Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Greebynog wrote:No, leave the decision to those it affects. They want it.

Also, calling homosexuality a 'weird sexual fetish' is insulting, childish and hideously outdated.

Also, homosexuality isn't some 'choice' people make. As someone said earlier, could you choose to be gay? No, if you're straight, you're straight. If you're gay, you're gay. And a million shades of grey inbetween.

This is the kinda lies you get from Trinity Broadcasting. I've known many many gay people and not a single one of them made the choice. The "ex-gay" and counseling stories are a house of cards built on delusion with no real credible sources (Protip: James Dobson's Focus on the Family isn't credible), as all the credible sources say the opposite. In fact the ones that are constantly told it is their fault and they are "choosing wrong" and that they can just not be that way by choice tend to be extremely miserable and often suicidal. If you think it is a choice, try choosing to be gay for a couple months and see how well that works out.

Elaborating more on my opinion on behavioral vs genetics. As we have seen lots of girls experiment with other girls such as kissing each other in front of guy's jsut to get a reaction out of the crowd, or a girl being dumped by their boy friend and then being consulted by their female friend which leads to sex. I can go on and on these are mental issues that lead to the sexual alternative. Are they gay I can not tell you, will this lead to them becoming gay ????

Many people feel attracted to people of the same sex, and wonder whether this means that they are gay. For many people these feelings can be very intense and alienating. Some people who are attracted to people of the same sex are gay and go on to have gay sexual relationships. Some people are bisexual and are attracted to both men and women, and have relationships with both. Some people are not attracted to anyone and wonder if this is a sign of homosexuality. Often it is only time that will resolve these uncertainties.

For what ever reasons they may have, it is their CHOICE, But other people who have gay feelings find that these change over time by CHOICE if it was not so they would be gay, those indivduals who experiment with the opposite sex would have no CHOICE but to be gay, People Choose their sexual orientation, they are not geneticaly pre-determined to be gay. This of course varies from person to person. Deciding you are gay often happens gradually, it may not be something you can initially put a name to, and it can feel very confusing at times, which is why I say it is a mental issue.

Furthermore biological differences between heterosexual and homosexual adults, suggesting that people are born with their sexuality already determined is a biological theory. Research tries to prove that homosexual orientation could be genetically transmitted to men on the x chromosome, which they get from their mothers. However when this study was duplicated it did not produce the same results. A follow-up study which Dean Hamer collaborated on also failed to reinforce his earlier results.

And additionally at the moment most reaserchers generally think that biological explanations of sexuality are insufficient to explain the diversity of human sexuality. meaning those who are BI, Straight Gay, loving animals, wanting young children, ect. The social or behavioral explanations offers more of a variety of factors that could contribute to the development of a person's homosexuality.

What's your explanation of homosexual animals then? Does a girl sheep kiss another girl sheep (ewe, gross!) and then gradually build up feelings for them?

BTW, two drunk girls kissing for a laugh isn't the same as two same sex people in a loving relationship.

Wow... just wow...

Insulting and Ignorant.

Also, if marriage is solely for procreation, what about couples who choose not to have kids? Or people who are sterile? Are they not allowed to be married?

Ozymandias wrote:Wow... just wow...

Insulting and Ignorant.

Also, if marriage is solely for procreation, what about couples who choose not to have kids? Or people who are sterile? Are they not allowed to be married?

The stability of my world is coming to an end.

I totally agree with Ozymandias.

Now we just need Polonius and HBMC to say the same thing and the seventh seal will be broken.

Jesus, as I've already said, it doesn't matter. Something being a choice does not justify discrimination against it regardless.

The lack of gay marriage laws greatly inconveniences a great deal of people, for very little, if any, gain. That's reason enough in itself.

Also, what happens in nature, among other species no less, doesn't really justify what humans do. There's a lot more cannibalism in nature than homosexuality.

It is obvious that I am a beliver in GOD So too the unbelivers I am willing to meet the gay individuals half 1/2 way. As you know I am all for religion in marriage. But people ought to be free to decide that for themselves.

How about we say no to mixing state and religion in marriage. We could have the system they have in France. You have a civil ceremony, and then if you want a religious wedding, you can get married in church. You get the legal meaning with and all of the extra percs for being married (which is why I think Gay's realy want to get married) the first and the religious meaning with the second. And if the Gay's choose they can leave out the word GOD in the civil ceremony all together.

Who could object to that? My biggest argument is for those to not diminish the role of the church in marriage.

