Homosexuality

[Tatterdemalion]

I know what you're thinking. You're asking "Do we really need this thread when we already have a Gay Marriage thread, and the topic has been done to death?"

I'm going to respond that yes, we do. Because there are quite a few issues that arise from time to time in that thread that have been ripe for discussion, but also off topic, due to the thread's limited scope.

So overall there was a question I had in some other thread that I really would like to know the answer to.

It goes something like this. Can someone explain to me how, when applied to everyone, not just the members of a single religion, the idea that homosexuals shouldn't date people of the same gender makes any sense whatsoever?

Yeah, I'm still wondering about that. Or overall any other thoughts on the subject i'd be interested to hear, in such a way that can finally be on topic. If there's anything to be said.

[mystra]

Marriage is an institution created by religion to further the procreation of the species. According to religion sex is ONLY for procreation and since only a man and a woman can produce offspring homosexuality is blasphemy.
Therefore there is no reason outside of a religious one.

[Tatterdemalion]

According to religion sex is ONLY for procreation

Not all religions, surely.

[mystra]

All the ones that matter to the mainstream majority.

[Noslo]

Simply being sexually oriented toward the same sex isn't enough to be blasphemy in itself. According to Leviticus 18:22, "A man shalt not lay with another man," states that two men can't have sex. This does not mean they can't be gay.

Also, this can be interpreted that it is okay for woman to sleep with one another as the Bible always seems to separate the two genders.

[mystra]

Also, this can be interpreted that it is okay for woman to sleep with one another as the Bible always seems to separate the two genders.

They do and they don't. There are parts where the species is considered 'man' as a whole.

[Tatterdemalion]

All the ones that matter to the mainstream majority.

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

[OverMind]

(I'm mentioning this purely for those that use the "As nature intended ..." argument)

In the animal world there are species that:

a) remain with a partner of the opposite sex for a long time, usually life-long (akin to marriage in the human world) (e.g. parrots)
b) have seasonal partners (no brainer here)
c) have sex for non-reproductive reasons (e.g. dolphins)
d) engage in homosexual behaviour (e.g. giraffes)

Excluding b), humans exhibit all of these activities.

[Tatterdemalion]

Excluding b)

Keep telling yourself that.

[OverMind]

Keep telling yourself that.

I assume you know an individual who changes "partners" not because of incompatibility, but for the sake of the season?

[MrsSallyBakura]

According to religion sex is ONLY for procreation

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

You're right, Tatter.

Catholicism says that sex is for procreation AND unity, and that one cannot be separated from the other. I'm sure other forms of Christianity believe something similar to this, if it's not exactly the same.

Just thought I'd point that out, so we're on the same page.

[Tatterdemalion]

I assume you know an individual who changes "partners" not because of incompatibility, but for the sake of the season?

Who doesn't?

[Tatterdemalion]

Catholicism says that sex is for procreation AND unity, and that one cannot be separated from the other. I'm sure other forms of Christianity believe something similar to this, if it's not exactly the same.

And not only that, but there are non-Christian religions too! Who'd have thunk it?

[MrsSallyBakura]

And not only that, but there are non-Christian religions too! Who'd have thunk it?

Well, I can't speak for them, so I didn't include them. :/

[mystra]

Catholicism says that sex is for procreation AND unity,

I guess you don't happen to know anything about traditional roman catholics. Marriages in the olde days had nothing to do with unity. Till this day traditional RC's abide by those rules.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I guess you don't happen to know anything about traditional roman catholics. Marriages in the olde days had nothing to do with unity. Till this day traditional RC's abide by those rules.

Show me, because that is not what I learned in any of my Catholic Theology classes in high school.

[mystra]

I can't really show you I can only tell you what I lived. I was raised traditional RC and my parents still are. It's what I was taught. Bear in minde there is a huge difference between modern day catholicism and traditional.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I can't really show you I can only tell you what I lived. I was raised traditional RC and my parents still are. It's what I was taught. Bear in minde there is a huge difference between modern day catholicism and traditional.

Fair enough. I still don't think that that was the Law, but rather a miscommunication of sorts. Even in my Theology class it was clearly explained and written on the board that sex was for procreation and unity, but some kid decided to start a fight about how he thought that it was stupid that the Church thought that sex was only for procreation.
I don't think this kid is stupid or anything, just wrapped around in his own thoughts.

Anyways, continue.

[Tatterdemalion]

I guess you don't happen to know anything about traditional roman catholics. Marriages in the olde days had nothing to do with unity. Till this day traditional RC's abide by those rules.

And how old are these old days? I'm just saying this because when you look at it, virtually everything we think of as "traditional" in the modern world started around the 18th and especially 19th centuries. That is to say, if you go back a few more centuries, let alone a thousand years, most cultural attitudes would seem absurd to us, not because they're out of synch with cultural evolution, but because they're generally much less restrictive than the more modern constructs that we've been taught to believe are the more historically "traditional" attitudes and ways of behaving.

So there's a difference between something being historical and being "traditional." Juist for the record.

For example, negative attitudes towards homosexuality are far more strict in the modern world than in any point prior to the 19th century or so. That is, if you look throughout history cultural attitudes towards homoeroticism (not to mention eroticism in general) have been more accepting, if not celebratory, than they were in more recent history. It wasn't until you had that tremendous wave of Puritan prudishness, which America claimed as its legacy, as well as Victorian sensibilities on the other side of the Atlantic, that this whole notion of homosexuality being something dirty or corrupt took such a strong hold in the public mind, along with more negative attitudes towards sexuality in general.

I mean, just look at the Renaissance, and its gay artists such as Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci. If that's not a return to traditional homoeroticism, I don't know what is. Not that there weren't still tremendous conflicts on such matters, not to suggest that at all, but still overall we see a very different attitude than what we're familiar with.

[OverMind]

Who doesn't?

I should have further clarified that, by b), the individual must be looking for a partner:
i) because of the season, no other time during the year
ii) the partner being seeked is temporary
iii) mating is usually preceded by an elaborate mating ritual common to the whole species
iv) with the intention of mating and successfully producing offspring, there's little to do with pleasure here
v) both partners are driven to do this by an inherent biological drive, there are no emotional factors

So, to answer your question, I don't know any person that follows a mating pattern commonly found in the animal kingdom.

For example, negative attitudes towards homosexuality are far more strict in the modern world than in any point prior to the 19th century or so. That is, if you look throughout history cultural attitudes towards homoeroticism (not to mention eroticism in general) have been more accepting, if not celebratory, than they were in more recent history. It wasn't until you had that tremendous wave of Puritan prudishness, which America claimed as its legacy, as well as Victorian sensibilities on the other side of the Atlantic, that this whole notion of homosexuality being something dirty or corrupt took such a strong hold in the public mind, along with more negative attitudes towards sexuality in general.

I presume you're talking about the Greeks here. The Greeks themselves even had constructs pertaining to homosexuality. For one, it was seen as more of a phase which was tolerated because it was assumed people would grow out of it. As with marriage in some parts of the world today, the ultimate goal was to have children who will inherit your property when you die.

Of course, the views of homosexuality varied between city states. The Spartans, for one, encouraged male bonding because it was thought to make them more passionate warriors (i.e. they're not only fighting for the polis, but for each other). Then there's pederasty in those city states that valued education. Here, we have borderline pedophilia where a sexual relationship was formed between a teacher and a student (both of the same sex).

It seems that, though the Western world inherited much of its secular institutions from the Greeks (through the Romans), we've taken our morality and ethics from a source a little more to the East; the Jews and the Christians.

[Tatterdemalion]

I presume you're talking about the Greeks here.

Actually I wasn't talking specifically about the Greeks, but that's another good example. Also the Japanese. And the Chinese. And Mesoamericans. And many others. But they're not Western, which is what I was getting at, so I'm not going to talk about them.

But since you meantioned the Greeks I might as well talk about them just a bit.

Then there's pederasty in those city states that valued education. Here, we have borderline pedophilia where a sexual relationship was formed between a teacher and a student (both of the same sex).


You know, I don't think it's fair to call pederasty borderline pedophilia. That is to say, the handful of things that we need to take into consideration are that the boys in such relationships are adolescent, as opposed to preadolescent, that although there was still social pressure surrounding the whole business such relationships were based on consent as opposed to coercion, and, most importantly, the fact that we're talking about a time period when it was commonplace, nay expected for people to begin sexual relationships at around the age of early to mid adolescence, often times with a considerably older partner.

Now, by modern standards this would bemore than questionable, but the modern implications of pedophilia were very much not present.

Also, I find that people sometimes, if not unintentionally, have something of a double standard with regards to age differences in historical relationships. That is to say, when talking about pederasty, and same-sex relationships the term "pedophilia" always comes up, whereas when looking at the history of inter-sex relationships throughout Europe, extenting into times far more recent than the ancient or classical world, when girls would be expected to marry at ages of around 14, often to someone twice her age, at the order of her father, and generally for social/monetary purposes, it suddenly ceases being pedophilia and turns into the holy and sacred institution of marriage.

The Greeks themselves even had constructs pertaining to homosexuality.

They had codes of conduct relating to relationships and sexuality between people, yes, but these related to both people of the same sex and people of the opposite sex.

For one, it was seen as more of a phase which was tolerated because it was assumed people would grow out of it.

How would homosexual relations be something you grow out of if the most dominant form of same-sex relationship was between an adult male and an adolescent boy?

As with marriage in some parts of the world today, the ultimate goal was to have children who will inherit your property when you die.

Naturally, but the Greeks certainly didn't consider a relationship with a woman to be somehow more appropriate or mature than a relationship with another male. If anything, the Greeks in amny cases valued males over females, aesthetically, politically and socially.

But as you said, it varied between city states.

It seems that, though the Western world inherited much of its secular institutions from the Greeks (through the Romans), we've taken our morality and ethics from a source a little more to the East; the Jews and the Christians

While I know what you're getting at, keep in mind that Greek philosophy with regards to ethics has still been studied a tremendous amount throughout the history of the European world.

But still, what I was actually getting at was a later time period, as you can see from the rest of my post, that while there have historically been stigmas associated with homosexuality in the post-Christian western world, popular attitudes, outside of the context of law and government, were still much less strict and persecutory than we generally imagine them to have been.

[Fat1Fared]

Tatterdemalion as someone who has lot of Japanese and Chinese friends, can say I do not know where you got this idea they were less anti-gay than we were in past, they were about same, if not worse

[Tatterdemalion]

Tatterdemalion as someone who has lot of Japanese and Chinese friends, can say I do not know where you got this idea they were less anti-gay than we were in past, they were about same, if not worse

No, in ancient Japan there was little tradition that established homosexuality as being immoral, nor was there any law against homosexuality, as opposed to the West where you not only had strong moralistic anti-homosexual docrines, namely from religious authorities, as well as laws against homosexual relations. Also, you had definite homosexual what-have-you with Japanese Buddhist monks, some of the more familiar military homosexuality during the feudal period, and the like.

Once Japan was opened up in the 19th century, it adopted a much more restrictive, Western attitude towards homosexuality that certainly did not exist in such strength before.

And while I'm not so familiar with China, I know that very strong anti-homosexual attitudes also took hold in China during the 19th century, along with other Western influences. While I know there were some religious prohibitions with regards to exclusively same-sex relations, prior to this they also didn't have strong moralistic anti-homosexual attitudes, or anti-homosexual legislation as we found in the West.

By the way, I have Chinese friends too. And I read.

[OverMind]

You know, I don't think it's fair to call pederasty borderline pedophilia. That is to say, the handful of things that we need to take into consideration are that the boys in such relationships are adolescent, as opposed to preadolescent, that although there was still social pressure surrounding the whole business such relationships were based on consent as opposed to coercion, and, most importantly, the fact that we're talking about a time period when it was commonplace, nay expected for people to begin sexual relationships at around the age of early to mid adolescence, often times with a considerably older partner.

Now, by modern standards this would bemore than questionable, but the modern implications of pedophilia were very much not present.

Also, I find that people sometimes, if not unintentionally, have something of a double standard with regards to age differences in historical relationships. That is to say, when talking about pederasty, and same-sex relationships the term "pedophilia" always comes up, whereas when looking at the history of inter-sex relationships throughout Europe, extenting into times far more recent than the ancient or classical world, when girls would be expected to marry at ages of around 14, often to someone twice her age, at the order of her father, and generally for social/monetary purposes, it suddenly ceases being pedophilia and turns into the holy and sacred institution of marriage.

I am, of course, looking at the past with a modern viewpoint. Even a consensual relationship between a youth and an adult today is considered pedophilia.


They had codes of conduct relating to relationships and sexuality between people, yes, but these related to both people of the same sex and people of the opposite sex.

Are you saying that the rules for homosexuality and heterosexuality were the same?


How would homosexual relations be something you grow out of if the most dominant form of same-sex relationship was between an adult male and an adolescent boy?

No one remains an adolescent forever, right? As I said, they considered it a phase.


Naturally, but the Greeks certainly didn't consider a relationship with a woman to be somehow more appropriate or mature than a relationship with another male. If anything, the Greeks in amny cases valued males over females, aesthetically, politically and socially.

But as you said, it varied between city states.

Yes. Even after getting married, no Greek male was ever obligated to be dedicated to a single woman. Assuming he didn't break the law (or get caught breaking them), he could have sex with prostitutes, call-girls, slaves, or freed women. I wouldn't be surprised if a few Greek men pursued relationships with other men given that the law couldn't stop them and, hey, with all these shades options present, why not try something new?

While I know what you're getting at, keep in mind that Greek philosophy with regards to ethics has still been studied a tremendous amount throughout the history of the European world.

But still, what I was actually getting at was a later time period, as you can see from the rest of my post, that while there have historically been stigmas associated with homosexuality in the post-Christian western world, popular attitudes, outside of the context of law and government, were still much less strict and persecutory than we generally imagine them to have been

Yes, I can agree to this. Homosexuality has always been present but its acceptance by whatever society was influenced by whoever was in power.

[Fat1Fared]

No, in ancient Japan there was little tradition that established homosexuality as being immoral, nor was there any law against homosexuality, as opposed to the West where you not only had strong moralistic anti-homosexual docrines, namely from religious authorities, as well as laws against homosexual relations. Also, you had definite homosexual what-have-you with Japanese Buddhist monks, some of the more familiar military homosexuality during the feudal period, and the like.

Once Japan was opened up in the 19th century, it adopted a much more restrictive, Western attitude towards homosexuality that certainly did not exist in such strength before.

And while I'm not so familiar with China, I know that very strong anti-homosexual attitudes also took hold in China during the 19th century, along with other Western influences. While I know there were some religious prohibitions with regards to exclusively same-sex relations, prior to this they also didn't have strong moralistic anti-homosexual attitudes, or anti-homosexual legislation as we found in the West.

By the way, I have Chinese friends too. And I read.

Tatterdemalion here you have mistook Law/rules for culture, they are part of it, not the whole, yes there was no written law, but it was still Tabboo

If go back far enough it was only tabboo in england not religious, but still it was tabboo

As for buddism, well I am not one, so cannot say 100%, but they consider things such as position, possession and joy without reason, blocks to enlightenment, so cannot see them accepting gayness, they are just lot less loud about telling others what to do

[Tatterdemalion]

Are you saying that the rules for homosexuality and heterosexuality were the same?

What I'm saying is that the Greek laws relating to sexuality were not, as they were in later Europe, used to restrict homosexual activity in a way that shows preference to hererosexual activity. While I'm not saying they were the same, I'm saying that they still existed for both types of relationships, and were not persecutory, or expressly anti-gay the way things like sodomy law were.

No one remains an adolescent forever, right? As I said, they considered it a phase.

Yes, but if it's between adult males and adolescent boys, then half of the people in such relationships are adults, as opposed to a relationship between two adolescent boys.

[Tatterdemalion]

Tatterdemalion here you have mistook Law/rules for culture, they are part of it, not the whole, yes there was no written law, but it was still Tabboo


I'm using law here because not only is it one of the most enduring records, but because a legal prohibition on something is one of the strongest expressions of disapproval from a society. That is to say, you said that these countries were just as, if not more anti-gay than Western societies, but I think it's safe to say that a society in which homosexuality can be punished by something like imprisonment or, in some more extreme cases, torture or execution would likely be more anti-gay than a society in which there are no prohibitions on homosexuality whatsoever.

But no, law isn't the only record by which to judge. If you look at ancient Japanese and Chinese literature and art you also see a prominent homoerotic trend. So we have homosexuality accepted in practice, homosexuality accepted in law, and homosexuality accepted in the arts. How does that amount to a taboo?

And as far as Buddhism, the way it works out is that Japanese Buddhist monks are, or at least were at the time, prohibited from having sexual relations with women, which I think ties in to what you were saying about enlightenment and the like. There was no doctrine against Buddhist monks having sexual relations with other men, however, and since such relations were not overall considered immoral by the religion as a whole, or the public at large, that's what they did.

I can't speak for modern Buddhism, but that is how it went in the region and time period.

[Fat1Fared]

well I will have to look more into buddhism for that, because my research of it has never shown anything of this nature, most of it goes for, if action is not good for whole it is not good, so surely gayness would be considered a selfish pleasure, and so not allowed, I may be wrong like said

However in japan gayness was just not accepted as whole and like with beaten warriors
it was an honor suicide for you, not a law just what was expected, which in old japan had lot more power than law

As for China, well they just had as social tabboo and if someone was gay they would hide it, if couldn't hide it personally, then they were socially out caste

PS even punishment less, still not accepted

[Tatterdemalion]

As for China, well they just had as social tabboo and if someone was gay they would hide it, if couldn't hide it personally, then they were socially out caste


No, in India you would be out caste. Get it? Caste?

Anyway, do you have a source for these claims? Because in all of my reading on the sbject, I've found nothing to suggest what it is that your saying, about homosexuality being a strong taboo in ancient Japan and China, especially not to the extent of pariahood and honor suicide, whereas I've come across quite a bit to suggest the contrary.

So do you have a source for these claims? Maybe a book, or even a website, or something of that nature? Thanks.

[Fat1Fared]

oh dear, i seem to have tort you seem bad habits lol

No just poeple who lived in japan and China talking about it

[Tatterdemalion]

No just poeple who lived in japan and China talking about it

Well, there you go right there. The entire point I've been trying to make is that oftentimes attitudes towards what is "traditional" say more about our own modern views than they do about actual history. So my point about ancient China and Japan stands.

[Fat1Fared]

yes but sources are just as bias, if you believe most history books, victorians, were so pissy, they put cloth over legs of pianos

All that was rubbish and as far as I can tell from reading of their cultures, it was not majorly rised point, which leads me to conclude that if accepted there would be more on it

[Tatterdemalion]

yes but sources are just as bias, if you believe most history books, victorians, were so pissy, they put cloth over legs of pianos

All that was rubbish and as far as I can tell from reading of their cultures, it was not majorly rised point, which leads me to conclude that if accepted there would be more on it

That's the second time you've given an excerpt from QI which, as entertaining a show as it is, is not the sort of show you should use to do research.

And please, don't insult me by suggesting that I can't do proper research. If you have any evidence to suggest that homosexuality was a taboo as you claim it to be in ancient China and Japan, please show me. Otherwise, all you're doing is spouting off hot air.

Your only argument is that you've never read anything to suggest that homosexuality was prominent in Japan and China. So you're not even saying that evidence doesn't exist (and I know it does exist, because I've read about it), you're just saying that we should assume it's not significant simply because you yourself haven't read anything on the subject.

Which doesn't count.

[Fat1Fared]

no I did one QI reference, but what was second, time (ps the info on there is true as well)

PS I have not said you cannot do proper research, but you must take all history with pinch of salt and realise that all sources are bais, so best you can do is try to make a balance view, with both Primary and Secondary sources of info

PS I also realise you mis-understood what meant by out-cast, didn't mean kicked out, just lost respect

As for my research, I have found little on it, so best way to find info is ask people who know about their OWN culture, as no offense it is arrogant to think we know more about China and Japan than people who really come from that culture, because we read bais western books about them

Ps have you got any reseach to show, as seem to have same problem there, PS not really asking for sources here, as think this is for fun, not real essay or anything, just making a point

[Revenge]

let gays be gays.

don't go off insulting them, beating them, etc. as some people do.

[Tatterdemalion]

Ps have you got any reseach to show, as seem to have same problem there, PS not really asking for sources here, as think this is for fun, not real essay or anything, just making a point

Well, to begin with there's a book called The Construction of Homosexuality, by David F. Greenberg, which deals with the history of th idea of homosexuality throughout the world, and there's another book, but its exact title eludes me for the moment.

Also, on the subject of the whole Buddhism business, I did find this article that addresses the matter.

http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html

Anyway, moving on

As for my research, I have found little on it, so best way to find info is ask people who know about their OWN culture, as no offense it is arrogant to think we know more about China and Japan than people who really come from that culture, because we read bais western books about them

Hey, I'm not saying that I know more about Japanese or Chinese culture than people from China or Japan, but keep in mind that there is a difference between culture and history. Simply coming from a culture doesn't make you an expert on the details of cultural attitudes that existed hundreds to thousands of years ago. I'm an American, for example, but that doesn't make me an expert on American history. I mean, I'm somewhat interested in American history, so I'd like to think I have at least a basic understanding (which is more than can be said for a lot of people), but at the same time, I'm not going to suggest that somehow I'm a reliable or authoritative spokesperson for the history of American culture simply because I live here. And anything that I am familiar with regarding American history is from study of what you call the "biased Western sources," not just a general knowledge of history that comes from being American. And that beind said, I'm not going to say that a non-American author on American history is somehow less qualified or accurate in his work simply because he isn't American. To be honest, half of what Americans assume to be historical isn't even accurate. That's the way history works, in a particular culture populaf attitudes towards history say a great deal about the way a culture sees itself, but much less about the way things actually happened.

Also, you make it sound as though somehow Western sources are less biased than Eastern sources. Keep in mind that Japan and China have both over the past century had tremendous propaganda campaigns involved with remolding the modern view of history, that to this day still can be observed. There are still Japanese history textbooks which suggest that the Rape of Nanking never happened.

So yeah, I don't think I'm overreaching.

[Fat1Fared]

[QUOTE=
Hey, I'm not saying that I know more about Japanese or Chinese culture than people from China or Japan, but keep in mind that there is a difference between culture and history. Simply coming from a culture doesn't make you an expert on the details of cultural attitudes that existed hundreds to thousands of years ago. I'm an American, for example, but that doesn't make me an expert on American history. I mean, I'm somewhat interested in American history, so I'd like to think I have at least a basic understanding (which is more than can be said for a lot of people), but at the same time, I'm not going to suggest that somehow I'm a reliable or authoritative spokesperson for the history of American culture simply because I live here. And anything that I am familiar with regarding American history is from study of what you call the "biased Western sources," not just a general knowledge of history that comes from being American. And that beind said, I'm not going to say that a non-American author on American history is somehow less qualified or accurate in his work simply because he isn't American. To be honest, half of what Americans assume to be historical isn't even accurate. That's the way history works, in a particular culture populaf attitudes towards history say a great deal about the way a culture sees itself, but much less about the way things actually happened.

