Homosexuality

[obi]

This thread is too one-sided (who could have guessed?). Time to shake things up!

In response to the original post: you're saying that homosexuality is natural because fucking elephants do it? Are we elephants? Elephants also happen to coat their bodies with their own feces, is that OK?

No. I'm saying that a common argument against it is that it is unnatural. Read what I said again very carefully, and find where I said "It is natural, therefore it is good." The argument I often hear is "It is unnatural, therefore it is bad." (the naturalistic fallacy), so I refute it with "It is natural." (among other refutations).

Your arguments on Christian's view on marriage says 'I don't understand Christianity'. I'm not going to explain it - i learned my lesson of trying to explain religion to the obviously non-religious years ago - but i will mention that Christianity isn't the only religion against homosexuality. Every major religion is. But hey, it's Christianity, and let's bash them at every opportunity! That's what's popular these days!

First, this line seems to say more along the lines of "I don't know how to refute your arguments." than an actual point, but I'll humor you. Why don't you try explaining it to me, then, if I don't get it, rather than resorting to "The answer is obvious, but you, being an uneducated heathen fool, wouldn't understand, so I won't bother. For the purposes of this thread, we can just assume I made a brilliant point." line?

This is the first I've heard of Hinduism and Buddhism being "against homosexuality", although admittedly I am not particularly educated on that matter.

Now, being pokemon fans, you're most likely in the 13-18 demographic, and your entire world is black and white in that stage; everything George Bush does is evil, everything Michael Moore says is good, and anyone who is against gays simply hates them (i've experienced this already on here; that 'i could be banned' is under my name simply because i'm not liberal).

You assume too much. I say "Discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong.", and therefore I love Michael Moore?

It's sad that I even have to make this disclaimer, but I have many gay friends who I love dearly, and who love me back, even though we argue about it all the time. If you're going to respond, than actually respond; i really don't want to hear any of that 'LoL u jus hate gay peepz' or 'LoL go read ur bible' crap. The only reason i typed this up is to promote discussion amongst what is a predictably one-sided thread.

Ironic that you tell people to actually respond to the arguments made at the end of a post filled with personal attacks.

This is all well and good, but Catholics believe in false doctrine. That is, they believe that "tradition" has equal weight with God-given Scripture, they believe that works can save (when it is clear from the Bible that only faith can save), and they believe in a false hierarchy whereby the Pope declares Christian verities. Put simply, the Catholics are heretical and only to be called Christian by those too charitable and intellectually dishonest to acknowledge its inauthenticity. I may also add that Catholicism possesses shades of paganism: worship of Mary is idolatry and profoundly unchristian.

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

"But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

"You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

"In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."

- James, 2:14-26


"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

- Matthew 7:21


"All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?"

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'"

- Matthew 25:32-45


"God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile."

- Romans 2:6-10




Please stop trolling.

 

[Dragontamer]

/\ I need to seriously learn some theology and start memorizing parts of the Bible >_>

 

[SSBM roy]

Now, being pokemon fans, you're most likely in the 13-18 demographic, and your entire world is black and white in that stage; everything George Bush does is evil

The same George Bush who said 'you are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror'?

 

[Lexite]

Sure my example was taking the extreme case, but the point still stands. What if your religion required you to break any other law? Which laws is it ok to break?

For instance would it be ok in america to say "company x is run by homosexual y, who is abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumour in the body of society, dont buy their products". I mean, it is excercising religion, but at the same time is slander.. I wonder if anything like this has come up in court before?

Seriously freedom of speach has been limited for a long time everywhere.

Also (not knowing sweedish hatespeach laws) I bet that it is just as illegal to call christianity a "horrible cancerous tumour" so those others against him might have to be careful too..

Actually the more I think about it, the less sympathy I feel for the dude..

Have a nice day.

Yeah it would be just as wrong for someone to say something just as bad about Christanity, but look many people alreayd do and post articles in the news paper and all over the media, are tehy accused of anyhting, no of course not, freedom of speech, and they every right to do so.

 

[almino]

Now, being pokemon fans, you're most likely in the 13-18 demographic, and your entire world is black and white in that stage; everything George Bush does is evil, everything Michael Moore says is good, and anyone who is against gays simply hates them (i've experienced this already on here; that 'i could be banned' is under my name simply because i'm not liberal).

