if you're going to be patronising, don't be a hypocrite as well. you called me stupid, calling somebody stupid is derogatory and arguementative. i'm having a discussion without the use of insults. this is cleary a concept you are new to, oh ancient ruler of Ichigo's forums. oh, and i'm 15. i don't care for how old you are, but you still can't spell a 3-letter word, so clearly it is not a case of age before wisdom.
i'm not going to argue with what you say anymore, because i don't want enemies.

haha cleary??? now we're even

haha cleary??? now we're even
ha ha touche :heh:

^_^

o_o

I don't get it.

Nevermind.

-_-;;;

We all must understand that the bible was first made made in Hebrew. Because of this, all translations of it can be fairly ambiguous; this is a known and accepted fact. Now, in the passage about the fall of Sodom, there is no clear description of the people of Sodom that says that they are homosexual. Besides, it's the people of Sodom, not the men of Sodom. However, there is a reference to widows and orphans in Sodom which provides that the men of Sodom were not homosexual.

Also-- most people care not to remember this-- the people who translated the bible may have translated it with integrity, but it's obvious that some of those words were added by those translators to appease their own beliefs. That particular notion can clearly explain why the bible has this uncanny tendency to contradict itself.

^ Oh, Sodom. I thought God was repulsed by the men of Sodom stick it up where it doesn't belong (hence, Sodom) and thus decided to wipe the whole bunch off the face of the earth.

Or something like that.

he did. it says that when the angels appeared to lot, the men of sodom young and old all qued outside lots house demanding that lot gave them the angels so that they could have their way with them. lot instead offered his daughters to them. the men of sodom refused to have their way with lots daughters and still insisted on having the angels. thats proof enough that they were homosexuals

ok- the Bible does say that gays are bad. i don't see the problem, i'm glad i'm not because life seems much harder that way. however, there are much worse things in life than homosexuals, like murderers or rapists. nobody starts a thread saying how terrible they are.

but at the same time dont forget its meant to be a discussion. rapists and murderers everyone has the same opinions and idea. yea they're bad if anyone done that to someone i cared about etc. whereas homosexuality is different because there are loads of different views on it

Bible means shit people. If your going to start taking the Bible seriously, just shoot your self. If there is going to be such a good life after death, all parents should kill their new borns.

Also Shez, the reason why no one starts a topic about rapist and murderers is because everyone already agrees, from the start, that they are bad. Gays how ever, have had mixed feelings focused at them. Some say its okay, others dont. You cant really say that homosexuals are evil and bad either because they havent hurt anyone with their sexual urges.

~

I find that Homosexuality is not only normal but 100% natural. You can say what you want, but its shown up in other animals too. You can also say that hetro's are more common thus its the only natural thing. But then I can say that because Asians are more common then any other race, Asians are the only natural race. If you start hating homosexuals and say its okay because its wrong and diffrent, why we we all join the KKK and say its okay because others are diffrent? Diffrences is what makes all people unique, and if you cant accspet that everyone is humans no matter what then poo on you.

If you start hating homosexuals and say its okay because its wrong and diffrent, why we we all join the KKK and say its okay because others are diffrent? Diffrences is what makes all people unique, and if you cant accspet that everyone is humans no matter what then poo on you.

Then you would be poo on from what you said before. Your unacceptance of people who take the bible seriously just prove that you can't accept people that are different from you. A lack of a normal level of testosterone might explain homosexuality in a scentific sense. You have to decide if you call a male lacking of that hormone a NORMAL male.

Is this thread becoming a flame thread? Its about discussion, not about who is poo or who should shoot themselves, or what god says. If you want to flame, take it to the pms.

My Opinions on everything said so far:

Even though I do not believe in god (non-athiest but does not follow any religion yet) I still question people why do they think homosexuals are born that way? or why they think homosexuals chose their sexual orientation to like the same sex? I did not choose who I want to like, and even before I started liking guys I liked girls alot. To me its all psycological and 3% unknown.


haha how stupid are you. hod didnt make gay people, he codemns them.

I might not know alot about god, but I've heard from people that God made life on earth, right? So that includes Homosexuals in a literal term. So if that contradicted your first statement, then it must've voided your second statement.

I don't see the contradiction. God made Adam and Eve. Some of their descendants became homosexuals. God condemns those that strays from his Destiny Plan. It's like saying, Bill Gates made Windows, but he condemns people using Windows to do wrong. Where is the contradiction?

If God made life on earth then that means god must had made homosexuals.


haha how stupid are you. hod didnt make gay people, he codemns them.

So in his words: hod didnt make gay people, he codemns them.

Which it is really: God makes people on earth which includes homosexuals, does that mean that he does not condemn them?

anyway I'm not going to go deeper into this because of course I am not religious.

However, about the Adam and Eve, how do you know if they really existed? The bible cannot be considered as proof, because words in a book arent always correct.

(Sorry for going offtopic, I'm stopping from this point.)

many stories in the bible, particuarly the old testament are metaphors that have meanings so that they can be interpreted throughout generations. Noahs ark cannot have happened because it is impossible to fit two of every animal in the world into one ship, however the story can be interpreted as righteous people (Moses) being spared from Gods wrath, as all the people God was disgusted with were drowned.
I don't think Adam and Eve is supposed to be interpreted literally, it is there to teach people that they should obey Gods rules.

I'm very much not a religious person, it's just what i've taken in from religious studies.:)

Hiei, i'm not arguing with you, i'm just saying how i think the Bible is written. I share your views on homosexuality (i tink):\

who would of thought people would make a big deal over me saying hod instead of God

I think this topic is touching a little to much on the religious side and people are going to start getting pissy and bitchy if people don't stop...

So continuing with something other then religious views...

Why is it people call themselves homophobes? Doesn't phobic, come from phobia, which means fear of, or fears? Do you really think people discriminating or yelling, or beating gays to a bloody pulp is someone whom has a phobia of gay people? Or is just ignorant?

*sigh* That's just my view of it...

haha how stupid are you. hod didnt make gay people, he codemns them. there was a place called sodom and gomora and it was filled with homosexuals and god so hated homosexuality that he destroyed the city. if your are a homosexual you goto hell. yet how can you say god made it. that in itself is ignorance.
A personal opinion is as ive said many times before. I dont hate gays, i had a friend at college who was an extremely camp gay and he made each lesson a funny and pleasant 1. I just dont agree with what they do thats all

being homosexual is not a choice. do you think that homosexuals choose to wake up everyday knowing that God hates them? do you think they want to wake up, knowing they have broken dreams of their parents wanting to have grandchildren? Do you think they want to go to school, just to get scolded and beaten because they are different? Do you honestly think that it's a choice to be gay? Everyday, christian homosexuals wake up, thinking that they are going to rot in hell because they are different, that they can't help but how they feel. i know many, who wish they weren't like that, but they are. they pray everyday and night, praying for years that God would change them, or atleast help them. Praying that they wouldn't be that way so they didn't have to rot in hell. It's people like you that make them commit suicide...make them hate themselves to an extent that they choose to not live rather than go on...knowing that God hates them. Not just you, but others who discriminate, beat, make fun of...

It's even scientificly proven that (i wasn't really paying attention in health but i heard this part) that Some male hormones...er pheremones er something or other are attracted to other male...hor....thingys. they can't help how they feel.

You have just proven another point about Christianity. God isnt merciful. If he was he would have help those who pray about their homosexuality, but did he? I guess not ._.

And theres no scientific reason why some are gay and others arnt. Its like trying to prove why your brother likes apples but you like pears instead.

there is no evidence in the ORIGINAL HEBREW bible that states that the Lord condems homosexuals. So please, don't criticize my Lord RD.

*sigh* Really this is turning to religious for it's own good...There ARE people who can be easily offended when it comes to religion. Like me maybe? x3 Radical you know from first hand experiance I'm touchy about it ><

Basically my point is, please don't make offending comments on anyone's religion. That's how wars and violence has been started x3

But to make a point, God didn't make ANYONE a specific way, or so the bible has said. People say that homosexauls are born that way, but it's really just a decision or liking they've come to on their own. So my point is, we all have our free choices and opinions on things, and those need to be respected.

there is no evidence in the ORIGINAL HEBREW bible that states that the Lord condems homosexuals. So please, don't criticize my Lord RD.

So are you Jewish or Christian?

X=

Sorry, I just had to say that. Im going to drop it now for our friendship :D

It's people like you that make them commit suicide...make them hate themselves to an extent that they choose to not live rather than go on...knowing that God hates them. Not just you, but others who discriminate, beat, make fun of...

What part of I dont hate homosexuals did you not understand. theres a difference between beliefs and attitudes.

My belief: God condemns those that are homosexuals, I can't change it I cant ignore it, Im a christian, I'm a believer, Im not going to ignore something that I believe in.

My attitude: heck some of the funniest people I know are gay, it seems that at times you got to be gay to have that kind of sense of humor. but I DO NOT HATE THEM, understand that rather than hating me.

you cant help how you feel, i understand that alot and I say it to loads of people, as for christians who are gay who pray not to be, I say keep praying to god with a trusting and believing heart and it will happen. God does not answer prayers right away, In the account of Daniel when he got thrown into the pit to die, he prayed to the lord to save him. It took 10 days I believe before he was saved and when the angel arrived to gim he said the moment your prayer was said it was heard, but he was battling with demons in order to try to reach him. It still occurs today, which is why things doesnt always happen the moment you pray for it. at most times because it doesnt by the time the blessing reaches the person they gave up hope and went back to their old ways.

this thread has gone more into religion than anything else but that is where most of the disputes are even in the real world.

What part of I dont hate homosexuals did you not understand. theres a difference between beliefs and attitudes.

My belief: God condemns those that are homosexuals, I can't change it I cant ignore it, Im a christian, I'm a believer, Im not going to ignore something that I believe in.

My attitude: heck some of the funniest people I know are gay, it seems that at times you got to be gay to have that kind of sense of humor. but I DO NOT HATE THEM, understand that rather than hating me.



<_< where in the hell does it say in the bible, that all homosexuals are codemned? If it says it anywhere, feel free to give me the verse. Being a christain yourself you should know that God doesn't simply damn someone. It [bible] even says "A sin as a sin as a sin..." meaning no sin is greater then the other. So even if being gay was a sin, its the same as the rest. Do you think you're codnemned because you said the F word? No. -_- please take what I have said into consideration.

look just because your gay doesnt mean oh no thats it no chance. If we "die" in our sins then we will go to hell. but its pointless for me to go on further from here. this has flamed way too much its gone off from being a discussion

I'm not gay x3

But some of my most valued friends are xK

First, let me just say that I have no love for organized religion. I could go on for hours why I oppose it, but that would be pointless. Suffice to say, I don't agree with the myriad of extraordinary claims. I may elaborate on my opinions in the religion thread, though.

