Religious Controversies: Homosexuality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
But I am still curious why you argue with any of those who are against it when you arent a Christian.[/quote]

They seek to trample the rights of those different to them.

Not really that hard to grasp, but I guess it’s easy to ignore.[/quote]

Oh, yeah . . . trampling all of those rights . . .we don’t let them drive, vote, run for office, make movies, buy clothes, sell goods, provide advice, own property, run in marathons, ride bycicles, travel across state lines, invest in mutual funds, chew gum, make burritos, raise cattle, grow crops, wear hats, go on reality tv shows, make music videos, form dance teams, wear pastels, be vegan, go to any outdoor concerts, have parades, play tennis, paddle canoes . . . .[/quote]

all =/= the[/quote]

Lol. You sir just failed. You dont realize how immature you look saying that. “They seek to trample the rights of those different to them.”? Really? Are you that distant from civilization to think that? If you had a bad experience with Christians then I truly apologize but dont ever put everyone in one pot. If actually knew the bible, you wouldnt say that bc Christ doesnt stand for that! Its funny how if we said that about Muslims(trampling rights different to them), there would be alot “how dare you!” goin on. But Ill give you the benefit of the doubt; maybe New Zealand has some sucky Christians.

142

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

They have a right to voice their opinion – I wouldn’t dare dream of supporting the idea that they weren’t allowed to make that thread. But I have the same right, so why shouldn’t I speak up for people who are largely hated and discriminated against by bigots?[/quote]

Hated? Discrimiated Against? Bigot? who’s the one using hate speech here?

Not a person on this thread has said one hateful thing about gays or discriminate dagainst them in anyway - and for our religious beliefs (that are of no consequence to anyone not a part of our faith) we’re called bigots?

And don’t think of rsponding that you were just speaking about the society at large, because you are speaking in a confined forum not to society at large. If you are “speaking up” here, you are implying the need to “speak up” against behavior witnessed here.

143

[quote]Fezzik wrote:

Would you say that homosexuality was wrong before the advent of artificial insemination? If people had been wholly homosexual, humans would cease to exist. Isn’t that counter productive to society?

To answer the original question, the Bible is clear about homosexuality being wrong. I, however, absolutely do NOT think that the best way to reach the gay community is by calling them fags and pole smokers. These words are full of fear and hatred which is completely contrary to a real Christian faith.[/quote]

Oh, this argument.

Listen, you’re a guy, right? BUT IF EVERYBODY WERE GUYS HUMANS COULDN’T REPRODUCE AND WE’D ALL DIE OFF!

Being a guy must be wrong.

And you know all those priests and monks that take vows of celibacy? IF WE WERE ALL CELIBATE THE HUMAN RACE WOULD DIE OFF!

Whats your job? IF EVERYBODY HAD THAT SAME JOB THE ECONOMY WOULD FAIL!

You’ll have to excuse all the caps, its just about the millionth time I’ve seen this fucking useless argument played out. Yes, if everyone were strictly gay (neverminding bisexuals or pansexuals, etc), the human race would die out. That same statement applies to about a million other things, though, so why aren’t you opposed to any of them, on the same grounds?

144

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

They have a right to voice their opinion – I wouldn’t dare dream of supporting the idea that they weren’t allowed to make that thread. But I have the same right, so why shouldn’t I speak up for people who are largely hated and discriminated against by bigots?[/quote]

Hated? Discrimiated Against? Bigot? who’s the one using hate speech here?

Not a person on this thread has said one hateful thing about gays or discriminate dagainst them in anyway - and for our religious beliefs (that are of no consequence to anyone not a part of our faith) we’re called bigots?

And don’t think of rsponding that you were just speaking about the society at large, because you are speaking in a confined forum not to society at large. If you are “speaking up” here, you are implying the need to “speak up” against behavior witnessed here.[/quote]

Um, actually, thats exactly what I was doing. I was talking about homosexuals as a group, who are, yes, classically hated and discriminated against. But, sure, I suppose I’d feel “hated” if people logged onto a forum just to discuss how wrong my lifestyle/sexual preference/orientation is.

