lets debate that old chestnut, homosexuality

[dai the flu]

i find it interesting how, in todays world, you cant have an opinion of right and wrong.
having an opinion on moral values is now being construed as prejudice.
i can no longer believe that homosexuality is morally wrong and offensive, without being branded a bigot and a homophobe.
discuss.
is there such a thing as right and wrong anymore? and who defines it?

[The Revisionist]

It shouldn't be considered to hold an opinion based on morals, because people hold morals to be true to them, and (gasp) people make opinions based on what they find true to them!

There is always a right and a wrong, and it is defined by the individual person based on their upbringing, their personal experiences, any research they may have done into the situation. It is not the government's position, their position is to allow us to explore our personal rights and wrongs, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

[lackofcolour 13]

Lets add a question to that old chestnut.... Homosexuality- Choice or Genetic?

[FScott]

Lets add a question to that old chestnut.... Homosexuality- Choice or Genetic?I remember my psych teacher in highschool discuessing homosexuality and she said somthing about scientific research discovered in gay males a femine brain type and vise versa? I don't exactly remember it was a long time ago..maybe someone can add to that or just correct me if I'm completely wrong.

Science aside, government should not oversee morality.

[dai the flu]

maybe someones personality might make them more inclined towards it, or different circumstances in your early life affect you and lead you down that road. maybe its even your upbringing or the atmosphere around you, it can all play a part. but ultimately its your choice to pursue that feeling or way of life.

its a bad analogy i know, but look at serial killers. they may have an inclination towards depravity in their early life and show signs of it in their personality, but i still feel ultimately, that cant be used as an excuse, they made the choice to follow through on their feelings.

so i guess im thinking both. both genetic and choice.

[JWKingofNerds]

Replace "choice" with "environment". Not many people would actually choose to be gay. And what is it about homosexuality that's so immoral? Morals have to do with how you treat other people, and I don't see how the presence of homosexuality is doing anyone any sort of disservice. Just cuz it's "weird" doesn't make it wrong.

[GhostsDaddy]

I don't think anyone would straight up choose to be gay. That's absurd.

Hey guys, I'm going to make myself a social outcast that gets killed just so I can get the same pleasure from this group of people that I could get from someone else and it'd feel the same.

Sounds ridiculous. I don't know how people can feasily think that people choose to be gay.

[The Revisionist]

I don't think anyone would straight up choose to be gay. That's absurd.

Hey guys, I'm going to make myself a social outcast that gets killed just so I can get the same pleasure from this group of people that I could get from someone else and it'd feel the same.

Sounds ridiculous. I don't know how people can feasily think that people choose to be gay.I would agree, however the other argument would be that homosexuality is being widely "accepted" (although I would probably use the word "exploited") by the media and by entertainment, and is much more of a household word than it ever used to be... and I think that might make it more of a thought on younger kids' minds, and therefore make them recognize more of their normal adolescent thoughts as that of "indicators" of homosexual behaviour and cause them to act on them or whatever. Of course, if said kid doesn't find it attractive, they'll stop, and if they find it attractive, they'll continue... in my rambling non-direct way, I don't think people necessarily choose to be gay, but the feelings inside are being brought out and explored sooner and more frequent because of said promotion.

That's my two cents anyway... if anything, both extremes of the situation seem to be growing rapidly.

[theESCO]

if you think homosexuality is wrong, the terrorists win.

[JWKingofNerds]

if you think homosexuality is wrong, the terrorists win.
Another good point.

[dai the flu]

personally i feel its wrong. and i find it disgusting.
but like revisionist said, its exploited by the media and we're bombarded with homosexuality everywhere we look. its pushed as an acceptable, normal way of life, and being raised in that enviroment makes people more comfortable with experimenting and rebelling against traditional values.
that bothers me. i have to admit it.
not that id attack or discriminate against a homosexual, or be abusive (physically, verbally, emotionally...) or even try to tell them how to live.
but i think its wrong how their lifestyle is promoted today.

[theESCO]

yea, Q.ueer Eye will bring on armageddon.

[Lueda Alia]

I couldn't care less who people are attracted to. If people have a homosexual relationship because they feel like it, then good for them. I couldn't care less because it's causing no harm. And did I mention that it doesn't affect me in the least? So why should I care about what other people do? And most importantly, why do you care?

[dai the flu]

you're right, i shouldnt care. i shouldnt feel affected by it.
but you know what? im forced to care, because im forced to see it. everywhere.
if people can express their positive views on the subject, then we should be allowed to express our negative views about it as well.

[VinnyVegas]

I hate to break it to you, but you are the epitome of the word “bigot”. You are intolerant of homosexuals because they differ from you; that is the definition of the word bigot. When you say that homosexuals are “disgusting”, you are implying that heterosexuals are clean and pure. In turn you are putting your own sexual orientation above another person’s. That makes you a bigot.

It is okay to have an opinion, but an opinion does not dictate what is right/wrong. The culture in which we live dictates right/wrong. We live by certain cultural norms called mores that everyone in the United States follows. Mores determine what is right/wrong; an example would be murder and child molestation. These are universally believed to be wrong, and few would debate otherwise (they are mores).

The problem with homosexuality is that it is moving out of the “more” category and into the general “norm” category. As a result some people are fighting it because they believe it threatens the entire social organization of the United States. There are very few right/wrong issues in the United States; the vast majority of what is considered right/wrong is the genreal opinion of a person's subculture.

Also, how do you explain the relationship between homosexuality and identical twins that are separated at birth? If one identical twin is gay, there is a 52% chance that the other is also gay. If they were raised in different environments, and under different circumstances, how is this statistic possible? It is possible because homosexuality is not a chosen path; that is ignorant. It is mostly biological and people need to begin to accept that fact.

How do you explain the 5 genetic markers found on a section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28. In a study amongst 40 homosexual men a researcher found an overwhelming similarity in this portion of homosexual men’s genes. In short, they were different from a heterosexual male. All of this information is freely available on the internet, but I suppose you are too busy trying to justify your bigoted beliefs to yourself to do some research. Again, that is my opinion, not right/wrong.

Also, sorry if that came off as an attack, but I am very passionate about this subject.

[Cal Smith]

I hate to break it to you, but you are the epitome of the word “bigot”. You are intolerant of homosexuals because they differ from you; that is the definition of the word bigot. When you say that homosexuals are “disgusting”, you are implying that heterosexuals are clean and pure. In turn you are putting your own sexual orientation above another person’s. That makes you a bigot.

It is okay to have an opinion, but an opinion does not dictate what is right/wrong. The culture in which we live dictates right/wrong. We live by certain cultural norms called mores that everyone in the United States follows. Mores determine what is right/wrong; an example would be murder and child molestation. These are universally believed to be wrong, and few would debate otherwise (they are mores).

The problem with homosexuality is that it is moving out of the “more” category and into the general “norm” category. As a result some people are fighting it because they believe it threatens the entire social organization of the United States. There are very few right/wrong issues in the United States; the vast majority of what is considered right/wrong is the genreal opinion of a person's subculture.

Also, how do you explain the relationship between homosexuality and identical twins that are separated at birth? If one identical twin is gay, there is a 52% chance that the other is also gay. If they were raised in different environments, and under different circumstances, how is this statistic possible? It is possible because homosexuality is not a chosen path; that is ignorant. It is mostly biological and people need to begin to accept that fact.

How do you explain the 5 genetic markers found on a section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28. In a study amongst 40 homosexual men a researcher found an overwhelming similarity in this portion of homosexual men’s genes. In short, they were different from a heterosexual male. All of this information is freely available on the internet, but I suppose you are too busy trying to justify your bigoted beliefs to yourself to do some research. Again, that is my opinion, not right/wrong.

Also, sorry if that came off as an attack, but I am very passionate about this subject.

Are you not being anymore intolerant of his views?

[VinnyVegas]

Are you not being anymore intolerant of his views?

No, because I never put him below me or called him "disgusting". I simply voiced my opinion, and never said what was right/wrong. He is claiming that homosexuality is wrong, yet he doesn't understand how right/wrong is determined in our society. He is mistaking opinion for right/wrong.

[Cal Smith]

No, because I never put him below me or called him "disgusting".

Neither did he. He finds homosexuality disgusting, but that doesnt neccessarily means he thinks of them, the person, any lower, or finds them in general disgusting. You're not reading what he said correctly.

"personally i feel its wrong. and i find it disgusting."

I simply voiced my opinion, and never said what was right/wrong. He is claiming that homosexuality is wrong, yet he doesn't understand how right/wrong is determined in our society. He is mistaking opinion for right/wrong.

True, in society right/wrong is determined by culture. But that doesnt stop personal beliefs and expressing what you find as right or wrong.

You said yourself the definition of a bigot was, "intolerant of something because they/it differ from you" and it doesnt seem your being very tolerant of his beliefs since they differ from yours.