Greenlight, almost every issue you raised was already raised, many by you, and they were all disputed. If you weren't convinced by any of the rebuttal, you should have quoted those points and argued them. What you've done here, basically ignoring the discussion as it was and just repeating your opening arguments is extremely rude.

But if you want we can just go through each point again.

Greenlight1107 wrote:Polonius: Ok Let me make my position on the whole idea of it (This being a religious thread and all ) The bible does state man shall not lay with man. But if you take the sex out of homosexuality what do you have? A relationship, a friendship per say. I'm a guy who has had a friendship for six years with my two Guy buddies, if we had sex it would be a gay relationship. But thank God we don't that would be just plain gay which I'm not !!!! So just because homosexuals have a weird sexual fetish doesn't mean they should be granted same rights as man and woman.

Except that sexual fetish is when you like someone wearing leather, or smoking. Standing up in front of your friends and family and telling them you love someone and want to spend the rest of your lives together is a completely different thing.

Honestly I don't understand your second argument. But marriage was created for one purpose-- procreation.

No, marriage was originally created to formalise issues of inheritance. Gay marriage would be very useful in fulfilling this purpose.

Elaborating more on my opinion on behavioral vs genetics. As we have seen lots of girls experiment with other girls such as kissing each other in front of guy's jsut to get a reaction out of the crowd, or a girl being dumped by their boy friend and then being consulted by their female friend which leads to sex. I can go on and on these are mental issues that lead to the sexual alternative. Are they gay I can not tell you, will this lead to them becoming gay ????

As I explained before (and that you chose to ignore); the fact that people experiment, or that some people have attraction to both sexes says nothing about biology. There is nothing in biology that says a person has to be entirely attracted to one sex or the other.

I’ll ask it again, could you choose to be gay? You pointed out earlier that you weren’t gay, and you even used three exclamation points to ensure it. So I’m guessing you really have no attraction to the same sex, just the same as me. Wouldn’t it be safe to say, given the complete lack of interest shown by others Given my complete lack of interest I’ve found it pretty intuitive to think that there is something fundamentally different about men who are attracted to other men. Is that not obvious to you?

How about we say no to mixing state and religion in marriage. We could have the system they have in France. You have a civil ceremony, and then if you want a religious wedding, you can get married in church. You get the legal meaning with and all of the extra percs for being married (which is why I think Gay's realy want to get married) the first and the religious meaning with the second. And if the Gay's choose they can leave out the word GOD in the civil ceremony all together.

Just to be clear, you realise what you’re saying here, aren’t you? You’re basically removing the church from the process entirely. At which point the state will join people in civil unions, and if people want religious ceremonies they will get them. At which point some churches will start wedding gay couples. At which point you will have gay marriage.

Ozymandias wrote:Wow... just wow...

Insulting and Ignorant.

Also, if marriage is solely for procreation, what about couples who choose not to have kids? Or people who are sterile? Are they not allowed to be married?

Well, we're closer to Hell freezing over, as I agree on all counts.

Greenlight1107 wrote:
For what ever reasons they may have, it is their CHOICE, But other people who have gay feelings find that these change over time by CHOICE if it was not so they would be gay, those indivduals who experiment with the opposite sex would have no CHOICE but to be gay, People Choose their sexual orientation, they are not geneticaly pre-determined to be gay. This of course varies from person to person. Deciding you are gay often happens gradually, it may not be something you can initially put a name to, and it can feel very confusing at times, which is why I say it is a mental issue.

You're confusing choice and awareness. People don't choose to be gay, they become aware of the fact that they are gay. This doesn't mean sexuality is entirely genetic, in fact I sincerely doubt that it is. It seems more likely to me that environmental factors (in the womb, social imprinting, etc.) play as significant a role as anything in the genetic code itself.

Keep in mind that when I note that sexuality may be in part imprinted I am not stating that it is anyway related to choice. Imprinting is not a conscious process, so no active choice can be made.

Greenlight1107 wrote:
And additionally at the moment most reaserchers generally think that biological explanations of sexuality are insufficient to explain the diversity of human sexuality. meaning those who are BI, Straight Gay, loving animals, wanting young children, ect. The social or behavioral explanations offers more of a variety of factors that could contribute to the development of a person's homosexuality.

Social and behavioral explanations do not necessarily relate to conscious processes.

Greebynog wrote:

Greebynog wrote:No, leave the decision to those it affects. They want it.

Also, calling homosexuality a 'weird sexual fetish' is insulting, childish and hideously outdated.

Also, homosexuality isn't some 'choice' people make. As someone said earlier, could you choose to be gay? No, if you're straight, you're straight. If you're gay, you're gay. And a million shades of grey inbetween.

