The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[JLawrence]

EDIT
Post duplicated?

 

[JLawrence]

I suspect that the issue here is that homosexual displays of any nature simply make you feel uncomfortable, and while that is regrettable its also your issue and certainly not a valid reason to censor.


Scaff

Also my issue?
First off, why are you going past the topic here of "right or wrong" to drag me into this when that argument is entirely irrelevant to the general discussion, especially when you know absolutely nothing about me aside from the few lines I typed up earlier?

Now, read my original post in this thread again, but check out the emphasis on the bold letters.

My personal views are summed up with Levitacus 18:12 -
Thou shall not lie with mankind as womankind for it is an abomination.

That being said, it really isn't my business what people decide to do with themselves. My only issue socially speaking with gays is that it seems that it isn't enough that we let them do their thing, but they gotta try to impress it upon the rest of us.

I gave a reference as to where I derive my thoughts on the matter (sorry if my using a Bible verse to its correct intent bothers you), as a frame of reference, not as a discussion point. Then went on to say that "my only issue is that it seems like they try to impress that upon the rest of us," meaning that the sheer amount of flamboyancy many exhibit in letting the entire world know that they are in fact gay annoys me. Aside from that it in no way concerns me. I don't promote or approve of it, but I'm not going to attack any one who leads a homosexual lifestyle any more than somebody who is into drugs.

Now, that doesn't exclude the topic itself, which is perfectly open for argument.

OK - so what about the multitude of advertising billboards that use heterosexual sexuality to promote products. Unless someone wants to crash a car they have very little choice in viewing them and I would be willing to bet money they outnumber unavoidable displays of homosexual sexuality by quite a large degree.


Scaff

This is simply smart advertising. Think about any product and the amount of people who may purchase the product. How many are straight and how many are homosexual? It's the same general concept as to why more ads involve white people vs. those of another race. It's just a numbers game and vying for the approval of the majority.


Now think of it this way, America is actually very liberal when it comes to the rights of a homosexual as compared to other parts of the world where you can be put in prison or killed because of it. I personally think they should be happy to have what they have at this point, because in reality there are many other groups that are receiving far more scrutiny and persecution in this country and around the world such as Christians, soldiers, and specifically on a world view, Americans.

 

[Scaff]

Anyone using lavitacus 18, 22 will face that same response.

matthew 15: 11 and 17 (pork)

mark 2: 23-28 (work on sabbath)

And Christ rebuked violence.

Not that any of that will satisfy an atheist but I get tired of the bible being used incorrecty.

I think the massive contradictions that exist within the Bible are a topic in its own right, however please don't forget the numerous mentions in the New Testament of Jesus's love for his fellow man. Given how 'interpretatively' Biblical text can be taken, then John 13:23 alone can be read in a number of ways.

Also my issue?
First off, why are you going past the topic here of "right or wrong" to drag me into this when that argument is entirely irrelevant to the general discussion, especially when you know absolutely nothing about me aside from the few lines I typed up earlier?

I've addressed the 'topic' in here on a number of occasions and don't plan to repeat myself ever time I post. Its also not an argument that is an irrelevance to this discussion at all, and all I have to base it on is your 'few lines'.

That's how a conversation starts and to be honest I reserve the right (within the AUP) to reply to any comment made by any member.

Now, read my original post in this thread again, but check out the emphasis on the bold letters.

Its the part directly after that however....

"My only issue socially speaking with gays is that it seems that it isn't enough that we let them do their thing, but they gotta try to impress it upon the rest of us."

...that adds a rather big caveat to your emphasis. Why do you first of all believe that homosexuals impress anything about a lifestyle on others any more than any social group does, and why would it be a problem with this single social group?

I gave a reference as to where I derive my thoughts on the matter (sorry if my using a Bible verse to its correct intent bothers you), as a frame of reference, not as a discussion point. Then went on to say that "my only issue is that it seems like they try to impress that upon the rest of us," meaning that the sheer amount of flamboyancy many exhibit in letting the entire world know that they are in fact gay annoys me. Aside from that it in no way concerns me. I don't promote or approve of it, but I'm not going to attack any one who leads a homosexual lifestyle any more than somebody who is into drugs.