Second, there is no basis to claim homosexuals choose to be gay. It should be incredibly obvious that they don't. The amount of time spent Christian fundamentalists spend trying to prove it is a choice is comical, to be blunt. As though proving that something is a choice makes it immoral!

ok, i asked my RS teacher today if homosexuality is a sin, and she said, not being gay itself, but commiting a 'gay act' is (i'll let you use your imagination).

i think the reason it has become such a religious thread is because, rather than people saying they hate a person just because they are different, they justify their actions by what is said in the bible, which is the highest, most respected literature in the world.

racism occurs because the victims are different to the racists, but the bible is never used to justify their actions because it does not teach that different ethnic groups deserve persecution.

just my two cents:sweat:

Does it really matter what sexual orientation a person is?
I'm all for human dignity. I accept everyone and I try not to judge, and if I do -- shame on me.
There are many people out there who are not used to homosexuality and it might come as a shock to them...
and there are just as many people who are accustomed to the lifestyle be it that they have family or friends who are "like that".
For me, it all comes down to whether the person in question is decent. =]

Second, there is no basis to claim homosexuals choose to be gay. It should be incredibly obvious that they don't. The amount of time spent Christian fundamentalists spend trying to prove it is a choice is comical, to be blunt. As though proving that something is a choice makes it immoral!

Heh. Christian fundamentalists can waste their time. The proof that homosexuals dont choose to be gay is right here. I never wanted to be bi, but I just am. Doesnt mean I am happy or sad with it. If you dont believe me, get a lie detector and see. So the idea of hating gays just because they chose to be gay is a stupid and an ignorant answer.


ok, i asked my RS teacher today if homosexuality is a sin, and she said, not being gay itself, but commiting a 'gay act' is (i'll let you use your imagination).

How can that be a sin? Unless of course commiting it on someone who doesnt want it does make it a sin. But what if someone is commiting a 'gay act' towards another person who doesnt mind it at all. How can that be considered a sin? (Dont make reference to the bible on this one. This time use your own logical thinking and not reference to the myths or any supernatural phenomenon.)

Just my beliefs, but to those of you who are not homosexual and believe it is a choice:

are you gay? then how can you tell me that it is a choice. you must experience first, then you can tell me whether or not it's a choice. thy shalt not judge les though be jugded.

Well hmm...how do I say this. By choose, I don't exactly mean choose like "choose the dog you want" ect. I meant...well damn it's hard to explain. Basically I beleive it just has to do with morals, beleifs and instincts, and possibly how one is raised, or how they see the world. Does that make sense? >< nope.

But in all honesty, I think no you shouldn't mix science and religion; the science being your opinions and feelings, and religion, well, that being everything else. *sigh* -.- forgive my gibberish

For the past one or two pages, we're talking about how homosexuality conflicts with the bible/god's beliefs, and if you hate it or not. Lets talk about how homosexuality can be more accepting, and throw in positive points of people who are homosexual.


I always have this belief that something can change anything. Even the strongest bond can be shattered, but it is the hardest. I feel like some people believe in god too much to actually really think for themselves and they rush into judgement saying that homosexuality is wrong because god says this or the bible said that (only some people, not all). Even if you have friends who are homosexual, and/or been with them and know all about them, I want people to really think about homosexuality in their own sense, and through their own experiences with homosexuals in their community. Sure some gays tend to really be stereotyphical and that can hurt the image of alot of gays, which leads me to another topic: stereotyping and why straight people often use such stereotyping to "play around" or "make fun".

Alot of gay guys are really nice, and they dont mean to hurt anyone. I am a guy who looks and acts straight (some cases even i dont know if I am acting feminine which i've realized by some of my friends >.>;;). A few minutes with me and we'll be good friends (maybe). To some people who are homophobic, have an open mind. Homosexuals don't always appear to be as bad as others say. Treat them like any other people, after all its like insulting another race if you really hate them (or fear them) and stay away from them.

Someone I concidered a friend at school today said Homo's should be put all onto an island, they should all die, so on and so on. That really hurt me, and got me really mad.

I cant see why people think its wrong. Its not a way of life, its not some kind of cult and its not dirty. Its just the love between two people, if others ever allow it on this damn planet. Just makes me think, is freedom really a privilage anymore? People who dont even know try to controll your personal life now, and its starting to bug me.

And I also think about who others would react if lets say I come out of the closet. I mean, I do have friends from diffrent groups. They dont know im gay. And if I just end up saying I am gay because I cant stand holding it in anymore, will it affect our friendships? I guess it is a real friend tester...

How can that be considered a sin? (Dont make reference to the bible on this one. This time use your own logical thinking and not reference to the myths or any supernatural phenomenon.)

how can i explain how something is a sin without refering to the bible? a sin is what the bible says is wrong

but yeah, i know what you mean, people should speak on behalf of their own ethics or morals, not what the Bible tells you

Basically I beleive it just has to do with morals, beleifs and instincts, and possibly how one is raised, or how they see the world. Does that make sense? >< nope.

Dude...i'm christian. but i still believe that those who "condem" homos are ignorant. (sorry)

*sigh* I really think people misunderstood what I was trying to say. I dont condemn homos. I dont hate homos. Im not gonna justify what I say just believe me when i say I dont hate them

na, it's cool. i wasn't talking about you.

Dude...i'm christian. but i still believe that those who "condem" homos are ignorant. (sorry)


>< I neyaaah I wasn't saying anything like that. I'm the same religion, and I also beleive anyone who thinks homos are condemed is ignorant. But I also know people whose opinion on that is different. Its really anyones decision on what they think about homosexaulity, but can be influenced by lots of things. (spelling okay?? >< bad day, can't think right)

There's nothing wrong with Homosexuals. To me, they'are just an ordinary person. My bestfriend in grade 5 was a Homosexual, and he admitted it, I was cool with it. He moved to a different country though, but I still keep in touch with him through msn. Homosexual or not, the person is still the same...

I'm not gay x3

But some of my most valued friends are xK

You mean me :3

Anyways, I dont think anyone should judge Homosexuals untill you have experinced it. Yes, strong words from someone who judges religions harshly, but religions only a faith, somthing that could easly be fake as it could be real. But Homosexuality is a reality, its here and you shouldnt say anything untill you know how it feels. I know some of you are trying to say good things and stuff, but still...

XD

You mean me :3


Yes of course I mean you x3

Can people actually experience homosexuality when they are not homosexuals? If I have to make a stand, I don't hate homosexuals, I have a friend who claims he is gay but he has a great personality. But when it comes to a point when they want to become transexuals, I don't think I can accept that. It becomes plain disgusting to me. If you think I am a "bad person" for thinking that transexuals are disgusting. Go ahead.

It's not discrimination, it's preaching. These "religious freaks" are doing exactly what Gid wants them to.

Call it preaching or whatever you want. It's still discrimination. The fact that you are preaching to them doesn't change the fact that you are discriminating against them. Doing what your God wants you to do justifies you no more than the terrorists at 9-11. If I say "I'm better than you because I'm an anti-Christian and all Chrsitians are going to hell", then I can just say I'm stating the facts; but I'm still discriminating.


You call them freaks because they use religion in every issue of their life.

No. I call them freaks because they can't learn when to shut the fuck up. Most homosexuals don't attack the way Christians worship their god or life their life. Christians, on the other hand, will attack homosexuals claiming superiority over them simply because they prefir to have sex with men over women. Just because religion is your lifestyle doesn't mean you have the right to interefere with the lifestyle of other people.


Jesus told us to preach the Gospel, and thus save their sould from spending eternity in Hell. What I don't understand is why when people try to tell others they are wrong they get defensive and say "fuck you, I have Free Will" or "Who are you to tell me what to do?"

So tell me. If I believed that Chrsitianity is a bunch of bullshit (which I do), and I worshipped this god named "Kabot" (which I don't), would you get pissed off if I constantly tried to 'convert' you to my religion, telling you that all your biblical scriptures were wrong, that you were living a lie, and that your god was fake? Then, when you told me I was wrong, I threatened you with hell, and to justify all the harrasment, I said I was "just trying to save you from hell"? That's right. Look in the mirror, because that's what many of you Christians are doing.


Why humans always back down and get pissed off when people try to help is beyond me

Maybe that *help* you are talking about is really just you harassing other people and justifying your actions with the bible, a book they don't believe in. Why don't I just insult you, spit at your face, punch you, hit you, and then point to a Harry Potter book and say "see, it says I'm justified here"! Would you think me to be justified in that instance?


No it is a choice that the person makes on his or her own. Scientific study shows that people who prefer a taste over another can, if they have enough of the other, 'change their mind' and prefer the other thing. That disproves your little theory.

Telling a homosexual to try having sex with a woman a few times is like telling a straight person to try having sex with a guy a few times. It just isn't going to happen; the idea is completley unappealing. And what possible reason would a homosexual have to change their mind? Because your book of contradictions said so?


Uh, that's retarded. Of course you can change how you feel, and that is what makes people change the way they act.

You're right, I retract my statement. You can change how you feel; but it takes time. I meant to say earlier, that you can't just snap your fingers and change how you feel. You must change your perspective, your situation, things like that. And in the case of homosexuality, this really isn't an option.


We aren't attacking, we're telling them to correct themselves before it's too late.

Some of you Christians attack, some of you don't. All of you are harrassing homosexuals. They don't tell you how to live your life, stop thinking you are better than they are as a human to tell them how to life. It is ridiculious to put yourself above someone just because of their preference in sex.

I agree with meim and Nightmare.

...*claps* I totally agree with you nightmare.

:cry: ...that was beautiful....

:cry: ...that was beautiful....

lol *releases dove*

Hey, I'm Christian and I don't attack people for being gay. I don't go to Church regularly or read the Bible regularly, but I still consider myself part of that religion. Hell, I'm half-Jewish, but I still consider myself Christain. Whoa.

Maybe that's why I don't think homosexuality, other religions, other cultures, etc. are "wrong." The way I see it, and the way I wish the more... zealous Christains would see it, is that homosexuals are just the next group of people to discriminate against. It's been Jews, Slavs, Blacks, Mexians, Chinese, etc., but now that racism is considered un-ethical, people are looking to new groups to get their fix of discrimination. It used to be Christians, in days of yore; back when being a known Christian meant being Roman lion food in the Colosseum. The hunted, it seems, have become the hunters.

Yeah, I know, many Christians have been pretty bad people. I live in Hawaii, and Christian missionaries were one of the primary causes of the downfall of the indiginous culture here. Same story all around the world. However, I look past all of this, into the religion itself. The Bible does have some pretty good messages, even if most "Christians" don't follow them. "Oh, we're supposed to "Love our neighbor?'" Oops! You're a hypocrite! :D

But, yes, that's part of the reason I don't go to churches and what have you. Humans, in our infinite stupidity, have tarnished the Good Book. I leave you with this: if you're using religion to justify descrimination against a group of people or even a single person, it is time to pause and reflect.

