Support Your Non-Straight Friends!

[Windwalker]

Hello folks, i was wondering if anyone heard of a thing called Day of Silence. I personally just learned this today, it is a movement to protest the silence that non-straight people face everyday. By this is that there voices are unheard in goverment. To find more info http://dayofsilence.org.

And tell me about your feelings against or for your non-straight friends.

Before i forget it includes sex-changers lol.

[DragonPaladin]

I'm not gay, but I don't harbor any ill feelings towards them. It's what their body tells them. If they try hard enough, I believe they can "overcome" it. But that's highly unlikely. Just because someone's different doesn't mean they are not a human being. And don't think that "gay"-ness is just starting. It's been here since the ancient greeks. Right now, it's just gaining public notice.

My motto:

Don't see it, don't say it.

[GrassDragon]

...except that the day was a week ago.

[Schwitzer]

If they try hard enough, I believe they can "overcome" it.
I wholeheartedly agreed with everything you said except this sentence.

It'd be like someone telling you that if you tried hard enough - for whatever reason - you could turn yourself gay. Oh sure, they can pretend, but let's face it... sexuality isn't a lightswitch that people can arbitrarily change. :/

[Windwalker]

...except that the day was a week ago.

Hmm, thats a problem. But my school is doing it friday, because we had spring break i believe. Anyways your aware of it.!

[Nuts]

I'm not sure I understand the "day of silence" ordeal. It just seems that this would lead to greater division between gay and straight people. In high school, children are teased daily for being fat, ugly, stupid, nerd, etc. You must remember, these are adolescents we're dealing with, not adults. So often, in an effort to prevent discrimination, the minority actually segregates themselves by calling attention to a problem that only exists in a small percentage of people's minds. Not to say that there isn't a anti-gay crowd, because I know for a fact that it exists. But I believe that a majority of people have no desire to antagonize a person based on their sexual preference. Just as a majority of people do not harrass a person based on skin color. As always, there are some who are intolerant of those whom are different. These people need to be punished by law if necessary when they impede the right to freedom of another person.

[EdvardMunch]

I wholeheartedly agreed with everything you said except this sentence.

It'd be like someone telling you that if you tried hard enough - for whatever reason - you could turn yourself gay. Oh sure, they can pretend, but let's face it... sexuality isn't a lightswitch that people can arbitrarily change. :/
Me and the APA agree with Schwitzer.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#choice

With the day of silence, are you allowed to tell anyone why you're silent? It would kind of defeat the purpose if you couldn't...

[Modred]

I've read a bit about the Day of Silence. I believe you aren't supposed to talk to anyone for the entire day, however you should hand out materials (cards, brochures, etc) about what you are doing and why.

And might I ask why you called them non-straight? That seems like such a funny phrase, and makes me think...I'm not sure, but it seems negative.

Several of my friends act as though they are gay, but as far as I know, only a few actually are (and those that I know of are actually bisexual). I generally don't have a problem being around homosexual people. Sure, it makes me a bit uncomfortable if I think a guy is hitting on me, but that doesn't happen often and usually you just need to ask him to stop.

[hammocksleeper]

Yeah my sister did the Day of Slience last year. I have several gay friends, and the fact that they are gay does not make me like them any less. Because I am not qualified to make such an opinion (nor are any of you, to my knowledge), I do not have an opinion on the issue of whether one is born gay or not, but I think homosexuality is wrong and, as a solution for those who think they are born gay and refuse to live a heterosexual lifestyle, why not remain chaste, or join the priesthood? It may sound harsh but if you really think you are born gay and strive to live a good life what other choice do you have?

[Kingscrab]

but I think homosexuality is wrong and, as a solution for those who think they are born gay and refuse to live a heterosexual lifestyle, why not remain chaste, or join the priesthood? It may sound harsh but if you really think you are born gay and strive to live a good life what other choice do you have?
It is harsh and, i feel, an arrogant assumption that gays have commited a wrongdoing by simply existing and that they must atone for it somehow.

My question to you Hammock is this: Why do you feel it's 'wrong'?
1) Simply because you find it distasteful, or
2) For some deeper reason, ie: religious belief.
3) Other...
Response to answer #1: Fair enough. It's a free country.
Response to answer #2: Why should gays even feel compelled to justify their feelings and try to fit into the "mainstream"? The only reason why they are even in such a dilema in the first place is because most standard religions condemn their lifestyle. (thus, most of the population condemns them...) It is a bullshit fabricated issue. A sad diversion for people who choose to ignore their own faults. Judge not lest ye be judged, right? I find it insulting that sexual preference is used as a criteria for whether or not you are a sinner. If people feel they are 'born gay' why should they have to comply to a set of antiquated societal standards given to them by complete strangers?
It's such a sham.

(and i swear... SpeedyWorm, if you tell me to read the bible for an answer, i will friggin' come through this PC and SMACK you back to Genesis!) :mad2:

[hammocksleeper]

It is harsh and, i feel, an arrogant assumption that gays have commited a wrongdoing by simply existing and that they must atone for it somehow.

If I came across as being arrogant I apologize. The fact of the matter is everyone, including of course myself, have in a sense "committed a wrongdoing by simple existing." All mankind is forever stained by original sin and every human is a imperfect sinner undeserving of any special favor or grace of God. You are absolutely correct in saying "judge not lest ye be judged" and I strive to uphold this standard. As mentioned previously, I have several gay friends and I try my best not to look down on them or give them second-rate treatment. I'm not going to cast the first stone. But as mentioned before we are all sinners and we should all focus on our own sins, continually working to better our lives and the lives of those around us as outlined by the Christian tradition.

What one does with his own life is a matter best left between him and God.

[Kingscrab]

as a solution for those who think they are born gay and refuse to live a heterosexual lifestyle, why not remain chaste, or join the priesthood? It may sound harsh but if you really think you are born gay and strive to live a good life what other choice do you have?

As mentioned previously, I have several gay friends and I try my best not to look down on them or give them second-rate treatment.
Then why suggest a special method of atonement for them due to their homosexuality?

The fact of the matter is everyone, including of course myself, have in a sense "committed a wrongdoing by simple existing." All mankind is forever stained by original sin and every human is a imperfect sinner undeserving of any special favor or grace of God. .
This line of thought, in general, whiffs of phony humility to me. By someone first acknowledging themself as a sinner, is makes it much easier to label another a sinner without fear of being called a hypocrite. Perhaps this is a poor analogy, but kind of like how a comedian can get away with telling racist jokes ONLY if he or she belongs to that particular racial group. Two wrongs do not make a right, and i don't think it's right to condemn without cause, and admitting you were born with original sin, to me is not a cause. Of course, you would be right in assuming that i don't believe in original sin either...

[Basan]

If I came across as being arrogant I apologize. The fact of the matter is everyone, including of course myself, have in a sense "committed a wrongdoing by simple existing." All mankind is forever stained by original sin and every human is a imperfect sinner undeserving of any special favor or grace of God. You are absolutely correct in saying "judge not lest ye be judged" and I strive to uphold this standard. As mentioned previously, I have several gay friends and I try my best not to look down on them or give them second-rate treatment. I'm not going to cast the first stone. But as mentioned before we are all sinners and we should all focus on our own sins, continually working to better our lives and the lives of those around us as outlined by the Christian tradition.

What one does with his own life is a matter best left between him and God.

Agreed with all except the religious reference. We don't need to be Christians to uphold such noble principles. ;) Put those into practice as best I can and ain't Christian. *Meh, 'hints' to all around*

[Mindslaver]

Freud on homosexuality: "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times [when lecturing, my choice example is Alan Turing -- A.S.] have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.) It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime -- and a cruelty, too" (from a letter written by Freud to the mother of a gay son, April 9, 1935, in Ernst L. Freud, ed., Letters of Sigmund Freud [New York: Basic Books, 1960], letter 277, pp. 423-24, at p. 423).

But if, as Freud says, homosexuality is not an illness, and only a variety of human sexuality, it doesn't seem quite right for him to speak of it as resulting from an "arrest" of sexual development. Male robotic heterosexuals who drool and erect over large female breasts are similarly not ill and display only one of a million of the varieties of human sexual interest, and their sexual fetish cannot reasonably be characterized as resulting from an arrest in development. There are as many different "unarrested" paths of development (personal histories) as there are human sexual desires and behaviors.


From Sigmund Freud on Sexuality (http://www.uno.edu/%7Easoble/pages/freud.htm).

[Modred]

1) Simply because you find it distasteful, or
2) For some deeper reason, ie: religious belief.
3) Other...
Response to answer #1: Fair enough. It's a free country.
Methings your response to #1 covers #2. If you are free to dislike homosexuality for personal reasons, and religion is a personal issue, then you are free to dislike homosexuality for religious reasons.

As a side note, in addition to what Mindslaver found from Freud, Tchaikovsky was homosexual also. Don't know why I felt the need to share that.

[Kabam]

Yeah my sister did the Day of Slience last year. I have several gay friends, and the fact that they are gay does not make me like them any less. Because I am not qualified to make such an opinion (nor are any of you, to my knowledge), I do not have an opinion on the issue of whether one is born gay or not, but I think homosexuality is wrong and, as a solution for those who think they are born gay and refuse to live a heterosexual lifestyle, why not remain chaste, or join the priesthood? It may sound harsh but if you really think you are born gay and strive to live a good life what other choice do you have?

How the hell is it wrong? Lots of gay people live happy lives. I know a gay couple that is happier then I am, they are married and have two adopted kids. Gay people are the same as the rest so why do they have limited choices if straight people don't?

[Sikawtic]

My friend keeps telling me about this (or did). I didn't take part in it. Against my beliefs. Man and woman were meant to be, not man and man or woman and woman (altho that's teh cecksay)... being gay is just weird. Sometimes I think it would be simpler if teh new testament hadn't been written, and all the christians followed teh old testament...

IE:
*Sikawtic goes to slay the homosexuals.

[Modred]

Sometimes I think it would be simpler if teh new testament hadn't been written, and all the christians followed teh old testament...
You do realize it was the Apostle Paul's writings that introduced anti-homosexual sentiments to the New Testiment. And you also realize that he was an orothodox Jew prior to his conversion...