[VinnyVegas]

Neither did he. He finds homosexuality disgusting, but that doesnt neccessarily means he thinks of them, the person, any lower, or finds them in general disgusting. You're not reading what he said correctly.

Homosexuality is an identity, if you think a person's identity is disgusting it follows that you think the person is disgusting.


True, in society right/wrong is determined by culture. But that doesnt stop personal beliefs and expressing what you find as right or wrong.

You said yourself the definition of a bigot was, "intolerant of something because they/it differ from you" and it doesnt seem your being very tolerant of his beliefs since they differ from yours.

I was never intolerant of his beliefs; I merely stated my own opinion. He is a bigot, because in light of hard facts, he continues to think that homosexuality is a chosen path. Maybe ignorant would have been a better word.

[Cal Smith]

Homosexuality is an identity, if you think a person's identity is disgusting it follows that you think the person is disgusting.

lol, What.......homosexuality is an identity? First, where did you get this from? Second, I think that's a big problem if you use a persons sexual orientation to identify them. You really should identify people by who they are as a person.


I was never intolerant of his beliefs; I merely stated my own opinion. He is a bigot, because in light of hard facts, he continues to think that homosexuality is a chosen path. Maybe ignorant would have been a better word.

I thought he was a bigot because you thought he was intolerant of homosexuality? But now he is a bigot because he continues to think that homosexuality is a chosen path?

I might be wrong but I dont believe there has been a scientific determination on homosexuality and its orgins.

[VinnyVegas]

lol, What.......homosexuality is an identity? First, where did you get this from? Second, I think that's a big problem if you use a persons sexual orientation to identify them. You really should identify people by who they are as a person.

I-den-ti-ty
2. The set of behavioral or personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group.

Homosexuality is part of a person’s identity, just as heterosexuality is part of our identity. It is a part of what makes act, think, and associate with a group.


I might be wrong but I dont believe there has been a scientific determination on homosexuality.

No, you can’t take a “gay test”, but there is serious scientific evidence that can, with little doubt, prove homosexuality (Something like 0.00001 heterosexuals have the same gene).
So there would be a margin of error of around 1/100,000 test subjects. Those kinds of numbers are unmistakably on to something. I believe the scientist who discovered this is/was Dean Hamer.

To answer your question, no there is no 100% accurate scientific determination.

*EDIT* scientist not scientists

[Lueda Alia]

you're right, i shouldnt care. i shouldnt feel affected by it.
but you know what? im forced to care, because im forced to see it. everywhere.
if people can express their positive views on the subject, then we should be allowed to express our negative views about it as well.
That makes no sense.

And no one's stopping you from expressing your negative views on the subject.

I hate to break it to you, but you are the epitome of the word “bigot”. You are intolerant of homosexuals because they differ from you; that is the definition of the word bigot. When you say that homosexuals are “disgusting”, you are implying that heterosexuals are clean and pure. In turn you are putting your own sexual orientation above another person’s. That makes you a bigot.

It is okay to have an opinion, but an opinion does not dictate what is right/wrong. The culture in which we live dictates right/wrong. We live by certain cultural norms called mores that everyone in the United States follows. Mores determine what is right/wrong; an example would be murder and child molestation. These are universally believed to be wrong, and few would debate otherwise (they are mores).

The problem with homosexuality is that it is moving out of the “more” category and into the general “norm” category. As a result some people are fighting it because they believe it threatens the entire social organization of the United States. There are very few right/wrong issues in the United States; the vast majority of what is considered right/wrong is the genreal opinion of a person's subculture.

Also, how do you explain the relationship between homosexuality and identical twins that are separated at birth? If one identical twin is gay, there is a 52% chance that the other is also gay. If they were raised in different environments, and under different circumstances, how is this statistic possible? It is possible because homosexuality is not a chosen path; that is ignorant. It is mostly biological and people need to begin to accept that fact.

How do you explain the 5 genetic markers found on a section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28. In a study amongst 40 homosexual men a researcher found an overwhelming similarity in this portion of homosexual men’s genes. In short, they were different from a heterosexual male. All of this information is freely available on the internet, but I suppose you are too busy trying to justify your bigoted beliefs to yourself to do some research. Again, that is my opinion, not right/wrong.

Also, sorry if that came off as an attack, but I am very passionate about this subject.
I obviously agree with all of this.

And I also remember reading something on Yahoo! news a while ago about homosexuality being genetic.

lol, What.......homosexuality is an identity? First, where did you get this from? Second, I think that's a big problem if you use a persons sexual orientation to identify them. You really should identify people by who they are as a person.


And homosexuality is part of who they are as a person.

[GhostsDaddy]

Well, for the record, Time magazine recently did a cover story about gay teenagers.

I happen to like the cock. I also love my girlfriend.

It said that kids are first being attracted to the other sex at younger and younger ages. Age 10 for girls and age 12 for boys. That's really young.

For the record, I haven't seen any bigotry in this thread. Plenty of close-mindedness though.

I don't care what everyone else believes, and I happen to believe plenty of things have been wrong in this thread, but I'm going to voice my opinion.

There are plenty of ways to avoid viewing homosexuality if it bothers you. There are also plenty of ways avoiding black people and any other minority. I just don't see how that could bother you. If it does, then quite simply, you need to grow up.

[Cal Smith]

I-den-ti-ty
2. The set of behavioral or personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group.

Homosexuality is part of a person’s identity, just as heterosexuality is part of our identity. It is a part of what makes act, think, and associate with a group.

You said it yourself. It's a "part", it's not their identity. There's much more to a person than that and not agreeing with someone about specific behaviors they participate in does not make you a bigot.


No, you can’t take a “gay test”, but there is serious scientific evidence that can, with little doubt, prove homosexuality (Something like 0.00001 heterosexuals have the same gene).
So there would be a margin of error of around 1/100,000 test subjects. Those kinds of numbers are unmistakably on to something. I believe the scientist who discovered this is/was Dean Hamer.

To answer your question, no there is no 100% accurate scientific determination.

*EDIT* scientist not scientists

Then it's not fact

[VinnyVegas]

You said it yourself. It's a "part", it's not their identity. There's much more to a person than that and not agreeing with someone about specific behaviors they participate in does not make you a bigot.

Then it's not fact

I agree Cal, you are right about the whole situation. I am wrong, you are right as usual.

[Cal Smith]

I agree Cal, you are right about the whole situation. I am wrong, you are right as usual.

I don't think I'm right about anything in this case because I really hadnt claimed, or said anything to be wrong/right about in this case. I do know you're not right though.

It's very simple, don't call someone ignorant for something you say is a "fact" then two posts laters say "To answer your question, no there is no 100% accurate scientific determination." That just doesnt make sense.

[dai the flu]

first of all, i said that choice is involved but a lot of it also deals with your natural inclination. so i never denied that its somewhat genetic.
second of all, society determines whats right and wrong? or something to that effect?
up until the last 10 years or so, homosexuality was generally held by society to be wrong. in relatively recent years, liberal minded people, a very vocal minority afraid of offending anybody, has declared that the traditional outlook is outdated and wrong in itself.
what makes them right?
you mentioned how society feels that child molestation is wrong. and we firmly believe that. but hypothetically if the views would shift and it gradually became more and more accepted, would it change how you should feel about it? no.
you believe what you believe, and right/wrong shouldnt change based on the predominant attitude of the day.
so yes i feel homosexuality is wrong. and when i say "disgusting" i feel like the lifestyle is disgusting, not the particular individual. i think smoking is disgusting, but i wouldnt classify all smokers as disgusting, just the practice of it.

[VinnyVegas]

I don't think I'm right about anything in this case because I really hadnt claimed, or said anything to be wrong/right about in this case. I do know you're not right though.

It's very simple, don't call someone ignorant for something you say is a "fact" then two posts laters say "To answer your question, no there is no 100% accurate scientific determination." That just doesnt make sense.

The term "100%" is not synonymous with the word "fact". There are no scientific discoveries that are correct 100% of the time when dealing with biology. If an experiment works 99.999% of the time it is considered to be a fact. This experiment has been repeated (Google Scholar search) and the results are the same.

I should have said "To answer your question, no there is no 100% accurate scientific determination. Nothing is guaranteed when working with with human biology, there are always exceptions." I was assuming that scientific determination and fact were being considered separately.