Is it possible for me to hate George Bush and Michael Moore at the same time? I hate Republicans and Democrats since none of them protect the smallest minority: the individual. Either party would like to compromise a section of your individual rights, which based on my observations on history and my own opinion, is the root of most problems.

But in relation to the topic, if two people of the same sex think that sexual intercourse is the best way to spend their time or express their love, then by all means let them.

 

[Lexite]

I There's a saying (i think Churchill said it), "if you aren't liberal at 15, you have no heart, and if you aren't conservative at 30, you have no brain".

I love that quote, I forget where i first heard it but I fully agree. I like what you have to say. And very good point on the equal rights bit, couldnt agree more.

 

[Hipmonlee]

None of those quotes actually demonstrate works saving without faith, which is what I got the impression ls was refering to. Though, I have never heard that catholicism saying that works can save..

[edit] - not that this has any bearing on the debate anyway..

Have a nice day.

 

[Basics]

No. I'm saying that a common argument against it is that it is unnatural. Read what I said again very carefully, and find where I said "It is natural, therefore it is good." The argument I often hear is "It is unnatural, therefore it is bad." (the naturalistic fallacy), so I refute it with "It is natural." (among other refutations).

This is a mistake a lot of debaters make, and it's just something I'm going to address here. A lot of people make unnecessary arguments in hopes to reinforce their thesis, when really it just gives the illusion of reinforcement. If you have logically proven the validity of your argument, any addition argument is moot. You're essentially saying this:
"The point you're raising is ridiculous and invalid, but if it was valid, this is how I would refute it." I'm sure you can see how this could be confusing, and serve to actually distract people from your main point, weaken your argument and draw the discussion away from the topic at hand.

The "natural" vs "unnatural" argument is absolute rubbish, so why even address it?

 

[Dragontamer]

The "natural" vs "unnatural" argument is absolute rubbish, so why even address it?

Because some people care, and it is far easier to prove that Homosexuals are "natural" than it is to convince someone that it is rubbish.

 

[Metabou]

I agree with Misty, I don't think this topic is going to accomplish anything. Someone isn't just going to believe in what your saying by arguing about it with them, especially on the Internet. I mean, even if I qouted verses out of the Bible, how many people would agree with what it says. I believe it, but me telling you it's true isn't going to make you believe it, and I believe that you need a gentle approach in discussing anything.

 

[Nimbus]

I believe same sex marriage should be banned from the world

1)Most religions view it as wrong.
2)Even if they don't have a choice and it's genetic, then they are mentally different from us, so you can't compare it to Racism(even though you could argue some races are mentally different to others, but these arguments are getting weaker and weaker)
3)If they do have a choice, then they're choosing a lifestyle which attracts discrimination, so they're asking for it.
4)It's damaging for the economy: The changes the federal government will have to make about Health insurance, welfare and all that stuff will really damage the economy.

It's wrong on a lot of different levels. It's morally wrong, genetically wrong, sexual orientation preference wrong, and damaging for the economy.


NO NO NO

And on a homophobic level, I find them extremely repulsive.

 

[Hipmonlee]

I agree with Misty, I don't think this topic is going to accomplish anything. Someone isn't just going to believe in what your saying by arguing about it with them, especially on the Internet. I mean, even if I qouted verses out of the Bible, how many people would agree with what it says. I believe it, but me telling you it's true isn't going to make you believe it, and I believe that you need a gentle approach in discussing anything.

Problem is, posts like this dont accomplish anything either..

As for those complaining about the global conspiracy against christians, you could look at the number of times in this topic people imply liberals are childish or naive.

Have a nice day.

 

[Steeler]

It's really not time, culturally, to allow for full spread gay marraige rights. There is such a social stigma associated with it...someone on the first page brought up a good point regarding Texas and the "Bible Belt" and all that crap. The rights WILL eventually happen though, I'm pretty sure of that.

Why?

Well, in my Government textbook, it has this bar graph separated into age groups...from the baby boomers to their kids to...us, basically. It shows the percent of those populations that approve of and disapprove of gay rights or homosexuality or something along those lines. As you would expect, the oldest generation is like...70% no. Something like that. Pretty defined.

But through the next two generations, the percentage of nays decreases to a relatively slim margin and to a majority of "yes" even. Yes, our generation will be the generation to finally allow for homosexual marraige rights, I believe. Once our age has become entrenched in government and such, that is.