EDIT: Ah, I seem to have missed the intent of your post the first time reading. Oh well, this is still useful info. For someone. Somewhere. Maybe.

[WeekendLazyness]

IE:
*Sikawtic goes to slay the homosexuals.Wow, everyone should feel free to state their opinion, but I think that's just going to far. I've lost all my respect for you.

[DragonPaladin]

Doesn't it say in the new Testament, "A man who sleeps in bed with another man shall find residence in hell?"

[Ender]

My friend keeps telling me about this (or did). I didn't take part in it. Against my beliefs. Man and woman were meant to be, not man and man or woman and woman (altho that's teh cecksay)... being gay is just weird. Sometimes I think it would be simpler if teh new testament hadn't been written, and all the christians followed teh old testament...

IE:
*Sikawtic goes to slay the homosexuals.

Sikawtic, this post was entirely out of line. Not only did you are showing yourself to be a hypocrite, you also basically said that the religion you believe in is a problem (which makes me wonder why you believe it) and that last little "joke"-which isn't remotely funny in any way, shape, or form, you ass-makes me wonder how much respect I should lose. Do I lose most of it, or all of it? Hm...I vote for the second.

How do you find woman on woman sexy, yet believe that homosexuality is wrong? Clearly it arouses you, so something must be right there. In addition, I suspect you are also one of the people who think woman on woman is fine, but man on man is disgusting. Hypocrite.

The fact that it is against your beliefs is fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I won't insult that. However, denigrating a group because of sexual orientation is like saying that preferring people who have blonde hair instead of brown is bad. I mean, come on Hitler, let's get with the times here.

If you feel this strongly on your position, why don't you go join your local Klan and at least keep your opinions among other like-minded people. Even joking about violence on something like this is absolutely ridiculous.

I humbly request that you do not re-enter this conversation.

[Kamikazie190]

I myself have several friends that are either bisexual or fully homosexual. In fact, one of them I consider to be my best friend, a bisexual girl two years older then me. It's pretty cool actually, she can give me advice on how to deal with both ends of the chain, whether with male friends (saying guy friends always made me uncomfortable, not my way despite how much I support it if its others) that I'm fighting with, or advice on how to win over a girl. Its neat, she won't be like 'oh well do this and this to make her like you' because she understands both points of view.

Anyway, I myself participate in the Day of Silence and have for the past two years (when it became an option at the school and I learned how many people were not straight.) It's kinda wierd for me some times, I've talked to girls about their problems, assuming someone with a name like 'Jessie' was a guy, only to find out two weeks later that she's a lesbian. We have an entire commitee for it at my school, called GSA, or Gay-Straight Alliance. I find it stupid that they have to have a committee for it, it only pulls out more details of how different they are, and all they really do is make posters that say stuff like 'its not OK to say 'thats so gay''. Waste of time if I ever say it, but a good cause.


As for others on the issue, its impossible to come to an agreement with some people, and in some cases its just downright disgusting. My ex used to strongly support GSA and homosexuals, in fact, she was kind of bi herself (kind of, take note of that.) When she started going to Catholic church, her opinions instantly changed to fit in, believing they had made the choice to be gay and that they could 'overcome it'. She stopped talking to her best friend (bi) and became known as the Jesus-spewing-robot. She's lost more respect from those who used to know her, although she's gained alot more among the growing population of ardent Catholics in my school. Point: She's trying to fit in by changing herself, and she expects others to do the same when its simply impossible. Disgusting.

[The_Maker]

In my opinion Gay, is still Gay. If you are born like that I can understand why they do the things they do, BUT If you CHOOSE to be Gay I just find that disgusting and immorral.

[Windwalker]

But by gay do you mean homosexual or do just mean gay?

[Schwitzer]

In my opinion Gay, is still Gay. If you are born like that I can understand why they do the things they do, BUT If you CHOOSE to be Gay I just find that disgusting and immorral.
Go read the posts on the first page. Go on, do it now. Being homosexual is not a choice; get with the programme here.

*Sikawtic goes to slay the homosexuals.
Banned for three days.

I think homosexuality is wrong and, as a solution for those who think they are born gay and refuse to live a heterosexual lifestyle, why not remain chaste, or join the priesthood?
Re-read this sentence, and then tell me whether you honestly think you're being fair here. In fact, I'll help you by paraphrasing it for you:
"My personal belief is that homosexuality is wrong. I won't justify this, but it's just wrong. If they refuse to live a life of pretence (i.e. marrying a member of the opposite sex who they do not love, etc), then the only solution is to be denied the sort of relationships they desire and force them to remain chaste."

So, tell me again... are you being fair, here?

I think I can cover all anti-gay posts into two categories:
1. "It's icky and wrong and not right and I don't like it."
Quite frankly, get over it. How does it affect you if two guys or two girls fall in love with each other? Does this really threaten your way of life? No? Then why do you feel the need to threaten their way of life?

2. "The Bible, the Bible, the Bible, the Bible..."
I get very upset when people shield their eyes from the blinding glare of common sense by holding up a two-thousand year old top-selling fiction novel that was written by men in an age of discrimination.

I loved the example someone posted earlier, about a girl who changed her entire opinion on homosexuality in order to fit in with a religions faith. Your opinions should be your opinions. Damnit, people, is that so hard to comprehend? What's the point of having your opinions given to you, and then having to run around trying to defend "your" beliefs?

Okey, fine. So some of you are still too immature to have grasped the concepts of tolerance and acceptance of diversity. Unless one of you can provide me with one good example of how homosexuality is really a threat to society (and hence deserving of all your persecutions), you can all shut up.

[TheGreatBrain]

Yeah, we have this at my school. To be honest, I'm not sure what I think of it. I certainly have nothing against gays, I'm bisexual myself. But I'm not sure exactly what it is meant to accomplish, and I think it may hurt the cause more than help.

[LordAhriman]

I would have participated had I known about the day in advance.

Homosexuality has been scorned throughout human history because of ignorant people like Sikawtic and Hammocksleeper who don't bother to understand the people they hate, and instead call their knee-jerk reactions of disgust to homosexual affection logical and valid. Show some respect for people who take shit on a constant basis for what they are.

[Kingscrab]

Show some respect for people who take shit on a constant basis for what they are.
Well spoken LordAhriman.

[wraizyr]

Homosexuality has been scorned throughout human history because of ignorant people like Sikawtic and Hammocksleeper who don't bother to understand the people they hate, and instead call their knee-jerk reactions of disgust to homosexual affection logical and valid.
I have several gay friends, and the fact that they are gay does not make me like them any less.Speaking of knee-jerk reactions...
(Though you may have a point with Sikawtic)

[Schwitzer]

Speaking of knee-jerk reactions...
(Though you may have a point with Sikawtic)
Hammock's open-mindedness on this issue is contradicted by his statements in subsequent posts.

[hammocksleeper]

I think homosexuality is wrong and, as a solution for those who think they are born gay and refuse to live a heterosexual lifestyle, why not remain chaste, or join the priesthood?

Re-read this sentence, and then tell me whether you honestly think you're being fair here. In fact, I'll help you by paraphrasing it for you:
"My personal belief is that homosexuality is wrong. I won't justify this, but it's just wrong. If they refuse to live a life of pretence (i.e. marrying a member of the opposite sex who they do not love, etc), then the only solution is to be denied the sort of relationships they desire and force them to remain chaste."

So, tell me again... are you being fair, here?

First of all, I am absolutely not required to justify my own beliefs. They are mine and mine alone, it doesn't matter how or why I come to them, and if I accept a certain belief then that's the end of it. The only time I would need to justify my beliefs is if I were trying to convince you of them. Which I am not.

Secondly, you're twisting my words. Or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. In the quote above I merely offered one solution to homosexuality. No one is required to follow that prescription, and if you want to live in sin and freely engage in homosexual activity, rather than repent and do something else, that's your prerogative. Don't get me wrong here; I don't want to inhibit your free will at all.

[singo]

Doesn't it say in the new Testament, "A man who sleeps in bed with another man shall find residence in hell?"

It says in the bible that just about everyone is going to hell.


And hey, Stephen Fry is queer, and he's frigging amazing. (A source of much annoyance to a freind of mine who likes him, but not queers - he was not happy when he found out :D).

Comes under the heading of "Not affecting me" so why should I object to them?

So I dont.

[Modred]

Hammock's open-mindedness on this issue is contradicted by his statements in subsequent posts.
So if Hammock does not "tolerate" the lifestyle of homosexuals, he cannot be friends with them? Just because he holds his own opinion, which may be shared with a religious group, he cannot hold homosexuals as people while disagreeing with their behavior?

Homosexuality has been scorned throughout human history because of ignorant people like Sikawtic and Hammocksleeper who don't bother to understand the people they hate, and instead call their knee-jerk reactions of disgust to homosexual affection logical and valid. Show some respect for people who take shit on a constant basis for what they are.
While Sikawtic was out of line, I find your hostility toward Hammock hypocritical. He disagrees with you, therefore he is ignorant and possibly a bigot. Shockingly, you are expressing a sentiment that dislikes Hammock solely because of his opinion on this matter. True, opinions are changed much easier than behavior, but I see no reason for Hammock to consider your views when faced with such an insulting affront. You are practicing discrimination. Does discriminating against percieved discrimination really fix the problem?

[Kingscrab]

First of all, I am absolutely not required to justify my own beliefs. They are mine and mine alone, it doesn't matter how or why I come to them, and if I accept a certain belief then that's the end of it. The only time I would need to justify my beliefs is if I were trying to convince you of them. Which I am not.
True. You don't have to say a thing. It is not "the end of it" however, when you post your beliefs on an open forum. Do not act shocked if others find them offensive and reply as such. You in turn, can choose to ignore such comments or choose to defend them, ie: "justify your beliefs". That's what disscusion forums are for isn't it?

Secondly, you're twisting my words. Or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. In the quote above I merely offered one solution to homosexuality. No one is required to follow that prescription, and if you want to live in sin and freely engage in homosexual activity, rather than repent and do something else, that's your prerogative. Don't get me wrong here; I don't want to inhibit your free will at all. No one here is twisting your words. Your views are very clear. Frankly, I find them shallow. Just as is your right to have them, it is mine to disagree. Seriously, if you truly believe homosexuality is a sin, and you truly cared about your gay friends, shouldn't you stop humoring them, and do all in your power to save their mortal souls? (although, in all fairness, for all i know perhaps you already are trying...?)

