CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I think that there isn't a single person that can be judged. if you're a guy you don't choose to be attracted to women. right? I dont think anyone should be told who they can or can't be with. you have the right to be with whoever you want, and you shouldn't be judged for it. i feel that homosexuals should be able to mary. and for realigious people. you say it's a sin to be homosexual, in the bible it says if you judge you'll be condimed to hell. so once my sexualality condems me i'll see you there for your judgement.
The bible doesn't say its a sin to be homosexual but rather for a man to lie with a man is a sin much like adultery or to steal murder and various other things is a sin. Quit misrepresenting God's truths its not helpful to him or anyone else.
Holy shit Jacklister. Either 1,000,000 monkeys have been randomly typing shit under an elephant avatar, or you might be the first elephant avatar to make sense on anything... Too bad there's no such thing as republicans anymore. Tough luck there.
If you don't know what the bible says about a topic, Shut up. Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.""1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
THe onely person that needs to shut up is you. Not only are you bashing people for their lack of knowlege but you are being completly hypocritical by neglecting the other side of the story. The bible says not to judge others and how that is a sin and that all sins are equal so you are just as wrong in this situation.
I'm agnostic. The Bible doesn't relate to me. And even if it did, there are many MANY laws that everyday Christians choose to ignore, like the consumption of shellfish. Why is it okay for Christians to ignore that religious law but bash gays for breaking laws in the same book?
Yes, being gay/lesbian is not wrong, but being in a relationship with someone of the same sex is. God created man for woman, and woman for man. Without heterosexual people in this world, the human race would fail to continue.
Yes, being gay/lesbian is not wrong, but being in a relationship with someone of the same sex is. God created man for woman, and woman for man. Without heterosexual people in this world, the human race would fail to continue.
IF YOU DO IT YOUR WAY YOU WILL LOSE AND YOU WILL BE JUDGED BY THE ALMIGHTY, IF YOU DO IT GOD'S WAY YOU WILL BE BLESSED. TAKE YOUR FREE WILL PICK, CHOOSE, HOMOSEXUALITY THAT COMES FROM THE DEVIL SATAN WITH ITS CANDY COATED SIN, LOOKS GOOD FEELS GOOD, DO IT, BUT THE CONSEQUENCES MUST BE PAYED BY YOU, ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY THE PIPER, OK YOU DECIDED, ITS OK IM HAVING SO MUCH FUN, DON'T STOP RAM ME BANG ME DO IT BABY DO IT LOVER, BAM ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAVE A HEART ATTACK, MAN THAT IS NO WAY TO GO, IF YOU WERE MARRIED AND DIED AFTER SEX, THATS HONORALBE IN THE SIGHT OF GOD, BUT IF YOU DIE IN YOUR SINS, THEN CHANCES ARE YOU WILL FIND YOURSELF IN A RUDE AWAKENING. SO IF YOU FOLLOW HOMOSEXUALITY, YOU LOVE GAGA HALF MAN HALF WOMEN FREAK OF NATURE, OR YOU LOVE SATANS WORLD OF DILDOS, WHORES WITH AIDS GUYS WITH AIDS, DICK FALLS OFF, WHAT YOU REAP IS WHAT YOU SOW, YOU SOUND LIKE A PERSON WHO HAS NO CLUE, GET A CLUE, A LITTLE PIECE OF GRAY MATTER BECAUSE BUDDY IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR ON YOUR WAY THE THAT PLACE OF PARADISE AND SEXUAL BLISS, HELL THE PARTY PLACE. FOOL YOURSELF ALL YOU WANT BUT THE BIBLE FROM ANOTHER TIME AND SPACE DIMENSION SAYS YOU WILL BE JUDGED BY SOMEONE GREATER THAN YOURSELF, EVER ACT OF THE BODY WILL BE GIVEN AN ACCOUNT ON THE DAY OF JUDEMENT. EVERY KNEE WILL BOW EVERY TONGUE WILL CONFESS THE JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, TO THE GLORY OF GOD, EVEN SATAN IN THE LAKE OF FIRE WILL FINALLY CONFESS THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, SO IF SATAN GIVES IN AT THE LAST, IM SURE YOU'LL GIVE IN AT THE FIRST, SO CHOSE YOU THIS DAY WHOM YOU WILL SERVE, BECAUSE WE ALL MUST STAND BEFORE THE JUDGEMENT SEAT OF CHRIST, TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT OF THE THINGS WE HAVE DONE TO THE BODY WEATHER THEY BE GOOD OR BAD, WE WILL GIVE AN ACCOUNT SO STOP FOOLING YOURSELF, ITS NOT ABOUT YOU, IT IS ALL THE CHRIST HAS DONE FOR US, READ THE BIBLE YOU DECEIVED ON MY WAY TO HELL DUDE.
No u need to get a clue .....For all u religiouse peolple(theres nothing wronge with it) who like to judge ppl u shoudnt be involved in other ppls buisness....and i dont think its right for u to say that homosexualls are going to hell(if here is one)... As you can tell by my remark im athiest and im also gay so who are u to to come here and judge ppl for being human thats not right u wouldnt like it if i were to judge you for ur belifes so before u come here just to piss ppl off remember that everybody is human and we all need to set aside our differences and make the world a better place for all of us
All i was trying to say was that when your gay u always have religiouse ppl against you because of ur orientation and i dont think its fair that on the voting ballat for legalizing gay marrage that people dont vote yes because either they dont like it or its because it there religion(and no government cant make a law that has do do with religionor something along thoese lines)..... And second of all yes in the eyes of religiose ppl "i did make a sin" how do u really know that there is a heven nd a hell....have u had any real peices of evidance?(its just something to thinkk about when ur dealing with aithiests)
I'm not sure I'm "for homosexuality" any more than I am "for polygamy". But I don't believe that we should dictate what types of relationships are "appropriate" between consenting adults and which are not.
As for homosexuality being a "choice"...I don't know a single straight person who will admit to having CHOSEN to be straight. You are what you are.
I don't think that people who are against homosexuality truly think of homosexuality, i.e. sexual attraction to people of your own sex, to be a choice. It's more that they think of the actual act of being in a gay relationship or having gay sex to be a choice, which is true.
Historical homophobic laws, for example, tended not to target people for the sole reason that they felt sexually attracted to the wrong people; they targeted specific acts like sodomy. Even religion, as far as I know, didn't condemn homosexuality per se. The Bible condemns "men who have sex with other men", i.e. people who choose to engage in gay sex. Homosexuality in itself was seen to be more like a mental disorder that made you prone to commit the crime of sodomy, kinda like how psychopathy is seen to make you prone to be a criminal...
I believe that you should be able to be with whoever you want to be with, be them the same sex or opposite sex. We are allowed religious freedom here in the US. Why not sexual freedom? We are allowed to speak our minds. Why not let people show affection towards someone they love even if they are of the same sex?
For all those catholic folks out there referencing the bible saying it condemns homosexuality, and essentially using it to justify your position in any way I have a little exert from the book of god for you
And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
Numbers 15: 32-36
Aren't those some great words of wisdom from the bible. I imagine not too many of you catholics have killed a man if he picked up sticks on Sunday, and this is your God, personally commanding Moses and all others to kill him. Now I have two points to make here: first, why would you listen to anything this god has to say, he is clearly an egotistical, evil douche bag. Second, why do you catholics ignore this verse of this book written (or inspired, whatever you believe) by god, while accepting others, such as those that support your case against homosexuality. I think it is because you do not really care about following the bible, you just want to have it as non-debatable backup whenever you need it. you don't kill people for picking up sticks, or even working (god forbid) on Sunday because it doesn't jive with your modern values. but you will use the bible to support your hatred of gays because it happens to agree with you on that position. If you are going to have an argument against someone's personal sexual preference, make it without this archaic, not to mention hypocritical, text. Make your argument on a secular and logical level and I think you will find it a whole lot harder to justify your irrational hatred of homosexuality
It isn't. Two consenting adults should be allowed to do anything which doesn't interfere with another's rights. Homosexuality meets this criteria.
What gives religions the right to take away the freedom from homosexuals?
Nothing. Religion is power hungry and hateful in general, and in order to maintain power they need to constantly find another enemy, be it the infidel, homosexuals, witches... whatever.
Why are people so ignorant to think it is a choice?
Religion makes people dumb. No non-religious person would ever hold such a silly position. Only a "god" could dumb down humanity to such an extent.
Why?
Human nature, on both accounts. Homosexuality: every mammal has a percent of its populace who are gay, people are mammals. Religion: people are smart enough to know they are going to die, in most instances not smart enough to accept it. Therefore they create a psychological escape called religion. It's human nature to use any tool of man for both good and evil. In the case of religion, it has far more potential for evil historically.
Quite frankly,i am astounded by you homosexuals (or homosexual supporters) who claim to hate judging yet judge Religious people.....Those who judge AND those who don't... If i were to say a controversial statement such as "Whats the point of entering an exit?' You would have been hurt or angered..Yet you would make
disrespectful,hatred-provoking comments that was quite the opposite of the message you were spewing just arguments prior to your comment.
I do not support homosexuals. I support equal rights for all people.
who claim to hate
I hate very few things, and judgement is not one of them.
yet judge Religious people
Religious people either refuse to think about the nonsense that they believe or have taken leave of their senses. When a theist produces a rational argument as to why I am wrong and he is right, I will reconsider. Thus far, non have come even close to rational.
Whats the point of entering an exit?
The vagina is an exit.
You would have been hurt or angered
Anger does not equate to pity.
Yet you would make disrespectful,hatred-provoking comments
I do not respect the theistic because their beliefs are ludicrous. I am not in the habit of respecting lunacy.
was quite the opposite of the message you were spewing just arguments prior to your comment.
The difference between inflicting civil disability upon somebody because of their sexuality, and ridiculing somebody else for holding childish notions about magic, is that the former has serious consequences for the happiness of the victim, whereas the latter is a healthy contempt for the mad.
I've not seen a law disallowing the religious to marry.
If perhaps there were one I'd briefly consider being for it in order to ensure a greater intelligence for future generations, I however am a slave to fair observation. I cannot deny even an idiot their right to make more of themselves.
But no, it's a false equivalency. Saying you are dumb is not the same as taking away one of your basic rights.
Entirely true for example without a religious justification the Crusades would still have happened. Pope Urban the second exploited religion as the easiest tool to gain personal power because now doesn't the pope control his own army? Other reasons for the crusades includes a desire to redirect violent knights away from Europeans and the desire for wealth seeing as the Islamic empire was wealthy and Europe was dirt poor.
Entirely true for example without a religious justification the Crusades would still have happened. Pope Urban the second exploited religion as the easiest tool to gain personal power because now doesn't the pope control his own army? Other reasons for the crusades includes a desire to redirect violent knights away from Europeans and the desire for wealth seeing as the Islamic empire was wealthy and Europe was dirt poor.
The reservations I have with this is the capacity to mobilise soldiers. I have to wonder if large-scale wars would be as likely without a uniting ideology which the religion served as.
In other words, religion lends itself as a tool. They get to the hate dance through this. A dumb person who does not think much could only hate gay people if someone told them a god said so.
The majority of hate is perpetrated by the dumb.
Religion is their only ride.
The religious would not hate gays if religion did not say so.
Nothing at all to do with who's different.
Anthropology. Children of various skin tone left in a room interacted as if there were no difference. Grown humans acted as if there were a difference until 20 years or so ago and in some cases even today.
"Different" does not = natural differences in interaction. It equals learned.
Same with homosexuality.
There is no evolutionary, genetic, or logical reason for a group hoping to procreate (instincually) to have any problem with homosexuals.
It is learned.
Religion is the only teacher.
Surprise. History repeats itself and once again religion is the villain.
At least this was a suedo logical reply, but that's the most dangerous. I really need to get to this site more often I guess.
Without religion, people would still have the natural inclination to hate. People have used various methods of hate- as a species we seem to be rather good at hating. Whether on the grounds of militant religion, Social Darwinism, or jingoism, people have a knack for taking what has the potential to be peaceful- religion, science, national pride- and using it however they see fit.
Without religion, people would still have the natural inclination to hate. People have used various methods of hate- as a species we seem to be rather good at hating. Whether on the grounds of militant religion, Social Darwinism, or jingoism, people have a knack for taking what has the potential to be peaceful- religion, science, national pride- and using it however they see fit.
Also: I would argue that the inclination to hate homosexual people is not learned directly, but rather indirectly. People learn that it is normal for a man and a woman to have sexual relations, and then homosexuals simply fit in the 'other' category which is hated as a method of self preservation. If my hypothesis is true, all that would be necessary is to accept homosexuality as a normal- rather than unusual- practice.
And if nothing else, religion is a product of the human condition. Unless you believe that religion was divinely inspired, a group of people determined what was wrong or right, leading people (not religion) to the root of the problem anyways.
also- your argument seems to be pro-homosexuality... you might want to change the tag
while you are at it, the correct spelling "pseudo", not "suedo".
Whatever with the pseudo. I only come to this site drunk now and don't use spell check.
And I'm also not sure when my tags got turned around, but I changed it back and I'm all for homosexuality. 1. I don't care. 2. Less competition... unless it's two chicks in which case it's hot so I still don't care. Anyway:
Without religion, people would still have the natural inclination to hate. People have used various methods of hate- as a species we seem to be rather good at hating. Whether on the grounds of militant religion, Social Darwinism, or jingoism, people have a knack for taking what has the potential to be peaceful- religion, science, national pride- and using it however they see fit.
It's one less tool though. I'm not talking about the crazies like the god hates fags people. I'm talking about the other Christians who don't deride, for example god hates fags Christians, because and for the sole reason that they too are Christian. Crazy will always be crazy and there will always be horrible people, but it will not be excused by the silent majority sharing that specific superstition.
Also: I would argue that the inclination to hate homosexual people is not learned directly, but rather indirectly. People learn that it is normal for a man and a woman to have sexual relations, and then homosexuals simply fit in the 'other' category which is hated as a method of self preservation. If my hypothesis is true, all that would be necessary is to accept homosexuality as a normal- rather than unusual- practice.
You may be correct. I'd like to read a study on that. It can be said though that it is not natural for everyone as sort of a mode of self-preservation to dislike gay people, as its difficult to find a non-religious (not necessarily even atheist, but someone not that into religion one way or another) with the odd disdain for what others do in private. Perhaps though there is some other correlation besides religion itself.
And if nothing else, religion is a product of the human condition. Unless you believe that religion was divinely inspired, a group of people determined what was wrong or right, leading people (not religion) to the root of the problem anyways.
Everything humans do is a product of the human condition, it's impossible for it to be any other way. We're human. That religion is a product of that does not make it a good thing.
I feel we have had a misunderstanding. I do not feel that religion is a good thing.
I find it to be equally moral as a hammer. Depending on the method with which it is used, it can aid in construction, destruction, or a variety of other purposes. However, if you take away a hammer, it is no guarantee that people will not continue to act with a saw, screwdriver, crowbar, or protractor (totally counts as a tool).
Also: evidence suggesting correlation between latent homosexuality and homophobia. Essentially, because homosexuality is frowned upon (Darwinian circumstance possible to increase reproduction within a group) , resulting in Freudian repression and ultimately irrational anger directed at the desire in question.
I love PBS, I swear no for-profit news organization would do this type of a study without bias on one side or another.
You are I think more correct than myself.
I'm not a fan of Freud though, and it seems if the goal is reproduction one would not have a problem with less competition. It would be a twist of empathy ironically I think that would cause the dislike. As in, a moment of identification with a gay person which would lead to an immediate mental block and rejection.
My guess from that may be that it's not a religious thing but a "I might be gay and don't like it" thing. My anthropology minor didn't talk much about homosexuality specifically, but sexuality the theory is isn't black and white, gay or straight, down the line, it's shaped like an upside down bell curve. Now that my mind's on the subject I did see a thing on science channel where they conducted a great study.
They went to a University and asked male's opinion of homosexuality. Instead of asking what they like and don't like they placed pressure devices on the penis... I'm not making this up I swear, wish I could find the study online. Anyway, they hooked up their penises, then showed them flash videos of different images with gay erotic pictures randomly dispersed between. The study found the more against homosexuality an individual was the more likely it was their "shaft" would slightly thicken when a gay image was shown... you know, it makes perfect sense.
I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to religion in this instance.
