Page:
KyrianDreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England


Posted:
I've started to notice a new trend, at least in america. People are starting to tell their children (and aquantinces, whatever) that there is nothing wrong with homosexuals. They are regular human beings, should be treated like it, and deserve all (well, ok, most) of the rights of a normal human being. Their (children, friends) should treat homosexuals as such.

But said (child/friend/aquantince) should not be a homosexual themselves, b/c it is not ok for them to be homosexual, just, "other people."

Anyone else seeing this? What do you think?

At the very least, I've noticed that it means the kids are still afraid of their own desires.

Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....


colemanSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom


Posted:
cheers for the quotes ray (i could never have pulled that many without going to a search).

until today i had no idea god was as homophobic as he is...

quote:
I am however telling whoever is will to hear (or read) that they will be judged and what they should do to be prepared for that judgment.

that i can understand completely.

i still have the view that your opinion on homosexuality goes beyond the fact that that you consider it a sin according to your religion but that (like i said) is not the end of the world.

the fact that you are not forcing your opinion onto others or asking anyone to do anything different because of your beliefs says to me that there is no malice in your beliefs.
they're not completely unbiased views (christians try to be like jesus? - then love thy neighbour neighbour, no matter how they were born) but the best you can do under that belief system is to show tolerence and compassion and i think that's what you say you do.

i would never ask you to tell me something about your private life - i'm of the opinion that if you want me to know, you'll tell me.

i think what we found out here is that you and i have different opinions on homosexuality, as well as religion. blimey

[ 07. August 2003, 03:58: Message edited by: coleman ]

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
Hah shows what you know... I did do a search, my little travel Bible just doesnt a a full concordance in the back like I wish it did. Boy the net is a lovly tool aint it

Yep once again we show a difference of opinion, so how bout them Jets?

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


colemanSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom


Posted:
[sorry - edited that last post of mine cos it sounded a bit condescending on a second read]

glad to see a difference of opinion doesn't always lead to non-communication - even when the only form of expression we have is a text message board and some little coloured circles that claim to impart emotions

so how about them who's?! are we back onto ford engines again...?

lovely weather we're having here...

right, anyone that wants to go back on topic is free to - i think ray and i are done here for now

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


colemanSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom


Posted:
i think what we've found out is that religion (specifically christianity) perpetuates this 'new homophobia' that was described in the very first post here.

our objective here should not be to change each others opinions but rather to understand all the viewpoints so that we can better deal with the non-acceptance of the gay community.

i for one understand better now why christians will not accept being homosexual as a valid way to live your life - i don't have to agree or even empathise with the standpoint but it does mean i know where and how the modern bible refers to homosexuality and why christians in general will likely have a similar opinion to ray's.

i don't think its okay that christians say 'god considers homosexuals sinners' but i'm not going to change someone's mind by chatting about it here.


the time at which that the texts were written there was far less equality and compassion - towards women even, let alone homosexuals - and as as non-religious person i can step back and say 'maybe that had an effect on the teachings of the bible'. a devout follower cannot do that.

to be honest (and as ray already knows) i don't believe that following an organised religion is a very sensible way to construct a set of rational beliefs and morals but i try not to disrespect those that do.

i have a great amount of respect for someone that has an unshakable belief in god but unfortunately it seems this is a rare thing without a committal to an organised religion.

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


soldaribusy-tofu!
133 posts
Location: montreal: bagel capital


Posted:
You Phule!

Have you ever thought for a minute that God isn't the one who wrote the Bible*, and that these are stories, not History, and that in reality God never punished people (except the people who beleived they where being punished by God, but that's an entirely different story). It's been acknowledged and all...

Did you know* some tribes seperate the men from the women most of the year (as to not increase their numbers without killing excess children) and that the men satisfy each other's sexual needs? Did you also know* that there are homosexual couples who don't have sex?

quote:
Originally posted by Raymund Phule:
Obviusly you have yet to read everything that I have written. Go back and read, then maybe I will answer your questions.
Why would I need to? all you seem to be doing is quoting an outdated book that has nothing to do with the current state of the world we live in. Mix in a tea-spoon of a closet homosexuality with a large helping of homophobia and TADA!

No, I'm not saying you're a homosexual, I'm just saying you have seemingly violent feelings towards the issue. And I don't mean to attack your opinions (as you have the right to your own), only the way you express and justify them.

And as a question to you: can you explain to me, without any reference to God, religion, or the Bible, why it's wrong for two men to love eachother? (And no, you don't have to answer, cause I didn't read everything you wrote)

-sigh- see, you got me too rant...

/soldari

*) I'm pretty sure you've realised this by now, but I'm just checking.

there is no better way to say I love you than with the gift of a spatula!


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
The whole debate was about people who say homosexuality is okay, but then say, Its not okay for my kid.

I do not say it is okay in the least bit. I say it is 100% wrong. I can not force my opinion on anyone and I can not get anyone to change. I have admitted that people will do whatever it is they want to and there is nothign I can do about it. I have saught to say that I dont agree and here is why. Take it at face value.

Homosexuality is a sin, just like everyother sin and it should not be viewed greater or less than any other sin. I think you fail to undertand that.

Frostypaw, it is obvius that you are not a Christian and obvius that you never tried to understand the religion. Otherwise you wouldnt think the way you do. You wouldnt think that Christians take everything on faith alone, you wouldnt think that nobody asks questions.

And now you sit there and call me a racist, I think you are just trying to piss me off, because your not making one intelegent argument.

Good day sir.


Coleman, Christianity does not say that homosexuality is okay. It never did and never will. Therefore how can it be homophobic like the example in the first post?

Coleman, if you believe in God, what do you base your belief off of if not an organised religion? Even if you base it off of your own opinions, you are oganising your belief into a religion, thus making you a hipocrite.


Frosty, you cant change someone if they dont want to change. Quit trying.


Soldari, think what you will.

Is it wrong to for a man to love a man (I would include for a woman to love a woman but you will soon see why I didnt)?

Define love. I love me father, he is a man and so am I, that form of love, no it is not wrong. I have friends that I love, that I would die for in a heartbeat, that I would do anything to help them in a time of need, even if it cost me everything, is that kind of love wrong? No.
If a man loves another man as if he would want to take that man as a mate (bride just wouldnt be the right word there), that is wrong. Why is it wrong, with out using the Bible, in my opinion man and man were never physically designed to love eachother like that. The difference between a man and a womans body is distinct. Remember that little multi-sided ball with the shaped holes, and the blocks that fit only in 1 specific hole, its a kids toy. You could never seem to fit the cube in the star slot now could you? Two penuses do not go together... granted there are several orifaces on the human body that you can stick it, but at the basic human design it just doesnt work.

It goes against the very fundamentals of nature. If you wish to relate humans to other mamals, the whole purpose of mating is to procreate and extend the life of the species. In this two male species can not accomplish. They do nothing but satisfy their own desires.

Granted some men and women for one reason or another, just cant have children, a properly functioning body is not something everyone can have, it is a sad fact of life. So dont try to use that as some form of excuse.

I dont have all the answers, but you asked for my opinion and I have given it. Chastise me all you wnat, call me names, call me homophobic, closed minded, arrogant, old fashond, jackass, fool, ignorant... call me whatever it is that you want. Make fun of my religion if you want, make fun of my God.

I am rock solid in Jesus Christ and you can not shake me. It is good to question and seek answers to obtain knowlege, feel free to ask me what you will... but dont be upset if you dont like my answers.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


preambledmember
53 posts
Location: auckland


Posted:
quote:
Originally posted by Raymund Phule:
Two penuses do not go together... granted there are several orifaces on the human body that you can stick it, but at the basic human design it just doesnt work.
I thought your homophobia stemmed purely from a religious viewpoint, which was reasonable enough I suppose. But to attempt scientific reasoning baffles me.

If your argument is that (the subjective and incredibly irritating term) "unnatural" equates to "immoral", and that a penis is only naturally made to enter a vagina to propogate the species, then almost every single person on the planet is unnatural. Anyone who masturbates, indulges in oral sex, touches another human with a finger to incite pleasure; all these people are immoral by your non-religious standard.

Are you proposing that, if religion is set aside, the only moral form of sexual conduct is a male impregnating a female? Thus, the female should receive little to no pleasure? Further extrapolations involve no moral ground for men taking multiple partners, or rape. All because these are actions that take place in the animal kingdom - they are natural.

The fact is, human sexuality is far more complex than that. I could argue that homosexuality is a natural process. Suppose that it has come about as a means for depopulation, and/or to ensure the survival of children by providing more adults to care for fewer children.

The one point I really want to make is that "unnatural" (however you come to the conclusion that something is unnatural) does NOT mean immoral. Morality is an entirely separate entity to nature. Humans invented morality. Nature does not and in fact, can not care. Thus, I fail to see how homosexuality is immoral outside the scope of religion.

Lastly - I hope I haven't sounded insulting. (?) It's vaguely refreshing to hear the viewpoint of a seemingly devout Christian that is more tolerant of homosexuals than most atheists I interact with every day.


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
Where do you get this? My goodness you are crazy to come up with this.

Where did I mention masterbation or sensual touch?

I am just shocked that you pulled all of that out of your ass cause you sure as hell didnt get it from my post.

I was asked to explain (without the use of the Bible,) why I did not agree with homosexuality. I gave a reason, exactly like I was asked.

It is my opinion if you really wish to discuss my opinion feel free to contact me via PM.

Let me guess, my opinion is different from yours, right?

That must mean that I have to edjucated in the ways of the world untill my opinion is that of yours?

I no longer have the right to an opinion as it does not equal yours. Because of this I should be subject to gross exagerations on everything that I say.

I never said that because I viewd it unnatural that I also viewd it immoral. No my morals are based on my religion. I was asked to explain myself with out using religion and I did. To the best of my ability.


I just dont get you man.