Also, you make it sound as though somehow Western sources are less biased than Eastern sources. Keep in mind that Japan and China have both over the past century had tremendous propaganda campaigns involved with remolding the modern view of history, that to this day still can be observed. There are still Japanese history textbooks which suggest that the Rape of Nanking never happened.

So yeah, I don't think I'm overreaching.[/QUOTE]

First, like said i do not want any info really, just think you are taking way to serious

Secondly, I never said Eastern writers were less bais, there not, however your sources are western and so though probably not bais on purpose (which in this case eastern writers probably are), but like you said there is different history and culture, and so when someone writes from outside culture, they cannot help but misunderstand it, so though the people from that culture may also be bais at lest they understand it.

My point was basically, when reading history, aspecially on socially subjective points, do not be so trusting to your sources just because have nice stamp of approval on them.

PS you also won't know more about their history ether, as you will have been tort American history like I was tort English

Though I did do my A-Level coursework on History of Chinese Revolution

And it was in A-level history they teach you about the bias in historical writing, a good example is Romans on English, the English spent the last few hundred years thinking we were mindless savages before Romans came because of Roman writing, however it turns out we were one of more advanced European countries, just no where near Romans and so the Roman writers just put us down as Savages

[Tatterdemalion]

Secondly, I never said Eastern writers were less bais, there not, however your sources are western and so though probably not bais on purpose (which in this case eastern writers probably are), but like you said there is different history and culture, and so when someone writes from outside culture, they cannot help but misunderstand it, so though the people from that culture may also be bais at lest they understand it.

My point was basically, when reading history, aspecially on socially subjective points, do not be so trusting to your sources just because have nice stamp of approval on them.

That's a nice disclaimer, which should probably apply to all research, not just historical, but at the same time you're making it sound as though there is no such thing as a reliable source, which is just not true. That's the entire point of history and anthropolog. If it wasn't possible for sources to be objective, comprehensive and authoritative, there would be no point in studying historyor anthropology in the first place.

I appreciate your concern that sources be reliable, I really do, but at the same time that doesn't justify dismissing all sources simply because they exist. I'm sure we agree thatthere is an objective way to conduct research, as well as an objective way to interpret research. Likewise, if we consider, as you said, a combination of primary and secondary sources, multiple sources and multiple instances of the same conclusions drawn from the same sources, as well as the whole peer review system, we see that it is indeed possible for sources to be academically reliable and authoritative.

I'm not saying that people don't have a tendency to look at things through a cultural lens. But at the same time, you have to admit that people still can distance themselves from their own cultural perspective in order to research, analyze and publish information in an objective way. Because if you don't. then you're essentially dismissing all of Western academia as biased hogwash. Which it's not.

[Fat1Fared]

Not western, worldwide lol, but yes I am being hard on it, your right, however this is because of the area we are looking at, why'll no source is full proof, in socially sensitive or culturally subjective areas, they are worse

And I have come across nothing to say your point and when dealing with areas like gayness in society, that is because usually only done in their own books and usually the people who write those books are trying to prove something, whether it is for or against,

cannot say about your books as not read them, but general rule is use it, but remember it can only be taken so far

I failed that coursework because even though the essay and info A grade standard, I was not hard enough on my sources

PS no one can ever be unbias, you give me someone unbias, I will give you golden egg

Also history is not 100% way to judge whether to do something anyway, though we can learn from it, our ansesters where not as godly as like to think. I mean we use to drink and shit in same river and never use to have sewers, are these good ideas

[Tatterdemalion]

I mean we use to drink and shit in same river and never use to have sewers, are these good ideas


You know who did have a very comprehansive system of sanitation? The Japanese.

[Fat1Fared]

lol, very true, aspecially with hair I believe

I was on about English <doh>

[Kanariya674]

..So yeah. About homosexuality.

I think Revenge basically said it. Let gays be gays. Someone mentioned it earlier that as living creatures, both us and other animals exhibit homosexuality. It's just something we as creatures do. It's been around for...a long time, and I really don't think it's that big of a deal. To hurt or kill someone for liking the same sex is unjustifiable in my books. That's like denying ourselves as part of nature. Quite impossible.

[Fat1Fared]

I agree with revenge

and concur with your avate Kan (ps who is she)

[Kanariya674]

and concur with your avate Kan (ps who is she)

Who is who?

On another note, about homosexuality. It really bothers me to see some people go to these places, whether it be churches or camps, and try to make themselves 'not gay'. I mean, you could probably fool yourself for a little while, but I don't think it's possible you can't be 'gay' anymore.

It's kind of sad to watch it happen. To watch people go to these places, and want to be 'fixed'...it's depressing.

[Fat1Fared]

sorry meant your avatar, who is she, as looks like a model I know of

However, Kan you are right, but if society tells poeple something is wrong, then some will try to get rid of it, even if it is part of them

However it is getting better, only 20 years ago they were using shock therapy on gay poeple, which to us now will seem almost barbaric

But still only 20yr's

[Kanariya674]

Oh, it's Ayumi Hamasaki.

Well, I believe it's getting better. My generation, at least the people I know around me, are pretty open-minded on the idea of homosexuality. It'll get better as time passes, but there will always be those several people who will refuse the idea. It'll be harder considering the topic is homosexuality, because religion ties in with it. And once religion ties in, you really have to be careful. It can get pretty ugly.

I mean, some people still believe blacks are an inferior race. So that's an example right there, of some ideas just staying around, despite it being proven blacks really aren't any different at all. It's even better when some whites will refuse to believe that we all originated in the area of Africa.

>>

[Fat1Fared]

Oh, it's Ayumi Hamasaki.

Well, I believe it's getting better. My generation, at least the people I know around me, are pretty open-minded on the idea of homosexuality. It'll get better as time passes, but there will always be those several people who will refuse the idea. It'll be harder considering the topic is homosexuality, because religion ties in with it. And once religion ties in, you really have to be careful. It can get pretty ugly.

I mean, some people still believe blacks are an inferior race. So that's an example right there, of some ideas just staying around, despite it being proven blacks really aren't any different at all. It's even better when some whites will refuse to believe that we all originated in the area of Africa.

>>

Thought so, my friend is major fan of her, he even has her on facebook lol, I think she is one Misa is based on personally lol

Anyway, yes it is getting better and poeple are getting more liberal, however if looking at history has tort me anything it is that we like to go round in circles and it would not take much to turn back other way, still at lest we are going right way at min

[Tatterdemalion]

Anyway, yes it is getting better and poeple are getting more liberal, however if looking at history has tort me anything it is that we like to go round in circles and it would not take much to turn back other way, still at lest we are going right way at min

But remember, you can't trust history, because all sources are biased.

[Fat1Fared]

oh come now, stop being pedantic, you what I meant

You cannot trust history in socially sensitive areas

And history is bias, that does not main it is all useless and there is not at lest basic truth of what happened in there, just means you must remember, to treat them carefully and look at all angles

[HolyShadow]

Personally, I dislike gays. I find what they do together behind closed doors to be quite disgusting, am revolted by what they may do in public, and feel extremely uncomfortable when they even lay their eyes on me, whether they be male or female.

However, despite my dislike, I accept their right to do so. I think that reasons like, "It's wrong because we say so," are childish and reek of false superiority. I believe that because homosexuality exists in nature, and we humans are animals, then it stands to reason that homosexuality can happen in us naturally, in some cases. (Especially since we as humans have a sense of personal desire with our heightened intelligence, which can lead to this and that)

However, I don't approve at all of pretenders. If a girl is kissing another girl just because she can, I absolutely hate her and would like to spit on her face, because she's nothing more than trash to me. Homosexuality is something that shouldn't be explored just because. It has to come from the heart... or, in some cases, the pants. Experimenting, as a concept, annoys me, as well.

While I do use homosexuality to harass others and make others feel uncomfortable, that's different, because it's funny (to me, and no one else).

Now, cross-dressing... that's something I don't mind. I'd love to wear a dress and look pretty.


This is my opinion. Don't flame me. I'm allowed to have my opinion.

[Fat1Fared]

Holy though I do not agree with some of your points, you are right you are allowed them, as your opinion is part of being human, however if you are allowed to hate gays and girls like Kan who as you put it Experiment, they should be allowed to hate for hating their beliefs kind of like catch 22

PS i know this is an Inarticulate way of putting it, so if anyone else can do it better, feel free

[lilliejean]

While I do use homosexuality to harass others and make others feel uncomfortable, that's different, because it's funny (to me, and no one else).

An opinion is fine, but this involves other people so it becomes something else.
I don't see anything wrong with kissing someone because you can, as long as it's not just to grab attention. (Irritating is probably a better word for it than "wrong").
The most homophobic setting I've known has been primary school- though that was probably down to ignorance. So overall I think most people don't care about it nowadays.

[Tatterdemalion]

Personally, I dislike gays. I find what they do together behind closed doors to be quite disgusting, am revolted by what they may do in public, and feel extremely uncomfortable when they even lay their eyes on me, whether they be male or female.

Well that's a pretty silly reason to dislike someone. I mean, to think of same sex intercourse as disgusting, although rather an odd perspective, is still your own sentiment and one you're entitled to, I don't see how that logically leads to disliking people who are homosexual.

I mean, I for one think string beans are disgusting. Really, I've always absolutely hated the thought of eating string beans. At the same time, I don't dislike anyone who does eat string beans. Because that would just be silly.

And don't feel so uncomfortable. Not that I'm saying you're not allowed to, it's just a bit of helpful advice. Because you'll probably be a lot happier if you learn to come to terms with your own sexuality and the sexuality of others.

However, I don't approve at all of pretenders. If a girl is kissing another girl just because she can, I absolutely hate her and would like to spit on her face, because she's nothing more than trash to me. Homosexuality is something that shouldn't be explored just because. It has to come from the heart... or, in some cases, the pants. Experimenting, as a concept, annoys me, as well.

Keep in mind that experimentation is the key to discovery. There's a tremendous difference between experimenting and pretending. Experimenting is trying something new, whereas pretending is doing something purely for the sake of making a misleading impression on others.

Pretending, which you can say is bad, is a form of dishonesty. Experimentation is a form of exploration. Like Green Eggs and Ham.

Two completely different things.

[HolyShadow]

Well that's a pretty silly reason to dislike someone. I mean, to think of same sex intercourse as disgusting, although rather an odd perspective, is still your own sentiment and one you're entitled to, I don't see how that logically leads to disliking people who are homosexual.

I mean, I for one think string beans are disgusting. Really, I've always absolutely hated the thought of eating string beans. At the same time, I don't dislike anyone who does eat string beans. Because that would just be silly.

And don't feel so uncomfortable. Not that I'm saying you're not allowed to, it's just a bit of helpful advice. Because you'll probably be a lot happier if you learn to come to terms with your own sexuality and the sexuality of others.



Keep in mind that experimentation is the key to discovery. There's a tremendous difference between experimenting and pretending. Experimenting is trying something new, whereas pretending is doing something purely for the sake of making a misleading impression on others.

Pretending, which you can say is bad, is a form of dishonesty. Experimentation is a form of exploration. Like Green Eggs and Ham.

Two completely different things.

It's not odd. It's normal. I accept gays. I just don't like what they do, and am a bit biased toward having them as friends.

Be that as it may, as long as a person is kind to me, I'm kind to them, and that goes for homosexuals as well.

As for coming to terms with sexuality... I wouldn't mind wearing a bright pink dress to school and carrying a purse. It would make me look pretty, and not any less straight, since I'd still constantly talk about the glory of the female body.

And my definition of pretending isn't quite as wholesome as you try to make it. Pretending means a guy kissing another guy just to get back at daddy because daddy would hate them or something like that. Or, even more so, just to make themselves feel like they have no problem with homosexuality. I've seen these little stories around me, and I felt like telling them to go fuck off. These are not good reasons, yet they're serious about them.

Experimenting can be bad. Suppose a person isn't gay, but their first kiss goes to a man. They find that they were actually straight. I think they'd regret that kiss their whole life. Don't treat experimenting like it's all good. Sometimes, searching for something new can have disastrous consequences.

Also, I hate it when people go, "You're entitled to your own viewpoint... but (your viewpoint is wrong and) here's a (, or even more accurately, the right way to look at it, because the way you think is wrong, rather than just) different way of seeing this."

Or, at least that's the vibe I get from a lot of people in talks like these.

[Tatterdemalion]

Experimenting can be bad. Suppose a person isn't gay, but their first kiss goes to a man. They find that they were actually straight. I think they'd regret that kiss their whole life. Don't treat experimenting like it's all good. Sometimes, searching for something new can have disastrous consequences.

Yes, but suppoes a person is gay, but their first kiss, and every kiss thereafter, goes to a woman/women, because they're afraid of experimenting. Which is worse? Keep in mind, kissing a person one time isn't that much of a problem. So you kissed a guy once, and later on you decided you weren't that into it. Big deal. It's not exactly something to lose sleep over.

On the other hand, the consequences of never experimenting could be much worse, if you go all or much of your life without exploring something that really is for you simply because you're afraid of experimentation.

So yes, experimenting is good. If something works out for you, that's great. If it's not for you, then don't do it anymore and move on. But either way, you can't know until you try. So unless you're experimenting with something dangerous, like cocaine, then no, there's no real harm in it.

Also, I hate it when people go, "You're entitled to your own viewpoint... but (your viewpoint is wrong and) here's a (, or even more accurately, the right way to look at it, because the way you think is wrong, rather than just) different way of seeing this."

Or, at least that's the vibe I get from a lot of people in talks like these.

Odd, I hate it when people act as though the fact that they're entitled to their own views means that others shouldn't disagree with them.

Yes, you're entitled to your own viewpoint. And I'm equally entitled to tell you if I think something you're saying is complete bollocks. And I'm entitled to tell you in detail why I think so. Then once I'm done, you can listen to what I'm saying, think about it, and then decide whether or not anything I've said has any relevance to or influence on your ideas.

You have the right to say and think anything you want, but that right doesn't make you immune to criticism.

[HolyShadow]

Yes, but suppoes a person is gay, but their first kiss, and every kiss thereafter, goes to a woman/women, because they're afraid of experimenting. Which is worse? Keep in mind, kissing a person one time isn't that much of a problem. So you kissed a guy once, and later on you decided you weren't that into it. Big deal. It's not exactly something to lose sleep over.

On the other hand, the consequences of never experimenting could be much worse, if you go all or much of your life without exploring something that really is for you simply because you're afraid of experimentation.

So yes, experimenting is good. If something works out for you, that's great. If it's not for you, then don't do it anymore and move on. But either way, you can't know until you try. So unless you're experimenting with something dangerous, like cocaine, then no, there's no real harm in it.
I agree with what you say to some extent, I must admit.

Though, I can say this: No two situations are exactly the same. While what you say could happen, it depends on the person. What you think may not be a big deal may be an incredible problem to someone else.

Fear is a good thing. It prevents us from doing stupid things. After all, if you don't fear driving with your ass, you're much more likely to do that. Fear is there to protect us, and if we're afraid of experimenting, then maybe experimenting really isn't for us.

And as I said, experimenting isn't always good. While it may be good in specific circumstances, depending on the person, it may also be something to kill yourself or others over. You never know.

______________

Odd, I hate it when people act as though the fact that they're entitled to their own views means that others shouldn't disagree with them.

Yes, you're entitled to your own viewpoint. And I'm equally entitled to tell you if I think something you're saying is complete bollocks. And I'm entitled to tell you in detail why I think so. Then once I'm done, you can listen to what I'm saying, think about it, and then decide whether or not anything I've said has any relevance to or influence on your ideas.

You have the right to say and think anything you want, but that right doesn't make you immune to criticism.
While I say all of this, I do agree with the validity of most of what you say, but basically, this part of your post seemed as unnecessary as the part of mine that you replied to there, so I may as well say unnecessary things with this.

What I was trying to say with the part of my post you replied to with this was basically that I don't mind if a person says, "Here's another way of looking at it."

I also don't mind if they say, "Your opinion is completely wrong, and this is the right way of looking at it."

But I dislike when a person says, "Here's another way of looking at it." and means "Your opinion is wrong."

Criticism helps me reevaluate things, despite how difficult it is for me to flat-out change my perspective. Different factors here and there make me more prepared for this and that.

[Tatterdemalion]

Fear is a good thing. It prevents us from doing stupid things. After all, if you don't fear driving with your ass, you're much more likely to do that. Fear is there to protect us, and if we're afraid of experimenting, then maybe experimenting really isn't for us.

Yes, but keep in mind that you initially said that experimenting was a bad thing. And if someone is fain to experiment, then clearly they are not afraid of it.

And overall I'd say that while fear may be good in some cases, fear can also be irrational. For example, driving with your ass isn't a good idea, but what if you're afraid of, say for example, flying in a plane? Or going to the dentist? These are things a great deal of people are afraid of, but that doesn't mean that they're bad ideas, or that no one should do them. Oftentimes it's wiser to try to overcome a fear, for better or worse, than to submit to it.

And as I said, experimenting isn't always good. While it may be good in specific circumstances, depending on the person, it may also be something to kill yourself or others over. You never know.

Someone who goes on a killing spree because they kissed another boy has problems. I mean, that's certainly not a reasonable reaction, not by a long shot.

[HolyShadow]

Someone who goes on a killing spree because they kissed another boy has problems. I mean, that's certainly not a reasonable reaction, not by a long shot.

You're assuming that all humans are reasonable creatures. This is definitely not the case.

[redpheonix]

I have nothing against Homosexuality, I do not have any friends who are but if I did i would love them just the same, ya know :)

[Apple]

same here and i love shows about gay relationships too, its something that is between the person and it is not for us to judge

[DaJacksterN]

What I don't understand is why the issue of homosexuality is just that: an issue. Like, if you're not into that fine, leave. Don't intrude.
As for those that use these defences:
a) Bible: It's a 2000 uear old book written by GOATHERDERS, people. Let's get a little more modern here.
b) It is not beneficiary to reproduction: Old people can't reproduce. Are we going to deny them the right to have sex? How about people who have endured some kind of trauma and are infertile?
c) It's not natural: Homosexuality occurs in higher primates, dolphins, geese, lions, pigs, etc etc. It is used as a way to control the population AND serves as a way of strengthening the social bonds in a society.

All in all, doesn't look like an issue to me. Let each his/her own.

[xellos88]

A)Well since people believe the rules in the bible are God's rules, to them "getting a little more modern" shouldnt really be an option.
B)First time i hear that's an argument used against homosexuality.
C)Yeah it's natural that should be used as an argument agains homosexuality.
There isnt really any real reason against homosexuality, as far as i know it became something "wrong" because of religion.

[HolyShadow]

What I don't understand is why the issue of homosexuality is just that: an issue. Like, if you're not into that fine, leave. Don't intrude.
As for those that use these defences:
a) Bible: It's a 2000 uear old book written by GOATHERDERS, people. Let's get a little more modern here.
b) It is not beneficiary to reproduction: Old people can't reproduce. Are we going to deny them the right to have sex? How about people who have endured some kind of trauma and are infertile?
c) It's not natural: Homosexuality occurs in higher primates, dolphins, geese, lions, pigs, etc etc. It is used as a way to control the population AND serves as a way of strengthening the social bonds in a society.

All in all, doesn't look like an issue to me. Let each his/her own.
Let's kill the human race. We've been here thousands of years. Lets get a little more modern, people.

Those who use the second excuse are assholes. Sex is here for two purposes: Enjoyment and reproduction. They're ignoring one reason to support their own agenda.

The reason it's not natural is because it isn't beneficial to reproduction. I don't particularly care what animals do behind closed doors-- or in the park, as the case may be. It's still not natural. Unless two male humans can make a baby with absolutely no outside help, this isn't going to change. However, the second reason I stated vetoes that.

The only thing that I hate is how people try to discredit the bible, and how people support it.

The reason people hate it is because many that support it use it only as a way to satisfy their own lust to suppress others. The bible has one clear message: Be. Nice. To. Others. That's it. Nothing more.


There isnt really any real reason against homosexuality, as far as i know it became something "wrong" because of religion.
It got wrong because of people, not religion. Religion is an idea created by man.

[xellos88]

It got wrong because of people, not religion. Religion is an idea created by man.
Same thing really. You could say people started the inquisition, the crusades, the witch trials etc.. or you could say that it happened because of religion.

[Fat1Fared]

Let's kill the human race. We've been here thousands of years. Lets get a little more modern, people.

Those who use the second excuse are assholes. Sex is here for two purposes: Enjoyment and reproduction. They're ignoring one reason to support their own agenda.

The reason it's not natural is because it isn't beneficial to reproduction. I don't particularly care what animals do behind closed doors-- or in the park, as the case may be. It's still not natural. Unless two male humans can make a baby with absolutely no outside help, this isn't going to change. However, the second reason I stated vetoes that.

The only thing that I hate is how people try to discredit the bible, and how people support it.

The reason people hate it is because many that support it use it only as a way to satisfy their own lust to suppress others. The bible has one clear message: Be. Nice. To. Others. That's it. Nothing more.


It got wrong because of people, not religion. Religion is an idea created by man.

Holy, I'm not religious and to be honest, I couldn't give two f((KS what a group who have killed and harmed more poeple than anything else in history of man thinks, and so to say not helping human race, well it doesn't effect it in true, and so, if their not hurting anyone leave them to it, I mean isn't that suppose to be one of teachings of religion, acceptance

Now, yer so they ain't making kids, that is good thing in truth, when got families making 36 kids in countries like england (That is true, one man has that many kids, he is more harmful because has too many kids, which rest of us have to support, as he has no job, normally I try to be liberal, but why are gays getting battered for not making kids, when this guy is making 36 and not looking after one

It has been proven, too many kids are being born, and living to long, so I think a few gay, won't be too much of problem, to survival of human race, so leave them to it, I mean Monks don't have sex, are going to have go at them for not making kids

[DaJacksterN]

Good arguments on all parts.

What it all boils down to for me is: Why do people CARE? Like, WHY do people who are NOT gay give a rat's ass? If I am in a relationship with a fellow woman, how does that affect some religious nut down in the States? It doesn't. Yet he's still down there trying to take away my rights and my dignity.

Don't spoil other peoples' fun. It's not hurting anybody.

[HolyShadow]

Good arguments on all parts.

What it all boils down to for me is: Why do people CARE? Like, WHY do people who are NOT gay give a rat's ass? If I am in a relationship with a fellow woman, how does that affect some religious nut down in the States? It doesn't. Yet he's still down there trying to take away my rights and my dignity.

Don't spoil other peoples' fun. It's not hurting anybody.
Well, I don't want two girls making out in front of me. It's very distracting. I could be driving, then two hot lesbians start fondling each other. I look at them, and BAM right into the car in front of me.

:( ITS NOT FAIR.

Of course, if there are two guys making out, I'll be so busy trying to look away that a car could blindside me.

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

gay/ straight.
what does it matter.
People like what they like.
why are some people homophobic?
there's no need to bash.
What goes on in the privacy of someone's home shouldn't make any difference.

[DaJacksterN]

Well, I don't want two girls making out in front of me. It's very distracting. I could be driving, then two hot lesbians start fondling each other. I look at them, and BAM right into the car in front of me.

:( ITS NOT FAIR.