[Schwitzer]

First of all, I am absolutely not required to justify my own beliefs. They are mine and mine alone, it doesn't matter how or why I come to them, and if I accept a certain belief then that's the end of it.
So we're ignoring the actual question I posted to you - fine.

Quite frankly, why would you come into a thread and put forth your beliefs if you're not willing to justify them? That's just stupid.


The only time I would need to justify my beliefs is if I were trying to convince you of them. Which I am not.
What a fulfilling conversation we could have with everyone just putting forth their beliefs with no rationing or logic behind them at all.

Secondly, you're twisting my words. Or perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
Well that was my belief of how you meant it to be interpreted, and since we're apparently not defending our beliefs, that's that. Seems I'm not the only one who took it that way, though (reading other replies).

In the quote above I merely offered one solution to homosexuality.
Solution? You give solutions to problems; are you claiming that homosexuality is a problem, now? Something that needs rectification?

No one is required to follow that prescription, and if you want to live in sin and freely engage in homosexual activity, rather than repent and do something else, that's your prerogative. Don't get me wrong here; I don't want to inhibit your free will at all.
So... God creates homosexuals, and then condems them? And then you come along and tell all homosexuals that they're sinners if they act on their natural impulses? That's pleasant.

So if Hammock does not "tolerate" the lifestyle of homosexuals, he cannot be friends with them?
Your words, not mine. And if they're my words, quote them. You can't, because they're not. That sentence is something you made up entirely. It doesn't even have anything to do with the sentence you quoted.

Just because he holds his own opinion, which may be shared with a religious group, he cannot hold homosexuals as people while disagreeing with their behavior?
I never said that, either. If I'd actually said something along those lines (which I haven't), you would need to clarify how we're defining "people" and "behavior", otherwise it's too vague.

You in turn, can choose to ignore such comments or choose to defend them, ie: "justify your beliefs". That's what disscusion forums are for isn't it?
Exactly.

Seriously, if you truly believe homosexuality is a sin, and you truly cared about your gay friends, shouldn't you stop humoring them, and do all in your power to save their mortal souls? (although, in all fairness, for all i know perhaps you already are trying...?)
What you're suggesting would require forcing your beliefs onto others.

[Kingscrab]

What you're suggesting would require forcing your beliefs onto others. Oh, don't get me wrong here. I'm not suggesting that i advocate Hammocksleeper "trying to save thier souls"... (i don't feel they are in jeperody of course) Basically, what i was trying to say by that point is "Backup your beliefs with actions instead of simply judging". We are discussing a sin that, according to christian religious theory, can damn one's very soul to the eternal pit of fire, right? (IF you believe in such a place anyhow) Sounds like an emergency situation if ever i heard of one! Although, perhaps i am wrong in assuming that is the standard christian belief, but i think it's pretty close.

[TheGreatBrain]

or woman and woman (altho that's teh cecksay)
This is the most maddening hypocrisy of all.

[The_Maker]

Go read the posts on the first page. Go on, do it now. Being homosexual is not a choice; get with the programme here.


Not a choice? I think you are wrong, it IS a choice. Just like having kids is a choice, just like doing drugs is a choice. What you are saying is that the way you are born doesn't give you a chance to change. If that were the case and someone was born with a defective right hand they would NEVER be able to change it and NEVER be able to get help to make ther right hand like their left and be able to use it in everyday activities. Anyone and everyone has choices. I am not saying that gays should be FORCED to change, but they do have a CHOICE to change. And even if they don want to change don't they know that there is a little small thing called courtesy. If you are gay you do not have to advertise it by holding hands when you are out in public. But what I find even worse is when gays or lesbians kiss in public!



perhaps i am wrong in assuming that is the standard christian belief, but i think it's pretty close.
Well, (being a Christian I am more or less supposed to know what my religion says :P). We do not believe that if you sin you are gaurenteed that you will go to Hell. The Christian belief says that anyone can be forgiven no matter what their sins. So technically gays will not be sent to Hell as long as they as they ask God's forgiveness and accept him as their saviour.
(Thats according to the Christian belief)

[Ender]

Not a choice? I think you are wrong, it IS a choice. Just like having kids is a choice, just like doing drugs is a choice. What you are saying is that the way you are born doesn't give you a chance to change. If that were the case and someone was born with a defective right hand they would NEVER be able to change it and NEVER be able to get help to make ther right hand like their left and be able to use it in everyday activities. Anyone and everyone has choices. I am not saying that gays should be FORCED to change, but they do have a CHOICE to change. And even if they don want to change don't they know that there is a little small thing called courtesy. If you are gay you do not have to advertise it by holding hands when you are out in public. But what I find even worse is when gays or lesbians kiss in public!

Actually, your wrong. Scientific research rules you, buddy. It is like a hormonal imbalance or something like that. It isn't a choice; it's biologically predetermined.

SMACKDOWN.

[Schwitzer]

Not a choice? I think you are wrong, it IS a choice.
Oh you think I'm wrong, do you? That's fine, because I know you're wrong. I am being extremely patient with you, considering your apparent inability to go and read the first page of this thread.

So, your personal, uneducated opinion trumps that of practically every pyschologist on the matter? I think not. How about you do some research before trying to have a say in something you clearly know nothing about, hmm? Do you even know any gay people, and if so, have you ever talked to them?

Just like having kids is a choice, just like doing drugs is a choice.
I can't believe you even tried to justify it like this. That's so pathetic. You take two completely un-related matters and, somehow, imply that these prove homosexuality is a choice? Hey, by your logic being born is a choice. How? I dunno, but your logic seems to suggest everything is potentially a choice.

What you are saying is that the way you are born doesn't give you a chance to change. If that were the case and someone was born with a defective right hand they would NEVER be able to change it and NEVER be able to get help to make ther right hand like their left and be able to use it in everyday activities.
I'm sure physical abnormalities are extremely similar to sexual orientation in your twisted little world, but over here in reality it's totally different.

Look, you're trying so desperately to justify your arguments, but the reasoning you're providing is so faulty I'm sure even a seventh-grader would laugh. You make it sound like we can change everything. Well, I was born human, but what if I wanted to be born as a cat? Too bad, I have no choice. Despite all your rantings, some things cannot change, and homosexuality is one of them. Just accept it.

Anyone and everyone has choices. I am not saying that gays should be FORCED to change, but they do have a CHOICE to change.
I don't care how many words you CAPITALISE and bold, that doesn't make your argument valid.

And even if they don want to change don't they know that there is a little small thing called courtesy. If you are gay you do not have to advertise it by holding hands when you are out in public. But what I find even worse is when gays or lesbians kiss in public!
That must be absolutely traumatic for you, seeing two people of the same sex holding hands. I'm sure the suffering you go through is infinitely worst than being born homosexual and having to put up with hearing people like you who prattle on about them being gay by choice, and how thoughtless they are by being gay in public. Hey, who cares about double-standards when we have a social stigma to uphold?!

I can't believe some of you people, I really can't. How can you type stuff like this and not feel disgraced by your prejudice? How can you try to claim the moral highground when it is you and your beliefs that causes homosexuals to feel unwelcome and second-rate?

[Nuts]

Not a choice? I think you are wrong, it IS a choice. Just like having kids is a choice, just like doing drugs is a choice. What you are saying is that the way you are born doesn't give you a chance to change. If that were the case and someone was born with a defective right hand they would NEVER be able to change it and NEVER be able to get help to make ther right hand like their left and be able to use it in everyday activities. Anyone and everyone has choices. I am not saying that gays should be FORCED to change, but they do have a CHOICE to change. And even if they don want to change don't they know that there is a little small thing called courtesy. If you are gay you do not have to advertise it by holding hands when you are out in public. But what I find even worse is when gays or lesbians kiss in public!


Either you're being ignorant, or you're being obstinate. I think everyone here fully understand what he meant when Schwitzer said that being gay isn't a choice. While I do believe there are a small percentage of people whom would be classified as bi-sexual, and this may be a choice for them, but those whom have been homosexual from the point of sexual maturity have no choice as far as they are concerned. You have a choice to live or die, but few people would choose the latter for very good reasons. I am a heterosexual, but I do not believe that I could choose to be attracted to a male, it's just not in my makeup.

As for the last sentence, do you hold the hand of your girlfriend or wife when you go out? If you don't, you're at odds with society, if you do, then you have no right to be condemning another for the same behavior, no matter what the sex. If you don't like it, turn your head. Intolerance is the greatest threat to this world above anything else. Your homophobic reaction to gays showing affection is the result of a mind nubming religious indoctrination that absoltuely infuriates me to no end. It's people like you that drive me further away from organized religion every day.

Sorry Schwitzer, you jumped in before I finished posting. Same line of thought anyway.

[Kingscrab]

The Christian belief says that anyone can be forgiven no matter what their sins. So technically gays will not be sent to Hell as long as they as they ask God's forgiveness and accept him as their saviour.
(Thats according to the Christian belief)

Well, that is very nice of them to present such a gracious offer.
They should be aplauded for their benevolence and understanding. :lame:

[kongurous]

2. "The Bible, the Bible, the Bible, the Bible..."
I get very upset when people shield their eyes from the blinding glare of common sense by holding up a two-thousand year old top-selling fiction novel that was written by men in an age of discrimination.

Fiction? You dare call the Bible, fiction? We're talking about homosexuality but when you insult someone's religion, you're stepping into a whole new playing field, one I do not take kindly to. I calmly suggest you NOT insult Christianity. I don't insult your Atheism, you have no right to insult the Holy Book of Christianity. Now, with that out of the way, let's get on topic:

I am a Christian. Not much of one, but one who tries to uphold the laws God gave us, including an... unfondness for homosexuals. I don't hate homosexuals, and I find nothing wrong with it(don't point out if that was contradictory or not, I don't really give a damn.), but I don't think it's right. Once again, I don't care if that's contradictory, it's just how I feel. I don't believe in this Day of Silence mumbo-jumbo, because it seems stupid to me. If homosexuals don't like how they're treated here or something, they can go to Canada or any other country that doesn't make homosexuals second-class citizens. As far as I'm concerned, homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same, no difference other than what our hormones say, but still... if your homosexual, keep it to yourself.