It does beg the question though,
what about religion attracts closet homosexuals :p
Oh really?! If i dont think its right for my child to see two men/women making out in a subway train im gonna do what i can to convince them of their...Hold a sec.None of my business?
It was our business when a startling number of homosexuals gave blood transfusions giving innocent people AIDS. It was our business when that fat guy anally penetrated a three year old boy.- But hey thats how he loves!!! He likes three year olds then we're out of place to put him in jail. http://www.cfsh.net/3.htmlhttp://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f019.html Read the links b4 you reply.
If there are so many sins in the world homosexuality shouldn't matter
No two people in this world are the same, even twins, one twin can be gay and the other straight
And if we do not choose to be gay then why should we be killed for it? Is that not immoral? To kill someone for being different?
Don't even try to link homosexuality with pedophilia because it has nothing to do with it. Or say that we can be gay but not act on it, wheres the fun in life if you restrict everything you do
You don't need sex to have fun, people in the bible were celibate from any sort of sexual relationship, those who were able to do so without causing them to sin were encouraged to be celibate, those who did not think they could were encouraged to marry, for Homosexuals anything but celibacy at least from a physical relationship with a man is wrong.
as little? So If I love violence God would not be worried about me? If I loved being addicted to video games God would not be worried about me? I think not. I think you better get more of an understanding of who God is before you judge him. This is not a little thing. God wants the best for all of us. He created each and everyone of us. Love is found in Jesus christ.
I'm afraid you've misunderstood. I said WHO, not what. And, believe it or not, you do love violence. Because humans love violence. Ever see Shutter Island? If not, you oughta check it out. Some good viewpoints on violence in there. I don't claim to understand God, nor do I attempt to pass judgement. But don't you see? It is a small thing! If a woman discovers a cure for Diabetes, but is in love with another woman, what's more important? Or compare two men in a relationship to Hitler murdering Jews. It seems inconsequential, doesn't it? In the scheme of things, homosexual or heterosexual makes very, very little difference.
The opposition's unnatural argument doesn't hold any water, and here is why. The first refutation is that homosexuality occurs in nature, and is therefore natural but the second refutation is much more substantive. How can something be unnatural if nature encompasses everything? everything that exists is nature and therefore natural, but even if there is natural and unnatural and homosexuality is unnatural why is that necessarily immoral or wrong? jumping out of a plane and pulling a cord and parachuting to the ground is unnatural by the opposition's definition but it is not considered immoral. Maybe people will say we cannot understand god because god is outside of nature and therefore unnatural but the hypocrisy shows through here because god is not seen as immoral or wrong. So this unnatural argument doesn't work because it fails on so many levels, it isnt an explanation, it is just a visceral justification of your irrational hatred and fear of gays. I'm not gay, I don't care if you are or are not gay, let people live their lives they way they want to and stop imposing your own homophobia on others.
Why would it be wrong? The only people who are claiming this statement are the religious, and it is oh so ironic that the most fraudulent concept of all (religion) is taking a stance on what us right, and what is wrong
First of all, why is being attracted to the same sex any different at all from being attracted to certain features of a person (race, personality, age, looks, weight, height). It is not.
If you were to argue that homosexuality is wrong because it does not allow for reproduction, then logically, every person who either makes the choice not to have children or cannot have children are in the same moral boat as homosexuals, and should be persecuted just as homosexuals are, which is clearly a ridiculous position to take.
Who has the right to put restrictions on love? Who has the right to make something so beautiful into something that discriminates? Who has the right to tell others who they can and can't have a relationship with? Religion certainly doesn't. If love isn't racially discriminant, and if couples can differ in age, why should love and attraction between two people of the same gender be restricted by boundaries set by religion? It is the same with marriage. Many people believe that marriage is a commitment before God, but what what if you don't believe in God? Who is the couple making a commitment towards?
What gives religions the right to take away the freedom from homosexuals?
Because our government was pretty much based on Christianity and it's followings and the bible teaches people that homosexuality is wrong when it's really not.
Why are people so ignorant to think it is a choice?
Because once again, the bible says it's wrong so people think it's a choice instead of it being a development in someones body. It has been biologically proven that when someone is young, homosexuality starts to develop in their brain and they have no influence on stopping or starting it.
Why?
Human Nature lol. You can't stop it from happening. The reason I know this is because I am one. I had no choice. I didn't want it to be this way and even contemplated about kill myself because of what everyone would think. But I never did obviously.
Why would heterosexuality be wrong? You're comparing apples to oranges.
Why is it wrong?
It isn't.
I disagree -
What gives religions the right to take away the freedom from homosexuals?
Because our government was pretty much based on Christianity and it's followings and the bible teaches people that homosexuality is wrong when it's really not.
Ok, well ... If you're saying Christianity then you mean the New Testament of the Bible. Where does is condemn homosexuality in the New Testament? People use the Bible for all sorts of negative reasons and it turns out that they know very little about it. If you are Jewish on the other hand, and subscribe more to the teachings of Moses, you might have a point. You're naive here ...
Why are people so ignorant to think it is a choice?
Because once again, the bible says it's wrong so people think it's a choice instead of it being a development in someones body. It has been biologically proven that when someone is young, homosexuality starts to develop in their brain and they have no influence on stopping or starting it.
By what agency or medical institution is homosexuality biologically proven to develop when someone it young?
Why?
Human Nature lol. You can't stop it from happening.
False, I did. One person to disprove a hypothesis makes the theory incorrect.
The reason I know this is because I am one. I had no choice.
You always have a choice.
I didn't want it to be this way and even contemplated about kill myself because of what everyone would think. But I never did obviously.
Humans against a sexuality are creating division,and division is wrong. Jesus went around gathering humans to him,and not repelling anyone, but humans taking Christs name are repelling,and dividing,and that is taking Christs name in vain.
Matthew 12:30 :King James Bible
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad
That means those that are against the gay,and whatever sexuality including zoosexuality is a scatterer being not of God but of the devil, but that can change in whoever repenting to become a gatherer, and not a scatterer.
Homosexuals have the right to love whoever they want to, and others should not stop them being happy. I believe that you cannot help the way you are born and that if you believe in God then he surely must have made people that way.
You came to that conclusion based on your assumption that homosexuality is not choice but nature/genetical. If homosexuality was a choice, God would not have "made them that way" (and I believe He didn't make them that way) therefore we would not be pointing our fingers at Him and blaming Him for our sins so that we may wipe our consciences clean. Something that I dislike very much is that many Christians (and of course non-believers too) judge homosexuals yet the Christians themselves lie, steal and corrupt the churches regularly which, in my eyes is far worse than what homosexuals 'do' in the night hours. For the record, I believe homosexuality to be a choice.
Okay, if you can't change your sexual oreintation, then how do people CHOSE to be gay? Being gay is not a choice. It's something that just happens. Was being straight a choice for you?
What gives religions the right to take away the freedom from homosexuals?
Nothing that I know of.
Why are people so ignorant to think it is a choice?
Well, it may be a choice to some. I know at least one girl who chose to try it and liked it. She never had feelings for girls before this. She came to me saying "wtf, i actualy enjoyed it!". She's bisexual now and she seems to take some pride in it. :D
But I still believe most homosexuals must have it in them, as a natural thing such as liking pasta or hating caviar. Whatever is their preference, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Its not about being a right or a wrong...its just this person likes someone of the same sex...and I'm totally cool with it...why should I even think of judging something like that.
What gives religions the right to take away the freedom from homosexuals?
None but religion does it anyways because Religion is good at that taking away freedoms..
Why are people so ignorant to think it is a choice?
Its not a choice but people want to believe that everyone thinks and feels the same which obviously is not true. To say being homosexual is a choice then you might as well say being Heterosexual is a choice. Honestly I think anyone on the opposing side is completely ignorant.
why is homosexuality any different then heterosexuality...how would you feel if you where deemed unnatural just because your someone who likes the opposite sex.
For people to ostracize others for sexuality, gender or race or skin color is completely retarded.
I believe you are who you are and so you have the ability to like who you like and fuck who you wanto fuck. i am no gay but i believe if it was the the other way round straight people would not feel that it was bad to f people of the opposite sex!
It is rather subjective to choose. But, people better understand that there are a hell lot more issues that need to be liked or disliked and spoken against rather than something so Harmless. Everything important is ignored.
When the scriptures where written it was a sin to do a lot more things which are commonly accepted today. Religions tallk of a lot of better things that need better attention than things that forbid a man to man or a girl to girl relationship.
Keeping away from the other topics that deal with homosexuality that have sprouted up from this debate, I would say for it. I personally am not homosexual though I do have friends who are homosexual and I see nothing wrong with it. Love is love, whether between two men, two women, one man and one woman or different. It is still love whether it be romantically or sexually.
For those who's not homosexual, there is a freedom of choice whether to think of homosexuality as right or wrong. but for those whose nature is limited to have sexual feelings to the same sex, the decision is already made without asking them. this is unfair. they did not ask for that, i am sure, but what can you do? it is the way you were born. so when the frist stage of fighting with theirselves is done, there is a fight with nature, with society, religion. why should some people deal with it, and the others, those who is not accepting that, judge and ban it? if we say about the nature and religion, come on, we do not know if nature really banned same sex relationships, personally i think nature is about live without pretending. so if you are a real homesexual , then so be it. religion? here i am confused. i mean religion correlates with equity between humanity, understanding. so why cannot people be happy the way they really are? then again, love is not about what type of person are you, wherre are you from, and what do you look like, but for purity of the feeling.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY. Marriage is not purely a 'spiritual' thing nor does it really have to be. I really despair with people who hide behind Bibles and say that it is wrong because a homosexual relationship produces no children. If they love each other then shouldn't that be enough?! For hundreds of years it was seen as a disease, an 'abomination', 'the worst thing that could happen to anyone'. So let's stop being so medieval about it. Some people are gay.GET OVER IT.
to all the people saying marriage is a religious thing ATHEISTS GET MARRIED. Marriage is between two consenting adults as is sex and relationships. Please mind your own business. May I just point that all these people asking for gays to be persecuted are the same ones who want the government to get out of out lives.
The bible says one puny little sentence about homosexuality and that's it. Jesus never once says anything about it EVER. Dont believe me? Look it up. The bible may say homosexuality is a sin but you know what else it says? That people should have slaves, that if someone raped your daughter to make them pay you and go off unpunished, that divorce is a sin. Also why did God make a g-spot in man's ass? huh? to have sex with another man. Now for all the non-Christian fucktards who are homophobic. Homosexuality IS natural. Animals can be gay. It's scientifically proven. If you say ERMAGERHD BUT YOU CAN GET STDS FROM GAY PEOPLE -_- straight people can get stds too you fucktard.
I know for a fact that as a human, anyone has the right to love whatever gender\sex they want to, and if the Bible can't change their discrimination then Its official god does NOT love all
i beleive it is wrong. But it is our human right to have freedom.
Freedom to choose who we want to be and how we spend our valuable time. Nobody can tell you not to be something and you have to listen. You dont have to. You can choose. Thats the beauty if being a human being. THats what makes us unique.
well according to the word of God it is considered a sin. I beleive in the word of God. Second, it does not serve any purpose. When a man and women has sex it has the potential to result in a baby. When a man and a man has sex it results in absolutely nothing. Well except aides. It is disgusting to be honest with you. Also it is hard for men to establish relationships with other men who are gay.
I could provide a very long list of things that are probably part of your daily life and do not serve in the slightest to aid the process of procreation.
When a man and women has sex it has the potential to result in a baby.
Rarely. There is also a variety of other heterosexual acts that have zero potential to result in fertilization.
When a man and a man has sex it results in absolutely nothing.
Except all the other benefits of sex such as bonding, stress relief, and immune system boosts. Exactly like the vast majority of heterosexual sex.
Well except aides.
I hope you do not actually think only homosexuals are capable of contracting AIDS because that would be moronic.
It is disgusting to be honest with you.
I think you are disgusting but I would never support any hypothetical restriction on your right to marry another similarly disgusting person if you wanted.
Also it is hard for men to establish relationships with other men who are gay.
Do you mean it is hard for straight men to be friends with a gay man, or it is hard for gay men to maintain a relationship?
i am being honest with you and you give me grief? lol.
I hope you do not actually think only homosexuals are capable of contracting AIDS because that would be moronic
Well i can see how my statment would imply that. Thats not what i mean. What I really mean is the benefits of gay sex MAY result in disease and does not result in life. Sex between a man and women MAY result in disease as well and can be equally protected as well as gay sex, BUT MAY result in life. There is a huge difference between the two. Potential of having a baby or 0 potential of having a baby.
Except all the other benefits of sex such as bonding, stress relief, and immune system boosts. Exactly like the vast majority of heterosexual sex.
Wow. You do understand that one of the most important aspects of a relationship beween man and women are children? Right? Thats one of the big flaws of a homosexual relationship. You cant have children together. That is one of the important aspects of marriage. Building a family.
Do you mean it is hard for straight men to be friends with a gay man, or it is hard for gay men to maintain a relationship?
It is hard for straight guys to be friends with gay men. Its not the same. I can be close to my friends one on one. GO to their homes sleep in the same room do whatever we want. Tell me have you ever talked to any strait guy having that kind of close relationship with a gay guy. I seriously doubt it.
Well i can see how my statment would imply that. Thats not what i mean. What I really mean is the benefits of gay sex MAY result in disease and does not result in life. Sex between a man and women MAY result in disease as well and can be equally protected as well as gay sex, BUT MAY result in life. There is a huge difference between the two. Potential of having a baby or 0 potential of having a baby.
A man having sex with a woman who is not ovulating or about to ovulate has the exact same likelihood of creating a baby as two men having sex: zero. And women are only ovulating a small percent of the time, making conception unlikely even without the use of contraceptives. This means that if you think the possibility of conception is the only thing that makes sex acceptable or normal or whatever, then most heterosexual sex does not meet that definition either. Keep in mind heterosexuals also regularly engage in oral and anal sex.
Most people do not have sex because it has a small chance of making a baby; in fact, they are counting on it not happening. They have sex because it's fun. And that's fine.
Wow. You do understand that one of the most important aspects of a relationship beween man and women are children? Right? Thats one of the big flaws of a homosexual relationship. You cant have children together. That is one of the important aspects of marriage. Building a family.
Who says? Who says that's the most important part of everyone's relationship? Who says the ability to create biological children together is the deciding factor in the ability to marry? Who says that the 'flaw' of being unable to create children together is grounds on which to bar a couple from officiating their relationship? By the way, this logic would bar elderly, infertile, and childfree couples from getting married, too. Which would be ridiculous - because having children is not considered a requirement for marriage.
Also, homosexual couples can raise children via adoption, surrogacy, or IVF. Just like a lot of heterosexual couples.
It is hard for straight guys to be friends with gay men. Its not the same. I can be close to my friends one on one. GO to their homes sleep in the same room do whatever we want. Tell me have you ever talked to any strait guy having that kind of close relationship with a gay guy. I seriously doubt it.
I live in an apartment with my boyfriend, who is a straight man, and our roommate, who is a gay man. Somehow, they have continually managed to treat each other like human beings who deserve equal rights. It's hard to understand, I know, but some people don't define themselves or others solely by their orientation.
Also, restricting the rights of homosexuals has no effect on the existence of homosexuality, which is what you appear to be complaining about in this last paragraph.
Well I have nothing more to say. Ill just finish by saying that I do beleive Homosexuals deserve equal rights and should be treated equally but not in marriage. This is not something I debate on. What I am debating on is that it is moraly wrong. And it seams like your ignoring alot of what i say and exagerrating what I say as well. For example i said one of the most important aspects of marriage. And you say that I said the most important aspect of marriage. :/
I do respect all people. This is no debatable. I just dont want gay marriage to be established in this country. It challenges the very foundation of marriage, in my opinion. It encourages our children to explorer their sexuality. Before you know it Gay marriage will be tapped into our childrens books. That is quite disturbing. That is how I feel. You dont have to agree with what I am saying.
Ill just finish by saying that I do beleive Homosexuals deserve equal rights and should be treated equally but not in marriage.
As marriage is a civil right, and you do not think homosexuals deserve it, you have just said "I believe homosexuals deserve equal rights except they do not deserve equal rights."
What I am debating on is that it is moraly wrong.
That's great. Don't think your morals are important enough on their own to be made into legislature.