Now, that doesn't exclude the topic itself, which is perfectly open for argument.

Which again raises the question of why someone letting the world know they are homosexual is such a problem (I ask honestly because I do not get it) and do you have a similar issue with people flaunting heterosexuality?

This is simply smart advertising. Think about any product and the amount of people who may purchase the product. How many are straight and how many are homosexual? It's the same general concept as to why more ads involve white people vs. those of another race. It's just a numbers game and vying for the approval of the majority.

Are you actually aware that the social group with the largest disposable income are homosexuals?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_money


As such I don't personally see that argument stacking up.

Its also a straw-man argument, because it fails to answer the point in question regarding the acceptability of 'in your face' heterosexual imagery Vs. homosexual imagery.

In other words, this question....

"Which again raises the question of why someone letting the world know they are homosexual is such a problem (I ask honestly because I do not get it) and do you have a similar issue with people flaunting heterosexuality?"

Now think of it this way, America is actually very liberal when it comes to the rights of a homosexual as compared to other parts of the world where you can be put in prison or killed because of it. I personally think they should be happy to have what they have at this point, because in reality there are many other groups that are receiving far more scrutiny and persecution in this country and around the world such as Christians, soldiers, and specifically on a world view, Americans.

Given that acceptance of homosexuality in the US military in only being dealt with this year I still believe that the US has a way to go.

Yes the US (and Europe) is better than a lot of other countries, but we are talking about principally dictatorships (of many flavours) and LDC's. Give that I would personally want a better yard-stick to be measured against.

It smacks a little of 'we don't kill 'em or jail 'em so they so they should be happy with what they have and shut-up'; not a viewpoint I could personally share.


Scaff

 

[FoolKiller]

For me, its not what they like doing in the bedroom that kinda creeps me out. Its their behavior. I have a gay kid in my class and he's just creepy. I mean, I don't mind that he's into guys and all, but the way he acts just creeps me out. He acts like..... a skinny, wannabe woman.

Also, has anyone watched the "Eat da poo poo video"? Any response on that regarding homosexuality? I mean, his points ARE valid.

You're entire perspective of a group of people is based on the actions of a single individual? Weird people exist that act in ways that most of society finds odd, straight or gay. What you have described sounds like a flamboyant
homosexual male who loves to act out. How is that any different than the straight, masculine jocks who also like to act out and even beat up nerds?

The first person I met who was openly gay was in college. He liked Mustangs (and owned one) and video games and had a strong interest in politics. He also enjoyed attending various sporting events on campus, and was one of my best friends at college because we had a lot in common. Plus, we never competed for women, and I even found that the women who enjoyed hanging around a gay man also were attracted to a straight man that was comfortable enough to hang out with a gay man.

I also had a gay roommate who I would have never known was gay had he not revealed it the day we moved into the dorms.

My personal views are summed up with Levitacus 18:12 -
Thou shall not lie with mankind as womankind for it is an abomination.

That being said, it really isn't my business what people decide to do with themselves. My only issue socially speaking with gays is that it seems that it isn't enough that we let them do their thing, but they gotta try to impress it upon the rest of us.

The problem with Leviticus is that you have very likely broken 90% of what it says. But then things such as pork and shrimp don't bother you personally.

The problem they are complaining about is that we don't let them do their thing. They want equal rights, not to just be treated as outlaws. They wish to marry, they wish to have the legal rights to speak for their partner that my wife and I share, they wish to be able to join finances officially and receive the same benefits I do, and they wish to be able to adopt one of the thousands of kids that were rejected by or taken away from absolutely horrible straight parents.

 

[JLawrence]

I think the massive contradictions that exist within the Bible are a topic in its own right, however please don't forget the numerous mentions in the New Testament of Jesus's love for his fellow man. Given how 'interpretatively' Biblical text can be taken, then John 13:23 alone can be read in a number of ways.

I'm not even going to start on correcting you there.

I've addressed the 'topic' in here on a number of occasions and don't plan to repeat myself ever time I post. Its also not an argument that is an irrelevance to this discussion at all, and all I have to base it on is your 'few lines'.

That's how a conversation starts and to be honest I reserve the right (within the AUP) to reply to any comment made by any member.