And, yes, being as there is no logical, rational, moral basis for being “anti-gay”, if you are, you’re a bigot. Much in the same way there isn’t basis for being “anti-black”, or “anti-woman”, or “anti-handicapped”, or “anti-old people”. Homophobia/orientationism is bigotry.

145

[quote]forbes wrote:
I make it a point to tell those who ask me if I agree with homosexuality that I am against the act, but not the person themselves. I’m also against smoking, but not against a smoker (I have many friends who smoke). God commands us to hate the sin but love the sinner. [/quote]

…i feel the same way about religion and religious people…

146

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…Mike, how can homosexuality be a violation of Natural Law if homosexuality is prevalent in nature itself?[/quote]

You got me with the left-handedness argument. I’m not sure how a Natural Law theorist would argue that one. A Bible literalist would simply argue that the Bible doesn’t condemn being left-handed. So it seems clear that religion and faith play a big part in this issue.[/quote]

…if being lefthanded was seen as “from the devil” without biblical condemnation, and this changed due to increasing knowledge of DNA and hereditary traits, the issue of homosexuality could have a different cause in religious circles since many other biblical condemnations aren’t observed by religious people. The fact that so many christian t.v. evangelicals were outed as gay inspite of their vigorous condemnation of homosexuality points to this. Thanks for playing![/quote]

LMAO - I really am enjoying this thread . . . never seen so many “experts” on Christianity in my life![/quote]

Funny. You don’t say much about the experts on all the societies in the world (who have studied each and every one and found none of them to be tolerant of homosexuals) and the religious expert who was spouting off about how Buddhism and Taoism condemn homosexuality.

Wee.

147

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m suggesting observing something for yourself. You’re making baseless personal attacks. Grow up, Irish.[/quote]

I haven’t attacked anyone . . . I merely said that your statement was just an allegation and alluded to the fact that in my circle we rarely, if ever discuss gays. In fact, this thread is probably the first time its come into any conversations I have had for at least 3 weeks.[/quote]

“Maybe you and your friends…” = attack.

And I’m not talking about “discussing gays”. I’m talking about calling someone you dont like a faggot, or describing something you don’t like as gay.

Please don’t act too stupid to understand the difference.[/quote]

Don’t do that either - if I don’t like someone, there’s a whole slew of names for them that I use that have nothing to do with where they stick their johnson and if I don’t like something I can actually articulate why I don’t and/or that I don’t like it without resorting to the use of a non-applicable adjective.

Not too stupid to understand the differenc,e, well, maybe I am too stupid to understand why you find it necessary to use the reference in a perjorative manner or why you think it is such a common use of the word.

Like I said, this may be a common thing in your circles, but your individual experience does not necessarily reflect society at large or that of anyone in this thread.[/quote]

Started keeping that log yet?

148

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

They have a right to voice their opinion – I wouldn’t dare dream of supporting the idea that they weren’t allowed to make that thread. But I have the same right, so why shouldn’t I speak up for people who are largely hated and discriminated against by bigots?[/quote]

Hated? Discrimiated Against? Bigot? who’s the one using hate speech here?

Not a person on this thread has said one hateful thing about gays or discriminate dagainst them in anyway - and for our religious beliefs (that are of no consequence to anyone not a part of our faith) we’re called bigots?

And don’t think of rsponding that you were just speaking about the society at large, because you are speaking in a confined forum not to society at large. If you are “speaking up” here, you are implying the need to “speak up” against behavior witnessed here.[/quote]

Um, actually, thats exactly what I was doing. I was talking about homosexuals as a group, who are, yes, classically hated and discriminated against. But, sure, I suppose I’d feel “hated” if people logged onto a forum just to discuss how wrong my lifestyle/sexual preference/orientation is.

