»Is homosexuality immoral?«
|
|||
 stinkz: I never said that it was an impossibility that there be a biological problem which could cause a person to naturally lean towards homosexuality. Please also read IMO → Pentagon considered gay sex bomb posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsIs homosexuality immoral? |
|
|||
 fatpie42: 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"? ya you even hear of those who try to talk or act themselves out of being gay like dating girls when they are younger, saying to themselves "i can't possibly be gay!" read allone's post about the gay guy that died and his funeral where it states he or his friend thought this exact thing posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: My point was merely that biology in no way accounts for the massive resurgence of homosexuality. this resurgence is only in the eyes of people who see it entering into the culture more prevolently. Which I do, but there have always been gays, since humans have been alive, they just have been more opressed in the past... I posted this elsewhere...let me see if i can find it IMO → Will there be homosexuals in the future?#17429 4% or so throughout history posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: I understand that all of you here believe that homosexuality is something you are born with. You have been taught that all your life. I was not taught this all my life. I was taught the contrary like you. I have formed my own opinions since then and do not believe it's a choice. Explaining homosexuality by being possessed by demons like knn suggests is a much more plausible answer for xians than saying it's a choice. stinkz: However, in the wrong environment, someone can grow up to enjoy murder, or like drugs, or love alcoholism. That explanation may account for a certain % but it won't cover the entire population in that environment. Even with all these explanations you are coming up to explain homosexuality, there are other set of homosexuals that won't fit into that category. Kids that grow up in a xian household in a small town w/o much outside influence can find themselves to be gay and not have any environmental support that would make them choose to be gay. stinkz: Or, are we going to satisfy every fleshly lust which catches our desire, so long as we can get away with it? Maybe you just don't understand what gay couples do sexually... Dr. Drew on the tv/radio show Loveline as well as others sources I have read/heard say that the majority of gay couples don't even engage in anal sex(which is what most xians are against and think of when they hear gay). Oral sex is the standard sexual act. However, it is likely that you are against that as well. Sure there are gay people that have all kinds of different sex at parties, clubs, etc. But that really doesn't isolate them exclusively. Heterosexuals do exactly the same things at parties, clubs, etc. If you want to label the whole lot as sexually immoral/wrong, then fine. But don't isolate homosexuals. The ONEder Man: stinkz: My point was merely that biology in no way accounts for the massive resurgence of homosexuality. but there have always been gays, since humans have been alive, they just have been more opressed in the past... Yes, I think that in some areas of the world that you won't be bashed/killed/run out of town for being gay, more gay people won't hide themselves from society, and that can account for increased numbers. People have had to hide in the past, now not so much. However, I am sure you have some stats somewhere that show a "massive resurgence of homosexuality" nowadays. Let's see those numbers. posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 volunteshiva: Even with all these explanations you are coming up to explain homosexuality, there are other set of homosexuals that won't fit into that category. There has to be, right? Because, if there wasn't it would be devastating to your argument. You KNOW (in your mind) that homosexuality is biological, THEREFORE other factors couldn't possibly explain it fully. That doesn't work as an argument. volunteshiva: Kids that grow up in a Christian household Yes. Many times people with a decent upbringing completely reject the counsel of their parents. This is the corrupt nature of man. volunteshiva: more gay people won't hide themselves from society, and that can account for increased numbers I know how the secular community would love for us to view homosexuals. They are portrayed almost as a heroic people, who are finally coming out of the closet and rising up against the tyrannical system, called "traditional morality," which has been holding them and many other righteous groups down. But this is nonsense. Homosexuality is rampant because a) it's popular, b) the religious right dislikes it, and c) people are already OK with a multitude of other immoral sex acts. Without these three factors, among a group of people of people that are decently moral sexually, the true number of those biologically bent towards homosexuality would be more apparent. And it would be strikingly low. Much lower, I'm sure, than the number who are prone to become alcoholics. volunteshiva: If you want to label the whole lot as sexually immoral/wrong, then fine. But don't isolate homosexuals. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals who go to parties merely to meet women and have sex with them, are doing something immoral. However, there is a form of heterosexuality which is not immoral (abstaining from sex until marriage followed by continued sexual commitment to this person, aka true love). All forms of homosexuality are immoral. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: However, there is a form of heterosexuality which is not immoral (abstaining from sex until marriage followed by continued sexual commitment to this person, aka true love). All forms of homosexuality are immoral. what if you meet a woman, fall in "love" get married, have sex...later find out that you are no longer in love or meant to be together, get divorced...meet another woman, fall in "love" again ("this time its different"), get married again, have sex with the new wife? is that immoral too? posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