In a polite and non-offensive way. Personal attacks don't just have a negative effect on the temperament of a person, they also have a major derogatory effect on the debate itself.

Back to the topic at hand hmm?

Its the part directly after that however....

"My only issue socially speaking with gays is that it seems that it isn't enough that we let them do their thing, but they gotta try to impress it upon the rest of us."

...that adds a rather big caveat to your emphasis. Why do you first of all believe that homosexuals impress anything about a lifestyle on others any more than any social group does, and why would it be a problem with this single social group?



Which again raises the question of why someone letting the world know they are homosexual is such a problem (I ask honestly because I do not get it) and do you have a similar issue with people flaunting heterosexuality?

I have the same issue with blacks who still want the rest of the world to feel bad that their forefathers were enslaved 200 years ago. Those were both generalizations, and like any other generalization doesn't apply to all the people being generalized. I do, however, disagree with your assessment that they are no more vocal than any other minority. Discounting the genocides and horrible things going on overseas, what group dominates the topic of rights and equality in the news?

Letting someone know and being flamboyant about it are two different things. The captain of my wrestling team in high school was gay. We all knew it, he knew we knew, and nothing ever came out of it. It was just a fact, like the fact that our coach was a collegiate football player. Just another thing. My personal issue is with the gays that feel they must express their sexuality to anyone and everyone who will listen.

You know the obvious answer to my thoughts on heterosexuality, but as old school as it sounds, I feel as though sex belongs in the bedroom and not on billboards, tv, or whatever else, and that is regardless of your own tendencies.

Are you actually aware that the social group with the largest disposable income are homosexuals?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_money


As such I don't personally see that argument stacking up.

Its also a straw-man argument, because it fails to answer the point in question regarding the acceptability of 'in your face' heterosexual imagery Vs. homosexual imagery.

In other words, this question....

"Which again raises the question of why someone letting the world know they are homosexual is such a problem (I ask honestly because I do not get it) and do you have a similar issue with people flaunting heterosexuality?"

Less than 10% of the nation is gay, so while they may individually average out to have the highest disposable income, they will not even come close to the total disposable wealth of the rest of the population. Again, it's a numbers game, and they just don't have them no matter how you look at it.

Another race example:

This graph from the 2005 Census shows that Asians make, on average, have the highest income but they only make up 4.8% of the total population. Would you say that they, though they make the most, actually have the most when compared to the other races?

The goal of advertisement is to entice the most customers to buy a certain product, and to do so they have to heavily cater to the majority, which has heterosexual tendencies, and would respond better to heterosexual ads. If the homosexual demographic was larger you would see an influx of ads that are designed to appeal to them, but as it is, there is not.

Now, aside from the programming on tv or magazines, which is surprisingly balanced in terms of homo/heterosexual options, what do you see plastered everywhere? Ads, which I have already explained. Like I keep saying, its just a numbers game.

Given that acceptance of homosexuality in the US military in only being dealt with this year I still believe that the US has a way to go.

Yes the US (and Europe) is better than a lot of other countries, but we are talking about principally dictatorships (of many flavours) and LDC's. Give that I would personally want a better yard-stick to be measured against.

It smacks a little of 'we don't kill 'em or jail 'em so they so they should be happy with what they have and shut-up'; not a viewpoint I could personally share.


Scaff

It's just now being dealt with openly. There have always been gays in the military, and no one has complained about them being there. The logic behind "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was to remove a point of possible controversy that could possibly create problems if it were brought up, though unless the questioned person was not performing his/her duties because of this no officer or recruit would care.

I wouldn't mind a better yard stick myself, but it is what we've got. The world is what it is, and we are infinitely better off on all fronts than the vast majority of the rest of it.

And yes, they should. Being alive and able to make your own choices is a gift that many many people don't have. The American dream doesn't have a color, a race, a gender, or a sexual preference. If you make smart choices and put in the hard work you can pretty well get where ever you want to go.

 

[Danny]

The problem with Leviticus is that you have very likely broken 90% of what it says. But then things such as pork and shrimp don't bother you personally.