Honestly I say get back on the friggin topic and off my opinion.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


preambledmember
53 posts
Location: auckland


Posted:
quote:
Originally posted by Raymund Phule:
Where did I mention masterbation or sensual touch?
You don't need to, it just follows on from your logic, which I'll try to illustrate clearly below.

quote:
Let me guess, my opinion is different from yours, right?

That must mean that I have to edjucated in the ways of the world untill my opinion is that of yours?

Not at all. You're totally welcome to your opinion, I'm just trying to understand it.

quote:
I no longer have the right to an opinion as it does not equal yours. Because of this I should be subject to gross exagerations on everything that I say.
They weren't meant as gross exaggerations. They were examples of following your logic, which I understood to be as follows:

Outside of a religious scope, homosexuality is unnatural because a penis is not made to go into a penis.

Is this right? If not, I'm sorry, I've misunderstood you. If it IS, however, then my previous post stands.

Admittedly, you didn't use the exact word "unnatural", but you said it goes against the very fundamentals of nature - I took this to mean "unnatural". Your wording was that men are not designed to physically love each other.

quote:
I never said that because I viewd it unnatural that I also viewd it immoral. No my morals are based on my religion. I was asked to explain myself with out using religion and I did. To the best of my ability.
If it is not immoral outside of your religious scope then why are you saying it's "wrong"? (your words) My point is that if something is deemed unnatural it does not necessarily mean it is wrong.

quote:
Honestly I say get back on the friggin topic and off my opinion.
Yeesh - I didn't mean to upset you, sorry if I have. I won't apologise for challenging you on this though. It is a discussion that I feel is important.

Ok, back on pure topic:

This new homophobia disgusts me just as much as the 'old' one. Until we erradicate the belief that any consentual adult sexuality is immoral, I will look upon those who perpetuate the passive hatred of good people with sad, sad eyes indeed.

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
Can you prove that there is hate in my opinion of homosexuality?

Can you prove that there is any fear?

Consensual adult hetero sex is not immoral, however I feel homosexuality is.

Like I have asked before, show me the hate, show me the fear.

You cant, because there is none. I just can not agree with it.

I have my reasons, and none of them are fear or hatred.

So that rules out homophobia now doesnt it?

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


colemanSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom


Posted:
HOMOPHOBIA

NOUN: 1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. 2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

i think your opinion does equate to homophobia ray - as i have said, i do not see any hate or fear in your statements but i do see a large amount of contempt.

to address the comments directed my way:

quote:
Coleman, Christianity does not say that homosexuality is okay. It never did and never will. Therefore how can it be homophobic like the example in the first post?

Coleman, if you believe in God, what do you base your belief off of if not an organised religion? Even if you base it off of your own opinions, you are oganising your belief into a religion, thus making you a hipocrite
first point i think is explained by the dictionary quote - christianity is homophobic by definition.
excuse me if i misunderstand but if god really did kill the men of sodom for being gay, it has to rate as the largest scale hate crime on record.
if you can give me an example of a more homophobic act, i'll be impressed.
according to your definition of christianity, christians should try to emulate jesus, who was the embodiment of god on earth, who was a homophobe!
what does the bible really teach on this issue cos it sure isn't tolerance...?

second point: sorry, logic doesn't work like that ray
my problems with organised religion are too many to go into here and the only reason i mentioned it was to explain why the discussion had got so off topic and why i had a problem with opinions on homosexuality coming from a belief system set down by someone other than yourself.
i think you can believe in god and not subscribe to a major organised religion. it is very likely that the faith in the deity will have begun with an organised religion but once a person begins to think for themselves and question the religious 'authority' they make the move towards their own 'religion'. a religion in this sense of the word is just a set of beliefs. what i meant by 'organised' is the fact that with the major religions, there is a list of beliefs that *every* follower must subscribe and adhere to without question, and these are often numerous and far reaching. a religion that you come to 'based off your own opinions' (as you put it) is not organised in this sense. again, this is not really something we should get into here though.

to clear up a few things...
homosexuality does exist in nature. many mammals have been observed to attempt to mate with the same sex - they don't get very far because they don't have sex for pleasure and thus have to give up when they can't find the right bits.
i do not as you suggested 'wish to relate humans to animals' however because humans are not just animals any more - we are on a higher level of conciousness and thus we choose when we have sex, who with and what for. most of the time we have sex not for natural reasons (procreation) but purely because it feels good - remember the observation that in gay sex the persons involved 'do nothing but satisfy their own desires'? - that is against the very fundamentals of nature too. so is all sex for pleasure wrong or not? according to your reasoning it is so if not, why not?

interestingly you completely ignored preambled's observation that in nature animals take multiple partners and commit rape - this should make it crystal clear that the comparison between human sexuality and animal sexuality is absolutely irrelavent. to decide what is right and wrong (morally) by taking your cues from the animal kingdom is a highly questionable method of constructing a moral viewpoint on a subject (do it for murder and you'll see it makes no sense - it would be fine to kill someone as long as its a weaker person and we eat them afterwards ).

also, i think your comment that he 'pulled all that out of your ass' is well out of line. his arguments were in fact logical extensions of your (bible independent) 'reasons' for disagreeing with homosexuality. i'm afraid if anything was 'pulled out of an ass' it was your reasoning in the first place.
want an example?

quote:
Why is it wrong, with out using the Bible, in my opinion man and man were never physically designed to love each other like that.
logical extension of which is that a sexual act involving anything other than a man and a woman using their genitalia (ie. the only correct arrangement that corresponds to the 'physical design') is therefore wrong:

quote:
Anyone who masturbates, indulges in oral sex, touches another human with a finger to incite pleasure; all these people are immoral by your non-religious standard.
why should we only do things that you deem we were 'designed' to do?! we weren't 'designed' to walk upright either but we do. are we doing wrong there too?


quote:
Consensual adult hetero sex is not immoral, however I feel homosexuality is.
i think the other people here's qualm is that you have yet to provide a decent basis for this opinion ray (and yes, i have read everything you have written in this thread, at least twice).
you tried to explain it relating it to nature and that analogy, as we have seen, fails.
the only basis you have given for your opinion as it stands is the bible.

quote:
Is it wrong to for a man to love a man (I would include for a woman to love a woman but you will soon see why I didnt)?
finally you never did mention why you didn't include lesbians in your discussion of homosexuality.
if its the fact that 'they don't have penises at all so its obvious they're not supposed to f*ck' so help me, i may die laughing!
but please do explain...

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
I find it interesting how you find it easier to attack me than to discuss what true homophobia is.


Frosty, are you attacking my religion or me? It is obvius that you hate Christians so why dont you come out and say it? Your past few posts have done nothing but tell me that. "I hate you Ray because you are a Christian, I hate your God, I have everything about you."

I guess that if you can put words in my mouth, then I can put words in yours.

quote:
"oh i think you're fine - but you'll go to hell if you don't beg forgiveness for being as bad a sinner as murderers and rapists" (which is what you've been saying)

is VASTLY different from

"oh i think you're fine"

I do not think homosexuality is fine, why do you think I do? Why do you think Christianity says that homosexuality is fine? Where do you get this rubbish?


quote:
HOMOPHOBIA

NOUN: 1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. 2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

i think your opinion does equate to homophobia ray - as i have said, i do not see any hate or fear in your statements but i do see a large amount of contempt.

Contempt? Why would I, and I mean me personaly not those who translated the Bible, feel contempt for any homosexual? Or better yet why do you feel that I hold contempt?


quote:
excuse me if i misunderstand but if god really did kill the men of sodom for being gay, it has to rate as the largest scale hate crime on record.
if you can give me an example of a more homophobic act, i'll be impressed.

Well... if you truly consider the destruction of Sodom as a hate crime, wouldnt the Flood be an even greater hate crime? I mean what only Noah and his family servived that?!?

The men in Sodom were not killed souly for being gay, I have said that before, but it was a major enough to offend God. Gomorrah, was also destroyed because of its sin, though it really wasnt spoken of too much. I cant answer why.

quote:
according to your definition of christianity, christians should try to emulate jesus, who was the embodiment of god on earth, who was a homophobe!

So your saying that God, is afraid of his own creation? You are truly laughable!

quote:
what does the bible really teach on this issue cos it sure isn't tolerance...?
Tolerance? No it doenst teach tolerance per-say.
However the Bible does teach to love the sinner and to hate the sin. I doubt you truly understand how to do this, because I honestly have trouble with it.

quote:
once a person begins to think for themselves and question the religious 'authority' they make the move towards their own 'religion'. a religion in this sense of the word is just a set of beliefs.
Are you telling me that I should make myself into my own god?


quote:
homosexuality does exist in nature. many mammals have been observed to attempt to mate with the same sex - they don't get very far because they don't have sex for pleasure and thus have to give up when they can't find the right bits.
i do not as you suggested 'wish to relate humans to animals' however because humans are not just animals any more - we are on a higher level of conciousness and thus we choose when we have sex, who with and what for. most of the time we have sex not for natural reasons (procreation) but purely because it feels good - remember the observation that in gay sex the persons involved 'do nothing but satisfy their own desires'? - that is against the very fundamentals of nature too. so is all sex for pleasure wrong or not? according to your reasoning it is so if not, why not?


Have you ever seen a dog hump a couch? I think that is proof that it chooses to (humorously at times) attempt to have sex when it wants.