Of course, if there are two guys making out, I'll be so busy trying to look away that a car could blindside me.

LOL. xD Another point that is interesting; men seem to enjoy and not mind lesbianism. They cannot stand gay men. Many women make very good friends with gay men. Most (my friends are all 100% cool with it) don't seem to mind if a girl they know is homosexual.

In conclusion, most of the time when people think "Ew, gay, disgusting" it is MEN thinking only gay MEN are gross.

Conclusion: Interesting.

[darkarcher]

Good arguments on all parts.

What it all boils down to for me is: Why do people CARE? Like, WHY do people who are NOT gay give a rat's ass? If I am in a relationship with a fellow woman, how does that affect some religious nut down in the States? It doesn't. Yet he's still down there trying to take away my rights and my dignity.

Don't spoil other peoples' fun. It's not hurting anybody.

Because if you think something is morally wrong you want to make an effort to prevent other people from being dragged down into it. Just throwing that out there.

By the way, while you're on the subject of being open-minded and accepting of other people's viewpoints, I'm going to ask that you be careful about the comments you have been making concerning Christianity. Everyone has an equal say here so please don't degrade the held views of others.

[DaJacksterN]

Morally wrong...according to a 2000 year old goatherder book. Yup.

It also says that we should have slaves, kill people for
1. Having interracial relationships
2. Lying with a woman during her menstration period.
3. Our children for backtalking.
Also that having our daughters raped is better than a son raped, that people who shave are sinful and God looooves animal sacrifices.

I believe that these old memes are in need of being discarded if we are ever going to retain a civilized society.


Never said anything against Christianity or Christians. Just said it was a 2000 year old goatherder book, which is what it is. They have proof of that. Whether or not it was guided by some 'divine hand' or whatever, leave that up in the air.

I also said religious NUT, not the average Christian. All of my friends are Catholic and they are peferectly okay with me. Moderate and FANATIC are two different things, and I am bashing the fanatic because they are horribley misguided people who I feel do not command respect because they themselves show no respect...

[darkarcher]

Morally wrong...according to a 2000 year old goatherder book. Yup.

It also says that we should have slaves, kill people for
1. Having interracial relationships
2. Lying with a woman during her menstration period.
3. Our children for backtalking.
Also that having our daughters raped is better than a son raped, that people who shave are sinful and God looooves animal sacrifices.

I believe that these old memes are in need of being discarded if we are ever going to retain a civilized society.


Never said anything against Christianity or Christians. Just said it was a 2000 year old goatherder book, which is what it is. They have proof of that. Whether or not it was guided by some 'divine hand' or whatever, leave that up in the air.

I also said religious NUT, not the average Christian. All of my friends are Catholic and they are peferectly okay with me. Moderate and FANATIC are two different things, and I am bashing the fanatic because they are horribley misguided people who I feel do not command respect because they themselves show no respect...

I was not arguing the validity of the moral belief, just the fact that it exists and it's enough of a reason for many people to oppose that position in general.

And I was referring more to the fact that most of your posts are dripping with condescension toward Christianity. I'm just asking that you be more polite is all.

[DaJacksterN]

Okay, fair enough.
I suppose then that I am arguing on the behalf of people who feel that where these 'moral concerns' stem from is not really valid. i.e The Bible.

Dripping? Hmm.... I don't feel I've been rude though; at least not enough that I'm being 'impolite.' I think people are a right bit too sensitive about their dear religion being mocked anyways. It's a bit of a 'hush hush, you might offend' basis that shouldn't be present in a serious debate, especially about ethics. (Which os the core of the debate on homosexuality.)

[darkarcher]

Okay, fair enough.
I suppose then that I am arguing on the behalf of people who feel that where these 'moral concerns' stem from is not really valid. i.e The Bible.

Fair enough. I was merely answering that question you posed early that seems to be thrown out there a lot.

Dripping? Hmm.... I don't feel I've been rude though; at least not enough that I'm being 'impolite.' I think people are a right bit too sensitive about their dear religion being mocked anyways. It's a bit of a 'hush hush, you might offend' basis that shouldn't be present in a serious debate, especially about ethics. (Which os the core of the debate on homosexuality.)

I was using hyperbole to make a point. It's not "dripping" per se, but it's enough to offend more sensitive people.

Also, I think being easily offended is not limited to any particular group. You'll find people from every viewpoint who take great offense to even small jabs.

[DaJacksterN]

Don't worry, I got the dripping metaphor.

Well, you see, I feel that anyone who comes into a discussion like this should be prepared to have their viewpoints picked apart, as that is what this type of debate is all about. I came into this thread, am homosexual, and am fully prepared to have people oppose my viewpoints, perhaps even to a very serious degree. But I will not be offended, because I understand that that's what happens in a debate. Any religious person who is too soft to handle something thrown at their religion should not be in this kind of discussion.

I will, of course, try my very best not to go overboard. I critisize no one in particular and do not degrade anyone for their beliefs, just some of the ideologies behind the beliefs themselves.

Besides, no one should really get mad. I know that this is all for the sake of discussion--I hold nothing against you, darkarcher, for contradicting me even slightly.

[melrocks]

My opionion is like dajack's...why the hell is it an issue?
They're the same as hetrosexuasl people, just attracted to the same-sex. Whyis it even a problem?

People say god and religion, well i beleive in god, but that he loves EVERYONE. not just hetrosexuals ...and if we still listended to the bible everyone would be marrying 3+ wives and be stoning them all, so whatever to the bible....

And if we're talking about gay marriage, I don't understand why that's an issue either. Two gays that are in love and committed, have that same right as two straight people in love to marry. I'm hoping that whole issue will be become no big deal like interacil marriage. Anti gay marriage people kind of use the same arguments as they did for anti interracil marirage anyway, so hopefully two homosexuals in love and getting married won't be a big deal anywhere.

[HolyShadow]

I suppose I'm just a bit homophobic, but I disagree with most of you. It would bother me quite a bit for reasons I can't quite understand, but at the same time, my morals and logic tell me that you're right.

It seems so full of lust. I don't approve of lust being something that should be extremely public. Despite the way I act, seeing a commercial on television advertising strippers kinda makes me uncomfortable. Now just imagining it as guys... ugh.

It's fine if you're really open-minded, but open-mindedness isn't something you should force too much, because there's people like me who can't seem to bring themselves to think the same way as you.

Really, as long as I don't have to see it, I don't care, but the problem is that there are those that are very open with it.

[DaJacksterN]

Unfortunatly most of the gay population has attained the label of being a very open, lustful community. And, while it is only a sterotype, I can understand where people get the impression--there are some very 'open' people out there.

Now, I could possibly say the same thing to a hetero couple. While gay people may be open, we gotta admit that straight people aren't exactly 'discreet' and 'pure' either. There are TONS and TONS of instances where people perform indecency, be it straight or gay.

Perhaps if we had been raised in a society where it was accepted people wouldn't shudder at the sight of two gay people because of an image of 'right' and 'not right' that was ingrained since childhood.

[HolyShadow]

Unfortunatly most of the gay population has attained the label of being a very open, lustful community. And, while it is only a sterotype, I can understand where people get the impression--there are some very 'open' people out there.

Now, I could possibly say the same thing to a hetero couple. While gay people may be open, we gotta admit that straight people aren't exactly 'discreet' and 'pure' either. There are TONS and TONS of instances where people perform indecency, be it straight or gay.

Perhaps if we had been raised in a society where it was accepted people wouldn't shudder at the sight of two gay people because of an image of 'right' and 'not right' that was ingrained since childhood.
It's not so much right or not right.

I don't mind heterosexual openness as much as homosexual openness. With the two guys, it disgusts me, which I don't want. With two girls, it arouses me, which I also don't want. With one guy and one girl, it's balanced.

I see way too many people pretending to be gay to get attention, so they'll kiss and fondle and stuff. That pisses me off waaaaay more than if two people are actually gay.

[DaJacksterN]

Interracial marriage/ relationships were thought to be (and still are, by some bigoted people) horrible, unclean, and disgusting. Most people would probably shudder even at its mention, and certainly would not stand to let it continue.

Nowadays, because of the way people have been brought up, if they saw a black man kissing a white girl, sure it may look a little out of the ordinary, but most people wouldn't start freaking out, pointing fingers and shouting its 'sinfulness' to the whole world. We no longer deny these people the right to love and have relations with the person they share strong feelings towards.

All I'm saying is that, if someone grew up in an environment where it was considered no big deal, people would treat it as just that: No Big Deal, and wouldn't get so disgusted.

It may not be a perfect analogy, but it's pretty close.

[Sechmet]

It always hurts when I read somewhere that homosexuality goes against the nature. Where the hell does this accusation come from? The most basic point of a man and a woman being together is to create offsprings. But the relationship between two persons is NOT about procreation exclusively, for god's sake. Every human being instinctively searches for someone they feel secured with, someone that fulfills them, someone that makes them enjoy their life MORE. And when I find that in someone that is of the same sex, so be it. It's not something I can change, anyway.

Of course, searching for a partner is not always about the sentiment intention. We want pleasure and sexual satisfaction as well. And how can we achieve that if we don't find our partner attractive in our perception? Everyone has a different, subjective vision about beauty and ideal.

As for the heterosexuals and their judgment.. People have their own image about homosexuality, you may try to be reasonable with them, but in the end their opinion won't change. Or maybe they may think their opinion changed, but deep inside they still feel the same.

This is point of view of someone that's atheist, by the way.

[Aerodynamic]

Marriage is not a right on three grounds:

1.If it was a right that means that I can sue a girl because she turned down my proposal.

2. If marriage was a right, then the government could shut down a church/synagogue/whatever, thus leading to first amendment and property rights violations.

3. Speaking of rights, no where in the US Constitution does it say marriage is a right.

It's also worth pointing out how gay marriage advocates preach tolerance, but then portray Christians as crazy people.

Also, there is no evidence of a gay gene, thus debunking the whole "homosexuality is natural" idea. What's next, an adultery gene?

And no, I don't "hate" homosexuals. If they want marriage, they'll have to do it via civil unions and out of the church.

[HolyShadow]

Here's my fixed, most logical point of view.

Sexual relations have two purposes: Procreation, and fun.

The reason homosexuality seems so wrong is that procreation is impossible without outside sources. The reason that seems so wrong is because it makes it seem like fun is the only reason for sexual relations between two men. When sexual favors are granted merely for fun, it's lust. Now, gay marriage seems wrong because if they can't procreate by themselves, it would be a union of lust, which is a sin, and against god.

However, the thing most people forget is that love is far more important than procreation. Rape technically wouldn't be lustful, nor orgies, if love wasn't important, because they can very easily be for the purpose of procreation. I'm sure many women have gotten pregnant from these things I mentioned.

In this logic, love vetoes the allegation that gay marriage is a union of lust, and therefore against God, and shouldn't be committed in His name. So, in short, as long as there is love, procreation is a moot point.

Now, the idea that it's natural shouldn't even exist. It isn't natural at all. I highly believe that homosexuality isn't decided at birth. We have free will. Homosexuality is a choice. Big whoop. If you need it to be natural and forced on you at birth in order to justify it, then maybe you doubt your own love for your partner, and shouldn't be with him/her anyway. There's no room for doubt in matters of the heart.

[DaJacksterN]

Here's my fixed, most logical point of view.

Sexual relations have two purposes: Procreation, and fun.

The reason homosexuality seems so wrong is that procreation is impossible without outside sources. The reason that seems so wrong is because it makes it seem like fun is the only reason for sexual relations between two men. When sexual favors are granted merely for fun, it's lust. Now, gay marriage seems wrong because if they can't procreate by themselves, it would be a union of lust, which is a sin, and against god.

However, the thing most people forget is that love is far more important than procreation. Rape technically wouldn't be lustful, nor orgies, if love wasn't important, because they can very easily be for the purpose of procreation. I'm sure many women have gotten pregnant from these things I mentioned.

In this logic, love vetoes the allegation that gay marriage is a union of lust, and therefore against God, and shouldn't be committed in His name. So, in short, as long as there is love, procreation is a moot point.

Now, the idea that it's natural shouldn't even exist. It isn't natural at all. I highly believe that homosexuality isn't decided at birth. We have free will. Homosexuality is a choice. Big whoop. If you need it to be natural and forced on you at birth in order to justify it, then maybe you doubt your own love for your partner, and shouldn't be with him/her anyway. There's no room for doubt in matters of the heart.

Regarding the 'gay relationships are only for the lust therefore sinful', I throw this in again: what if two infertile people wanted to get married? Would they be denied? Using that same argument, their lovemaking would only be for the pure pleasure, since they both KNOW that there won't be any babies that come from their actions. So what they are doing is sinful. Perhaps no one over the age of 60 should be allowed to get married, since they cannot procreate either.
Not being able to procreate does not equal a purely lustful relationship. Married couples use condoms and pills all the time to keep from getting pregnant. That sex is purely 'for fun'. This also applied to young peoples who go out and have sexual relationships; EVERYONE'S done that, no one is pure.
Those people who do engage in such actions are not all sinful, just doing what comes naturally. Just the same as hetersexuals, homosexuals can get the urge to just go out and find a mate for a night, have some fun. But it is also possible to feel for someone deeply, and have a unionship built on love, though they cannot procreate.

I find it interesting that someone who is NOT homosexual can say with such confidence that we're all just pretending to be gay, that it is our choice/ How do you know? You aren't us! By that reasoning YOU should be able to force yourself to like men (or women, I'm unsure what gender you are) on will. You should be able to feel homosexual urges if it's so easy to just pick who you are attracted to. Can't do it? Neither can we.

And IF it were a choice, why the hell would anyone choose to be gay when we're treated like shit for it!? It really doesn't make sense for some 16-year-old teenager to come out, say he's gay (because it's his choice) be teased for it for years, be harrassed, spit on, punched, and eventually commit suicide because he can't handle it. But it was 'his fault,' because he was 'choosing' to be gay.

Doesn't. Add. Up.

Take it from a person who actually IS gay, and actually HAS experienced many of these things: it's not a choice. I don't know if it's genes or some mental thing or what, but it is definaly NOT my choice.

[lilliejean]

Love is not just sex and procreation. If unions of love are ones where the couples want to procreate as well as have fun then there are many unions of lust, including heterosexual couples.
Now, the idea that it's natural shouldn't even exist.
I've been interested in this debate for a while now. So far a gene hasn’t been found (that would wrap things up almost too neatly). A difference to one area of the brain may have been found, but with out any reliable research backing that up that doesn’t count as an argument.
If it’s not natural then, the natural heterosexual feelings of attraction should still be there, you can choose not to act on them, but you would still know about it. So only those in denial would call themselves gay. I hope that makes sense, also please understand that I don’t think it is down to choice or that homosexuals are in denial, I think orientation just differs for some people like many other traits do.
Would free choice mean that we are all potentially bisexual? Just speculating here, and I suppose you can choose not to be, so no, it seems, unless that doesn’t stop it from being potential.
Whether marriage is a right or not, that doesn't say who can get married, that's another set of decisions.
It's also worth pointing out how gay marriage advocates preach tolerance, but then portray Christians as crazy people.
Without proof of this, this isn't a valid point.
No evidence doesn't debunk a theory, it just doesn't prove it either. Indirectly comparing it to adultery doesn't help. Some personality traits seem to be inherited as well as learnt, homosexuality could be something similar- not a personality type but something that comes about in the same way.
A lot of speculating here, which comes from how we don't know everything yet.

[darkarcher]

EVERYONE'S done that

Logical fallacy: bandwagoning.

Anyway, everyone carry on as you were.

[DaJacksterN]

Hey Jackster, just out of curiosity, what do you find attractive in another female as a lesbian?

Uuuh...Well, that's a little hard to put in words. Usually I can just see someone and kinda know. But, I think what really gets me is a nice symmetrical face, long hair, and probably a small figure. (Not necessarily really skinny, just...petite frame.)
Yeah....

Logical fallacy: bandwagoning.

Anyway, everyone carry on as you were.


@Darkarcher: Not meant to be an argument saying that everyone should just jump on that bandwagon as in, "Hey everyone, marijuana is cool, everyone's doing it--let's go smoke some!"
I meant that everyone seeks it out because it is such a natural part of our instincts. Just like masturbation is considered 'sinful' and 'wrong' under the Church, but c'mon...everyone's done that. (At least by later teen years.)
And if you are one of those rare, rare few who have not: wtf man. Wtf.

[HolyShadow]

Regarding the 'gay relationships are only for the lust therefore sinful', I throw this in again: what if two infertile people wanted to get married? Would they be denied? Using that same argument, their lovemaking would only be for the pure pleasure, since they both KNOW that there won't be any babies that come from their actions. So what they are doing is sinful. Perhaps no one over the age of 60 should be allowed to get married, since they cannot procreate either.
Not being able to procreate does not equal a purely lustful relationship. Married couples use condoms and pills all the time to keep from getting pregnant. That sex is purely 'for fun'. This also applied to young peoples who go out and have sexual relationships; EVERYONE'S done that, no one is pure.
Those people who do engage in such actions are not all sinful, just doing what comes naturally. Just the same as hetersexuals, homosexuals can get the urge to just go out and find a mate for a night, have some fun. But it is also possible to feel for someone deeply, and have a unionship built on love, though they cannot procreate.

That's exactly what lust is. Sexual desire without associated feelings of affection.

Stop getting so defensive and look at what I said logically. SEX FOR FUN AND ONLY FUN IS LUST. There is no other way to put it. Look up the definition of lust. Now, as I said, when you introduce love into the picture, it isn't lust any more.

I find it interesting that someone who is NOT homosexual can say with such confidence that we're all just pretending to be gay, that it is our choice/ How do you know? You aren't us! By that reasoning YOU should be able to force yourself to like men (or women, I'm unsure what gender you are) on will. You should be able to feel homosexual urges if it's so easy to just pick who you are attracted to. Can't do it? Neither can we.I can honestly say that flirting with men is absolutely no big deal to me. If you payed attention to my actions around narutostarwars, you could see that. I've flirted with men several times, and I'm not gay. Know how I know? No matter how many times I look at porn, only girls have that effect on me.

And IF it were a choice, why the hell would anyone choose to be gay when we're treated like shit for it!? It really doesn't make sense for some 16-year-old teenager to come out, say he's gay (because it's his choice) be teased for it for years, be harrassed, spit on, punched, and eventually commit suicide because he can't handle it. But it was 'his fault,' because he was 'choosing' to be gay.I live in Vermont, Gay Central. If I were to ask 10 girls what their sexual preferences are, I guarantee all ten would say bisexual.

Doesn't. Add. Up.

Take it from a person who actually IS gay, and actually HAS experienced many of these things: it's not a choice. I don't know if it's genes or some mental thing or what, but it is definaly NOT my choice.You're right, there. However, it's not forced, either. It's a psychological condition. Maybe you're a masochist. Who knows? You're saying something you have absolutely no proof of.

[Tatterdemalion]

Keep in mind, this whole "unnatural" accusation is nonsense, along with this notion of "free will."

There are some people who will swear that sexual orientation is biological, determined at or before birth. There are others who will swear it's congenital. And there are still others who will insist that sexual orientation is an acquired trait. And all of these people would be wrong because, while there is some scientific inclination towards a biological origin and there is ongoing research in that area, there is no conclusive evidence favoring any one high above the other.

That being said, no matter which of these it is, for none of them is it "unnatural." Keep in mind, unnatural means not existing in nature, created by man, hence the name. Not only does homosexuality occur in nature, n situations free of human intervention, but there is no point at which sexual orientation is the product of a conscious decision on the part of anyone. Defining sexial orientation as one's physical and romantic interest in people of a particular gender, there is no point where the human makes a decision.

Now, many will say "but humans have 'free will.'" By this they mean that humans may be homosexual, but that they can try to suppress this, and therefore should. And that's the biggest irony of all, isn't it? To take feelings that occur on their own, interests that occur on their own, emotions and thoughts that occur on their own, and to attempt to suppress them, to shut them out, contrary to every emotional and physical inclination you have...now THAT is what I call unnatural.

[Tatterdemalion]

Also

It's also worth pointing out how gay marriage advocates preach tolerance, but then portray Christians as crazy people.

Keep in mind tolerance isn't the same as acceptance. That is to say, you can be tolerant of Christianity while still being very critical of it, and its subscribers. Not only are not all same-sex marriage advocates anti-Christian, but of those who are, it's not as though most of them are saying that people shouldn't be allowed to be Christian. Just as tolerance towards same sex marriage would involve accepting it and allowing it even if you don't agree with it or support it, tolerance towards Christianity requires no more.

To be tolerant towards Christians, all you need is to accept that they should be allowed to believe whatever they believe, practice as they practice, and shouldn't be discriminated because of it. You don't have to support them, you don't have to agree with them, you don't even have to like them.

So yeah, tolerance is just that, tolerance. That's it.

[Tatterdemalion]

Humans are probably the most sexual creatures on the planet, and if dogs can explore sexuality beyond its biological purpose (procreation), then you better believe humans will do it too.

Look, humans are far from the most sexual creatures on the planet. Must I mention bonobos?

But in any case, you brought up the whole notion of sex being used beyond its "biological purpose." But that's just it. Why do people assume from the beginning that procreation is the only biological purpose of sex?

Have you considered that perhaps another biological purpose of sex is pleasure? You know, that pleasure isn't something that humans invented, but that it's something natural, that is just as important as everything else that we do?

I mean, think about it. In some way or another, we humans, and to an extent all species, live for pleasure. Every day of out lives, whether it's by eating a tasty meal, or sitting in a comfy chair, or listening to music we enjoy, we seek out pleasure all the time. Now, food, of course, as well as rest have other purposes, but why shouldn't we assume that the pleasure we get out of them is just as important as the nutrition or the recuperation?

There's the notion that what's natural is only what is absolutely necessary to live, which is silly, but even if that's the case, then think of it this way: If you were to deny a person all pleasure, take away their senses, take away their emotions, and let them not ever feel anything positive again, would that person be alive in any meaningful sense of the word? I think not.

There's this idea that nature wants us to live and procreate, and survive, and that any pleasure we may get out of it is our own invention as humans. Which seems like a pretty screwed up mindset to me. Ever considered that it's just as natural for us to enjoy ourselves as it is for us to eat, sleep and have sex? That makes more sense than anything.

[HolyShadow]

Also



Keep in mind tolerance isn't the same as acceptance. That is to say, you can be tolerant of Christianity while still being very critical of it, and its subscribers. Not only are not all same-sex marriage advocates anti-Christian, but of those who are, it's not as though most of them are saying that people shouldn't be allowed to be Christian. Just as tolerance towards same sex marriage would involve accepting it and allowing it even if you don't agree with it or support it, tolerance towards Christianity requires no more.

To be tolerant towards Christians, all you need is to accept that they should be allowed to believe whatever they believe, practice as they practice, and shouldn't be discriminated because of it. You don't have to support them, you don't have to agree with them, you don't even have to like them.

So yeah, tolerance is just that, tolerance. That's it.
YOU MAKE COMPLETE AND TOTAL SENSE.

So yeah. Just wanted to say that.