I know there are some Christian's like yourself that don't discriminate, Pyramus, but I am referring to ones like Dark Sage and the others who use the bible to justify their discrimination; or in general to justify their right to lecture another person's lifestyle.

Yes, yes, I know. I was agreeing with you; or trying to, at least.

I agree with Nightmare too.

You cant just say something's wrong because some book tells you it is- especially something so contradictory and hypocritical as the Bible.

For example- Christians (well all the one's i know) believe that incest is wrong because the Bible says so; but if they follow the Bible- take a look at Adam and Eve; the supposed first man and woman on earth- how did 2 people turn into over a million? Incest.

For example- Christians (well all the one's i know) believe that incest is wrong because the Bible says so; but if they follow the Bible- take a look at Adam and Eve; the supposed first man and woman on earth- how did 2 people turn into over a million? Incest.

Right on. :P

Right on. :P
what the? his arguement is against homophobia, it seems like you are for homophobia, so which side is it gonna be?

what the? his arguement is against homophobia, it seems like you are for homophobia, so which side is it gonna be?

Phobias are uncontrolled fears. x_x

Phobias are uncontrolled fears. x_x
yes in cases such as spiders, but the term homophobia is used generally to describe the hatred of gay people

yes in cases such as spiders, but the term homophobia is used generally to describe the hatred of gay people

Oh, no. I get unvoluntary stomach-aches, and I accept gay people as regular human beings, though I do tend to keep a certain distance from them, not because I think think they're like defective people (which I don't :heh: ), but simply because being friends with one, well, I tend to make friends due to similarities, and, in all the cases in which a gay guy has been involved with me in any way, I tend to feel that their difference is simply too much for me. Hope you understand what I mean. :sweat:

i can't really disagree with what you just said because it seems to be totally fair:lol:
it's just, theirs a difference between avoiding gay people, and then creating threads to say how degrading they make the world

i can't really disagree with what you just said because it seems to be totally fair:lol:
it's just, theirs a difference between avoiding gay people, and then creating threads to say how degrading they make the world

Well, I was trying to say that curiosity is just another example of how down we go. But now that I think of it, curiosity must've been around since the beginning of mankind, but I'm quite sure they surpressed it more often, afraid of rejection from society. :think:

I think that homosexuality is wrong, but it's really none of my business what gay pplz do in their bedrooms. . .
:think:

Call it preaching or whatever you want. It's still discrimination. The fact that you are preaching to them doesn't change the fact that you are discriminating against them. Doing what your God wants you to do justifies you no more than the terrorists at 9-11. If I say "I'm better than you because I'm an anti-Christian and all Chrsitians are going to hell", then I can just say I'm stating the facts; but I'm still discriminating.
It's not discrimination.
Discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
Prejudice: Prejudice is, as the name implies, the process of "pre-judging" something. In general, it implies coming to a judgment on the subject before learning where the preponderance of the evidence actually lies, or formation of a judgement without direct or actual experience. Holding a politically unpopular view is not in itself prejudice, and not all politically popular views are free of prejudice
I'm not doing that
That analogy is easily refutable. Terrorists can say whatever they want but the Koran (Qu'ran, whichever spelling) DOES recognize Jesus as a prophet and christians as followers. No where in that does it say all christians are going to hell. If they were to say that, it would not justify anything because it is not a fact.



No. I call them freaks because they can't learn when to shut the fuck up. Most homosexuals don't attack the way Christians worship their god or life their life. Christians, on the other hand, will attack homosexuals claiming superiority over them simply because they prefir to have sex with men over women. Just because religion is your lifestyle doesn't mean you have the right to interefere with the lifestyle of other people.
Superiority? Now that I think about it that is implied but not a direct reason. The Bible specifically says "And from the beginning of time, He created man, and from him woman, and through divine help they live in unison". A lot of people believe that individual people dont go into heaven but salvation must be attained by society as a whole, and if people go against it, then yes it is affecting us.
When you read in the paper or hear on the news about a murderer who kills 3 people on purpose, you immediately think that he sgould be punished. Why? It's not affecting you, so like you just said what gives you the right to interfere with his life? What if he believes the people were evil and should be killed?


So tell me. If I believed that Chrsitianity is a bunch of bullshit (which I do), and I worshipped this god named "Kabot" (which I don't), would you get pissed off if I constantly tried to 'convert' you to my religion, telling you that all your biblical scriptures were wrong, that you were living a lie, and that your god was fake? Then, when you told me I was wrong, I threatened you with hell, and to justify all the harrasment, I said I was "just trying to save you from hell"? That's right. Look in the mirror, because that's what many of you Christians are doing.
Well you can believe that, and you'd be wrong. How are homosexuals trying to save us from hell? This argument has no comparison or integration into your argument.



Maybe that *help* you are talking about is really just you harassing other people and justifying your actions with the bible, a book they don't believe in. Why don't I just insult you, spit at your face, punch you, hit you, and then point to a Harry Potter book and say "see, it says I'm justified here"! Would you think me to be justified in that instance?
I'm not harassing other people. Stop saying that I do this to people, there are like 1.8 billion christians in the world, you hear about a few thousand doing this and you automatically judge all the other ones. ]That makes YOU the one who is discriminating, not me.



Telling a homosexual to try having sex with a woman a few times is like telling a straight person to try having sex with a guy a few times. It just isn't going to happen; the idea is completley unappealing. And what possible reason would a homosexual have to change their mind? Because your book of contradictions said so?
Celibacy, that simple
You have to be one of the biggest hypocrites in the world. You attack me for discriminating but that is exactly what you are doing now. The Bible is not a book of contradiction, ask any biblical researcher, nearly every story and passage in the bible has historical reference and predictions made over 5,000 years ago have come true, like the invention of cars, cell phones, world war two, hitler, the atomic bomb, space exploration, more than you can imagine.



You're right, I retract my statement. You can change how you feel; but it takes time. I meant to say earlier, that you can't just snap your fingers and change how you feel. You must change your perspective, your situation, things like that. And in the case of homosexuality, this really isn't an option.




Some of you Christians attack, some of you don't. All of you are harrassing homosexuals. They don't tell you how to live your life, stop thinking you are better than they are as a human to tell them how to life. It is ridiculious to put yourself above someone just because of their preference in sex.
I am not harassing homosexuals. If you or them interpret it that way then you have my pity, but it's my duty to attempt to teach people. Where mot people are mistaken is here: Jesus never told anyone to force someone to believe. We called him "Teacher" because he taught us and we learned from him. That is the approach I take. If others don't, then yes they are wrong, but the message they are trying to convey is still the same.

Again I say this; what is written in the bible really true? Through all those predictions you have said, it never directly said that the 911 event is going to happen. They all gave hints of what happened, and that can be taken many ways. So saying that the bible said that the world war happened isnt neccesarily true.

Also, dont teach others christianity or anything related unless you are proving a point of your own (which is done). If we wanted to know anything about christianity, we can ask.

It's not discrimination.
Discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
Prejudice: Prejudice is, as the name implies, the process of "pre-judging" something. In general, it implies coming to a judgment on the subject before learning where the preponderance of the evidence actually lies, or formation of a judgement without direct or actual experience. Holding a politically unpopular view is not in itself prejudice, and not all politically popular views are free of prejudice
I'm not doing that

You are making a pre-judgement that you are better then they are; ie. your lifestyle is better then theirs is and thus you need to correct it. I call it discrimination for you seem, appear, or otherwise display that because your lifestyle is better then theirs, you gain the authority to tell them how to live their life. I call this unfair treatment of homosexuals, because they don't tell you how to live your life, yet you tell them how to live theirs over your own false sense of superiority.


That analogy is easily refutable. Terrorists can say whatever they want but the Koran (Qu'ran, whichever spelling) DOES recognize Jesus as a prophet and christians as followers. No where in that does it say all christians are going to hell. If they were to say that, it would not justify anything because it is not a fact.

The point of the analogy was not to show how accurate the Koran was, whether or not it reocgnized Jesus as a prophet, or if all Christians were going to hell. It was to show that religion doesn't justify one's actions.


Superiority? Now that I think about it that is implied but not a direct reason. The Bible specifically says "And from the beginning of time, He created man, and from him woman, and through divine help they live in unison".

Yes, superiority. It seems by the question mark, you disagree. Answer me the following questions:

Do you believe homosexuality is wrong?
Do you think that your view is correct?
If you answered yes to both of these, then do you think your view is better than theirs?
If you answered yes to the previous question, do you think your entitled to tell them how to live?

If you've answered yes to all four of these, then you are thinking you are superior to homosexuals. Why? Because you feel you have authority above them to tell them how to live their life.


A lot of people believe that individual people dont go into heaven but salvation must be attained by society as a whole, and if people go against it, then yes it is affecting us.

I don't know what your outlook on the bible is, but I believe individuals go into heaven if they believe in what the bible says about the requirements and make a commitment to those requirements. Accepting Christ is a personal choice, not one made in a group. I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'salvation must be attained by society as a whole', when the bible clearly explains that it is a choice made by each individual person.

Heaven/salvation does NOT need/is required to be attained by society as a whole. Nowhere in the bible does it say this. It does mention that you should try and get as many people as you can to side with you on your Christian beliefs, or convert people. But nowhere does it mention salvation being required to be attained by salvation as a whole. Or at least I have yet to read such a verse, so perhaps you could provide me one?

As for people going against it, that should only help you and make you stronger. "Blessed is anyone who endures temptation Such a one has stood the test and will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him." James 1:12 and also "My brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance, and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing." James 1:2-4

View opposition to your religion as a trial, a test. Not a reason to justify you lecturing homoseuxals even more. Just because it affects you, doesn't mean you should persist in telling homosexuals how to live. You don't think all your preaching to the homosexuals doesn't have an effect on them? Get real! You're only making their lives even more difficult to live. So what if you save a few, when you are hurting and upseting hundreds of others. You're going out and attacking them. They aren't hurting you, you're hurting them.


When you read in the paper or hear on the news about a murderer who kills 3 people on purpose, you immediately think that he sgould be punished. Why? It's not affecting you, so like you just said what gives you the right to interfere with his life? What if he believes the people were evil and should be killed?

The prime difference between using this as an example in comparison to homosexuality, is that murder actually has a negative impact on people. The victim, in this case. And fact, if the murderer gets caught (and often, they do), then it has a negative impact on them. There is not really a comparison to a murderer and a homosexual, because in a homosexual relationship, both people are benefiting from it. In the relationship of murderer to victim, both people are suffering from it.