I don't mean to insult anybody's faith here (to each his own), but Leviticus strikes me more as a 'list of arbitrary nouns' than a set of spiritual guidelines.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't mean to insult anybody's faith here (to each his own), but Leviticus strikes me more as a 'list of arbitrary nouns' than a set of spiritual guidelines.

A lot of them are laws based on cleanliness. Talk of filthy animals, avoiding diseased people, cleaning rituals, and so forth. It is the kind of stuff you would have to do in a world without proper food handling guidelines, soap, or sanitizer.

 

[Scaff]

I'm not even going to start on correcting you there.

How can you correct my interpretation of a vague statement that has been translated numerous times from its original?

The King James Bible and modern versions alone read in very different ways and they are all in English, let alone starting to explore the many errors that are almost certainly going to creep in regarding translations over 2,000+ years from Aramaic to Latin to English (with numerous other language involved as well.

That's also without exploring the (to me) rather obvious contradictions between the OT and NT, and then looking at how the infallible word of God from the OT can be 'corrected' in the NT. That however is another topic for another thread (one that already exists).

In a polite and non-offensive way. Personal attacks don't just have a negative effect on the temperament of a person, they also have a major derogatory effect on the debate itself.

Back to the topic at hand hmm?

It wasn't a personal attack, it was a observation. From my point of view it is your issue. Its certainly not mine and I don't see how it can be anyone else's issue?

We are all responsible for our own bias's and opinions, we don't get to abdicate them.

I have the same issue with blacks who still want the rest of the world to feel bad that their forefathers were enslaved 200 years ago. Those were both generalizations, and like any other generalization doesn't apply to all the people being generalized. I do, however, disagree with your assessment that they are no more vocal than any other minority. Discounting the genocides and horrible things going on overseas, what group dominates the topic of rights and equality in the news?

Letting someone know and being flamboyant about it are two different things. The captain of my wrestling team in high school was gay. We all knew it, he knew we knew, and nothing ever came out of it. It was just a fact, like the fact that our coach was a collegiate football player. Just another thing. My personal issue is with the gays that feel they must express their sexuality to anyone and everyone who will listen.

You know the obvious answer to my thoughts on heterosexuality, but as old school as it sounds, I feel as though sex belongs in the bedroom and not on billboards, tv, or whatever else, and that is regardless of your own tendencies.

So would I be correct in believing that you are against the majority of displays of 'flamboyant' or overtly sexual behaviour?

Less than 10% of the nation is gay, so while they may individually average out to have the highest disposable income, they will not even come close to the total disposable wealth of the rest of the population. Again, it's a numbers game, and they just don't have them no matter how you look at it.

Another race example:

This graph from the 2005 Census shows that Asians make, on average, have the highest income but they only make up 4.8% of the total population. Would you say that they, though they make the most, actually have the most when compared to the other races?

The goal of advertisement is to entice the most customers to buy a certain product, and to do so they have to heavily cater to the majority, which has heterosexual tendencies, and would respond better to heterosexual ads. If the homosexual demographic was larger you would see an influx of ads that are designed to appeal to them, but as it is, there is not.

Now, aside from the programming on tv or magazines, which is surprisingly balanced in terms of homo/heterosexual options, what do you see plastered everywhere? Ads, which I have already explained. Like I keep saying, its just a numbers game.

As I have already pointed out this is a straw man argument, in that it doesn't (and still does not) address the point I was making.

It may be a valid topic for discussion in this thread, but was not the point I was making.

It's just now being dealt with openly. There have always been gays in the military, and no one has complained about them being there. The logic behind "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was to remove a point of possible controversy that could possibly create problems if it were brought up, though unless the questioned person was not performing his/her duties because of this no officer or recruit would care.

That I have to disagree with, given that many members of the military were dismissed with unblemished records simply for acknowledging they were homosexual.

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a ludicrously outdated and unworkable policy that has robbed the US military of men and women who served exceptionally and were forced out for the crime of have a different sexuality.

I wouldn't mind a better yard stick myself, but it is what we've got. The world is what it is, and we are infinitely better off on all fronts than the vast majority of the rest of it.

And yes, they should. Being alive and able to make your own choices is a gift that many many people don't have. The American dream doesn't have a color, a race, a gender, or a sexual preference. If you make smart choices and put in the hard work you can pretty well get where ever you want to go.

