»Is homosexuality immoral?«
|
|||
 stinkz: I wouldn't be surprised if that website wasn't written by Christians at all. Me neither. But the concept alone of "Christians = Haters" seems to be very reasonable. If I told you "The White House has been attacked by Islamic terrorists" this is far more believable than "The White House has been attacked by Buddhistic terrorists". This site is either written by Christians OR reflects the view on Christians. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsIs homosexuality immoral? |
|
|||
 It would be 'buddhist terrorists'. Not 'buddhistic terrorists'. There is such a thing as buddhist violence, but it is pretty rare. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: It would be 'buddhist terrorists'. Not 'buddhistic terrorists'. Hmm, not sure. "Buddhist" is "buddhist", but "buddhistic" is extreme "buddhist". The same way it's "islamic" (= "regarding Islam") and "islamistic" (= "extreme"). posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have never heard of the term "Islamistic". Occaisionally I have heard of the term "Islamist" in the media, but then again the term I have also heard of a document being "sexed-up" in the media. The term you are looking for is "fundamentalist". Islamic fundamentalist or Buddhist fundamentalist. Islamists and Buddhistics don't exist in the English language. Why am I being expected to spend so much correcting a grammar error? It was a mistake Knn! Accept it and move on. If you put down this post as offtopic I will be so irritated! posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: There is such a thing as buddhist violence, but it is pretty rare. Now I have no idea if this film has anything to do with buddhism except Sri Lanka being a buddhist country : Interestingly, was produced in my state. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
You've given a link to a bunch of buddhist sculptures, Ralph. Did you mean to put In the name of Buddha ♣ (Hmmm I'm reckoning Buddhistic is an Americanism. Both of those definitions come from the 'American Heritage Dictionary'. Still that's reason enough that I should have kept shtum.) But I don't see what any of this has to do with homosexuality! posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: If you put down this post as offtopic I will be so irritated! What the heck? Did you read the examples for offtopic posts? I point out that corrections are NOT offtopic and never were. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: Islamists and Buddhistics don't exist in the English language. Just search with Google for islamistic ♣ to have 2000+ webpages listed The adjective of Islam is islamic. The adjective of Islamism is islamistic posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: fatpie42: If you put down this post as offtopic I will be so irritated! What the heck? Did you read the examples for offtopic posts? I point out that corrections are NOT offtopic and never were. Of course I didn't. No one ever does. Islamistic MIGHT be the adjective in American. But in English we use the adjective 'islamic'. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let me ask something. If you think that homosexuality is immoral, are homosexuals immoral, too? Why did god create them homosexual? How can a god's creature be immoral per se? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some people are 'naturally' psychotic. They may have a natural urge to kill or a natural enjoyment gained from torture. Stinkz would say that God wants them to suppress these urges. He would say this was true of both psychotics and homosexuals. The reasons why they have these urges in the first place is not a problem for Stinkz either. They are just an unfortunate product of a fallen world. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stinkz is of the opinion that homosexuals have something of a choice, while most people who think homosexuality is ok think they don't have a choice. How do we know if they do or not? posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why should it matter whether they have a choice? Even if they are just gay aside from choice, they still don't have to have sex. Not all heterosexuals ever have sex. But saying they can not just choose whether they have sex, but can actually choose what sexuality they are is just silly! No one would choose to be shunned by society. No one would choose to have sex with a man if they weren't attracted to men. How many people could possibly go through all the shit that gays have to deal with just to be "different"? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: Stinkz is of the opinion that homosexuals have something of a choice, while most people who think homosexuality is ok think they don't have a choice. I would accually laugh if it came out that heterosexuality is immoral, too, in god's eyes. Maybe it's only moral once in a year? So stinkz would be double-immoral: 1) Being heterosexually active more than once a year and 2) engaging in anti-gay-speech. 
posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 4 December 2008, 01:15 php B.B. |