And it seams like your ignoring alot of what i say and exagerrating what I say as well. For example i said one of the most important aspects of marriage. And you say that I said the most important aspect of marriage. :/
You appear to be saying that the ability to make children is the factor that should decide whether or not a certain relationship should be legally recognized in marriage. By doing this, you make that the most important factor.
It encourages our children to explorer their sexuality.
I think the fact that you portray this as a negative thing explains a lot about why you think what you think.
Before you know it Gay marriage will be tapped into our childrens books.
And?
That is how I feel. You dont have to agree with what I am saying.
I don't agree with you, which is why I am posting a counterargument...this is what this site is for, not just saying what you think and not defending it.
You are allowed to dislike homosexuality all you want, that's not what I care about. But you should not be allowed to let your discomfort or religious prejudice prevent a demographic of citizens from being treated equally. That is what is happening, and that's what I care about.
Arent morals one of the most important factors in the world? And yet you say they are insignificant. Tell me do you think the constitution of the united states of american completely ignored morals? Are we machines, or are we human beings? I have every right as an American citizen to be apart of deciding what the foundation of marriage is founded upon. I beleive this threatens our moral environment. And yes morals are extremely important.
I am talking about your morals, specifically, and how they should be insignificant when deciding how homosexuals are treated. Homosexuality is not a crime, it doesn't hurt anyone, and there are plenty of people who don't consider it immoral at all. So, if you want to deny civil equality to an entire segment of the United States population, you are going to need something better than the fact that homosexuality grosses you out and God doesn't like it. Allowing the majority to oppress the minority just because they agree on it is dangerous, and there is no reason religion should get to dictate the terms of marriage in this country.
Have you ever heard a christian say God/jesus lives in me? What does this mean to you? It means Being a christian and beleiving in God and his word is a priority in our lives not a side dish of the main meal.
Homosexuals should not be persecuted because that would mean we would have to persecute ourselves. We all are under persecution, and we are free from that once we submit ourselves to Jesus christ. What Im getting at is that we are all sinners as a whole. I detest people Saying that God hates fags because this is not even close to being true. It is so far off the charts, because Jesus didnt come to judge the world but to save it. We are all to love one another. God detests homosexuality. Homosexuality itself he detests according to biblical terms. It just sadens him to see his children fall into this sin, just as he is sad to see his children commit other sins, which are too many to count.
In conclusion we are all on the same boat that is going full spead into a cliff. We can choose to stay on the boat, or we can do what God has been urging us the whole time every step of the way. Get off the boat! Hurry! I love you too much just call my name and ill pick you up and take you to a safe place, where i will be your shelter and protection. Do you think I have the right to judge someone whos on the same boat I am? And do you think for a moment the ones who were saved are going to judge those who are on the boat? NO! They are already saved! They will risk their lives to save their lost sisters and brothers. This is how the real christian life should be lived. So do you think I want the best for people? Do you think I want people to smoke? NO. But can I stop them. Defenitely not. Will I repect their rights if they choose to do it? Yes of course. You will say isnt homosexual marriage the same thing? And I would say God would not want this for our country. So then I am against it. Will I persecute anyone for it? Absolutely not. Will I say it is wrong? Absolutely. If I do not say this is wrong, then i cannot say smoking is wrong, I cannot say overdouse on alchol is wrong, I cannot say lying is wrong, I cannot say swearing us wrong. Do you see where Im getting at? I Have placed my trust in the hands of Love. This is where I will be.
Have you ever heard a christian say God/jesus lives in me? What does this mean to you? It means Being a christian and beleiving in God and his word is a priority in our lives not a side dish of the main meal.
This means nothing to me because I am not a Christian and I do not believe God exists. You can make the Bible the number one priority in your own life but you do not have the right to force it to be a priority in other people's lives, with legislature that mandates restrictions on things like marriage that are derived solely from personal disgust or religious doctrine.
And I would say God would not want this for our country.
Why do you think this should matter to people who believe God wants something different for this country (like equality) or the people who don't care what God wants when it prevents the advancement of civil rights? What gives your religion, and your particular interpretation of your religion, the right to make decisions for everyone?
Will I persecute anyone for it? Absolutely not.
By trying to prevent homosexuals from getting married, you are persecuting them. There are thousands of couples who are truly in love and want nothing more than to have their relationship recognized by the country they live in, and you are saying that because you hold a particular set of beliefs, they should not be allowed to do so. They should be set apart from other citizens as inferior and undeserving of equal rights. That the government should send the message that the emotions and attractions they are feeling are less respectable, less acceptable, than those of their heterosexual neighbors. You can say all you want that you love them and just want to help them but your actions speak to a very different sentiment.
If I do not say this is wrong, then i cannot say smoking is wrong, I cannot say overdouse on alchol is wrong, I cannot say lying is wrong, I cannot say swearing us wrong. Do you see where Im getting at?
I do and it is misconstrued. Homosexuality is not an addictive and harmful substance, and it is not a dishonest act that creates a victim. It is an orientation, and that's it. It's a person being attracted to other people, desiring a relationship with someone they are attracted to, and eventually wanting a relationship to be granted the same respect as everyone else's. It's not the scary, twisted, immoral or dirty perversion that you are trying to make it out to be.
I Have placed my trust in the hands of Love. This is where I will be.
Again, I do not care about this in the slightest. Your faith is your own business and does not give you license to impose its restrictions on people who do not believe the same things you do.
Can't argue with your Christianity, I don't know firsthand. Thank you for understanding that saying "God loves everyone... But the gays will burn in Hell forever", is not an acceptable argument. I do not believe homosexuality to be a sin, because really it's just who you love, in my opinion. Thank you for having at least a smidge of dignity and self respect (More than can be said for most people on here!) and not calling homosexuals every dirty word in the book because you are afraid of things that are different. This being said, I believe your thinking is flawed. As much as I admire you for wanting to pull others off the boat, I really think it should depend on what you've done, not who you love or what deity you worship. (If only one sect of only one religion is right, a whole lot of people are going to Hell for nothing.) Could a forgiving god damn his children for something they cannot help?
We choose to surrender our lives to him or not. All the people have a choice. He is the judge of who is going to hell or not i am not. We will die with our sin if we do not give it over to JEsus christ. Our sin will pull us in to hell. YEs it is a narrow path but it sure is a lively one. Yes that is true. People that do not live under the light will serve no purpose. It does not depend on what you have done. It depends on what you are doing. what are you sepnding your life on? We are all his sheep. He is the shepard. He is the way the truth and the life. Sry but all these different paths we created are not going to save you from yourself. Jesus will take you as you are and build you up. You will see life under a totally new persective.
I don't think I completely understand what you're saying. Are you telling me that I have to burn in Hell because I don't worship Jesus Christ, no matter how good a person I am? I'm not trying to ridicule you here, I'm honestly confused.
I've known my best friend since I was in 4th grade.
Today, I'm married.
And before, during, and after meeting my wife, I would sleep over at his house all the time. I never thought anything of it. In fact, he always made the jokes about it, like 'Hey dude, don't molest me please while I'm asleep, even if I tell you not to stop.'
I'm as straight as a board, and I found phrases like that positively hilarious. Just like as if he had been straight.
And it was never hard on me. Never. Nor him.
I was never even uncomfortable hugging him. I still do, even. And my wife doesn't give a holy hell. Because there's nothing gay or uncomfortable about being great friends with a man who is attracted to other men.
So don't make the assumption that it's harder for straight men to be friends with homosexual men, because the fact that there are 6 billion+ people on this planet mathematically proves you wrong.
I very well agree with him when he says its hard for a straight guy to have a friendly relationship with a gay man...
Above is an argument so ludicrous as strikes me into awe and amazement. You are essentially arguing that "their being this way makes me uncomfortable and therefore they must be oppressed and vilified".
How any rational, sane person could possibly accept this logic, or even read it without bursting into a fit of uncontrollable laughter, is quite simply beyond my powers of conception.
well according to the word of God it is considered a sin.
If you're going to make as bold a claim as that, you need to first prove that a god exists in addition to the simple requirement of proving that that god wrote the book which you use as a moral reference.
Then you would have to make a convincing case why anyone ought to listen to such a god, on matters of morality, when such a thing is a disguised appeal to authority. We do not get our morality from authorities, but from ourselves. So why should anyone listen to an alleged god?
I beleive in the word of God.
That's still a belief then, I wanted reasons besides belief.
Second, it does not serve any purpose.
Why must it? It's enjoyable, and that is enough for most things.
When a man and women has sex it has the potential to result in a baby.
Sex is not merely for procreation, and there is a greater number of children out there than parents, which would seem to suggest that procreation isn't greatly needed and that gay couples should take in those children who don't have parents.
When a man and a man has sex it results in absolutely nothing.
It results in an orgasm. That's hardly nothing.
Well except aides.
All sex has this potential. In case you missed the memo AIDS is not a gay disease.
It is disgusting to be honest with you.
Then don't engage in gay sex. We all have our preferences. I actually find it quite agreeable.
Also it is hard for men to establish relationships with other men who are gay.
Much of this is because of the centuries of severe repression of homosexuality by bigots.
So... You also believe that a rebellious child being stoned to death is necessary, because "you must do what you can to purge the world of all evils." Or that a woman being who was raped in a city must also be stoned to death because "she did not yell out for the city to hear her and aid her"?
WELL ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF GOD IT IS CONSIDERED A SIN.
Under the presumption that the word of God is even reliable, you forgot to mention the other half of the story. The word of God also mentions that it is not your place to judge people but Gods. It says that judging is a sin and also says that all sins are equal. Therefore, not only are you stepping out of your place by trying to judge a homsexual but you are also commiting a sin equal to theirs with judgement. How can you really be that hypocritical? Finally, the word of God also says that all people are equal and you have no right to undermine someone by their possition because you are just as wrong as them
Calling the behavior of gay sex does not stop God from loving, gays
The Bible orders their execution you utterly delusional woman.
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
In the Old Testament, Yes. In the New Testament, gay sinners are treated like other sinners, and called to repent, and receive Yeshua, so they can be, saved. Let He whis withou sin, cast the first stone said Yeshua in John 8.
well according to the word of God it is considered a sin.
EDITED: Well--according to the word of God--it is considered a sin.
I beleive in the word of God. Second, it does not serve any purpose.
EDITED: You can omit the first sentence, as it is redundant. As well, omit "Second," because you never had a "First." Then you can combine the two sentences using a semicolon.
When a man and women has sex it has the potential to result in a baby.
EDITED: When a man and a woman have sex , it has the potential to result in a baby. This would be the same for the next sentence. The agreement is incorrect.
Well except aides.
EDITED: You should omit this. First of all, the tone is wrong. Second of all, it's a sentence fragment and cannot exist on its own. Third, it's AIDS; Fourth, the claim you made is misleading.
It is disgusting to be honest with you.
EDITED: This claim is irrelevant to your main argument. Your main claim is that according to the Word of God, homosexuality is a sin [disputed]. Therefore, you should provide evidence for why it is a sin [disputed] rather than showcase an opinionated sentence.
Also it is hard for men to establish relationships with other men who are gay.
EDITED: Also, it is hard for gay men to establish relationships with other gay men. [This claim is disputed].
Also, I would say I disagree with you but it's hard to figure out what you're trying to say.
How would you feel if your dad leaves your mom for another guy?? It's just stupid for a man to sleep with a man. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
HOMO IS JUST A STRONG DELUSION, THAT COMES FROM THE PINEAL GLAND, AND THE HYPOTHELAMUS CENTRE OF THE BRAIN, ITS ALL IN YOUR HEAD DUDE, IF WE ARE A HOLOGRAM, IN THIS WORLD WE PROJECT THINGS IN HOLOGRAM FORM IN THE MATRIX, SO THE EYES BEHIND THE CORONA, IS GIVING US A HOLOGRAM OF WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, HOMOSEXUALITY, WAS STARTED BY SATAN IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN, HE DID NOT LIKE GOD'S PLAN OF MARRIAGE AND ABSTIENENCE, SO HE HAD SEX WITH EVE, IN THE GARDEN WERE CAIN THE SON OF THE DEVIL WAS CONCEIVED, AT THE SAME TIME ABEL WAS ALSO CONCEIVED, FATERNAL TWINS SEX WITH MULTIPLE PARTNERS, SO BOTH SEEDS CAME OUT THE SEED OF GOD-DNA PURE BLOODS, AND THE SEED OF THE SERPENT-DNA CONTIMINATION SEED, BUT GOD(ELOHIM) RESPECTS THE SERPENT SEED ONLY IF THEY DO WELL WILL THEY BE ACCEPTED, JUST AS GOD TELLS CAIN, IF THOU DOEST WELL THOU SHALL BE ACCEPTED, BUT IF NOT SIN LYETH AT THE DOOR, HE HAD A FREE WILL CHOICE, TO ACCEPT OR REJECT WHAT ELOHIM SAID TO CAIN, BUT DECIDED TO GO ON THE DARK SIDE AND THAT IS WERE HE CROSSED OVER AND WAS MARKED BY GOD, SO YOU FOLLOW THE BIBLE AND YOU FIND THE SERPENT SEED COMING BACK THROUGH THE MUSLIMS WITH ISMAHAEL THE SON OF ABRAHAM, THEN THROUGHT THE DANITES, MERVOVIGIANS. BUT HOMOSEXUALITY WAS PERVERTED, BY SATAN FOR HE IS BOTH GENDERS MALE AND FEMALE, HESHE, AND HE DOESNT LIKE GOD'S PLAN OF MARRIAGE BECAUSE IT IS A COVENANT WITH GOD, THEY RATHER HAVE A COVENANT WITH WICCA WITCHES, AND SATAN WORSHIP THAN TO HAVE A COVENANT WITH GOD'S WAY. SO I AM AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY FOR IT IS A ABOMINABLE THING BEFORE THE LORD VERY HORRIFIC, AND IF YOU HAVE TRIED IT BUT DIDNT LIKE IT THEN YOU CAN REBOUND, BUT IF YOU ARE FULL OF LIES, COCAINE CRACK BEER TOBAACO, WHISKEY ALL THE DEVICES TO KEEP YOU UNDER THEN MY FRIEND YOU ARE FIGHTING A SPIRITUAL BATTLE, AND YOU NEED THE LORD JESUS CHRIST THE NAME THAT IS ABOVE ALL NAMES, THE ONE TRUE GOD, THE KING OF KINGS AND THE LORD OF LORDS, AND COUNTER THE GENETIC MANIPULATION OF SATAN FOR HE WANTS TO PERVERT AND TWIST YOUR MIND AND HEART TO BELIEVE A LIE HE WANTS YOU TO LOOK LIKE HIM DEMONIC EARS PIERCED TONGUE PIERCED, ASS TATOOED, TITS ALL BIG ASS ALL BIG TO PERVERT YOU AND TWIST YOU INTO THE DEVILS IMAGE, AND HE WANT TO TAKE OUT THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF ELOHIM IN WHICH IS YOUR GIVEN GODLY RIGHT, BUT FREE WILL, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK LIKE THE WORLD, NASTY, STINKY, BEER BREATH WHISKEY BREATH DICK BREATH WHATEVER, YOU ARE BEING DECIEVED, BY THE GOD OF THIS WORLD, WHO HAS BLINDEDTHE MINDS OF THOSE WHO WANT TO COME OUT OF DARKNESS, BUT SATAN ENTERTAINTS LIKE TV, HAS YOU IN HIS VORTEX, ONLY THE POWERFUL WORD OF GOD, CAN DO MIRACLES FOR YOU, BREAK AWAY AND COME INTO THE GLORIOUS LIGHT OF JESUS CHRIST, FOR YOUR BENIFIT BEFORE IT IS TIME TO CLOSE THE DOOR, AND THE POINT OF NO RETURN IS NOT FOR YOU, BUT THE DOOR OF GRACE LOVE AND TRUTH, MEN WILL COME TO YOU IN A NATURAL LOVE, PLUTONIC LOVE MALE BONDING, LIKE TRUE BEST FRIENDS, THEY DON'T TAKE YOU ON DESTROYING PATTERNS, BUT TRUE FRIENDS NURTURE YOU BACK TO HEALTH AND WELL BEING, GIVES AND NOT TAKES SUFFERS WITH, BUT DOES NOT COMPLAIN, JESUS STICKS TO US, LIKE A FRIEND THAT IS CLOSER THAN A BROTHER, HE WILL GUIDE ALL MY STEPS AND IN HIM WILL I TRUST, BROTHER STOP BELIEVING THE DECIEVER, COME OUT OF DARKNESS, AND DO THE THINGS OF THE LIGHT.