[Nuts]

If homosexuals don't like how they're treated here or something, they can go to Canada or any other country that doesn't make homosexuals second-class citizens. As far as I'm concerned, homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same, no difference other than what our hormones say, but still... if your homosexual, keep it to yourself.

It's really funny how people like yourself will defend the right to practice religion, and demand that you be respected for such practices, yet the practice of homosexuality is something that should be shielded from public eyes.

We're talking about homosexuality but when you insult someone's religion, you're stepping into a whole new playing field, one I do not take kindly to. I calmly suggest you NOT insult Christianity. I don't insult your Atheism,

No, instead you insult homsexuals everywhere! Does it not strike you as being somewhat ironic that you demand respect in one hand, yet dish out contempt in the other? It's not religion that's the problem, it's religious bigots like yourself that totally piss me off. If anyone is going to hell (if one truly exists,) it's going to be those who are judgemental of others like yourself.

[kongurous]

It's really funny how people like yourself will defend the right to practice religion, and demand that you be respected for such practices, yet the practice of homosexuality is something that should be shielded from public eyes.

Did I not say I had no problem with homosexuality? I am no evangelist, I am no priest, I am not a religious person, but I have an unfondness for homosexuality. Notice I'm being vague, as that is how I feel. I don't care what your sexual orientation is, as long as I don't have to see it.



No, instead you insult homsexuals everywhere! Does it not strike you as being somewhat ironic that you demand respect in one hand, yet dish out contempt in the other? It's not religion that's the problem, it's religious bigots like yourself that totally piss me off. If anyone is going to hell (if one truly exists,) it's going to be those who are judgemental of others like yourself.

I do not demand respect, I do not demand anything, except that I do not want to know your sexual orientation, unless I ask. I am not judgemental, if anything, you are judgemental for blindly assuming such. I am not a religious bigot, I said it earlier in my post that I was nowhere near pure religious zeal. I am not insulting those who are homosexual, and I ask you not falsely accuse me of such.

[Nuts]

Your specifically said "when you insult someone's religion, you're stepping into a whole new playing field," which indicates that you believe your religion to be superior to the rights of another human being to openly display his or her lifestyle as would any other human being. Would you deny a heterosexual the right to hold hands in public? Does it disgust you to see a man and a woman kissing in public? Do you hide your eyes when a man is hugging his girlfriend or wife? Answer the question.

I don't care what your sexual orientation is, as long as I don't have to see it.


Exhibit (a) Oxymoron, stressing the "moron" portion of the word. Let's examine this sentence.

"I don't care what your sexual orientation is" which means that it doesn't matter, you are unopinionated, you haven't drawn a specific conclusion as to your thoughts about this issue.

"as long as I don't have to see it." which seems to imply that you do indeed have a very firm opinion on the matter which appears to be contradictory to the first part of the thought. So either you are conflicted in your own mind, or you're lying, which is it?

I do not demand respect, I do not demand anything
Ahhh, yes, I forgot, you calmy suggested that Schwitzer not insult Christianity after you claimed that he "dared" call Christianity ficticious. I'm not sure how you intended the use of a dare, but I infer that as a demand.

[Schwitzer]

Fiction? You dare call the Bible, fiction?
I love how you all come in claiming that you have the right to believe homosexuality is wrong, but when I bait you with a comment like that you'll instantly start yelling at me for exercising my right to express my belief that the Bible is just another book. How amusing.

We're talking about homosexuality but when you insult someone's religion, you're stepping into a whole new playing field, one I do not take kindly to. I calmly suggest you NOT insult Christianity. I don't insult your Atheism, you have no right to insult the Holy Book of Christianity.
I'm not insulting anyone's religion. If I'm not mistaken, religion is more than just a book, isn't it? So before you get all upset because you think I'm attacking your Christianity, take a step back and realise the intention I had for wording my previous comment as I did.

I am a Christian. Not much of one, but one who tries to uphold the laws God gave us, including an... unfondness for homosexuals.
God made a law that you have to harbor an "unfondness for homosexuals", did he? I'm not Christian myself, but I know enough to know that this wasn't on the ten commandments.

I don't hate homosexuals, and I find nothing wrong with it(don't point out if that was contradictory or not, I don't really give a damn.), but I don't think it's right.
"I find nothing wrong with it... but I don't think it's right"
Enough said.

If homosexuals don't like how they're treated here or something, they can go to Canada or any other country that doesn't make homosexuals second-class citizens.
What a despicable ideal. Why should homosexuals be forced to flee the country because you're prejudice?

As far as I'm concerned, homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same, no difference other than what our hormones say, but still... if your homosexual, keep it to yourself.
Why should they? Because it upsets you? You have no right to tell homosexuals to "keep it to [themselves]". That'd be like me telling you to keep your Christianity to yourself; I bet you'd scream outrage.

Did I not say I had no problem with homosexuality? I am no evangelist, I am no priest, I am not a religious person, but I have an unfondness for homosexuality.
I love how you answer your own question so readily (note bolding).

I am not insulting those who are homosexual
Oh, I'm sure quite a few of them would be insulted by this sort of statement:
If homosexuals don't like how they're treated here or something, they can go to Canada or any other country that doesn't make homosexuals second-class citizens.

So in reality, yes, you are actually insulting homosexuals by effectively telling them to piss off.

[Uuugggg]

Not a choice? I think you are wrong, it IS a choice.

So then, at what point of your life did you choose?

[Nuts]

So then, at what point of your life did you choose?

Bravo.

[Kingscrab]

I am a Christian. Not much of one, but one who tries to uphold the laws God gave us, including an... unfondness for homosexuals.
Who are you kidding. "unfondness"? Don't even try to pass that shit off lightly. IS IT A SIN OR ISN'T IT? I have an unfondness for peanut butter ice cream. The church does not have an "unfondness" for homosexuality. It is wrong, and gays will suffer in the afterlife for it, right? (unless the "repent" of course! sheeeesh!) I think that goes a bit beyond "unfondness".

If homosexuals don't like how they're treated here or something, they can go to Canada or any other country that doesn't make homosexuals second-class citizens. As far as I'm concerned, homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same, no difference other than what our hormones say, but still... if your homosexual, keep it to yourself.
Keep strummin' that banjo. So, they're the same, but gays can leave the country if they don't like it!? Gays vote for elected officials and the laws of the land too. The US is supposed to be a civilized nation where all are treated with respect and equality. Statements like that cheapen the sacrifice of those who strive and suffer to uphold those ideals.

PS: NUTS - i agree with your postings. Well spoken.

[siuloongbao]

Wow, the wrongness in this thread is amazing. Homosexuality is considered by the church to be "wrong" and such. Me i'm a christian, and its not like i hate homosexuals with a burning loathing.

There is no "unfondness" that should be harbored by anyone to anyone else, no matter what they are, or decide to align themselves with. In this I am covering ALL discrimination. And by saying that you have an unfondness towards homosexuals or by saying anything else along those lines, it is discrimination.

The point of a Christian is to love others. If you're any kind of christian, you KNOW this. It is ingrained in all of us. If you don't know this, then you need to do some revisiting of why you are a Christian.

It is possible to love while at the same time disagreeing with others isn't it? Can you be a vegetarian and still love those that choose not to take that choice of preserving life?

[Black.Ice]

Wow, I seem to have jumped on this posting bandwagon a bit late.

I personally dislike homosexuality. I truly believe I am a bit homophobic. I know, this is a small-minded thing of me, but we are what we are.

While I dislike the concept of homosexuality, I have nothing against the people who are homosexual. I have a few friends who are homosexual, and I get along with them fine. They treat me nicely, and I treat them fine. Despite how they treat me, I know I am bit discriminatory towards them. I mean, I never say anything mean, but I am prejudiced. I'm not going to lie to anyone here.

In America I have the right to practice my religion of Islam. Others may not agree with this - which is fine. I am still allowed to practice my religion.

Similarly, homosexuals should be allowed to to do whatever they want. While I may not agree with their view, I will damn-well support their rights.

[kongurous]

Wow, I seem to have jumped on this posting bandwagon a bit late.

I personally dislike homosexuality. I truly believe I am a bit homophobic. I know, this is a small-minded thing of me, but we are what we are.

While I dislike the concept of homosexuality, I have nothing against the people who are homosexual. I have a few friends who are homosexual, and I get along with them fine. They treat me nicely, and I treat them fine. Despite how they treat me, I know I am bit discriminatory towards them. I mean, I never say anything mean, but I am prejudiced. I'm not going to lie to anyone here.

In America I have the right to practice my religion of Islam. Others may not agree with this - which is fine. I am still allowed to practice my religion.

Similarly, homosexuals should be allowed to to do whatever they want. While I may not agree with their view, I will damn-well support their rights.

Erm... right, what Black.Ice said. It seems he found the words I could not, except I don't know anyone homosexual.

[Kabam]

Wow, I'm fucking glad I'm an athiest.

[Spartan-II]

And that has to do with what?

Personally, I don't either way about homosexual marriage etc. They're people who happen to like the same sex, but that's no reason to bash them or treat them. I admit, it's a bit unnatural, but as long as they don't act 'innapropriately' in front of me, I have nothing against them.

[Sambo83]

After reading this idiotic thread, the only thing I have to say is that if Christians treated homosexuals anywhere near as poorly as the atheist left treats Christians, then we'd all be arrested for "hate crimes."

I don't necessarily think that homosexuals should be rounded up and slaughtered, or forced to be celebate. The way they live their lives their own perogative. Our society has a scientific obligation to work on curing their illness, and in the mean time they shouldn't be treated with any less respect than any other human being just because they have a genetic defect.

Just because you do not like Christians or Christianity doesn't mean you need to take a condescending tone toward all Christian or generally religious beleifs in each of your posts as I know for a fact that if I took such a tone toward homosexuals, you would throw a fucking hissy fit, and probably call me names. That's how liberals argue with conservatives. They call us names. Since they have no reasonable arguments, they figure calling us biggots, homophobes, racists, and anti-semites will get their point across.

[Kabam]

After reading this idiotic thread, the only thing I have to say is that if Christians treated homosexuals anywhere near as poorly as the atheist left treats Christians, then we'd all be arrested for "hate crimes."


