I don't agree with homosexuality

• Okitaru wrote on 2010-10-05 15:07

  Quote from Mentosftw;175753:

  2ldnr
  
  But you're really asking for a flame war right here.

  
  
  This
  
  Seriously, I hate it, but, I've come to terms with the fact I won't change someones minds, nor will I do anything but get myself killed or completely ignored by trying, I don't like it, I never will, but I'll just put up with it, if you think about it more philosophical you can make a point both ways, neither being one most would agree on.
  
  Personally I think love transcends, but I don't necessarily love means sex, which I DO believe to be something made for a man and a woman. Although it's still a fairly ridiculous thing for any couple to believe in now days, probably...
  
  Regardless, flame thread just obtained item "Thermite" use item "Thermite"?
• Cryosite wrote on 2010-10-05 15:56
  In case it wasn't clear through the um.. passion with which Falsetto posted, lemme point out what is obvious to me as a fellow non-believer in the bible:
  
  Bible says being gay is bad. That makes being gay bad. Bible also says eating lobster is bad. So eating lobster is bad.
  
  If you are capable of rationalizing why one is ok now, perhaps say due to the changes in technology, then you are capable of rationalizing why the other is ok also. If you are not capable of rationalizing one, then you are not capable of rationalizing the other. Nowhere in the bible does it state that either of them are limited in duration as a bad thing, so any application of such a change is your own doing as a person.
  
  So pick one. A) I am capable of making changes to what the bible tells me is bad to reflect current technology (therefore it is ok to eat lobster, because advances in technology have rendered it safe, tasty, and even nutritious).
  
  B)The bible infallible, and I am in no place to make any changes. As vehemently as I protest against gays I should also protest Red Lobster, The Gap, and so on for their breaches to Levitical laws.
  
  C)I am a hypocrit. Being gay is bad because I say it is bad, and the bible happens to conveniently have words in it that agree with me. Other stuff is good because I say it is good, even though the bible says otherwise.
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-10-05 16:49
  No one can come up with a good logical excuse to why being gay is bad. They never can.
  
  They always bring up religion, always bring up false statistics and always use stereotypes to bring down someone they don't entirely agree with.
  
  Face it, guys. There is no logical reason to be against homosexuality, just like there is no logical reason to be sexist or racist. It's your own judgment which makes you believe that someone else is inferior to you or "wrong."
  
  No one is wrong in this world, or inferior. Not even people born with mental disorders. They're just as human as you, so why discriminate them?
  
  You know why? Because it disgusts you. Just admit it, since we're all being honest here.
  
  

  Quote from abc33kr;175980:

  Two guys sleeping together does not make me wanna go ruin their lives, but i don't approve of it. However, do those two guys give a damn? No.

  
  
  You don't approve of it because it disgusts you.
  
  But disgust should never be a basis for injustice and inequality.
• Hiccup wrote on 2010-10-05 18:13

  Quote from IceBlade;176086:

  
  I have to disagree, sexual preferences aren't acquired. If you say that then homosexuality must be acquired as well. You don't acquire an infinity for pain or liking lolicon or any of those sexual preference. It's something you discover about yourself, just as homosexuals discover that they find people of the same sex attractive. And if you're going to say that it's more development of your sexuality, then isn't homosexuality the same?
  

  
  Being gay is not a sexual preference. That is not how it starts, it starts in our genes. Just as you are genetically made up to like the opposite sex. All your views based off religion are acquired due to the surroundings you grew up in (ie parents making you go to church). We are genetically made like this yet society tells us otherwise which is why it takes us a while to figure out that were LGBT.
• Zid wrote on 2010-10-05 18:27
  Just to clear things up, abc33kr probably doesn't want to called a "homophobic" because of the stigma it carries (which he conveniently says is as stigmatic as being called "gay" back then). A term with a more neutral connotation is needed. "Disgusting" is not a good way to start.
  
  Second, I think he's uncomfortable with homosexuality (with his listed reasons), but he's tolerant of it. Just like how there are homosexuals who are uncomfortable pursuing or having the notions of a romantic and/or sexual relationship with the opposite sex, but are tolerant too. Would one think a homosexual would kindly take to being associated with "heterophobic" or "having disgust with heterosexuality"? I wouldn't think so.
  
  That being said, trying to change abc33kr so that he is not uncomfortable with the homosexuality even though he clearly stated in his later posts that he is tolerant with homosexuality is an unusual way to assure him that homosexuality is okay. It's not that different than, say, tolerating your parents' choice of watching (what you think is) a boring movie, but being forced to watch it with them.
• Chiri wrote on 2010-10-05 18:30

  I have to disagree, sexual preferences aren't acquired.

  
  
  For the most part, the sexual preferences that have been listed here are general attractions (physique, hair color) or fetishes (maid, bdsm), which for the most part seem to have a source of childhood memories, imprinting, or societal pressures.
  
  I sincerely doubt that people would be into loli guro maids with guns and guitars if they had not heard of it first and learned to appreciate it. Likewise, different cultures find completely different human attributes attractive-- things like long necks, tiny & distorted feet, extreme obesity-- which pretty much indicates these things are heavily based on society.
  