And, yes, being as there is no logical, rational, moral basis for being “anti-gay”, if you are, you’re a bigot. Much in the same way there isn’t basis for being “anti-black”, or “anti-woman”, or “anti-handicapped”, or “anti-old people”. Homophobia/orientationism is bigotry.[/quote]

So you are not a bigot if you are “anti-white” or “anti-straight” or “anti-christian”?

149

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

They have a right to voice their opinion – I wouldn’t dare dream of supporting the idea that they weren’t allowed to make that thread. But I have the same right, so why shouldn’t I speak up for people who are largely hated and discriminated against by bigots?[/quote]

Hated? Discrimiated Against? Bigot? who’s the one using hate speech here?

Not a person on this thread has said one hateful thing about gays or discriminate dagainst them in anyway - and for our religious beliefs (that are of no consequence to anyone not a part of our faith) we’re called bigots?

And don’t think of rsponding that you were just speaking about the society at large, because you are speaking in a confined forum not to society at large. If you are “speaking up” here, you are implying the need to “speak up” against behavior witnessed here.[/quote]

Um, actually, thats exactly what I was doing. I was talking about homosexuals as a group, who are, yes, classically hated and discriminated against. But, sure, I suppose I’d feel “hated” if people logged onto a forum just to discuss how wrong my lifestyle/sexual preference/orientation is.

And, yes, being as there is no logical, rational, moral basis for being “anti-gay”, if you are, you’re a bigot. Much in the same way there isn’t basis for being “anti-black”, or “anti-woman”, or “anti-handicapped”, or “anti-old people”. Homophobia/orientationism is bigotry.[/quote]

So you are not a bigot if you are “anti-white” or “anti-straight” or “anti-christian”?[/quote]

You’d still be a bigot. What’s your point?

Oh, silly me, did I actually bring up groups that really do face bigotry and discrimination, as opposed to arbitrarily adding groups that dont? Those poor oppressed straight white christian males, how do they ever deal with it all?

And, before you ask, yes, if you’re anti-greeneyed people, or anti-freckles, or anti-brown hair, or anti-tall people, … bigotry.

Now can we try to get the conversation back in the actual real world again?

150

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…Mike, how can homosexuality be a violation of Natural Law if homosexuality is prevalent in nature itself?[/quote]

You got me with the left-handedness argument. I’m not sure how a Natural Law theorist would argue that one. A Bible literalist would simply argue that the Bible doesn’t condemn being left-handed. So it seems clear that religion and faith play a big part in this issue.[/quote]

…if being lefthanded was seen as “from the devil” without biblical condemnation, and this changed due to increasing knowledge of DNA and hereditary traits, the issue of homosexuality could have a different cause in religious circles since many other biblical condemnations aren’t observed by religious people. The fact that so many christian t.v. evangelicals were outed as gay inspite of their vigorous condemnation of homosexuality points to this. Thanks for playing![/quote]

LMAO - I really am enjoying this thread . . . never seen so many “experts” on Christianity in my life![/quote]

Funny. You don’t say much about the experts on all the societies in the world (who have studied each and every one and found none of them to be tolerant of homosexuals) and the religious expert who was spouting off about how Buddhism and Taoism condemn homosexuality.

Wee.[/quote]

??? so not a single society in the world is tolerant of homosexuals? really? that would news to a vast moajority of us . . .

you are a fountain of knowledge!

151

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

They have a right to voice their opinion – I wouldn’t dare dream of supporting the idea that they weren’t allowed to make that thread. But I have the same right, so why shouldn’t I speak up for people who are largely hated and discriminated against by bigots?[/quote]

Hated? Discrimiated Against? Bigot? who’s the one using hate speech here?

Not a person on this thread has said one hateful thing about gays or discriminate dagainst them in anyway - and for our religious beliefs (that are of no consequence to anyone not a part of our faith) we’re called bigots?