Do I need to explain to you how murder is wrong? You can't find anything wrong with homosexuality. More rather, you can only say "the bible says its wrong", and maybe "man wasn't supposed to live that way". There is no negative effect that homosexuality has on people, at least not any that a normal straight relationship can't have. Homosexuality is mutally benefitial to both people, murder isn't. We can't let murder go on, because it wrong and it hurts people. Homosexuality does not, and so there is no reason we should attack it if it isn't hurt anyone.



Well you can believe that, and you'd be wrong. How are homosexuals trying to save us from hell? This argument has no comparison or integration into your argument.

I told you I didn't believe that, I was using it as an example. It does have an integration into my arguement: to show what you Christians are doing, and what homosexuals aren't. I was trying to put this into a perspective of someone attacking your religion and telling you how you were wrong, to get you to understand what it would be like. If you got upset or irritable when someone constantly was attacking your religion, which is a lifestyle, then maybe you would understand how homosexuals feel. Thus, if you were to understand that it is upsetting to have other people constantly attacking your lifestyle, then maybe you would realize that it isn't any different for the homosexuals you attack.



I'm not harassing other people. Stop saying that I do this to people, there are like 1.8 billion christians in the world, you hear about a few thousand doing this and you automatically judge all the other ones. ]That makes YOU the one who is discriminating, not me.

I don't know where you got this statistic, but I can assure you it's WAY off. There are over 6.4 billion people in this world, and now way is such a large perecent of the people in this world Christian. When I refer to 'you christians', I am refering to the Christans that constantly are trying to convert homosexuals, using the methods I inferred above. Since you were defending them, by saying they were justified in constantly going after homosexuals because they were trying to save them, I put you into this group. It wasn't discrimination, I had grounds to make such a judgement. My apologies if you aren't one of them, but you are still defending those who do.


Celibacy, that simple
You have to be one of the biggest hypocrites in the world. You attack me for discriminating but that is exactly what you are doing now. The Bible is not a book of contradiction, ask any biblical researcher, nearly every story and passage in the bible has historical reference and predictions made over 5,000 years ago have come true, like the invention of cars, cell phones, world war two, hitler, the atomic bomb, space exploration, more than you can imagine.

As I said before, I'm not discriminating against you. By your own posted definitions, my grounds for judging you weren't pre-made judgements. They were made by your posts and your defense for those who do harass homosexuals. I'm not going to try and debate with you the accuracy of the bible in this thread, but I'd be more than happy to do that with you in the religion thread. If you would like, though, I could certainly give you some contradictions in that thread.



I am not harassing homosexuals. If you or them interpret it that way then you have my pity, but it's my duty to attempt to teach people. Where mot people are mistaken is here: Jesus never told anyone to force someone to believe. We called him "Teacher" because he taught us and we learned from him. That is the approach I take. If others don't, then yes they are wrong, but the message they are trying to convey is still the same.

Again, if the homosexuals you are speaking don't feel at all harassed or bothered by your lectures, then my apologies for this judgement. I'm not telling you to not teach your biblical views, but to not teach or stop teaching where the teaching is unwanted. Do you think it is wrong for me to believe that you should do this?

Something I can't understand is why homosexuals just keep insisting or believing that they are being discriminated or stereotyped when heterosexuals have already tell them that they are not going to care about their sexuality and going to accept them as they are? What do they really want others to do? What do they consider as not being discriminated or treated fairly? They have a choice to be homosexual, or maybe no choice in choosing depending on whatever kind of thinking, then why not the other way round where others have a choice of thinking homosexuality is unnatural or maybe they are born in a certain society to think that way. I really want to know the answers to the questions above.

Meim,that is the biggest load of horse shit I've heard. the majority were born homosuxual. it's nothing they asked to be.

I was born transgendered, it is different than being Homosexual but the discrimination is the same. I did not ask to be the way I am, but I would rather try to be who I am and be happy, then to live a lie by trying to live as my birth gender and be miserable. Same with Gays. They choose to be happy, and to be themselves, that is the only choice they make. so lay off the crap and use your own brain for once!

Something I can't understand is why homosexuals just keep insisting or believing that they are being discriminated or stereotyped when heterosexuals have already tell them that they are not going to care about their sexuality and going to accept them as they are?

You say that Hetro's do not discriminate twords Homo's, yet, do you know every Hetro that ever exsisted? If your so right, then why is it every day you can hear people say rude and stupid comments about Homosexuals? Either you have no social life, you dont go out ever, your sense impaired or just plain stupid.


What do they really want others to do?

The same things that Blacks wanted in the 60's. Dont we all want to be treated fairly and not be given a rude look when we make a small comment about our sexual preference?

An example: You should know about the movie Brokeback Mountian, right? Unless you live under a rock, you should. A movie about a hidden Homosexual relationship. People actualy say thats a gross movie. Its wrong. A cenima actualy refused to have airings of the movie because it was about homosexuals.

And you say that Homosexuals arnt treated diffrently?

Heterosexuals have the right to think that homosexuality is gross, as homosexuals have the right to think that heterosexuality is; but that doesn't mean that if heterosexuals do think that it's unpleasant, they automatically dislike homosexuals.

BTW, I haven't heard of that movie, and I don't live under a rock... though I do live in the most isolated spot in the world (for it's population).

Something I can't understand is why homosexuals just keep insisting or believing that they are being discriminated or stereotyped when heterosexuals have already tell them that they are not going to care about their sexuality and going to accept them as they are?
You say that Hetro's do not discriminate twords Homo's, yet, do you know every Hetro that ever exsisted? If your so right, then why is it every day you can hear people say rude and stupid comments about Homosexuals? Either you have no social life, you dont go out ever, your sense impaired or just plain stupid.

What do they really want others to do?
The same things that Blacks wanted in the 60's. Dont we all want to be treated fairly and not be given a rude look when we make a small comment about our sexual preference?

An example: You should know about the movie Brokeback Mountian, right? Unless you live under a rock, you should. A movie about a hidden Homosexual relationship. People actualy say thats a gross movie. Its wrong. A cenima actualy refused to have airings of the movie because it was about homosexuals.

And you say that Homosexuals arnt treated diffrently?

Heterosexuals have the right to think that homosexuality is gross, as homosexuals have the right to think that heterosexuality is; but that doesn't mean that if heterosexuals do think that it's unpleasant, they automatically dislike homosexuals.

I agree....

I live under a rock....

I dont think homosexuality is wrong, per se, I think gay marriage is wrong. People say all the time that marriage is about love not gender, and perhaps that might have some validity, but marriage is about RELIGION. It is a religious thing that the government copied because of marriages still has to be recognized after separation of church and state

I dont think homosexuality is wrong, per se, I think gay marriage is wrong. People say all the time that marriage is about love not gender, and perhaps that might have some validity, but marriage is about RELIGION. It is a religious thing that the government copied because of marriages still has to be recognized after separation of church and state

Says you! Put yourself in our position.
I can never marry because of that bullshit.
How would you feel if you could never marry the one you love?

I was raised catholic and I have only two words to say about them, and I quote "Fuck them!" They beat, tortued, and ultimately burned people like me alive. They are no better then the Nazis! and by defending them so are you!

I dont think homosexuality is wrong, per se, I think gay marriage is wrong. People say all the time that marriage is about love not gender, and perhaps that might have some validity, but marriage is about RELIGION. It is a religious thing that the government copied because of marriages still has to be recognized after separation of church and state

Bullshit! Marriage is not all about religion. There are hundreds and thousands of atheists who get married and not for religion. Just because the government started it for religious purposes, doesn't mean people who marry must do it out of religion. What do you think halloween started as? It was originally a tradition to drive out evil spirits. Yet now, it has come so far from it's originally purpose, it's nothing more than kids going door to door in costumes getting candy.

Marriage, at least in the United States, is about love, and is a way to unite a couple so that they may become soul mates. Just because it started for religious purpose doesn't mean it's used now as such. Very few people actually marry for religion; they marry to become united.

Wrong. That is what people think Marriage has become now. The government did not start marriage. The Church did, as a sacrament. Because in the US church and state are separated, but marriages are still recognized, they had to sorta copy it over. Marriage is the sacrament when the souls of the two people join together. The government cannot do that. Love is not the purpose, true you wont marry someone you dont love, but people don't get married because they love each other they get married to unite their souls. If people don't understand what the word "marriage" really means they shouldn't even get married.

Wrong. That is what people think Marriage has become now. The government did not start marriage. The Church did, as a sacrament. Because in the US church and state are separated, but marriages are still recognized, they had to sorta copy it over. Marriage is the sacrament when the souls of the two people join together. The government cannot do that. Love is not the purpose, true you wont marry someone you dont love, but people don't get married because they love each other they get married to unite their souls. If people don't understand what the word "marriage" really means they shouldn't even get married.


MARRIAGE: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

There is nothing in there that explains your argument. I dont care if you back it up with your bible, but in our normal context marriage is not related to religion or has very little to do with religion. We don't care if it was religious a billion years ago, because we are talking about today, and today's society. If you want to back your theory up by the bible or any type of text, I will back mine up by my dictionaries and thesaurus (sp).

And your argument failed, ftw by a dictionary.

Marriage is the sacrament when the souls of the two people join together.Is that the only correct interpretation of a marriage?

MARRIAGE: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

There is nothing in there that explains your argument. I dont care if you back it up with your bible, but in our normal context marriage is not related to religion or has very little to do with religion. We don't care if it was religious a billion years ago, because we are talking about today, and today's society. If you want to back your theory up by the bible or any type of text, I will back mine up by my dictionaries and thesaurus (sp).

And your argument failed, ftw by a dictionary.
The definition of the word Marriage deviated from it's original during the Scientific Revolution and the enlightenment (1700-1800s). Funny thing is that those people thought they could just change the meaning of a word because they wanted to. Well marriage IS about religion, if you're homosexual call it something else.

The definition of the word Marriage deviated from it's original during the Scientific Revolution and the enlightenment (1700-1800s). Funny thing is that those people thought they could just change the meaning of a word because they wanted to. Well marriage IS about religion, if you're homosexual call it something else.See Neologism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism).

EDIT: Or not. Now where's that pesky link . . .

The definition of the word Marriage deviated from it's original during the Scientific Revolution and the enlightenment (1700-1800s). Funny thing is that those people thought they could just change the meaning of a word because they wanted to. Well marriage IS about religion, if you're homosexual call it something else.

If your not homosexual, you can still call it something else. Everyone I've known agrees with me on how marriage isnt directly religious. If such a matter is that hard for you to cope to its recent definition today, then you may name your definition of a marriage to another name because we all follow today's definition of a marriage.

And why are we talking about marriage? We should be focusing on gay marriage and the such instead of marriage overall. Even if you say marriage is religious its not going to have much impact on our lives since we will cope with the recent definition of marriage and not think about it as a religious ceremony (except a few people.)