  What makes orientation different is that it exists despite any environmental factors to the contrary.
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-10-05 18:32

  Quote from Zid;176312:

  Just to clear things up, abc33kr probably doesn't want to called a "homophobic" because of the stigma it carries (which he conveniently says is as stigmatic as being called "gay" back then). A term with a more neutral connotation is needed. "Disgusting" is not a good way to start.
  
  Second, I think he's uncomfortable with homosexuality (with his listed reasons), but he's tolerant of it. Just like how there are homosexuals who are uncomfortable pursuing or having the notions of a romantic and/or sexual relationship with the opposite sex, but are tolerant too. Would one think a homosexual would kindly take to being associated with "heterophobic" or "having disgust with heterosexuality"? I wouldn't think so.
  
  That being said, trying to change abc33kr so that he is not uncomfortable with the homosexuality even though he clearly stated in his later posts that he is tolerant with homosexuality is an unusual way to assure him that homosexuality is okay. It's not that different than, say, tolerating your parents' choice of watching (what you think is) a boring movie, but being forced to watch it with them.

  
  
  Tolerance is a good start. We can't change everyone fully, but society can change with newer generations full of more loving and accepting people.
  
  It's happened before (with African-Americans and racism) and it will happen again. No doubt about it.
  
  Change is slow, but it's definitely coming. You can slow it down, but you can't stop it.
• IceBlade wrote on 2010-10-05 18:34

  Quote from Falsetto;176171:

  Oh, you can make such a lame excuse for the bible. I'm sure he was just 'looking' out for us based on those heavy metals by considering it an abomination. Just as well as giving us nifty fashion tips based on the clothing of the past.
  
  Hold on a moment, then why did he warn against orientation of the same gender? It turns out that all these ideas of a warning from 'God' turns out to be all very well out-dated. Just as it seems you have told me. So how on earth could I not disregard them when you told me yourself that we use such fancy fabrics now instead, and suddenly doctors are so aware of a shellfish's acidic nature but we still continue to eat them.

  
  Firstly my bible doesn't say Shellfish are an abomination, it only says they're forbidden. On the cloth it's not fashion tips, if you read on you'll see that it goes on about agriculture and other parts of life. If you read the King James version, it says wool and linen and not material. So it doesn't forbid the mix of any of our new fibers. There are other reasons why shellfish are ok now, other than technology. And I'll elaborate on that a bit later on.
  
  The reason homosexuality is prohibited it basic. Only a man and woman are allowed to get married, and since having intercourse outside of marriage is a sin. And since same sex couples aren't allowed to marry, so any intercourse between them will be a sin. God created a man and a woman to be each others companions and that's how he intend us to live.
  
  

  Quote from Cryosite;176196:

  In case it wasn't clear through the um.. passion with which Falsetto posted, lemme point out what is obvious to me as a fellow non-believer in the bible:
  
  Bible says being gay is bad. That makes being gay bad. Bible also says eating lobster is bad. So eating lobster is bad.
  
  If you are capable of rationalizing why one is ok now, perhaps say due to the changes in technology, then you are capable of rationalizing why the other is ok also. If you are not capable of rationalizing one, then you are not capable of rationalizing the other. Nowhere in the bible does it state that either of them are limited in duration as a bad thing, so any application of such a change is your own doing as a person.
  
  So pick one. A) I am capable of making changes to what the bible tells me is bad to reflect current technology (therefore it is ok to eat lobster, because advances in technology have rendered it safe, tasty, and even nutritious).
  
  B)The bible infallible, and I am in no place to make any changes. As vehemently as I protest against gays I should also protest Red Lobster, The Gap, and so on for their breaches to Levitical laws.
  
  C)I am a hypocrit. Being gay is bad because I say it is bad, and the bible happens to conveniently have words in it that agree with me. Other stuff is good because I say it is good, even though the bible says otherwise.

  
  Ok, lets go by your logic. So if shellfish are ok now you say being gay should also be ok now. So does that mean that murder, rape, theft, fraud etc are also ok now? The bible say all these things are bad as well.
  
  And it's not because of technology that shellfish is ok now, it's because of this:
  
  

  Mark 7:18 (NIV) "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?
  Mark 7:19 (NIV) For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

  
  So I don't really have to make a choice.
  
  

  Quote from Phunkie;176232:

  No one can come up with a good logical excuse to why being gay is bad. They never can.
  
  They always bring up religion, always bring up false statistics and always use stereotypes to bring down someone they don't entirely agree with.
  
  Face it, guys. There is no logical reason to be against homosexuality, just like there is no logical reason to be sexist or racist. It's your own judgment which makes you believe that someone else is inferior to you or "wrong."
  
  No one is wrong in this world, or inferior. Not even people born with mental disorders. They're just as human as you, so why discriminate them?
  
  You know why? Because it disgusts you. Just admit it, since we're all being honest here.