Anyway, Cal I think that we should just let this topic rest. We are not going to get anywhere by trying to make each other seem right or wrong. I see things one way, and you see them another. There is nothing I can say to make you think that I'm not an asshole, and vice-versa. Anything I say, you will have a response to, and anything you say, I will have a response to. It will never end, and quite frankly I don’t like to debate all that much. Let’s just let this debate die :thumbsup:

[Lueda Alia]

first of all, i said that choice is involved but a lot of it also deals with your natural inclination. so i never denied that its somewhat genetic.
second of all, society determines whats right and wrong? or something to that effect?
up until the last 10 years or so, homosexuality was generally held by society to be wrong. in relatively recent years, liberal minded people, a very vocal minority afraid of offending anybody, has declared that the traditional outlook is outdated and wrong in itself.
what makes them right?
you mentioned how society feels that child molestation is wrong. and we firmly believe that. but hypothetically if the views would shift and it gradually became more and more accepted, would it change how you should feel about it? no.
you believe what you believe, and right/wrong shouldnt change based on the predominant attitude of the day.
so yes i feel homosexuality is wrong. and when i say "disgusting" i feel like the lifestyle is disgusting, not the particular individual. i think smoking is disgusting, but i wouldnt classify all smokers as disgusting, just the practice of it.
um, you can't compare something harmful like molestation to something that causes no harm (homosexuality).

[xgloryxfadesx27]

Being from MA, homosexuality seems to be a pretty big issue, with MA being the only state in the country with legal Gay Marriage. Personally, it really pisses me off when they interview someone on the news or something who says "Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Gay marriage just isn't right," or something along those lines. In my opinion, homosexuality shouldn't bother anyone. If you're not homosexual, then it shouldn't be an issue in your life. You shouldn't have a problem with Gay Marriage if you're not going to marry someone of the same sex. People should just leave it alone, and get on with their lives. No matter what their opinion on the subject, there will always be homosexual individuals in the world. That's my opinion, take it or leave it.
-dan

[Cal Smith]

The term "100%" is not synonymous with the word "fact". There are no scientific discoveries that are correct 100% of the time when dealing with biology. If an experiment works 99.999% of the time it is considered to be a fact. This experiment has been repeated (Google Scholar search) and the results are the same.

I should have said "To answer your question, no there is no 100% accurate scientific determination. Nothing is guaranteed when working with with human biology, there are always exceptions." I was assuming that scientific determination and fact were being considered separately.

Anyway, Cal I think that we should just let this topic rest. We are not going to get anywhere by trying to make each other seem right or wrong. I see things one way, and you see them another. There is nothing I can say to make you think that I'm not an asshole, and vice-versa. Anything I say, you will have a response to, and anything you say, I will have a response to. It will never end, and quite frankly I don’t like to debate all that much. Let’s just let this debate die :thumbsup:

i dont think you're an asshole. i just didnt understand how you could define "bigot" the way that you did then go on to criticize dai the flu's opinion because it matched your defenition of a "bigot"

[Spooky]

It doesn't bother me tooo much if someone doesn't like homosexuality as long as they keep it to themselves. Personally I don't think its that different than a guy and a girl being together. They won't be able to have kids... but... good. There's a shitload of people here. But like i said, people can think what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I don't like when people walk big dogs and it starts barking. But.... i'm not about to ban dogs.

[VinnyVegas]

i dont think you're an asshole. i just didnt understand how you could define "bigot" the way that you did then go on to criticize dai the flu's opinion because it matched your defenition of a "bigot"

I realize that the way I phrased it made it seem hypocritical. What I was saying about him, could easily be turned around and applied to myself. I'll readily admit being wrong now, but at the time I didn't see the problem. 20-20 hindsight is a bitch.

[The Revisionist]

Homosexuality is part of somebody's identity/personality/whatever... however it is not their sole identity. Most of them do not spend every single second looking for the tightest ruby starfish to drop the hammer into, and the ones that do are just as disgusting as the heterosexual men who are trying to drive the beef bus into tuna town, and when you say it is "their identity", you paint them as such.

I have nothing wrong with homosexuality at all, however (and I am going to bring this back to the media again) they are painting a picture of homosexuals as flamboyant Cher-loving freaks who would love to do your hair, as seen on Will and Grace, ***** Eye For The Straight Guy, whatever else... making them completely one-dimensional so that they can be seen as nothing more than (straight up) "that silly ***got on TV". I mean, I granted don't watch much TV, but I can't think of any show that has some guy or some girl who is a great character on their own who just happens to be gay, as opposed to a character who is considered to be great solely because they are gay. The way they've embraced it is through turning a very personal feeling into a fucking fad, and that I find absolutely disgusting.

[Spooky]

Homosexuality is part of somebody's identity/personality/whatever... however it is not their sole identity. Most of them do not spend every single second looking for the tightest ruby starfish to drop the hammer into, and the ones that do are just as disgusting as the heterosexual men who are trying to drive the beef bus into tuna town, and when you say it is "their identity", you paint them as such.

I have nothing wrong with homosexuality at all, however (and I am going to bring this back to the media again) they are painting a picture of homosexuals as flamboyant Cher-loving freaks who would love to do your hair, as seen on Will and Grace, ***** Eye For The Straight Guy, whatever else... making them completely one-dimensional so that they can be seen as nothing more than (straight up) "that silly ***got on TV". I mean, I granted don't watch much TV, but I can't think of any show that has some guy or some girl who is a great character on their own who just happens to be gay, as opposed to a character who is considered to be great solely because they are gay. The way they've embraced it is through turning a very personal feeling into a fucking fad, and that I find absolutely disgusting.
thats true, but its probably more audience friendly that way sadly. Some tv has done it better though, like 6 feet under.

[pinkerton]

this arguement is way a year ago.

[lackofcolour 13]

this arguement is way a year ago.
yeah. but there are people out there that talk about Kerry like he could still be president in a month.

[pinkerton]

yeah. but there are people out there that talk about Kerry like he could still be president in a month.
i see all these people with kerry edwards bumper stickers still on their cars all the time.

i mean, i agree with them totally. but like, the arguements a little late. the bush kerry election has been beaten to a dead horse, and even though evil once again prevailed, theres only so much you can push your point.

[dai the flu]

I hate to break it to you, but you are the epitome of the word “bigot”. You are intolerant of homosexuals because they differ from you; that is the definition of the word bigot. being tolerant of something doesnt mean you have to agree with it.
lets look at the definition of intolerant. "unable or unwilling to endure; unwilling to grant freedom of expression"
where was i intolerant? i said i felt something was wrong. thats not intolerant. thats not bigotry. i made a stand on an issue that you didnt agree with.
im so tired of people in this politically-correct world, thinking that any opinion that doesnt mesh with their ideals is bigotry. thats why nobody will ever take a stance on a controversial subject for fear of a backlash.

[pinkerton]

[QUOTE=dai the flu]being tolerant of something doesnt mean you have to agree with it.
QUOTE]

who else thought of that museum of tolerance south park, where they can't fire the teacher for being blatantly and abusively homosexual becaue they don't want to fire gay people?

[theESCO]

lets look at the definition of intolerant. "unable or unwilling to endure; unwilling to grant freedom of expression" s bigotry.

after earlier saying...

but i think its wrong how their lifestyle is promoted today.

you think it's wrong that their lifestyle is freely expressed/promoted.

[dai the flu]

ok im all out of rebuttals. good show. ill get you next time.
lets all shake hands and find something else to debate now.

[the_narrator]

I'm simply confused on what we are arguing about. I read the title, then read the post, then read the thread. Are we debating homosexuality or the duality of ethics?

Look, I agree with Eda's posts on "I don't care who is attracted towards whom", and I also think homosexuals are treated like second-class citizens in the U.S. I do not feel the government should regulate morality if it does not hurt another citizen.

That being said, I think dai the flu does not come off as a bigot. He/she simply said, "I personally find this disgusting, I do not like it, I think it's wrong." However, he/she's not doing anything to try and oppress a gay person's sexuality. A difference in opinions is perfectly fine, as long as no one takes steps to stop another person.

Sorry, I know you wanted this to end. Just thought I'd say something anyways.

[dai the flu]

thats pretty much why i wanted it to end. i realized that we werent actually arguing ANYTHING. we werent moving towards any kind of conclusion.
my chief problem wasnt necessarily homosexuality, it was the idea that you cant express a negative view on a subject without being branded a bigot.
i guess society's obsession with political correctness is my main problem.

[the_narrator]

thats pretty much why i wanted it to end. i realized that we werent actually arguing ANYTHING. we werent moving towards any kind of conclusion.
my chief problem wasnt necessarily homosexuality, it was the idea that you cant express a negative view on a subject without being branded a bigot.
i guess society's obsession with political correctness is my main problem. You could suppose that there are worse problems. Society's "obsession with political correctness" simply stems from our desire to be tolerant of cultures different from our own. I mean, usually, we call the "political correctness card" on slurs and actions that portray minorities unfairly.

Though, ironically enough, politically correct is now a term we use to point out that the minorities are not equal. If I say "black", according to them I'm not using a description of skin color, but I am using a term for a group of people including the racial history behind it. They would say I am being politically incorrect. Oh language, you are fickle. So when you say, "I find it disgusting," I guess people hear you echoing Aaron McKinney or Ronnie Paris Jr., which you were not. The debators had the right intention, it's just that we all judge based on assumptions.