Just to be clear, by the way, I'm christian and am an advocate for same-sex marriage. Despite all of my beliefs in gays and where their desires come from, I also believe that if two people wish to form a union based on love, they should be allowed to, and encouraged to. In fact, I'd say that people who are religious nuts and think gays are an abomination are really the abominations themselves. Honestly, if they want people to end up in heaven, they should be accepting all people and loving them as their brothers, not telling them that God basically hates them. And if they don't want these homosexuals in heaven, then they're the ones that should end up in hell, for they're twisting the lord's messages to fit their own design.

At least, this is my opinion of the matter.

[TPishek]

Just to get my own two cents in on the whole "natural" debate...

Some animals, such as dogs, goats, and cows, will use sexual behavior as a way to prove their dominance. This often results in "homosexual" mounting that is actually not; there is no arousal involved, and the animals are just establishing their pecking order. However, other animals, such as horses, will not do this. That is important for my point, which is that I happen to know a Lesbian horse. She was born, raised, and trained in the breeding barn where I work. She was brought up alongside and under identical conditions to other foals who grew up to be perfectly heterosexual. She has full and half-siblings on both her mother's and father's sides who are heterosexual. In all other concerns she is a perfectly normal horse, both behaviorly and physiologically-- she has feminine features, behaviors, and characteristics, she cycles normally, and she has no irritability or mood swings that would suggest unbalanced hormones. As far as the psychology end goes, what you see with horses is pretty much what you get; they are innocent, and they really don't care about "going against society" or whatever gay people are supposedly doing subconsciously. The only thing at all unusual about her at all is that she likes girls. A lot.
Now, that to me is a pretty strong argument that homosexuality is a natural occurrence.

[HolyShadow]

Just to get my own two cents in on the whole "natural" debate...

Some animals, such as dogs, goats, and cows, will use sexual behavior as a way to prove their dominance. This often results in "homosexual" mounting that is actually not; there is no arousal involved, and the animals are just establishing their pecking order. However, other animals, such as horses, will not do this. That is important for my point, which is that I happen to know a Lesbian horse. She was born, raised, and trained in the breeding barn where I work. She was brought up alongside and under identical conditions to other foals who grew up to be perfectly heterosexual. She has full and half-siblings on both her mother's and father's sides who are heterosexual. In all other concerns she is a perfectly normal horse, both behaviorly and physiologically-- she has feminine features, behaviors, and characteristics, she cycles normally, and she has no irritability or mood swings that would suggest unbalanced hormones. As far as the psychology end goes, what you see with horses is pretty much what you get; they are innocent, and they really don't care about "going against society" or whatever gay people are supposedly doing subconsciously. The only thing at all unusual about her at all is that she likes girls. A lot.
Now, that to me is a pretty strong argument that homosexuality is a natural occurrence.
Anything that occurs in nature is natural.

Humans occur in nature.

Humans created religion.

Religion is natural.

Therefore, everything associated to religion is natural.

A senior citizen building an ark and gathering two of every animal is natural.

...lolwut?

Let's try that again.

Anything that occurs in nature is natural.

Humans occur in nature.

Stephen Colbert is human.

Therefore, everything associated with Stephen Colbert is natural.

Having a public colonoscopy on cable tv is natural.

...LOL.

_________________________________

Now, ignoring that bit of childishness, they could be strictly platonic feelings.

[DaJacksterN]

@JSWiggz: No problem bud.

@TPishek: LOL. I dunno why that was funny to me, it just was. Good example though, in all seriousness. And the horses don't seem to mistreat her, right? Like, shun her away from their society? They probably don't even care at all.

Good points made by the last few users--pleasure is natural, not a human creation. You can tell that sentient animals have emotions, and will react by whimpering or acting sadly in a displeasuring circumstance, or joyful and full of life in a pleasuring one.

And unfortunately, many religions automatically say that anything that causes pleasure is sinful. (Most likely as a tactic to control the common people.)
Overindulging in anything is not healthy for you, it's true. But marrying knowing that neither partner can procreate does not guarantee that both participants will be having wild sex romps every night. They could just as likely live quietly, making love from time to time, but not in an overindulging way.

Now, thinking that something is 'gross' or 'unnatural' is, again, something you're brought up with. I'm pretty sure that no one thinks this is unnatural, but still, here's an example of upbringing shifting the way you perceive things:
In my house, we've always been very open. Like, we can talk about anything. ANYTHING. This makes for a much more comfortable environment. However, many of the questions I ask pertain to subjects nearly every other 15-year-old out there would never dare ask their parents. (And don't go thinking 'scandal!' 'Perverts!" either. We are a perfectly normal family who isn't afraid to speak our minds on any subject.)
Why then, are these subjects akward to talk about for others? ? Because they've been brought up to think these things are gross, and wish to speak about them with no one. Does that mean the subjects really are wrong and gross? No. Just the upbringing that has taught us to fear and try to hide many of the most beautiful things about ourselves and our lives.

Just the same as others are brought up ti think the questions are wrong, society is still, for the most part, brought up to think homosexuality is wrong. But if we could change this indoctrination, I am sure that we could all live in acceptance, with no one getting 'grossed out' but the few bigots who remain.

[Fat1Fared]

Jack, I agree, if go away from my main agruement here which is what is problem and sense when did religion have real moral high ground (read other comments to understand,)

we can go onto this is it natural agurement then, well if sex is just for making kids, and that is all were allowed to do it for, then surely this means, the only things we can EVER do, are THINGS which are needed basic natural needs/survivial, and nothing else is ALLOWED.

if this is true, why can humans ever do anything other than natural actions of survivial, what would be point of have sentient thought at all, if all we did was what we did as a mindless animals (not saying all animals mindless, but just following surivival instint is)

Now I don't believe in god, but surely if he is real and we can go past fact he seems to be a strange and even vindictive creature, and past fact, why make gayness, if only going to hate it.

Lets ask this question, why give us any sentient thought and anything, other then what need for natrual surivivial, if all allowed is natrual survivial anyway.

[lilliejean]

Anything that occurs in nature is natural.

Humans occur in nature.

Humans created religion.

Religion is natural.

Therefore, everything associated to religion is natural.

A senior citizen building an ark and gathering two of every animal is natural.

...lolwut?
As you've seen, trying to explain it in an almost mathematical x=y, y=z so x=z way doesn't always work in real life. Also, saying everything occuring in nature like homosexuality is natural doesn't need several steps of logic, just the two. This is different from your example where about five steps are taken from:
- Anything that occurs in nature is natural.
to
-A senior citizen building an ark and gathering two of every animal is natural.
If it took five or so steps of logic to explain why homosexuality was natural, then it would seem a bit overdrawn and riddiculous, like your example shows. As it doesn't, you can't compare the two reasonings.

[Tatterdemalion]

I did not say, nor did I mean to imply pleasure of any sort is an "unnatural" phenomenon. However, I will have to disagree with you about the purpose of sex. The primary function (biologically speaking) of sexual intercourse is procreation. Sexual pleasure in and of itself does not serve a biological purpose. Note that I say biological, not natural. Pleasure (physical or emotional) is without a doubt a natural sensation. In my opinion, sexual pleasure is a natural means (or incentive rather) to a biological end. Sex for pleasures sake (whether it be gay, straight, masturbation, blow up doll, etc.) is just an indulgence, like overeating.

But on what do you base that assumption. Again, pleasure in any form and pleasure in many forms is just as important to our existence, biologically and psychologically speaking, as eating and procreating.

You're saying that sexual pleasure doesn't serve a "biological" purpose. What I'm saying is that pleasure is a biological purpose. That the purpose of sex is pleasure just as much as it is procreation, perhaps more so.

That is, think of it this way. Pleasure and procreation are both natural, that we agree o. Both are biological, as both are experienced by our bodies physiologically. Both are important, at a very basic level. So how is it that we only treat one of them as being essential to our existence, whereas the other is seen as an "indulgence"?

[DaJacksterN]

Actually, I believe that pleasure is a very important and essential part of our species' survival, as well as displeasure. An example of each: Sure, we could have sex without pleasure. But who would want to? It'd just be some flesh slapping around, so what? The need for pleasure and sensation is what drives us, gives us that urge to find a mate. Without the prospect of reward, the craving for it is not there, and the species could risk not reproducing enough. The more mating goes on, the better chance for survival.

The same can be said for displeasure: Pain itself is a displeasure. Our body purposefully triggers the negative feelings to tell us "Hey buddy, don't put your finger on that hot stove again, or you could burn it right off. So to make sure you don't do it again, here's some very unsettling pain."
Pleasure drives us to do what we need to survive, displeasure keeps us from doing things that could kill ourselves.

[TPishek]

Now, ignoring that bit of childishness, they could be strictly platonic feelings.

Well, not to be blunt, but if you'd ever seen this horse going after another mare you'd be pretty sure it wasn't just platonic. O_o;
Plus that would be completely unheard of in the equine world. Horses show affection by grazing together and grooming each other. Emmy did all those things too, but if another mare came into heat-- especially the one pony in particular-- look out.

@TPishek: LOL. I dunno why that was funny to me, it just was. Good example though, in all seriousness. And the horses don't seem to mistreat her, right? Like, shun her away from their society? They probably don't even care at all.

No, they were perfectly friendly with her, treated her just like any other horse. Now, if she got horny and started really harassing one of them, she'd get chased off for a while, but that's just reasonable. They'd have done the same to a stallion who was giving them unwanted attention.

[DaJacksterN]

Seems like a pretty darn good example of natural homosexuality to me then. And the animals don't seem to mind at all. Interesting. Thanks for bringing that up, TPishek.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying we should all jump around and act like animals, since that would no longer function in a civilized society. It does, however, say something about how nature works and what we should recognize as something that works, albeit it being uncommon. Different doesn't always mean bad.

[DaJacksterN]

I'm not sure how fixed you are on your position, or how much you may agree with me, but I'll say this: At least some pleasure is essential for our survival. Without pleasures we would cease to have emotions, as they are reactions that go hand-in-hand if something is pleasing or displeasing. If we did not seek this out we would be like mindless robots, or insects, who do not care or give a thought either way,

Now, I think the job and murderer examples you provided are a bit off. Yes, they are not pleasureful, and we may hate having to do it, but that is because the need to survive overrules the need for pleasures or displeasures in tight circumstances. You can guarantee that if that worker could find a more interesting, fun job, he would take it. Why? Because he seeks out pleasure in his work. If the person being forced to kill were granted the decision to kill or not to kill, they would not. Why? Because they seek out pleasure, which comes from the relief of not having to kill.

Survival may be top priority, but without enjoyment in our lives we would go insane. That's what depression and suicides result from--the loss of a perception of pain or pleasure, feeling disocnnected and totally worthless without any happiness to look forward to.

[HolyShadow]

Okay, now this brings up an interesting point.

Pedophilia happens in nature. My female dog of 12 or so constantly goes after my male dog of two.

Then why, pray tell, isn't pedophilia acceptable in human terms?

A few reasons I could think of have viable solutions to them that could negate the idea that it's unacceptable.

The same goes for murder and rape. I'm sure these things happen in nature. Then why are they unacceptable? If we're going to look at homosexuality as a wonderful, acceptable thing simply because it happens in nature, why not these things? Any thoughts?

[DaJacksterN]

Okay, now this brings up an interesting point.

Pedophilia happens in nature. My female dog of 12 or so constantly goes after my male dog of two.

Then why, pray tell, isn't pedophilia acceptable in human terms?

A few reasons I could think of have viable solutions to them that could negate the idea that it's unacceptable.

The same goes for murder and rape. I'm sure these things happen in nature. Then why are they unacceptable? If we're going to look at homosexuality as a wonderful, acceptable thing simply because it happens in nature, why not these things? Any thoughts?


I'm pretty sure that most dogs have reached puberty by the age of 2 and already screte the hormones saying that they are ready to mate. You don't see any dogs going after puppies. Technically, a person in our society of 12-14 is also ready to mate. By nature's terms, at least. However, in our society we may be physically ready to mate, but not mentally. We, unlike the dogs, must worry about so much more than just raising a family--we must think about education, our career, etc. So that it why being impregnated at age 12 is looked down upon, albeit it being perfectly fine according to nature.

Ah, I addressed the second point already. Yes, it is true that simply because the animals do it does not mean it's alright for us to do it. The difference between murder and rape, and loving someone of the same sex, however, is vastly different. The difference is, in the latter, no one is hurt. No one's dignity is hurt, physical body bruised or mental capacity shattered for life. Consentual relations between two adults in the privacy if their bedroom hurts no one.

[HolyShadow]

I'm pretty sure that most dogs have reached puberty by the age of 2 and already screte the hormones saying that they are ready to mate. You don't see any dogs going after puppies. Technically, a person in our society of 12-14 is also ready to mate. By nature's terms, at least. However, in our society we may be physically ready to mate, but not mentally. We, unlike the dogs, must worry about so much more than just raising a family--we must think about education, our career, etc. So that it why being impregnated at age 12 is looked down upon, albeit it being perfectly fine according to nature.

Ah, I addressed the second point already. Yes, it is true that simply because the animals do it does not mean it's alright for us to do it. The difference between murder and rape, and loving someone of the same sex, however, is vastly different. The difference is, in the latter, no one is hurt. No one's dignity is hurt, physical body bruised or mental capacity shattered for life. Consentual relations between two adults in the privacy if their bedroom hurts no one.
And what's wrong with hurting others? It happens in nature a lot.

I honestly fail to see your point. Your whole argument is that homosexuality is okay because it happens in nature, yet hurting others also happens in nature. So what's the difference? Hmm?

Some people say pain and pleasure are the same thing.

[HolyShadow]

Animals hurt each other in nature for Dominance. We have that, it's called "War".
Damn straight. And sometimes, they mount each other in acts of dominance. We do the same thing. It's called rape.

Therefore, by the logic presented so far, rape is perfectly fine, just like homosexuality.

[DaJacksterN]

Hurting people does not co-exist with a civilized society, that's my point. It creates a negative reaction because it affects us all directly. If we all ran around shooting, stabbing and bombing each other it would be total anarchy. To say that rape and murder and homosexuality are the same is stupid. When has someone being gay ever hurt you?
No one could survive in a civilization that accepts murder, rape, etc etc. at will by the general public. We can survive and tolerate a world with homosexuality just fine. My social group is a perfect example of that; if they can tolerate and accept it just fine, why can't others? It doesn't hurt them at all! Not once have they said "Hey Jackie, I am in pain right now because you are gay."

Maybe they are. What matters, however, is how we perceive pain and pleasure. We obviousely do not perceive them to be the same thing.

[HolyShadow]

Hurting people does not co-exist with a civilized society, that's my point.

And why doesn't it? We define the word civilized. We use it to stay away from things that occur in nature.

It creates a negative reaction because it affects us all directly. If we all ran around shooting, stabbing and bombing each other it would be total anarchy.Homosexuality affects us all in a negative way. After all, look at all of the hate for homosexuals in our society. If homosexuality didn't exist, then the hate for homosexuals also wouldn't. Heterosexuals are caught in the crossfire of this hate, creating an endless vortex of hate and denial back and forth of which there is no real escape.

Shooting, stabbing, bombing each other? We do that to animals in hunting all the time, and it's not total anarchy. Most people in Vermont own a gun, and it's not like everyone kills each other. No, they'll kill animals to fulfill their lust for violence.

To say that rape and murder and homosexuality are the same is stupid. When has someone being gay ever hurt you?Rape and murder and homosexuality are the same thing with the logic I am presenting. To say they're not the same is denial.

Oh, a gay guy once hit on me before I knew what flirting actually was, and throughout middle school, people thought I was gay, and threw shit at me every day. I'm pretty sure that person's being gay hurt me.


No one could survive in a civilization that accepts murder, rape, etc etc. at will by the general public. We can survive and tolerate a world with homosexuality just fine. My social group is a perfect example of that; if they can tolerate and accept it just fine, why can't others? It doesn't hurt them at all! Not once have they said "Hey Jackie, I am in pain right now because you are gay."Anglo-saxons.

Maybe they are. What matters, however, is how we perceive pain and pleasure. We obviousely do not perceive them to be the same thing.Masochists interpret pain and pleasure as the same thing.

[DaJacksterN]

Civilized does not mean to stray from nature. It means to form a community in which all members are content and compose themselves in a way that does not harm the other members of the group. If you wanted to, you could say a bee hive in a civilized society. Perhaps it would not work for humans, but it works just fine for them.

Heh...if homosexuals did not exist then the hate for them wouldn't exist, eh? Well then, maybe by the KKKs way of thinking we should just get rid of all black people. After all, without black people, there's wouldn't be racism and hate towards blacks! Does that work? No. It does not. If you say that actually yes, it does work, say that to any black friend of yours.

Rape and murder are NOT the same. Rape and murder are DIRECT causes of pain. Me being gay does not make you burst out in flames or roll around screaming because your ear burns. If your mentality causes you to turn your hatred of me into some kind of headache well, that's your fault, not mine.

I give my sympathy to you for that, because I too have gone through shit-throwing and stone-flinging. HOWEVER, it may have been the gay guy's actions that caused other people to think you were gay. However, it was NOT his fault that the hatred of homosexuals thrived in your peers and caused them to lash out on you. If homosexuality was accepted, then clearing up your sexual identity would have been much easier and a lot less painful.

Masochists can do whatever turns them on, as far as I'm concerned. They may be nuts in my eyes but meh, whatever floats your boat. If however, this need for pain turns into something like wrist-cutting, then we've probably got a mental illness there.

[Fat1Fared]

Holy and JS, you are only 2 which have disagreed with Jack's point, now I know you have every right to your beliefs, but in words of Brain Clough, we talk about it for 20Mins, see why you think I'm (we) are wrong and then we decide I'm (US) right after all lol

I have looked at your agruments and then looked at ours and have come to conclusion, that you are saying:

-Life is about the scientic, natural needs of survival

We have said

-Life is about living

Which has more meaning in end:-

[darkarcher]

Holy and JS, you are only 2 which have disagreed with Jack's point, now I know you have every right to your beliefs, but in words of Brain Clough, we talk about it for 20Mins, see why you think I'm (we) are wrong and then we decide I'm (US) right after all lol

I have looked at your agruments and then looked at ours and have come to conclusion, that you are saying:

-Live is about the scientic, natural needs of survival

We have said

-Life is about living

Which has more meaning in end:-

*makes buzzer noise* You cannot assign one view over another without first establishing some sort of universal standard.

[HolyShadow]

Civilized does not mean to stray from nature. It means to form a community in which all members are content and compose themselves in a way that does not harm the other members of the group. If you wanted to, you could say a bee hive in a civilized society. Perhaps it would not work for humans, but it works just fine for them.

Okay, then how bout sacrificing one for the many? If sending one person to die saves a billion people, would that be civilized? It's murder. So why not?

Heh...if homosexuals did not exist then the hate for them wouldn't exist, eh? Well then, maybe by the KKKs way of thinking we should just get rid of all black people. After all, without black people, there's wouldn't be racism and hate towards blacks! Does that work? No. It does not. If you say that actually yes, it does work, say that to any black friend of yours. Actually, I kinda do believe that logic, simply because I live in Vermont where there's absolutely no racism, and basically no blacks, yet in Florida, I felt the effects of racism back and forth, and it was a melting pot of cultures. Perhaps killing all blacks would be a bit too much, due to the current popular mindset that it is wrong, but the theory behind it is sound. Same goes for killing all humans, or killing all rats. The hate will disappear if all of the category disappears.

Rape and murder are NOT the same. Rape and murder are DIRECT causes of pain. Me being gay does not make you burst out in flames or roll around screaming because your ear burns. If your mentality causes you to turn your hatred of me into some kind of headache well, that's your fault, not mine.Their being gay caused them to flirt with me.

Their flirting with me caused the hate of others.

The hate of others caused them to physically harm me.

Their physical harm hurt me.

In the same way, touching a stove causes the brain to send signals to your finger.

These signals activate pain receptors.

These pain receptors cause you to feel pain.

It's still not quite direct. There's still a process before you feel that pain. It's just very quick.

I give my sympathy to you for that, because I too have gone through shit-throwing and stong-flinging. HOWEVER, it nay have been the gay guy's actions that caused other people to think you were gay. However, it was NOT his fault that the hatred of homosexuals thrived in your peers and caused them to lash out on you. If homosexuality was accepted, then clearing up your sexual identity would have been much easier and a lot less painful.Humans are violent and will deceive themselves if it means pursuing their ideals.

Masochists can do whatever turns them on, as far as I'm concerned. They may be nuts in my eyes but meh, whatever floats your boat. If however, this need for pain turns into something like wrist-cutting, then we've probably got a mental illness there.And how is that a mental illness? If pain feels good to them, then slitting their wrists feels good to them. Isn't a big part of nature seeking out pleasure? I believe you all came to a consensus regarding that.

[DaJacksterN]

Each point of agrument:

1. Name a plausable situation that could occur in a human society where one person must be sacrificed to save a billion and I'll get back to it.

2. I...really don't know what to say. I am kind of appalled that you could think that way. It is only through unity, not exclusion and hatred of others, that the fine strings of a balanced society can be tied together so that the population is content. We've seen what happens when rival groups hate each other, and it is most certainly NOT beneficial to society as a whole.

3. Again, you are comparing direct and indirect causes. The boy's gayness did not fling out and kick you. A hot stove directly physically hurts you.
It is not the gay boy's fault, it is the fault of those with bigoted hatred towards gays. Him being gay didn't make them hate gays, their way of thinking did. And the gay boy had no control over that.

4. The pleasure they are experiencing is, to a degree, natural and alright. I mean, some people get off by biting each other. However, when one's actions are clouded over by a mental illness, their judgement ceases to be their own anymore. It's like saying that we should let people on a drug high run around stealing things because when they're high, they perceive it to be alright. But their judgement is actually impaired.

[Fat1Fared]

*makes buzzer noise* You cannot assign one view over another without first establishing some sort of universal standard.

Dark, you have missed my point, Holy has every right to his opinion, I am just trying to get him to realise that there are other points out there, and sometimes, it is ok to look at them and see that they make sense

-though I am not amazed you mis understood my clough joke, as you probably don't even know who he is

Holy, so to you, Utilarisarism is ok, well then mate?

Just because a group is smaller and weakner than your group doesn't make them wrong, but here your not even strong group,

your saying that if there is something a group hates, remove the thing which is hated :confused: Well then we may as well remove everything, as everything and everyone is hated by at lest one person

Maybe it makes more sense to try and educate poeple in acceptance and if cannot accept it, at lest ignore it

[HolyShadow]

Dark, you have missed my point, Holy has every right to his opinion, I am just trying to get him to realise that there are other points out there, and sometimes, it is ok to look at them and see that they make sense

-though I am not amazed you mis understood my clough joke, as you probably don't even know who he is

Holy, so to you, Utilarisarism is ok, well then mate?

Just because a group is smaller and weakner than your group doesn't make them wrong, but here your not even strong group,

your saying that if there is something a group hates, remove the thing which is hated :confused: Well then we may as well remove everything, as everything and everyone is hated by at lest one person

Maybe it makes more sense to try and educate poeple in acceptance and if cannot accept it, at lest ignore it
Then we should learn to accept and love murderers, instead of removing them from our group.

[DaJacksterN]

Murder hurts society as a whole directly.