As very much as I'd like to claw your eyeballs out of your skull right now, I am instead going to make a mature argument. First of all, why the hell would you bring The Matrix into your religious argument? It was a great movie, don't disgrace it. Secondly: I've said it a million times, but I'll say it again; Wiccans. Are. Not. Devil worshippers, dammit! Leave MY religion the hell out of this! Furthermore, what you've written is just a bunch of gibberish about eyesight, movies and recovering from homosexuality, which is impossible. If you were here I would kill you, but since we're on the Internet I'll just ask you to kindly piss off.
I've read the bible and I don't remember anything about Eve having sex with satan. Cain is Adam and Eve's child just as Abel was and he killed his brother because of jealousy. And maybe if you picked up the freaking bible once in a while you would know that only about 2 sentences of what you said is truth. So, my advise? Stop preaching if you have no idea what you're talking about.
Are you that retarded? And is your point really that weak that you require all caps to put it across? Honestly I get more and more surpised by the dumbness of the world on a daily basis. Like are people really this stupid and neglegent? or is it just you?
Ohhhhh but its ok if ur dad leaves your mom for another woman....... I dont belive in religion but any body who cheats on anybody is wrong no matter what the sexual orientation (my point of view!)and not to be mean or anything how do u know that adam and eve were the first ppl on earth...u cant say they were if they never had any proof of it and the first ppl came from africa just to let you know!
"Rashi, a 10th century Jewish interpreter, suggested the first human was male on one side and female on the other and that God had simply divided the creature in half ... Trible argues that God created the first human without gender, “the adam” [human] was formed from “the adamah” [humus]. Rather than a man, “the adam” was an “earth creature” (as an aside, there is a great play on words in the biblical text: “Yahweh Elohim formed the earthling from the earth” or “the human from the humus”). "
Unfortunately for you living in the dark ages still...dude really come out to the light...its not so bad out here. But seriously if you turn around and say homosexuality is unnatural then how come being heterosexual is not deemed unatural?
How would you feel if someone turned to you just let's say in a reverse of the cycle and I believed that being heterosexual is wrong.
You are heterosexual, I'm assuming you are. So now how would you feel if suddenly...you felt isolated from everyone, no one accepts your sexuality because being heterosexual is wrong...and your religion deems it unclean and people are suddenly trying to beat you up just because you like men/women and your a guy/girl but in societies view your actually supose to only like women/men...
now how does it feel being on the other side of the fence mister know it all?
Hold on, you're truly religious? Wow! How is that possible? You believe in a big magical being that controls everything because your mommy told you that was the case? If your mom told you that there was a giant pancake in the sky you would believe that.
Don't be such a naive fucking zealot. God isn't real, however reassuring it is to you.
This is what I think.The Bible says to let the righteous be righteous,let the unrighteous be unrighteous(Revelations) and to warn sinners of their sins(Ezekiel).(While letting them be!)
so therefore,Christians are prohibited by the Bible to force anyone to conform to their beliefs(while keeping their own).And that makes sense.
Marriage is between opposite genre. The notion of friends is partly for people who like someone of the same genre.What do homosexuals found on their partner that is not friendship?
christjesus and cuntyguy2 are two of the most prolific trolls on this site. christjesus in particular is a raging homophobe and manages to work "fag" into everything he posts. Neither of them appear to be interested in or capable of rational discourse, they exist on this site purely to be "humorous" or annoying.
You may ban them from your debate or downvote them as you see fit, however it may be best to simply ignore them. If they get under your skin, they win.
The funny thing is, at least I know that I'll always have friends that will back me up no matter what. I have a family, whether or not they're blood means nothin, they're still family. We may all be "sick in the head", but we're still a family, no matter what. Homo and heterosexuals.
Dude, you really need to grow up. Learn to use language that doesn't make you sound like an immature teen, and find a way to actually argue that makes sense and actually has any effect. And you need to broaden your vocabulary a bit.
Just wanted to add that I don't see anything wrong with incest, as long as informed consent is given. To me it's yet another minority sexual orientation that, like homosexuality, gets derided for little reason.
Just wanted to add that I don't see anything wrong with incest, as long as informed consent is given.
Incest is one of those peculiarities of nature which are punished, as if by a God or some corrective force. Among its fellows it counts paedophilia, squandering the young on wars and such; and various other vile and loathsome acts.
Incest promotes genetic disease and compromises the bloodline, which is why we have evolved an instinctive aversion to it (the mechanics of that evolution are largely irrelevant).
Yeah, I see the evolutionary reason to discourage incest, and it's probably true that we've developed an instinct against it. But since a number of historical societies allowed incest amongst relatives like first or second cousins, and a few allowed fraternal incest, I'd say that culture also plays a big role in determining how repulsive it is.
In any case, the evolutionary argument is largely obsolete in the present day. A blanket law against incestuous relationships would be hard to justify on medical grounds as we now have so many ways to guard against conceiving children with genetic defects, and there are no similar laws banning relationships between other people who are likely to pass on genetic defects.
According to the word of God Incest is unlawful. Leviticus18:6-30. God Finds these things detestable. That means so do I. It is damaging to the human sole. It is sinful. It needs to be cut off from the people. It needs to be recognized as sinful, because it is. Incest comes with disease, mutations, and more. Most importantly its offensive to God, and it destroys family relationships.
The Bible has forbidden many things, including homosexuality and incest. But would you find all of them sinful, only because the Bible said it was?
For example, from the book that you quoted, it is also commanded, among many other things:
- That you may not eat animal fat. (Leviticus 19:3)
- That you may not wear clothing made from two different types of fabric. (Leviticus 19:19)
- That men may not shave their beards. (Leviticus 19:27)
- That handicapped people may not approach the Lord's sanctuary. (Leviticus 21:16-23)
I don't see modern Christians denouncing such actions on the basis that the Bible forbade them, and yet many Christians denounce incest on the basis that the Bible forbids it?
I am not trying to draw a correlation between the two, Im simply saying that someone, if involved in something seen as deviant or as disgusting ( that probably is), with a little science can make laws to approve any destructive habit.
Laws can and have been made to approve all sorts of horrible things, like slavery and torture. And laws have been made to ban things that we now consider acceptable, like following a different religion. It's up to people to decide for themselves which things are disgusting and need banning, and which things should be allowed. That's what's happening in this debate: people are arguing for one or the other.
Just saying "People who accept x (which I dislike) will probably accept y (which I also dislike)" doesn't really make a case for banning x. There are all sorts of reasons why someone might think x is acceptable, and these reasons may be inapplicable to y.
Showing how the world is going downhill is arguing that the world is going downhill. There are plenty of people who don't think that accepting homosexuality or incest means the world is going downhill.
Homosexuality is okay because both partners are consenting
So if two suicidal people both want to kill each other, and they both consent to killing each other, is that all right?
Nothing gives religions the right to take away anyones rights, who ever said we should abide by everything they say?
Religions are not taking away anyone's rights by not marrying them. If gay people want to spend their lives together, they can. But the church shouldn't be expected to condone that, which is what they would be doing by marring them.
Why should I have to live my life alone where heterosexuals can go out and marry 6 guys at once
Does that not devalue marriage?
Of course it does. And the church does not condone infidelity or bigamy anymore than homosexuality.
So if two suicidal people both want to kill each other, and they both consent to killing each other, is that all right?
Yes.
Religions are not taking away anyone's rights by not marrying them. If gay people want to spend their lives together, they can. But the church shouldn't be expected to condone that, which is what they would be doing by marring them.
Then why in most states is it illegal for homosexuals to get married in a courthouse?
So you either seem to think that there's nothing wrong with suicide, or you're sticking to your mutual consent argument to the point that it makes it OK for suicidal people to kill each other. Either way, that mentality doesn't seem to have a very high regard for human life, so I believe that topic has reached an impasse.
Then why in most states is it illegal for homosexuals to get married in a courthouse?
Because the word "marriage" holds a certain religious connotation. If it were to be called a civil union, I don't think people would take issue with it very much. they can have all the benefits of marriage if they want. But including homosexuality into a sacred union such as marriage would taint the very meaning of what it means to be married.
It will never be okay for two people to kill each other but that is not what we are talking about, we've strayed away from the point of arguement.
In no way is marriage sacred anymore with divorce, bigamy and drunken, reckless marriages. Same sex marriage needs to be introduced, its our right to get married
It will never be okay for two people to kill each other but that is not what we are talking about, we've strayed away from the point of arguement.
I was only trying to illustrate the point that mutual consent doesn't always make an action right.
In no way is marriage sacred anymore with divorce, bigamy and drunken, reckless marriages.
As I said before, divorce bigamy and drunken reckless marriage is just as big of a problem, and within religious institutions, it gets just as much heat, if not more so than gay marriage.
Same sex marriage needs to be introduced, its our right to get married
You should have the right to send your life with whomever you want, and, for the most part, the state should allow you the privileges of married couples, but it is not your right to commandeer a sacred union because you want to be recognized as "married" when that simply wouldn't be so.
"I was only trying to illustrate the point that mutual consent doesn't always make an action right."
yes it does though, its not that I would want people to commit suicide, but I have no say on anyone elses decisions. if two people want to kill each other what right do I have to say they can't? they are allowed to make thier own choices, it does not mean I have no care for human life, it just means I have a care for freedom, don't you care about freedom?
"You should have the right to send your life with whomever you want, and, for the most part, the state should allow you the privileges of married couples, but it is not your right to commandeer a sacred union because you want to be recognized as "married" when that simply wouldn't be so."
well, well, well look who's being a big crybaby, oh they are being labeled as married, whatever shall we do. just in case you were to stupid to understand that was sarcasm. I don't really think marriage is necessarily a religous thing. religion is where it comes from, but its a societal thing now, we have recognized marriage as the true unitement of loving people in a way. plus does it really sound romantic to be in a "civil union" NO, marriage can be something religous to you, but its not to everybody... sorry too bad.
So you either seem to think that there's nothing wrong with suicide, or you're sticking to your mutual consent argument to the point that it makes it OK for suicidal people to kill each other. Either way, that mentality doesn't seem to have a very high regard for human life, so I believe that topic has reached an impasse.
This position holds in high regard the right of every person to decide the worth of their own life, and to do whatever they want with it without infringing on the rights of others.
This position holds in high regard the right of every person to decide the worth of their own life, and to do whatever they want with it without infringing on the rights of others.
Of course they have the right, but what we're arguing is whether or not it is right.
Most people probably do not think suicide is 'right', exactly, but some (like Bohemian) recognize it is not their business to legislate a restriction of it. It is the same with gay rights, which, unless I am mistaken, you do not support. You can think whatever you want about it, but as it is not a factor that meaningfully influences your life or the lives of heterosexuals in general, it is not your place to legislate a restriction on it.
So you either seem to think that there's nothing wrong with suicide.
Correct.
you're sticking to your mutual consent argument to the point that it makes it OK for suicidal people to kill each other.
Also correct.
Because the word "marriage" holds a certain religious connotation.
Something is illegal because of connotations? What an absurd argument. This is simply a more tact way of stating "My religion says it's wrong therefore you shouldn't be able to do it".
If it were to be called a civil union, I don't think people would take issue with it very much. they can have all the benefits of marriage if they want.
The problem with this is that it relies on the "separate but equal" concept under the guise of 'civil unions'. The problem is that civil unions won't have the same benefits and the same protection under law as that traditional marriages, because those who support 'civil unions' believe them to be inherently inferior. The same way black schools during the civil rights movement were treated as inherently inferior to white schools. Equality can never be achieved in this way.
The only way we can guarantee equal protection under the law is to make no distinction between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage.
But including homosexuality into a sacred union such as marriage would taint the very meaning of what it means to be married.
By meaning of marriage you mean the legal and inter-personal union of two consenting adults, who profess their love towards each other?
Interesting how you use the word "taint" in reference to the perceived affect same-sex marriage would have. Which shows me you do think same-sex couples are inherently inferior to heterosexual couples.
Something is illegal because of connotations? What an absurd argument. This is simply a more tact way of stating "My religion says it's wrong therefore you shouldn't be able to do it".
Marriage was created by religion. In fact, if it weren't for certain privileges married couples get, there would be no point in anyone getting married ever. And since it is based on religion, it should have the ability to determine who can use what it created.
The problem with this is that it relies on the "separate but equal" concept under the guise of 'civil unions'. The problem is that civil unions won't have the same benefits and the same protection under law as that traditional marriages, because those who support 'civil unions' believe them to be inherently inferior. The same way black schools during the civil rights movement were treated as inherently inferior to white schools. Equality can never be achieved in this way.
Not necessarily. In some cities, the Negros had exactly equal, and on a few occasions, better accommodations than the whites. Obviously this wasn't the case most of the time, but it did happen. It could also be made to work for civil unions.
By meaning of marriage you mean the legal and inter-personal union of two consenting adults, who profess their love towards each other?
Of course not. Marriage was never intended to be this. A marriage is the legal, religious, inter-personal union of one man and one woman who profess their love towards each other.
Interesting how you use the word "taint" in reference to the perceived affect same-sex marriage would have. Which shows me you do think same-sex couples are inherently inferior to heterosexual couples.
Of course I do. But that is purely a matter of opinion, and therefore not a viable topic of debate.
Marriage was created by religion. In fact, if it weren't for certain privileges married couples get, there would be no point in anyone getting married ever. And since it is based on religion, it should have the ability to determine who can use what it created.
So why is the state getting to decide whether two people can get married or not?
Not necessarily. In some cities, the Negros had exactly equal, and on a few occasions, better accommodations than the whites. Obviously this wasn't the case most of the time, but it did happen. It could also be made to work for civil unions.
To what extent this occurred, if at all, I cannot say. I find it doubtful to say the least. But even if I were to take this at face value, that a few rare black schools were better equipped than most white schools does nothing to rectify the deep-rooted inequality and prejudice that existed.
"Separate But Equal" does not work, nor has it ever worked, for the same reason civil unions will not work.
Of course not. Marriage was never intended to be this. A marriage is the legal, religious, inter-personal union of one man and one woman who profess their love towards each other.
I might point out that marriage was never intended to be that either. This idea of a nuclear family is a relatively recent invention. Throughout most of history, Polygamy was the most common form of marriage. The idea that love should have anything to do with marriage is also a recent invention. Marriages originally were intended only to create social stability. The number of wives a man could support was a measure of his power and social status in a society. In many places marriages were arranged outright.
Of course I do. But that is purely a matter of opinion, and therefore not a viable topic of debate.
Nearly everything you have said is a matter of opinion. Them being opinions doesn't mean they are beyond criticism or fallibility, as many people would like to assert. I still may find fault in such opinions.
So why is the state getting to decide whether two people can get married or not?
It shouldn't. The church should decide, not the state, as marriage is mostly a religious union.
"Separate But Equal" does not work, nor has it ever worked, for the same reason civil unions will not work.
So hypothetical, if civil unions were identical to marriages in every form except it's name, would that be satisfactory?
I might point out that marriage was never intended to be that either. This idea of a nuclear family is a relatively recent invention. Throughout most of history, Polygamy was the most common form of marriage. The idea that love should have anything to do with marriage is also a recent invention. Marriages originally were intended only to create social stability. The number of wives a man could support was a measure of his power and social status in a society. In many places marriages were arranged outright.
This is not true of Christianity, which is the religion that marriage in America was originally based upon. The nuclear family goes back thousands of years, and clear into Judaism (which also advocates for heterosexual relationships). Polygamy was never considered virtuous by either of them, and neither was homosexuality.
So hypothetical, if civil unions were identical to marriages in every form except it's name, would that be satisfactory?
Have you not learned from history? As long as they are legally treated differently they cannot be equal.
This is not true of Christianity, which is the religion that marriage in America was originally based upon. The nuclear family goes back thousands of years, and clear into Judaism (which also advocates for heterosexual relationships). Polygamy was never considered virtuous by either of them, and neither was homosexuality.
It is true of marriage throughout most of history. So you cannot assert marriage was intended to fulfill ideals which where created long after marriage was already being practiced. In fact until very recently inter-racial marriage was scorned.