Your trying to mix two different subjects, sex for pleasure and same-sex intercourse. Only one at a time.

quote:
interestingly you completely ignored preambled's observation that in nature animals take multiple partners and commit rape
Yes I completely ignored his comment about animals raping other animals and what not, for one reason alone... I didnt see it. Accidents happen bud

I know that some humans like to have their animals get "married" but it just isnt the same things, also dont forget that some animals do mate for life.

quote:
why should we only do things that you deem we were 'designed' to do?! we weren't 'designed' to walk upright either but we do. are we doing wrong there too?
Where do you get the idea that we were not meant to walk upright? Look at the bone structure of our bodies, Look at hour our head sits on our neck, the curvature of our spines, the very way our feet are shaped. hehe Now that was pulled out of your ass!

quote:
i think the other people here's qualm is that you have yet to provide a decent basis for this opinion ray (and yes, i have read everything you have written in this thread, at least twice).
you tried to explain it relating it to nature and that analogy, as we have seen, fails.
the only basis you have given for your opinion as it stands is the bible.

Why do I have to explain my opinion, why dont you tell me why homosexuality is the right thing to do?

Is my opinion the reason for this debate or is homophobia?


quote:
finally you never did mention why you didn't include lesbians in your discussion of homosexuality.
if its the fact that 'they don't have penises at all so its obvious they're not supposed to f*ck' so help me, i may die laughing!
but please do explain...

I didnt include for women to love women because I figure you smart enough to be able to swap out son and father for mother and daughter, man and man for woman and woman. I thought it made sence, I am sorry you disagree.


So who wants to tell me why homosexuality is right. I mean other than the phiosiphy; Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die! And the philosiphy, if it feels good, do it!

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frosty, are you attacking my religion or me? It is obvius that you hate Christians so why dont you come out and say it? Your past few posts have done nothing but tell me that. "I hate you Ray because you are a Christian, I hate your God, I have everything about you."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

your religion - you're just taking it personally.

if this is what you believe in then you should be willing and able to defend it. If I state an opinion then I'll be able to back it up - I'm only asking you to do that. If you can't - admit it. Don't make it out to be a personal attack.
If you attack something that is apart of me, how is that not attacking me? You attack my religion you are attacking me, you attack my country, you are attacking me, you attack my government, you are attacking me, you attack my people, you attack me. END OF ****ING STORY! Believe me, I will defend myself to the bitter end.

quote:
There are a vast number of posts on this thread where you've made quite a point about how you don't hate homosexuals - how you think it's fine that they're in the army etc and you keep saying you don't hate homosexuals

Which equates to "it's fine" right?
So there is only hate or acceptance?

No, sorry, I do not hate homosexuals, but I also do not agree with their sexual preferance, this does not mean that I feel they should be treated as outcasts. No they have the same rights as anyone else. I just dont agree with their sexual preferance, that is all.

quote:
You've also made quite a point that god doesn't hate homosexuals - but what they do - i.e. "it's fine" - it might be a sin but you're not proactively hating and suggesting they get stoned to death.

i.e. "it's fine, but you have to beg forgiveness for your sins"

I'm not making it up mate - just repeating what you've said.

God, loves all that he created, he hates the sin that his creation relishes in. I do not expect you to understand it.


Sodom was not a hate crime, God is above your judgment.

quote:
did you even read the definition of homophobia? go back and read it. heck you even quoted it in this message - check it out. fear OR contempt. to suggest an entire swathe of people (who god created gay) need pity and 'saving' is contempt
All mankind needs saved, gay, strait, it doesnt matter all mankind needs saved. You, me, your mom and pop my family. Nobody needs pitty. God is beyond human emotion beyond our cotempt, though God is jelouse and this is hard for alot of people to understand. He loves us so much that He wants the best for us. It is my faith that it is His plans that are the best for us. Sin, in all its form, is not in his plan.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However the Bible does teach to love the sinner and to hate the sin. I doubt you truly understand how to do this, because I honestly have trouble with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that - as we've been saying since very early on - is the new homophobia.
No sorry the point from very early on was that people say it is okay to be gay, but not in their family.

God says it is not okay, He says that homosexuality is an abomination, but he loves homosexuals the same as he loves heterosexuals.


Do gay people think themselves so different?

They are this great minority, do they feel that they should be pittied? I dont. I feel that all men were created equal, all men deserve the same chances in life. This does not happen and it is a great tradgity. Nobody deserves to be treated special.

I feel no pitty, no contempt, no hatered, no saddness.

Frosty, you are the one filled with hate, you are the one filled with animosity and contempt. I feel that you are a wretch creature, may you find whatever it is you are looking for. I am sorry though, you will not find it in me, you will not find it in your hatered.

Let go of the hate Frosty, you dont need it.


I have answerd you, why have you not answerd me?

Or do you not have an answer, or are you just an antagonist?

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


colemanSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom


Posted:
quote:
I find it interesting how you find it easier to attack me than to discuss what true homophobia is.
i gave a quote for what homophobia is. comtempt means 'feeling that person or thing is deserving of extreme reproach or scorn'. accusing homosexuals of being immoral and saying they must repent or go to hell for it says to me that you think they deserve extreme reproach - just because you don't think they should be persecuted in life doesn't mean that the belief that they will be damned for it in the afterlife is any better.
discussing your opinions *is* discussing homophobia ray (see later for a better consideration of this).
there was no 'attack' bar my disapproval of your reasoning.

quote:
Frosty, are you attacking my religion or me? It is obvius that you hate Christians so why dont you come out and say it? Your past few posts have done nothing but tell me that. "I hate you Ray because you are a Christian, I hate your God, I have everything about you."
well done ray. incorrectly paraphrasing someone and accusing them of only expressing hate is an excellent way to calmly debate a subject. gold star mate.

quote:
I guess that if you can put words in my mouth, then I can put words in yours.
wouldn't it be more sensible to clarify your point than to inflame the issue with childish bullsh*t (sorry but that's how i see those comments).

quote:
I do not think homosexuality is fine, why do you think I do? Why do you think Christianity says that homosexuality is fine? Where do you get this rubbish?
i realise that you don't think homosexuality is fine (i pick up on things real quick me, i'm like a detective ).

quote:
quote:
HOMOPHOBIA

NOUN: 1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. 2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

i think your opinion does equate to homophobia ray - as i have said, i do not see any hate or fear in your statements but i do see a large amount of contempt.

Contempt? Why would I, and I mean me personaly not those who translated the Bible, feel contempt for any homosexual? Or better yet why do you feel that I hold contempt?
you feel that being gay is wrong and immoral and that if someone does not repent for this 'sin' that they will go to hell. you have stated that the sin (in your estimation, not god's) is on the par with rape and murder. i think that qualifies as contempt - similar to the contempt that murderers and rapists are held in.

quote:
quote:
excuse me if i misunderstand but if god really did kill the men of sodom for being gay, it has to rate as the largest scale hate crime on record.
if you can give me an example of a more homophobic act, i'll be impressed.

Well... if you truly consider the destruction of Sodom as a hate crime, wouldnt the Flood be an even greater hate crime? I mean what only Noah and his family servived that?!?

The men in Sodom were not killed souly for being gay, I have said that before, but it was a major enough to offend God. Gomorrah, was also destroyed because of its sin, though it really wasnt spoken of too much. I cant answer why.
hate crime.
defined as 'any of various crimes... when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation).'
the great flood was not a hate crime - it was the largest ever example of genocide though
nowhere does it list the reasons for why god wiped out sodom but the assumption is that as the only factor common to all the men of the city is that they were gay then this is why god killed them all and not just the ones who had committed further sins. their 'sin' was homosexuality and they were killed for it.
hate crime.

quote:
quote:
according to your definition of christianity, christians should try to emulate jesus, who was the embodiment of god on earth, who was a homophobe!

So your saying that God, is afraid of his own creation? You are truly laughable!
well misdirected - as long as you keep making me quote duictionary definitions, you'll never have to actually address the issues i'm raising...
homophobia doesn't just always imply fear!
'fear OR deserving of extreme contempt or scorn'.
god will send a gay person to eternal damnation if they do not stand before him and announce that they are truly sorry for being gay while they were alive. that rates as some heavy ass scorn i reckon. so yes, god is homophobic too it seems.

quote:
quote:
what does the bible really teach on this issue cos it sure isn't tolerance...?
Tolerance? No it doenst teach tolerance per-say.
However the Bible does teach to love the sinner and to hate the sin. I doubt you truly understand how to do this, because I honestly have trouble with it.
that's because its almost impossible to do in practice ray - the only character who really got close was jesus (re: judas, the romans etc.).
trying to separate the murderer from the murder, or the rapist from the rape is almost impossible. both of these sins involve harming another human which by definition is without their consent. i don't understand how you can equate this to consentual gay sex?!

quote:
quote:
once a person begins to think for themselves and question the religious 'authority' they make the move towards their own 'religion'. a religion in this sense of the word is just a set of beliefs.
Are you telling me that I should make myself into my own god?
i'm suggesting that god doesn't have to be the 'person' that the bible tells you he is. and moreover that the way he wants you to live your life is not neccessarily how the majority of your religion's followers believe you should.
all i'm saying there is i think a heavy dose of 'thinking for yourself' on top of a religion is a far more sensible way to construct moral views than to assume truth in every word of the chosen religious text (aka fundamentalism).

quote:
quote:
homosexuality does exist in nature. many mammals have been observed to attempt to mate with the same sex - they don't get very far because they don't have sex for pleasure and thus have to give up when they can't find the right bits.
i do not as you suggested 'wish to relate humans to animals' however because humans are not just animals any more - we are on a higher level of conciousness and thus we choose when we have sex, who with and what for. most of the time we have sex not for natural reasons (procreation) but purely because it feels good - remember the observation that in gay sex the persons involved 'do nothing but satisfy their own desires'? - that is against the very fundamentals of nature too. so is all sex for pleasure wrong or not? according to your reasoning it is so if not, why not?