[darkarcher]

Murder hurts society as a whole directly.

Incorrect. Murder only hurts an incredibly small faction of society (i.e., those directly involved).

[Fat1Fared]

Well, these are poeple who don't accept themselves, I am of personal view, if don't hurt others, then do it

however yes in true, we should try to help murderers rather than just try and puish them, we should try and make them realise the mistakes of past and make so they can live in society, but at same time, if they are not willing to change, then we must accept they don't want to be accepted and then it is there own fault

DARK, your smarter than that, yes the individaul murderer only hurts a small few, but put them together and think of effect it has,

think of the hate, fear and unrest they make for rest, if answer my next question with a no, you are a lier

Have you have ever done something, because of fear that murderer in society makes?

[DaJacksterN]

Incorrect. Murder only hurts an incredibly small faction of society (i.e., those directly involved).

But if we allowed murder to be accepted then a whoooole lot more people would act on their desires to kill at whim, resulting in a lot more of the population being hurt. Imagine the chaos if you said "Hmm, I feel like killing Joe because he stole some of my money." and then really did murder him. Now imagine of everyone did that.

[darkarcher]

Well, these are poeple who don't accept themselves, I am of personal view, if don't hurt others, then do it

however yes in true, we should try to help murderers rather than just try and puish them, we should try and make them realise the mistakes of past and make so they can live in society, but at same time, if they are not willing to change, then we must accept they don't want to be accepted and then it is there own fault

At this point you are saying that if someone doesn't want to change who they are then they should be shunned from society?

Seems like an oxymoron to what has already been said.

[HolyShadow]

Each point of agrument:

1. Name a plausable situation that could occur in a human society where one person must be sacrificed to save a billion and I'll get back to it.

Murderers. Maybe not to such a large scale, but it works.

2. I...really don't know what to say. I am kind of appalled that you could think that way. It is only through unity, not exclusion and hatred of others, that the fine strings of a balanced society can be tied together so that the population is content. We've seen what happens when rival groups hate each other, and it is most certainly NOT beneficial to society as a whole.

Yes it is. War is natural. Therefore, we should have war. After all, wwar helps a lot of people. Look at WW1/2 for example. They caused the U.S. to become a superpower. This caused a long amount of time of prosperity. Granted, other events in that time balanced that, but still.

3. Again, you are comparing direct and indirect causes. The boy's gayness did not fling out and kick you. A hot stove directly physically hurts you.
It is not the gay boy's fault, it is the fault of those with bigoted hatred towards gays. Him being gay didn't make them hate gays, their way of thinking did. And the gay boy had no control over that.

Okay, then mental harm. His flirting with me caused me to question my own sexuality. That can make a person cry, especially as I was a bit of a crybaby at times back then. It hurt my heart so much.

4. The pleasure they are experiencing is, to a degree, natural and alright. I mean, some people get off by biting each other. However, when one's actions are clouded over by a mental illness, their judgement ceases to be their own anymore. It's like saying that we should let people on a drug high run around stealing things because when they're high, they perceive it to be alright. But their judgement is actually impaired.
...Which we should. Crime does help society, after all. Without crime, we wouldn't have officers, and without officers, a lot of people would be out of work, leading to even more problems in our already declined society.

[darkarcher]

But if we allowed murder to be accepted then a whoooole lot more people would act on their desires to kill at whim, resulting in a lot more of the population being hurt. Imagine the chaos if you said "Hmm, I feel like killing Joe because he stole some of my money." and then really did murder him. Now imagine of everyone did that.

But you're saying that those are a person's natural desires. So why shouldn't they? In essence you are choosing one thing that's natural over another due to preference. You're not really able to draw a line between the two unless you can bring forth something to base it all on.

[Fat1Fared]

sorry didn't put that well, I am saying we should allow them to be in soicety, but everyone needs to make it so that not intentaully hurting others and if they act to constrantly intentally hurt others, no help for them and we can accept we can lest tried

Gays don't hurt others because they are gay, so this agurment is actually pointless here, but needed to be said

[DaJacksterN]

@HolyShadow:


1. I don't quite follow.

2. War may be natural, but if we continue in it, especially with the new technology and nuclear warfare we have, we will inevitabley end up destroying ourselves. I for one do not wish to be blown up.

3. But if homosexuality were more accepted then your questioning of your homosexuality would not have caused such a heart ache. You may have though "Hmm...am I gay? Wow, this is a hard decision. But either one I pick is fine, so I guess I'll just wait and see." Instead of "Wow....am I gay? Oh my god, I hope not! What if I am?? Oh god, they're going to beat me up if I am, no one will like me..." etc etc.

4. But without crime we wouldn't have to waste nearly as much time effort and money on jails, food for prisoners, etc. leading to better distrubation of the wealth.

[darkarcher]

sorry didn't put that well, I am saying we should allow them to be in soicety, but everyone needs to make it so that not intenetaully hurting others and if they act to constrantly intentally hurt others, no help

Gays don't hurt others because they are gay, so this agurment is actually pointless here, but needed to be said

By allowing them to be in society you set them up to continue to do harm. What of people like serial killers, who would claim that causing harm to others is within their very nature? Should they be punished or denied who they are?

You're only drawing the line because there's always a victim of murder while there is not for homosexuality. Why should this make a difference? People in this thread keep saying they're both natural but only one has a place in "civilized" society. If we continue to compare ourselves to animals then what gives us the ability to say one trait is allowed while another isn't?

[DaJacksterN]

But you're saying that those are a person's natural desires. So why shouldn't they? In essence you are choosing one thing that's natural over another due to preference. You're not really able to draw a line between the two unless you can bring forth something to base it all on.

Here's my base: The well-being, and happiness of the society above all. With murder it would crumble. The happiness of a society would be nonexistant if everyone ran around killing everyone else.

[HolyShadow]

Here's my base: The well-being, and happiness of the society above all. With murder it would crumble. The happiness of a society would be nonexistant if everyone ran around killing everyone else.
This is an opinion, and it will not be changed no matter the logic presented.

I've done nothing but use logic behind my accusations and opinions. You're trying to back this up with no real logic, and you're failing at doing so.

Society can be very happy if people kill each other. After all, if the north didn't win, then the south would have. If the south won? HELLO RACISM. LOL

[DaJacksterN]

It's an opinion that if everyone murdered everyone else we would fail as a society?

[Danni I. Sullivan]

Honestly, I don't see what the problem is about people being gay.
If there is a couple of the same gender, how is it really that much different from a couple of both genders, other than the body parts you were born with?
Honestly, it's not like gay people actually choose to be gay, it just happens that way. I know quite a few gay people that would love to be straight just to be accepted, but they can't force themselves to find the opposite gender appealing. I really think gays should have more rights because they don't harm society (in fact, most gay people I know care more for our society and the earth than the straight people I know). And it's not like if a gay person flirts with a straight person they're trying to force that straight person to change thir sexuality, it's an honest mistake. Straight people sometimes flirts with gay people, but it's not like they're trying to force the gay person to become straight.
I've heard people argue that gay people are going to cause mankind to diminish because they can't reproduce with their lovers, but you know what? There are plenty of straight people that refuse to reproduce because they don't like kids, or they don't want to go through the pain (my excuse), and other reasons. And alot of people get abortions anyways, how would a gay person being straight cause any difference to the population if they were getting abortions, or taking birth control/using condoms? That's what straight people do all the time (excluding a few that actually want kids or are too stupid to use them).


I just really don't understand why there's so much hatred between people of different sexual orientations.
(for anyone who doesn't know yet, I'm bisexual myself.)

[darkarcher]

Here's my base: The well-being, and happiness of the society above all. With murder it would crumble. The happiness of a society would be nonexistant if everyone ran around killing everyone else.

You say it as if society has some sort of perfect equilibrium state. Society is consisted purely of people, wherein (without some sort of universal basis) everyone's value of pleasure is equally valid. No matter what state society is in, there will be someone who is dissatisfied. So what makes one viewpoint right and another kind wrong? A majority? Keep in mind that a majority used to think both homosexuality was wrong and slavery was right, the latter of which practically everyone would agree is wrong.

[DaJacksterN]

Hey Danni. :3 Glad you could join us.

[Danni I. Sullivan]

Hey Danni. :3 Glad you could join us.

Aww, hey Jackster.
I'm glad to offer some help here!
*hugs*

[darkarcher]

Just a disclaimer: I'm merely playing the devil's advocate at the moment. If you'd like to hear my real opinion on this then you can ask me via PM, but for the moment I'm just picking through arguments.

[DaJacksterN]

You say it as if society has some sort of perfect equilibrium state. Society is consisted purely of people, wherein (without some sort of universal basis) everyone's value of pleasure is equally valid. No matter what state society is in, there will be someone who is dissatisfied. So what makes one viewpoint right and another kind wrong? A majority? Keep in mind that a majority used to think both homosexuality was wrong and slavery was right, the latter of which practically everyone would agree is wrong.

Which is exactly why we can grow to accept homoseuality as a society, just like we accepted black people.

[DaJacksterN]

Aww, hey Jackster.
I'm glad to offer some help here!
*hugs*

Thanks Danni. ;) Always good to have anotherr debator! Not to mention a totally rad smexy one...

[Fat1Fared]

Dark I will restart, as sometimes, it is only way to explain something (PS your just arguing for sake of it here ain't you:-

-There is a major difference, HURT, one causes problems for others, the other causes no problems for anyone, unless it is poeple causing them a problem

-However every person should be helped and accepted in soicety, if someone does something, which has no major detrementral effect on others, leave them to it, however if someone does something which causes problems for others, try to help them, learn how to live without causing problems for others, so both them and the poeple that they are causing problems for that live, happy problem free lives (Before say, know, no one person, only has one problem)

-If someone will not live without causing problems for others, remove them, into area where cannot cause a problem, how do this, depends on problem caused, and people involved, and will take too long to go into here

If everyone accepted everyone, would have cause for problems, now saying, accept murderers then, but they have acted first, to reject your acceptance, and so first try to allow them, to allow you to accept them, and if that fails, their own fault

[darkarcher]

Which is exactly why we can grow to accept homoseuality as a society, just like we accepted black people.

By that merit we could also learn to accept any sort of criminal activity as well.

[HolyShadow]

@HolyShadow:


1. I don't quite follow.

Removing a murderer from a society saves several lives. Killing them is very plausible. Hell, child molestors are killed much more often on average in jails, compared to other crimes. Isolating them with others like them kills them.

2. War may be natural, but if we continue in it, especially with the new technology and nuclear warfare we have, we will inevitabley end up destroying ourselves. I for one do not wish to be blown up.

I disagree. We've been in a war in the middle east for quite a while. Has a nuke gone off? Nope.

3. But if homosexuality were more accepted then your questioning of your homosexuality would not have caused such a heart ache. You may have though "Hmm...am I gay? Wow, this is a hard decision. But either one I pick is fine, so I guess I'll just wait and see." Instead of "Wow....am I gay? Oh my god, I hope not! What if I am?? Oh god, they're going to beat me up if I am, no one will like me..." etc etc.

Ah, then you're saying that if society accepts homosexuality, then people who are not gay may decide that they are because there's no consequence in their minds to doing so. So what it REALLY comes down to is you trying to turn everyone in the world gay! I KNEW IT! *Foams at mouth*

4. But without crime we wouldn't have to waste nearly as much time effort and money on jails, food for prisoners, etc. leading to better distrubation of the wealth.
What do you mean better? Evenly? ARE YOU A COMMUNIST!? BACK OFF, CASTRO, I'VE GOT PEPPER SPRAY.

But yeah, in all seriousness, this is a bit off-topic.

[Danni I. Sullivan]

Thanks Danni. ;) Always good to have anotherr debator! Not to mention a totally rad smexy one...

Yes, my smexiness will surely help us change their views!

[darkarcher]

learn how to live without causing problems for others, so both them and the poeple that they are causing problems for that live, happy problem free lives (Before say, know, no one person, only has one problem)

-If someone will not live without causing problems for others, remove them, into area where cannot cause a problem

But that's a double-standard. It's only a problem because you perceive it as a problem and don't accept the person for it. You can't say they intentionally don't want to have their actions accepted by society, but to deny them those actions is to prevent them from being happy and is creating a problem for them.

(PS your just arguing for sake of it here ain't you:
Yes
If everyone accepted everyone, would have cause for problems, now saying, accept murderers then, but they have acted first, to reject your acceptance, and so first try to allow them, to allow you to accept them, and if that fails, their own fault
Like I said, their actions are only unacceptable because you perceive them to be so.

[DaJacksterN]

@Holyshadow

If we keep at it someone's gonna blow a nuke off. Someone eventually. Maybe it hasn't happened yet, but that's because everyone's afraid the other guy might have something better. As soon as someone slips their tongue, says the wrong thing...bye bye everyone.

I'm not trying to force anyone to be gay. I just want people to see that I'm not an evil sex-crazed demon that deserves to have rocks throw at them (has happened to me) be spit on (yep) almost beaten up (whooped her ass in the end) and ridiculed in front of others. I'm a human being, a 15-year-old girl who wants acceptance.

Communism is actually, in theory, the best way (or one of the best) a society can be run. (That we know of.) Unfortunately it doesn't work in practice.


Yes Danni! Our combined forces will show them all! >D

[Danni I. Sullivan]

@Holyshadow

If we keep at it someone's gonna blow a nuke off. Someone eventually. Maybe it hasn't happened yet, but that's because everyone's afraid the other guy might have something better. As soon as something slips the wrong tongue, says the wrong thing...bye bye everyone.

I'm not trying to force anyone to be gay. I just want people to see that I'm not an evil sex-crazed demon that deserves to have rocks throw at them (has happened to me) be spit on (yep) almost beaten up (whooped her ass in the end) and ridiculed in front of others. I'm a human being, a 15-year-old girl who wants acceptance.

Communism us actually, in theory, the best way a society can be run. (That we know of.) Unfortunately it doesn't work in practice.


Yes Danni! Our combined forces will show them all! >D

How can they hate adorable little me?
xD

[DaJacksterN]

I don't know Danni. There's another point: I've actually had a person that I've met, talked to, and gotten along with just fine. We laughed and told jokes and really connected. But as soon as it slipped from one of my friends that I was gay, she hated me. Literally, actually hated me. She ended up throwing pop all over me, which was unpleasant. It was sad.

[Fat1Fared]

No, dark, I am clearly saying, something is only wrong if it causes problems, for others, now if you really want to take it to a base level, yes dark, everyone will have a different level of what see as causing problems, but think we can get a general level which works, IE I think if someone puts a knife in my gut, most would see that as problem, because causes injury, pain and makes a debtrement in my life,

Now stop trying to get it down to very fine point as we will never have enough time here, to go down to finer points and have to accept that, it will be general points here

[HolyShadow]

@Holyshadow

If we keep at it someone's gonna blow a nuke off. Someone eventually. Maybe it hasn't happened yet, but that's because everyone's afraid the other guy might have something better. As soon as someone slips their tongue, says the wrong thing...bye bye everyone.

A nuke was detonated before. WW2, remember? Japan goes boom?

I'm not trying to force anyone to be gay. I just want people to see that I'm not an evil sex-crazed demon that deserves to have rocks throw at them (has happened to me) be spit on (yep) almost beaten up (whooped her ass in the end) and ridiculed in front of others. I'm a human being, a 15-year-old girl who wants acceptance.

Then why should you care about people who don't accept you? Instead of trying to change people, who they are, and what they think, live your life according to your own ideals. Changing the world ends up making the people who are homophobic hated, which just perpetuates the whole cycle. There will always be someone who hates homosexuals. There's no way around that. What will you do? Shun them? Would you get in a position of power and do the exact same thing that they're doing to you? They want acceptance, as well, and you are denying them that. You may say that people can think what they want, but your little friend seems very concentrated in changing my mind to fit their own ideals.

Communism is actually, in theory, the best way (or one of the best) a society can be run. (That we know of.) Unfortunately it doesn't work in practice.

It would work if we were bees. The problem is that people want things, which is understandable. It may work for other societies, but not one of such illogical actions as a human society.

Yes Danni! Our combined forces will show them all! >D

...

[darkarcher]

No, dark, I am clearly saying, something is only wrong if it causes problems, for others, now if you really want to take it to a base level, yes dark, everyone will have a different level of what see as causing problems, but think we can get a general level which works, IE I think if someone puts a knife in my gut, most would see that as problem, because causes injury, pain and makes a debtrement in my life,

I think we've already discussed the fact that majority rule does not make something true.

Now stop trying to get it down to very fine point as we will never have enough time here, to go down to finer points and have to accept that, it will be general points here

Except that generalizations are where all of this hate stems from in the first place.

[Danni I. Sullivan]

I don't know Danni. There's another point: I've actually had a person that I've met, talked to, and gotten along with just fine. We laughed and told jokes and really connected. But as soon as it slipped from one of my friends that I was gay, she hated me. Literally, actually hated me. She ended up throwing pop all over me, which was unpleasant. It was sad.

That really sucks!
D:
Usuall I wait until people really know me before I tell them I'm bisexual, and normally they seem to accept me.
A few of my friends seemed to be a little...uncomfortable..but they got over it.
And they still let me hug them, because I really don't think of them as more than friends.
On a side note: There are about three people at my lunch table that are also bisexual, and there's one whom we all think is a closeted gay, but he won't admit it.
One of my friends that I know is straight actually asked me out because she thought she was a lesbian, and I was like "*inhales* No. I know you and I've seen your previous relationships, you're as straight as a person gets. Oh, and even if you do really feel an attraction to females now, the fact that you've had relationships with males makes you bisexual."
She's angry at me still because this happened about two months ago.

[DaJacksterN]

@Holyshadow:
And with all the shit we've got now (new and improved shit) once everyone starts blowing them all of it will go 'boom!' 'boom!' BOOM!
Until no one is left to boom anymore.

Oh my, you have it all backwards. I want to change things because bigoted people hurt me first. If I didn't get a snide remark almost every other day about my preferences then maybe I wouldn't mind so much. If people didn't come and chuck pop at ME first, maybe I wouldn't mind so much. But they do. I didn't start the fire. It was always burning since the world's been turning...
Imagine where black people would be if they just sat their and took it. I'd tell you what they'd be: unhappy, mistreated slaves.

I already stated that it does not work in practice. Theory, yes. Practice no, because of the selfishness of individuals who spoil it for eberyone else, and humanity's greed as a whole.

LOL. HS feels frightened?

[DaJacksterN]

That really sucks!
D:
Usuall I wait until people really know me before I tell them I'm bisexual, and normally they seem to accept me.
A few of my friends seemed to be a little...uncomfortable..but they got over it.
And they still let me hug them, because I really don't think of them as more than friends.
On a side note: There are about three people at my lunch table that are also bisexual, and there's one whom we all think is a closeted gay, but he won't admit it.
One of my friends that I know is straight actually asked me out because she thought she was a lesbian, and I was like "*inhales* No. I know you and I've seen your previous relationships, you're as straight as a person gets. Oh, and even if you do really feel an attraction to females now, the fact that you've had relationships with males makes you bisexual."
She's angry at me still because this happened about two months ago.

Mmm, yeah, all of the close friends that I have told accepted on the spot, a lot easier than I thought they would. A couple clapped their hands, squeeled and went "awww!" Some others just went. "Okay." Literally, just that. They still let me practically run all over them when I get in hyper-mode, because they also know, just like your friends know, my relationships with them are platonic. What happened with the girl that threw pop on me was this:
I was sitting with her, talking, hanging out. Then one of my friends ran up to me and started going on, "Hey Jackie, you know Katie (this happened several months ago) that girl you liked? Well, she....blahblahblah." The other girls' eyes went weird and she looked at me funny.

After my friend was finished the other girl got up and started shouting at me, "What the F*** are you doing you lesbian C***! Shit, I didn't know you were being nice to me to get into my pants!" At which point I went o___O. Her outbreak totally shocked me--it was like one second, nice gal, next, BOOM! Then she started going on "I bet you were just scanning me over, staring at my chest, blablablah..." Then she threw the pop on me. I was still o____O. The lunchroom stared.

Sucks about your friend. She's probably just a little confused and is experimenting around, which is okay. She'll probably get over it once she comes to terms with herself.

[darkarcher]

Dark, I am not saying anything about majority rule here, I am saying that we all have a basic common sense view of what would be a real problem causer in our lifes and though once go into some areas, will get little more gray, will cannot go into that here as it is too indept and to much of A What IF area

The whole point of COMMON sense is that it is inherently held by almost all people, meaning it's merely the majority. :V That doesn't necessarily make it right in the same way that the natural sense to fight for dominance over another human being (in a societal sense, not sexual) is not always the appropriate action to take.

[Danni I. Sullivan]

Mmm, yeah, all of the close friends that I have told accepted on the spot, a lot easier than I thought they would. Acouple clapped their hands, squeeled and went "awww!" Some other just went. "Okay." Literally, just that. They still let me practically run all over them when I get in hyper-mode, because they also know, just like your friends know, my relationships with them are platonic. What happened with the girl that threw pop on me was this: I was sitting with her, talking, ganging out. Then one of my friends unknowingly just ran up to me and started going on, "Hey Jackie, you know Katie (this happened several months ago) that girl you liked? Well, she....blahblahblah." The other girls' eyes went weird and she looked at me funny.
After my friend was finished the other girl got up and started shouting at me "What the F*** are you doing you lesbian C***! Shit, I didn't know you were being nice to me to get into my pants!" At which point I went o___O. Her outbreak totally shocked me--it was like one second, nice gal, next, BOOM! Then she started going on "I bet you were just scanning me over, staring at my chest, blablablah..." Then she threw the pop on me. I was still o____O. The lunchroom stared.

OMFG!
I HATE WHEN PEOPLE THINK THAT!
Just because I'm hanging out with you and like people of your gender does NOT mean I want to have a realtionship with you!
That is SO annoying! How is a straight female hanging out with a lesbian any different than a straight female hanging out with a straight male? (and vse versa for straight males around gay males)

[Danni I. Sullivan]

@ DJN's edit: Yeah, that was one reason I said no, another was that we're already great friends, I don't want to ruin that because SHE realizes "Oh, wait, I guess I DON'T like girls after all!" How do you act normally around some one after that?
It's the same with any of my friends, no matter their gender. I have a hard time thinking of being in a relationship with any of them because I don't want to lose the relationship we already have.
And I can't date until I'm 16 anyway, so I have to turn people down.

[DaJacksterN]

That, Danni, is another shot towards gay people: Some straight people seem to think that we're after everyone of the same gender 24/7 and that we have no moral conscience behind our actions and desires at all. Just because I sit beside you at the lunch table doesn't mean I;m staring at your boobs.

Ah, that was a wise decision Danni, and that takes guts. I think I would have had a harder time letting her down, just because I don't like saying no to anyone. But your decision goes to show that we ARE capable of making moral decisions. We're not beasts.

Ah, yeah, the dating thing. I still see Ashley. :3

[Danni I. Sullivan]

That, Danni, is another shot towards gay people: Some straight people seem to think that we're after everyone of the same gender 24/7 and that we have no moral conscience behind our actions and desires at all. Just because I sit beside you at the lunch table doesn't mean I;m staring at your boobs.