[believethehyph]

in my opinion homosexuality will always be wrong.

end.

[bopst]

Then you are a cancer holding us all back in the collective unconscious if you believe such contemptible drivel....

[dai the flu]

holding us back from what?

seriously, if his sense of morality and his set of standards determine that homosexuality is wrong, what is wrong with that?

[believethehyph]

holding us back from what?

seriously, if his sense of morality and his set of standards determine that homosexuality is wrong, what is wrong with that?

thank you, after all it is my opinion.

[Kid Kilowatt]

Those who find homosexuality wrong will eventually die off, so this debate is useless.

End.

[justinevans]

This argument never ends.

[The Revisionist]

Then you are a cancer holding us all back in the collective unconscious if you believe such contemptible drivel....OH MY GOD HIS OPINION IS DIFFERENT THAN YOURS.

Chill out.

[dai the flu]

I implore anyone to try to come up with a philosophically rigorous reason as to why homosexuality could be construed as wrong.how about this? its wrong because its unnatural. anybody can look at it and clearly see, we physiologically are meant for heterosexual relations. 2 year old kids know enough not to put the square peg in the round hole but we as adults cant figure out how our bodies are meant to compliment each other. its how we are made.
take emotion out of the equation.
on its most primal basic level, sex is nature's means of procreation. of reproduction.
what reproduction has ever been accomplished by gay sex?
thats right, it is not natural, it is not what was intended by whatever force or god you believe made us.
"but i like it, its how i was born!"
yeah well jeffrey dahmer had some unnatural desire to eat people and he really liked it too. but he had a mental illness.
and thats exactly how i think of homosexuality. a mental illness.

people are so obsessed with themselves and their own self-gratification that they wont ever admit that what they're doing might be wrong. i dont care whether it hurts anyone or not, it does not change the fact that it is wrong and you will brush off any kind of moral constraints that you find restrictive and pass them off as old-fashioned. why? because the world is full of selfish individuals that dont give a fuck about anything but their own wants and desires.



now you give me one rigorous reason as to why IM wrong.

[believethehyph]

One reason why homsexuality is wrong:

One of the purposes of the human race is to birng life into the world, being a homosexual means you cannot do this.

And i'm sorry if i have a different opinion to others.:the_finge

[Kid Kilowatt]

One reason why homsexuality is wrong:

One of the purposes of the human race is to birng life into the world, being a homosexual means you cannot do this.

And i'm sorry if i have a different opinion to others.:the_fingeBy that logic, parents who decide not to have children, or cannot have children for medical reasons, are immoral.

[believethehyph]

By that logic, parents who decide not to have children, or cannot have children for medical reasons, are immoral.

Parents who decide not to have children. - How can they be parents if they do not have children?
This is not wrong because they could reproduce if they chose to do so. Yes sure, many couples choose not to have children, that is their choice, but at least they are heterosexual. People who cannot have children for medical reasons, still are "as god intended" - heterosexual.

[The Revisionist]

Parents who decide not to have children. - How can they be parents if they do not have children?
This is not wrong because they could reproduce if they chose to do so. Yes sure, many couples choose not to have children, that is their choice, but at least they are heterosexual.Genesis 1:28 (King James Version)

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

If God intended for us to continue bringing life into the world, and two married people choose not to... I would think that would make them immoral.

[YoungNastyMan]

Genesis 1:28 (King James Version)

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

If God intended for us to continue bringing life into the world, and two married people choose not to... I would think that would make them immoral.
Even if they are not fit to be parents?

[siberianxkiss]

Genesis 1:28 (King James Version)

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

If God intended for us to continue bringing life into the world, and two married people choose not to... I would think that would make them immoral.

the Bible really? you sure you want to bring that in to this issue?

[Lueda Alia]

how about this? its wrong because its unnatural. anybody can look at it and clearly see, we physiologically are meant for heterosexual relations. 2 year old kids know enough not to put the square peg in the round hole but we as adults cant figure out how our bodies are meant to compliment each other. its how we are made.
take emotion out of the equation.
on its most primal basic level, sex is nature's means of procreation. of reproduction.
what reproduction has ever been accomplished by gay sex?
thats right, it is not natural, it is not what was intended by whatever force or god you believe made us.
"but i like it, its how i was born!"
yeah well jeffrey dahmer had some unnatural desire to eat people and he really liked it too. but he had a mental illness.
and thats exactly how i think of homosexuality. a mental illness.

people are so obsessed with themselves and their own self-gratification that they wont ever admit that what they're doing might be wrong. i dont care whether it hurts anyone or not, it does not change the fact that it is wrong and you will brush off any kind of moral constraints that you find restrictive and pass them off as old-fashioned. why? because the world is full of selfish individuals that dont give a fuck about anything but their own wants and desires.



now you give me one rigorous reason as to why IM wrong.All I can read is, "I'm a homophobic." So just answer this question for me, since homosexuality is wrong, according to you, what do you think should be done about this issue? You can't make homosexuals go away, can you? So what exactly do you think would be the best thing to do? Just continue to keep their rights away from them?

You know, homosexuals in the United States, should never pay taxes or anything else that they have to pay to the government until they get the same rights. Because if they do the same thing that every other straight person does, then they better get the same rights as well. Straight people are NOT better just for the fact that they like the opposite sex. Honestly now, how ridiculous does that sound? "Um, I think it's wrong to be homosexual, so umm, no, you can't have the same rights as me only because you like the same sex. I don't care if you obey the law and do everything that's required of you as a citizen. I don't care. I think homosexuality is wrong so no rights for you. But you still have to continue paying taxes and everything else you owe to the government even though they don't give you the same rights."? What the? Please try replacing the word "homosexual" with "black" and see how it sounds.

[believethehyph]

All I can read is, "I'm a homophobic." So just answer this question for me, since homosexuality is wrong, according to you, what do you think should be done about this issue? You can't make homosexuals go away, can you? So what exactly do you think would be the best thing to do? Just continue to keep their rights away from them?

You know, homosexuals in the United States, should never pay taxes or anything else that they have to pay to the government until they get the same rights. Because if they do the same thing that every other straight person does, then they better get the same rights as well. Straight people are NOT better just for the fact that they like the opposite sex. Honestly now, how ridiculous does that sound? "Um, I think it's wrong to be homosexual, so umm, no, you can't have the same rights as me only because you like the same sex. I don't care if you obey the law and do everything that's required of you as a citizen. I don't care. I think homosexuality is wrong so no rights for you. But you still have to continue paying taxes and everything else you owe to the government even though they don't give you the same rights."? What the? Please try replacing the word "homosexual" with "black" and see how it sounds.
its seems your going into pointless depth. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against gays (at least the gays who don't "promote gayness", i just think its wrong.

[dai the flu]

All I can read is, "I'm a homophobic."
and thats why i wont even consider your reply. because thats exactly the point ive been making. that you cant take a negative stand on the subject without facing the homophobe label. i have never said that homosexuals should be oppressed, ive simply said that homosexuality on a moral level is wrong to me. and there is nothing wrong with someone thinking that.

[dai the flu]

im sorry i dont have much time for a reply, but as much as i was trying to NOT turn this into a religious issue, ultimately that probably is my basis for thinking it is morally wrong. but yes i know religion is a whole new can of worms that i dont want to open. i know how ugly it can get.
me converting you to some form of christianity notwithstanding (which i dont really think will happen) i cant see us coming to any shared conclusion here.
so yes ill admit you have me in a corner, ill concede this fight. you gave a good argument.

but i do want to reiterate, i do not advocate any sort of mistreatment of homosexuals. to me, this was purely a question of morals, morals that just happened to clash with mine.

[Lueda Alia]

and thats why i wont even consider your reply. because thats exactly the point ive been making. that you cant take a negative stand on the subject without facing the homophobe label. i have never said that homosexuals should be oppressed, ive simply said that homosexuality on a moral level is wrong to me. and there is nothing wrong with someone thinking that.
then answer my question.

its seems your going into pointless depth. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against gays (at least the gays who don't "promote gayness", i just think its wrong.
pointless depth?

why don't you answer my question too? and also give us a solution about this whole thing, because I just don't see where you guys are going with this anymore, "no, don't give them the same rights." it just makes no sense to me. and by giving them the same rights, your morals aren't going to change. nothing in your life is going to change whatsoever. if you're not affected by homosexuality, then I don't see how homosexuals getting the same rights is going to affect you.

[dai the flu]

are you retarded? what are you talking about? who is saying "take away their rights"?

[Kid Kilowatt]

Parents who decide not to have children. - How can they be parents if they do not have children?
This is not wrong because they could reproduce if they chose to do so. Yes sure, many couples choose not to have children, that is their choice, but at least they are heterosexual. People who cannot have children for medical reasons, still are "as god intended" - heterosexual.But, you said that the reason homosexuals are immoral is because their bond produces no children.