Yea but what if you're color blind. Then everything's a million shades of grey

Modquisition on:
Gentlemen, if discussing religion and religious beliefs respect the posters therein and avoid insults-even if you disagree with them, else this thread will be immediately closed.

Greenlight1107 wrote:The whole argument of behavioral VS genetics is still argumentative in it's self. What do you say to thousand of indivduals who thought they were gay and then realized they were not. Many people realize or think as early as age 11, 12, 13 that they are struggling with there sexuality and gender identity, many people live as a lesbian or gay until their adult and soon change or become disillusioned with their homosexual life and want to change.

Many people have come to make this decision. This is a process of many years, or several years for people going to counseling, professional counseling, connecting with Christian ministries or other help that they may receive to understand themselves which has helped many. If you talk with these men and women who had been on a similar journey, and was able to work through the issues in their life that contributed to homosexuality they will tell you that there decision to become gay was because of their mental issues, and are proud to say that they are now "Ex-Gay"
Now I say if it is not behavioral and is genetics, how is it possible for someone to change their sexual orientation? I know people who have changed from gay to straight? This was there "CHOICE" So yes I think people choose to be Gay..... On another note what answer do you have for those who are bisexual were they born to to sleep with every one genetics um" I think not i'm going to lean more towards behavioral..

It's got sod all to do with the Counselling. The 'thousands' you quoted are simpy Bisexual. You know, half rice half chips, switch hitters, happy shoppers, ac/dc?

And Counselling, or Brainwashing? Where do you draw the line? If you teach someone to loathe who they are enough, they will change. Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, Bisexuality and Asexuality are not choices. At all. You either are, or you aren't. Simples.

If you define "choosing to be gay" as someone outright deciding that they're going to be gay today, it seems like there would be a question of motive.

Many people who say that they're gay have something to lose by doing so; at the very least they probably have little to gain.

Simply deciding to be gay seems kind of odd without a good reason to do so.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And Counselling, or Brainwashing? Where do you draw the line? If you teach someone to loathe who they are enough, they will change. Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, Bisexuality and Asexuality are not choices. At all. You either are, or you aren't. Simples.

Conceivably you could imprint yourself with homosexual behavioral patterns. Its also conceivable that you could imprint yourself with heterosexual behavior patterns. Both of these actions could then lead to a sexual attraction to the same/opposite sex. Most likely this would simply render you bisexual as overwhelming a previously imprinted behavior is incredibly difficult. But the question becomes: why would you want to? And, more importantly, why should we require people to do this? It seems like an awful lot of effort for, at most, a 1% increase in annual birthrate.

"Wow" was I lined up against the fireing squad or what.
Non-belivers (2) belivers( 0) " I need some reinforcements in here fellow Christians". I got a hard throwing Black eye that round. Good JOB fella's. But there will be more to come trust me.

Greenlight1107 wrote:Non-belivers (2) belivers( 0) "

Part of the problem is that you are arguing an "us versus them" when the rest of us aren't taking it that way. Disagreement doesn't mean people are your enemy. It also fails to take into account that yours is not the only Christian view, which your little diagram doesn't take into account. It isn't as simple as binary opposition.

halonachos wrote:I think that anung was trying to get us to get to a point in which we want to kill each other. He kept using "can't" alot in his O.P

Ehm..... ...if you say so

I didn't look in this thread for a week or so, but I'm happy it's still such a lifely discussion. Though I don't really have much to add on topic anymore since I said it already. I'm not sure if I have an opinion on the whole homosexuality thing. I'm not bothered by it and I don't see evil in it.

edit: oh, and just for protocol, I asked Frazz twice to re-open this thread, I'm not so sure he would do it a third time.

Greenlight1107 wrote:"Wow" was I lined up against the fireing squad or what.
Non-belivers (2) belivers( 0) " I need some reinforcements in here fellow Christians". I got a hard throwing Black eye that round. Good JOB fella's. But there will be more to come trust me.

Greenlight, I have been watching this thread and am on your side, but quite frankly the thread has turned into a Gay rights discussion which to me is more politics than anything.

I don't like partaking on political discussions too much, as it's all opinion backed up by half baked theories and I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to scientifically disprove the things the Gay rights people say. All you can do is quote scripture and pray.

I know the Bible is right and I know that God doesn't make mistakes, homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.

I compare homosexuality with other perversions like pedophilia because pedophiles, like homosexuals are so far gone with their sexual addiction that they can't help themselves. NAMBLA makes much of the same arguments that the homosexual lobby makes in trying to say thay they are "born pedophiles" and that they don't have a choice in being the way they are, etc.