MARRIAGE: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

There is nothing in there that explains your argument. I dont care if you back it up with your bible, but in our normal context marriage is not related to religion or has very little to do with religion. We don't care if it was religious a billion years ago, because we are talking about today, and today's society. If you want to back your theory up by the bible or any type of text, I will back mine up by my dictionaries and thesaurus (sp).

And your argument failed, ftw by a dictionary.



Right on Hiei!

You said it!

The definition of the word Marriage deviated from it's original during the Scientific Revolution and the enlightenment (1700-1800s). Funny thing is that those people thought they could just change the meaning of a word because they wanted to. Well marriage IS about religion, if you're homosexual call it something else.

Again, that doesn't really matter. Just as the purpose of Halloween has changed, so has the purpose of marriage. Maybe people used the term religiously years ago, but they sure as hell don't now. Marriage is NOT about religion, it is about love. It WAS about religion, maybe, but just look at the definition. I don't understand how you are still stuck on the concept that just because something meant something years ago doesn't mean it has to mean the same thing in the present.

Marriage was, not is, about religion. This is a fact. Just look at the definition that Hiei used. That is a commonly used way of marriage. Why don't you find me a definition of marriage from a reputable source that supports your idea that it is meant soley for religion. And you know what? Even if you did (which you probaly won't), that doesn't change a thing, because marriage is still meant for uniting two lovers by the more commonly used definition.

why is it every day you can hear people say rude and stupid comments about Homosexuals? Either you have no social life, you dont go out ever, your sense impaired or just plain stupid.

I don't hear rude and stupid comments about homosexuals every day. That doesn't mean I am anything you describe, it is just that we live in different countries and I am glad you enlightened me that some countries actually ban brokeback mountain. Sorry Animeniac, if I said anything offensive.

I am not going to join in the gay marriage discussion, after all some countries already legalised gay marriage so homosexuals can just marry there. I don't think we should judge whether gay marriage is "morally right or wrong". Actually, I think it should be their own choice whether they want to get married and not left to everyone else's verdict.

Again, that doesn't really matter. Just as the purpose of Halloween has changed, so has the purpose of marriage. Maybe people used the term religiously years ago, but they sure as hell don't now. Marriage is NOT about religion, it is about love. It WAS about religion, maybe, but just look at the definition. I don't understand how you are still stuck on the concept that just because something meant something years ago doesn't mean it has to mean the same thing in the present.

Marriage was, not is, about religion. This is a fact. Just look at the definition that Hiei used. That is a commonly used way of marriage. Why don't you find me a definition of marriage from a reputable source that supports your idea that it is meant soley for religion. And you know what? Even if you did (which you probaly won't), that doesn't change a thing, because marriage is still meant for uniting two lovers by the more commonly used definition.

You can't just change the meaning of a word. The purpose of Halloween has never changed. The things people do on Halloween have only changed. That's like saying that if gradually over 100 years people started using the word "right" to mean wrong. They can believe whatever they want, but they're wrong. You can't just change the purpose of something because some people dont like it. If they dont like it, they should come up with a new name for their 'union'.

If so, let us beleave what we want. Marriage is no more then a legal bonding between two people (in love). It may not have been that hundereds of years ago, but it is now. Were not talking about what you lived like in the time of the cave people Darksage, were talking about now.

And if Halloween hasnt changed, then what do you do on October 31? Most people just go out, dress up, get drunk and get candy. Im sure that has nothing to do with the original purpose. And if it did, most people dont even know what that original purpose is. Life changes over the years, and its people who are scared of change (like you) who dont want life to change.

No. come up with another name for your gay unions. Marriage is between a man and a woman

And I never said Halloween hasn't changed. I said the purpose did not change.

Ill say it agian. Most people dont even know the purpose of Halloween, so they must be celebrating a meaningless holiday.

And anyways, find me someone who celebrates Holloween for its original purpose and ill be happy.

~

I have a name for the gay marriage! Yes, marriage. Gay people can already get unions in most places that dont allow gay marriges FYI. Well, anyways, we can call it Mariage.

No. come up with another name for your gay unions. Marriage is between a man and a woman

And I never said Halloween hasn't changed. I said the purpose did not change.


Three very special words for you.

GO FUCK YOURSELF!

If I weren't against violence and you tried preaching that shit to my face you'd be in the hospital in a few seconds. Well either that or beaten to a bloody pulp and left for dead.


You need to just grow up and either change with the times, or die with the past you stupid Nazi!

Three very special words for you.

GO FUCK YOURSELF!

If I weren't against violence and you tried preaching that shit to my face you'd be in the hospital in a few seconds. Well either that or beaten to a bloody pulp and left for dead.


You need to just grow up and either change with the times, or die with the past you stupid Nazi!

Well by the looks of things you are having an intelligent debate on homosexuality. I'm just gonna go away now.

Darksage, the term for gay marriage is also marriage. Proven by dictionary, backed up by a dictionary, and I abide by my dictionary just like you abide by your bible.

Refer back to the definition of marriage:

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

As you can see, marriage also includes homosexual marriage.

Please move on, since it is pointless on arguing a case on marriage when it is realy proven right infront of you.

DarkSage: Please do not refer back to acient traditions, because we are trying to keep up with the present, rather than what shouldve been in the past. Thanks for presenting your argument, however it was not very appreciated as do our arguments so please change topic to another.

Sorry everyone. My last message was a little harsh.
I hope no one's too upset at the foul language I used.

I just get so mad over the subject. Hope you all can forgive me for that.

You can't just change the meaning of a word. The purpose of Halloween has never changed. The things people do on Halloween have only changed. That's like saying that if gradually over 100 years people started using the word "right" to mean wrong. They can believe whatever they want, but they're wrong. You can't just change the purpose of something because some people dont like it. If they dont like it, they should come up with a new name for their 'union'.

You're right, you can't just change the meaning of a word, it takes time. I disagree with you completely. The purpose of Halloween has changed. Maybe not the original purpose, but the purpose has been redefined.

If people gradually over 100 years started to use the word 'right' to be a synonym of wrong, then the meaning would change, and if you looked it up in the dictionary, the word wrong would also have the word right in the definition. But you're right. You can't change the purpose by snapping your fingers if others don't like it. It takes time. Purposes can be changed. You can't change a purpose right away if you don't like it, but get enough people to help you and over time it can change.

You're right, you can't just change the meaning of a word, it takes time. I disagree with you completely. The purpose of Halloween has changed. Maybe not the original purpose, but the purpose has been redefined.

If people gradually over 100 years started to use the word 'right' to be a synonym of wrong, then the meaning would change, and if you looked it up in the dictionary, the word wrong would also have the word right in the definition. But you're right. You can't change the purpose by snapping your fingers if others don't like it. It takes time. Purposes can be changed. You can't change a purpose right away if you don't like it, but get enough people to help you and over time it can change.

Although off-topic, I agree. Meaning is only relative to how many people believe that it is what it is.

I think Christmas is a better example of something that's been changed. It used to be something to drive out bad spirits from old Germanic times, the Christians made it the celebration of the birth of Jesus because they couldn't drive out the feast so they had to make it their own.

If marriage doesn't belong to gays Christmas doesn't belong to Christians, it's as easy as that.

^ wow! that really is a good point:think:

Three very special words for you.

GO FUCK YOURSELF!

If I weren't against violence and you tried preaching that shit to my face you'd be in the hospital in a few seconds. Well either that or beaten to a bloody pulp and left for dead.


You need to just grow up and either change with the times, or die with the past you stupid Nazi!
Impressive, you managed to make a pointless post but still use proper English. Now that you've voiced your mind don't flame me anymore.


You're right, you can't just change the meaning of a word, it takes time. I disagree with you completely. The purpose of Halloween has changed. Maybe not the original purpose, but the purpose has been redefined.

If people gradually over 100 years started to use the word 'right' to be a synonym of wrong, then the meaning would change, and if you looked it up in the dictionary, the word wrong would also have the word right in the definition. But you're right. You can't change the purpose by snapping your fingers if others don't like it. It takes time. Purposes can be changed. You can't change a purpose right away if you don't like it, but get enough people to help you and over time it can change.
You misunderstood me. when I said "You can't just change. . ." I did not use "just" as a reference to time. I meant that a word's definiton(s) are it's definitions, and thats the end of it. Do what everybody else does and coin your own word for gay unions and hope the websters committee adds it to their dictionary next year.
A purpose is concrete. if a chess club leader's purpose is to make half of the school join the club and train then, but he fails because no one joins, he disbands the club. He just doesn't keep the name "Chess Club" and teach the kids how to play checkers, he ends it and creates the "Checkers Club" for it.



I think Christmas is a better example of something that's been changed. It used to be something to drive out bad spirits from old Germanic times, the Christians made it the celebration of the birth of Jesus because they couldn't drive out the feast so they had to make it their own.

If marriage doesn't belong to gays Christmas doesn't belong to Christians, it's as easy as that.
"Christmas" Is the birth of Jesus. December 25th is the day you're talking about. And Dec. 25 was chosen for the birth of Jesus because no one knew the exact day but in Persia a God called Mithra (strikingly similar to Jesus) was supposedly born on that day.
But just because people give each other presents on christmas doesn't mean that's it's purpose.
They aren't "Christmas presents" (lol I never got that, if it's Jesus' birthday why the hell do we get the presents), they are presents you just happen to give people on christmas day.

Actually not really. Did you ever really do your homework on the past of the church? If you knew anything you'd know they were not at all much different then Hitler, and the Nazis. Burning people cause they didn't like them. Your beliefs are dying, so go die with them.

Actually not really. Did you ever really do your homework on the past of the church? If you knew anything you'd know they were not at all much different then Hitler, and the Nazis. Burning people cause they didn't like them. Your beliefs are dying, so go die with them.If you are incapable of presenting your argument in a civilised manner, I urge you to resign from this discussion immediately. Your passionate exclamations are only undermining the argument for your side. That, and you are presenting a an incomplete picture of the church. It is no different from some of the way how homosexuals are being discriminated against, really. It's not as if you've not heard of "Gays spread AIDS" and the like. You're not too far from becoming one of the discriminators if you have the same mindset, albeit with different final objectives.


But just because people give each other presents on christmas doesn't mean that's it's purpose.So tell me, what is Christmas' purpose?

He thinks it's to celebrate the birth of Christ, which is obviously not true.

How's this: The Christian Church say that being gay is wrong. That same Christian Church also kept saying that the Earth is flat, that the sun circled around the Earth and that Condoms don't stop the HIV virus.

Yep, I really believe that great Christian church <_<

I wouldn't go as far as beating you up and killing you, Darksage, but really, you need to open up your eyes, dude.