Have you ever seen a dog hump a couch? I think that is proof that it chooses to (humorously at times) attempt to have sex when it wants.
and what about apes and monkeys? i know you don't subscribe to evolution so technically there is no connection but you made the animal-human comparison first so don't blame me here.
i said i don't want that comparison - it is you who is using nature as your basis of your standpoint that being gay is wrong. i'm asking if you make that link, why do you not make the rest?

quote:
Your trying to mix two different subjects, sex for pleasure and same-sex intercourse. Only one at a time.
you were the one who blurred the line. you said:
'It goes against the very fundamentals of nature. If you wish to relate humans to other mammals, the whole purpose of mating is to procreate and extend the life of the species. In this two male species can not accomplish. They do nothing but satisfy their own desires.'
you can replace the same sex act with a heterosexual sex act with contraception and the statement is still 100% correct. with that in mind, can you explain why you consider the two to be different...?


quote:
quote:
interestingly you completely ignored preambled's observation that in nature animals take multiple partners and commit rape
Yes I completely ignored his comment about animals raping other animals and what not, for one reason alone... I didnt see it. Accidents happen bud
well i expanded on it in my last post bud. this time you have certainly chosen to avoid attmpting to explain how the analogy is still valid.

quote:
I know that some humans like to have their animals get "married" but it just isnt the same things, also dont forget that some animals do mate for life.
or is this your clarification?! so then, it's just lobsters (who mate for life) that we should be taking our moral values towards relationships and sexuality from? the rest of the animal kingdom (especially the mammals) take multiple mates throughout their lives - are they less 'natural' than lobsters. what about murder...? any comment on that aspect of the analogy?

quote:
quote:
why should we only do things that you deem we were 'designed' to do?! we weren't 'designed' to walk upright either but we do. are we doing wrong there too?
Where do you get the idea that we were not meant to walk upright? Look at the bone structure of our bodies, Look at hour our head sits on our neck, the curvature of our spines, the very way our feet are shaped. hehe Now that was pulled out of your ass!
actually, was pulled it out of darwin's ass. why do we have what a cocyx if we never walked bent over (possibly on all fours) and used a tail?
i know you don't believe in evolution but consider this - i've read and studied the bible (admittedly not for a good few years now) but have you ever done any real study of evolution? if so i'd love to discuss (on another thread) which bits don't make sense to you. i think most prople that have studied it find pretty damn convincing
for anyone that cares, the blind watchmaker by richard dawkins is an excellent introduction to (the neo-darwinism version of) evolution.

going back to your 'we weren't designed to do that so it must be wrong' theory... what about the fact that we were designed to kill (fighting instincts and sharp fangs, both bestowed upon us by god) does that mean killing is right and being gay is wrong? by the same token, is taking an aeroplane a sin? we were never designed to fly...?

quote:
quote:
i think the other people here's qualm is that you have yet to provide a decent basis for this opinion ray (and yes, i have read everything you have written in this thread, at least twice).
you tried to explain it relating it to nature and that analogy, as we have seen, fails.
the only basis you have given for your opinion as it stands is the bible.

Why do I have to explain my opinion, why dont you tell me why homosexuality is the right thing to do?
great way to debate ray: 'lets assume my prejudice is right! now you prove me wrong!'


quote:
Is my opinion the reason for this debate or is homophobia?
your opinion is the epitomy of the description of the 'new homophobia'.
so yes, the topic of this discussion is directly related to your opinions.


quote:
quote:
finally you never did mention why you didn't include lesbians in your discussion of homosexuality.
if its the fact that 'they don't have penises at all so its obvious they're not supposed to f*ck' so help me, i may die laughing!
but please do explain...

I didnt include for women to love women because I figure you smart enough to be able to swap out son and father for mother and daughter, man and man for woman and woman. I thought it made sence, I am sorry you disagree.
your argument still does not stand - whether it is man and man or woman and woman. your discussion applies equally to heterosexual sex for pleasure as it does for same sex relations. if you can define the defining difference with respect to your argument i will understand.
to recap you said: 'in my opinion man and man were never physically designed to love eachother like that.' this argument makes no distinction between say oral sex and gay sex.

quote:
So who wants to tell me why homosexuality is right. I mean other than the phiosiphy; Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die! And the philosiphy, if it feels good, do it!
'two adults in a consentual act that affects no-one but the two people involved.'
for any action that can be described by the sentence above i would have trouble understanding where you can see any wrongdoing?


i have already said what i believe this discussion has taught us:

"i think what we've found out is that religion (specifically christianity) perpetuates this 'new homophobia' that was described in the very first post here."

nothing we have said since changes this. you've been asked to explain what basis (other than the teachings of the bible) has brought about your opinion that homosexuality is immoral.
you are flat out refusing to back it up with sensibile arguments and so i don't see why i should spend time writing out retorts to your inflammatory remarks and poorly thought out analogies and comparisons.

if you disagree that you do not fit into the 'new homophobia' description, you are welcome to attempt to explain how your views are different to those described by kyrian.

i won't ask you to explain your views if you don't want to, nor do i expect you to be able to come up with an explanation of why you (other than due to from the teachings of the bible) have chosen to label homosexuals as 'immoral'.

this is my biggest post ever - i'm out of here for today.

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


colemanSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom


Posted:
quote:
I find it interesting how you find it easier to attack me than to discuss what true homophobia is.
i gave a definition of what homophobia is. comtempt means 'feeling that person or thing is deserving of extreme reproach or scorn'. accusing homosexuals of being immoral and saying they must repent or go to hell for it says to me that you think they deserve extreme reproach - just because you don't think they should be persecuted in life doesn't mean that the belief that they will be damned for it in the afterlife is any better.
discussing your opinions *is* discussing homophobia ray (see later for a better consideration of this).
there was no 'attack' bar my disapproval of your reasoning.

quote:
Frosty, are you attacking my religion or me? It is obvius that you hate Christians so why dont you come out and say it? Your past few posts have done nothing but tell me that. "I hate you Ray because you are a Christian, I hate your God, I have everything about you."
well done ray. incorrectly paraphrasing someone and accusing them of only expressing hate is an excellent way to calmly debate a subject. gold star mate.

quote:
I guess that if you can put words in my mouth, then I can put words in yours.
wouldn't it be more sensible to clarify your point than to inflame the issue with childish bullsh*t (sorry but that's how i see those comments).

quote:
I do not think homosexuality is fine, why do you think I do? Why do you think Christianity says that homosexuality is fine? Where do you get this rubbish?
i realise that you don't think homosexuality is fine (i pick up on things real quick me, i'm like a detective ).

quote:
quote:
HOMOPHOBIA

NOUN: 1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. 2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

i think your opinion does equate to homophobia ray - as i have said, i do not see any hate or fear in your statements but i do see a large amount of contempt.

Contempt? Why would I, and I mean me personaly not those who translated the Bible, feel contempt for any homosexual? Or better yet why do you feel that I hold contempt?
you feel that being gay is wrong and immoral and that if someone does not repent for this 'sin' that they will go to hell. you have stated that the sin (in your estimation, not god's) is on the par with rape and murder. i think that qualifies as contempt - similar to the contempt that murderers and rapists are held in.

quote:
quote:
excuse me if i misunderstand but if god really did kill the men of sodom for being gay, it has to rate as the largest scale hate crime on record.
if you can give me an example of a more homophobic act, i'll be impressed.

Well... if you truly consider the destruction of Sodom as a hate crime, wouldnt the Flood be an even greater hate crime? I mean what only Noah and his family servived that?!?

The men in Sodom were not killed souly for being gay, I have said that before, but it was a major enough to offend God. Gomorrah, was also destroyed because of its sin, though it really wasnt spoken of too much. I cant answer why.
hate crime.
defined as 'any of various crimes... when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation).'
the great flood was not a hate crime - it was the largest ever example of genocide though
nowhere does it list the reasons for why god wiped out sodom but the assumption is that as the only factor common to all the men of the city is that they were gay then this is why god killed them all and not just the ones who had committed further sins. their 'sin' was homosexuality and they were killed for it.
hate crime.

quote:
quote:
according to your definition of christianity, christians should try to emulate jesus, who was the embodiment of god on earth, who was a homophobe!

So your saying that God, is afraid of his own creation? You are truly laughable!
well misdirected - as long as you keep making me quote duictionary definitions, you'll never have to actually address the issues i'm raising...
homophobia doesn't just always imply fear!
'fear OR deserving of extreme contempt or scorn'.
god will send a gay person to eternal damnation if they do not stand before him and announce that they are truly sorry for being gay while they were alive. that rates as some heavy ass scorn i reckon. so yes, god is homophobic too it seems.

quote:
quote:
what does the bible really teach on this issue cos it sure isn't tolerance...?
Tolerance? No it doenst teach tolerance per-say.
However the Bible does teach to love the sinner and to hate the sin. I doubt you truly understand how to do this, because I honestly have trouble with it.
that's because its almost impossible to do in practice ray - the only character who really got close was jesus (re: judas, the romans etc.).
trying to separate the murderer from the murder, or the rapist from the rape is almost impossible. both of these sins involve harming another human which by definition is without their consent. i don't understand how you can equate this to consentual gay sex.

[EDIT]
however, i have to say that this approach to life (although *very* difficult) is commendable. if you really try to live your life this way then taking into account your devotion to your religion, it is the closest you will ever come to accepting homosexuality and if practiced to the letter is practically the same thing.
the problem is the fact that there is the underlying belief that it is a sin; to a gay person you may well come off as 'holier than thou' (no pun intended) as essentially, that is exactly what you believe.
[/EDIT]

quote:
quote:
once a person begins to think for themselves and question the religious 'authority' they make the move towards their own 'religion'. a religion in this sense of the word is just a set of beliefs.
Are you telling me that I should make myself into my own god?
i'm suggesting that god doesn't have to be the 'person' that the bible tells you he is. and moreover that the way he wants you to live your life is not neccessarily how the majority of your religion's followers believe you should.
all i'm saying there is i think a heavy dose of 'thinking for yourself' on top of a religion is a far more sensible way to construct moral views than to assume truth in every word of the chosen religious text (aka fundamentalism).

quote:
quote:
homosexuality does exist in nature. many mammals have been observed to attempt to mate with the same sex - they don't get very far because they don't have sex for pleasure and thus have to give up when they can't find the right bits.
i do not as you suggested 'wish to relate humans to animals' however because humans are not just animals any more - we are on a higher level of conciousness and thus we choose when we have sex, who with and what for. most of the time we have sex not for natural reasons (procreation) but purely because it feels good - remember the observation that in gay sex the persons involved 'do nothing but satisfy their own desires'? - that is against the very fundamentals of nature too. so is all sex for pleasure wrong or not? according to your reasoning it is so if not, why not?