[InvisibleNinjas]

personally i don't like nuts on my chest. but gay people are alright.

[believethehyph]

But, you said that the reason homosexuals are immoral is because their bond produces no children.
incorrect, i have never mentioned the word 'immoral' until this post.

then answer my question.


pointless depth?

why don't you answer my question too? and also give us a solution about this whole thing, because I just don't see where you guys are going with this anymore, "no, don't give them the same rights." it just makes no sense to me. and by giving them the same rights, your morals aren't going to change. nothing in your life is going to change whatsoever. if you're not affected by homosexuality, then I don't see how homosexuals getting the same rights is going to affect you.
once again i didn't say that. i have never said anything about the rights of homo's, i have just said that in my opnion it is wrong.
No one can possibly give us a solution to this thread because at the end of the day it is after all, our own opinion!

[Kid Kilowatt]

incorrect, i have never mentioned the word 'immoral' until this post.

You realise that immoral and wrong are the same thing, right?

[believethehyph]

yeah yeah, but i was just getting at using that word thats all.

[the_narrator]

Interesting points are being made in this thread, but most of you are too busy arguing to read them. This is occuring on both sides. Let's rehash, a little, just for clarification.

are you retarded? what are you talking about? who is saying "take away their rights"?
Sorry, but that's uncalled for. Be civil. If you can't debate like men, don't fight like an animal, simply shut up.

All I can read is, "I'm a homophobic."
He's right on this issue, he's not being technically homophobic. He's stating that it is wrong, not an intolerant stance. He's also not stating that he believes their rights should be taken away. He is stating that in his mind that homosexuality is not ethical.
In short: the claim that what people think is right, IS right for them is the least tenable of all ethical positions. Ask me why.
Look, I can see where you're coming from. I also see that you are very smart. But you're practically reciting my philosophy ethics class. Your first argument after the remark about "not letting this fall into ethical relativism" was weak. Sorry. It was filled with strawmen, but it was a clever usage of metaphor. However, what you're about to spout off in that sentence completely nulls your argument. If his opinion isn't right for him, why is yours? Try to answer that without reciting my midterm papers. (I'm not being a bitch. I'm saying it because I know you can do better.) Besides, I firmly believe in ethical relativism, which you don't seem to. Why is that? Why are you trying to convert him?
its seems your going into pointless depth. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against gays (at least the gays who don't "promote gayness", i just think its wrong.
She wasn't going into pointless depth. She did not stray from the subject. Instead she was providing you with the application of your opinion amongst the government. She is saying that gays are treated like second-class citizens, but both of you stated that they should have their rights. Does this make them equal to us? And if so, are you willing to argue for them?

That last statement actually was homophobic and against the first amendment. Also, I do believe Dom is making good points, but you're not rebuting.

Finally: Dai the flu, you are coming under the attack for something you did not say. While I know it is hard to listen to people who aren't exactly hearing what you're saying, look at this:
and thats exactly how i think of homosexuality. a mental illness.
[...]

people are so obsessed with themselves and their own self-gratification that they wont ever admit that what they're doing might be wrong. i dont care whether it hurts anyone or not, it does not change the fact that it is wrong[ ...]. Compare that to what habibe said about sexual health psychologists, and also to what Eda said about their rights. Could your same words not be used to show how straight people only care about "not seeing gay sexuality?" Also, try not to confuse the words "wrong" with "unnatural." You've eliminated emotion to simplify your argument, but this brings about flaws. Their sexuality is based on attraction and love, which cannot be defined as a standard norm.

Sorry to hash everything together, and I'm sorry if I misinterpreted anyone. Just show me where I went wrong. Did I not quote the most quotes ever? :)

[dai the flu]

im sorry i made the "retarded" remark. its just frustrating when people completely glaze over and dont actually read what im writing.

im gonna simplify my argument.

rules should not change to fit the people. people should change to fit the rules.

where we're clashing is the rules themselves, where we should draw our morals and standards from.

like ive said before, i personally draw mine from a religious standpoint, but i can see how someone atheistic or someone that doesnt believe in the god of the bible might have different ideas on morality.

but too, dont start confusing my belief in god with the overall hypocrisy of religion, or the complete nonsense thats preached from the pulpit to make the old women stand up and cheer. im not using religion as a crutch or an excuse to stick to some archaic ignorant ideas. i simply feel we have a creator and as our creator he knows whats best for us and has the right to tell us what to do, or how to live.

but thats just me.

[believethehyph]

"but both of you stated that they should have their rights" - the narrator.

incorrect, i haven't said anything about the rights of homosexuals.

nice post though lol.

[Lueda Alia]

im sorry i made the "retarded" remark. its just frustrating when people completely glaze over and dont actually read what im writing.

im gonna simplify my argument.

rules should not change to fit the people. people should change to fit the rules.

where we're clashing is the rules themselves, where we should draw our morals and standards from.

like ive said before, i personally draw mine from a religious standpoint, but i can see how someone atheistic or someone that doesnt believe in the god of the bible might have different ideas on morality.

but too, dont start confusing my belief in god with the overall hypocrisy of religion, or the complete nonsense thats preached from the pulpit to make the old women stand up and cheer. im not using religion as a crutch or an excuse to stick to some archaic ignorant ideas. i simply feel we have a creator and as our creator he knows whats best for us and has the right to tell us what to do, or how to live.

but thats just me.And I think "the creator" has told homosexuals how to live. If he didn't want them to be that way, he would have made them homosexuals. And who are you to say how God wants us to be like? And have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, there's other people out there (like me) who believe that God loves everyone no matter their race, sexuality, etc? So why should we believe the same thing you do? We're not asking you to believe the same thing we do, we only want everyone to be equal. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, will change in your life if homosexuals get the same rights. They deserve the same rights for the simple fact that they are human beings, and you and I are no better than them. And not everyone is going live by your "morals". I don't care if the majority of Americans agree with you. They used to believe that slavery was right too, but guess what? It's not. And taking away someone's rights only because of who they love is not right either.

And you still haven't answered my question. This post of yours tells us nothing.

Felicia, this is why I said he's homophobic - because I don't see why else anyone would not want homosexuals to be equal. I don't buy the, "I have a friend who's gay, but I still don't think they should have the same rights" bull. You can't be someone's friend and believe that they shouldn't have the same rights. And most importantly, you would surely not be okay with the fact that they're treated unfairly. At least I know I wouldn't be.

"but both of you stated that they should have their rights" - the narrator.

incorrect, i haven't said anything about the rights of homosexuals.

nice post though lol.Well then, tell us how you feel about them having the same rights?

[Alex Djaferis]

And have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, there's other people out there (like me) who believe that God loves everyone no matter their race, sexuality, etc? So why should we believe the same thing you do? We're not asking you to believe the same thing we do, we only want everyone to be equal.



damn right. God could care less what gender you love because its LOVE thats important. if a gay couple love each other and would die for each other, nothing would please God more.

[dai the flu]

morningstar, i read your posts, and i try to understand where you're coming from and i honestly try to make sense of what you say, but i just dont get it.

for the last time:

i have never said nor do i believe that homosexuals should be treated as lesser people. do you understand that? thats also means that they have the same rights as other human beings. i have never tried to deny them those rights.
read that a couple times. let it sink in.

this was a disagreement on our own seperate beliefs. i believed it was wrong, most everyone else believed it was right. how does that affect their rights as human beings?
i disgreed with jason tates thrice review, i believed it was full of crap, but i dont think he should have his birthday taken away.
So why should we believe the same thing you do? We're not asking you to believe the same thing we do yes thats exactly what you're doing. since i stated my opinion, i have been subjected to all kinds of questioning and harassment about it, trying to change my beliefs.

again. i do not advocate the mistreatment of homosexuals.

i dont know how much plainer i can make it.

[Cal Smith]

Originally Posted by MorningStar x0x
We're not asking you to believe the same thing we do

Then why is there 4 pages bashing on his moral beliefs?

Also the "I want to make everyone equal" can apply to almost every law forbidding something based on age, race, sex, etc.......

take affirmative action for example. Do you support affirmative action?

[commatosa]

okay, I'm sure that this has already been said, but there's no way that I'm going to read every post on this topic. Now, here's my personal view on homosexuality. When is the church and everyone who opposes homosexuality going to realize that gays aren't going to jeopardize your moral values? All I'm saying is that homos are going to be homos, christians are going to be christians. Why should someone else's life and sexuality (which they discover through puberty...it's NOT a fucking choice!) effect your life?