And don’t think of rsponding that you were just speaking about the society at large, because you are speaking in a confined forum not to society at large. If you are “speaking up” here, you are implying the need to “speak up” against behavior witnessed here.[/quote]

Um, actually, thats exactly what I was doing. I was talking about homosexuals as a group, who are, yes, classically hated and discriminated against. But, sure, I suppose I’d feel “hated” if people logged onto a forum just to discuss how wrong my lifestyle/sexual preference/orientation is.

And, yes, being as there is no logical, rational, moral basis for being “anti-gay”, if you are, you’re a bigot. Much in the same way there isn’t basis for being “anti-black”, or “anti-woman”, or “anti-handicapped”, or “anti-old people”. Homophobia/orientationism is bigotry.[/quote]

So you are not a bigot if you are “anti-white” or “anti-straight” or “anti-christian”?[/quote]

You’d still be a bigot. What’s your point?

Oh, silly me, did I actually bring up groups that really do face bigotry and discrimination, as opposed to arbitrarily adding groups that dont? Those poor oppressed straight white christian males, how do they ever deal with it all?

And, before you ask, yes, if you’re anti-greeneyed people, or anti-freckles, or anti-brown hair, or anti-tall people, … bigotry.

Now can we try to get the conversation back in the actual real world again?[/quote]

Your an idiot that has no idea about the real world.

152

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Started keeping that log yet? [/quote]

Yep - day 2 - not a single deragatory use of the words gay, fag or faggot . . .

153

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Started keeping that log yet? [/quote]

Yep - day 2 - not a single deragatory use of the words gay, fag or faggot . . .[/quote]

I probably hear terms like white and male used in derogatory ways more often. White used to mean awkward or uncoordinated generally. And everything male today is bad. I burp or something and get called a man, meaning rude, crude, vulgar.

Surely ole cap there is with me on the struggle against these psychologically damaging terms.

154

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…Mike, how can homosexuality be a violation of Natural Law if homosexuality is prevalent in nature itself?[/quote]

You got me with the left-handedness argument. I’m not sure how a Natural Law theorist would argue that one. A Bible literalist would simply argue that the Bible doesn’t condemn being left-handed. So it seems clear that religion and faith play a big part in this issue.[/quote]

…if being lefthanded was seen as “from the devil” without biblical condemnation, and this changed due to increasing knowledge of DNA and hereditary traits, the issue of homosexuality could have a different cause in religious circles since many other biblical condemnations aren’t observed by religious people. The fact that so many christian t.v. evangelicals were outed as gay inspite of their vigorous condemnation of homosexuality points to this. Thanks for playing![/quote]

LMAO - I really am enjoying this thread . . . never seen so many “experts” on Christianity in my life![/quote]

Funny. You don’t say much about the experts on all the societies in the world (who have studied each and every one and found none of them to be tolerant of homosexuals) and the religious expert who was spouting off about how Buddhism and Taoism condemn homosexuality.

Wee.[/quote]

??? so not a single society in the world is tolerant of homosexuals? really? that would news to a vast moajority of us . . .

you are a fountain of knowledge![/quote]

Lets have a little talk about sarcasm…

I was sar-casss-tick-lee saying that those “experts” studied and found no societies to be tolerant of homosexuals. This was saaarrrr-cassss-mmmm, because its not true, despite some posters in this thread making similar claims.

Please, fail less in the future.

155

ooohhh . . . so every society is tolerant of homosexuals . . . well, then what’s your issue?

156

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

They have a right to voice their opinion – I wouldn’t dare dream of supporting the idea that they weren’t allowed to make that thread. But I have the same right, so why shouldn’t I speak up for people who are largely hated and discriminated against by bigots?[/quote]

Hated? Discrimiated Against? Bigot? who’s the one using hate speech here?

Not a person on this thread has said one hateful thing about gays or discriminate dagainst them in anyway - and for our religious beliefs (that are of no consequence to anyone not a part of our faith) we’re called bigots?