Well that's assuming that it's true but it makes a lot of sense...back in the fifties, it was like...well it was HUGE to be homosexual. Way more ostricized and such than it is today. Today we have Gay Pride Parades and all that stuff...and shows like Will and Grace (lol). Point is, our generation is growing up a LOT more tolerant than the past...so I'm sure that gay rights are going to happen...someday.

The main reason I support it is because it is such a gross and obvious denial of freedom and equality, which the United States (apparently) professes to believe in and allow for moreso than any other country in the world. It sure doesn't look like it. =\

 

[obi]

It's really not time, culturally, to allow for full spread gay marraige rights. There is such a social stigma associated with it...someone on the first page brought up a good point regarding Texas and the "Bible Belt" and all that crap. The rights WILL eventually happen though, I'm pretty sure of that.

Not allowing full rights only reinforces the notion that they somehow don't deserve them. People tend to get used to how things are. Much like I'd be against arguments in the late 1800s saying that people just aren't ready for a free black, or in the 1960s, saying people just aren't ready for an equal black, and that we just need to give it a little more time before we give them equal rights, I'm against this "wait it out" approach. If you wait without doing something, opinions aren't going to change.

I agree with Misty, I don't think this topic is going to accomplish anything. Someone isn't just going to believe in what your saying by arguing about it with them, especially on the Internet. I mean, even if I qouted verses out of the Bible, how many people would agree with what it says. I believe it, but me telling you it's true isn't going to make you believe it, and I believe that you need a gentle approach in discussing anything.

It may change some people's minds. If I even convince once person not to be prejudiced, it's a victory. If I even convince one person that sure, keep your private prejudices, but at least grant equal legal rights, it's a victory. I know I'm not going to convince Deck Knight (at least not today on this issue, but I have had people change religion / politics after months or even years); I'm not trying to convince him just now. For every person who posts in this topic with a solidified opinion, there are several others who are just reading, and perhaps those people are misinformed. By bringing the arguments out into the open, people can't really hold on to their beliefs unchallenged.

 

[mf]

I came into this topic with no particular views on homosexual marriage and having read the thread and thought on the subject, I made up my mind due to the compelling arguments made by the 'for' side. Obi's right; anyone coming into this topic with their mind not made up is open for persuasion either way and they should have a valid debate to help them.

 

[GB_Packers_Ftw]

TBH by no means is this thread even or unbiased. If you want an level field first talk to someone like a Priest or Bishop of the Catholic\Christian Church. Then for the left side of the issue consult somone that actually is GAY. I'd like to hear someone who is gay post on this thread and offer there thoughts. Tbh no one on this thread can actually say "Yeah Gay mariage is so bad" because they aren't even gay. No one can say that it's natural or moral because they are not gay. But the thing is, if you let a gay person talk about it they are going to be biased. So tbh i don't think you should base your views off of this bullshit left thread. All people are doing in this thread are (picking up infractions like me) or manipulating words. It all comes from the heart brother. You gotta KNOW what's right. Not just read it. Everyone thought Favre was done for. Heh they didn't KNOW anything evidently.

 

[mf]

I'd like to hear someone who is gay post on this thread and offer there thoughts.

oh really have you considered reading any posts by atlas (amongst others)?

seriously if you're not going to contribute to this thread in any way shape or form then what are you doing here

 

[chimpact]

TBH by no means is this thread even or unbiased. If you want an level field first talk to someone like a Priest or Bishop of the Catholic\Christian Church. Then for the left side of the issue consult somone that actually is GAY. I'd like to hear someone who is gay post on this thread and offer there thoughts. Tbh no one on this thread can actually say "Yeah Gay mariage is so bad" because they aren't even gay. No one can say that it's natural or moral because they are not gay. But the thing is, if you let a gay person talk about it they are going to be biased. So tbh i don't think you should base your views off of this bullshit left thread. All people are doing in this thread are (picking up infractions like me) or manipulating words. It all comes from the heart brother. You gotta KNOW what's right. Not just read it. Everyone thought Favre was done for. Heh they didn't KNOW anything evidently.

That has nothing to do with anything. The thing I don't understand is why we are taking religion into this conversation. We are talking about sexual orientation, not religion.