[the_narrator]

incorrect, i haven't said anything about the rights of homosexuals.
It's all good. Sorry to have skewed your words. So you're basically saying, "Whatever happens behind closed doors is fine, just don't bring it out to the world. The laws as they stand are fine." Is that right? Feel free to explain though.

rules should not change to fit the people. people should change to fit the rules.

where we're clashing is the rules themselves, where we should draw our morals and standards from. Well, I think I see what you're saying. You are saying that homosexuals do deserve the same rights as us, even if you believe their lifestye to be wrong, is that right? You base your judgment on the words of the Bible and the overall feeling of where your religion stands, not necessarily a particular chuch. Is that right?

The rules, you are speaking of, here (just to clarify) are actually the standard codes of ethics. Is that right? By that, I mean, your standard code of ethics, which seems to be based on the Christian religion. Don't think I mean that badly, since much is based on those ethics (including our government's basic laws and much of America's personal decisions). Just to make sure you are not speaking about the governments laws on homosexuals. You're saying, just because we break rules, doesn't make that okay.

My personal opinion, based on religion alone, is much like Eda's (MorningStar x0x). I personally find the Bible to be the word of man inspired by God and religious intent. I grew up Baptist, and my father believes what you believe (and is slightly disappointed on what a liberal his daughter grew up to be :) ), however I do not have those particular "standard code of ethics." I feel that, religiously, my God loves everyone, because he is not personalized. I simply do not believe in persecution by God. I think many of our codes of conduct, that we derive from our religions, are very much based on what popular thought was in the day.

However, if your beliefs stem from religion, then I feel like this debate will get nowhere. If you believe they should have the same laws (allowed to get married, adopt, etc) then we do not differ, even if fundamentally we are very different. This thread, and no words by any person, are going to make us change our views when they are so deep within us, and to argue it would be superflous. Laws are something that can be fixed, however.

Cal, you know that's ridiculous. All people are not equal, but under the law they should be. Affirmative action is a whole other topic, so please don't bring it in here. Damn there will be a ton of arguments stemming from that topic and crossing over beliefs from one to another.

[Lueda Alia]

Then why is there 4 pages bashing on his moral beliefs?

Also the "I want to make everyone equal" can apply to almost every law forbidding something based on age, race, sex, etc.......

take affirmative action for example. Do you support affirmative action?When did I ever bash his moral beliefs? Quote me, please.

And as Felicia said, that's a whole other topic. There is just no logical reason for homosexuality to be banned.

morningstar, i read your posts, and i try to understand where you're coming from and i honestly try to make sense of what you say, but i just dont get it.

for the last time:

i have never said nor do i believe that homosexuals should be treated as lesser people. do you understand that? thats also means that they have the same rights as other human beings. i have never tried to deny them those rights.
read that a couple times. let it sink in.

this was a disagreement on our own seperate beliefs. i believed it was wrong, most everyone else believed it was right. how does that affect their rights as human beings?
i disgreed with jason tates thrice review, i believed it was full of crap, but i dont think he should have his birthday taken away.
yes thats exactly what you're doing. since i stated my opinion, i have been subjected to all kinds of questioning and harassment about it, trying to change my beliefs.

again. i do not advocate the mistreatment of homosexuals.

i dont know how much plainer i can make it.
Just for your information, I read your posts as well, obviously. However, I'm not talking about your personal beliefs or why you think homosexuality is wrong. I'm talking about them having the same rights. But you have me confused because you do not give me answers. Do you think they should have the same rights?

okay, I'm sure that this has already been said, but there's no way that I'm going to read every post on this topic. Now, here's my personal view on homosexuality. When is the church and everyone who opposes homosexuality going to realize that gays aren't going to jeopardize your moral values? All I'm saying is that homos are going to be homos, christians are going to be christians. Why should someone else's life and sexuality (which they discover through puberty...it's NOT a fucking choice!) effect your life?
It does not affect their life in any way. As I said, it only affects the lives of homosexuals.

[Cal Smith]

When did I ever bash his moral beliefs? Quote me, please.

didnt say specifically you. there are a number of post on this thread alone doing it.

And as Felicia said, that's a whole other topic. There is just no logical reason for homosexuality to be banned.

Give me a break..........!!!!! A couple posts ago you used slavery as a comparison. Now when there's a legit point you fall back on the crutch-------"that's a whole other topic"

This look familier........?
"They used to believe that slavery was right too, but guess what? It's not. And taking away someone's rights only because of who they love is not right either."

I guess slavery is not a whole other topic like affirmative action? Let's face it there are laws restricting equality everywhere. Ask a 15 year old girl who wants to marry a 30 year old man, or ask someone who's lost a job to affirmative action. You give me the "i'm fighting for equality" bit when you do the same all around.

[Kid Kilowatt]

I would like to point out that affirmative action does not restrict equality.

[The Revisionist]

I would like to point out that affirmative action does not restrict equality.Right, it unjustly forces it, and I think that's the problem.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT HOMOS THOUGH, STAY ON TOPIC.

[Justin_stacy]

I would like to point out that affirmative action does not restrict equality.
ya it prevents it....

[believethehyph]

"It's all good. Sorry to have skewed your words. So you're basically saying, "Whatever happens behind closed doors is fine, just don't bring it out to the world. The laws as they stand are fine." Is that right? Feel free to explain though."

I'm not really bothered about their rights, because after all like somebody has already posted - reguardless of whether their rights change or not, it's not going to affect me on a macro scale, but i do think homosexuality is wrong, and my view will not change.

[commatosa]

Why is it that whenever people who oppose homosexuality try to justify it, they say things like "well, then we should let people marry their toaster, or let people marry their pets." No no no no no! The only reason someone would oppose homosexuality and say it's wrong is because they're brain is fed with bible garbage telling them to believe that, thus making them ignorant. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with homosexuality. There is absolutely nothing wrong with 2 consenting adult individuals loving each other. What's wrong with people's happiness? Because it goes against YOUR beliefs? And for everytime someone says "it's their lifestyle. It's a choice." I want to puke. If they had a choice don't you think they'd go with the option that is more acceptable so they don't have to put up with your shit? And it's not an opinion that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. It's a fact.

[believethehyph]

Why is it that whenever people who oppose homosexuality try to justify it, they say things like "well, then we should let people marry their toaster, or let people marry their pets." No no no no no! The only reason someone would oppose homosexuality and say it's wrong is because they're brain is fed with bible garbage telling them to believe that, thus making them ignorant. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with homosexuality. There is absolutely nothing wrong with 2 consenting adult individuals loving each other. What's wrong with people's happiness? Because it goes against YOUR beliefs? And for everytime someone says "it's their lifestyle. It's a choice." I want to puke. If they had a choice don't you think they'd go with the option that is more acceptable so they don't have to put up with your shit? And it's not an opinion that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. It's a fact.

i don't think anyone with a bit of sense would try and justify something they oppose.

[Louballs]

Getting all worked up about what--and with whom--someone else does in terms of their love life is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. If you don't like homosexuals, fine--don't hang out with them. But that's no reason to deny them any of the rights that heterosexuals enjy. What possible difference can it make to your life if a gay couple gets married? If your response is something about the "sanctity of marriage," well, remember that we live in a country where over 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce. And if your response is anything involving religion, remember a little concept called the separation of church and state.

[believethehyph]

Getting all worked up about what--and with whom--someone else does in terms of their love life is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. If you don't like homosexuals, fine--don't hang out with them. But that's no reason to deny them any of the rights that heterosexuals enjy. What possible difference can it make to your life if a gay couple gets married? If your response is something about the "sanctity of marriage," well, remember that we live in a country where over 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce. And if your response is anything involving religion, remember a little concept called the separation of church and state.for fuck sake i am sick of people always fucking assuming that the people who have simply expressed their opinion by saying they think homosexuality is wrong, have ranted about their rights, NO NO NO, BE WITH IT NOW!
read the early posts then comment please, 'tard.

[Louballs]

for fuck sake i am sick of people always fucking assuming that the people who have simply expressed their opinion by saying they think homosexuality is wrong, have ranted about their rights, NO NO NO, BE WITH IT NOW!
read the early posts then comment please, 'tard.
And I'm sick of people who read one post thinking it was responding to every other post on the board. "Tard."

[believethehyph]

you were directing your posts at people who have had an "negative" opinion on homosexuality and supposedly ranted about their rights ie myself.

be with it now:thumbsup:

[commatosa]

the point is if you think there's something wrong with homosexuality then you should try to learn more about the people. Religion will teach you how to hate and be close-minded. When ironically, Jesus Christ would have preferred it to have the opposite effect.

[the_narrator]

the point is if you think there's something wrong with homosexuality then you should try to learn more about the people. Religion will teach you how to hate and be close-minded. When ironically, Jesus Christ would have preferred it to have the opposite effect.
Religion or man's interpretation of religion? I suppose it depends on who you pay attention to, what intepretation you allow, and where you learn it. I don't think religion teaches hate, but man does.