Why not use a different yard-stick?

Why not set your own standards by which to judge others?

I certainly have no intention of using the record of the likes of North Korea, etc as a yard-stick in how I deal with any form of minority.


Scaff

 

[JLawrence]

So would I be correct in believing that you are against the majority of displays of 'flamboyant' or overtly sexual behaviour?

The majority yes, in a public setting.

As I have already pointed out this is a straw man argument, in that it doesn't (and still does not) address the point I was making.

It may be a valid topic for discussion in this thread, but was not the point I was making.

Then I must have misunderstood your point. Care to elaborate for me?

That I have to disagree with, given that many members of the military were dismissed with unblemished records simply for acknowledging they were homosexual.

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a ludicrously outdated and unworkable policy that has robbed the US military of men and women who served exceptionally and were forced out for the crime of have a different sexuality.

During which time period? If it were during the time when DADT was in effect they were breaching military protocol and for that deserved to be dismissed.

Why not use a different yard-stick?

Why not set your own standards by which to judge others?

I certainly have no intention of using the record of the likes of North Korea, etc as a yard-stick in how I deal with any form of minority.


Scaff

If you're making a judgement based upon a world view it is senseless to not include all of the world. If you would like to use a more qualitative sample then a different measure with different standards is reasonable.

 

[Lissa]

I don't think anyone wants a gay child but if you do end up having a gay child then you shouldn't try and force them to be something they're not.

I wouldn't care if my child was gay/lesbian/bi.

My daughter is gay. She is 21 now, and came out to me when she was 13. It has never been a problem as far as I'm concerned. She's my daughter, I love her, and I accept her for who she is - an intelligent young woman who just happens to be attracted to other women instead of men.

Lissa.

 

[arora]

don't forget the numerous mentions of jesus' love for his fellow man

I'm surprised you question my tolerance. And lol at 13:23

 

[Scaff]

The majority yes, in a public setting.

Thanks you, on this point we appear to fundamentally agree.

Given that would it not be more accurate to say that you principal dislike is overtly sexual public displays rather than overtly public homosexual displays?

Then I must have misunderstood your point. Care to elaborate for me?

My point was in trying to understand if you had an issue with 'in your face' sexuality of a homosexual nature only or of a more widespread nature (which you have now cleared up). I used billboard advertising as its about the clearest example of widespread 'in your face' heterosexual sexuality I could think of.

During which time period? If it were during the time when DADT was in effect they were breaching military protocol and for that deserved to be dismissed.

While the point you make is indeed true, that alone does not make it right. As a result the US military may well have lost a number of extremely talented individuals for what amounts to no good reason at all.

I still to this day have no idea how DADT benefited the armed forces in any way at all, particularly given that the reason not to remove it in the past appeared to be far more politically motivated than based on any military advantage.

Particularity given that the number of armed forces worldwide that have open policies is large...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service

....particularity given that the lifting of the ban within the UK armed forces a decade ago is notable for having no impact what so ever from a military point of view (despite many arguing it would cause massive problems with morale, etc).

If you're making a judgement based upon a world view it is senseless to not include all of the world. If you would like to use a more qualitative sample then a different measure with different standards is reasonable.

I've not argued against being aware of the world view at all, your comment however seemed to be aimed as using the lowest common denominator as what constitutes 'acceptable'.

You seemed to be stating that as long as homosexuals are not imprisoned or killed then all is on; which still levels open huge areas of abuse, persecution, intolerance and harassment as acceptable.

Personally I set a much higher standard than that, as I see no reason at all why homosexuals should not have exactly the same level of rights and acceptance as heterosexuals have. I basically see no reason at all to discriminate on any level or in any way.


Scaff

 

[JLawrence]

Given that would it not be more accurate to say that you principal dislike is overtly sexual public displays rather than overtly public homosexual displays?

Principally yes, but logical or not, I still find homosexuality to be inherently more offensive due to its nature, but that is something I keep to myself because even though I feel that way they have their rights and I have no business infringing upon them.

While the point you make is indeed true, that alone does not make it right. As a result the US military may well have lost a number of extremely talented individuals for what amounts to no good reason at all.