  
  Humans aren't logical beings so why would we need a logical reason for anything. Love and compassion isn't logical, it isn't logical to place someone ells before yourself, so why should anything ells be logical?
  
  Religion is part of a persons lifestyle and being and you can't really expect them to change that, because you don't agree with some of it. So I do think religion is a valid reason to think it's wrong, but does that give the person the right to persecute or discriminate against someone that doesn't agree with it or doesn't live by it? No it doesn't.
  
  God gives us all the choice to follow him or not, he gives us the choice to live our lives like we want to. It's not my place or anyone ells' to discriminate against anyone for picking a different path. Or to force them to follow ours.
  
  The Christians that discriminate and try to bring homosexual, none-believers or any other group that doesn't agree with them down, is not doing the work of God and should look at their beliefs again.
  
  Saying that people disapprove of homosexuality because it disgusts them, isn't really accurate. I could be against it even if it doesn't disgust me. I could very well be aroused by it and still think it's wrong. Me being aroused by it would be a sin in my own beliefs, but I'm just human and thus sinful by nature. My favourite quote would be fitting here "Let he who is without sin trow the first stone". None of us are perfect, and thus none of use can judge anyone ells.
  
  Everyone seems to think that because someone doesn't agree with something and doesn't approve of it, that it means they'll automatically be discriminating against them or try to bring them down. And that is just not true. I can disagree with you and still respect you as a human and threat you as an equal.
• Chiri wrote on 2010-10-05 18:35

  Quote from Zid:

  Second, I think he's uncomfortable with homosexuality (with his listed reasons), but he's tolerant of it. Just like how there are homosexuals who are uncomfortable pursuing or having the notions of a romantic and/or sexual relationship with the opposite sex, but are tolerant too. Would one think a homosexual would kindly take to being associated with "heterophobic" or "having disgust with heterosexuality"? I wouldn't think so.

  
  
  Homophobia for me is an irrational fear or distaste of gay and lesbian people.
  Abc hasn't really shown me that his fear is actually rational, but to give him the benefit of the doubt, he's simply homonegative in my mind.
  
  
  By the way, if I'm not Christian, I don't see why I have to be bound by a book that's over 2000 years old. The legal system should remain secular and be separate from the Bible or any other religious text. Divorce is largely disagreed upon by Christians, but they can just choose to not get divorces. It doesn't doesn't have to change them or their lifestyles.
• Hiccup wrote on 2010-10-05 18:42

  Quote from IceBlade;176320:

  blah

  
  
  And If I believe God isn't real?
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-10-05 18:45

  Quote from IceBlade;176320:

  Everyone seems to think that because someone doesn't agree with something and doesn't approve of it, that it means they'll automatically be discriminating against them or try to bring them down. And that is just not true. I can disagree with you and still respect you as a human and threat you as an equal.

  
  
  Thank you for that, really.
  
  However, I don't agree with religion's stance on the whole, "you can love everyone, but you just can't lie in bed with another man." Or have sex before marriage and whatnot.
  
  It's silly to me.
  
  You can be in love with another man (Bible doesn't condemn you for that), but you can't make love to that same man?
  
  Lots of hypocrisies in the Bible and therefore I disregard it. Should not play a significant role in anyone's life. There are Christians out there who advocate love and just love. You don't believe in Jesus, but are a good, kind-hearted person throughout your life? 'Course you're going to Heaven.
  
  That sort of stuff.
  
  An external presence such as God cannot choose what is right or what is wrong for us. We make our own rules and we should base those rules upon what is fair and what is not fair. Condemning people because of their sexual orientation is wrong. Let's not even bring the whole marriage deal into play here.
  
  If love is a sin, then it is one of the most beautiful sins that has ever existed. Love is beautiful, no matter in what shape or size. And that's what we should all advocate: love. Not hatred, not fear or injustice, but simply love.
  
  If there is a God, I believe Him to be all-loving, no matter what. I'm just sorry Christians blow ancient verses way out of proportion.
• Chiri wrote on 2010-10-05 18:47

  Quote from IceBlade;176320:

  I can disagree with you and still respect you as a human and threat you as an equal.

  
  
  :!!: I'm feeling some Freudian animosity.
• Intex wrote on 2010-10-05 18:49

  Humans aren't logical beings so why would we need a logical reason for anything. Love and compassion isn't logical, it isn't logical to place someone ells before yourself, so why should anything ells be logical?

  
  For example, love and compassion are not logical.
  Therefore humans are not logical beings.
  
  Good logic.
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-10-05 18:56
  Wow! Sorry, I just did the worst moderator fail of my life.
  
  I'll retrieve your post in a moment, IceBlade.
  
  Edit: Sorry! I was trying to reply to something you said, but I ended up editing it instead. It's back now.
• Byte wrote on 2010-10-05 18:58
  I'm a homophobe, but I don't really care as long as they don't try it with me(in real life). Otherwise, I'll let them go about their business, but if they decide to take it TOO seriously(Like saying "That's gay"), then, my blade of flaming is coming out to have a little chat :)