This is off-topic though.

I do believe Louballs was giving his/her general opinion. Not everything has to be a rebuttal.

[believethehyph]

the point is if you think there's something wrong with homosexuality then you should try to learn more about the people. Religion will teach you how to hate and be close-minded. When ironically, Jesus Christ would have preferred it to have the opposite effect.I'm not having a go at you know but, I started posting in this thread to simply express my opinion about a topic. Sure, people couldn't accept mine and a selective others opnion so they had resort to a full blown argument - this thread has gone stale and into somewhat needless depth, just because I think homosexuality is wrong I will not argue my case, like others to try and be "right" and "moral". I refuse to "learn" about homosexuality because I couldn't really give a fuck about it, I just think its wrong - and always will be, but I can accept that others do not share the same view as me, and I respect their opinion.

end

[splitsecond]

Haha, why do people keep debating this like they are going to get somewhere? Ignant.

[commatosa]

well guys...the name of this topic is "let's DEBATE that old chestnut, homosexuality."

[believethehyph]

Haha, why do people keep debating this like they are going to get somewhere? Ignant.
hes got a point - none of us can 'win' this debate.

[dai the flu]

theres nothing TO win. either you think its right, or you think its wrong.

[believethehyph]

yeah i know but some people were debating too intensely thinking they could win.

[Louballs]

yeah i know but some people were debating too intensely thinking they could win.
The idea is point-counterpoint. It's not meant to change people's minds, just to put out the arguments that you think support what you already believe. I'm not sure what "too intensely" means, but if people feel strongly about something and want to make the best arguments they can come up with, I don't see anything wrong with that.

And incidentally, "winning" a debate doesn't mean you're "right" about anything--it just means you've defeated the arguments the other side put out.

well guys...the name of this topic is "let's DEBATE that old chestnut, homosexuality."
Exactly. Not "let's discuss half-heartedly and unenthusiastically that old chestnut, homosexuality, in a self-satisfied and disinterested manner."

[dai the flu]

you came in too late, we're all burnt out on this subject.

[commatosa]

you came in too late, we're all burnt out on this subject.
I'm sure the homos are too. They're the ones who have to endure the conservatives' bigotry (and yes, that's exactly what it is).

[dai the flu]

uh huh you're right. we're wrong. you win. debates over. i recant. im sorry ladies and gentlemen, i was a bigot and how dare me have an opinion on morals.
thanks for coming, it was a good time for all, we should do this again sometime. until then, goodbye, goodnight, close the thread.

[commatosa]

uh huh you're right. we're wrong. you win. debates over. i recant. im sorry ladies and gentlemen, i was a bigot and how dare me have an opinion on morals.
thanks for coming, it was a good time for all, we should do this again sometime. until then, goodbye, goodnight, close the thread.
dude...you are wrong. Whatever your opinions may be; however you got to the point of forming those opinions, they're wrong. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It's a fact. And please, tell me how people of the same sex loving each other jeopardizes your moral values. You know what's worse? When religious folk force their beliefs down my throat...ooh wait, bad analogy, kinda gay.

[dai the flu]

absolutely. i was wrong. my spreading homophobic propaganda should be grounds for immediate banning. and i for one wont tolerate myself. you're one hundred percent correct, its a fact that homosexuality is morally ok and i apologize for my conservative, prejudiced, bigoted ideas.

[believethehyph]

dude...you are wrong. Whatever your opinions may be; however you got to the point of forming those opinions, they're wrong. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It's a fact. And please, tell me how people of the same sex loving each other jeopardizes your moral values. You know what's worse? When religious folk force their beliefs down my throat...ooh wait, bad analogy, kinda gay.
Please explain how he could be wrong for simply voicing his opinion. I'm not having a go, I would just like to know, I do not see you as wrong for saying there is nothing wrong with homosexuals, i simply accept that your opinion is not the same as mine.

[YouMadeTheScene]

absolutely. i was wrong. my spreading homophobic propaganda should be grounds for immediate banning. and i for one wont tolerate myself. you're one hundred percent correct, its a fact that homosexuality is morally ok and i apologize for my conservative, prejudiced, bigoted ideas.
Don't know if this was asked but what would you do if you had a son or daughter that said they were gay?

[dai the flu]

what do you think id do? id stab them of course.

[believethehyph]

what do you think id do? id stab them of course.

abit harsh lol

[YouMadeTheScene]

what do you think id do? id stab them of course.
i was actually just looking for an honest answer and I wasn't planning on putting you down. If that is your actual answer then...that's just not good.

[believethehyph]

i was actually just looking for an honest answer and I wasn't planning on putting you down. If that is your actual answer then...that's just not good.
ive got to agree there

[commatosa]

anywho....my point is that if you feel threatened by homosexuals then you are obviously ignorant. Nothing wrong with being ignorant, except for when people are blissful in their ignorance. If you think that homosexuality is a choice then you are flat out wrong. Jesus doesn't dislike homos any more than he dislikes straighties. If you are going to judge gays for their sexuality and say "God smites all sodomites." well then you yourself are a sinner. Only God can judge. Also, try not to put your dick into a woman's vagina before marriage if you're going to say homosexuality is wrong. And don't cut your hair because it says in plain english (in Leviticus) that it's a sin to cut your hair. And aren't all sins the same in God's eyes? So please, stop picking and choosing which rules you're going to follow, quit being hypocrites, quit using organized religion as a hate tool, and please remember the following statement: faith without works is nothing....works without faith, eh not so bad.

[heyRomanticA__x]

I'm sure the homos are too. They're the ones who have to endure the conservatives' bigotry (and yes, that's exactly what it is).

Yup..pretty tired of that. Not going to stop me though, they can complain all they want.

[dai the flu]

anywho....my point is that if you feel threatened by homosexuals then you are obviously ignorant. Nothing wrong with being ignorant, except for when people are blissful in their ignorance. If you think that homosexuality is a choice then you are flat out wrong. Jesus doesn't dislike homos any more than he dislikes straighties. If you are going to judge gays for their sexuality and say "God smites all sodomites." well then you yourself are a sinner. Only God can judge. Also, try not to put your dick into a woman's vagina before marriage if you're going to say homosexuality is wrong. And don't cut your hair because it says in plain english (in Leviticus) that it's a sin to cut your hair. And aren't all sins the same in God's eyes? So please, stop picking and choosing which rules you're going to follow, quit being hypocrites, quit using organized religion as a hate tool, and please remember the following statement: faith without works is nothing....works without faith, eh not so bad.
not that i want to get into the bible, but jesus's apostles (the ones that were with him his entire ministry on earth and learned everything from him) clearly and very plainly condemned homosexuality.
and anyone that quotes from the hebrew scriptures and the mosaic law code in the way that you did, knows nothing about the bible and the purpose for that law code.

i was joking when i said id stab them, cuz im tired of all of this. i do not feel threatened by homosexuals, i dont feel like they should have any of their rights as individuals taken away, the practice of homosexuality is against my moral beliefs and i do not care whatsoever if you agree with me or think im being intolerant.
if my son was gay? i would disapprove, but i would not stop loving him or supporting him. i just would not agree with his choice of lifestyle.

[heyRomanticA__x]

not that i want to get into the bible, but jesus's apostles (the ones that were with him his entire ministry on earth and learned everything from him) clearly and very plainly condemned homosexuality.
and anyone that quotes from the hebrew scriptures and the mosaic law code in the way that you did, knows nothing about the bible and the purpose for that law code.

i was joking when i said id stab them, cuz im tired of all of this. i do not feel threatened by homosexuals, i dont feel like they should have any of their rights as individuals taken away, the practice of homosexuality is against my moral beliefs and i do not care whatsoever if you agree with me or think im being intolerant.
if my son was gay? i would disapprove, but i would not stop loving him or supporting him. i just would not agree with his choice of lifestyle.

I'm not bashing your ideas or anything, but I have a question for you.
If a public vote was made, deciding the legality of gay marriage, what side would you vote on? Would you be all for it or would you vote against it?

[dai the flu]

i know this isnt an option but id like to say i wouldnt vote. it doesnt affect me, id want to stay neutral on the whole idea. plus i dont know both sides' cases. im really not sure why the government even cares. other than legitimizing your relationship, what benefits come from a legal marriage?

[Cal Smith]

anywho....my point is that if you feel threatened by homosexuals then you are obviously ignorant. Nothing wrong with being ignorant, except for when people are blissful in their ignorance. If you think that homosexuality is a choice then you are flat out wrong. Jesus doesn't dislike homos any more than he dislikes straighties. If you are going to judge gays for their sexuality and say "God smites all sodomites." well then you yourself are a sinner. Only God can judge. Also, try not to put your dick into a woman's vagina before marriage if you're going to say homosexuality is wrong. And don't cut your hair because it says in plain english (in Leviticus) that it's a sin to cut your hair. And aren't all sins the same in God's eyes? So please, stop picking and choosing which rules you're going to follow, quit being hypocrites, quit using organized religion as a hate tool, and please remember the following statement: faith without works is nothing....works without faith, eh not so bad.