Wtf does that even mean? That whole sentence makes no sense. Christians treat gay people like shit because its gods fuckin' will that only a man and women can get married and that being gay is a sin.

Did I say anything bad against Cristians? No.

[Spartan-II]

Did SiKawtic get banned cause of that!?

[kongurous]

Did SiKawtic get banned cause of that!?

Probably.

[Kabam]

WHy else would he have bee banned?

[wraizyr]

Christians treat gay people like shit because its gods fuckin' will
No. At worst, people treat gay people like shit because they are repulsed by homosexuality, and they try to attach some respectability/righteousness to their own hatred. (Which is itself just as sinful as homosexuality, and probably more insidious). Hatred of people is not permitted in Christianity proper.

Did I say anything bad against Cristians? No.
Your seemingly random comment about pride+atheism makes it sound that way, whether it is or not. (And believe me when I say: I don't care)
Did SiKawtic get banned cause of that!?
Sikawtic was temp banned for the comment about slaying homosexuals.

[LordAhriman]

While Sikawtic was out of line, I find your hostility toward Hammock hypocritical. He disagrees with you, therefore he is ignorant and possibly a bigot. Shockingly, you are expressing a sentiment that dislikes Hammock solely because of his opinion on this matter. True, opinions are changed much easier than behavior, but I see no reason for Hammock to consider your views when faced with such an insulting affront. You are practicing discrimination. Does discriminating against percieved discrimination really fix the problem?
I fold before your esoteric diction, sir. I'll address your concerns in a moment.

I maintain what I said in my original post: averse reactions to homosexuality are logically indefensible. Some of the posters here are living proof.

It doesn't matter if homosexuality is inherent or chosen. As far as I'm concerned, people can put their genitalia in whatever they like, so long as they're not hurting anybody. Do I have to share their sexual habits? No. In spite of that, will I respect them as human beings? I will. Will I show some respect for people who've been shit on the world over throughout history? Damn right, I will.

Does discriminating against percieved discrimination really fix the problem?
I'm discriminating, yes. But compare what we're supporting: I, the right of people to be treated decently, and he, in so many words, the "fixing" of homosexuals.

In the quote above I merely offered one solution to homosexuality.
You disgust me. Homosexuals are not "broken," and they do not need to be "fixed."

By the way, I despise racists, too. They, too, fall over themselves to present their baseless beliefs as logical. I don't have a moment's remorse about it.

Here follow some of the logical cases for homophobia:

But what I find even worse is when gays or lesbians kiss in public!
First of all, I am absolutely not required to justify my own beliefs. They are mine and mine alone, it doesn't matter how or why I come to them, and if I accept a certain belief then that's the end of it. The only time I would need to justify my beliefs is if I were trying to convince you of them. Which I am not.
or woman and woman (altho that's teh cecksay)

Fiction? You dare call the Bible, fiction? We're talking about homosexuality but when you insult someone's religion, you're stepping into a whole new playing field, one I do not take kindly to.
I'd like to respond to this one in particular, if only because I started laughing as soon as I'd read the first sentence. So the Bible is free to condemn homosexuality, but we're forbidden to condemn it in turn? Yes, it's dumb to lambast all Christianity for one of its more ambiguous doctrines, but as it affronts homosexuality, and apparently forms the "basis" for many of the prejudices expressed here, it figures into this discussion significantly.

Even better, you followed up that gem with:
I do not demand respect, I do not demand anything
as long as they don't act 'innapropriately' in front of me, I have nothing against them.
And finally, perhaps the worst of them all:
Our society has a scientific obligation to work on curing their illness

[Sambo83]

I'm discriminating, yes. But compare what we're supporting: I, the right of people to be treated decently, and he, in so many words, the "fixing" of homosexuals.
Or, put another way:

You - special treatment and extra rights for a small group of people.

Him - the curing of the ill.

It depends upon perspective, and the fact that you indignantly state your opinion as though it is the obvious truth does not make it so.

You disgust me.

[Ender]

*sigh* When will people learn homosexuality IS NOT AN ILLNESS.

[LordAhriman]

Or, put another way:

You - special treatment and extra rights for a small group of people.

Him - the curing of the ill.

It depends upon perspective, and the fact that you indignantly state your opinion as though it is the obvious truth does not make it so.

You disgust me.
You disgust me. Yes, I'm starting a "you disgust me" chain, and I fully expect and demand of all who reply after this comment to begin and end the text of their replies with those words.

Homosexuality is an illness? How does it ail the body or mind? In what sense are homosexuals "ill?" Because they wouldn't bang the same thing you would? Does that qualify someone as deranged?

And now, spitting in the face of chronology, I'll address your first, foundationless point. Please, point out for me where I advocated special treatment for homosexuals. I dislike having to repeat what I say, but I'll now echo my previously expressed sentiments: homosexuals must be treated as human beings, not as mentally unstable.

As for your second to last sentence, any man is a fool who doesn't hold his convictions to be true.

You disgust me.

[Windwalker]

Well i like to sum my thread in one big phrase CHRISTIANS VS Athetist/bisexual

[The_Maker]

Why isn't this under Itellectual Roundtable already? This aint just normal conversation anymore :P

[Windwalker]

Ya this should be in intell convo now, anyways my point is theres no right or wrong to bieng Gay. If your gay your gay end of story. These people who think Gays are deformed, mental retards are well ignorant of them, and they should go out of there way to find em. All i say is if they don't hit on me, im good.

[wraizyr]

This most certainly does not belong in IR. Potential for that was blown out a while ago with temper tantrums, excessive ad hominems, and strawmen on both sides of the "debate".

[LordAhriman]

As an aside: what exactly is a strawman? I know the definition, but I've never seen it in application.

[Schwitzer]

After reading this idiotic thread, the only thing I have to say is that if Christians treated homosexuals anywhere near as poorly as the atheist left treats Christians, then we'd all be arrested for "hate crimes."
I don't recall atheists telling Christians they'll go to Hell if they don't pretend they're not Christian, or that they cannot marry their desired partners. Don't try to make Christianity sound like the victim here. My history may be a little rusty, but I'm sure Christians weren't burnt at the stake by atheists, either... hmm.

Just because you do not like Christians or Christianity doesn't mean you need to take a condescending tone toward all Christian or generally religious beleifs in each of your posts as I know for a fact that if I took such a tone toward homosexuals, you would throw a fucking hissy fit, and probably call me names.
I never said I disliked Christians or Christianity; that would make me a hypocrite - arguing for acceptance of everyones' beliefs and then shunning a group because of their beliefs.

If some of you got confused where I was coming from, I'll set you straight (pun not intended). I don't hate religion itself, and I certainly don't have any bias against those who choose to be religious. What I do not like is when people say they belong to a religion with a "love thy neighbour" policy, and then turn around and start telling me about their unreasonable hatred for a particular group.

[LordAhriman]

Let's clear away all the bullshit and focus.

Here's a question I need answered before I can say anything else: why is homosexuality an illness?

[Schwitzer]

Let's clear away all the bullshit and focus.

Here's a question I need answered before I can say anything else: why is homosexuality an illness?
As well as this, I'd also like to know what threat homosexuality poses to you anti-homosexual mob?

[kongurous]

Here's a question I need answered before I can say anything else: why is homosexuality an illness?

It isn't an illness, it's something you're born with. I don't know Sambo83's reasoning behind such claims, and I will not pretend I do, but I can find nothing to support homosexuality as an illness.

As well as this, I'd also like to know what threat homosexuality poses to you anti-homosexual mob?

As much as it contradicts what you made me out to be, oh dear moderator, homosexuality poses no threat to me, it poses no threat to my job, or my crew. I have nothing against homosexuals, I have nothing against anyone unless the person has threatened me or hurt me in someway or another. While I will stick by my religion, I refuse to persecute(prosecute?)people, based simply upon what their mind says.

God made a law that you have to harbor an "unfondness for homosexuals", did he? I'm not Christian myself, but I know enough to know that this wasn't on the ten commandments.

God gave us more rules than the Ten Commandments, Schwitzer. I expected you to know that.

Who are you kidding. "unfondness"? Don't even try to pass that shit off lightly. IS IT A SIN OR ISN'T IT? I have an unfondness for peanut butter ice cream. The church does not have an "unfondness" for homosexuality. It is wrong, and gays will suffer in the afterlife for it, right? (unless the "repent" of course! sheeeesh!) I think that goes a bit beyond "unfondness".

The entire point of that is? That was horridly writen, or did it not come out the way you wanted it to? I said I wasn't a religious person, which explains my unfondness. The bolded sentences contradict each other, and I am not Catholic, I am Baptist. As such, no church has sway over what I do, and that is always as it has been for me. Explain this unorganized mess, or I will not take it seriously. You seem to be taking my unfondness farther than what it is. It is there, purposely to mean what it says. I am not hinting to anything, as Kingscrab and Schwitzer seem to think.

[Nuts]

I don't care what your sexual orientation is, as long as I don't have to see it.

I'm going to keep asking these questions until you answer.

Kongurous,

Would you deny a heterosexual the right to hold hands in public?

Does it disgust you to see a man and a woman kissing in public?

Do you hide your eyes when a man is hugging his girlfriend or wife?

This is the third time I have asked similar questions. You claim that homosexuality doesn't bother so long as you don't have to see it. You also claim that "I have nothing against homosexuals." So which is it? Should homosexuals be denied the same rights that you attribute to a straight person? Answer the damn question.

[singo]

Or, put another way:

You - special treatment and extra rights for a small group of people.




EXTRA rights? who mentioned that? What people are saying is that homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else, i.e. should not be insulted for showing affection in public.

I fail to se the problem here.

[Schwitzer]

As much as it contradicts what you made me out to be, oh dear moderator, homosexuality poses no threat to me, it poses no threat to my job, or my crew. I have nothing against homosexuals, I have nothing against anyone unless the person has threatened me or hurt me in someway or another. While I will stick by my religion, I refuse to persecute(prosecute?)people, based simply upon what their mind says.
Nuts has already covered the essence of how I was going to reply to this, so I'll skip it.