People will jump up and down and call me all kinds of bad things for what I just typed because they have been indocrinated in political correctness, but the truth is still there and you can't pound the truth down peoples throats when they are not willing to receive it.

It's like earlier when one of the posters said that no where in the new testament is it mentioned that homosexuality is sin. I pointed out a few quotes from Paul( a new testament writer), and the person moved the target by saying, something like..."Ohh yeah....well Jesus never said that"

Now I'm off to church. :-)

GG

@generalgrog

People spend too much time wondering about the guy (or girl) next to them, when the real issue lies a lot closer to home.

Whether Homosexuality is considered a sin or not, is not in the scope of "mere" humans to decide.

The problem with "organised" or as I call it "group" religion, is that it tries to create neat boxes where everyone and everything has its place....some boxes are marked bad, evil, sinful etc and the others are good, holy, etc etc......now this isn't a bad thing in of itself....but we as humans walk around with one foot in each box, laughing and judging the guy next to us who essentially wearing a similar set of "shoes"!

I don't think you're wrong as such to have strong anti homosexual feelings, in the same way as its not necessarily wrong for the homosexuals to try to defend their choices.....the problem for me is the focus. If you're watching the homosexual, then who's watching you?

My own religious ideology doesn't own a badge or look up to a God as such. I do believe in universal unity of all things, and my considerations would probably share alot of the base concepts of Taoism. As such thoughts of the sexual nature of others becomes a very distant second to thoughts and uderstanding of my own sexual nature and the conditioning that brought me to it!

generalgrog wrote:
I don't like partaking on political discussions too much, as it's all opinion backed up by half baked theories and I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to scientifically disprove the things the Gay rights people say. All you can do is quote scripture and pray.

I know the Bible is right and I know that God doesn't make mistakes, homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.

People will jump up and down and call me all kinds of bad things for what I just typed because they have been indocrinated in political correctness, but the truth is still there and you can't pound the truth down peoples throats when they are not willing to receive it.

This post right here more or less distilled the fear and expectations of every secular, agnostics, and atheist person on the boards into one heady brew. You freely admit that you can't debate the subject politically or scientifically, but you know the Bible is right and the people that disagree are wrong and indoctrinated with "political correctness."

At it's core, this is the stuff that terrifies the rest of the world about the religious right: that you know you can't defend some of your beliefs as anything other than dogma, yet you continue to do so. You labeled homosexuals as the same as pedophiles for no other reason than the bible said so? It's one thing to hold that certain actions are sins, it's another to start using medical terms loosely and denying civic freedoms to people because of their sins. What next, are you going to mandate religious attendance?

Christianity has been a force of good in this world, and it did so because it combined practical morality with an absolute freedom of choice and the idea of complete redemption and salvation. Christianity preaches the ideas of tolerance and virtue, of helping your brother and treating those around you with kindness. Yes, there are rules, and there is the concept of sin, but put some of these writings in at least a bit of context before you completely swallow them whole.

This post has been deleted as being directly offensive to those who follow the Bible.

Polonius wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
I don't like partaking on political discussions too much, as it's all opinion backed up by half baked theories and I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to scientifically disprove the things the Gay rights people say. All you can do is quote scripture and pray.

I know the Bible is right and I know that God doesn't make mistakes, homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.

People will jump up and down and call me all kinds of bad things for what I just typed because they have been indocrinated in political correctness, but the truth is still there and you can't pound the truth down peoples throats when they are not willing to receive it.

This post right here more or less distilled the fear and expectations of every secular, agnostics, and atheist person on the boards into one heady brew. You freely admit that you can't debate the subject politically or scientifically, but you know the Bible is right and the people that disagree are wrong and indoctrinated with "political correctness."

At it's core, this is the stuff that terrifies the rest of the world about the religious right: that you know you can't defend some of your beliefs as anything other than dogma, yet you continue to do so. You labeled homosexuals as the same as pedophiles for no other reason than the bible said so? It's one thing to hold that certain actions are sins, it's another to start using medical terms loosely and denying civic freedoms to people because of their sins. What next, are you going to mandate religious attendance?

Christianity has been a force of good in this world, and it did so because it combined practical morality with an absolute freedom of choice and the idea of complete redemption and salvation. Christianity preaches the ideas of tolerance and virtue, of helping your brother and treating those around you with kindness. Yes, there are rules, and there is the concept of sin, but put some of these writings in at least a bit of context before you completely swallow them whole.