Perhaps you think your religion gets to dictate the terms of every marriage. This very notion is contrary to our liberty.
Have you not learned from history? As long as they are legally treated differently they cannot be equal.
You have not answered my question. It's hypothetical, assuming them to be equal.
It is true of marriage throughout most of history. So you cannot assert marriage was intended to fulfill ideals which where created long after marriage was already being practiced.
Marriage had no definite parameters until it was made doctrine in religious organizations. There was polygamy, frequent devoice and remarrying, fornication with animals and people of the same sex, and oftentimes it had little or nothing to do with love. This kind of chaos can't be defined under one term, nor should it ever be allowed to.
In fact until very recently inter-racial marriage was scorned.
And there was a reason for that, just as there are reasons to scorn gay marriage. If we allow the gays to "marry" what's next? Will people want to marry an animal? Or an inanimate object? The bottom line is that when the definition of marriage is broadened, it's uniqueness and sacredness is diminished, and that is the main reason why gay "marriage" is so stubbornly fought against.
Perhaps you think your religion gets to dictate the terms of every marriage. This very notion is contrary to our liberty.
It is not contrary to anyone's liberty. No one needs a religion to approve of their living with someone else. The government can accommodate them with a civil union. But if someone wants a religion to approve of their relationship (making it marriage) the religion most certainly should have the ability to say what is acceptable and what isn't.
And there was a reason for that, just as there are reasons to scorn gay marriage. If we allow the gays to "marry" what's next? Will people want to marry an animal? Or an inanimate object? The bottom line is that when the definition of marriage is broadened, it's uniqueness and sacredness is diminished, and that is the main reason why gay "marriage" is so stubbornly fought against.
Are you saying that allowing marriages between a white person and a black person has diminished the "uniqueness and sacredness" of marriages between two white people?
Also, I really thought the slippery slope argument had been put to bed. Are inanimate objects and animals considered adult citizens, capable of granting informed consent to relationships? No? Oh, well then I guess that's where the difference is.
Are you saying that allowing marriages between a white person and a black person has diminished the "uniqueness and sacredness" of marriages between two white people?
No. What I meant was that there are cultural and societal factors to consider in regard to people of different races. They can cause complications in marriages.
Also, I really thought the slippery slope argument had been put to bed. Are inanimate objects and animals considered adult citizens, capable of granting informed consent to relationships? No? Oh, well then I guess that's where the difference is.
For a long time the definition was one man and one woman, and no one saw that changing either.
No. What I meant was that there are cultural and societal factors to consider in regard to people of different races. They can cause complications in marriages.
I do not see the relevance of this statement. It is no one else's concern if two people decide to enter a marriage that some would consider 'complicated'.
For a long time the definition was one man and one woman, and no one saw that changing either.
If you are saying that allowing two consenting adults who are in love to commit to each other means that we by definition must allow people to marry ponies, and that society is incapable of editing the definition of marriage without allowing the institution to collapse into a free-for-all, then...that's kind of ridiculous. Society has changed the definition of marriage in the past, somehow we're not seeing a lot of government-sanctioned bestiality or pedophilia, and we will change it again the future to include homosexuals.
Hypothetically, though, how do you think it would detrimentally impact your life in a concrete way if your neighbor was legally wed to his coffee table? Tell me what would be different in your own marriage, besides the apparently disturbing thought that more people than ever are allowed to have what you have.
It is no one else's concern if two people decide to enter a marriage that some would consider 'complicated'.
If you care about the person it is.
Society has changed the definition of marriage in the past, somehow we're not seeing a lot of government-sanctioned bestiality or pedophilia, and we will change it again the future to include homosexuals.
Not a great deal. And especially not in American culture. It's been almost exactly the same for many centuries.
Hypothetically, though, how do you think it would detrimentally impact your life in a concrete way if your neighbor was legally wed to his coffee table? Tell me what would be different in your own marriage, besides the apparently disturbing thought that more people than ever are allowed to have what you have.
Because it would make it meaningless. If my neighbor could marry his coffee table, it would make no sense for me or anyone else to be married because it can apply to anything or anyone. That is the disturbing thought.
So you support making homosexual marriage illegal because you care about them? You are trying to restrict other adults from making the choice they want to make, because you care about them and it might be 'complicated'?
Not a great deal. And especially not in American culture. It's been almost exactly the same for many centuries.
Sorry that miscegenation laws don't fit into your definition of 'a great deal' of change, even though they were probably a pretty big deal to interracial couples who loved each other and wanted to get married. But it is change nevertheless, and the fact remains that marriage has not dissolved, and the government does not sanction sex crimes because marriage has been expanded to include more people in the past.
Because it would make it meaningless. If my neighbor could marry his coffee table, it would make no sense for me or anyone else to be married because it can apply to anything or anyone. That is the disturbing thought.
Go further with this instead of just restating your point. How will it make your marriage meaningless? Will you receiver fewer benefits from being married? Will you love your wife less? Will the two of you form a less cooperative partnership? Will your union become a less stable platform from which to raise children? Is your marriage not already completely devalued because a 90 year old can marry an 18 year old and she can divorce him four hours later with half his fortune? Is it not already completely devalued because someone can marry dozens of people in succession and then quickly divorce them?
You don't have to be bothered by the things other people do that concern only them and their partner. You allow yourself to be, when in truth it doesn't even need to enter your mind what other people do with their marriages because it has zero concrete effect on your marriage or life, or the marriage or life of anyone else but them. Homosexuals should not be restricted from equal rights just because they give you disturbing thoughts.
You have not answered my question. It's hypothetical, assuming them to be equal.
Hypotheticals are useless if they are not firmly grounded in reality.
Marriage had no definite parameters until it was made doctrine in religious organizations.
It's strange how some will protest when non-religious folks lump Christianity in with other religions, but yet that is precisely what you are doing. What religious organizations would you be referring to?
There was polygamy, frequent devoice and remarrying, fornication with animals
What does 'fornicating with animals' have to do with a discussion about marriage? No one is suggesting this be considered marriage, nor does it hold any relevance to the topic at hand.
There was polygamy, frequent devoice and remarrying, fornication with animals and people of the same sex, and oftentimes it had little or nothing to do with love. This kind of chaos can't be defined under one term, nor should it ever be allowed to.
This kind of chaos can't be defined under one term, nor should it ever be allowed to.
Is ought
And there was a reason for that
Tell me. What was the reason for scorning inter-racial marriages. I would really like to know.
just as there are reasons to scorn gay marriage. If we allow the gays to "marry" what's next?
{Laughs}
"the gays"?
Did you really just write that? I can feel the bigotry seeping through my computer screen.
WHAT'S NEXT? Who is to say anything is next? Why can't we just give people equal rights without forming some absurd slippery slope argument in which successive steps a based on nothing but thin air, to reject what would otherwise be a rational step towards defending equal rights.
Will people want to marry an animal? Or an inanimate object?
I'm sure some people already do, but animals and inanimate objects are not legally capable of giving consent to anything.
The bottom line is that when the definition of marriage is broadened, it's uniqueness and sacredness is diminished
The same argument could be used against marriage of peoples of different colors. I do not think this is valid reason to make something illegal.
and that is the main reason why gay "marriage" is so stubbornly fought against.
No, I rather suspect that has more to do with biblical prejudice against homosexuals.
It is not contrary to anyone's liberty. No one needs a religion to approve of their living with someone else. The government can accommodate them with a civil union.
Civil unions do not grant equal protection.
But if someone wants a religion to approve of their relationship (making it marriage) the religion most certainly should have the ability to say what is acceptable and what isn't.
We do not require religion to get married. People can get married at courthouses and by sea captains. But even then there are some religions and indeed some christian churches that will marry gay couples.
Hypotheticals are useless if they are not firmly grounded in reality.
Which is still not an answer to my question.
What religious organizations would you be referring to?
Major religions that practice marriage and still exist today. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc...
What does 'fornicating with animals' have to do with a discussion about marriage? No one is suggesting this be considered marriage, nor does it hold any relevance to the topic at hand.
Exactly. But once you begin to break down the definition, why not add that as well?
Tell me. What was the reason for scorning inter-racial marriages. I would really like to know.
Because there are cultural and societal factors to consider in regard to inter racial couples. These can be a hindrance to a good marriage.
WHAT'S NEXT? Who is to say anything is next? Why can't we just give people equal rights without forming some absurd slippery slope argument in which successive steps a based on nothing but thin air, to reject what would otherwise be a rational step towards defending equal rights.
Common sense. As soon as you break the definition or make an exception, there will be a flood of other people who want their "equal rights". Marriage by the way, is not a right, it's a privilege. Like driving a car. That's why you need a marriage license.
I'm sure some people already do, but animals and inanimate objects are not legally capable of giving consent to anything.
Which will probably be the next topic in the battle for "equal rights".
The same argument could be used against marriage of peoples of different colors. I do not think this is valid reason to make something illegal.
People of different colors have been getting legally married since marriage existed. Gays haven't.
Civil unions do not grant equal protection.
They can be made to.
We do not require religion to get married. People can get married at courthouses and by sea captains. But even then there are some religions and indeed some Christian churches that will marry gay couples.
Some religions do. If they approve of gay marriage, then they can condone it. My argument is that a church shouldn't be forced to condone something it feels morally opposed to.
And rightfully so. The question is nonsensical to which no logical answer can be provided, except to point out the non-sensicality of the question. You may ask "Suppose a square had three sides" as a hypothetical question, and it would still be unworthy of any intelligible response.
Supposing that something may be the case is not evidence that it is.
Major religions that practice marriage and still exist today. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc...
And churches were they conduct same-sex marriages, should be legally prevented from doing so?
Exactly. But once you begin to break down the definition, why not add that as well?
For the same reason you wouldn't include "watching television" or "rearranging furniture" as part of the definition of marriage...because none of these things have anything to do with marriage. You're just being silly.
Common sense. As soon as you break the definition or make an exception, there will be a flood of other people who want their "equal rights". Marriage by the way, is not a right, it's a privilege. Like driving a car. That's why you need a marriage license.
If common sense is telling you to jump to absurd slippery slope sense arguments, you might want to re-evaluate your idea of common sense.
Which will probably be the next topic in the battle for "equal rights".
Yes, because this is a rational argument. We shouldn't allow gays to have rights because what's next people are gonna want to marry a chair.
You do realize how completely insane you sound right?
People of different colors have been getting legally married since marriage existed. Gays haven't.
Not in the United States they haven't. nevertheless I don't think this, even if true, would make a compelling argument for why Gays shouldn't.
They can be made to
As long as the mentality that gay marriages are inferior to straight ones, exist, they will never be treated equally under the law.
Some religions do. If they approve of gay marriage, then they can condone it. My argument is that a church shouldn't be forced to condone something it feels morally opposed to.
And you think in places where gay marriage is legal, all churches are FORCED to?
While this may be true, we don't know it as fact. Many different societies throughout history have had some variant of the concept of marriage. Of course they all had religion too, but vastly different and non-interacting religious beliefs still frequently produced the same concept. Marriage was known in the fertile crescent well before the first record of Judaism. It existed in Asia, the Americas and numerous African societies long before outside religions set foot on the soil. Numerous species of animal have life-pairing bonds. They cohabit together for life, exercise mating exclusivity and when one partner dies the other sometimes lets themselves waste away.
Further, throughout history, many societies or tiers within society married primarily for political or economic reasons.
"if it weren't for certain privileges married couples get, there would be no point in anyone getting married ever."
Even excluding the tax breaks and other legal privileges, there are plenty of things to make marriage attractive: Emotional succor and avoidance of loneliness. Shared resources. Societal approval. The hope that the one you love will always be by your side, and that the children can usually be reasonably assumed to be yours.
"Not necessarily. In some cities, the Negros had exactly equal, and on a few occasions, better accommodations than the whites."
Where?
"A marriage is the legal, RELIGIOUS, inter-personal union of one man and one woman who profess their love towards each other."
Atheists never marry? People have never married without any religious trappings to the ceremony whatsoever?
Exactly right the religion is what marries people the religion does the deciding, not the political agenda of certain people. Marriage is not a right but a privilege, a privilege of straight people, the right to marry is insofar as I know not included in the bill of rights.
Analogies are irrelevant as they presume to make contextual sense. And I think you only emphasise this.: "So if two suicidal people both want to kill each other, and they both consent to killing each other, is that all right?" - Since when did homosexuality end up with people dead everywhere?
Since when did homosexuality end up with people dead everywhere?
AIDS
And I think you only emphasise this
I used that analogy to illustrate that just because people consent to something, it doesn't make it ethical or moral. I did not mean that homosexuality kills people, except when they get diseases from it (which does happen to homosexuals more than heterosexuals).
Since when did homosexuality end up with people dead everywhere?
AIDS
AIDS is neither exclusive to homosexuality nor implicit in homosexuality. It is simply possible to transmit the disease via sexual penetration between a carrier and a non-carrier, regardless of gender.
"Homosexuals cannot love. They can only lust. They only perform sexual acts, but never reproduce"
Homosexuals can love. Just because they can't reproduce doesn't mean they can't love. They may not be able to reproduce, but who cares? its called adoption...Homosexuals are saving lives vecause they adopt
Love or not, it isn't rape. If sex is between two consenting adults, homosexual or heterosexual, it is considered voluntary and not rape in any matter.
Because it's fucked up. Not lesbians so you don't have to worry about being a rapist, because you don't actually have sex, but gaylords are rapists. Because no sane person would be a homosexual.
I would love to know how it was rape. How can somethin that is one hundred percent wanted from both sides be rape? Dude, you need to learn what the hell you're talkin bout before you start arguin with people. Love is somethin shared between two people who have feel somethin. Love is not somethin you can control, it's just somethin you feel, somethin just there. Sorry, but I've digressed from the situation at hand. And one more thing. Before you start arguin with us, expand your vocabulary. Read a dictionary maybe. Sorry, but I've digressed again. Rape is a forceful, unwilling act. One person is bein forceful and controllin, and the other is completely unwillin. Every experience I've had was completely willin by both of us. Get your facts straight, and try again later.
Gay? Yes, I am very happy bein what I am. It's not a choice, it's a feelin.
You feel gay?
You think I should be locked up? You know discrimination is a punishable crime?
I'm not discriminating against anyone, just so you know.
Many people who are afraid of somethin, or of revealin who they truly are, fight against it or make fun of it. Which are you?
Boring. Will it always come down to me being a closet gay? Isn't there anything more original you sodomites can come up with? Maybe something even remotely realistic?
Idiot is simply a word used to replace another, worse word. I ain't no pussy dude. I actually turn down more pussy than you get offered, and I'm bisexual, not homosexual. Gay is just used for it because we are happy bein what we are. And if you look it up, faggot is the butt of a cigarette. Learn the proper definition of the words you use. Sodomites? Again? You know, people like you are the reason this word is no longer healthy, no longer strong enough to hold it's own weight. People with your mindset are the ones who starts wars and genecide because people are different, and you need a scapegoat for your problems.
Listen you dirty sodomising faggot. I've never mentioned violence against you disgusting twisted mental fucks. So you get facts straight. K, not straight, get them right.
A faggot is a homosexual. Stop acting like it's not. We're not living in a dictionary world. Certain words don't have to be in a dictionary for their meaning to be accepted. Thus faggot = homosexual.
In all honesty it's people like you who are the reason this world is no longer healthy and strong. Weak minded, pussyholes who run and hide from problems. Live in your little bubble, protected from the realities and harshness of life. The real men work to keep you happy in your soft environment.
Please don't talk to me about getting pussy. Just doesn't suit you.
Violence is a way of thinkin, not neccesarily an act. Learn what you're sayin before you say it. And I do have my facts correct.
Do you really think we don't live in a dictionary world? Where can you get in life if your vocabulary isn't broadened past "fuck" and "faggot"? Certainly can't be a doctor.
I have never ran and hid from my problems. I confront them face to face. Weak minded means weak willed, and my will is stronger than most anyones I've met. I can say no when I'm horny, or when it comes to drugs. Can you? Oh, and by the way, I work. I have two jobs and I'm only 17, so you need to get your facts straight. I've had a horrible childhood. Haha.
And how exactly does it not suit me? I can talk to you bout anythin I want, it's a free country, and I have a right of free speech.