Ah, that was a wise decision Danni, and that takes guts. I think I would have had a harder time letting her down, just because I don't like saying no to anyone. But your decision goes to show that we ARE capable of making moral decisions. We're not beasts.

Ah, yeah, the dating thing. I still see Ashley. :3

I have a hard time saying no as well.
I started out trying to be as nice as I possibly could, but she wouldn't aceept it, so I had to go hard on her and tell her no.
I'm not having that same feeling with Carlos though, I want to tell him no, but I really don't want to lose him because I LOVE having him as a friend, he cracks me up, and he knows just how crazy I really am.

[darkarcher]

I feel like the actual debating died.

That's well enough, I suppose. Time for dinner and whatnot.

Everyone remember to stay on topic.

[Danni I. Sullivan]

I feel like the actual debating died.

That's well enough, I suppose. Time for dinner and whatnot.

Everyone remember to stay on topic.

Yeah, that tends to happen when I enter a discussion.
I don't know how I do it, but I don't mean to! I swear!

[DaJacksterN]

Ah yes, the debaters seem to have left.

Well, since this thread is called "Homosexuality" I think as long as we don't stray too far we'll be alright, no? If we do get too off-topic I suppose we can go somewhere else.

@Danni: Mmm, things aren't working out eh? Which one was the one you liked again? (Besides me. :3)

On topic: See, Danni and I are homosexual and bisexual. We still include morality and ethics into our decisions so that we don't hurt others. I don't think we deserve to be treated as anything less than equals.

[Danni I. Sullivan]

Patrick is the one I like. Carlos is the one that I only think of as a friend, but I can't break his heart by telling him the truth.
I'm afraid it's going to hurt even more now that I haven't told him how I feel, but I've asked him if we could just be friends until I could actually be allowed to date him (though I really hope he'll move on to some one else by then).
He agreed, but he still tries to kiss me when I hug him.
T_T

On topic: I tell all my straight friends (and even some of the bi/gay ones) that I have no intention of dating them because they are not my type once I come out of the closet. Normally they end up replying with, "Well, that makes me feel really confident in my body" or "What's wrong with me?" (the latter in a joking sense, usually).

[HolyShadow]

Ah yes, the debaters seem to have left.

Well, since this thread is called "Homosexuality" I think as long as we don't stray too far we'll be alright, no? If we do get too off-topic I suppose we can go somewhere else.

@Danni: Mmm, things aren't working out eh? Which one was the one you liked again? (Besides me. :3)

On topic: See, Danni and I are homosexual and bisexual. We still include morality and ethics into our decisions so that we don't hurt others. I don't think we deserve to be treated as anything less than equals.
And your friend seems to be treating me as if I'm less than human, to some extent. Why bother trying to change my mind at all? If the way my mind works is contrary to yours, you feel the need to change it. In this case, the way I think is not equal to yours in your mind, because you clearly want to change my mind to a far superior mindset, which would be your own.

Therefore, if you want me to treat you like an equal, then admit that I'm right, and I'll admit that you're right.

Note that I have no problem with homosexuality, really, and I'm just mindfucking you.

[Fat1Fared]

The whole point of COMMON sense is that it is inherently held by almost all people, meaning it's merely the majority. :V That doesn't necessarily make it right in the same way that the natural sense to fight for dominance over another human being (in a societal sense, not sexual) is not always the appropriate action to take.

dark, that is a very padantic point, and here doesn't work, as it is not a majority view which is learnt, it is one which simply see, through sentient logic

-like with my knife in gut point, did anyone teach you a knife to gut is bad, no, but still no it won't be, now you could say what about movies...., ok then yes, suppose that is fair point of learning, but still most will know knife+Gut=BAD same as most badies know not to put their hand in flame,

And even if this isn't right to you, you will find I am first against following crowd, but not so pig-headed, I cannot realise that a majority can be right, as long as willing to think about it before act,

Common sense isn't just a basic majoroity view without reason, it is one that we get to because of inbuild logic or COMMON SENSE

Now, I won't add anymore, as I cannot think of anything else worth adding

[Danni I. Sullivan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKELkPmePWg

That is actually what made me love hbi2k.
He's awesome for not only standing up for gays, but also for handicapped people.

[DaJacksterN]

Good old fashioned mindfuck. Nice.
But to truly answer your first question: uh, because you came to a debate thread. Therfore I am debating my side of the argument. xD
I think Danni's only teasing anyways, if you don't actually have a problem with homosexuality. If you did, we might have a problem if you called us immoral or something.

@Danni: Oh snap. It's like a love triangle thing, except some of it is unrequited. I with I could lend more advise, but I'm no good with romance and love things. I've always been too reserved and have never had to deal with something like that. o_O Go with what you think will be best for you and the other 2 boys though. Your dignity and wants are top prority, but just don't crumble the other castle in the process and you'll be fine. :) Probably. Or you could just not listen to me.

EDIT: Just watched the youtube video as well, and I must say, THERE is a good example of how we would like others to treat us. Maybe you're not into it yourself, but don't hate. Never hate.

[HolyShadow]

That is actually what made me love hbi2k.
He's awesome for not only standing up for gays, but also for handicapped people.
"Spearchucker" -> "Negro" -> "Nigger" -> "Black" -> "African-American"

In some cases, maybe political correctness actually helps a situation. If I called a black person (Yes, I refuse to call them African-American, because I for one am technically Africa-American, and I'm not referring to myself) a more hateful term, then they'd hate me more.

However, the term began with hate. So, it was changed... and that word began to be filled with hate, and so forth. Eventually, we'll be calling them "People who are equal to us or possibly better and definitely not worse who have a beautiful skin color that is not our own, and by the way, did I mention they're equal to or better than me? That's kinda important."

Not that I dislike blacks. Not at all. Otherwise, I'd get censored and banned from here, because instead of trying to change my mind, certain people feel it imperative to simply remove me from this society, even if I'm using sarcasm. Yup.

[DaJacksterN]

Now I agree with HolyShadow that we've gone too cutesy-ass on 'political correctness' for our own good. I mean geez, now Oriental people are getting offended for being called Oriental! They're from the Orient. Jesus...
-__-

If a white person's called white they don't take any offense at all. Even cracker or pale boy.

I for one am a mix and therefore have special immunity powers.

[Danni I. Sullivan]

Yeah, I mean no harm to how you think, I just want you to feel that homosexuality shouldn't be treated like it's a crime to certain people (like my parents, unfortunately).
I just want people to accept each other, no matter how lame that sounds.
Sometimes I really wish humans weren't so 'evolved' that they try to separate themselves from animals and plants and nature in general. Why do we have such problems getting along?

@ Jackster: I KNOW! WHY IS IT ALWAYS ME???????? T_T
I WISH this wouldhappen to one of my other friends that keep wishing they'd have two guys like them, so I could laugh in their faces. It sucks so much because I really don't want to hurt any one's feelings and I really want to be with Patrick and have Carlos as my friend, but I don't think Carlos will accept that.
GOD, why are men so stubborn sometimes?
D:

[HolyShadow]

GOD, why are men so stubborn sometimes?
Not men. Humans. We're all equal, and I demand to be treated as such. If not, I'll change your mind to thinking that men are equal to you.

@Jackster:

Asians are far more racist than most, honestly. Looking at japanese culture is astounding, because they're just so incredibly openly racist.

[DaJacksterN]

Yeah, I mean no harm to how you think, I just want you to feel that homosexuality shouldn't be treated like it's a crime to certain people (like my parents, unfortunately).
I just want people to accept each other, no matter how lame that sounds.
Sometimes I really wish humans weren't so 'evolved' that they try to separate themselves from animals and plants and nature in general. Why do we have such problems getting along?

@ Jackster: I KNOW! WHY IS IT ALWAYS ME???????? T_T
I WISH this wouldhappen to one of my other friends that keep wishing they'd have two guys like them, so I could laugh in their faces. It sucks so much because I really don't want to hurt any one's feelings and I really want to be with Patrick and have Carlos as my friend, but I don't think Carlos will accept that.
GOD, why are men so stubborn sometimes?
D:


Your parents treat it like it's a crime too?

[Danni I. Sullivan]

"Spearchucker" -> "Negro" -> "Nigger" -> "Black" -> "African-American"

In some cases, maybe political correctness actually helps a situation. If I called a black person (Yes, I refuse to call them African-American, because I for one am technically Africa-American, and I'm not referring to myself) a more hateful term, then they'd hate me more.

However, the term began with hate. So, it was changed... and that word began to be filled with hate, and so forth. Eventually, we'll be calling them "People who are equal to us or possibly better and definitely not worse who have a beautiful skin color that is not our own, and by the way, did I mention they're equal to or better than me? That's kinda important."

Not that I dislike blacks. Not at all. Otherwise, I'd get censored and banned from here, because instead of trying to change my mind, certain people feel it imperative to simply remove me from this society, even if I'm using sarcasm. Yup.

I call them black as well, not to be mean, but because not all black people are indeed, African American.
Take my neighbors for instance. To the house right of me, they are from Nigeria, but the house to the left of me, they are from Jamaica. Both families are very nice, and I'm glad I live by them, the Jamaican family actually gives us stuff from their garden and they give us homemade bread, in return we try to surprise them wih gifts of our own. The Nigerian family keeps to themselves mostly, but I've gotten to know the kids (all of whom are younger than me) and I've been to a few of their parties, and I love the different food I've tried because of them. I think they named their daughter after me as well. (She's only a year old now, they've lived next door for a few years).
My friend Dai-Dai is black and actually, she's told me she thinks I'm black on the inside and has started calling me Darica instead of Snowflake, which is what she normally calls white people if she doesn't know their name that well.
Ha, when I ran into her family, she actually had to pause to think of my real name.
xD

[Danni I. Sullivan]

Your parents treat it like it's a crime too?

Yep.
My dad thinks gays are just as bad as murderers, and I can only think "That's horrible. How is having sex with some one you love or even being in a relationship with some one you love, the equivelant of killing a person?"

[DaJacksterN]

LOL Snowflake! That's a good one!

I wish I had some Jamaican home-made bread...

My father is just like that too. Stuck in the 1960's way of thinking, not able to come out of his funk. I've actually had several debates with him where I am an advocate of gay rights, but I'm not sure if he's caught on to the fact that I'm gay yet.
EDIT: Scratch that, he doesn't know. I think he's suspicious though, but would always deny it to himself.

That's why I don't see Ashley a whole lot; he thinks we're just friends hanging out. And while that's pretty much all we do (hang out) we both know it's not like that...

[HolyShadow]

Yep.
My dad thinks gays are just as bad as murderers, and I can only think "That's horrible. How is having sex with some one you love or even being in a relationship with some one you love, the equivelant of killing a person?"
...

All I can do is laugh. LOL

[Danni I. Sullivan]

Not men. Humans. We're all equal, and I demand to be treated as such. If not, I'll change your mind to thinking that men are equal to you.

@Jackster:

Asians are far more racist than most, honestly. Looking at japanese culture is astounding, because they're just so incredibly openly racist.

Ok, why are men interested in me so stubborn? xD

God, I love Asian people, but I know they are racist. They're racist to other Asian people if they are not the same race as them.
Japanese parents will generally want their kids to marry another Japanese person, rather than a person who's Chinese or Korean or any other race, which I find funny, because even though white people are racist, they don't tend to hate people from other countries as long as they are white also.

I really don't care what color your skin is, I'll accept you even if you won't accept me.

[Danni I. Sullivan]

...

All I can do is laugh. LOL

Please don't.
My mom is a little better. Her problem is that she only thinks being gay is wrong because the bible says so.

[DaJacksterN]

REPOST BECAUSE I'M COOL:
LOL Snowflake! That's a good one!

I wish I had some Jamaican home-made bread...

My father is just like that too. Stuck in the 1960's way of thinking, not able to come out of his funk. I've actually had several debates with him where I am an advocate of gay rights, but I'm not sure if he's caught on to the fact that I'm gay yet.
EDIT: Scratch that, he doesn't know. I think he's suspicious though, but would always deny it to himself.

That's why I don't see Ashley a whole lot; he thinks we're just friends hanging out. And while that's pretty much all we do (hang out) we both know it's not like that...

[HolyShadow]

REPOST BECAUSE I'M COOL:
LOL Snowflake! That's a good one!

I wish I had some Jamaican home-made bread...

My father is just like that too. Stuck in the 1960's way of thinking, not able to come out of his funk. I've actually had several debates with him where I am an advocate of gay rights, but I'm not sure if he's caught on to the fact that I'm gay yet.
EDIT: Scratch that, he doesn't know. I think he's suspicious though, but would always deny it to himself.

That's why I don't see Ashley a whole lot; he thinks we're just friends hanging out. And while that's pretty much all we do (hang out) we both know it's not like that...
IF LOVE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO YOU, THEN JUST FUCKING TELL HIM AND TELL HIM TO GO FUCK HIMSELF. IF LOVE ISN"T THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO YOU, THEN YOU'RE A LUSTFUL HUMAN BEING WHO SHOULD BE ABOMINATED.

...Caps lock is a bitch, and I don't want to go back and change it...

[Danni I. Sullivan]

LOL Snowflake! That's a good one!

I wish I had some Jamaican home-made bread...

My father is just like that too. Stuck in the 1960's way of thinking, not able to come out of his funk. I've actually had several debates with him where I am an advocate of gay rights, but I'm not sure if he's caught on to the fact that I'm gay yet.
EDIT: Scratch that, he doesn't know. I think he's suspicious though, but would always deny it to himself.

That's why I don't see Ashley a whole lot; he thinks we're just friends hanging out. And while that's pretty much all we do (hang out) we both know it's not like that...

Her mom was trying to get her to stop because it was racist, and Dai Dai was like "Mom, you don't know these white girls. They LIKE being called Snowflake."
It's really good! I love their banana nut bread best.
^^

Awww, that sucks. But at least you and Ashley have each other, sort of.
I guess it's a good thing I'm not full-blown gay, and that there's still a possibility I'll end up with a male instead of a female.

[Danni I. Sullivan]

IF LOVE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO YOU, THEN JUST FUCKING TELL HIM AND TELL HIM TO GO FUCK HIMSELF. IF LOVE ISN"T THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO YOU, THEN YOU'RE A LUSTFUL HUMAN BEING WHO SHOULD BE ABOMINATED.

...Caps lock is a bitch, and I don't want to go back and change it...

If it was that easy I wouldn't be in this situation!
Sorry I care way too much about other people's feeling to bother putting my own into the equation.

[HolyShadow]

Her mom was trying to get her to stop because it was racist, and Dai Dai was like "Mom, you don't know these white girls. They LIKE being called Snowflake."
It's really good! I love their banana nut bread best.
^^

Awww, that sucks. But at least you and Ashley have each other, sort of.
I guess it's a good thing I'm not full-blown gay, and that there's still a possibility I'll end up with a male instead of a female.
In my experience, bisexuals look more for personality than anything else, and it just so happens that they usually prefer a female personality to a male one, usually due to maturity.

Of course, that's only what I've gathered from a select few that I know very well.

[Danni I. Sullivan]

In my experience, bisexuals look more for personality than anything else, and it just so happens that they usually prefer a female personality to a male one, usually due to maturity.

Of course, that's only what I've gathered from a select few that I know very well.

I've always looked for personality, and the biggest part of that is sense of humor for me. I tend to go more for guys because they make me laugh harder than the girls I know (Don't hate me Jackster!). One of my bisexual friends got a girl pregnant though.

[lilliejean]

Looking back on these last few pages, (three in the last few hours) and something I think we can all agree on- School could be where most homophobia takes place. Maybe it's because maturity hasn't completed yet for some (others should have no excuse though) or that peer pressure causes a mob effect.
How could it be improved though? More information? It probably depends whether the bullying happens because they don't think it's normal or because they are looking for a scapegoat.

[DaJacksterN]

I've always looked for personality, and the biggest part of that is sense of humor for me. I tend to go more for guys because they make me laugh harder than the girls I know (Don't hate me Jackster!). One of my bisexual friends got a girl pregnant though.

Hey, I make you laugh! I have the male persona! ;__;

xD

o__O Pregnancy...

[Danni I. Sullivan]

Hey, I make you laugh! I have the male persona! ;__;

xD

o__O Pregnancy...

Yeah, I know.
And that's one of the main things that makes me love you!
*hugs*

Yeah.....apparently pregnancy is involved alot in my lifetime.

[DaJacksterN]

Yay!

See guys who enter this thread. Our love is beautiful!

...
o_O

I guess that may be a plus to being gay then.
Although Danni, you know, if you don't want children it will make finding a man who also does not want children more difficult...

[Danni I. Sullivan]

Yes, it is.
<3

Yes it's a huge plus! No having to worry about birth control, or comdoms, or, ahem, that time of the month.
Eh, not really....most guys I know don't want children either.
xD

[Danni I. Sullivan]

Guys, Gay thread. Not Pregnancy thread.

Sorry!
I have a hard time staying on topic!
D:

[DaJacksterN]

I was talking about gay things!


...

Don't hate us. That's my argument. Please don't hate us. It sucks. We're human beings too, with thoughts and feelings.

[redpheonix]

mmm musing, i think if an opportune time shows i may kiss a girl to try it

* sorry i have not a deep or insightful thing to add *

[Danni I. Sullivan]

I was talking about gay things!


...

Don't hate us. That's my argument. Please don't hate us. It sucks. We're human beings too, with thoughts and feelings.

Just because we think a little differently than you, or prefer to get emotionally involved with some one you wouldn't (meaning the same gender as you), it doesn't mean we should be shunned as long as the realtionship is consensual.

[Danni I. Sullivan]

mmm musing, i think if an opportune time shows i may kiss a girl to try it

* sorry i have not a deep or insightful thing to add *

And then you'll break out into the Katy Perry song, if you actually do like it?
xD

[DaJacksterN]

Right on! If your only basis for its immorality is religion, well, I believe that that gives you no credibility at all. Darn 2000 year old book had to go and make life very troublesome for a lot of people...

[redpheonix]

i would , yes.

[maisetofan]

pfft katy perry is trying too hard, why broadcast that you kissed a girl and liked it, like who hasnt you know? tehee ........

[redpheonix]

yeah the only reason that song of katy perry's is stuck in head it because i heard it a good 20 times while at my job at the casino.

[lilliejean]

I don't think maturity level has anything to do with it. Mature or not, some people will fear what they don't understand.
That is true, some people stay homophobic throughout life. I still think maturity does have a little to do with it though only when you are talking about younger people (I haven't though of a particular age) who are homophobic. Some rethink as they get older, and some don't change, like your friend.

[HolyShadow]

Right on! If your only basis for its immorality is religion, well, I believe that that gives you no credibility at all. Darn 2000 year old book had to go and make life very troublesome for a lot of people...
It isn't the book. It's the people who read the book. Their weak hearts causes them to use it as an excuse to justify their own thoughts. Hating religion because of what a few close-minded individuals think is both unwise and a bit pig-headed.

[Danni I. Sullivan]

Right on! If your only basis for its immorality is religion, well, I believe that that gives you no credibility at all. Darn 2000 year old book had to go and make life very troublesome for a lot of people...

The real reason I'm not very religious is because all these documents were written by MAN, no matter how they were inspired they were written by MAN, and MAN interpreted whatever inspired them. How knows? Maybe they were just really bored.

[MrsSallyBakura]

It isn't the book. It's the people who read the book. Their weak hearts causes them to use it as an excuse to justify their own thoughts. Hating religion because of what a few close-minded individuals think is both unwise and a bit pig-headed.

This.

I want to bring this point up again because I think what HolyShadow said earlier about homosexuals hating on homophobics brings something really important about this subject to light. I want to tie this in with Tatterdemalion's post on tolerance vs. acceptance.

I was browsing through Facebook one day when I came across a group promoting something like, "Universal love," essentially saying that love shouldn't be limited to a man/woman relationship just because society for many years said that that was the way things should be. Within this group were a lot of forum discussions, many of them bashing on "the homophobes" for not accepting their lifestyle.
What struck me was that here is this group saying that love shouldn't be limited, yet they are hating on a group of people just like "the homophobes" hate on them.

People, you can't fight hate with hate; it only makes things worse. I am a Christian, and while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, I have never believed it right to throw rocks, spill pop, make homophobic slurs, or anything else that may hurt homosexuals. That would make me a hypocrite. Know why? I may not be gay, but I am also a sinner in other areas of my life. It would not make me the better person, especially since Jesus wouldn't do any of that to homosexuals. He stopped the Pharisees from throwing stones at the woman who committed adultery, and he told the Pharisees, "He who has not sinned cast the first stone." And of course they all dropped their rocks because they all sinned.

So to those of you who hate homophobes, even though they are sinning too by treating gays with hate and not love, getting hateful towards them will give them even more of an excuse to spread their hate, which in turn will give you more an excuse to hate, and the cycle just continues. It doesn't matter who started it.

You cannot ask someone who believes that homosexuality is a sin to accept homosexuality as something completely OK without having some kind of feud, and it works the same way vice-versa. All we can do is start a right relationship with each other. This is where tolerance is important. While there are a number of people who are homophobic, there are also people who will befriend homosexuals despite believing that homosexuality is wrong; I'm not entirely sure of the number because these people are much more hidden than either the homophobic or the pro-gays. Ideally all Christians should love homosexuals as brothers and sisters in Christ but unfortunately that doesn't happen.
I'm a bit reluctant saying this because it'll probably come off as naive if I don't say it right, but if you're homosexual and someone mistreats you because of it, instead of trying to wage war against the homophobes and shoving them off as Bible-bashing closed-minded rednecks (or whatever), try to understand that it may not totally be their fault for believing that way; if you're taught in a society told to hate a certain group of people, it's INCREDIBLY hard to change that mindset, especially if you've already matured into adulthood and you still feel that way. Of course what they did was wrong, but no amount of rallying against the homophobes will change much of anything.

In this lifetime, I doubt that society will come to a consensus as to whether homosexuality is right or wrong, as in, not everyone will accept it as right and not everyone will accept it as wrong. Instead of fighting each other about our differences in opinion and upbringing, learn to understand the other side and live with the other side without trying to hurt it physically, emotionally, spiritually, mentally, etc.
If you claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, then you should "Love your enemy" "Love your neighbor as yourself," "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but have everlasting life." "Your enemy," "your neighbor," "the world," and "everyone" includes homosexuals.

*scrolls up* That was much more of a tangent than I thought it was going to be. Then again, this IS my first post on the Serious Discussion board since before Lent so I guess I was overdue for a post here, lol.

[Apple]

In my opinion you cannot control or choose your sexuality
you are drawn to what you are drawn to, its an individual thing :)

[Fat1Fared]

This.

I want to bring this point up again because I think what HolyShadow said earlier about homosexuals hating on homophobics brings something really important about this subject to light. I want to tie this in with Tatterdemalion's post on tolerance vs. acceptance.

I was browsing through Facebook one day when I came across a group promoting something like, "Universal love," essentially saying that love shouldn't be limited to a man/woman relationship just because society for many years said that that was the way things should be. Within this group were a lot of forum discussions, many of them bashing on "the homophobes" for not accepting their lifestyle.
What struck me was that here is this group saying that love shouldn't be limited, yet they are hating on a group of people just like "the homophobes" hate on them.