allone: what if you meet a woman, fall in "love" get married, have sex...later find out that you are no longer in love or meant to be together, get divorced...meet another woman, fall in "love" again ("this time its different"), get married again, have sex with the new wife? is that immoral too? Yes. Divorce is immoral. True love has nothing to do with what you call being "in love." Being "in love" is only a feeling, which, no matter how much you like a person, is only temporary. If this feeling is all that the marriage was based on, instead of commitment, then marriage is meaningless. You might as well just live together and screw each other until one or the other gets tired of it. That is exactly the problem we see with marriages today. Marriage is just "the thing to do" when you feel like you really like a person. It has little or no real commitment. Now, let me also point out that there are a few exceptions that are laid out clearly in the New Testament, which allow for a second marriage. One is divorce due to marital unfaithfulness of the spouse. The other is the death of the spouse. In these instances, it is not morally reprehensible to marry another person and be intimate with them. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: Yes. Many times people with a decent upbringing completely reject the counsel of there parents. Parents only know more in a society of shepherds and goatmilkers (= the primitive time of the 10 commandments). As soon as you get into a society that changes very quickly (like ours) with much social and scientific developments, many parents know way too little to have usable knowledge. Thus the corrupt nature of man consists NOT of using his brains (= "reject the counsel of there parents") but to hold on to goatmilkers' wisdoms (= accept the knowledge of parents). Whatever rules the goatmilkers had regarding whatever (including homosexuals)... it was several thousands years ago. Knock knock... posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: They are portrayed almost as a heroic people, who are finally coming out of the closet and rising up against the tyrannical system, called "traditional morality," which has been holding them and many other righteous groups down. But this is nonsense. Hey don't talk so bad about homosexuals. After all loads of priests are homosexual and a few guys like Caesar and Hitler (allegedly) who started wars that Christians love so much. stinkz: However, there is a form of heterosexuality which is not immoral (abstaining from sex until marriage followed by continued sexual commitment to this person, aka true love). Abstaining from sex until marriage is abnormal. If you want, you can call it perverted: Do you know any natural biological being that abstains from sex just because some higher administrator (priest, registrar) hasn't agreed. (Oh, I forgot, Christians LOVE some higher guy telling them what to do). If you don't believe how perverted it is, then just look at countries who practice "sex only in marriage": Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria and all the other classic examples of "freedom and better living". The same applies to suppression of homosexuality: The same people who suppress homosexuality are the same people who suppress women. Perverts. In other words: If you start to suppress homosexuality you WILL NOT get a country without homosexuality: You will get suppressive regimes that suppress a lot of more things. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Now, let me also point out that there are a few exceptions that are laid out clearly in the New Testament, which allow for a second marriage. One is divorce due to marital unfaithfulness of the spouse. The other is the death of the spouse. In these instances, it is not morally reprehensible to marry another person and be intimate with them. I think you make a fundamental error here: Reversed will. If you suppress something then you will get the opposite: Step #1: Don't allow divorce "immoral, immoral" Step #2: You will get divorce everywhere. In other words: The homosex and divorce you see everywhere is NOT caused by a LACK of marality but by TOO MUCH morality in the past decades. Ever forbid a kid to do something? Ever wanted to watch forbidden movies? Have you ever been forbidden to drink Coke or eat chocolate? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: volunteshiva: Even with all these explanations you are coming up to explain homosexuality, there are other set of homosexuals that won't fit into that category. There has to be, right? Because, if there wasn't it would be devastating to your argument. You KNOW (in your mind) that homosexuality is biological, THEREFORE other factors couldn't possibly explain it fully. That doesn't work as an argument. That is a humorous set of statements there. It could be reversed 180 degrees to describe your position as well. The position that homosexuality is genetic is a much simpler position. Gay people are wired that way. Simple. The vast majority of all gay people will tell you that they didn't choose to be gay, knew they were different from their youth, and never wanted to be different. Your position is the one that requires a plethora of different scenarios and explanations. Your position is the one that is in danger. If I can find at least 1 gay person that doesn't fit the set of criteria/circumstances that you have laid out then that puts your arguments into