WORD!

Seriously Grog, that can't be your honest opinion. "I'm right. That is all." And there's a difference between being political correct and being polite and open-minded.

generalgrog wrote:
It's like earlier when one of the posters said that no where in the new testament is it mentioned that homosexuality is sin. I pointed out a few quotes from Paul( a new testament writer), and the person moved the target by saying, something like..."Ohh yeah....well Jesus never said that"

Paul was one of the authors of the NT, but he never actually wrote anything about homosexuality in the NT. The only way you can conceivably allow his other writings to have any bearing on the Bible (given your belief that the Bible is the word of God) is to canonize them as the word of God. At which point you have necessarily contradicted your belief that the Bible is the word of God, perfectly transcribed by man.

Grog, comparing homosexuals to paedophiles is so far beyond offensive it's sickening. Can you not see the difference between two same sex consenting adults falling in love and abuse of a minor (who by definition cannot consent)?

Isn't christianity about love for others not hate? Why spread such bilious doctrine? It's attitudes such as yours that seriously damage the image and reputation of religious groups, you are doing yourself and your faith a grave disservice.

Greebynog wrote:Grog, comparing homosexuals to paedophiles is so far beyond offensive it's sickening. Can you not see the difference between two same sex consenting adults falling in love and abuse of a minor (who by definition cannot consent)?

Isn't christianity about love for others not hate? Why spread such bilious doctrine? It's attitudes such as yours that seriously damage the image and reputation of religious groups, you are doing yourself and your faith a grave disservice.

Well, I think it's useful in a religious context to separate behavior that's sinful from behavior that is dangerous, unhealthy, etc. It's very easy to draw the conclusion from scripture that homosexual sex (like all non-procreative sex, natch) is sinful. Of course, envy of others is also a sin. As is lust in the heart. None of those things would be described in any serious context to be as bad in a social sense as pedophilia.

Without taking this discussion too far from its original point, you guys need to stop reacting to every statement.

While I don't necessarily agree with Generalgrog, I can grasp the point he's trying to make.

In his book, I guess, sin is sin....the "severity" of that sin is left unlooked at....and perhaps this is not a bad way to go.

What am I talking about? I can hear the crowd scream. Well, pedophilia and other tasteless acts, have only recently (last 100 years, maybe?) been deemed by the general population as "unsociable", the same as the creation of Eunuchs, slavery, rape, ritual sodomy, orgies, homosexuality, and the list goes on.....a "few" years ago, this was seen by the established society as THE pastime to involve oneself in....if you didn't...YOU were the freak of nature.

So its "funny" how times and general opinion change. Who's to say that 50, 100, 150 years from now things won't turn full circle and go back to where they were?

We like to think of ourselves as an enlightened society, that we have transcended the "mistakes" of our forefathers....but if you scratch the surface you'd be surprised at some of the distasteful acts we commit today, lawfully so, but you'd never consider them to be "bad" because they have been sanctioned by society.

Delephont wrote:....but if you scratch the surface you'd be surprised at some of the distasteful acts we commit today, lawfully so, but you'd never consider them to be "bad" because they have been sanctioned by society.

I agree almost completely with what you said, but, the way I see it, there are two ways to look at this. Either you believe in a set of universal, absolutist morals, such as any Christian SHOULD (they are clearly defined in the Bible, and you really can't ignore parts of it you don't like and still call yourself a Christian) or you believe that society sets moral values, and that, of course, these will change over time as attitudes change. Generally, subscribers to this second view also take a fairly optimistic view of human nature, as people won't morally sanction acts they would be afraid to have visited upon them given both an understanding of what they're being asked, and the power to affect the choice. Whilst it is entirely plausible that our moral values will revert (negative connotations unintended) to an earlier state of our (Western) society, it can, generally, be argued that our societal morality is both freer, and more responsible, than, say, 300 years ago. For example, it is rare to find people nowadays who argue in favour of slavery or retracting universal suffrage - these are [almost] universally considered positive steps in our development, and give us hope that the future will instead be better than today on the same scale.

Elessar wrote:
I agree almost completely with what you said, but, the way I see it, there are two ways to look at this. Either you believe in a set of universal, absolutist morals, such as any Christian SHOULD (they are clearly defined in the Bible, and you really can't ignore parts of it you don't like and still call yourself a Christian)

The status of any given person as a Christian varies from denomination to denomination, and does not necessarily turn on absolutist morality. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Church is based primarily on an appreciation of paradox whereby it can be acceptable for nominally immoral acts to serve good ends and thereby be considered moral.