And don’t think of rsponding that you were just speaking about the society at large, because you are speaking in a confined forum not to society at large. If you are “speaking up” here, you are implying the need to “speak up” against behavior witnessed here.[/quote]

Um, actually, thats exactly what I was doing. I was talking about homosexuals as a group, who are, yes, classically hated and discriminated against. But, sure, I suppose I’d feel “hated” if people logged onto a forum just to discuss how wrong my lifestyle/sexual preference/orientation is.

And, yes, being as there is no logical, rational, moral basis for being “anti-gay”, if you are, you’re a bigot. Much in the same way there isn’t basis for being “anti-black”, or “anti-woman”, or “anti-handicapped”, or “anti-old people”. Homophobia/orientationism is bigotry.[/quote]

So you are not a bigot if you are “anti-white” or “anti-straight” or “anti-christian”?[/quote]

You’d still be a bigot. What’s your point?

Oh, silly me, did I actually bring up groups that really do face bigotry and discrimination, as opposed to arbitrarily adding groups that dont? Those poor oppressed straight white christian males, how do they ever deal with it all?

And, before you ask, yes, if you’re anti-greeneyed people, or anti-freckles, or anti-brown hair, or anti-tall people, … bigotry.

Now can we try to get the conversation back in the actual real world again?[/quote]

Your an idiot that has no idea about the real world.[/quote]

Why, because I recognize straight white christian males to be, four times over, members of dominant groups? Because I dont put “eyecolorism” on the same level of importance as homophobia or racism?

Please, tell me something about this “real world” you speak of. Is it full of the supernatural? :stuck_out_tongue:

157

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ooohhh . . . so every society is tolerant of homosexuals . . . well, then what’s your issue?[/quote]

You need to work on the failing less part.

I didnt say every society is. Some are, some arent, its a tricky subject to conclusively say that a whole society “accepts” or “doesnt accept” something.

My point was that you got all upset about “experts on Christianity”, because you didn’t like what they were saying… but when people said stuff you agreed with, despite their obvious lack of knowledge in the subject, you say nothing.

Points, you miss them.

158

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Started keeping that log yet? [/quote]

Yep - day 2 - not a single deragatory use of the words gay, fag or faggot . . .[/quote]

Good to hear.

159

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
But I am still curious why you argue with any of those who are against it when you arent a Christian.[/quote]

They seek to trample the rights of those different to them.

Not really that hard to grasp, but I guess it’s easy to ignore.[/quote]

Oh, yeah . . . trampling all of those rights . . .we don’t let them drive, vote, run for office, make movies, buy clothes, sell goods, provide advice, own property, run in marathons, ride bycicles, travel across state lines, invest in mutual funds, chew gum, make burritos, raise cattle, grow crops, wear hats, go on reality tv shows, make music videos, form dance teams, wear pastels, be vegan, go to any outdoor concerts, have parades, play tennis, paddle canoes . . . .[/quote]

all =/= the[/quote]

Lol. You sir just failed. You dont realize how immature you look saying that. “They seek to trample the rights of those different to them.”? Really? Are you that distant from civilization to think that? If you had a bad experience with Christians then I truly apologize but dont ever put everyone in one pot. If actually knew the bible, you wouldnt say that bc Christ doesnt stand for that! Its funny how if we said that about Muslims(trampling rights different to them), there would be alot “how dare you!” goin on. But Ill give you the benefit of the doubt; maybe New Zealand has some sucky Christians.[/quote]

Almost all religions seek to trample the rights of people not like them.

160

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Started keeping that log yet? [/quote]

Yep - day 2 - not a single deragatory use of the words gay, fag or faggot . . .[/quote]

I probably hear terms like white and male used in derogatory ways more often. White used to mean awkward or uncoordinated generally. And everything male today is bad. I burp or something and get called a man, meaning rude, crude, vulgar.

Surely ole cap there is with me on the struggle against these psychologically damaging terms.[/quote]

You “hear” them more often because you actually pay attention because they relate to you. Thats the point of the challenge I issued about keeping a record, you’ll notice it happens a lot.

And, yes, its wrong for “white” and “man/male” to be used in a derogatory way.