You must be so proud. Paper boy. Laughing about your own shitty life. Don't blame your homosexuality on your shit life.
Dude, I've been workin at a construction company for nearly a year now. I laugh because you have no idea how hard it is. I'm not blamin it on anythin. If I was doin anythin, I'd be thankin it. And yes, I've had a shitty life, and yes, it's been hard, but I still have a good attitude and I am a very nice person. What can you say you've done with your life?
Cause you're a pussy. A cunt. And a faggot.
I am not a pussy. I just don't like people bein dumb.
Lol pussy. That means I can say whatever I want aswell dickmuncher.
What do you mean there? I said I can talk to you bout anythin I want, not say anythin I want. Pay attention to what you're arguin. Many of the things you say are discrimination, which again, is illegal. I, however, am simply debatin.
Besides the fact that I've started my own construction business, will be happily married with children etc.? I probably ain't done shit.
Well people can't help being dumb. They don't have a choice on whether or not they can speak.
I am talking about anything I want. I am talking about how disgusting homosexuality is. Many of the things I say is illegal? LOL WTF are you talking about? The internet is UNIVERSALLY used. If I said these things in another part of the world I would be praised but apparently according to you what I'm saying is ILLEGAL? Grow up kid.
I would love to know the name of your business please. Oh wait, let me guess, you don't have to tell me, right? That probably means you're makin it up.
You're gonna be happily married? What if that wasn't allowed? How would you feel then? Would you protest to get that right?
I figured you couldn't help bein dumb. Sorry you have no life.
Homosexuality may be disgustin to you, but there are many people who would disagree. We do not push our beliefs on you, or other straight people.
What you're sayin is discrimination, and that is illegal in the eyes of the American government. It's kinda funny that you keep sayin stuff like "I live in England" and "I own a business" to come back, huh? I really think you're makin stuff up now. And I'm more grown up then you are, that's a promise.
You're gonna be happily married? What if that wasn't allowed? How would you feel then? Would you protest to get that right?
But it is allowed...
We do not push our beliefs on you, or other straight people.
You have been for the last 20+ years actually.
What you're sayin is discrimination, and that is illegal in the eyes of the American government.
It isn't illegal in the eyes of the Saudi Arabian government.
It's kinda funny that you keep sayin stuff like "I live in England" and "I own a business" to come back, huh? I really think you're makin stuff up now.
They're not come backs. Lol faggot.
And I'm more grown up then you are, that's a promise.
I never said it was. My dad and I started a construction company, H&H;Construction. It's hardly known around here, but it's here.
Maybe you should try and put yourself in other peoples' shoes for once, see how they feel, show some sympathy or empathy.
I have not pushed my beliefs on you, my friends have not. We have simply made them known. Missionaries push their beliefs on people, and we are not missionaries.
Does that matter? Would that matter in a court of law anywhere but there? "It isn't illegal in Saudi Arabia!" That wouldn't get you out of much anywhere else.
If they're not come backs, then why are you respondin with them? I would love to know that.
Umm...no. I don't want that. If I did, I would have one. I really don't care for them. Way to have in interestin debate there.
Do you even know the job of a missionary? Soldiers are simply "pawns" used by the churches, which are run by priests and missionaries. A missionary goes to other places, tells people that God is the only God, there is no other, and push it on them til they believe it.
I never said it was. My dad and I started a construction company, H&H;Construction. It's hardly known around here, but it's here.
You want another blue peter badge gayboy?
Maybe you should try and put yourself in other peoples' shoes for once, see how they feel, show some sympathy or empathy.
Maybe you should too.
I have not pushed my beliefs on you, my friends have not. We have simply made them known. Missionaries push their beliefs on people, and we are not missionaries.
Listen rapist, I know you haven't pushed your beliefs onto me. You've simply attempted to. The very fact that you're arguing only proves this.
That wouldn't get you out of much anywhere else.
You misunderstand the point entirely.
I would love to know that.
Lol retardface. I'm merely stating facts. You say I'm black, I tell you no I'm white. Is that a comeback? NO. Faggot.
I have put myself in other peoples' shoes. You, I can tell, have not. You simply argue with what you don't like, or what you're afraid of. Sypmpathy, or even empathy, just a lil bit, goes a long way.
I have not even tried. I am debatin that you're bein a jerk and obviously don't care bout anyone but yourself. Simple.
You know, if I'm pushin my beliefs on you, then you're pushin your's on me, and that makes you a hypocrate.
I did I misunderstand the point? Explain it then.
I'm merely statin facts as well. Retardface? Honestly dude? That's an amazin insult. I'm quiverin in my boots. Haha.
Sodomite? Again with the biblical references? Why do non-Christian anti-homosexuals always use the Bible in their arguments? Even Atheists do.
You say that you hate people pushin their beliefs on you, yet you do it. How is that not hypocritical?
Why don't you fuck off.
Sometimes you should practice what you preach.
Seeing as you hate it so much here.
I actually love it here, very much so. I love where I am in life right now, who I'm with, and everythin bout my life at this moment. It's people like you who make it hard for people like me to be happy.
I never said that. Stop twisting words. You're wrong, we're not all gay or lesbians. There's an inbetween and you can't seem to figure that out. My soulmate could be a girl or a guy. There's always a chance that your's could be too.
You are afraid of change. You just can't figure out what to do and you're taking it out on those of us who are changing the world. How sad.
Bein a homosexual is like love. You don't choose who you fall in love with, it's just a feelin. You don't control it.
I'm not discriminating against anyone, just so you know.
So none of what you have said so far in any of your arguments isn't discrimination against gays?
Boring.
How can someone's life be borin?
Will it always come down to me being a closet gay?
Umm....no. I said either afraid of somethin, or of revealin who they truly are. Pay attention. I didn't say you were a closet gay, I simply said it's a possibility. And you're more likely a "Jesus Jesus" person or a homophobe.
Isn't there anything more original you sodomites can come up with?
Sodomy? Hmm. Yep. Definitely "Jesus Jesus". I wonder who else uses that reference. You know, the Bible says that people who judge others are condemned, and shall be sent to Hell. Well, I'll meet you there, since you're gonna die before I do.
Tricked? No. You don't control how you feel. What makes you attracted to women? Do you control your attractions?
So debates between liberals and republicans, vegetarians and meat eaters, men and women etc. all contain discrimination against each other.
Great.
None of those are discrimination. They aren't puttin the other one down. They're simply statin facts about what they do, how they do it, and how it's different from the other. What you're doin is pure discrimination.
Wrong again. I'm not religious. Haven't touched the bible since young.
Then why did you say Sodomy?
Snap snap, the attitude! You go gurrrlll! Mmmmmhhmmmm.
I am the farthest thing from feminine. Trust me.
Fucking faggot....
Way to throw the F word in your debate. Both of them. Bet you feel like a real man now, huh?
None of those are discrimination. They aren't puttin the other one down. They're simply statin facts about what they do, how they do it, and how it's different from the other. What you're doin is pure discrimination.
No it's not. I'm just putting you down. I'm stating facts about what you do, how you do it and how it's different from being normal. What I'm doing is what anyone else is. People just shout discrimination because they know they're losing.
Then why did you say Sodomy?
Because it's offensive.
I am the farthest thing from feminine. Trust me.
Maybe in your circle-jerk you are, but in the real world you're feminine.
No it's not. I'm just putting you down. I'm stating facts about what you do, how you do it and how it's different from being normal. What I'm doing is what anyone else is. People just shout discrimination because they know they're losing.
Your opinion is biased, that's why you don't think it's discrimination. Discrimination is anythin that has a downsizin-effect on a certain group/minority of people. What your doin is discriminatin against homosexuals. You're not just statin facts, you're sayin that it's "wrong" and "gays are immoral" and usin other offensive language.
Because it's offensive.
How is sayin homosexually is sodomy? Technically, it is. But, who are you to judge what we do? Or who we are? You have no right to judge us, no right to say we're wrong. People do what they truly want. Why are you attracted to women?
Maybe in your circle-jerk you are, but in the real world you're feminine.
I don't do that. I have never done that. That's disgustin. In the real world, I'm more of a man than you think apparantly. People who know me can tell you the same thing.
Your opinion is biased, that's why you don't think it's discrimination. Discrimination is anythin that has a downsizin-effect on a certain group/minority of people. What your doin is discriminatin against homosexuals.
Republicans, democrats, feminists etc. aren't biased then?
You're not just statin facts, you're sayin that it's "wrong" and "gays are immoral" and usin other offensive language.
Actually I'm giving reasons. You probably can't read because you're too busy thinking of raping someone.
But, who are you to judge what we do? Or who we are? You have no right to judge us, no right to say we're wrong.
Who are you to judge what others do and who you are? You have no right to say you're right.
People do what they truly want.
Lets allow people to use drugs, molest children, murder, and commit all sorts of crimes, both blue and white collar. Fucking idiot.
Why are you attracted to women?
Scientifically? I'm attracted to a potential mate so I can reproduce, through the spreading of my seed (after the spreading of her legs), and CONTINUE THE HUMAN RACE.
Idiot. Are you really that retarded to question heterosexuality? Stupid fuck. Guess being retarded is part of your homosexual condition. Fucking AIDS infected cunt.
Condition??? Are you seriously going to compare homosexuality to an illness????
It's not a choice!!!! You didn't choose to be heterosexual and don't give me crap about you don't have to because it's natural, you don't get to choose who you are
If you did there would be no homosexuals, no one wants to be criminalized everyday!
And heterosexuals have THE SAME CHANCE of catching AIDS or any SIT as homosexuals do
Go do some research and quit using myths to back up your meaningless, vindictive verbal assault on human beings
More of a mental disorder than outright illness. Homosexuals have a higher chance of catching STD's than normal people. In fact the spread of AIDS throughout the world can be highly attributed to homosexuals (as well as other weak inferior people such as drug addicts).
Homosexuals are not the ones who started the spread of AIDS. STDs are actually more commonly spread by drug addicts, who most are heterosexual, and prostitutes, who are also heterosexual. So don't go there, not with the whole "homosexuals spread AIDS", considerin the fact that I have more of an education in the medical field than you do, I can guarantee that. Oh wait, let me guess, you're a doctor? Haha. Not exactly a good argument for you there, huh?
Well Everybody already knows I'm for homosexuality, but I wanted to quote a line from the movie "RENT" It's the part in the movie where Angel is dead and they are at her funeral. "I'm more of a man then you'll ever be and more of a woman then you'll ever get."
I know it's love because I've been in love. With another girl. And I've never kissed her, never had sex with her, never even HUGGED her. And still I love her.
Yeah... I don't think a condom will solve the tearing of the child. Sorry. Maybe if you actually knew what a condom does. And I can reference the Bible, where it states that "if you do not cry out to the town when you are being raped, you will be taken to the city gates and be stoned to death." Yeah, heterosexuals are doing GREAT with marriage. No one is devaluing it more. Look up the divorce rate of heterosexuals sometime and compare that to the number of separations between homosexuals. Or even just the number of people protesting for those rights, because they actually care about the meaning of marriage and want to live together through a legal bond.
Your last stanza sickens me the most. Homosexuals cannot love. They can only lust. They only perform sexual acts, but never reproduce. Homosexuals do love. You don't know that because you are a brainwashed, ignorant heterosexual that has never had homosexual feelings. You never have, never will. For that reason, you cannot even state that sentence because you have absolutely no basis for it. They can only lust. You also have no proof for that statement, either. Even if you did, you can see that numerous heterosexuals lust ALL THE TIME. You have even lusted sometime during your life. Don't deny it. Your hand knows it, too. As for the last sentence, that they can only perform sexual acts. Sure, homosexuals can only perform sexual acts, it doesn't matter. Most do it out of love (which you cannot disprove), and yes, some might do it out of lust. But both can be part of the same thing. When you long for your significant other to be in your presence again, it is both out of love and sometimes lust. But stating that they can never reproduce is false. Lesbians can still reproduce; think semen donors. But, to be honest, even if they couldn't reproduce, would that really be a problem? It's because so many people want to reproduce that the world is going to shit. We just hit the big 7 billion recently. Can't wait until starvation hits every country in the world.
Yep. You're right. Marriage has become devalued. I cannot argue that point.
It is happening in a society where idolisation of money, greed, selfishness, hatred, drugs, sex, violence (and all other evils). These same societies are those that readily accept homosexuality. Repeat after me, selfish societies = societies who accept homosexuality.
Not only are you redefining the definition of marriage, you're also redefining the definition of love. You cannot love. You can only lust. You only have sex (no matter how disgusting it is) for pleasure. Thus it is an act of selfishness.
I don't have an irrational hatred. Homosexuality wouldn't bother me if I never had to see it. If it stayed well behind closed doors, I wouldn't even mention it. It's only when you ask for equal treatment (when you're not equal), marriage rights (you shouldn't marry), adoption rights, (you chose not to have children) and when homosexuality became a fashion icon. The more you force your fucked up faggot faces down our throats, the more we'll gag and throw you up. Puns intended.
If you wanna stay behind closed doors, then go there and ignore all of this. It was you who decided to come on here and look at this argument, and it was you who decided to comment, and it was you who decided to continue arguin. So it's not our fault that you had to talk bout this or whatever, so don't blame it on us. Equal treatment? Are you sayin we're not equal? Does that mean blacks aren't equal? What bout women? Oh, and don't forget Native Americans. They're obviously not equal either. Both the Bible AND the Constitution state that "All men are created equal", although the Bible don't use those exact words, they still say the same thing. Marriage rights actually goes with equal treatment. It's not completely that all of us want to marry, it's just that marriage rights is another form of equal treatment. Yes, it'd be awesome to get married to who I love, but as long as I'm with them, I'm fine with it. Adoption rights are just another example of how homosexuals are helpin the world. So many kids grow up without parents, many of them either end up juvenile delinquints or dead. Adopting kids helps those children who would otherwise go down the wrong path. Foster care isn't all it's cracked up to be.
BORING. Stop being a woman. I'm not gonna bother reading all this. But I am going to make it clear that the constitution and native americans etc. has nothing to do with me because I am from England and my arguments are relevant to most of the world not just your little corner. That probably renders half of your argument obsolete. Also don't compare homosexuality with race or gender. It's a preference, something you choose to partake in, not something you have no choice over.
Don't call yourselves married. Call it a civil partnership. I'm not going to argue against that. Don't adopt. You'll just raise an army of faggots who will rape their way through humanity.
Homosexuality is not a choice, it's somethin you're born with, just like race and gender. It's not like religion, which you choose. And kids have a choice to choose to not be a homosexual, even if their parents are. If your parents were Catholic, but you were Baptist, should you be stopped? No. And sayin havin homosexual parents causes homosexual children is like sayin that havin Catholic parents causes Catholic children. Not true. Many families I know have mixed religions, such as my family. My dad is Atheist, my mom is Catholic, my step dad is Southern Baptist, and I'm Baptist. Just because your parents are one thing doesn't mean you will be. I will call it whatever I want, but if you don't call it marriage, then the government won't recognize it. And actually, America is only one of the countries where homosexuality is actually allowed. In Canada, Spain, and many other places it's allowed and you can get married.
You're right. Homosexuality is like a religion. Because you can choose to live the gay lifestyle or you can choose not to. Thanks for the lessons about homosexuality btw. I had no idea. You've opened my eyes to the whole wide world!
Funny you should mention being hypocritical is bad. Kind of like being a Christian and a faggot at the same time.
I don't believe in a god but i've read the Bible and no matter how many times that I read "Thou shall not have sex with the same gender" I also read "God loves all his children." I'm Wiccan and I believe in a Goddess but all the same I believe that if there is a higher power, they love EVERYONE! Not just the straight, homophobic, good little Christain people.
Why? Because I venture to be different and you just fade into the background of society because you're no different from 56% of the other people out there?
They can love just as deeply as anyone else. People always say that they don't want gay marriage because they don't want to ruin marriage, but how does gay marriage hurt YOUR marriage?
They've lost their ability to reproduce due to biological issues, not through choice or sexual orientation. Don't waste my time with stupid arguments like that.
I'll say this once: Homosexuality is NOT A CHOICE. Aside from this, I'm only pointing out flaws in your argument. It's not my fault if you are unclear.
I'm not saying you have to do anything. All that I meant was that you should be free to "sodomize". Maybe it is a sin to be gay in Christianity, but it's also a sin to judge people. Isn't that the allmighty's job?