Have you ever seen a dog hump a couch? I think that is proof that it chooses to (humorously at times) attempt to have sex when it wants.
and what about apes and monkeys? i know you don't subscribe to evolution so technically there is no connection but you made the animal-human comparison first so don't blame me here dude
i said i didn't want that comparison because it was a poor analogy for this argument - it is you who used 'nature' as your basis of your standpoint that being gay is wrong.
[EDIT]
your dog humping a couch observation does not negate my argument.
[/EDIT]

quote:
Your trying to mix two different subjects, sex for pleasure and same-sex intercourse. Only one at a time.
you were the one who blurred the line. you said:
'It goes against the very fundamentals of nature. If you wish to relate humans to other mammals, the whole purpose of mating is to procreate and extend the life of the species. In this two male species can not accomplish. They do nothing but satisfy their own desires.'
you can replace the same sex act with a heterosexual sex act with contraception and the statement is still 100% correct. with that in mind, can you explain why you consider the two to be different...?


quote:
quote:
interestingly you completely ignored preambled's observation that in nature animals take multiple partners and commit rape
Yes I completely ignored his comment about animals raping other animals and what not, for one reason alone... I didnt see it. Accidents happen bud
well i expanded on it in my last post bud. this time you have certainly chosen to avoid attmpting to explain how the analogy is still valid.

quote:
I know that some humans like to have their animals get "married" but it just isnt the same things, also dont forget that some animals do mate for life.
or is this your clarification?!
so then, it's just lobsters (who mate for life) that we should be taking our moral values towards relationships and sexuality from?
the rest of the animal kingdom (especially the mammals) take multiple mates throughout their lives - are they less 'natural' than lobsters. what about the food chain which in may cases would equate to murder and cannabalism? any comment on that aspect of the analogy?

quote:
quote:
why should we only do things that you deem we were 'designed' to do?! we weren't 'designed' to walk upright either but we do. are we doing wrong there too?
Where do you get the idea that we were not meant to walk upright? Look at the bone structure of our bodies, Look at hour our head sits on our neck, the curvature of our spines, the very way our feet are shaped. hehe Now that was pulled out of your ass!
actually, it was pulled out of darwin's ass. why do we have what a cocyx if we never walked bent over (possibly on all fours) and used a tail?
i know you don't believe in evolution but consider this - i've read and studied the bible (admittedly not for a good few years now) but have you ever done any real study of evolution? if so i'd love to discuss (on another thread) which bits don't make sense to you. i think most prople that have studied it find pretty damn convincing
for anyone that cares, the blind watchmaker by richard dawkins is an excellent introduction to (the neo-darwinism version of) evolution.

going back to your 'we weren't designed to do that so it must be wrong' theory... what about the fact that we were designed to kill (fighting instincts and sharp fangs, both bestowed upon us by god) does that mean killing is right and being gay is wrong by design? and by the same token, is taking a flight on an aeroplane a sin? we were never designed to fly after all...?

quote:
quote:
i think the other people here's qualm is that you have yet to provide a decent basis for this opinion ray (and yes, i have read everything you have written in this thread, at least twice).
you tried to explain it relating it to nature and that analogy, as we have seen, fails.
the only basis you have given for your opinion as it stands is the bible.

Why do I have to explain my opinion, why dont you tell me why homosexuality is the right thing to do?
great way to debate ray: 'lets assume my prejudice is right! now you prove me wrong!'


quote:
Is my opinion the reason for this debate or is homophobia?
your opinion is the epitomy of the description of the 'new homophobia'.
so yes, the topic of this discussion is directly related to your opinions.


quote:
quote:
finally you never did mention why you didn't include lesbians in your discussion of homosexuality.
if its the fact that 'they don't have penises at all so its obvious they're not supposed to f*ck' so help me, i may die laughing!
but please do explain...

I didnt include for women to love women because I figure you smart enough to be able to swap out son and father for mother and daughter, man and man for woman and woman. I thought it made sence, I am sorry you disagree.
your argument still does not stand - whether it is man and man or woman and woman. your discussion applies equally to heterosexual sex for pleasure as it does for same sex relations. if you can state the defining difference with respect to your argument i will understand.
to recap you said: 'in my opinion man and man were never physically designed to love eachother like that.
[EDIT]
this argument makes no distinction between say oral sex and gay sex - mouths were designed to eat with, not to give pleasure but men and women use them for exactly that (in all combinations of sexual preference).
[/EDIT]

quote:
So who wants to tell me why homosexuality is right. I mean other than the phiosiphy; Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die! And the philosiphy, if it feels good, do it!
'two adults in a consentual act that affects no-one but the two people involved.'
for any action that can be described by the sentence above i would have trouble understanding where you can see any wrongdoing?


i have already said what i believe this discussion has taught us:

"i think what we've found out is that religion (specifically christianity) perpetuates this 'new homophobia' that was described in the very first post here."

nothing we have said since changes this. you've been asked to explain what basis (other than the teachings of the bible) has brought about your opinion that homosexuality is immoral.
you are flat out refusing to back it up with sensibile arguments and so i don't see why i should spend time writing out retorts to your inflammatory remarks and poorly thought out analogies and comparisons.

[EDIT]
i for one accept the fact that this is what your religion teaches you. i don't like it but then again, i don't have to - just as you don't like homosexuality but don't have to.
it affects my life in no way at all so if this is what you prefer to believe then so be it - it is your life and your choice. unless you try to force your beliefs onto others, there should never be a problem.
i find it quite spooky how this is very similar to your views and attitudes on homosexuality...
[/EDIT]

if you disagree that you do not fit into the 'new homophobia' description, you are welcome to attempt to explain how your views are different to those described by kyrian.
i won't ask you to explain them if you don't want to, as i have just said, nor do i expect you to be able to come up with an explanation of why you (other than due to from the teachings of the bible) have chosen to label homosexuals as 'immoral'. with your religion, you do not need one.

[EDIT]
i tried very hard not to make this too personal man - and even harder to see this from your side. you can see where i have reconsidered my statements from the edits in this post.
i hope you can do the same (see it from a non-religious viewpoint) and we can keep this up without moving away from calm, considered debate.
[/EDIT]

this is my biggest post ever - i'm out of here for today.

[ 08. August 2003, 08:27: Message edited by: coleman ]

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


BamBamPooh-Bah
1,810 posts
Location: London


Posted:
A happy BamBam walks in the room and says

Anyone for a beer????

A kiss blown is a kiss wasted, the only kind of kiss is a kiss tasted.

I'm a woman. We don't say what we want, but we reserve the right to be pissed off if we don't get it. That's what makes us so fascinating and not just a LITTLE bit scary.


colemanSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom


Posted:
yes please!

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


preambledmember
53 posts
Location: auckland


Posted:
quote:
Consensual adult hetero sex is not immoral, however I feel homosexuality is.

Like I have asked before, show me the hate, show me the fear.

I'm not going to debate the semantics here. I say homophobia, you say "believing homosexuality is immoral".

This thread is quickly digressing and becoming overly convoluted. Let me re-iterate, in a not-so-concise manner.

My argument is that, outside the scope of religious belief, homosexuality is amoral; it falls outside any moral judgements. It is neither moral nor immoral. Not wrong or right, just like any sexual behaviour between consenting adults.

I feel the need to say this, as well, because I'm unsure that you're clear on it. I have absolutely no problem with your belief that homosexuality is immoral - from a religious standpoint. I don't agree with it, but I accept it. If the Bible told you to believe being black was immoral, I would feel the same way. I wouldn't agree with it, but I would be accepting of it, just as you are of homosexuality. But you have not given me any reason to believe that the same is true outside religion.

That is the crux of the issue here, for me. If the new homophobia existed solely in religious circles I wouldn't be nearly as incensed about it. The fact is, people try to argue this faux "unnatural" idea, which falls to pieces every time I examine it.

Hope this has been informative.


MikeGinnyGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA


Posted:
quote:
Originally posted by coleman:

the thing that strikes me here is that nowhere in those three quotes (from three different versions of the bible) does it directly say the men were homosexuals - that they wanted to have sex with the two men under lot's care.

Cole, I actually believe that the beating around the bush on the Bible and trying to intepret each and every word to a particular desired meaning is counter-productive. The Bible is pretty clear on the whole "Thou Shalt Not Kill" bit, and yet how many can use that very Book to justify killing? It's no different from people who try to interpret Genesis as actually playing out evolution. That's just not what it says.

Fact is the Bible is quite clear: homosexual acts (not homosexuality) are sins punishable by death. Per the Good Book, being gay is fine, engaging in gay sex is not.

This is simply not an issue for me, though because I don't believe a word of the Bible. And in the USA, that is (still) my right (for now).

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
Hey, your the only one singling out homosexuals, I am saying everyone is damned to hell not just them. Comprende?


quote:
you feel that being gay is wrong and immoral and that if someone does not repent for this 'sin' that they will go to hell. you have stated that the sin (in your estimation, not god's) is on the par with rape and murder. i think that qualifies as contempt - similar to the contempt that murderers and rapists are held in
No I feel that all sin is wrong, not just homophobia, so does this mean that I feel comtempt for myself?

quote:
nowhere does it list the reasons for why god wiped out sodom but the assumption is that as the only factor common to all the men of the city is that they were gay then this is why god killed them all and not just the ones who had committed further sins. their 'sin' was homosexuality and they were killed for it.
hate crime.