If you are incapable of presenting your argument in a civilised manner, I urge you to resign from this discussion immediately. Your passionate exclamations are only undermining the argument for your side. That, and you are presenting a an incomplete picture of the church. It is no different from some of the way how homosexuals are being discriminated against, really. It's not as if you've not heard of "Gays spread AIDS" and the like. You're not too far from becoming one of the discriminators if you have the same mindset, albeit with different final objectives.

So tell me, what is Christmas' purpose?

forget it, someone like you could never come to understand what I and people like me have to put up with.

you can talk about it all you want. but until you've experienced it you'l never truely know.

Don't you get it? This whole argument is pointless! What is it doing other than having conflicting opinions clash.

Things are changing, but change takes time. As does all real progress in life.


Further more Christmas has noting to do with Homosexuality so you're off topic.
And don't tell me what to do either. I don't take crap from anyone. Especially some brat who's more likely than not younger than I am.

I meant that a word's definiton(s) are it's definitions, and thats the end of it.

You see, this is what I don't understand. Where on earth did you get the idea that you can't redefine something? Who told you that, or how did you come up with this incorrect believe? Words are changing constantly, being redefine over and over again. Who says you can't redefine something? You are make no sense whatsover. It's not a written rule, or anything.


Do what everybody else does and coin your own word for gay unions and hope the websters committee adds it to their dictionary next year.
A purpose is concrete.

Do you know what the most ironic thing of all is? You are saying how the words we use should only be used if we intend to use their original meaning, yet you yourself is using the term 'gay marriage'. Did you know that gay has not always meant homosexuals? Please check this link out: http://www.answers.com/topic/gay, and look under etymology. That's right! There was a point in time when using the word 'gay' meant happy and joyful, and had nothing to do with homosexuality. Look how things have changed.

So stop using the term 'gay marriage' when it doesn't mean homosexual marriage, but means happy marriage. Because since by your own words you have to use the original definition, you are against happy marriages. Talk about irony! I think it's about time you dropped this pointless arguement.


Further more Christmas has noting to do with Homosexuality so you're off topic.
And don't tell me what to do either. I don't take crap from anyone. Especially some brat who's more likely than not younger than I am.

You and admirerofnone are both wrong on this. It's not off topic. If you are going to debate with us, please do us a favor and read the pages of this thread before you post, for if you did, you would understand that Christmas was being used in an analogy to show that it was okay to use the term 'gay marriage' when the word 'marriage' was used differently in the past.

Understood nightmare.

I'm sorry.

Forget it, someone like you could never come to understand what I and people like me have to put up with.You know, you can tell alot about another Internet user just by the contents of his forum posts. In this case, Animeniac reads Dark Bring's post, and judges that Dark Bring:

1) Is not gay.
2) Does not understand what gays have to put up with.

Well, if only life is that straightforward. That would quite justify discrimination, wouldn't it? To discriminate is to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit. Examples include social, racial, religious, sexual, disability, ethnic and age-related discrimination. What we have right now is Internet forum-post discrimination. So much for understanding? If the "Forget it, you can never understand me" attitude was prevalent amidst both heterosexual and homosexual/bi/trans population, how much support do you think the Anti-Sexual Preference Discrimination movement would have?


You can talk about it all you want. But until you've experienced it you'll never truely know.Have you experienced the hatred people feel for homosexuals? That all-consuming, bestial, animalistic, barbaric desire to wipe each and every one of you sexual deviants off the face of this planet, to have you permanently erased from the gene pool? Do you understand why they feel that way? Why they think that they are championing a just cause? You can talk about it all you want, but until you've experienced that hatred, all you see is one half of the picture.


Don't you get it? This whole argument is pointless! What is it doing other than having conflicting opinions clash.I think you're the one that doesn't understand that this argument is pointless, but I've not ruled out the possibility that you're someone like me that argues for the sake of arguing.


Things are changing, but change takes time. As does all real progress in life. Time is an essential ingredient, but sometimes change is catalysed by a sprinkling of the blood of innocents, a handful of atrocities . . .


Further more Christmas has noting to do with Homosexuality so you're off topic.
And don't tell me what to do either. I don't take crap from anyone. Especially some brat who's more likely than not younger than I am.You are your own person, so if what I think I offered as my advice appears to you as crap, so be it. Well, that, and a personal opinion differs somewhat from a direct command, but if you do not want to acknowledge such a distinction, so be it.

You also appear to be discriminating against me on the grounds of age and forum post content, even though you have no direct evidence, as evident by your words, that I am younger than you, or I am not a homosexual/bi/trans, or that I have not experienced similar discrimination. May I also contribute my irrelevent observation that for a supposed adult your behaviour falls slightly short of being mature?

Disregard that; what I want to say is that the act of discrimination, be it against someone of different sexual preference, of different religion, of different skin colour, of different age, is still discrimination, and that you can scarcely combat the discrimination against homosexuals/bi-sexuals/transvestites if you yourself show every sign of participating in the act of discrimination, even if your personal brand of discrimination is directed towards a different category of people.

You're right. I was wrong to have posted that stuff.

And I'm sorry.

truce?

You see, this is what I don't understand. Where on earth did you get the idea that you can't redefine something? Who told you that, or how did you come up with this incorrect believe? Words are changing constantly, being redefine over and over again. Who says you can't redefine something? You are make no sense whatsover. It's not a written rule, or anything.
And for some odd reason you think that simply because people do tings means they 'can' or it's right to. Just because peoople use words different ways as time passes does not mean their meaning changes, only how they are interpreted changes. Perfect example: slang.


Do you know what the most ironic thing of all is? You are saying how the words we use should only be used if we intend to use their original meaning, yet you yourself is using the term 'gay marriage'. Did you know that gay has not always meant homosexuals? Please check this link out: http://www.answers.com/topic/gay, and look under etymology. That's right! There was a point in time when using the word 'gay' meant happy and joyful, and had nothing to do with homosexuality. Look how things have changed.
Nothing is ironic. I never said "gay marriage". I said "gay unions". And frankly, I was too lazy to keep typing out "homosexual unions" when I could say it in a way you would still understand in 3 letters. But just to make you happy I'll call them "homosexual unions" from now on. and to be more consistent. However most of the time I am here is during school and I try to post quickly before my teacher checks to see what I am doing.


So stop using the term 'gay marriage' when it doesn't mean homosexual marriage, but means happy marriage. Because since by your own words you have to use the original definition, you are against happy marriages. Talk about irony! I think it's about time you dropped this pointless arguement.
So for purposes of proving me wrong you acknowledgge my statement as true but then when it's used against your argument it becomes false? *sniffs* I smell a hypocrite.
You're right on one thing: the whole entire argument is pointless. People are so stubborn they can be shown tons of factual evience and all the reasons they believe in something can be proved wrong right in front of them, but they'll still believe it, so no matter what either of us does it wont change anyone's mind.

He thinks it's to celebrate the birth of Christ, which is obviously not true.

How's this: The Christian Church say that being gay is wrong. That same Christian Church also kept saying that the Earth is flat, that the sun circled around the Earth and that Condoms don't stop the HIV virus.

Yep, I really believe that great Christian church <_<
Obviously you are wrong. Christmas. Not Present[mas.

How's this: Aristotle, democritus, Socrotes, and other highly regarded intellectuals also believed the same thing, and yet in branches of science we still use their theories. The Christian Church is saying that being homosexual is against God's Will. If you interpret that as "wrong", fine.

Yep. No one said you had to. Have fun with your eternity in hell.

You're right. I was wrong to have posted that stuff.

And I'm sorry.

Truce?There's no need to apologise. I fully respect you for standing up for yourself and what you believe in.


Obviously you are wrong. Christmas. Not Presentmas.But Christmas is about presents, isn't it? The majority of the world would agree with me.


How's this: Aristotle, Democritus, Socrates, and other highly regarded intellectuals also believed the same thing, and yet in branches of science we still use their theories. The Christian Church is saying that being homosexual is against God's Will. If you interpret that as "wrong", fine.Why did they believe that being homosexual is wrong? How did they arrive upon that conclusion? Was it the Word of God that convinced them so? Should we simply stop thinking for ourselves, because what the Church and Wise People said are true?

But Christmas is about presents, isn't it? The majority of the world would agree with me.

Yup. For me it is. Who am I kidding? XD

How's this: Aristotle, democritus, Socrotes, and other highly regarded intellectuals also believed the same thing, and yet in branches of science we still use their theories. The Christian Church is saying that being homosexual is against God's Will. If you interpret that as "wrong", fine.

If being a homo/bisexual is against God's will, then why am I a bisexual? I definately did not chose to become one.

Obviously you are wrong. Christmas. Not Present[mas.

How's this: Aristotle, democritus, Socrotes, and other highly regarded intellectuals also believed the same thing, and yet in branches of science we still use their theories. The Christian Church is saying that being homosexual is against God's Will. If you interpret that as "wrong", fine.

Yep. No one said you had to. Have fun with your eternity in hell.

Isnt Christmas only the English name for it? And the name has nothing to do with the actual Holiday. Thats like saying Holloween is about a hollowed "ween" (???)

Thats like saying Holloween is about a hollowed "ween" (???)

XD Yes, let's all hollow the ween!

But Christmas is about presents, isn't it? The majority of the world would agree with me.
Well then the majority of the world would be... WRONG!
Just because you chose December 25 to give people presents does not mean that they are "Christmas" presents. If people suddenly began giving people gifts on Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday would we cann them "Martin Luther King Jr. presents"? No, the idea is absurd.


Why did they believe that being homosexual is wrong? How did they arrive upon that conclusion? Was it the Word of God that convinced them so? Should we simply stop thinking for ourselves, because what the Church and Wise People said are true?
Re-read my post. I never said those people thought homosexuality was wrong (I dont know, maybe they did, maybe they didnt). And the "Church and Wise People" you mention, well, have no relevance. The book of Genesis says it.

If being a homo/bisexual is against God's will, then why am I a bisexual? I definately did not chose to become one.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting but are you "blaming" God for being bisexual? Just because it is against His Will doesn't mean it can't happen. people sin all the time.
The Bible only states that the merge of souls is to happen between a man and a woman. So you can be bisexual, homosexual, pansexual, whatever, and still get into heaven. Being bisexual has nothing to do with your soul. It's when you claim you want to marry (note the italics *cough*Nightmare*cough* lol) someone of the same sex that is commiting a sin.


Isnt Christmas only the English name for it? And the name has nothing to do with the actual Holiday. Thats like saying Holloween is about a hollowed "ween" (???)
True the name doesnt always have something to do with the holiday, but Christmas is a religious holy day. Just because the rest of the world decided to use it as an excuse to buy and give presents does not mean it's the reason it is celebrated. The Bible does not mention anything about giving presents to people so people who give gifts on christmas day are celebrating nothing. Well maybe they are, but it sure isn't christmas.

