselves.

Another blanket statement? You seem to enjoy those.

I know through firsthand contact with gay people (which I haven't fabricated out of whole cloth as I suspect you may have done) that this is NOT true. The gay and lesbian individuals I have met, have become friends with, and REMAIN friends with are no more or less likely than anyone else to be *self-absorbed. No more or less likely, in fact, to posess ANY arbitrarily-selected personality flaw.

*(I use self-absorbed rather than selfish for reasons that I'm sure several people here, particularly Danoff, will appreciate )

 

[frestkd]

Oh I'm a bigot just because I have a different viewpoint of yours hmm interesting, maybe you might want to look at yourself in the mirror, and ask yourself that very same question. I'm not going condemn, or condone homosexuality, because I have friends who are gay, straight, black, brown, Asian, and white. Heck I'm married to a Buddhist Thai woman, and I'm White Lutheran man. So please don't post such ignorant comments.

And it's a well established fact that everyone is identical, right?

That's why we all have biggoted views, just like you.