First...........arent you judging those who find fault with homosexuality?

Second.....I've seen no one in this thread say they're perfect, so your soap box lecture on the Bible is pointless. No one has claimed there any better or any worse than a homosexual or anyone else for that matter. Simply finding fault with something does not mean you think you are perfect or above the other perons. So please before you start lecture people on the Bible at least understand what they are saying.

[commatosa]

all I'm saying is if you're going to follow the bible and be so hardcore on one belief then you yourself have to be perfect otherwise you're a hypocrite. I'm not the one throwing "morality" at groups of people.

[Cal Smith]

all I'm saying is if you're going to follow the bible and be so hardcore on one belief then you yourself have to be perfect otherwise you're a hypocrite. I'm not the one throwing "morality" at groups of people.

No you dont. By your flawed logic no one can think anything is wrong because obviously no one is perfect. We're all sinners..............there's nothing wrong with recognizing this. Also I'd add by your logic you couldn't find wrong with our beliefs because..................you'd have to be perfect to do so. :thumbsup:

[commatosa]

No you dont. By your flawed logic no one can think anything is wrong because obviously no one is perfect. We're all sinners..............there's nothing wrong with recognizing this.

I dont even see the hypocrasy?
what I'm trying to say is don't judge a group of people and call them sinners and their lifestyle goes against your moral values. And if you are going to do it, then you better make sure that you're not sinning yourself, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

[Cal Smith]

what I'm trying to say is don't judge a group of people and call them sinners and their lifestyle goes against your moral values. And if you are going to do it, then you better make sure that you're not sinning yourself, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

You'd be a hyprocite if you didnt think you were a sinner. Simply finding fault with something does not make you a hyprocrite. No one is saying they are no less of a sinner or any better than someone who is a homosexual.

I find murdering wrong...........does this make me a hypocrite? Again by your logic I shouldnt find fault with a murderer because I'm not perfect. Does that make any sense to you, cause it doesnt to me?

[dai the flu]

whether you sin or not, has absolutely nothing to do with whether something IS a sin or not.

[Louballs]

No you dont. By your flawed logic no one can think anything is wrong because obviously no one is perfect. We're all sinners..............there's nothing wrong with recognizing this. Also I'd add by your logic you couldn't find wrong with our beliefs because..................you'd have to be perfect to do so. :thumbsup:
I don't claim to be well-versed in the Bible, but I'm pretty sure there's something in there about "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I'm sure this is open to debate, but I think the point is that his logic isn't "flawed"-- it's exactly what the Bible dictates. If you want to recognize your own sins, go ahead. But if your judgment and disapproval of homosexuality is based on religious beliefs (at least Christianity), you'd better be "without sin." Otherwise, I think you are a hypocrite.

[dai the flu]

im not understanding you guys. you dont have to be perfect or mistake-free to recognize when something is morally wrong.
you guys are all mistaking jesus's love and acceptance in the bible as him being permissive or lenient. he never compromised his moral standards and his being loving and open to all people was with a purpose. he tried to be a force for change in those people and help them come to a good relationship with god through him. he recognized that none of us are perfect, but that was never an excuse for blatant disregard of the "rules" in the bible.

[Louballs]

you dont have to be perfect or mistake-free to recognize when something is morally wrong.
I think the distinction is between recognizing, personally, that something is "wrong" (at least according to the Bible) and pointing out that "wrong" in others. It's one thing for you to say "homosexuality is wrong, therefore I won't be homosexual." It is quite another to say "YOU are a sinner because you're gay."

you guys are all mistaking jesus's love and acceptance in the bible as him being permissive or lenient. he recognized that none of us are perfect, but that was never an excuse for blatant disregard of the "rules" in the bible.
I think (again, according to my limited knowledge of the Bible) that you're wrong. Jesus wasn't "The Enforcer." I don't think Jesus went around saying "You're a sinner, and you're a sinner . . ." etc., and scolding people into adhering to his belief system. He did recognize that no one is perfect. And you're right that he never used that recognition as an excuse to disregard the "rules" himself, in his own actions. But he also realized that it wasn't his place to be "permissive" or "lenient"-- because it wasn't his place to impose his own moral judgments on other people's actions.

[xYouFailMex]

I think that if it doesn't involve you then you should stay out of it. Let a person do whatever they want to do as long as it is not hurting or involving you in a way you don't want to be involved in.

[Cal Smith]

I think the distinction is between recognizing, personally, that something is "wrong" (at least according to the Bible) and pointing out that "wrong" in others. It's one thing for you to say "homosexuality is wrong, therefore I won't be homosexual." It is quite another to say "YOU are a sinner because you're gay."


I think (again, according to my limited knowledge of the Bible) that you're wrong. Jesus wasn't "The Enforcer." I don't think Jesus went around saying "You're a sinner, and you're a sinner . . ." etc., and scolding people into adhering to his belief system. He did recognize that no one is perfect. And you're right that he never used that recognition as an excuse to disregard the "rules" himself, in his own actions. But he also realized that it wasn't his place to be "permissive" or "lenient"-- because it wasn't his place to impose his own moral judgments on other people's actions.

I think we should look at what "judgement" is. Simply because you find something moraly wrong does not mean you are judgeing them or condeming them to hell.

[Louballs]

I think we should look at what "judgement" is. Simply because you find something moraly wrong does not mean you are judgeing them or condeming them to hell.
Again-- I think there's a difference between finding something (homosexuality) morally wrong, and finding someone morally wrong because they do something. I'd call the latter "judgment," and not the former.

[dai the flu]

this arguments dead and gone but i saw something in the news today that i thought was interesting.
WNBA star sheryl swoopes today opened up and announced that she was gay.
this quote though is what i found interesting, and goes against what a lot of you have said in here:
"Do I think I was born this way? No, and that's probably confusing to some, because I know a lot of people believe that you are.''

not that that proves anything, it doesnt even really matter. but again i thought it was interesting.

[RyuTseTung]

i want to grow up in a culture where i can kill anybody, including any of you, for no reason... and you couldn't call this wrong...

[soma]

I'd like to clarify two things here. The first being that the debate on "choice vs. biology" is not, as it seems to have been presented here, a black and white issue. It is neither ALL choice nor ALL biology, but instead a mix of the two. Some homosexuals have the option of gender attraction, but for many this quality is predisposed. On a more personal note, I can testify to the latter.

The other point I'd like to bring up is that, actually, homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality, in your own definition. To date there must be hundreds of reports and studies on animals who through either genetics or preference engage in homosexual behavior. I'll note one example-- some doves, even when presented with potential heterosexual mates, will choose to court doves of the same gender in the same fashion as they would the opposite sex doves. The pair, just as in heterosexual doves, stay together for life and will preen, coo and generally show great and obvious affection for one another.

"In the approximately 1,000 to 3,000 species whose behavior has been well researched and described in the literature, approximately 450 have been shown to have clear homosexual behaviors."
(http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm; informative essay)


Just thought I ought to put that out there.

[Cal Smith]

I'd like to clarify two things here. The first being that the debate on "choice vs. biology" is not, as it seems to have been presented here, a black and white issue. It is neither ALL choice nor ALL biology, but instead a mix of the two. Some homosexuals have the option of gender attraction, but for many this quality is predisposed. On a more personal note, I can testify to the latter.

The other point I'd like to bring up is that, actually, homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality, in your own definition. To date there must be hundreds of reports and studies on animals who through either genetics or preference engage in homosexual behavior. I'll note one example-- some doves, even when presented with potential heterosexual mates, will choose to court doves of the same gender in the same fashion as they would the opposite sex doves. The pair, just as in heterosexual doves, stay together for life and will preen, coo and generally show great and obvious affection for one another.

"In the approximately 1,000 to 3,000 species whose behavior has been well researched and described in the literature, approximately 450 have been shown to have clear homosexual behaviors."
(http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm; informative essay)


Just thought I ought to put that out there.

If I had to guess, that's what'd I say too. I think some people are born with a predisposition to be attracted to the opposite sex.

Also here's a picture (http://www.nealball.co.uk/Gay/Pride-2003/images/1-feathers.jpg) (on the right) of one of those birds you were talking about.

[soma]

If I had to guess, that's what'd I say too. I think some people are born with a predisposition to be attracted to the opposite sex.

Also here's a picture (http://www.nealball.co.uk/Gay/Pride-2003/images/1-feathers.jpg) (on the right) of one of those birds you were talking about. I have to say I'm honoured that my post merited a google images search, heh.

[Saves The Night]

I have to say I'm honoured that my post merited a google images search, heh.hahahahahaha