Obviously you are wrong. Christmas. Not Present[mas.

How's this: Aristotle, democritus, Socrotes, and other highly regarded intellectuals also believed the same thing, and yet in branches of science we still use their theories. The Christian Church is saying that being homosexual is against God's Will. If you interpret that as "wrong", fine.

Yep. No one said you had to. Have fun with your eternity in hell.

When people didn't listen to Hitler they were killed.
When people don't listen to God they burn in hell.

Heil God, the ultimate dictator \('-' )

Sorry to offend people, but that's how I see it.

Wow, I never looked at it that way.

Well then the majority of the world would be... WRONG!
Just because you chose December 25 to give people presents does not mean that they are "Christmas" presents. If people suddenly began giving people gifts on Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday would we call them "Martin Luther King Jr. presents"? No, the idea is absurd.1)I'm fairly certain that the majority of the worldd refers to the presents they receive on Christmas as Christmas presents, as opposed to birthday presents. It's like calling gifts received on Valentine's Day as Valentine's Day's gifts.
2) The majority if the world would be wrong - if you are the minority that does not share the same belief as the majority. And your are the minority, aren't you?


Re-read my post. I never said those people thought homosexuality was wrong (I dont know, maybe they did, maybe they didnt). And the "Church and Wise People" you mention, well, have no relevence. The book of Genesis says it.1)You're right, I have no idea why you quoted their names. So tell me, why did you quoted their names? (I've re-read the post and I honestly do not know)
2)The Wise People referred to the three names you quoted. What does the "Church and Wise People" have no relevence to? What does the book of Genesis says? (And which particular line/sentence?)


Just because the rest of the world decided to use it as an excuse to buy and give presents does not mean it's the reason it is celebrated. The Bible does not mention anything about giving presents to people so people who give gifts on christmas day are celebrating nothing. Well maybe they are, but it sure isn't christmas.To you, the minority, it is an excuse. To us, the majority, it is a reason. To you, the minority, you are celebrating Christmas, we are . . . er, celebrating nothing. To us, the majority, we are all celebrating Christmas.

1)I'm fairly certain that the majority of the worldd refers to the presents they receive on Christmas as Christmas presents, as opposed to birthday presents. It's like calling gifts received on Valentine's Day as Valentine's Day's gifts.
2) The majority if the world would be wrong - if you are the minority that does not share the same belief as the majority. And your are the minority, aren't you?
1) So? Whats your point? You seem to be under the false impression that simply because the majority sees something one way means that is the right answer. Might I remind you that like angelic said before, although partly incorrect, THE WHOLE WORLD believed earth was flat and the center of the universe save a few, and they were wrong. They refer to them as "Christmas presents" because they probably never gave it any thought (or cared to). Plus people are greedy.
2) I don't get what you mean. Minority and majority dont really have anything to do with this.


1)You're right, I have no idea why you quoted their names. So tell me, why did you quoted their names? (I've re-read the post and I honestly do not know)
2)The Wise People referred to the three names you quoted. What does the "Church and Wise People" have no relevence to? What does the book of Genesis says? (And which particular line/sentence?)
1) Because Angelic said (through sarcasm) that he didnt believe in the Christian church because they thought the world was flat, etc.,. And I said that people like Aristotle, socretes, Democritus, and other ancient philosophers believed the same thing and yet we still believe in their theories and ideas.
2) The Church and Wise people have no relevance to anything in the context you used. I never said I believed it because they said it, I believe it because it's in the Bible.
I'll look for the Bible verse now. . .


To you, the minority, it is an excuse. To us, the majority, it is a reason. To you, the minority, you are celebrating Christmas, we are . . . er, celebrating nothing. To us, the majority, we are all celebrating Christmas.
It's not a reason unless you base it on a fact. I celebrate Christmas because it's the day of Jesus' birth.

1) So? Whats your point? You seem to be under the false impression that simply because the majority sees something one way means that is the right answer. Might I remind you that like Angelic said before, although partly incorrect, THE WHOLE WORLD believed earth was flat and the center of the universe save a few, and they were wrong. They refer to them as "Christmas presents" because they probably never gave it any thought (or cared to). Plus people are greedy.
2) I don't get what you mean. Minority and majority dont really have anything to do with this.1) Well, the impression that I am under a false impression is false. What the majority believe in may not be right, but what the majority believe in can cause you to be burnt to death on a stake. The majority is in charge (or so we believe; the usual scenario is that A minority controls THE majority to persecute Another minority. Majestic Twelve and all that, right?).
2) Most children and adults will tell you that they give their Christmas presents plenty of thought.
3) People are greedy.
4) Oh yes, it does. The majority lords over the minority, administering humiliation, discrimination as it sees fit, whilst the minority fight bitterly to become the majority, to be in charge.


1) Because Angelic said (through sarcasm) that he didnt believe in the Christian church because they thought the world was flat, etc.,. And I said that people like Aristotle, Socrates, Democritus, and other ancient philosophers believed the same thing and yet we still believe in their theories and ideas.
2) The Church and Wise people have no relevance to anything in the context you used. I never said I believed it because they said it, I believe it because it's in the Bible.
I'll look for the Bible verse now. . .
1) Okay. Well, it is Angelic's personal opinion, and the Church did revise its opinions on the subject of the world being flat (I believe?).
2) I didn't know that I was rambling on in the first place (which was why I asked you why you quoted the three names and stuff), but I'd still like to know about the biblical verse.


It's not a reason unless you base it on a fact. I celebrate Christmas because it's the day of Jesus' birth.1) It's not a reason unless it is based on a fact? I always thought that a reason is an excuse that convinces the authority that it is plausible.
2)We celebrate Christmas because 1) we get time off work/school 2) get Christmas presents 3) more time with family and friends and loved ones 4) snow. Those are facts, right?

1) Well, the impression that I am under a false impression is false. What the majority believe in may not be right, but what the majority believe in can cause you to be burnt to death on a stake. The majority is in charge (or so we believe; the usual scenario is that A minority controls THE majority to persecute Another minority. Majestic Twelve and all that, right?).
2) Most children and adults will tell you that they give their Christmas presents plenty of thought.
3) People are greedy.
4) Oh yes, it does. The majority lords over the minority, administering humiliation, discrimination as it sees fit, whilst the minority fight bitterly to become the majority, to be in charge.
1. And what does being killed have to do with being right? If someone kills me because of what I believe that makes me a martyr, and God promises salvation to those who are persecuted for believing in him.
2. LOL I didnt mean that. I meant they never thought why they called them "Christmas presents". They probably just figured because they gave them to others on Christmas Day that they could call them Christmas presents.
3. Ditto.
4. Once again, being "in charge" doesn't mean you are right. It just means you will have a better chance in trying to intimidate people into siding with you.


1) Okay. Well, it is Angelic's personal opinion, and the Church did revise its opinions on the subject of the world being flat (I believe?).
2) I didn't know that I was rambling on in the first place (which was why I asked you why you quoted the three names and stuff), but I'd still like to know about the biblical verse.
1. Yes they did.
2. It's basically the whole first two chapters of Genesis. It's implied. God created everything and saw that it was perfect, perfect according to his will. Therefore anything that were to change would be against His Will. God created man, Adam, and then from him, woman, Eve, and they were married. Because that was perfect, and God's Will, this tells us that God's Will is for marriages to be between man and woman.

EDIT: This might be suffecient:

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


1) It's not a reason unless it is based on a fact? I always thought that a reason is an excuse that convinces the authority that it is plausible.
2)We celebrate Christmas because 1) we get time off work/school 2) get Christmas presents 3) more time with family and friends and loved ones 4) snow. Those are facts, right?
No, a reason is usually the truth. Like the reason I go to school it to learn.

Okay so you do those things. now tell me what gives you the right to take Christmas, a day Christians are supposed to reflect upon because of it's religious signifigance, and use it as your own holiday for staying home from school and exchanging gifts?.

fyi the school break is called "Winter recess" not "Christmas recess" ;)

1. And what does being killed have to do with being right? If someone kills me because of what I believe that makes me a martyr, and God promises salvation to those who are persecuted for believing in him.
2. LOL I didnt mean that. I meant they never thought why they called them "Christmas presents". They probably just figured because they gave them to others on Christmas Day that they could call them Christmas presents.
3. Ditto.
4. Once again, being "in charge" doesn't mean you are right. It just means you will have a better chance in trying to intimidate people into siding with you.
1. Absolutely nothing. It's just a sad case of the "victor writing the history", really.
2. Agreed.
3. Agreed.
4. See 1. And that intimidation business sounds familiar. =/



2. It's basically the whole first two chapters of Genesis. It's implied. God created everything and saw that it was perfect, perfect according to his will. Therefore anything that were to change would be against His Will. God created man, Adam, and then from him, woman, Eve, and they were married. Because that was perfect, and God's Will, this tells us that God's Will is for marriages to be between man and woman.Interesting. I shall have to spend some time on it.


No, a reason is usually the truth. Like the reason I go to school it to learn.The reason why I didn't do my homework is because the donkey ate it, even if it is the fact, would be an excuse to someone else. What is my reason could very well be your excuse. Example(?): I go to school so I can bully other kids.


Okay so you do those things. now tell me what gives you the right to take Christmas, a day Christians are supposed to reflect upon because of it's religious signifigance, and use it as your own holiday for staying home from school and exchanging gifts?.

fyi the school break is called "Winter recess" not "Christmas recess" ;)1) I don't know. Ask the government, or better still, the guy that convinced all the governments that Christmas would make a great public holiday that would raise population morale and economic performance. Sure sounds convenient, converting a pre-established holy day into some social engineering strategy, does it not?
2) We only have "Christmas break(s)" here. No winter for the equatorial. =/

The reason why I didn't do my homework is because the donkey ate it, even if it is the fact, would be an excuse to someone else. What is my reason could very well be your excuse. Example(?): I go to school so I can bully other kids.

1) I don't know. Ask the government, or better still, the guy that convinced all the governments that Christmas would make a great public holiday that would raise population morale and economic performance. Sure sounds convenient, converting a pre-established holy day into some social engineering strategy, does it not?
2) We only have "Christmas break(s)" here. No winter for the equatorial. =/
Then you're a bad person :heh: j/k
The word 'reason' has different contextual meanings, and I just realized two of them fit my question, so i'll drop that one.


The government didn't decide. It's just a 'popular belief'
Oh, I didn't realize you didnt have winter there lol. Well all I know is that it isn't a week off for Christmas, Christmas is a day, Channukah is a week

When people didn't listen to Hitler they were killed.
When people don't listen to God they burn in hell.

Heil God, the ultimate dictator \('-' )

Sorry to offend people, but that's how I see it.