God gave us more rules than the Ten Commandments, Schwitzer. I expected you to know that.
I never said God only gave us Ten Commandments. I expected you to know that. What I said (and what you quoted) was:
God made a law that you have to harbor an "unfondness for homosexuals", did he? I'm not Christian myself, but I know enough to know that this wasn't on the ten commandments.

So stop trying to side-step the question by attacking things I never even said. It's a yes/no question. Answer it.

I am not hinting to anything, as Kingscrab and Schwitzer seem to think.
Actually, what I think (and - let's face it - I'm in a much better position to know my thoughts than you are) is that your posts contradict each other. You claim to not have a problem with homosexuals, and then you say things like "as long as I don't see it".

[kongurous]

So stop trying to side-step the question by attacking things I never even said. It's a yes/no question. Answer it.

What is there to answer? You only said the Ten Commandments. There are more rules than just the Ten Commandments. I don't care if the Ten Commandments said it's alright to kill people, as long as later in the Bible it says it isn't.


Actually, what I think (and - let's face it - I'm in a much better position to know my thoughts than you are) is that your posts contradict each other. You claim to not have a problem with homosexuals, and then you say things like "as long as I don't see it".

Does it really matter if I contradict myself? It seems necessary to have the ability, when debating with those who take your words to seriously. I'm sure everyone has done at least one thing that others don't want to see, and homosexuality is the same with me. As long as nothing intimate, kissing is fine, is done in front of me, I'm perfectly fine with it. Only until things get... unsatisfactory for public view, then I have a problem with it. And Nuts, if you say I haven't answered your questions with this post, I hope you get your eyes checked.

[Battlecruiser]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before in this thread, but I am not going to read 8 pages just to check. I did however skim through, and I didn't see it being mentioned.

I don't support homosexuality since it has no purpose. Heterosexual sex will most likely result in children. And that is one of the most basic purposes of life, to create offspring. But homosexual sex doesn't result in offspring. Why? Because 2 sperm can't fertilize each other, or 2 eggs can't fertilize each other. If it doesn't work, it isn't needed. If all humans became purely homosexual and had no sex with the opposite sex, our entire species would be dead in one generation.

So then, why would people be homosexual? Could it be for sexual arousement? Or what is it? Maybe someone who supports homosexuality should correct me and tell me why I should support homosexuality because right now I will not if it serves no real purpose.

By the way, I happen to be athiest, so religion has no effect on this.

[Ender]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before in this thread, but I am not going to read 8 pages just to check. I did however skim through, and I didn't see it being mentioned.

I don't support homosexuality since it has no purpose. Heterosexual sex will most likely result in children. And that is one of the most basic purposes of life, to create offspring. But homosexual sex doesn't result in offspring. Why? Because 2 sperm can't fertilize each other, or 2 eggs can't fertilize each other. If it doesn't work, it isn't needed. If all humans became purely homosexual and had no sex with the opposite sex, our entire species would be dead in one generation.

So then, why would people be homosexual? Could it be for sexual arousement? Or what is it? Maybe someone who supports homosexuality should correct me and tell me why I should support homosexuality because right now I will not if it serves no real purpose.

By the way, I happen to be athiest, so religion has no effect on this.

Or could it be a biologically predetermined difference, which still lays within the human "norm"?

Yes, I'm sure that's it.

[Battlecruiser]

Or could it be a biologically predetermined difference, which still lays within the human "norm"?
How do you know it isn't a defect? Organisms are MEANT to reproduce. Thats why they have sex organs. The purpose of sex organs is to make offspring. There are no other uses.

[Schwitzer]

What is there to answer?
My question. Come on, surely you're not that ignorant?

Let's pull you back on-topic, as desperately as you try to stray from it.

You said:
"I am a Christian. Not much of one, but one who tries to uphold the laws God gave us, including an... unfondness for homosexuals."

Then I said:
"God made a law that you have to harbor an "unfondness for homosexuals", did he?"

So shut up with all your detours about the Ten Commandments and whatever other crap you're trying to pull and answer the damned question. If God did create a law telling you to hate gays then cite it for me. Otherwise your statement is false, and I will assume the rest of your statements are false as well.

Bloody hell. I can't believe how difficult you're making it seem to answer a simple yes/no question. *shakes head*

Does it really matter if I contradict myself?
YES If you can't even agree with yourself than how do you expect us to agree with you? What a stupid question.

It seems necessary to have the ability, when debating with those who take your words to seriously.
How would you prefer we take your words, then? As a joke? because that's all they seem to be at the moment.

[kongurous]

You said:
"I am a Christian. Not much of one, but one who tries to uphold the laws God gave us, including an... unfondness for homosexuals."

Then I said:
"God made a law that you have to harbor an "unfondness for homosexuals", did he?"

So shut up with all your detours about the Ten Commandments and whatever other crap you're trying to pull and answer the damned question. If God did create a law telling you to hate gays then cite it for me. Otherwise your statement is false, and I will assume the rest of your statements are false as well.

There isn't a law that tells us to hate them, it says they'll burn in Hell unless they repent. Bloody stupid law, if you ask me. I do not follow every single rule in the Bible, though I do try. I also try to make exceptions, and my unfondness other than outright hatred of homosexuality is an example of such.


How would you prefer we take your words, then? As a joke? because that's all they seem to be at the moment.

I prefer you take my words as what they are. If I hated them, I would have said it. And dear God, your name is hard to type without messin' up at least four times.

[Schwitzer]

I don't support homosexuality since it has no purpose. Heterosexual sex will most likely result in children.
Well, I personally believe there's a lot more to life than just popping out kids.

That said, homosexuality does not prevent people from doing much at all. They can still raise children, work, and be a respected member of the community.

At any rate, we're not debating about turning people gay, we're arguing for the acceptance of those who are born homosexual. With this in mind, homosexual people are free to find their own purpose in life - just like everyone else, are they not?

So I think the claim that "homosexuality serves no purpose" is a bit moot. Heck, I could argue that life itself has no purpose, but I'll keep on living, won't I?

[Battlecruiser]

Well, I personally believe there's a lot more to life than just popping out kids.

Well, that is opinion. (Offtopic) I sure do hope there is more to life, I just can't figure out what. (Offtopic)
That said, homosexuality does not prevent people from doing much at all. They can still raise children, work, and be a respected member of the community.
I never said it prevented them from having a normal life in all ways except sexually. It is just that their way of sex doesn't work. It is hopelessly pointless and a waste of time. However much they try, they are never going to make children unless they do it the right way.

At any rate, we're not debating about turning people gay, we're arguing for the acceptance of those who are born homosexual. With this in mind, homosexual people are free to find their own purpose in life - just like everyone else, are they not? Well I can't accept it. It is like telling me to accept something that is wrong just because it already happened.

So I think the claim that "homosexuality serves no purpose" is a bit moot. Heck, I could argue that life itself has no purpose, but I'll keep on living, won't I? But life does have a purpose. For certain, atleast one is to create offspring.

[GrassDragon]

By that train of thought, Battlecruiser, love and fun have no purpose either. They don't achieve anything other than feeling good. Maybe we should stop those too?

[DragonPaladin]

LOVE, FUN, AND FEELING GOOD HAVE NO PURPOSE. GAWD. o.o;;
On the contrary, some people live for thrill. I live for food.

[Battlecruiser]

By that train of thought, Battlecruiser, love and fun have no purpose either. They don't achieve anything other than feeling good. Maybe we should stop those too?
Love has a purpose. It is a feeling, and it usually results in sex. That is it's purpose. You may say I am being too simplistic, but basically that is what it is.

[DragonPaladin]

I never said it prevented them from having a normal life in all ways except sexually. It is just that their way of sex doesn't work. It is hopelessly pointless and a waste of time. However much they try, they are never going to make children unless they do it the right way.


That's why Gay couples have adopted children. I think it would be hadzardous for the children too. I mean, you go to school, and people tease you because you have gay parents.

[ZeroCross]

Damn, sik got own3d bigtime. 0.0



Plain and simple. The bigger the deal gay people make of their individuality, and want the world to know they are gay, the bigger the gap grows between them and the rest of the world. I find it funny really: they want others to accept them as human beings, yet many of them drive the division that they are different.

Now then, it seems to me that anyone would know, whenever humanity is sepparated by a gap, defining different types of people, humanity, by nature, uses it to defend themselves from people that are different. It would seem to me, that gay people have no intention of merely fitting in, they want the world to accept them, big, bold, and proudly as being gay. Sorry, but humanity thrives on the destruction caused by sepparation. That is why this will never come to pass. As long as people are different, others will use that against them. Even someone who clearly has no intention of making dividing lines in person types, will eventually fall into doing it at even a sub-concious level. Until everyone is a clone, no one will be spared from dividin lines of humanity. Gay people just making the line bigger is not helping anything.

[LordAhriman]

How do you know it isn't a defect? Organisms are MEANT to reproduce. Thats why they have sex organs. The purpose of sex organs is to make offspring. There are no other uses.
Battlecruiser, I think you have yet to discover certain joys of life.

"Yeah! Sex is only useful for children! No condoms! No birth control! Rah, rah, rah!"

Homosexual couples can use surrogate mothers/fathers to "produce" children. The effects on a child growing up with homosexual parents is an entirely different debate, whose points on either side are even more unprovable than those of our current one.

Now then, it seems to me that anyone would know, whenever humanity is sepparated by a gap, defining different types of people, humanity, by nature, uses it to defend themselves from people that are different.
I need to pause for a moment to take this in; I think I've just read the most ridiculous pseudo-intellectual comment I've ever come across. You're saying that homosexuals should suppress their desires and identities for the sake of humankind's basest tribal instincts? You're saying that our rejection of the foreign should be allowed to persist rather than be itself rejected in a world where we have no choice but to deal with the foreign?

Jesus. Do you even realize what you're saying? What if we'd said this about black people during the civil rights movement? "Damn them, expressing their identities - if they really want to fit in, they should just shut up and leave everybody alone while they get stepped on by American society!" Because that is what will happen, and that is what has happened throughout our history. I'm guessing - and forgive me if my assumption's wrong - that you're a fairly affluent, straight young male, possibly white. What oppression have you ever had to deal with?