The men were not the only ones to die, no where does it say that all the women and children were gay, no where does it say the animals were gay, yet EVERYTHING was wiped out. Gay, strait they all died. So obviusly it was not an attack designed to souly wipe out homosexuals. Sorry guys calling it a hate crime just doesnt work.

quote:
well misdirected - as long as you keep making me quote duictionary definitions, you'll never have to actually address the issues i'm raising...
homophobia doesn't just always imply fear!
'fear OR deserving of extreme contempt or scorn'.
god will send a gay person to eternal damnation if they do not stand before him and announce that they are truly sorry for being gay while they were alive. that rates as some heavy ass scorn i reckon. so yes, god is homophobic too it seems.

God does not scorn or hold in contempt His creation, he loves it so much that he sent his only son to die for it. If that is contempt then please shoot me now!

quote:
that's because its almost impossible to do in practice ray - the only character who really got close was jesus (re: judas, the romans etc.).
trying to separate the murderer from the murder, or the rapist from the rape is almost impossible. both of these sins involve harming another human which by definition is without their consent. i don't understand how you can equate this to consentual gay sex?!

Okay, love the sinner and hate the sin, it doesnt say Love the murderer hate the muder or love the homosexual hate the fact that they are with a person of the same sex,

No it involves all sin, lieing, cheating, stealing, screwing your dog, everything!

quote:
i'm suggesting that god doesn't have to be the 'person' that the bible tells you he is. and moreover that the way he wants you to live your life is not neccessarily how the majority of your religion's followers believe you should.

So if the majority of my religion jumped off a friggin bridge should I do the same??

quote:
all i'm saying there is i think a heavy dose of 'thinking for yourself' on top of a religion is a far more sensible way to construct moral views than to assume truth in every word of the chosen religious text (aka fundamentalism).
And you are whom, that you can decide that the Bible is full of lies? If one part of the Bible is false then it is all false. Sorry you cant pick and choose only that which floats your boat. Its like sitting on a picket fence, it just dont work!

quote:
i said i don't want that comparison - it is you who is using nature as your basis of your standpoint that being gay is wrong. i'm asking if you make that link, why do you not make the rest?

Show me an animal with the same brain capeablities as man and I will show you a human dressed like an animal.

quote:
you were the one who blurred the line. you said:
'It goes against the very fundamentals of nature. If you wish to relate humans to other mammals, the whole purpose of mating is to procreate and extend the life of the species. In this two male species can not accomplish. They do nothing but satisfy their own desires.'
you can replace the same sex act with a heterosexual sex act with contraception and the statement is still 100% correct. with that in mind, can you explain why you consider the two to be different...?

I am sorry you dont see the differance between how two gay people have sex and two strait people. Though granted there are many different positions one can find themselves, gay or strait.

quote:
well i expanded on it in my last post bud. this time you have certainly chosen to avoid attmpting to explain how the analogy is still valid.
Animals do not think the same as humans, they have sex to mate, a male dog doesnt think, damn she is fine... I am gonna rape that bitch!

quote:
if so i'd love to discuss (on another thread) which bits don't make sense to you. i think most prople that have studied it find pretty damn convincing
for anyone that cares, the blind watchmaker by richard dawkins is an excellent introduction to (the neo-darwinism version of) evolution.

Sorry I just dont find a big bang nor primordial ooze convincing.

quote:
going back to your 'we weren't designed to do that so it must be wrong' theory... what about the fact that we were designed to kill (fighting instincts and sharp fangs, both bestowed upon us by god) does that mean killing is right and being gay is wrong? by the same token, is taking an aeroplane a sin? we were never designed to fly...?
I personall believe that there is a difference in killing, and murder. I feel that murder is wrong, and killing isnt. For the sake of arguments, please lets discuss killing and murder in a different thread or PM me or something.

quote:
great way to debate ray: 'lets assume my prejudice is right! now you prove me wrong!'

What predjudice do you speek of? Though you still didnt answer my question. Perhaps you cant.

quote:
to recap you said: 'in my opinion man and man were never physically designed to love eachother like that.' this argument makes no distinction between say oral sex and gay sex.

You know you have to wonder who was the first guy to recieve oral sex... how brave/drunk was he?

I dont understand why you dont understand. You have just admitted that men and men and women and women having sex just doesnt physically work, without oral or anul or toys.

quote:
'two adults in a consentual act that affects no-one but the two people involved.'
for any action that can be described by the sentence above i would have trouble understanding where you can see any wrongdoing?

Just because it doesnt do imeadiate harm doesnt mean that its okay.

quote:
nothing we have said since changes this. you've been asked to explain what basis (other than the teachings of the bible) has brought about your opinion that homosexuality is immoral.
you are flat out refusing to back it up with sensibile arguments and so i don't see why i should spend time writing out retorts to your inflammatory remarks and poorly thought out analogies and comparisons.

I have backed up my opinion as best I could, if that isnt good enough, then your just going to have to accept that this is how I feel and you are not going to change it. Life is hard... wear a helmate!

Ohh and please, deleate that second post hehe that makes things really really long


Frosty,

quote:
My argument is that, outside the scope of religious belief, homosexuality is amoral; it falls outside any moral judgements. It is neither moral nor immoral. Not wrong or right, just like any sexual behaviour between consenting adults
That is your opinion, not mine. Tough ninny, get over it.

quote:
But you have not given me any reason to believe that the same is true outside religion.

The wonderfull thing here is, I dont have to give you a reason why it is moral outside of religion. If you truly want to play that way, is murder moral, outside of religious text?

quote:
That is the crux of the issue here, for me. If the new homophobia existed solely in religious circles I wouldn't be nearly as incensed about it. The fact is, people try to argue this faux "unnatural" idea, which falls to pieces every time I examine it.
So your saying that just because the human body isnt desinged to procreate with the same sex however if the same sex still finds a way to have sex and if it feels good, that all is good?

If I walked over to my roommate, and just hauled off and hit him would that be okay? I mean he has pissed me off alot latly and damn I do just want to hit him, I know it would feel good.

By your definition, that is okay. I mean it would feel good so why not do it?


quote:
This is simply not an issue for me, though because I don't believe a word of the Bible. And in the USA, that is (still) my right (for now).
Mike,
Men and women like me have died and are willing to die so that you can have rights, so you can live in the country and be safe to live your life as you choose. Show some respect man because without them, without us, you wouldnt have any rights.

It is obvius that you dont want anything to do with my country, when do you leave again?

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


colemanSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom


Posted:
ray - i'll delete the first post if you like - i made some edits to the second one last night so i left both up so everyone could see what i changed. if it's not needed i'll take it out?

i realised later that that was post 1500 for me - by pure coincidence it was my longest post ever too


right, here we go...

quote:
And you are whom, that you can decide that the Bible is full of lies? If one part of the Bible is false then it is all false. Sorry you cant pick and choose only that which floats your boat. Its like sitting on a picket fence, it just dont work!
the bible says, explicitly 'thou shalt not kill'.
but then you say:

quote:
I personall believe that there is a difference in killing, and murder. I feel that murder is wrong, and killing isnt. For the sake of arguments, please lets discuss killing and murder in a different thread or PM me or something.
i think that qualifies as 'picking and choosing what floats your boat' dude.
the bible is not ambiguous over this issue murder is just killing under a particular set of circumstances defined by humans.
killing is still killing. period.
sorry but beyond your glaring contradiction here i don't think i want to discuss this at all.
a righteous killing is a misnomer as far as i'm concerned.

quote:
So if the majority of my religion jumped off a friggin bridge should I do the same??
of course not - but now you're thinking!
now extend that attitude of independent thought to the teachings of the bible (like you have already with 'thou shalt not kill') and you're well on your way to making your own moral judgements on all kinds of issues

quote:
I am sorry you dont see the differance between how two gay people have sex and two strait people. Though granted there are many different positions one can find themselves, gay or strait.
have you never had sex without vaginal penetration then ray - without that is the act unnatural? if you remove penetration from the equation, the sex had by gay and straight people would be i imagine, virtually indistinguishable.
if i understand correctly, your argument is that sex with no chance of procreation is unnatural and a sin?

i'm a little confused on one issue still though - is it sodomy that is the sin (so straight people can sin just as easily as gay people) or is just being gay a sin in itself? or is it both?
i'm not trying to point out anything here - i just don't know exactly what the bible says on the issue of the backdoor.

quote:
Sorry I just dont find a big bang nor primordial ooze convincing.
you don't have to believe in either of those things to see evidence of cumulative natural selection all around us. but if you're not interested in challenging your preconceptions (or 'the book of genesis' as you might prefer to call them ) then don't look any further.
it just means that our arguments based on 'what we were designed to do' is at an end because fundamentally, we believe different things - you believe god created us as we are and i believe we evolved from lower species. another case of agreeing to disagree methinks.

quote:
So your saying that just because the human body isnt desinged to procreate with the same sex however if the same sex still finds a way to have sex and if it feels good, that all is good?