People, you can't fight hate with hate; it only makes things worse. I am a Christian, and while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, I have never believed it right to throw rocks, spill pop, make homophobic slurs, or anything else that may hurt homosexuals. That would make me a hypocrite. Know why? I may not be gay, but I am also a sinner in other areas of my life. It would not make me the better person, especially since Jesus wouldn't do any of that to homosexuals. He stopped the Pharisees from throwing stones at the woman who committed adultery, and he told the Pharisees, "He who has not sinned cast the first stone." And of course they all dropped their rocks because they all sinned.

So to those of you who hate homophobes, even though they are sinning too by treating gays with hate and not love, getting hateful towards them will give them even more of an excuse to spread their hate, which in turn will give you more an excuse to hate, and the cycle just continues. It doesn't matter who started it.

You cannot ask someone who believes that homosexuality is a sin to accept homosexuality as something completely OK without having some kind of feud, and it works the same way vice-versa. All we can do is start a right relationship with each other. This is where tolerance is important. While there are a number of people who are homophobic, there are also people who will befriend homosexuals despite believing that homosexuality is wrong; I'm not entirely sure of the number because these people are much more hidden than either the homophobic or the pro-gays. Ideally all Christians should love homosexuals as brothers and sisters in Christ but unfortunately that doesn't happen.
I'm a bit reluctant saying this because it'll probably come off as naive if I don't say it right, but if you're homosexual and someone mistreats you because of it, instead of trying to wage war against the homophobes and shoving them off as Bible-bashing closed-minded rednecks (or whatever), try to understand that it may not totally be their fault for believing that way; if you're taught in a society told to hate a certain group of people, it's INCREDIBLY hard to change that mindset, especially if you've already matured into adulthood and you still feel that way. Of course what they did was wrong, but no amount of rallying against the homophobes will change much of anything.

In this lifetime, I doubt that society will come to a consensus as to whether homosexuality is right or wrong, as in, not everyone will accept it as right and not everyone will accept it as wrong. Instead of fighting each other about our differences in opinion and upbringing, learn to understand the other side and live with the other side without trying to hurt it physically, emotionally, spiritually, mentally, etc.
If you claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, then you should "Love your enemy" "Love your neighbor as yourself," "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but have everlasting life." "Your enemy," "your neighbor," "the world," and "everyone" includes homosexuals.

*scrolls up* That was much more of a tangent than I thought it was going to be. Then again, this IS my first post on the Serious Discussion board since before Lent so I guess I was overdue for a post here, lol.

Sally some of this is true and if you go back a long way, to start of their debate, you will find one, between me and dark, where I am saying, that we must accept poeple for who are and make it so all CAN live in society even murderers, however it took, long time to do last night, so if want to read, you may have to find it lol

however you have misunderstood something here, I am about to say something, which will not gain me any friends, I don't hate religion, however, I hate some of what religion stands for, and this is same with gay poeple, you tell someone they are evil, for something they have no control over and that they should live their lives better, do you think they will like it, you are double bluffing yourself, your saying I won't throw a stone, but your still evil to me, and so they will react with, I think your evil for your thinking I'm evil, which you then react well, I think your evil for thinking, my thinking is evil, ...etc this goes on for long time

Both sides, are saying that other is causing problem and in wrong, rather than just getting over it, and letting both sides live, yes you made not stone them sally, but they don't want you not stone them, they want you to ACCEPT THEM in same way you want them to ACCEPT YOUR VIEW.

Now if religion said we are going to accept gays and say nothing more about it, and leave it up to god, then you really accept them and are throwing the ball into their court, as it is up to them to drop it then, right now you are merely faining acceptance, which is no acceptance at all, and you wonder why gay poeple feel that religion is in wrong and agianst

Also like I always say, if religion is only thing againt something, nothing is against it, because religion has no IDEA what god wants, and so if is a god, your just guessing, and so can you really justife calling someone evil, when not sure if truly are, this is the main reason I gave up on religion, a long time ago,

[Ishikawa Oshro]

Sally some of this is true and if you go back a long way, to start of their debate, you will find one, between me and dark, where I am saying, that we must accept poeple for who are and make it so all CAN live in society even murderers, however it took, long time to do last night, so if want to read, you may have to find it lol

however you have misunderstood something here, I am about to say something, which will not gain me any friends, I don't hate religion, however, I hate some of what religion stands for, and this is same with gay poeple, you tell someone they are evil, for something they have no control over and that they should live their lives better, do you think they will like it, you are double bluffing yourself, your saying I won't throw a stone, but your still evil to me, and so they will react with, I think your evil for your thinking I'm evil, which you then react well, I think your evil for thinking, my thinking is evil, ...etc this goes on for long time

Both sides, are saying that other is causing problem and in wrong, rather than just getting over it, and letting both sides live, yes you made not stone them sally, but they don't want you not stone them, they want you to ACCEPT THEM in same way you want them to ACCEPT YOUR VIEW.

Now if religion said we are going to accept gays and say nothing more about it, and leave it up to god, then you really accept them and are throwing the ball into their court, as it is up to them to drop it then, right now you are merely faining acceptance, which is no acceptance at all, and you wonder why gay poeple feel that religion is in wrong and agianst

Also like I always say, if religion is only thing againt something, nothing is against it, because religion has no IDEA what god wants, and so if is a god, your just guessing, and so can you really justife calling someone evil, when not sure if truly are, this is the main reason I gave up on religion, a long time ago,

Fat1Fared do you believe there is a higher being that had a plan for us?
Or do you believe you were a random act of the universe at work.
The big bang theory or etc?

and you misunderstand religion. Religion wasent meant to bash on the homosexuals. The bible says hate the sin love the sinner. For example per say I have a son and he steals my Jewlry. I'd be a bit upset at him but it is not him I am to be hate. Its the act that he did that I disdain. I love the child itself.

Same as homosexuals. I dont like that there preferences in gender are different than mine. But I still love them non-the less. I dislike what they do but the person I love them. Or at least I would try too.

and 1 last poitnt before I go. I had a talk with a friend a while ago. Stepping away from religion. Lets go to science. Lets say the big bang theory is indeed correct. In the beggining the cells evolved into a female and male human. There jobs are to pro-create. It's their function. It's their job. Now per say there off-spring had 3 children. 2 males and 1 female. Now for some reason the males develop a relationship with 1 another. They have defeated their purpose and are for that are flawed. It sounds horrible but its the truth.

Its not religion that says homosexuality is wrong. Science says it just not as bluntly.

(I know I missed something in there but im sure someone will point it out for me)

[Fat1Fared]

Actually, I said I hate some parts of religion, I never said religion peaches hate at all, most of religion peaches against it, however some members have been known to use it as hate, but that is besides the point here, what I was sayying is, you tell someone there wrong for something have no control over, then be ready for action

Aspaically when your only reason telling them this, is from something which you know nothing about

As for agrument, all live is there to do what is needed to surivive and reproduce, well then what is point of us being senitent at all, and if is a god, why give humans the abitily to think about these things, if all going to do is make us do what is needed to surivive and reproduce, which don't need to be sentient to do, so fact we are sentient removes that agrument, like I have said in past, there is more to life than just living

[Tatterdemalion]

I want to bring this point up again because I think what HolyShadow said earlier about homosexuals hating on homophobics brings something really important about this subject to light. I want to tie this in with Tatterdemalion's post on tolerance vs. acceptance.

Aha! MrsSallyBakura, how lovely to see you again.

See, I think the problem is in the way that you use the word "hate." Hate is a strong word, and hate is a loaded word, but hate is also an ambiguous word, so let's not use it.

I also dislike the word homophobia, because it is neither a phobia nor a fear. It too is an ambiguous word, so let us not use it.

How about the word "prejudice." I like that one because it's so descriptive. I mean, the word says it all, pre-judice, to pre-judge someone based on something you know about them before knowing them.

Now, we agree that prejudice towards homosexuals is no good. A no-no, definitely. At the same time, prejudice towards anyone, including those who are prejudiced against homosexuals, isn't good. Why? Because it's bad for communication. It's silly to think that one thing about a person is enough to understand who they are. So assuming that anyone who is prejudiced towards homosexuals is a bible thumping, gun wielding, pickup trucking redneck hick is not a good idea, simply because it is not accurate.

Prejudice is settled.

Let's look at something else that we have.

How about anger. Anger is something that's really going around these days, and not without reason. Now, there are some prejudiced people who feel anger towards homosexuals. Why? It could be for any number of reasons. Are any of them justified? Not really, because in any case, when someone else does, says, thinks or is something in a way that has nothing to do with you, and doesn't effect you in any way, then there's no reason to be angered by it.

Now, at the same time, what about homosexuals in this case? DO homosexuals have reason to be angry with people who are prejudiced and angry towards them? The key difference between these two is that while it's unfair to be angry towards someone when what they think, say or do has nothing to do with you, if you're homosexual then prejudice and anger towards homosexuals does have something to do with you. In this case, there are these other people who are angry toward you, dislike you, accuse you of being at fault, and are mean to you (more on that next), when at the same time you've done nothing to them, and nothing to deserve such treatment. Which means you're being treated unfairly. Is it wrong to be angry towards people when they treat you unfairly? No. I'd say anger is a quite reasonable response.

And the last major points, hostility and aggression. Hostility, to make someone your enemy, and aggression, to attempt to hurt that person. We can agree, I'm sure, that it is silly to make someone your enemy simply because you are prejudiced against them, however there are many who do. And I'm sure we can agree that aggression towards a person who has done nothing to you is never acceptable. Yet at the same time, you have such hostility and aggression towards homosexuals. You have people verbally degrading homosexuals, to their faces and in general speech, you have bullying and teasing, both in the world of children and the world of adults, and in the worst cases you have outright physical violence. This is abhorrent, certainly.

So is retaliatory hostility justified? It's a tricky situation. It's never a good idea to make enemies when you can possibly make peace. But at the same time, when people make you their enemy through no fault of your own, and refuse to attempt to make any sort of peace or come to any sort of mutual understanding, then mutual hostility is understandable. It doesn't accomplish much, I know, but at the same time it doesn't really detract from much either.

And aggression? See, that's just it, compared to the aggression against homosexuals in society, the aggression you see towards the aggressors is very small in comparison. You don't see people who are prejudiced being bullied by their peers, whether their peers are homosexual or simply not prejudiced. You don't see widespread violence against people who are prejudiced. You see those crazy people who picket the funerals of homosexuals (extreme, I know), but even then you don't often see people picketing their funerals. And while you have a lot of rhetoric, most of this rhetoric is directed against prejudice, and not towards people who are prejudiced. You have a lot more of people trying to fight the idea than you have people trying to fight those who hold the idea.

So yeah, breaking it down, it really does seem to be the so-called "homophobic" people who are at fault, moreso than homosexuals and the like.

In any case, it's good to have you back.

[HolyShadow]

...I'd like to see proof of your accusations, Tatter. You say it's very small in comparison, yet I live in a place where if you were to say the words, "I hate gays," everyone around you would hate you. Why? Because most of them are bisexual, and are personally offended by it.

It's a regional thing, really.

They'll talk about how stupid religion is, like, oh, using the phrase, "2000 year old goat-herder book." That seems rather harsh, yet if I were to say, oh, "AIDS-spreading abomination," suddenly I'm the bad guy. I never strike first, yet I still hear these comments everywhere.

I'm a mirror of the people around me. If they're rude, I'm rude. If they're stupid, I play dumb. If they decide to treat me with respect, I'll treat them with respect. Problem is, most of them are instantly prejudiced against all types of religion because of what some close-minded individuals think. I'm caught in the crossfire of that, and they have to amend what they say to include me. (Something like, "Well, you aren't that way, but most are) If they wish to avoid the whole thing, they should show love to those who hate them, to avoid giving them a reason to hate them back.

I'm already kind enough to homosexuals, despite my logic behind what they do. However, these remarks still happen. Pretending that they don't or they're so small in comparison doesn't change a thing. Homosexuals are not all the innocent victims you make them out to be.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I hate some of what religion stands for, and this is same with gay poeple, you tell someone they are evil, for something they have no control over and that they should live their lives better, do you think they will like it, you are double bluffing yourself, your saying I won't throw a stone, but your still evil to me, and so they will react with, I think your evil for your thinking I'm evil, which you then react well, I think your evil for thinking, my thinking is evil, ...etc this goes on for long time

Now, I never said that homosexuals were evil. They are not evil. They sin, just like everyone else. Sin is evil, but just because someone sins, it doesn't make that person evil. If anyone, I'd say that very few people in this world are legitimately evil, and even if there were people who were, that's not for any human being to really judge because no one knows what's going on in their hearts.

Aha! MrsSallyBakura, how lovely to see you again.

Thanks. :)

Anger is something that's really going around these days, and not without reason. Now, there are some prejudiced people who feel anger towards homosexuals. Why? It could be for any number of reasons. Are any of them justified? Not really, because in any case, when someone else does, says, thinks or is something in a way that has nothing to do with you, and doesn't effect you in any way, then there's no reason to be angered by it.

Now, at the same time, what about homosexuals in this case? DO homosexuals have reason to be angry with people who are prejudiced and angry towards them? The key difference between these two is that while it's unfair to be angry towards someone when what they think, say or do has nothing to do with you, if you're homosexual then prejudice and anger towards homosexuals does have something to do with you. In this case, there are these other people who are angry toward you, dislike you, accuse you of being at fault, and are mean to you (more on that next), when at the same time you've done nothing to them, and nothing to deserve such treatment. Which means you're being treated unfairly. Is it wrong to be angry towards people when they treat you unfairly? No. I'd say anger is a quite reasonable response.

And the last major points, hostility and aggression. Hostility, to make someone your enemy, and aggression, to attempt to hurt that person. We can agree, I'm sure, that it is silly to make someone your enemy simply because you are prejudiced against them, however there are many who do. And I'm sure we can agree that aggression towards a person who has done nothing to you is never acceptable. Yet at the same time, you have such hostility and aggression towards homosexuals. You have people verbally degrading homosexuals, to their faces and in general speech, you have bullying and teasing, both in the world of children and the world of adults, and in the worst cases you have outright physical violence. This is abhorrent, certainly.

So is retaliatory hostility justified? It's a tricky situation. It's never a good idea to make enemies when you can possibly make peace. But at the same time, when people make you their enemy through no fault of your own, and refuse to attempt to make any sort of peace or come to any sort of mutual understanding, then mutual hostility is understandable. It doesn't accomplish much, I know, but at the same time it doesn't really detract from much either.

And aggression? See, that's just it, compared to the aggression against homosexuals in society, the aggression you see towards the aggressors is very small in comparison. You don't see people who are prejudiced being bullied by their peers, whether their peers are homosexual or simply not prejudiced. You don't see widespread violence against people who are prejudiced. You see those crazy people who picket the funerals of homosexuals (extreme, I know), but even then you don't often see people picketing their funerals. And while you have a lot of rhetoric, most of this rhetoric is directed against prejudice, and not towards people who are prejudiced. You have a lot more of people trying to fight the idea than you have people trying to fight those who hold the idea.

So yeah, breaking it down, it really does seem to be the so-called "homophobic" people who are at fault, moreso than homosexuals and the like.

Having read both your post and HolyShadow's post, while it's probably likely that the "homophobic" people are at fault, does that mean the other side is allowed to fight back?

We can't help how we feel, so anger towards these people can't really be helped, but there's a way of dealing with anger that doesn't result in hostility or aggression.

I'm coming at all this with a very Christian philosophy (shock, shock, surprise, surprise), having to do with turning the other cheek and whatnot, so this probably seems alien to many people, but if you remain the victim then you won't be the bad guy. When Jesus was being beaten and tortured and whipped and spit on and hung on the cross, He could have stood up for himself and tried to reason with people as to why He wasn't doing anything wrong, but He didn't (the Jews probably wouldn't have believed Him anyways, just like "homophobic" people wouldn't believe homosexuals if homosexuals told them that they didn't do anything wrong, because "homophobic" people might retort with something about how their existing or something).

I can understand wanting to stand up for yourself, in fact turning the other cheek doesn't always mean that you should let people beat you up everyday, but verbally or physically attacking people who are religious and may or may not be "homophobic" isn't going to change much of anything.

[Ishikawa Oshro]

Actually, I said I hate some parts of religion, I never said religion peaches hate at all, most of religion peaches against it, however some members have been known to use it as hate, but that is besides the point here, what I was sayying is, you tell someone there wrong for something have no control over, then be ready for action

Aspaically when your only reason telling them this, is from something which you know nothing about

As for agrument, all live is there to do what is needed to surivive and reproduce, well then what is point of us being senitent at all, and if is a god, why give humans the abitily to think about these things, if all going to do is make us do what is needed to surivive and reproduce, which don't need to be sentient to do, so fact we are sentient removes that agrument, like I have said in past, there is more to life than just living

According to the bible we were not made to debate these things. we were ignorant but happy. It was when Adam and Eve partook of the tree of knowledge that we started to question things. Knowledge is a true curse among us. Yes it is a must for us now. we rely heavily on it. Military, technological advances, medical, etc. But before all this rocket science knowldege was not needed. It dosent take a math matician to plow a feild or take care of animals. The role of adam was to till the land and Eve was a help meet for Eve and together they were friends of God. Thats how things should have gone forever more. According to my belief.

And I fully agree with you in the fact that there is more to life than just living. But I'm just curious as to what you believe. You believe we have a purpose in life but then who gave us that purpose? Were we made or did we evolve to do magnificient things in life??? How can we have a purpose if no one made us with one?

[Fat1Fared]

According to the bible we were not made to debate these things. we were ignorant but happy. It was when Adam and Eve partook of the tree of knowledge that we started to question things. Knowledge is a true curse among us. Yes it is a must for us now. we rely heavily on it. Military, technological advances, medical, etc. But before all this rocket science knowldege was not needed. It dosent take a math matician to plow a feild or take care of animals. The role of adam was to till the land and Eve was a help meet for Eve and together they were friends of God. Thats how things should have gone forever more. According to my belief.

And I fully agree with you in the fact that there is more to life than just living. But I'm just curious as to what you believe. You believe we have a purpose in life but then who gave us that purpose? Were we made or did we evolve to do magnificient things in life??? How can we have a purpose if no one made us with one?

though that is a nice bit of science bashing and is some valid points there, are you saying we shouldn't be sentient and that god doesn't want us this way

But surely God in all his power could have stopped/removed this little problem, aspiacally when he presets all our destinies, however if we move away from this, that is going on Creation Story, which even church has rejected and think we can say if god did make us, then he made us sentient on purpose

And this is if we ignore that fact that even animials have gayyness

And even this goes on the fact we need to ignore fact, that we don't actually know if god is against gayness, so in all think there is a little to much to ignore here for your theory to hold water

EditSally, though you are great at debating, you do have a hadit of only looking at one part of someones debate, and by removing other agruments, make it invalid, you say they are sinner, therefore you are saying their doing something evil, and that is way most will take it, however even if not calling them fully evil, still saying doing something evil, and so my point still stands.

Also, you in your point to tatters, you are saying it is ok, for one side to do the wrong thing, and that other should accept it, well if the other side never did orginal act, then there wouldn't be a problem

Now sally lets just say I said that all christians are XXXXXXX<put own insults> XXXXXXX you would be indigent and defend yourself, and I expect in your past you would have done this

-Yes no point the gay poeple just insulting or mindlessly fighting back, but they have every right to rebut your agrument, aspiacally as tatter's point, that there actions don't effect you, but yours do effect them

[Ishikawa Oshro]

though that is a nice bit of science bashing and is some valid points there, are you saying we shouldn't be sentient and that god doesn't want us this way

But surely God in all his power could have stopped/removed this little problem, aspiacally when he presets all our destinies, however if we move away from this, that is going on Creation Story, which even church has rejected and think we can say if god did make us, then he made us sentient on purpose

And this is if we ignore that fact that even animials have gayyness

And even this goes on the fact we need to ignore fact, that we don't actually know if god is against gayness, so in all think there is a little to much to ignore here for your theory to hold water

EditSally, though you are great at debating, you do have a hadit of only looking at one part of someones debate, and by removing other agruments, make it invalid, you say they are sinner, therefore you are saying their doing something evil, and that is way most will take it, however even if not calling them fully evil, still saying doing something evil, and so my point still stands.

Also, you in your point to tatters, you are saying it is ok, for one side to do the wrong thing, and that other should accept it, well if the other side never did orginal act, then there wouldn't be a problem

Now sally lets just say I said that all christians are XXXXXXX<put own insults> XXXXXXX you would be indigent and defend yourself, and I expect in your past you would have done this

-Yes no point the gay poeple just insulting or mindlessly fighting back, but they have every right to rebut your agrument, aspiacally as tatter's point, that there actions don't effect you, but yours do effect them


1 corin 6:9 (new standard edition)
A homosexual, idolator, adulter, nor fornicators will inherit the kingdom of heaven.

According to the word GOD is against gayness. He destoryed a nation because of their lustfull ways for the same gender.
The human flesh was once uncorruptble. We would live forever but due to the whole garden of Eden ordeal the flesh was made corruptible through the manifestation of sin.

Its the same with lust. The majority of us do it. The bible clearly states we are not to do it. Yet it's something we do out of the norm sometimes. Did GOD give us that lust? No. Humans are made to fall in love with each other yes. but to only think of some people as sex toys was not in the original plan.
Do we moan and gripe about it???no. weve accepted its wrong. We try our best to cast it down.

Same as homosexuality. Ill say that some people are born liking the same gender. Just like the lust example. GOD diddent make them that way though.
they became corrupt due to sin.

Yes im saying sin is the cause of homosexuals. Without sin men would be with men and woman would be with woman.

After GOD made eve he clearly states-
Genesis 2:24-therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become as one flesh.

Theres something special about the connection between man and woman. A woman has things to offer that a man cannot offer and a man offers things to the woman that she cannot do alone.

Though the bible speaks of some who are not meant to be wed. Meaning they have no intrest in the opposite gender. this also could be a cause of homosexuality. Some may be confused and force feelings that eventually become genuine. They say bile is an aquired taste. You have to have it a couple times to actually begin to like the stuff.

Im talking to much.

[Fat1Fared]

There not the view of god, they are view of whoever wrote those different parts, and so to use them as evidence is very silly, I may as well use a Sun newpaper to show the view of English poeple,

I am sure if I could be bothered, I could find a 100 things, which claim to be word of god and go against them (In bible and out it)

Though thanks for the bullets, they will make nice evidence, next time I want to prove god is angry and vindictive and not all forgiving lol <wink>

[Ishikawa Oshro]

There not the view of god, they are view of whoever wrote those different parts, and so to use them as evidence is very silly, I may as well use a Sun newpaper to show the view of English poeple,

I am sure if I could be bothered, I could find a 100 things, which claim to be word of god and go against them (In bible and out it)

Though thanks for the bullets, they will make nice evidence, next time I want to prove god is angry and vindictive and not all forgiving lol <wink>

No one ever said god is unforgiving lolz
the bible says all you have to do is say sorry(a.k.a repent) which means you will try not to do it again. god will completly forgive you. and he even forgets your sin completly. It will never be brought up again.