question. stinkz: volunteshiva: Kids that grow up in a Christian household Yes. Many times people with a decent upbringing completely reject the counsel of there parents. This is the corrupt nature of man. That's a pretty abstract/all encompassing position to fall back upon to explain any other loopholes to your argument. I could use "man is imperfect" to explain away everything we do. That doesn't really get you anywhere though. It doesn't address any specifics. stinkz: Homosexuality is rampant because a) it's popular, b) the religious right dislikes it, and c) people are already OK with a multitude of other immoral sex acts. Without these three factors, among a group of people of people that are decently moral sexually, the true number of those biologically bent towards homosexuality would be more apparent. And it would be strikingly low. Much lower, I'm sure, than the number who are prone to become alcoholics. Great theory. I would like to see how you are going to show that it's correct. I don't understand why xians just don't follow the research into homosexuality being genetic and then seek to remove it from the gene pool in a few generations. Why mess with all this "it's a choice" nonsense, when that is never going to eradicate homosexuality? Just like xiainty thrives under oppression, so do other groups. Keep telling gay people their sexuality is a choice, and continue to see how fruitless the results of that position are for you. Side question, are you equally against male and female homosexuality? Most xians that talk against homosexuality use the male version... posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 hungarian kid: I'm not saying homosexuality is a disability but surely enough, some people are born withit! are you sure about that? i don't a lot about the whole issue with homosexuality, but i've heard how some guy "recovered" from homosexuality and turned straight. he used to think he was born gay, then realized he wasnt and could change his ways. but that is just one guy. is homosexuality inbred? it seems most of you simply assume that. as for me, judge the sin, not the sinner. posted by sangu |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
sangu: but i've heard how some guy "recovered" from homosexuality and turned straight. he used to think he was born gay, then realized he wasnt and could change his ways. So probably he was bisexual. Moreover I am pretty sure you could "turn around" heterosexuals to be homosexual, too. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
sangu: i don't a lot about the whole issue with homosexuality, but i've heard how some guy "recovered" from homosexuality and turned straight. he used to think he was born gay, then realized he wasnt and could change his ways. And was there an xian group that helped convert him or did it do it by himself? posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Thus the corrupt nature of man consists NOT of using his brains (= "reject the counsel of there parents") but to hold on to goatmilkers' wisdoms (= accept the knowledge of parents). Your post is indicitive of a very common, illogical, developmentalist belief ebraced by today's society. There is this vague idea of "change" which is always, in the minds of the believers, for the better. According to your theory, our world would be better off if there were no parents at all. Let the kids do whatever they want, and see what random direction they run. Because it's different, it's automatically better! Change, if our steps are not carefully planned out, has just as much chance of being a step of regression as of progression. But, I guess if you can believe that mere luck is what has caused all life on this planet, what's a few more improbabilities gunna hurt? knn: and a few guys like Caesar and Hitler (allegedly) who started wars What about the greatest conqueror of all time, Alexander the Great? The movies say he is, it must be true! knn: If you don't believe how perverted it is, then just look at countries who practice "sex only in marriage": Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria and all the other classic examples of "freedom and better living". The same applies to suppression of homosexuality: There you go again, comparing Christianity to the perversions of it. Why not pick another religion which PROMOTES morality, such as Stoicism, Confucianism, Hinduism... pretty much all of them. Every human being has an inkling that they should behave a certain way, even those in our society (if not, you wouldn't see so many people trying to appease their conscience through Veganism or Environmentalism). However, our corrupt society keeps telling kids to ignore the notion to act morally, and instead do whatever the hell makes them "feel good." And the worst part is, they feel good about themselves for telling them that. knn: Step #1: Don't allow divorce "immoral, immoral"
Step #2: You will get divorce everywhere. It's not about allowing or disallowing. I have never said that the government should be able to tell you whether or not you can have a divorce. volunteshiva: If I can find at least 1 gay person that doesn't fit the set of criteria/circumstances that you have laid out then that puts your arguments into question. Why? That doesn't make sense. I have never claimed that there couldn't possibly be a homosexual who was biologically bent towards it. I'm merely stating that biology is not what accounts for it's popularity. volunteshiva: Why mess with all this "it's a choice" nonsense Because it IS a choice. No matter how much a person's biology may make him WANT to be immoral, he still has a will. The will to act in accordance with what humanity has taught us is decent behaviour. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
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 13 October 2008, 06:55 php B.B. |