If I walked over to my roommate, and just hauled off and hit him would that be okay? I mean he has pissed me off alot latly and damn I do just want to hit him, I know it would feel good.
now i know they go together on tv a lot ray but contrary to your belief, sex and violence are not the same thing.
to be frank i think that comparison is truly ridiculous.
in consentual sex (gay or straight), two people do things to make both themselves and each other feel good - you are comparing that to harming another individual for your personal gratification? i find that a little scary...

compare heterosexual sodomy and oral sex to gay sodomy and oral sex and again i ask where the difference lies?
seriously, if your attitude to sex is not 'do what feels good', if all you have sex for is procreation then i'm glad i don't have your sex life man!

quote:
Just because it doesnt do imeadiate harm doesnt mean that its okay.
please clarify - you are suggesting there is harm done to other people in the long term by two gay people having a relationship. please define the problems you believe it will cause, whether immediate or long term.


quote:
It is obvius that you dont want anything to do with my country
just because you are willing to kill for it doesn't mean the country belongs to you ray. i think when talking to another american the correct term would be 'our country'...? maybe i'm wrong though (i haven't read the constitution lately) - tell ya what, show me your reciept and i'll believe america is yours more than it is mike's


oh, and the two excellent points raised by preambled that you ignored were:

quote:
My argument is that, outside the scope of religious belief, homosexuality is amoral; it falls outside any moral judgements. It is neither moral nor immoral. Not wrong or right, just like any sexual behaviour between consenting adults.
quote:
If the Bible told you to believe being black was immoral, I would feel the same way. I wouldn't agree with it, but I would be accepting of it, just as you are of homosexuality. But you have not given me any reason to believe that the same is true outside religion.
i don't blame you for avoiding those though - they're pretty hard to argue against.

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
quote:
before christianity arrived on these shores there was no mass-homophobia
Hahahahaha WTF is this??

What shroes are refering to, where in the hell were you... hahaha WTF??

Your insaine! How long ago did Christianity arrive on what shores? How old were you? Were you even alive, if not how in the friggin world do you know how things were? My word I have never read anything so damn funny.


Now, I am going to try to be polite here, Frosty, you are a moron! I'm not just calling you names, I mean it.

You have no basis for what your saying, your just trying to put down something that you dont understand.

Its your opinion and thats all you, but man you chastise me for my beliefs then you try to speek on them as if you know what your talking about.

I am just shocked to see how blatently absurd you can be.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


BamBamPooh-Bah
1,810 posts
Location: London


Posted:
BamBam runs under a desk for cover before shouting

Does anyone know what time it is?????

Yes that's right it's Pimms o'clock

Anyone????

Do you think anyone noticed that I went off topic??

Bammy

A kiss blown is a kiss wasted, the only kind of kiss is a kiss tasted.

I'm a woman. We don't say what we want, but we reserve the right to be pissed off if we don't get it. That's what makes us so fascinating and not just a LITTLE bit scary.


colemanSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom


Posted:
now you're just being f*ckin rude ray.
just becasue you think someone's opinions are extreme and unfounded doesn't give you the right to be an abusive arsehole.
i think the same about some of your opinions but i don't resort to calling you absurd, insane and a moron.

you accuse people of 'attacking' you all the time and then come out with some shit like that?!

if you disagree with frosty and think he's talking bullshit, challenge his statements and ask him to give references. at the worst say something like 'i believe your opinions are baseless. i choose to ignore them unitl you can provide a basis for your 'facts' on homophobia and the effect religion has had on it.'.

posts like your last one will always be counter-productive.

[bams: fancy a lunchtime drink again then...? you know what happened last time though ]

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


BamBamPooh-Bah
1,810 posts
Location: London


Posted:
There was a debate going on here (which I for one found very interesting) but now it seems to have digressed to personal attacks...... hardly the work of adults.

Come on guys keep it clean ehhh

Cole: I'm skipping my lunch hour so that I can leave early... me is seeing the most beautiful woman in the world tonight mummy

Bammy

A kiss blown is a kiss wasted, the only kind of kiss is a kiss tasted.

I'm a woman. We don't say what we want, but we reserve the right to be pissed off if we don't get it. That's what makes us so fascinating and not just a LITTLE bit scary.


colemanSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom


Posted:
wicked

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
So what your saying Coleman, is that its okay for you and Frosty to attack me, but when I go on the offensive it's rude?

Do you always hold this kind of double standerd?


Okay back to a debate.


Frosty, What shores are you talking about? How long ago?

Coleman, damn I missed your post again We are going to have to work on our timing Congrats on 1500

Okay...

quote:
the bible says, explicitly 'thou shalt not kill'.
but then you say:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I personall believe that there is a difference in killing, and murder. I feel that murder is wrong, and killing isnt. For the sake of arguments, please lets discuss killing and murder in a different thread or PM me or something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i think that qualifies as 'picking and choosing what floats your boat' dude.
the bible is not ambiguous over this issue murder is just killing under a particular set of circumstances defined by humans.
killing is still killing. period.
sorry but beyond your glaring contradiction here i don't think i want to discuss this at all.
a righteous killing is a misnomer as far as i'm concerned.

Okay, I'll send you a PM on this one if its cool with you man, this just isnt the place for this discussion.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the majority of my religion jumped off a friggin bridge should I do the same??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of course not - but now you're thinking!
now extend that attitude of independent thought to the teachings of the bible (like you have already with 'thou shalt not kill') and you're well on your way to making your own moral judgements on all kinds of issues
I already make my own judgments on morality, I choose to agree with the Bible.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry you dont see the differance between how two gay people have sex and two strait people. Though granted there are many different positions one can find themselves, gay or strait.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

have you never had sex without vaginal penetration then ray - without that is the act unnatural? if you remove penetration from the equation, the sex had by gay and straight people would be i imagine, virtually indistinguishable.
if i understand correctly, your argument is that sex with no chance of procreation is unnatural and a sin?

No, I have not. Sex between gay and strait people is quite distinguishable. Maybe the fact that there are either two men or two women having sex instead of a man and a woman just escapes you.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry I just dont find a big bang nor primordial ooze convincing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you don't have to believe in either of those things to see evidence of cumulative natural selection all around us. but if you're not interested in challenging your preconceptions (or 'the book of genesis' as you might prefer to call them ) then don't look any further.
it just means that our arguments based on 'what we were designed to do' is at an end because fundamentally, we believe different things - you believe god created us as we are and i believe we evolved from lower species. another case of agreeing to disagree methinks.

There is not one scientific explination of the creation of earth, that can not be disproven using science. However, science can not disprove the Bibles explination of the Creation of existance.

Personally I feel it takes more faith to believe in any form of evoloution than it does to believe in Creation.

quote:
now i know they go together on tv a lot ray but contrary to your belief, sex and violence are not the same thing.
to be frank i think that comparison is truly ridiculous.
in consentual sex (gay or straight), two people do things to make both themselves and each other feel good
You are right, that in both strait and gay sex two (or more ) people are doing something for pleasure.

What I was refering to was that just because it feels good, it doesnt make it right. It may feel good to haul off on my roommate, but it doesnt mean that it is right. Do you see my connection?

quote:
compare heterosexual sodomy and oral sex to gay sodomy and oral sex and again i ask where the difference lies?
seriously, if your attitude to sex is not 'do what feels good', if all you have sex for is procreation then i'm glad i don't have your sex life man!
By definition oral sex is sodomy, and no you dont want my sex life. I am satisfied with it, but I would call it a safe bet that the majority of the world wouldnt be.

quote:
please clarify - you are suggesting there is harm done to other people in the long term by two gay people having a relationship. please define the problems you believe it will cause, whether immediate or long term
Well... yes and no. Physically, there may not be, but perhaps you should ask Mike about the risks of STDs. Here is a fact for you, a hole in a condom, may not lead to the condom breaking, but it can still lead to the spread of the HIV virus. Think of it this way, take a tractor tire (thats the hole in the condom) take a golfball (the HIV virus)... how easy would it be for you to throw that golfball through the tire?

I am sure Mike can go into more detail about the spread of things like syphulis and what not.

Now I am not saying that every homosexual will get an STD, but I am sure that Mike can provide the evidence that there is a higher rate of STDs in gay couples than in strait, in cases where it was actually transmitted through sex and not the shareing of needles and what not.

Harm to others, unfortunatly not all families will support a gay family member. It may be cruel and wrong but it may just hurt the family.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is obvius that you dont want anything to do with my country
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

just because you are willing to kill for it doesn't mean the country belongs to you ray. i think when talking to another american the correct term would be 'our country'...? maybe i'm wrong though (i haven't read the constitution lately) - tell ya what, show me your reciept and i'll believe america is yours more than it is mike's

I am also willing to die for it, are you willing to die for yours.

Mike has repeatedly said about his disgust for America and its government (no matter who is in office). Now this is my opinion and is not law, but I believe that in order to truly call yourself a member of a country you must have some loyalty to it. Going off of what Mike has said in the past, he has no loyalty.

Granted this is only my opinion.


quote:
oh, and the two excellent points raised by preambled that you ignored were:
Do I have to answer everything?

quote:
My argument is that, outside the scope of religious belief, homosexuality is amoral; it falls outside any moral judgements. It is neither moral nor immoral. Not wrong or right, just like any sexual behaviour between consenting adults.
If morality is based souly on religion then I would agree with you. Even without religion I do not agree with homosexuality. Honestly I dont know how to explain it any other way. It is just my opinion and your just going to have to suck it up and live with it!


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Bible told you to believe being black was immoral, I would feel the same way. I wouldn't agree with it, but I would be accepting of it, just as you are of homosexuality. But you have not given me any reason to believe that the same is true outside religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So now in order for you to accept my opinion I must explain it to you? Sorry, but your just going to have to live with the fact that I do not view homosexuality as moral, propper, right, okay, fine or any other positive word. I think it is wrong, with or without religion. Explain it... I dont have to, its just that simple. It is my opnion not yours I have to deal with it, you dont. Therefore I dont have to explain it. Who are you to demand an explination from me?


Sorry I didnt answer that sooner, lifes so tough isnt it?


So prove to me that homosexuality is right.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
Hey Coleman empty your mailbox so I can PM you about murder and killing and what not...

I'll delete this when I send you the PM

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


colemanSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom


Posted:
first of all;
quote:
So what your saying Coleman, is that its okay for you and Frosty to attack me, but when I go on the offensive it's rude?