So you cant say GOD is not forgiving!!!!

And about that finding 100 things. Im sure you could. But just remember. All of them are faulty. they have wholes that are exploited and is why they dont last long. Christianity has been around for quite some time. The bible was around before the new testament and before the printing press lolz. And dont get a catholic or mormon bible. Theyve already been proven to have been tampered with.

^_~

[maisetofan]

1 corin 6:9 (new standard edition)
A homosexual, idolator, adulter, nor fornicators will inherit the kingdom of heaven.


well actually all who do not believe and receive jesus as their lord and personal saviour will not enter the kingdom of heaven

i am christian and i beleive we are still sinful as we are human, we are just forgiven and christ will forgive all those who sin against him, if they accept him

[Ishikawa Oshro]

well actually all who do not believe and receive jesus as their lord and personal saviour will not enter the kingdom of heaven

i am christian and i beleive we are still sinful as we are human, we are just forgiven and christ will forgive all those who sin against him, if they accept him

I agree with you fully Maisetofan
Theres other scriptures I could have used its just that one strictly used homosexuality the word. At least if you read the NIV version.
But yes romans 3:23 clearly justifies what your saying.

[Fat1Fared]

No one ever said god is unforgiving lolz
the bible says all you have to do is say sorry(a.k.a repent) which means you will try not to do it again. god will completly forgive you. and he even forgets your sin completly. It will never be brought up again.

So you cant say GOD is not forgiving!!!!

And about that finding 100 things. Im sure you could. But just remember. All of them are faulty. they have wholes that are exploited and is why they dont last long. Christianity has been around for quite some time. The bible was around before the new testament and before the printing press lolz. And dont get a catholic or mormon bible. Theyve already been proven to have been tampered with.

^_~

Clearly the irony of that last statement was lost on you, though I would say god is forgiving, but that is more matter of my personal opinion and not needed here

However once again, you give this belief you somehow have answers, you don't my friend, you have your own beliefs and in that comment you have actually proven my point, when I said that I could find a 100 ones to rebutt your ones, you agreed, but said they would be faulty, and yes they would be faulty, however the ones you use are faulty as well, which was point I was making, everything around god is fautly, and the only reason you accept these ones, is because they prove your point, and so you just throw the others away as merer mistakes, but lets face like I said everything there is faulty, so it cannot be used here,

The reason there fautly, because they all contridict one another and were written by men with their own agenda's, (which probably had nothing to do with god) and not one of them will show gods real beliefs, they will show what these men believe is gods belief (or just what suite them, to make out to be gods belief

[Ishikawa Oshro]

Clearly the irony of that last statement was lost on you, though I would say god is forgiving, but that is more matter of my personal opinion and not needed here

However once again, you give this belief you somehow have answers, you don't my friend, you have your own beliefs and in that comment you have actually proven my point, when I said that I could find a 100 ones to rebutt your ones, you agreed, but said they would be faulty, and yes they would be faulty, however the ones you use are faulty as well, which was point I was making, everything around god is fautly, and the only reason you accept these ones, is because they prove your point, and so you just throw the others away as merer mistakes, but lets face like I said everything there is faulty, so it cannot be used here,

The reason there fautly, because they all contridict one another and were written by men with their own agenda's, (which probably had nothing to do with god) and not one of them will show gods real beliefs, they will show what these men believe is gods belief (or just what suite them, to make out to be gods belief

What you said was
"I am sure if I could be bothered, I could find a 100 things, which claim to be word of god and go against them (In bible and out it)"

You said things they claim to be the word of GOD. And I agreed that you probably could. but do you honestly think you can do what science itself still cannot do. They keep discrediting us just because you have to have belief. But yet our belief continues to prove us right.

Acts 2:38(speaks of the holy ghost)
Which is known as speaking in other languages. Science has the audacity to say that humans can do that all on our own from memory. No theres a lot of people who claim to speak in tongues and some people from across the sea speak english. the beauty of this is that the person has no knowledge of what their saying. you know your speaking but you dont know what language it is.The bible says it is GOD speaking through us. Science says humans can do this yet it only the christians than can actually exercise this divine movement of GOD. The move of azusa street still baffles people to this day. But they dont want to say the bible is right. Nopes. the evidence is RIGHT there the signs were in their face. The bible spoke of it before it happened./ It was foretold lolz. what more do they want????

Fat1fared I speak with authority. I believe the planet saturn is out there with a ring around it. have I ever seen it. nopes. Ive seen pictures but anyone can make a realistic doodle now a days. I speak with my faith that because I was taught it it is really out there. The majority says saturn exists and some say theve seen it. I dont call them luny's do I? I dont say thats prepostrious. I believe because theres enough evidence and proof to credit the existence of saturn.

If my heart believes that its real. And I have enough facts in my life to give credit to its existence then I will speak about it as if it exists.

[Fat1Fared]

Now, you do what so many others do when cannot find a way to prove something wrong, you take one part of it and make it out to be whole thing, making it wrong, if you read ALL I put, I was sayying the info you used was unreliable and that I could easily find other info from same area, which goes against it, because all of it is unreilable

What I didn't say, was that the information I would find is right and yours is wrong, (infact it was you who said that to me)

[Ishikawa Oshro]

Now, you do what so many others do when cannot find a way to prove something wrong, you take one part of it and make it out to be whole thing, making it wrong, if you read ALL I put, I was sayying the info you used was unreliable and that I could easily find other info from same area, which goes against it, because all of it is unreilable

What I didn't say, was that the information I would find is right and yours is wrong, (infact it was you who said that to me)

Okay lolz
start from here
What exactly are you trying to say lolz
It sounds like your saying you could use the bible to go against what im saying???

Before I pose my next question si this true or false?
I disdain going in circles!

[maisetofan]

I agree with you fully Maisetofan
Theres other scriptures I could have used its just that one strictly used homosexuality the word. At least if you read the NIV version.
But yes romans 3:23 clearly justifies what your saying.

:):):)
well i have the new king james but yeah its the same in any language
well its supposed to be anyway

[Tatterdemalion]

Having read both your post and HolyShadow's post, while it's probably likely that the "homophobic" people are at fault, does that mean the other side is allowed to fight back?

We can't help how we feel, so anger towards these people can't really be helped, but there's a way of dealing with anger that doesn't result in hostility or aggression.

I'm coming at all this with a very Christian philosophy (shock, shock, surprise, surprise), having to do with turning the other cheek and whatnot, so this probably seems alien to many people, but if you remain the victim then you won't be the bad guy. When Jesus was being beaten and tortured and whipped and spit on and hung on the cross, He could have stood up for himself and tried to reason with people as to why He wasn't doing anything wrong, but He didn't (the Jews probably wouldn't have believed Him anyways, just like "homophobic" people wouldn't believe homosexuals if homosexuals told them that they didn't do anything wrong, because "homophobic" people might retort with something about how their existing or something).

I can understand wanting to stand up for yourself, in fact turning the other cheek doesn't always mean that you should let people beat you up everyday, but verbally or physically attacking people who are religious and may or may not be "homophobic" isn't going to change much of anything.

But at the same time, you don't have homosexuals going around verbally, let alone physically attacking people because they're religious. Even if some members of the religious community have waged war on the gay community, the gay community has not in response waged war on religion. You have people who are very, very critical of religion, which is very different, and I would say very acceptable, but you don't have some sort of widespread gay strike on religion. If anything, you have much less than one would expect.

But again, another important point is that there's a difference between waging war on an idea and waging war on people who hold that idea. While it may not be productive to try to fight with people who are prejudiced, hostile and aggressive, it is perfectly acceptable, if not necessary to try to fight their prejudice, their hostility, and their aggression. And that is, for the most part, what you see.

[HolyShadow]

But at the same time, you don't have homosexuals going around verbally, let alone physically attacking people because they're religious. Even if some members of the religious community have waged war on the gay community, the gay community has not in response waged war on religion. You have people who are very, very critical of religion, which is very different, and I would say very acceptable, but you don't have some sort of widespread gay strike on religion. If anything, you have much less than one would expect.

LOLBULLSHIT

Still unacceptable. Don't pretend that just because they're less prone to being huge jackasses that they aren't jackasses at all. Flawed logic.

But again, another important point is that there's a difference between waging war on an idea and waging war on people who hold that idea. While it may not be productive to try to fight with people who are prejudiced, hostile and aggressive, it is perfectly acceptable, if not necessary to try to fight their prejudice, their hostility, and their aggression. And that is, for the most part, what you see.
Not acceptable. Protest, don't hate.

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

Isn't there a Catholic Priest whose admittedly gay?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/11/06/a_gay_priest_receives_the_sacrament_of_acceptance/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+National+News
What's so scary about gay people anyway?
If I'm walking alone late at night, I'd rather have a gay man with me instead of a straight man.

[HolyShadow]

They could be just as jackass prone as anyone else could be.
Yup. And a jackass by any other name smells just as bad.

All hate is equal. If homosexuals hate homophobes, it's just as wrong as if homophobes hate homosexuals. Just because it's natural retaliation doesn't get rid of the fact that the hate is present, and the only reason retaliation is seen as okay is because that's something the society we live in decided on.

All hate is equal. No buts about it.

[Ishikawa Oshro]

Isn't there a Catholic Priest whose admittedly gay?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/11/06/a_gay_priest_receives_the_sacrament_of_acceptance/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+National+News
What's so scary about gay people anyway?
If I'm walking alone late at night, I'd rather have a gay man with me instead of a straight man.

Its hyprocritical in the church though. It defeats the purpose of the bible though.

Thats like having a christian star in a porno O.O

Thats like having an officer of the law smoke weed without a doctors notice. There supposed to represent the law. If they dont stand for it then who will?

same as christians. If my pastor was gay that would be peculiar. Because the bible says it's a sin. The pastors job is to lead his church away from sin and teach them right from wrong. If he is openly doing what his manuel(aka the bible) proclaims is wrong then he would be discrediting himself.

there's nothing scary about homosexual's at all.
Well as a man I fear the dropping of the soap
>.< *cringes at the thought*

[Tatterdemalion]

LOLBULLSHIT

Still unacceptable. Don't pretend that just because they're less prone to being huge jackasses that they aren't jackasses at all. Flawed logic.

But the fact that you have significantly less from a group from which, given the circumstances, you would expect a great deal is worth mentioning, especially in the given context.

Not acceptable. Protest, don't hate.

I didn't say hate, I said fight. Protesting is just one method of fighting an idea.

[Ishikawa Oshro]

Smokin' weed needs a doctors notice??? :confused:

I met a gay pastor before. She had a 4th of July barbecue last year that was off tha hook. She was a very nice woman, and I called her grandma.

I don't know about you, but I seen some scary ass gay people before. <shivers>

Thats more of a jailbird joke. Is there some reason you may end up in jail?

lolz no I never plan to go to Jail but the apostles went to jail because the mass populas diddent like them so I wouldent put it past me.

And about your kewl homosexual pastor. I never said they couldent be cool. I just said they would be hyprocritcal of what the bible teaches and therefore I would not allow them to be head over me.

well an active Homosexual person. My bad I should have put that better.

[HolyShadow]

But the fact that you have significantly less from a group from which, given the circumstances, you would expect a great deal is worth mentioning, especially in the given context.

Doesn't matter. All hate is equal regardless of the situation or context. Fighting an idea is the same as disliking that idea, which is another word for hate.

[Ishikawa Oshro]

Despite our differences Ishikawa I think you are a kick ass dude, and please dont take my post personal or that I don't respect you.

Its all good Mr Jswiggs
Even though the title says serious discussions I try to take them as only that.
We are all entitled to are our own thoughts an opinions. And hearing the thoughts of others helps me to further develop my own.

And if I ever sound a bit high and mighty please tell me T_T
I dont ever mean to come across that way though it is the way I speak sometimes.
(in reality im far from high and mighty. Im more like low and squatty hahahaha)

[Fat1Fared]

Okay lolz
start from here
What exactly are you trying to say lolz
It sounds like your saying you could use the bible to go against what im saying???

Before I pose my next question si this true or false?
I disdain going in circles!

Oshro, what I am sayying isn't hard, there are 2 points:

1=it is that all evidence around god, even things in bible, maybe aspeically the bible, (as it has been rewritten, changed and translated throughtout history) is flawed and cannot be used, aspeically as a reason to hate, heck, even dislike someone, aspeically for something which isn't their choice

Now I know your next comment, will be well science is flawed, and believe or not, I would agree with that, it is flawed, difference is, it is a lot lest flawed than religion and actually tries to prove itself, rather than just saying have faith,

2=The second was that most of this flawed evidence, is countered by other flawed evidence from same area, making it even more flawed, and though you have found nice little passages to show what "SOME" writer thinks, there is just as much which goes against that, and fact is you only accept ones you do, because they prove your point, (I reject all of it)

[Spoofs3]

I don't believe God has anything against Homosexuals.
This statement is being made clear and logical, please try to understand where I am coming from.

The Bible only depicts Homosexuality as bad because it puts pleasure in front of the only purpose there should be for sex, Reproduction.
But then in this instance, most religions should not hate Gays, Why?
Because they accept sex other than Reproduction. They accept the use of it for pleasure, So why would they hate two men being together?
Is it wrong because they are the same?

Another reason why people see this as "Bad" Is because of God specially designing us this way, Man and Woman. Why should we overlook his special plan? Why should we stop his plan for Male/Female, Adam/Eve
But God only designed Woman, AFTER man, He had no rogional idea to design woman, Adam came first, And was designed exactly as he was, Man alone, Man to exist on his universe, Woman came after, So if Man was to live on the world by himself, With the design unchanged menaing he HAD sexual organs and sexual reproductions, What were the point? God wouldn't have put these in if not for pleasure.

Religion also says in all aspects, Treat others as you would treat yourself, But you would not criticize yourself for liking one over another. And neither would God.
God believes in love of all kind, To everyone, And just because the personality you love, is in a guy, its not fair for another guy to not love him, Or if it were a girl, Another girl SHOULD be able to love her.
Love is the main principle of God, And if he created us out of love, and gave us the ability to love others, WHy is it wrong it wrong to use this love?

PEACE OUT DUDES, GO OUT AND LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR (Or some other christian ideals I have no clue about)

[HolyShadow]

I don't believe God has anything against Homosexuals.
This statement is being made clear and logical, please try to understand where I am coming from.

The Bible only depicts Homosexuality as bad because it puts pleasure in front of the only purpose there should be for sex, Reproduction.
But then in this instance, most religions should not hate Gays, Why?
Because they accept sex other than Reproduction. They accept the use of it for pleasure, So why would they hate two men being together?
Is it wrong because they are the same?

Another reason why people see this as "Bad" Is because of God specially designing us this way, Man and Woman. Why should we overlook his special plan? Why should we stop his plan for Male/Female, Adam/Eve
But God only designed Woman, AFTER man, He had no rogional idea to design woman, Adam came first, And was designed exactly as he was, Man alone, Man to exist on his universe, Woman came after, So if Man was to live on the world by himself, With the design unchanged menaing he HAD sexual organs and sexual reproductions, What were the point? God wouldn't have put these in if not for pleasure.

Religion also says in all aspects, Treat others as you would treat yourself, But you would not criticize yourself for liking one over another. And neither would God.
God believes in love of all kind, To everyone, And just because the personality you love, is in a guy, its not fair for another guy to not love him, Or if it were a girl, Another girl SHOULD be able to love her.
Love is the main principle of God, And if he created us out of love, and gave us the ability to love others, WHy is it wrong it wrong to use this love?

PEACE OUT DUDES, GO OUT AND LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR (Or some other christian ideals I have no clue about)
Adam had a wife before Eve. Her name was Lilith. However, in an argument about sexual positions, in which she wanted to be on top, Adam said no. So, she left.

[Ishikawa Oshro]

That was a joke right HOLY
lolz

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

Adam had a wife before Eve. Her name was Lilith. However, in an argument about sexual positions, in which she wanted to be on top, Adam said no. So, she left.

That was a joke right HOLY
lolz

I've heard about Lilith too.
It's a part of bible legend.
According to the legend, Lillith wanted rights equal to Adam, instead of a submissive stature. She wasn't granted this equality and left the Garden of Eden to marry a demon and the mother of other female demons.

[HolyShadow]

I've heard about Lilith too.
It's a part of bible legend.
According to the legend, Lillith wanted rights equal to Adam, instead of a submissive stature. She wasn't granted this equality and left the Garden of Eden to marry a demon and the mother of other female demons.
Also known as the funniest thing in biblical lore. He's so stubborn that he won't even have sex with her equally. LOL

[Tatterdemalion]

Doesn't matter. All hate is equal regardless of the situation or context. Fighting an idea is the same as disliking that idea, which is another word for hate.

Disliking is not the same as hating, and even so, disliking or hating an idea isn't the same as disliking or hating a person who holds that idea. For example, I'm opposed to racism, I'm anti-racism, I dislike racism, perhaps I even hate racism, and I support fighting racism...that doesn't mean that I hate everyone who is a racist. That would be silly, hating someone I don't even know.

But yeah, there's a difference between fighting an idea and fighting a person. A big, big difference.

[Turtlicious]

what we think about homosexuals doesnt matter because they have a certain way of living and nothing we can do will change so stop debating because i can prove it is not a choice right now
how many people want to be socially shunned?

considered evil?

hated by there freinds and family?

hmm.. ohhh noone thats right so shut up

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

Also known as the funniest thing in biblical lore. He's so stubborn that he won't even have sex with her equally. LOL

Typical stubborn Man...:p



@Tatter: It's not the hate, it's the Stupidity. You have homophobes beating and killing Gay people over something so trivial as liking the same gender. You have Gay people beating and killing Homophobes because they are unable to accept alternative lifestyles.

Why not kill them all and let God sort them out? <--- I'm not being serious here but yuo get the point.


It's human nature to fear what we don't understand. Sometimes that that fear can turn violent.

[Tatterdemalion]

@Tatter: It's not the hate, it's the Stupidity. You have homophobes beating and killing Gay people over something so trivial as liking the same gender. You have Gay people beating and killing Homophobes because they are unable to accept alternative lifestyles.

How often do you see gay people beating and killing homophobes?

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

How often do you see gay people beating and killing homophobes?

not often,
dislike and hate and bashing can escalate to something more horrific.

[revolverslev]

i, being gay, actually would never attack a homophobe unless it was self defence
they're mentally handicapped enoug as it is, i'd hate to inflict further mental damage

[Spoofs3]

I've heard about Lilith too.
It's a part of bible legend.
According to the legend, Lillith wanted rights equal to Adam, instead of a submissive stature. She wasn't granted this equality and left the Garden of Eden to marry a demon and the mother of other female demons.


Actually, Lilith WAS the demon, And married Adamn without him knowing of her being one (Because she looks unusually like a human)
When She was caught and found to be a demon she was banished from the garden,
Now she didn;t take this nicely, Organized the snake to trick eve (Yup, her aswell)
And they were banished.
She was largly unheard of for a while until she came back and raped Adam (Seriously, WHy DID God create her?)
Multiple times and had loads of demon babies, She then raped Adams son (Once again, Is she really necisary, Why God?)
And then had more


But yeah, Thats not in all the stories Holy, There are multiple variations on the Garden of Eden, And one of them has Adam and Eve alone first, I was using that rather than the one with Lilith

[DANMAN]

something about family health. Or something like that. But still, I somehow agree banning it could be unconstitutional by the 1st amendment, but I'm not sure this applies. Last, I hate discrimination.

[MrsSallyBakura]

The whole Lilith story baffles me somewhat. That's why I don't bother with it, lol.

Back to homosexuality, earlier we talked about homosexuals themselves, and we talked about religious folk, as if they are separate groups. However, sometimes there will be a person who is a religious homosexual. Unfortunately, we do not hear their side of the story very often, at least not nearly as often as we should.

Yesterday I was browsing on Google for a particular Catholic forum that I remembered liking but didn't favorite for some reason, and I came across a site called Gay Catholic Forum. Curious, I clicked on it and found this man's testimony between his dedication to the Church and his homosexuality.

You may or may not find this to be a very comfortable read, but you have to admit that it's interesting to see this side of the story fleshed out on a personal level. http://www.gaycatholicforum.org/html/ryan_why.html

[Kiya]

What gets me is how America is suppose to be "The land of the free" particlly meaning there isn't to be ONE religion we must fallow. Yet laws are made such as no gay marriage because "It says in the bible."
First we had slaves
Then ruled by raciesm.
Then Sexism.
Now we have problems with homosexuals.
What will be in our grandkids lifes? (Speaking for young adults) Horrible treatment for certin eye color? Its pathetic that America makes such laws , hating each other just for being attracted to a certin gender.

[Tatterdemalion]

What gets me is how America is suppose to be "The land of the free" particlly meaning there isn't to be ONE religion we must fallow. Yet laws are made such as no gay marriage because "It says in the bible."
First we had slaves
Then ruled by raciesm.
Then Sexism.
Now we have problems with homosexuals.
What will be in our grandkids lifes? (Speaking for young adults) Horrible treatment for certin eye color? Its pathetic that America makes such laws , hating each other just for being attracted to a certin gender.

Keep in mind, first we had slavery AND racism AND sexism AND anti-homosexuality, then we just has racism and sexism and anti-homosexuality, then we had just sexism and...well, you get my point.

So things are actually getting better, not worse as your post implies.

[Turtlicious]

i apologize for offending nayone but..

honestly human nature is to hate and so we will always be looking for the next -ism

when homophobes pass we will just hate someone else

[maisetofan]

yes sadly that is the way of the world and there is still too much sexism around, look at the middle eastern culture, the hindu, muslim, exclusive bretheren, they all demean women and force them into a miserable life of rules and regulations with little or no freedom whatsoever not to mention, the physical abuse that they either are told is "their fault" or they made up!!!!

[sumbuddy]

personally, i don't get incredibly defensive when people say "that's so gay", as i think we have to learn to laugh at ourselves, but when people start banning gay marriage, that's going too far.
btw, did scientists actually prove that homosexuality is linked to your dna?

[sumbuddy]

Typical stubborn Man...:p

It's human nature to fear what we don't understand. Sometimes that that fear can turn violent.

for further proof, watch the movie "signs" starring mel gibson

[sumbuddy]

and miss california 2009, you can shut it.

[sumbuddy]

Dude... edit your posts, don't post 5 in a row...

yeah, sorry...didn't notice that button was there...i'll do that from now on.
k i'll stop posting now

[Spoofs3]

What gets me is how America is suppose to be "The land of the free" particlly meaning there isn't to be ONE religion we must fallow. Yet laws are made such as no gay marriage because "It says in the bible."



Keep in mind Marriage IS a religious rite of practice.
it joins two people together in the name of God,
Why is it necessary? Not really, But ya know... For some reason its become so important nowadays that 2 people can't love each other without being married...
but yeah, marriage is a religious ceremony, So to insult it for only doing it what it says in the bible is stupid...
And yeah, What the bible says is stupid anyways =D

Either way, if you love them, Just live together, But not married unless you actually ARE religious

[Fat1Fared]

spoofs, why'll their is some truth to that, it isn't whole truth by far, as marriage has become just as much, about social and economic reasons, as religious ones, the very fact that you can get none religious marriages proves this:-