Secondly I hate it when idiots say gays are being judged. They're not being judged. People are only repeating what their religion is telling them. That's not judging.
We're all human beings, we're all entitled to live our lives whever we're straight, bi, trans or gay. No one can change that
Just because YOU think it's a sin and morally wrong and A BOOK WRITTED HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO BY HUMAN BEINGS say it is DOES NOT give you the right to take away any of our rights
For all we know, the Bible could have been written by an ancient frat boy to screw with future generations, thus I will disregard the sin bit. Being gay isn't morally wrong any more than being straight or bisexual is. Love is just as much a factor as it is for heterosexual people, but it's between two people of the same gender. As for the lust: Of course it comes into play. But you're telling me there are no straight people like this? That, my friend, is bullshit.
Incest-use a condom or get an abortion. problem solved. you really think the only reason its wrong is because of the deformed child?Do evil deeds need a tangible outcome to be considered evil? Pedophilia-i agree.
Here's one reason... why is paedophilia or incest wrong?
Paedophilia and incest are abhorrent to our species because of our natural hatred of genetic disease and desire to protect our offspring. Our aversion to incest is likely an evolved trait, due to the greater longevity and viability of a purer gene-pool. Such a hypothesis is supported by the fact that incestuous reproduction proliferates genetic defects inherent to a particular ancestry. A case example would be the Jewish race, who have long practiced marriage strictly within the Jewish community.
When debating the matter, I am unconcerned with morality in sexual relationships, beyond the moral right to sexual autonomy in post-pubescent persons.
What gives homosexuals the right to marriage? (which is a religious thing)
The great civil disabilities inflicted upon unmarried couples and their families, such as inheritance complications, insurance &c;.
Why are people so ignorant to think you have to act upon it.
Why don't you decide not to act upon your (dubious) heterosexuality? You might spare posterity the plight of living in a world populated by your offspring.
You can still have an incestuous relationship and not have to reproduce. Kind of like a faggot.
The great civil disabilities inflicted upon unmarried couples and their families, such as inheritance complications, insurance &c;.
So get over yourself and marry a woman. How hard is it?
Why don't you decide not to act upon your (dubious) heterosexuality? You might spare posterity the plight of living in a world populated by your offspring.
You can still have an incestuous relationship and not have to reproduce. Kind of like a faggot.
That is immaterial. The abhorrence is hard-wired.
So get over yourself and marry a woman. How hard is it?
It is not difficult to consent to a heterosexual marriage, provided one is a heterosexual. But why don't you consider how hard it would be for you (presumably) to marry a man? that is same dilemma you present homosexuals with.
You're just jelous I can reproduce.
I am not a homosexual, which is immaterial to my ability to reproduce.
Homosexuality is normal, it is found throughout all of humans history so if you were to say what the would should be like homosexuals would be included because we have been here all the time
Get it into your head that just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can make their life a misery, they do not deserve that
I can't believe you are actually comparing love to rape
Love is what you feel
Rape is forcing sex upon a non-consenting person
Hence homosexuals DO NOT rape each other because they are both consent
Stupid rapist. You can't do your homo mind tricks on me. I'm not stupid like all these liberals who believe you're born gay and that you can't do anything about it.
Explain how I'm making your life a misery? Taking the piss on the internet is making your life hell? What a retard.. you don't have a life if 10 minutes of my time is making it hell. Fucking faggot. Rapist. Dirty sodomite.
We're talking about love. As in between a man and a woman. Not between family and friends. You and your fellow rapist might love each other the way a rapist loves to rape women, but you cannot love each other the way a man loves a woman.
You're not born gay. Sorry to say. You can't sit there pointing your fingers at everyone. I guess that means people are also born as sociopaths. or born crazy. or born honest. etc.
And adding swear words into every sentences just shows me your lack of vocabulary
Really?
If you don't like homosexuals then don't get into arguments with them because you will always lose
Lol you dirty little raping sodomite. I can't lose to a faggot.
Just because it's between two people of the same sex doesn't mean that it isn't love
I was born gay, I've always been a little bit gay until last year when I came to terms with my homosexuality
Why are you using rape of a man to a woman as a basis of your argument against homosexuals????
Your not born with everything, things develop
Homosexuals are born that way
Did you choose to be straight? No. So neither do homosexuals
You will always lose, people like you always do, racists lose, chauvinists lose, homophobic's lose
You. Can. Not. Win. This. Argument. You are nothing but a piece of low life scum that gets his kicks from posting homophobic, discriminating comments on a debate website
And see, no swear words, no words created to criminalize homosexuality
If I can use proper vocabulary at the age of 15 why can't you at a older age than me?
Did you choose to be straight? No. So neither do homosexuals
Weak. People are MEANT TO BE STRAIGHT. It's called REPRODUCTION. The CYCLE OF LIFE. You're NOT SUPPOSED TO CHOOSE TO BE STRAIGHT. You're BORN STRAIGHT.
Your not born with everything, things develop
Homosexuals are born that way
Picking and choosing huh?
And see, no swear words, no words created to criminalize homosexuality
If I can use proper vocabulary at the age of 15 why can't you at a older age than me?
You must be proud. You're 15??? Lmfao you definitely don't know true love. Faggot.
Dicksucker. You would love jail, full of your fellow rapists.
You still don't get a choice in your sexuality, it is thrusted upon you, you never get a say
Homosexuals don't have a choice
Heterosexuals don't have a choice
But I do know true love, it's exactly what I feel for my boyfriend, and exactly what he feelsfor me
Why would I like jail? Why would I want to get raped????? In no way would j ever enjoy rape!
And still, I'm 15 and have a much wider vocabulary than you
There are hundreds of homosexuals in the world more successful, smarter than you, better than you! These people haves life, great lifes. Much better than sitting in front of a computer screen and discriminating against human beings just. like. you (but better people of course)
You're not supposed to have a choice LMAO. It's not a choice. It's a normality. It's like having 2 arms. You're telling me I should have a choice of having more or less arms? Heterosexuality is normality, it is what you're supposed to be. There is no choice involved. Homosexuality is a defect which can be corrected or grown into a full blown faggot. In your case your defect wasn't corrected and now you're a walking breathing homosexual.
You don't know true love kid. Not even cause you're gay. You're too young to understand true love. Lol dickhead.
I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who've done better and worse than me. Same goes for you sodomite.
I haven't taken anything away. You're the one trying to take things away yourself. You're trying to call the relationship between two men the same as a relationship between a man and a woman. You're bastardising the word 'love' and twisting it to fit your image of fuckriness. I'm just telling you I don't agree with it.
So go back to your disgusting twisted immoral world and understand that you're not equal.
But we are equal. We're all around you. No wait, we're not equal, anyone who gets on the computer just to tell us homo/bisexuals that we're not good enough to live would be lesser than us. We're willing to live in your "normal" world but we refuse to conform to what we are NOT. And, no matter what you do you can't stop us from being what we are. Figure out that you're becoming a minority and that homosexuality is becoming the norm. Get over it.
Atleast admit there's something wrong with you. If you're willing to accept your defects or wrongs then I'm not the type to insult someone if they're man enough to own up to their mistakes. But you're not doing so.
You know what? I admit it for all of us out there that there is something wrong with us. You wanna know what that is? We are being held back by you god damn homophobes. It wouldn't even matter if someone was straight and supported us...you guys would still just lump us all together. Who we are is not something we can help, we are born who we are. If that means we're gay or bi or anything that really isn't any of you're guys business. We get it, you don't agree with who we are. You don't like us because we are who we are. We understand this, it doesn't bother us, what bothers us is you keep discrimminating against us. What bothers us is the fact that you have too small a mind to realize that we (LGBT'S) are going to bring you homophobes down. I don't care how long it takes, but one day you are going to be answering to us some day. Who knows with the way our populations are going up we could be the president. It could happen sooner then you think. If you don't like us then you might wanna watch yourself.
Maybe next time when you decide to call a specific group of people out you should make it a little more interesting. Getting called a cockmuncher, fag, dirty sodomite, and really everything else is getting kinda old.
Well obviously you don't pay attention much because I put what you've called us...not what we do instead of love. I'm not a rapist either. Any girl I've ever done anything with had definitley did not say no or else it wouldn't have happened.
You're twisting the definition of love retard. A relationship between a man and a woman is not the same as that of a pair of faggots or dykes. Get it right.
One, if, as you say, other animals can't love or care deeply or have emotions, then explain to me why some other species are homosexual or bisexual? It's actually about the same percent in all species.
Homosexuality is normal so far as nature's ability to conduct population control is concerned and we have many examples of this. But for the sake of argument, even if it weren't that makes no more of a compelling argument for the simple fact that what is "normal" is entirely socially constructed. Slavery was normal in 1702.
Nor does it follow that a behavior being normal is always easy to adopt by those who do not already conduct such behavior.
Homosexuality is normal so far as nature's ability to conduct population control is concerned and we have many examples of this.
So nature turns people gay when there's an unusually high number of humans? That actually kind of makes sense in a strange sort of way. Except you would expect more gays in Asian and African countries. Which there are less of.
But for the sake of argument, even if it weren't that makes no more of a compelling argument for the simple fact that what is "normal" is entirely socially constructed. Slavery was normal in 1702.
What kind of a bullshit argument is that? How does that relate to this?
Homosexuality is normal so far as nature's ability to conduct population control is concerned and we have many examples of this.
While it pains me to dispute you, this assertion always strikes me as a pseudoscientific attempt to provide justification where none is needed. It is impossible for homosexuality to be an evolved mechanism; organisms which do not reproduce (and if these homosexual organisms did reproduce, the mechanism would not be overly effective) cannot pass on genetic traits, as would be a necessary occurrence for homosexuality to be a form of population control.
While it pains me to dispute you, this assertion always strikes me as a pseudoscientific attempt to provide justification where none is needed. It is impossible for homosexuality to be an evolved mechanism; organisms which do not reproduce (and if these homosexual organisms did reproduce, the mechanism would not be overly effective) cannot pass on genetic traits, as would be a necessary occurrence for homosexuality to be a form of population control.
I don't think there is a "gay gene" per say, but rather a sexual disposition which is influenced by hormones. The genes which control hormones and/or sexuality can be passed on without the explicit expression of 'homosexuality'. Otherwise one might expect that from an evolutionary standpoint homosexuality should not exist.
Now I will admit that the idea that homosexuality rose primarily as a means to control populations is still a bit speculative, but this does seem to be the outward affect.
While I don't think it implies an effort by nature to curb population, there is the horny sister hypothesis that posits that a desire to sleep with males can be genetically passed from a mother to her children of either gender. It makes her sons more likely to be homosexual or bisexual, and it makes her daughters more likely to have more children than average, thereby 'making up' for any children the gay son will not have. This hypothesis was constructed in response to the fact that homosexuality appears to run in families, and that the female relatives of gay men tend to have more children. It does provide a model for how explicit homosexuality could be hereditary and still be present today, but it is problematic for explaining lesbians.
In the past, I think homosexual individuals as part of a family group would probably have been beneficial for a population rather than detrimental. If an able-bodied adult has no children of their own, they are more likely to spend time and resources on existing children, probably their nieces and nephews, resulting in decreased mortality for children that carry some of their own genes. If there is a gay gene, it could very well have been preserved this way as well.
While I don't think it implies an effort by nature to curb population, there is the horny sister hypothesis that posits that a desire to sleep with males can be genetically passed from a mother to her children of either gender. It makes her sons more likely to be homosexual or bisexual, and it makes her daughters more likely to have more children than average, thereby 'making up' for any children the gay son will not have. This hypothesis was constructed in response to the fact that homosexuality appears to run in families, and that the female relatives of gay men tend to have more children. It does provide a model for how explicit homosexuality could be hereditary and still be present today, but it is problematic for explaining lesbians.
Well, in a word, yes. Nature does not show effort, only effect. There are differing views on explaining homosexuality in the light of evolutionary theory. Is there a selective advantage of homosexuality or is homosexuality simply a side-affect of some adaptation? So to say that homosexuality is nature's population control is admittedly still a bit speculative. What we do know is that there does seem to be some genetic influence and that it is not entirely a social phenomena.
In the past, I think homosexual individuals as part of a family group would probably have been beneficial for a population rather than detrimental. If an able-bodied adult has no children of their own, they are more likely to spend time and resources on existing children, probably their nieces and nephews, resulting in decreased mortality for children that carry some of their own genes. If there is a gay gene, it could very well have been preserved this way as well.
Perhaps, but from a sociological perspective the social taboo regarding homosexuality would be quite difficult to explain. I won't disagree that having homosexuals in an archaic society would have advantages, but perhaps to the people of the time homosexuals have an overall negative influence. Then I am reminded of homosexual behavior in ancient Greece, Rome, and Japan that doesn't have the same taboo. So I can't really tell you. All I can say is that there is still a lot left to learn.
I don't think there is a "gay gene" per say, but rather a sexual disposition which is influenced by hormones.
I consider it quite likely that everybody is inherently bisexual, but tend more in one direction than the other.
Now I will admit that the idea that homosexuality rose primarily as a means to control populations is still a bit speculative, but this does seem to be the outward affect.
Population control as an evolutionary mechanism would only arise if their was a danger to the species' food supply. It is extremely improbable for this to be the case. Homosexual animals would still eat food, and the primary factor governing population growth in a species is the availability of fertile females. In other words, we would be left with a smaller number of heterosexual males impregnating a larger number of females.
Homosexuality is normal so far as nature's ability to conduct population control is concerned
It is extremely unlikely that homosexuality is an evolved trait conducive to population stability. The great limit to the propogation of a species is food, and that fact cannot be reconciled with the theory in bold.
Animal populations plateau when their consumption of food is equal to its production, or in the case of predator-prey relationships, the graph appears as two waves of different amplitudes but the same frequency, which are out of phase by about 0.5λ. We must remember that a homosexual animal eats the same amount of food as a heterosexual animal.
Homosexual behaviour does not have the capacity to control a population for long; the most it could possibly do is slow its growth, as animals tend to produce as many offspring as can be fed, and the reproductive loss in ~3% of the poulation could easily be made up for by the other 97%.
Even then, if genetically controlled as it would ahve to be to be an evolved trait, it would require two heterozygous animals to reproduce to be passed on to the F1, 2, 3 et cetera progeny, assuming that homosexual animals do not reproduce, and that homosexuality is recessive.
There's a great deal more to be said on this, but I'll let you respond first.
But for the sake of argument, even if it weren't that makes no more of a compelling argument for the simple fact that what is "normal" is entirely socially constructed. Slavery was normal in 1702.
First, it must be said that at only ~9% of the population, homosexuality simply is not normal. However, I do not understand why that is relevant to whether it is morally justifiable or not. From what I observe, intelligence is not particularly common either. Does that mean, in the minds of the opposition, that intelligence is immoral (but then, we are opposing the religious in most cases, so the answer might just be yes)?
And you are a philistine. One can only wonder which is better.
Ignorant bigot.
Is that a signature?
No it's not. Because hetrosexuality is NORMAL.
Hetrosexuality? Never heard of it. Perhaps you meant heterosexuality?
LOL WTF?
The phrase I am not a homosexual conveys the general sentiment that one is neither enticed by or possessed of a proclivity to sexual acts between two males.
This ironic rebuttal is brought to you by the Coca Cola soft drinks corporation. Why not read it while enjoying a nice, cool Coke?
And you are a philistine. One can only wonder which is better.
...
Is that a signature?
...
Hetrosexuality? Never heard of it. Perhaps you meant heterosexuality?
...
You are a funny little girl!
The phrase I am not a homosexual conveys the general sentiment that one is neither enticed by or possessed of a proclivity to sexual acts between to males.
LOL. Anybody who talks like you is a faggot. A kid trying too hard to sound smart. Who ends up sounding gay instead. Am I right? How old are you? I bet you're under 18. Fucking poshiton. Maybe you're in denial about your gayness. You'll realise you're gay once you start begging your dad to molest you again.
Seventeen, as you would have known if you had bothered to look at my profile.
Lol. It's too obvious. Just a dumb little gay kid who tries to be smart by using words nobody uses in everyday life. Hope you're proud of your successful and productive life.
Just a dumb little gay kid who tries to be smart by using words nobody uses in everyday life.