Actually it makes it exactly right. If a person cannot obey an order that is that simple they have no right to be there at all. The rules in the military are easy: Obey your CO, hence the phrase "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die"

I still to this day have no idea how DADT benefited the armed forces in any way at all, particularly given that the reason not to remove it in the past appeared to be far more politically motivated than based on any military advantage.

Particularity given that the number of armed forces worldwide that have open policies is large...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service

....particularity given that the lifting of the ban within the UK armed forces a decade ago is notable for having no impact what so ever from a military point of view (despite many arguing it would cause massive problems with morale, etc).

It is/was a lot of political posturing, but it does have some logic to it. I know that the vast majority of soldiers could care less, but there are certain to be a few that would be bothered knowing they have a homosexual in their patrol or whatever, and DADT just removes that small variable, or at least that's my thought on their logic.

I've not argued against being aware of the world view at all, your comment however seemed to be aimed as using the lowest common denominator as what constitutes 'acceptable'.

You seemed to be stating that as long as homosexuals are not imprisoned or killed then all is on; which still levels open huge areas of abuse, persecution, intolerance and harassment as acceptable.

Personally I set a much higher standard than that, as I see no reason at all why homosexuals should not have exactly the same level of rights and acceptance as heterosexuals have. I basically see no reason at all to discriminate on any level or in any way.


Scaff

There is a difference between acceptable and reality. Half of the reality that our nation/world is facing is completely unacceptable from a human rights standpoint.

 

[Scaff]

Principally yes, but logical or not, I still find homosexuality to be inherently more offensive due to its nature, but that is something I keep to myself because even though I feel that way they have their rights and I have no business infringing upon them.

Interesting. Would you be able to explain why you find it inherently more offensive?

A genuine question by the way, as I don't personally feel the same way I find it interesting.

Actually it makes it exactly right. If a person cannot obey an order that is that simple they have no right to be there at all. The rules in the military are easy: Obey your CO, hence the phrase "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die"

I way have phrased that incorrectly. I fully understand it from an obeying an order point of view, but not from the sense of does it make sense and have a purpose 'right'.

It is/was a lot of political posturing, but it does have some logic to it. I know that the vast majority of soldiers could care less, but there are certain to be a few that would be bothered knowing they have a homosexual in their patrol or whatever, and DADT just removes that small variable, or at least that's my thought on their logic.

Sorry but I don't buy that logic, you could attach the exact same prejudices to just about any social minority and use it in the same way. Yet applying DADT to those of any specific religion or origin would never happen.

Its been shown in study after study worldwide that having an open policy in homosexuality in the military, as long as it forms part of the uniform code (as it should) has no effect on performance.

Source - http://www.palmcenter.org/publicati..._say_about_impact_openly_gay_service_military

There is a difference between acceptable and reality. Half of the reality that our nation/world is facing is completely unacceptable from a human rights standpoint.

I don't believe I've stated anything to dispute that, simply because the world is at point A (reality) doesn't mean that should be what we should accept.

A question, why shouldn't we aim for homosexuals to have exactly the same level of rights and acceptance as heterosexuals have?

And I don't believe that 'because they get it better that the worst places on Earth' is a reasoned answer to that.



Scaff

 

[Rat Bastid]

Hey, Duke! Nice to see ya, again... (Though I figured we'd be shooting the breeze about the game in our next encounter.)

Anyway, I'll throw in my $.02. If you're a decent, respectful person, I basically have no problem with you... I don't have to like, or agree with your lifestyle, but that's really not my concern. I tend to take people as they are.

If you choose to believe in a vengeful God, be content in "knowing" that they'll get theirs. Otherwise, leave them alone. Myself, I've got my own headaches. I hardly need to get upset over how some adults love each other.

 

[JLawrence]

Interesting. Would you be able to explain why you find it inherently more offensive?

A genuine question by the way, as I don't personally feel the same way I find it interesting.

I was raised in the deep south, on Southern Baptist morals, and it is simply something I have never had any sense of approval for. I believe in the Bible and what it says about homosexuality being a sin, but I also understand the concept of loving my neighbor as I love myself despite what I would consider a fault. I think it was Voltaire who said "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will die to defend your right to say it," which is more or less how I look upon it.