In fact, let me address this question to all you homophobes out there. Picture yourself living in a world where homosexuality is the norm. Picture yourself hitting puberty and having an attraction to the opposite sex and being ashamed of it. You might be unable to tell your parents. You certainly won't be able to tell your friends, as the rumor is likely to spread, and in your school or town probably half the people at least are heterophobes. And get this: there's a church out there saying that if you are heterosexual, you are acting against the will of God.

What would you do?

[ZeroCross]

In response to LA: It is apparent that you greviously misunderstood me. YOu then went ahead a step further and put words in my mouth which I do NOT appriciate. First of all, where the fuck did I ever say they were wrong to be gay? Please point it out. Second, did I say I was referring to every gay ever? No, another misconception on you're part. Third and finally, did I ever say that they are not allowed to express themselves at all? No. I am saying alot of this gay pride often goes too far, to the point where many times, it only drive division further. I was merely pointing out a flaw in humanity they are inadvetently using to drive the division further.

I never once said they are supposed to live in shame of who they are. I never said they were not allowed to be proud of themselves. And calling me a white striahgt male when you know nothing about me? Let me illustrate this to you: You know fucking nothing about who I am. So do not make assumptions and jam words into my mouth. You only make an ass out of yourself.

[DragonPaladin]

There are many flaws in humanity, as all humans are falliable. ZeroCross does have a point in saying that.

that you're a fairly affluent, straight young male, possibly white. What oppression have you ever had to deal with?


Let me get back to you on that...

[LordAhriman]

In response to LA: It is apparent that you greviously misunderstood me. YOu then went ahead a step further and put words in my mouth which I do NOT appriciate. First of all, where the fuck did I ever say they were wrong to be gay? Please point it out. Second, did I say I was referring to every gay ever? No, another misconception on you're part. Third and finally, did I ever say that they are not allowed to express themselves at all? No. I am saying alot of this gay pride often goes too far, to the point where many times, it only drive division further. I was merely pointing out a flaw in humanity they are inadvetently using to drive the division further.

I never once said they are supposed to live in shame of who they are. I never said they were not allowed to be proud of themselves. And calling me a white striahgt male when you know nothing about me? Let me illustrate this to you: You know fucking nothing about who I am. So do not make assumptions and jam words into my mouth. You only make an ass out of yourself.
Excellent! Now we're abandoning all logic. My posts may be nasty, but I'd like to think they all have a point.

Speaking of putting words in mouths, when did I say you said it was wrong to be gay? When did I say you were advocating the total suppression of homosexuality? - though you are advocating its partial suppression in saying that homosexuals need to tone it down and stop being so flagrantly proud in order to be accepted by society.

And in response to your second point, how can you say that your post did not refer to homosexuals?

I hesitate to continue my reply, as you seem to have been reacting to a completely different post than the one I made.

They are not trying to drive any division. They are trying to be accepted for who they are as part of a diverse, rather than homogenous community. Don't tell me we can never accept people who are different than us, because we can. It just takes a long time, and it takes a will to do it.

If you accept homosexuality, you accept its expressions - even gay pride parades and the like.

And if I was wrong in assuming those things about you, as I said in my post, forgive me. Correct me, even. Tell me where I'm wrong, here, because that's where it looks like you're coming from.

[DragonPaladin]

Well then, why don't we have Heterosexual parades? I'm sure people would complain about that.. Just a random ironic thought.

[Battlecruiser]

Battlecruiser, I think you have yet to discover certain joys of life.

"Yeah! Sex is only useful for children! No condoms! No birth control! Rah, rah, rah!"
The "Joy" you are getting is from hormones stimulating your brains into a feeling of happiness or whatever. For example, there are touch sensors on your penis that when rubbed (Masturbation or sex), makes you enjoy it and will make you ejaculate. The emotion of enjoying it is solely there because it makes you want more. Basically it is nature's way of making people have sex. But that is just one way. Another is emotions you get when you see a girl and you love her.

[TheGreatBrain]

Well then, why don't we have Heterosexual parades? I'm sure people would complain about that.. Just a random ironic thought.
Because heteros are not oppressed. Nobody every walked up to someone they didn't like and said, "Man, you're so straight!" Not a whole lot of people ever get beaten up, ostricized, or put down because they're heterosexual. Not to say that this happens to all gay people either, but whether or not those who march in gay pride parades are correct in doing so, their reason for doing it is at least understandable.

[ZeroCross]

Excellent! Now we're abandoning all logic. Wha?

Speaking of putting words in mouths, when did I say you said it was wrong to be gay?
First of all, where the fuck did I ever say they were wrong to be gay? I thought I was asking you the same question? *confuseled*

When did I say you were advocating the total suppression of homosexuality? - though you are advocating its partial suppression in saying that homosexuals need to tone it down and stop being so flagrantly proud in order to be accepted by society. First off, Partial, total, wtf? You lost me there with that 'Since when did I say either?' *confuseled again* Last I knew, you were saying like "You're saying that homosexuals should suppress their desires and identities for the sake of humankind's basest tribal instincts? You're saying that our rejection of the foreign should be allowed to persist rather than be itself rejected in a world where we have no choice but to deal with the foreign?" To which I responded, "When did I say I was referring to all of them?" To which when you said, actually, I think I just confused myself here with all the things we said the other person said. Gimme a minute to sort these all out.


Secondly, on the part about being flagrantly proud, (I did'nt use the word flagrantly :p) the difference between accepting yourself as who you are, and expecting others to embrace it as you have, are two different stories. Now while not all gay people expect others to embrace it they way they do, saying they all did would be an unacciptible sterotype. I don't know if that's how my first post came across, however, in case it did(I'm too lazy to go back and check), sorry for any misunderstanding there in that respect.

And in response to your second point, how can you say that your post did not refer to homosexuals? I said i was not referring to every gay ever, as stated, because if I had it would be a grand sterotype. Again, any misconception I am sorry for.

They are not trying to drive any division. They are trying to be accepted for who they are as part of a diverse, rather than homogenous community. Don't tell me we can never accept people who are different than us, because we can. It just takes a long time, and it takes a will to do it. Of course. I was just saying it's a basic human flaw. Even though many people, including myself, try not to think anything of differences in people, it is basic human instinct to do just that, perhaps not on a malicious level, or not even meaning any mal-intent, but still do it on occassion to at least some degree.

If you accept homosexuality, you accept its expressions - even gay pride parades and the like. Yes, but some people don't accept them, but still put up with them only to avoid recourse of some kind. Such as verbal or legal even. True, some people only care about thier own lives, and just don't give a damn about what others think. Others, think the only way to live healthy lives, is through showing proudly who and what they are.

Now, personally, I have never done any such action like this with anything. I don't need to tell everyone my religion, color, ethenticity, gender, etc. I know what I am, and who, and whatever I am, will be shown by my actions and my choices. I don't need a membership card to tell me I'm "accepted". However, this is just me I suppose. I have no trouble accepting who and what I am, so maybe I don't have room to comment about the mental health of others who don't share the same gear of thought. The problem with the perfect world is that it's never the same from person to person.

And if I was wrong in assuming those things about you, as I said in my post, forgive me. Correct me, even. Tell me where I'm wrong, here, because that's where it looks like you're coming from. Let me just say i come from a line that has ALOT of sterotypes against me which are not true, probably more than most any other type/kind of person. Since I can live with it just fine, I don't care.

[LordAhriman]

I don't need to tell everyone my religion, color, ethenticity, gender, etc. I know what I am, and who, and whatever I am, will be shown by my actions and my choices.

It's an unfortunate truth that the human race is absolutely obsessed with what people are born as; one we can dream of overcoming, but for the time being have to accept as real. We have to recognize the back-and-forth of people being stepped on for what they are, bearing shame for a time, then asserting a brazen pride for what they were born as/chose to be.

[Kingscrab]

Who are you kidding. "unfondness"? Don't even try to pass that shit off lightly. IS IT A SIN OR ISN'T IT? I have an unfondness for peanut butter ice cream. The church does not have an "unfondness" for homosexuality. It is wrong, and gays will suffer in the afterlife for it, right? (unless the "repent" of course! sheeeesh!) I think that goes a bit beyond "unfondness".

That was horridly writen, or did it not come out the way you wanted it to?
Nope. I think it came out as i intended.
Sorry if you missed the point i was trying to make.
Let me break it down for you.

I dislike peanut butter ice cream.
ie: I have an "unfondness for peanut butter ice cream".

The christian view of homosexuality is that it is a SIN.
therefore: "Unfondness" does not correctly decribe the church's view of sin.
Despise might be a better word.

Does that make more sense kongurous?


I don't necessarily think that homosexuals should be rounded up and slaughtered, or forced to be celebate.
That is very kind of you.


Our society has a scientific obligation to work on curing their illness, and in the mean time they shouldn't be treated with any less respect than any other human being just because they have a genetic defect.
Let's take care of the REAL defect: the bigot-gene. (it is quite dangerous!)


They call us names. Since they have no reasonable arguments, they figure calling us biggots, homophobes, racists, and anti-semites will get their point across.
Ooops! Sorry! Oh you're a victim now? Have you been labeled unjustly? Well, if you're not a bigot or a racist then you shouldn't have to worry about it should you? Are you telling us that no 'conservative' has ever accused anyone of being a bigot, or engaged in name calling? Riiiiight....

Those words exist for a reason. As the saying goes: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... It's a duck.

[LordAhriman]

Here here, Kingscrab. I don't care how somebody justifies a belief that a nonviolent group that seeks only tolerance needs to be "fixed" - they are bigots.

What really angers me is homophobes calling themselves victims. That, perhaps, is the most ridiculous thing of all.

[Modred]

Well, I personally believe there's a lot more to life than just popping out kids.
You die no matter what you do. =D

Your words, not mine. And if they're my words, quote them. You can't, because they're not. That sentence is something you made up entirely. It doesn't even have anything to do with the sentence you quoted.
Let's see, you're correct. I am quite horrid at reading things into messages. Hammock stated that he had homosexual friends and that their homosexuality did not make him like them any less. While you were focusing on another point of his argument, you did say that his open-mindedness was contradicted. Either he is open-minded or he is not, thus it seemed to me that you were saying his statement that he holds his homosexual friends as equal to his heterosexual friends is false.