Do you always hold this kind of double standerd?
i didn't think i had attacked you ray (prior to my reaction to your 'insult frosty' post). i have tried my very best to keep this discussion as impersonal as it can be. i have challenged your views and opinions, as you have mine but i was not aware i had personally 'attacked' you.
if i did, i am sorry.
your post directed at frosty was mostly taken up with insults in the middle of a thread what was becoming a very measured discussion - that's the difference that upset me.


i'll wait for your pm but i still don't see how you can think you are not contradicting yourself when you say "i take every word of the bible as true. it says 'thou shalt not kill' but i say murder is wrong, killing is not."
now that is a double standard

on a similar note you asked if i am willing to die for my country? i would say i am willing to die to protect the way of life that i choose. however i am neither willing to kill or be killed on behalf of a 'leader' i didn't vote for and don't trust.
i'm not sure if i still qualify as a good citizen with that opinion but i don't plan to only ever reside in this country anyway - i see very few scenarios in which i would put myself in the position to die for any country.

but at last we've got to the basis of your religion independent 'being gay is bad' viewpoint...

quote:
Well... yes and no. Physically, there may not be, but perhaps you should ask Mike about the risks of STDs. Here is a fact for you, a hole in a condom, may not lead to the condom breaking, but it can still lead to the spread of the HIV virus. Think of it this way, take a tractor tire (thats the hole in the condom) take a golfball (the HIV virus)... how easy would it be for you to throw that golfball through the tire?

I am sure Mike can go into more detail about the spread of things like syphulis and what not.

Now I am not saying that every homosexual will get an STD, but I am sure that Mike can provide the evidence that there is a higher rate of STDs in gay couples than in strait, in cases where it was actually transmitted through sex and not the shareing of needles and what not.

i don't need a patronising analogy of holes in condoms and the size of the hiv virus cheers mate that same condom with the hole in same sex intercourse will still spread hiv.
yes, std's are more prevalent in the gay community, but this point is invalid as it only hurts the people involved in the sex.
check the original context here:

quote:
quote:


'two adults in a consentual act that affects no-one but the two people involved.'
for any action that can be described by the sentence above i would have trouble understanding where you can see any wrongdoing?


Just because it doesnt do imeadiate harm doesnt mean that its okay.
still you have yet to show how it causes harm to anyone but the two people involved.

quote:
Harm to others, unfortunatly not all families will support a gay family member. It may be cruel and wrong but it may just hurt the family.
this is what the new homophobia is all about!
ray - if someone is gay and they come out to their family and someone in that family is intolerent/prejudiced/bigoted towards homosexuality and it hurts the family, it is *that* person's fault. it is the intolerance of homosexuality that creates the problem, not the fact that someone in the family is gay.

you could say the same thing about mixed race relationships - some people are bigoted and will not be happy with a mixed race marriage in their family - if the family suffers it is the racist's fault, not the couple in love.


quote:
I already make my own judgments on morality, I choose to agree with the Bible.
okay i was just trying to point out that like your choice to disagree with 'thou shalt not kill', you could choose to have views on other issues that contradict what the bible teaches.
fair enough if you'd rather just keep it to one of the commandments.

quote:
There is not one scientific explination of the creation of earth, that can not be disproven using science. However, science can not disprove the Bibles explination of the Creation of existance.

Personally I feel it takes more faith to believe in any form of evoloution than it does to believe in Creation.

to coin one of your terms ray - you pulled that straight out of your ass (even though it's arse )!
here's a nice start - try and explain where all the fossils we've found (including the dinosaurs) fit into the bible's timeline...
and to ignore the evidence of cumulative natural selection you have to shut your eyes very, very tightly. i think from these comments it is evident that by choosing to believe in genesis you have likewise chosen to dismiss any other theories, no matter how little you have looked into them.
the evidence for evolution is overwhelming - if you don't agree then you blatently haven't studied the subject any more than skimming the basic premise.
imho, the likelihood that women were created from a man's rib and then got 'knowledge' by eating an apple from a forbidden tree (damning the race in the process) because a snake told her to do it is pretty low.

quote:
So prove to me that homosexuality is right.
the bible has more incest in it than any other book i've read (that bit in genesis(?) where there's just loads of 'beagatting' is enough by itself!). i don't believe incest is right - do you?
i don't think anyone has to prove homosexulaity is 'right' either as i too believe this it is amoral - or to be more vague and cryptic, 'it just is'.
for example, its similar to saying prove procreation is right. its pretty hard to do without making a baseless statement (ie. the bible says so so it must be). thinking about it, maybe procreation is more wrong nowdays than sex *not* for procreation - have you seen the world's population problems...?

we're very much moving off topic now though - i'm happy for us to continue this via pm if you'd prefer ray?

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
Okay... hehe

quote:
i didn't think i had attacked you ray (prior to my reaction to your 'insult frosty' post). i have tried my very best to keep this discussion as impersonal as it can be. i have challenged your views and opinions, as you have mine but i was not aware i had personally 'attacked' you.
if i did, i am sorry.

You have however attacked me in the past, maybe not this post.

quote:
i'll wait for your pm but i still don't see how you can think you are not contradicting yourself when you say "i take every word of the bible as true. it says 'thou shalt not kill' but i say murder is wrong, killing is not."
now that is a double standard

Dont worry about it, you'll see my reasoning, just cean out your mailbox.

quote:
on a similar note you asked if i am willing to die for my country? i would say i am willing to die to protect the way of life that i choose. however i am neither willing to kill or be killed on behalf of a 'leader' i didn't vote for and don't trust.
i'm not sure if i still qualify as a good citizen with that opinion but i don't plan to only ever reside in this country anyway - i see very few scenarios in which i would put myself in the position to die for any country.

Lets leave this one for a different post, or a pm... start one if you want (Just trying to keep things on topic)

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harm to others, unfortunatly not all families will support a gay family member. It may be cruel and wrong but it may just hurt the family.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this is what the new homophobia is all about!
ray - if someone is gay and they come out to their family and someone in that family is intolerent/prejudiced/bigoted towards homosexuality and it hurts the family, it is *that* person's fault. it is the intolerance of homosexuality that creates the problem, not the fact that someone in the family is gay.

Your right that the blame doesnt fall with the gay person, it falls with the family member, however if the person was not gay then the situation wouldnt be, also if the family member would be more tollerant, then the situation wouldnt exist.

The point was, pain was felt by someone else, blame wasnt part of the orriginal question. I was just asked to give an example of how it might hurt someone else. That I did.

quote:
you could say the same thing about mixed race relationships - some people are bigoted and will not be happy with a mixed race marriage in their family - if the family suffers it is the racist's fault, not the couple in love.

Your right man, I never said it was right or fair, but you cant deny that it happens. It shouldnt happen, but once again I was asked for an example and I gave it, blame wasnt part of the question.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already make my own judgments on morality, I choose to agree with the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

okay i was just trying to point out that like your choice to disagree with 'thou shalt not kill', you could choose to have views on other issues that contradict what the bible teaches.
fair enough if you'd rather just keep it to one of the commandments.

You'll understand this later when you read my PM.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is not one scientific explination of the creation of earth, that can not be disproven using science. However, science can not disprove the Bibles explination of the Creation of existance.

Personally I feel it takes more faith to believe in any form of evoloution than it does to believe in Creation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to coin one of your terms ray - you pulled that straight out of your ass (even though it's arse )!
here's a nice start - try and explain where all the fossils we've found (including the dinosaurs) fit into the bible's timeline...
and to ignore the evidence of cumulative natural selection you have to shut your eyes very, very tightly. i think from these comments it is evident that by choosing to believe in genesis you have likewise chosen to dismiss any other theories, no matter how little you have looked into them.
the evidence for evolution is overwhelming - if you don't agree then you blatently haven't studied the subject any more than skimming the basic premise.
imho, the likelihood that women were created from a man's rib and then got 'knowledge' by eating an apple from a forbidden tree (damning the race in the process) because a snake told her to do it is pretty low.

I am no umm... archiologist (if thats spelled right I want a million dollars!) I'll tell you this much... I need your help here, pretend for a minute that you believe as Christians believe, would it not be possible for a God who created everything to create and destroy something like the dinousaurs? Why were dinousaurs like the T-rex and what not wiped out? Did you read about Noah taking them on the ark?

I know I am using my religion to answer your questions and you will probably laugh at me, but like I said I am not someone who has studied fossles.

I know that some teath were found that "looked" human, bone fragments things that would not hold up in court, IE purly speculation. You do the research and find me where someone found a complete skeleton of these prehistoric men.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So prove to me that homosexuality is right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the bible has more incest in it than any other book i've read (that bit in genesis(?) where there's just loads of 'beagatting' is enough by itself!). i don't believe incest is right - do you?
i don't think anyone has to prove homosexulaity is 'right' either as i too believe this it is amoral - or to be more vague and cryptic, 'it just is'.
for example, its similar to saying prove procreation is right. its pretty hard to do without making a baseless statement (ie. the bible says so so it must be). thinking about it, maybe procreation is more wrong nowdays than sex *not* for procreation - have you seen the world's population problems...?

we're very much moving off topic now though - i'm happy for us to continue this via pm if you'd prefer ray?

hehe umm procreation is reproduction, if it isnt right why are we here?

Personally I am from New Mexico... Land of a billion cows! Well not really, but I would say you could fit a few million people in New Mexico. I dont see a population problem. Some areas just have tighter living conditions, there is pleanty of space left on the planet.


The Bible has alot of incest, so? Show me a passage where it says it says that incest is okay?

If I looked I bet I couuld find a website that shows fimls of people being raped, does that mean its okay? Just becuase soemthing is talked about, doesnt make it right!


If you dont think that people should prove homosexuality right, why are you asking me to prove it wrong?

Thats called double standerd.


If your mailbox is cleaned out, I'll PM that too you

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


Page:

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [new homophobia] we found the following existing topics.

  1. Forums > The new homophobia [169 replies]

      Show more..

HOP Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and more...