I way have phrased that incorrectly. I fully understand it from an obeying an order point of view, but not from the sense of does it make sense and have a purpose 'right'.

Right and wrong isn't a part of the equation. You know what you're getting into when you enlist, so failure to follow through is all on you.

Sorry but I don't buy that logic, you could attach the exact same prejudices to just about any social minority and use it in the same way. Yet applying DADT to those of any specific religion or origin would never happen.

Its been shown in study after study worldwide that having an open policy in homosexuality in the military, as long as it forms part of the uniform code (as it should) has no effect on performance.

Source - http://www.palmcenter.org/publicati..._say_about_impact_openly_gay_service_military

Not my logic, just a guess as to what might have been going through theit minds as they passed it.

I don't believe I've stated anything to dispute that, simply because the world is at point A (reality) doesn't mean that should be what we should accept.

A question, why shouldn't we aim for homosexuals to have exactly the same level of rights and acceptance as heterosexuals have?

And I don't believe that 'because they get it better that the worst places on Earth' is a reasoned answer to that.

That is the aim of most people, but aiming for and reaching a goal are two entirely separate things, and with a goal like you are mentioning much time is required in even hoping to attain it.


Scaff[/QUOTE]

 

[DG_Silva]

I tell you what hurts the most; it being acceptable for hetrosexual couples to openly display their affection for each other in public, yet I have to be careful doing something simple like holding hands - kissing is a no-no, as I have been threatened a couple of times, and actually attacked once (in a park). Sometimes, it really kills me inside that I can't cuddle up close, and yet it seems to be acceptable for women to hold hands, kiss and cuddle in public. Maybe it's just my paranoia, but I still feel the need to be very careful about my actions around others, and be respectful not to offend others. But I do find offence to say that my lifestyle (which BTW, is not a choice or an option, but is embedded into me at a genetic level)

People quoting bible verses miss the point of such an action: The bible is hideously outdated, and has been ignored so many times over. Also, the version of the bible that most Americans use was created for selfish means; the King James version was created by Henry VIII so he could get a divorce, and the New Standard version has been distorted through time to control people.

What I don't understand, is when people start quoting the bible to explain why homosexuality is wrong or sinful, is why don't quote John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Or even Romans 5:8

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Because of the original sin commited by Eve, we are all sinners; we are born of sin. In both quotes, it clearly states that God loves us (suspending belief on the existence of a theological God, and the existence of Heaven) whatever we do, and as long as we believe in him and love him, our reward will be rebirth in the second coming.

Just one last thing; if it was a sin to be homosexual, and God has created everything, then why has there been an increase in homosexuality in bird populations? If God is infallible, explain that one.
Homosexuality in Birds

 

[JLawrence]

People quoting bible verses miss the point of such an action: The bible is hideously outdated, and has been ignored so many times over. Also, the version of the bible that most Americans use was created for selfish means; the King James version was created by Henry VIII so he could get a divorce, and the New Standard version has been distorted through time to control people.

What I don't understand, is when people start quoting the bible to explain why homosexuality is wrong or sinful, is why don't quote John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Or even Romans 5:8

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

The Bible may have been altered slightly here and there by men, but its message has never changed. It clearly says that homosexuality is a sin, yes, but using that to say a person will be condemned to Hell is ridiculous, and they are way wrong. God looks at all sins exactly the same, and in His eyes a white lie is as wrong as a murder. Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins. Period.

Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

It is that simple, it doesn't matter who you are or what you have done in life, if you call upon the Lord as your savior you will be saved.

Just one last thing; if it was a sin to be homosexual, and God has created everything, then why has there been an increase in homosexuality in bird populations? If God is infallible, explain that one.
Homosexuality in Birds

Animals are not people, and therefore cannot sin. They were placed on the earth to please Adam (Genesis 2), and not created as a child of God.

 

[FoolKiller]

The Bible may have been altered slightly here and there by men, but its message has never changed. It clearly says that homosexuality is a sin, yes, but using that to say a person will be condemned to Hell is ridiculous, and they are way wrong. God looks at all sins exactly the same, and in His eyes a white lie is as wrong as a murder. Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins. Period.

Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

It is that simple, it doesn't matter who you are or what you have done in life, if you call upon the Lord as your savior you will be saved.

I will step outside the theological discussion to get to a much more important point, at least as far as homosexuals are concerned.


You have said that your personal belief on whether it is a sin or not doesn't change that fact that you feel people are free to live as they wish. So, just to make sure we are 100% clear (if you stated this explicitly before I missed it and I apologize).

Do you feel that homosexuals should have the exact same legal rights that heterosexuals have, including equal legal standing in such things as marriage and financial partnering?

 

[JLawrence]

I don't agree with them being married, but that doesn't change the fact that they deserve those "certain and unalienable rights," so I will not be the one to stand in the way of that.

Back to the quote from Voltaire. I won't always, if ever agree with what you may believe/say, but I will die defending your right to say it.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't agree with them being married, but that doesn't change the fact that they deserve those "certain and unalienable rights," so I will not be the one to stand in the way of that.

Back to the quote from Voltaire. I won't always, if ever agree with what you may believe/say, but I will die defending your right to say it.

So, you wouldn't be opposed to legalizing gay marriage, so long as religious institutions are not forced into performing the ceremonies?

 

[JLawrence]

I would be opposed still, but, that would be a reasonable compromise and I doubt I would voice a complaint.
Aa long as it would allow for the religious leaders of whichever church to decide if they will preside over the ceremony.

 

[FoolKiller]

I would be opposed still, but, that would be a reasonable compromise and I doubt I would voice a complaint.
Aa long as it would allow for the religious leaders of whichever church to decide if they will preside over the ceremony.

Here is my stance: Why does the government say who should and shouldn't be married? Like you, I have a Southern Baptist upbringing but for me that is all the more reason for me to say any marriage of any form should be allowed with no government intervention at all. That is because I believe that my marriage is something between my wife and I and we had a religious ceremony in a church, with a priest because we felt that it was also a religious experience for us. I gave the government's oversight only enough concern to pay the appropriate fees to get the appropriate paperwork filed so that we could have legal rights to speak on behalf of each other and join our finances.

A religious person should actually not want government to interfere in gay marriage as that is you telling the government that they also have control over your marriage. It is you saying the power to recognize marriage is not God's but that of public officials. Marriage should be handled like the victims of the crusades: Instead of, "Kill them all. Let God sort them out." we should say, "Marry them all. Let God sort them out."


Go with the most logical stance and no one will care what your personal belief system says.

 

[JLawrence]

Very well put.

 

[astrosdude91]

I am a firm believer of the concept of "to each is own". If you want to be gay, then be gay. It's your prerogative. Do your own thing. If you want to get married to someone who is the same gender as themselves, well have a nice honeymoon.

 

[SkierPS3]

I am a firm believer of the concept of "to each is own". If you want to be gay, then be gay. It's your prerogative. Do your own thing. If you want to get married to someone who is the same gender as themselves, well have a nice honeymoon.

Agreed, though I want to say that anyone who voted against homosexuality is an awful person in my opinion.

 

[Sam48]

Agreed, though I want to say that anyone who voted against homosexuality is an awful person in my opinion.

That's a ridiculously broad statement. In fact, I nearly voted against homosexuality when this thread was much younger but have since changed my mind. I'm now more confident in my original decision.

 

[Joel]

That's a ridiculously broad statement. In fact, I nearly voted against homosexuality when this thread was much younger but have since changed my mind. I'm now more confident in my original decision.

Which is what? That you should vote against it?

 

[tribolik]

So, you wouldn't be opposed to legalizing gay marriage, so long as religious institutions are not forced into performing the ceremonies?

Cmon... what religion would perform such ceremonies???.. Gay marriage is legal in my country but you will never see a priest marry no gay and thats a fact... (unless the bride doesnt know her husband is gay ) youll see them molesting little kids but not doing gay marriages...

 

[ScouserInExile]

Cmon... what religion would perform such ceremonies???.. Gay marriage is legal in my country but you will never see a priest marry no gay and thats a fact... (unless the bride doesnt know her husband is gay ) youll see them molesting little kids but not doing gay marriages...

There are opemnly gay priests here in the UK and I'm sure plenty of places around the world. They'd do it.