Perchance your faculties of discourse are too stunted through malnutrition and want of exercise to penetrate the words hitherto expressed. Or perhaps the general mass of men is mistaken in its estimation of the constitution of intelligence and you are the lone savant railing against the ubiquitous misconception?
Verily this vicious torrent of verbiage veers most verbose.
Hope you're proud of your successful and productive life.
I shall be all the prouder for having avoided the overwhelming temptation of growing up to become an adult who spends his time speaking dirtily to seventeen year old boys over the internet.
Wow. You must be proud that you can read and use a thesaurus. So assuming that you're actually straight, but just come across as a queer little cunt atleast we can assume that your experiences with a woman are limited. At best you got a peak of your mum's hairy nipples. You're either a straight (but gay) little pussy whose going to be a virgin until he grows some balls or a faggot little pussy whose going to partake in rape and sodomy for the rest of his life.
Wasn't that destroyed by a Cataclysm or something?
You must be proud that you can read and use a thesaurus.
Yes, I place that achievement next to heroically overcoming my allergy to idiots. I still can't stand to be in the same room as them, but I can at least hold conversations with them over the internet.
So assuming that you're actually straight, but just come across as a queer little cunt
I'd employ the old adage "When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me", but you're only really making an ass out of yourself. Have a shiny star!
we can assume that your experiences with a woman are limited.
Yes, I imagine you must be intimately acquainted with many women. I hear they are fond of colossal pricks.
At best you got a peak of your mum's hairy nipples.
Ah yes, a dig at my mother. You must be in great demand at parties.
You're either a straight (but gay)
Oh ho!
little pussy whose going to be a virgin until he grows some balls
No, you are mistaken. One's virginity is lost at the point when one first has sexual intercourse; not when one's testicles develop.
faggot little pussy whose going to partake in rape and sodomy for the rest of his life.
This conversation is itself both a molestation and sodomy:
I won't even pat myself on the back for being correct.
You might as well; I can't imagine the opportunity comes around too often.
It was too easy.
Telling oneself that one is correct is never difficult.
Have a nice day you
Thank you.
queer, self important, posh, pussy and probably ugly virgin.
Back at you, you unemployed, foul-mouthed, sad, lonely moron who bombards seventeen year old boys with homosexual imagery and then infers that they are homosexual. Honestly, is this were you envisioned yourself?
I don't even have to add all the usuals of insecure etc.
Right. I'm insecure. Have a cookie.
You probably know that yourself.
How can one be truly self important and insecure at the same time?
I hope you have many children and then you find out one of them has chosen to live the "gay" lifestyle just so you have to choose b/t what you hate and what you love.
pedophilia (note the correct spelling) is illegal because it has been determined that a child is generally not consenting, and incest is considered due to an inherent biochemical response in which people are attracted to members with different genetic makeup than our own.
marriage is not a religious thing. It can be, mind you, but all a couple has to do to get married is sign a legal document. No priest, party, or cake is truly necessary. Additionally, Christianity is not the only religion in which marriage occurs. Why can a single religious belief overrule another religion that accepts homosexual marriage?
why are you resorting to pathos instead of logos to prove a point?
why don't you have any actual arguments rather than what were presumably rhetorical questions that in fact can be answered contrary to your intent?
Laws can be changed. And when I was 13 i didnt mind engaging in sexual acts with my history teacher. In a similar note- werent MY rights being infringed upon because of the law you mentioned. And it has a little to do with being Christian and A LOT to do with health and well being. Incest is nasty. Full stop. Just because a so called biochemical response occurs dosent justify getting it on with your sister. If scientists were peadophiiles, all of a sudden they would find a startling new discovery. Later to be disproved- And to the detriment of young boys and girls. The same with homosexuality. Mix thetwo together and youve got a startling nasty combination.
Because anal is not natural and women and man can get pleasure them self otherwise. If not we were made to be a nuclear family... and procreate as well as explore the opposite gender.
These degenerates (on the other hand) are just nice, normal people that anyone should be proud to let watch their children?
You are attempting to foist your twisted deas of right and werong upon me, who says that you have the authority to do so?
Certainly not I.
You have the authority to shove anything you wish, up your goddamned dirty ass.
How many helpless creatures have suffered and expired within the foul confines of your man pussy?
How many prostates have you ravenously devoured in your search for semen?
YOU have no place on this earth, you miserable cock kisser, you and all of your shit eating ass pounding fuktard friends have no place at all( unless you count SanFrancisco).
So the next time you are experimenting with your sexuality in the back alleys of Harlem, just remember this: Eliot Terrabonne spits on you and your ilk.
The next time you are about to receive a mouth full of steaming turd from the vagrant stooped over you, remember this: Eliot Terrabonne doesn't give a obama assfuck what you think, you snerdgurgling swine.
Geez man calm down!!! no need for harsh language ok geez shut up and take a chill pill or something all i said was that it was ok but its on them im on your side you should be yelling at those other guys geeez man.
Ok first off it was adam and eve not adam and steve second thats why god created man and women god didnt create man or women for nothing you know,but at the same time i think its ok for them just as long as they dont get married.
Ok first off its about homo sexuality ok not god why are you arguing with me about god true yes I said god was real and all that but you havent even added that much detail you havent even said why they should get married your not going to win with a pathetic argument like that are you trying to change the minds of people who belive in him cause its not going to work your just wasting your time,Thats how powerful god is.
Oh and plus I never said it wasnt ok for gays to be together I just said It was ok but its on them so why are you arguing with me your suppose to be on my side are you trying to convince me theres no god remember this debate is about homo sexuality not god.
Right, because a random singer/musician's quote has merit on the fact that most homosexuals are born gay. Do you know any gay people? I doubt you do with that attitude.
Going by Christian logic, there are gays that were born gay. God let them be born gay. Therefore, he intended for them to be gay. Therefore, since he also allowed OTHER ANIMAL SPECIES to be born gay, he must love all the gays just like his other children.
Now get out of this Dark Age trend of ignorance. During the Middle Ages and Renaissance, more then 50% of all people were gay and bisexual. Get over it.
No animal species are homosexual. Animals are always bi-sexual. 2. I find it rather interesting that you look to the infererior intelligence of animals to justify homosexuality. The Bible clely states that you are "born into sin"....But to say that God made someone Gay is absurd and ridiculous- As he never made any one a liar- they chose the path of dishonesty... world. The best bet homosexuals have in a Darwinian world is that its a genetic mutation, chemical imbalance o ttp://www.cfsh.net/2.htmlr something like that.
OH really? People were born Gay? That's insane....Don't drag God into your crazy notions of Homosexual genetics... You have no proof...."Therefore, since he also allowed OTHER ANIMAL SPECIES to be born gay" Its funny how would use UNREASONING animals to justify homosexual behavior... I guess if everyone did stuff like that most of us would have multiple sexual partners(Male lions),we would be murderers, thieves, rapists, and pedophiles JUST because animals engage in these behaviors....
You think people aren't born gay? Ever? Whatsoever? What a pathetic argument. The only difference between saying that and saying that nobody is born black is that you can't see homosexuality with your own eyes. You only want an excuse to mark it wrong by saying that it's a choice when it almost never is. I will admit, a small amount choose, but the only way they can choose is by lying to themselves or being born with the ability to choose.
Also, you apparently did not see who I was replying to. I was arguing against the Christian ideal that God hates all gays because of a few verses from the Bible. So I used her bullshit logic against her.
I used unreasoning animals as a comparison as an example of birth. You're, once again, under the impression that homosexuality is a choice. Get your head out of your ass. If you can't agree that it's not a choice, then your arguments will always invalidate themselves, because homosexuality is not a choice. You think people choose to be beaten and abused and denied of rights and psychologically traumatized, then you're merely a fool.
Now, either agree that it's not a choice, or we're done arguing, because you have no argument.
Are you Crazy?! if people were born gay, explain identical twins with divergent sexual orientations...surely both of them should be gay. and its not christian logic that says God hates gays. If that were true, He would hate heterosexual liars,murderers, people like you,(who make fun of the Bible which you so beautifully described as "bullshit"), and pretty much everyone in the world! But naw a real christian knows God loves all of us..Including The homo.
Am I crazy? No, apparently you are for believing that homosexuality is never something someone is born with.
Twins have identical DNA, it identical twins, but what you don't realize is that DNA has no merit on personality. Identical twins fail to have identical brain chemistry. One being born gay and another not being born gay is perfectly logical therefore. And if one mayhaps chose to be gay, instead, then it was because he/she has the born ability to do so.
Well, the fun with Christian logic is that there are Christians who DO think that your God hates everyone who isn't White, Christian, Protestent, Straight, Males. So according to the logic of many Christians, God hates homosexuals due to a few versus of the Bible. I commend you if you do not believe this likewise, but that makes me wonder, why are you arguing against homosexuality if you do not believe that homosexuals are evil as dicated by your holy book?
Naw dude i think HOMOSEXUALITY is evil.But not (necessarily) the person.
So what your saying is people can be born with a sexual orientation that does not contribute to this life processes' function?
What type of evolution is that?If that were true that probably makes homosexuality a disorder...( Not saying I believe in evolution LOl)
Oh and the Bible says God would rather if all would be saved and not have to go to hell.Thats clearly SOME type of concern ain't it? Hate is too a strong word for this era, In fact he never did hate Homos, He just HAS a strong abhorrence for it.
in rare cases humans are born with both male and female sexes. Modern surgical techniques help maintain the two-sex system - why? for your driver's liscense and birth certificate? some state allow people to alter the sex on their birth certificates without sex-change surgery - making arguments for the existence of more than two genders on legal documentation.
I would like to say that yes, I agree that we were all made sexual intercourse men and women, yes ,I agree that this is according to the rules of nature are not correct. But I want to remind you that we live in a world where everyone has the right to live as he wants. Everyone has the right to choose. And as you said it is against the rules of God, but think before you judge others, you should condemn yourself to start. We must first deal with your ownr sins before God, and then think of others. I respect your opinion, and do not in any way saying that you are wrong. I simply wanted to show you that in terms of religion, each person will be responsible for his actions himself. And I think no one has the right to condemn someone for something, because if there had been in this situation we do not know how we did.
The people on this argument are disturbing me with their ideas of sexual freedom LOL
Incest ok?
Beastialty-pending
13 yrr olds- THEY CAN CONSENT, not by law,but they do know what they are doing.Pedophiles according to your logic can have sexual relationships with out hassle if allowed. And since most of you have no belief in morals, This is also Pending.
Though I will never support homosexuality, Christians have a huge problem. God gave people free will and their gonna use it. And a mere mortal-Christian or not wont change that.
As i have seen on this occasion the people divided into two camps. First those who are not against homosexual and others against. But before I express an opinion on homosexuality, I would like to ask a question, how do think is the discrimination against minorities good or not?I believe that most of you answer no! I asked this question to show you that denying homosexuality is the manifestation of discrimination.
Some Liberals are selfish. Homosexuality should have their "rights" but when it comes to saying something that offends Homosexuals--its ironic the way they respond to views of Homosexuality that des not support their own. If anyone says something to offend a homo he is punished severly in Western culture. If a homosexual says someone is bigoted becauuse they see something wrong with their lifestyle they are bigots, forced to apologize for their ACTUAL right to freedom of speech. The very homosexuals who want freedom to marry, to engage in a hardly justifiable union, (health-wise,emotionally-wise etc.) take away rights to freedom of speech. How selfish, and Totalitarian that is. Some homos are just being Legalistic bullies.http://www.cfsh.net/7.html "So, they are finally throwing the long-ago discredited 10% figure under the bus, and they are indirectly admitting that 50% of homosexuals were probably NOT born homosexual and so should be able to change and become what they were born to be---heterosexual. They are also indirectly admitting that if people can be homosexual without having homosexual genes, then people can be heterosexual without having heterosexual genes. In other words, they are admitting that people born with homosexual genes (if they exist) can still satisfactorily enjoy the heterosexual lifestyle."http://www.cfsh.net/5.html
"Recognizing the gap between their lesson plans and most parents' sensibilities, mainstream sex educators openly embrace a policy of secrecy. The Centers for Disease Control lauds one program, Becoming a Responsible Teen, that insists students sign a contract of secrecy: if a student talks to his parents about what he has learned in class, he is thrown out of the program."
Yep. Sex educators know more about the dangers of homosexual behavior than you do. § Here are a couple of interesting quotes from a homosexual writer named Paul Varnell, out of a homosexual newspaper: "Lesbians and gay men have nothing in common except mutual incomprehension" and "Almost all gay men say that they experience their desire for other men as a given, as if it were an inherent part of them. By contrast, many (but not all) lesbians say they regard their sexual desire for women as a choice" (Chicago Free Press, Nov. 30, 2005, p. 6). That item about lesbians can be explained thusly: if many lesbians know they were sexually abused by men when they were young (and many were), then they should be able to understand how they were probably not born lesbian but have "chosen" to be with women due to a fear of men.
Homosexuality is like lust, gay people think it's love but it is not it's simply lust. Lust is like you love someone because of their looks and not because of their heart. Some people say that homosexuals were born that way and it's not true. Some homosexuals become like that because they are curious of the same sex, some because they act almost the same as the individual, or because they hard a harsh past with the opposite sex. Homosexuals that are really to deep into their preference cannot stop because they like how it feels to be with the same sex or they are afraid being with the opposite sex. In the sexual relationship the homosexual has a higher risk of having HIV, AID's, and other diseases. Homosexuals cannot have kids and this world needs them to keep continuing earth and it's purposes. I believe that homosexuality is a mental problem and a genetic problem. For these reasons homosexuals should get counselling and try and become a normal person.
God created man for woman, as well as woman for man. Is being gay wrong? no. But choosing to fall into being gay is. Just as being tempted is not wrong, but falling into that temptation is. If man loves man, and woman loves woman how can the human race possibly continue? I personally, believe that being a homosexual is wrong and is a sin. If you are against my statement, then tell me, how is it right to be homosexual.
i thing it is vey bad because man and woman were made to reproduce not two men and not two woman it is clearly not working and homosexuals are just getting diseases which a normany man and woman would rarely get.
i thing it is vey bad because man and woman were made to reproduce not two men and not two woman it is clearly not working and homosexuals are just getting diseases which a normany man and woman would rarely get.
Homosexuality is wrong. It leads to human extinction. I get that they’re human and I’m not telling them what they can and can’t do. Some people don’t want kids, and that’s fine. But homosexuality and bisexuality are strange because it’s lustful and they cause or have a chance of causing AIDS, and mental disorders, and kids can’t have proper parents. A kid needs both parents. A proper female mother and a tough male father. A girl especially needs her mother to become a woman and a boy especially needs his father to become a man!
Why is homosexuality wrong? For many reasons. It has no purpose, it brings AIDS, no proper parents for children, mentally I’ll due to too much lust, indoctrination, and other reasons.
What gives religions the right to take away the freedom from homosexuals? Nobody is taking away your right. Nobody should be forcing religion on others. You can convince other people to believe in God, but you shouldn’t force religion on anyone. I don’t really care about anyone’s sexuality as long as they keep it to themselves. I still think homosexuality is wrong no matter what.
Why are people so ignorant to think it is a choice? Where do you come up with the word ignorant? Scientists, real scientists, have done research, and there is no gay gene, therefore nobody is born gay!
Why? Why what? What do you mean by why? Why is homosexuality acceptable by most people? I don’t know.
I don’t support gay people. I don’t support people who are transgender. There are only two genders: male and female. No other genders.
first of all, pick up your bible. if you are against this "sin" you shouldn't descriminate against "fags" as you say (which shows just how small minded you are) because if you won't associate with homosexuals then you can't "bring them to the lord". saying homosexuality caused those things is like saying christianity caused those things too. if you're going to say something make sure you're right.
Terrorists are mostly Islamic or al queda (can't spell that) and its illegal to be gay where they're from so they're obviously straight
Wars are over energy sources, there are homosexuals and heterosexuals in wars and they work together not fight each other
Crime? Where are you getting your statistics from!? There are more heterosexuals committing crime!!!!!
Justin Beiber believes being gay is a choice, if he was gay he would know better than that
And I find the language you are using atrocious, try being nice to your fellow man rather than direct hate
This proves that homosexuality is not a threat to national security and I advise that the next comment you post should at least have SOME true evidence and statistics rather than mythical rubbish