 

[GB_Packers_Ftw]

I said If you want a balanced view on the issue you should talk to two seperate biased people that have opposite views. I never brought religion into this, read the post. I just said that words don't mean a ton its all aobut what you ->KNOW<- is right. and then by talking about Favre i knew that he wasn't done...it was just an example that reflects on what happens when you just look inside yourself and KNOW whats right...

@m0nk, i never realized they were gay my bad..umm well ok nevertheless I'd like to see perhpas a priest post here and then it would be a equal playing field.

 

[mf]

Right, so you are saying that in order to gain a balanced view you must read as much biased propaganda as possible?
And on top of that you tell us that words don't actually mean anything and its all about what you KNOW even if you don't really know much (as is evident by your posting record)?
You then compare serious political and ethical debate to the trials of a person named Favre who I gather is a football player recently having suffered some setbacks in his personal life.

I just want to know if the above is correct because I honestly cannot tell if you are trolling or not.

 

[GB_Packers_Ftw]

Well first of all my posting record doesnt really mean shit. I'm really on this site for the everything NFL thread and thats where ALOT of my posts come from.

No, of course reading as much biased information is just totally out of the picture and i never meant my post to be interperated in that matter Perhaps i was not clear enough. Your never going to get an unbiased view. It's virutally impossible. And your certainly not going to get one on this thread. Whether the factors be age group, religion, political affilation..etc. But the closest you are going to come on this thread, or anywhere tbh is by talking to two equally biased people on oppostie sides of the spectrum. That's creating an equal, balanced approach. One person from each side. Not 7-1 as this thread often times tends to be.

 

[mf]

OK, then maybe that's where your posts should stay.
The number of people debating doesn't count for shit; it's the arguments themselves that you should be considering, and they can be made by 1 person or 1000 people. I think we have enough 'biased' people in this thread to realise this. I think it would be preferable not to be restricted to the linear format of a forum thread but that can't be helped.

You're right, however, that you're never going to get an unbiased 'view'. That's why facts and logic are important, because they are not subject to opinion or bias. This is also why the source of information is important - skewed or misinterpreted data is not pure and is therefore subject to bias. For some reason Deck_Knight refuses to acknowledge this, and instead insists that the opposing side simply counter his unreliable data with some of their own, getting the debate nowhere.

Then you come in with a brilliant and insightful comparison to Brett Favre. Excuse the sarcasm, but I feel it's the only way to point out what a ridiculous thing to do that was; I'd be surprised if you weren't infracted for being so obnoxious.

 

[GB_Packers_Ftw]

OK, then maybe that's where your posts should stay.
The number of people debating doesn't count for shit; it's the arguments themselves that you should be considering, and they can be made by 1 person or 1000 people. I think we have enough 'biased' people in this thread to realise this. I think it would be preferable not to be restricted to the linear format of a forum thread but that can't be helped.

You're right, however, that you're never going to get an unbiased 'view'. That's why facts and logic are important, because they are not subject to opinion or bias. This is also why the source of information is important - skewed or misinterpreted data is not pure and is therefore subject to bias. For some reason Deck_Knight refuses to acknowledge this, and instead insists that the opposing side simply counter his unreliable data with some of their own, getting the debate nowhere.

Then you come in with a brilliant and insightful comparison to Brett Favre. Excuse the sarcasm, but I feel it's the only way to point out what a ridiculous thing to do that was; I'd be surprised if you weren't infracted for being so obnoxious.

Tbh i feel as if Deck_Knight has made some of the most legit arguments in this thread next to Obi. The reason they are shadowed is because it really does matter if it's 1 or 1000 people. No one is supporting his points, and then more and more people just agree with what other people said. Besides that everything else you said was fine. Except my Favre comparison. I didn't compare Favre to Gay marriage, i compared my thoughts about him to gay marriage.

 

[Chill Murray]

To be fair, Deck Knight is one of the only people in this thread backing his points up with sources. These sources are incredibly biased and lacking in facts, but they're sources nonetheless. A lot of people in this thread seem to be saying gay marriage should be legal just because they feel it should be.

 

[Pneuma]

Gay marriage is only a problem as long as the gov't legalizes marriage as a religious ceremony. One of two things must logically happen before 'gay marriage' can ever exist: Either marriage must become non-religious or the gov't must not recognize marriage as above civil union.

It's an argument of premise.




=/