It's an unfortunate truth that the human race is absolutely obsessed with what people are born as; one we can dream of overcoming, but for the time being have to accept as real.
I agree with you wholely on this. Most of our modern society does place far too much importance on what we are expected to be, via birth, breeding, or other factors, and often ignores the individual.

Are you telling us that no 'conservative' has ever accused anyone of being a bigot, or engaged in name calling? Riiiiight....
No, but there are some people who do not participate in name calling, as you put it, but are labelled along with a group they associate with. Is that just?

[singo]

Those words exist for a reason. As the saying goes: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... It's a duck.

Nah, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it walks and quacks like a friggin duck, no more, no less.

Anyone that likes to sodomise/be sodomised, fair play to em, I ask no-one does it in front of me simply because cocks are ugly, lets face it, a reproductive organ could at least look good.

As kryten said "Do you mean shakespere wrote his plays with one of them slung betwen his legs??"

[wraizyr]

As an aside: what exactly is a strawman? I know the definition, but I've never seen it in application.Well, in context of this debate, claiming that Christians hate homosexuals, or that homosexuals are out to destroy marriage. The first one is trickier to see, because as I mentioned before, some genuinely hate filled people try to hide the evil of their thoughts through Christianity.

My history may be a little rusty, but I'm sure Christians weren't burnt at the stake by atheists, either... hmm. They've been persecuted by atheists in communist nations. So replace burned at stake with shot with gun, and we're good to go.

What I do not like is when people say they belong to a religion with a "love thy neighbour" policy, and then turn around and start telling me about their unreasonable hatred for a particular group. The problem is that you seem to make a leap from "does not approve of actions" to "bigoted hatred", which is thoroughly unfair (and a strawman).

[kongurous]

I dislike peanut butter ice cream.
ie: I have an "unfondness for peanut butter ice cream".

The christian view of homosexuality is that it is a SIN.
therefore: "Unfondness" does not correctly decribe the church's view of sin.
Despise might be a better word.

Does that make more sense kongurous?

Remember, I said I wasn't much a Christian, so many Christian views I do not hold. Such as that homosexuality is a sin. You confuse my unfondness for outright hatred, which is about as far from the truth as saying I'm a fish is.You speak of me contradicting myself? There is a middle ground between hatred and loving, and that is not caring. I do not care whether you are homosexual or heterosexual, as long as I don't have to see it. GG, no re.

[LordAhriman]

Nah, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it walks and quacks like a friggin duck, no more, no less.

Anyone that likes to sodomise/be sodomised, fair play to em, I ask no-one does it in front of me simply because cocks are ugly, lets face it, a reproductive organ could at least look good.

As kryten said "Do you mean shakespere wrote his plays with one of them slung betwen his legs??"

I have no idea what's going on in this post.

[singo]

Well, just because something looks and acts like something, does not mean it is that something.

was the main point of the post.


the "Red Dwarf" reference is wasted on an american audience, so forget that bit.....

I'll explain later

[Windwalker]

Heres a article you people discussing this might be intrested in,

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=4&u=/ap/20050423/ap_on_re_us/gay_rights

[LordAhriman]

I'd like you people to read that and then tell us that Christians and conservatives are being oppressed.

[Modred]

I'd like you people to read that and then tell us that Christians and conservatives are being oppressed.
I can not speak for everyone who has expressed similar opinion to me, but I can defend my own perspective. Seeing as how technical we have been so far in attributing ideas to people, I must point out that I (although perhaps others, I just skimmed) never implied that Christians are oppressed. However I did state that many well meaning, and not bigoted, Christians are mislabeled solely because some of their 'brethren' decide to act on ignorance. It isn't fair to judge an entire group based on the actions of part of that group.

Come to think of it, that last sentence should also be applied to homosexuals. While there are some homosexuals who will violently protest for their rights, I find that most just want to live their lives, and they too are wrongly labeled as militants and 'threats to society.'

Please don't take the preceding comment to mean that protesting for rights is wrong, that was not my intent. Rather, the contest for homosexual rights poses a large change to the United States in the view of many citizens and this concieved drastic change appears very heated and passionate compared to the 'normal' lives of the average American. As much as I dislike the comparison, this is somewhat like the Civil Rights movement of the mid-20th Century; there is a conservative base that, by very definition, fears change and is struggling violently to preserve what it views as a normal way of life.

[sapphire-slayer]

Hello folks, i was wondering if anyone heard of a thing called Day of Silence. I personally just learned this today, it is a movement to protest the silence that non-straight people face everyday. By this is that there voices are unheard in goverment. To find more info http://dayofsilence.org (http://dayofsilence.org/).

And tell me about your feelings against or for your non-straight friends.

Before i forget it includes sex-changers lol.
My non-straight friends are terriffic.
They have helped me view the world in an entirely different and colourful way.
I remember the bad old days when gay people suffered verbal and physical abuse for just being alive.
I am glad, just so happy and gay that those days have changed.
All the best,
sapphire-slayer.

[ZeroCross]

First of all, were'nt christians ya know, Nailed to a cross and such in the old days after Christ? So no, Christians were not burned to the stake (that I can prove right now) but they were heavily persecuted in the past. So no, being Christian is not a "Get out of all life's troubles free" card. Nor does it put you in "the big leagues" of people that rule the world and define standards.

In contrast to Connecticut, some activists were in tears at Washington's Capitol in Olympia on Thursday as senators — by a 25-24 vote — rejected a House-passed bill banning discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing, employment and insurance. In three decades of trying, it was the closest the bill's supporters had come to victory. This is inexcusible. Striaght or gay, housing, insurance, being biased on sexual preferance? That's not right. It completely destoys the "All men are created Equal" Speech that is in the constitution.

I see this as more of a story of Goernment tampling gay-rights than anything else.

In any case, I am reminded of a thread a while back, where someone was being trampled by over-religious zealotry. Christianity is not evil. The people who would use it as a sheild for their own motives however, now you've got a dealy there. In any case, those who would use the fact that the bible says beng gays will burn in hell, should live by every single other thing it says to do in the bible, and not just the parts they like, otherwise someone could claim they are going to hell just as easily. It sure would be fun to screw with 'em that way. ^^


Now then, dipping into the religious zone here for a sec, I feel God knew the bible woule be altered through the course of history no matter what, unless he tried to strike thousands of people with lightining (which would remove all doutb he/she was there in the first place.). Personally, I think the bible is only meant to confirm the existance of God, then if anyone heard about this, and felt they wanted to go with him, he would set it up for them as far as they are willing to go.

I mean, for a God that seems to care alot about his children and their salvation and such, there's alot of other stuff in the bible that seems needlessly complicated, confusing, or even pointless to have in there. Besides, God knew the attention span of a normal human would never read something well over a couple thousand pages long out of their own desire, Am I right?

{Note: I'm too tired to care right now if this post makes perfect sense. I'm off to sleep.}

[Kabam]

I just noticed that I put Athiest when I ment Agnostic. Oops...And nwo that statement makes more sense to me.

-Sorry

[Modred]

So no, Christians were not burned to the stake (that I can prove right now) but they were heavily persecuted in the past.
Allow me to go off-topic for one post, if I may. We can always start another thread if we must.

Joan of Arc. She was burned at the stake by other Christians. Do some studying of the pre-Christian Roman Empire. While I do not know if we can rely on Fox's Book of Martyrs, it mentions that Rome severely persecuted the early Christians, particularly Nero. Allegedly, Nero lit his garden with Christians and convicts burning on wooden stakes.

Anyway, this post is completely off the topic of the thread, but maybe it contributed something.

[LordAhriman]

You were persecuted by Romans? No shit? It's a shame that last happened more than a thousand years ago. Otherwise, that would actually be a valid point. Since then, Christianity hasn't exactly been repressed in the West.

Christianity isn't bad so long as its doctrines are not harmful. Though many are not, of course, the doctrine that homosexuals are to be fixed is harmful.

As for all those saying that homosexuals should cool it expressing their pride - some people think that Christians should cool it about trying to push their beliefs on the nation.

[Nuts]

As long as nothing intimate, kissing is fine, is done in front of me, I'm perfectly fine with it.

When is the last time you saw a homosexual couple performing sex acts in public? Is it acceptable to you to see a heterosexual couple doing the bump and grind in public? I would think not. So why make the distinction unless you are hiding some deeply rooted prejudices?

[Kingscrab]

the "Red Dwarf" reference is wasted on an american audience, so forget that bit.....
Had it been a "young ones" quote, then we'd be in buisiness! ;)

When is the last time you saw a homosexual couple performing sex acts in public? Is it acceptable to you to see a heterosexual couple doing the bump and grind in public? I would think not. So why make the distinction unless you are hiding some deeply rooted prejudices?
Damn! You beat me to it! Nice work NUTS!

[LordAhriman]

I think we've cleaned house here. Nobody else is going to argue.

[Schwitzer]

I think the anti-homosexual side have finally depleted their repertoire of two supporting arguments.

[LordAhriman]

Let's break out the champagne. I propose a toast to victory.

[Nuts]

Well, I was saving it for a special occasion, but what the hell. Here's the finest from my personal e-collection, a 1986 Château Mouton Rothschild Pauillac. Enjoy! ;)

[Schwitzer]

Here's to LordAhriman, Nuts, myself, and everyone else who debated our side of the argument!

*clink*

[kongurous]

When is the last time you saw a homosexual couple performing sex acts in public? Is it acceptable to you to see a heterosexual couple doing the bump and grind in public? I would think not. So why make the distinction unless you are hiding some deeply rooted prejudices?

Deeply rooted prejudices? Once again, you take my words for something they are not. I said intimate. Does that automaticaly mean sex? No, it does not.(yes, I know this post was crap. I'm short of tme right now.)

[Nuts]

(yes, I know this post was crap. I'm short of tme right now.)

Recognizing the problem is the first step to recovery. If you can't get help at Charter, please, get help somewhere.

Seriously, the semantics train left hours ago.

[Black.Ice]

Your celebration wants me to take the otherside just to debate with your three, however I know I can't back up something that's flawed. :/

[Kingscrab]

Your celebration wants me to take the otherside just to debate with your three, however I know I can't back up something that's flawed. :/
That would be indeed be folly... ;)
*now where's that bottle?*

[Valjean]

/me rapes the bottle *

/me cheers for Schwitzer, LA, Nuts, Kingscrab and others *