Thats how I allways look at religions. Its just a way to make people scared and do thing that other want you to do. Scare tactics are sad and cruel, making people do things only because they dont want to "burn in hell".

1) Because Angelic said (through sarcasm) that he didnt believe in the Christian church because they thought the world was flat, etc.,. And I said that people like Aristotle, socretes, Democritus, and other ancient philosophers believed the same thing and yet we still believe in their theories and ideas.

The difference is that the church kept saying the Earth was flat even though science had proven it wasn't long before that - those people you mention were dead before it was ever proven that the earth was round.



Thats how I allways look at religions. Its just a way to make people scared and do thing that other want you to do. Scare tactics are sad and cruel, making people do things only because they dont want to "burn in hell".

When people killed people who didn't believe in him it was a crime and hitler was mad. When God does it it's justice and he's the caring "father" of mankind.

What's the fucking difference? If God exists then he's nothing better than Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin. Why would he be? Because the Christians believe in him and there are so many of them? Millions of Germans believed in Hitler. Where's the difference?

Hang on a sec - Hitler had followers, people actually believed in his ideas and supported his genocide (some). Stalin operated only through fear - nobody agreed that it was fine to kill all those people (of different races, religions - too many to list) or send them to concentration camps. He had no followers - only country men who feared him.

(camparing the two is slightly wrong: only similarity between them is that they murdered millions)

Okay, maybe Stalin wasn't a perfect match. Let's put Kim Jong Il, The Chinese government and heaps of others on the list instead. What I'm trying to say is that they are all criminals and arseholes and wotsnot, and God's not while he's doing exactly the same.

Anyway, we're drifting off-topic here. Homosexuality is what this thread is supposed to be about.

And if this God is so horrible why would he even create the bible in the first place? Or give us free will? or even create us for that matter? Or why would he love us so through that we can enter heaven? what would he send his only divine son to come, be perfect, wipe the entire human race clean from all their sins, and die for people you say he doesn't give a shit about?

And if this God is so horrible why would he even create the Bible in the first place? Or give us free will? Or even create us for that matter? Or why would he love us so through that we can enter heaven? What would he send his only divine son to come, be perfect, wipe the entire human race clean from all their sins, and die for people you say he doesn't give a shit about?He's bored of being omnipotent? I've heard that being God is like playing Sim City with cheats. At first you start out wanting to build the ideal city and stuff, but after awhile you get bored of the game, and start messing with the population with random natural disasters (UFO invasion included?!), random city planning (wtf is that nuclear powerplant doing in the middle of the housing estate?) and random demolition (i swear my home was just here five minutes ago!).

If this God is so not horrible why didn't He made the Bible un-misinterpretable (that would save us a lot of grief)? Or "remind" us (believers and non-believers alike) that our free will comes from Him, on a regular basis (it feels like I'm constantly being harassed to pay a debt or something - can I mortgage my soul, Satan?)? Or threaten us with Hell? Why would He sacrifice His only son when he could've done the same thing with a snap of His fingers? And the age old Problem of Evil:

The problem of evil arises from the supposition that a perfectly good god would not have created a world containing evil, or would not permit its continued existence in the world, and that an omniscient and omnipotent god should be able to arrange the world according to his intentions. Since evil manifestly exists, it would seem that a god intends it to exist. Therefore such a god is either not perfectly good, not omniscient, or not omnipotent. With the further premise that if a god exists, it must be perfectly good, omniscient, and omnipotent, one can conclude from the existence of evil that no god exists.

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" (Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief)

But I'm twenty parsecs from the original topic; I'm very bored.

To sum it up: If God was wholy good, the world would be a better place. Like, Heaven. If God was wholy evil, the world would suck even more. Like, Hell.

That, and Homosexuality wouldn't be an "issue", because it'd either be accepted by everyone, or it wouldn't exist at all.

Questions for the Christians: so if someone is gay, that person needs to shun their homosexual tendancies and become attracted to the opposite sex in order to get into Heaven?

What do you personally think of homosexual Christians?

He's bored of being omnipotent? I've heard that being God is like playing Sim City with cheats. At first you start out wanting to build the ideal city and stuff, but after awhile you get bored of the game, and start messing with the population with random natural disasters (UFO invasion included?!), random city planning (wtf is that nuclear powerplant doing in the middle of the housing estate?) and random demolition (i swear my home was just here five minutes ago!).

If this God is so not horrible why didn't He made the Bible un-misinterpretable (that would save us a lot of grief)? Or "remind" us (believers and non-believers alike) that our free will comes from Him, on a regular basis (it feels like I'm constantly being harassed to pay a debt or something - can I mortgage my soul, Satan?)? Or threaten us with Hell? Why would He sacrifice His only son when he could've done the same thing with a snap of His fingers? And the age old Problem of Evil:

The problem of evil arises from the supposition that a perfectly good god would not have created a world containing evil, or would not permit its continued existence in the world, and that an omniscient and omnipotent god should be able to arrange the world according to his intentions. Since evil manifestly exists, it would seem that a god intends it to exist. Therefore such a god is either not perfectly good, not omniscient, or not omnipotent. With the further premise that if a god exists, it must be perfectly good, omniscient, and omnipotent, one can conclude from the existence of evil that no god exists.

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" (Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief)

But I'm twenty parsecs from the original topic; I'm very bored.

To sum it up: If God was wholy good, the world would be a better place. Like, Heaven. If God was wholy evil, the world would suck even more. Like, Hell.

That, and Homosexuality wouldn't be an "issue", because it'd either be accepted by everyone, or it wouldn't exist at all.

There's evil because Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, and they themselves infered that zbecause they listened to God it was "good", and because they were banished from eden for not obeying that is "evil".
There is evil in all life forms. If he got rid of all evil he'd be getting rid of all life, and then he'd be the God of nothing.
The bible is very easy to understand. It just happens that many people attempted to translate it all at once and different versions came about (people DO make mistakes ya know)
And he sent his Son down to die for us because maybe it's a better realization that God loves us all, He actually gave something up for us instead of just snapping His fingers.

There's evil because Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, and they themselves infered that because they listened to God it was "good", and because they were banished from Eden for not obeying that is "evil". You claim that your God is omnipotent. Why did he even allowed Evil to exist?

There is evil in all life forms. If he got rid of all evil he'd be getting rid of all life, and then he'd be the God of nothing.I'm sure that given enough time you can come up with a better response, as it is not very reassuring to know that your God is the God of Evil Life Forms.

The Bible is very easy to understand. It just happens that many people attempted to translate it all at once and different versions came about (people DO make mistakes ya know)Just because a message can be easily understood doesn't mean that it cannot be mis-interpreted. I'm sure that an omnipotent being wouldn't find it too difficult to make his scared text mis-interpretable.

And He sent his Son down to die for us because maybe it's a better realization that God loves us all, He actually gave something up for us instead of just snapping His fingers.An omnipotent God could've snapped His fingers and to us it would have the same effect as if He'd sent His Son on a kamikaze mission. An omnipotent God could give the world any benefits derived from suffering without any beings having to suffer. So why the dramatics?

And if this God is so horrible why would he even create the bible in the first place? Or give us free will? or even create us for that matter? Or why would he love us so through that we can enter heaven? what would he send his only divine son to come, be perfect, wipe the entire human race clean from all their sins, and die for people you say he doesn't give a shit about?

If Hitler is so horrible, why did he not kill everyone? Why was it mainly the Jews? Why did he make concentration camps instead of killing them right there and then?

Heck, if your going to act like that, I can make Hitler seem like a good boy by doing the same thing.

And if God didnt want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree, why the bloody fuck did he put it 3 feet away from their beds?! If someone didnt want a bunch of nudist to take what wasnt theirs, wouldnt someone with some common sense put it where they couldnt get it?

And didnt the devil in a serpents form provoke Eve to eat from the tree? If so, why didnt god just make it so the devil/serpent wasnt in the Garden? If that place was paradise, that implies that theres no bad people there, right? Paradise=perfect, yet once such an evil being is there it aint no paradise...

: |

You claim that your God is omnipotent. Why did he even allowed Evil to exist?Once he decreed His Will the formation of Good and Evil started. If he doesn't have a Will then his purpose is meaningless. Without Evil there is no Good; without Dark there is no Light.


I'm sure that given enough time you can come up with a better response, as it is not very reassuring to know that your God is the God of Evil Life Forms.
Oh right, I forgot that the only actions people take are those of evil.


Just because a message can be easily understood doesn't mean that it cannot be mis-interpreted. I'm sure that an omnipotent being wouldn't find it too difficult to make his sacred text mis-interpretable.
But why should he have to? Even if it was crystal clear people would still reject it. People focus on the difficulty of the Bible and make it sound like Jesus or God set it up. The "Bible" is just a bunch of writings that were "officially" gathered together into one book almost 400 years after Jesus died. God did not write the Bible, he inspired the works inside it.

An omnipotent God could've snapped His fingers and to us it would have the same effect as if He'd sent His Son on a kamikaze mission. An omnipotent God could give the world any benefits derived from suffering without any beings having to suffer. So why the dramatics?
That's ridiculous. I think the death of His son was much more effective that just snapping his fingers. The purpose of Jesus' death is to wipe us clean from sin. How the heck would we know if God just snapped his fingers and redeemed us?

That's ridiculous. I think the death of His son was much more effective that just snapping his fingers. The purpose of Jesus' death is to wipe us clean from sin. How the heck would we know if God just snapped his fingers and redeemed us?

But either say, we would have been clensed from our sins, am I not right? Or does it take the people to beleave and know of what happens for it to take effect? And wouldnt it been easier to just snap a finger then send a son to get killed?

~

Why do people beleave that Homosexuality is wrong? I cant find a reason why based on facts..

If Hitler is so horrible, why did he not kill everyone? Why was it mainly the Jews? Why did he make concentration camps instead of killing them right there and then?

Heck, if your going to act like that, I can make Hitler seem like a good boy by doing the same thing.

And if God didnt want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree, why the bloody fuck did he put it 3 feet away from their beds?! If someone didnt want a bunch of nudist to take what wasnt theirs, wouldnt someone with some common sense put it where they couldnt get it?

And didnt the devil in a serpents form provoke Eve to eat from the tree? If so, why didnt god just make it so the devil/serpent wasnt in the Garden? If that place was paradise, that implies that theres no bad people there, right? Paradise=perfect, yet once such an evil being is there it aint no paradise...

: |
I never said anything about Hitler. Germany was reeling from their loss in World War I, and as it's been done on numerous occassions in history, Hitler blamed the Jews for it. That boosted the morale of the weak country, and once Hitler was elected he had to kill off the Jews or he himself would have been a hypocrite and probably killed.


Ah, now we get to the roots of the Bible. Read Genesis VERY closely. God NEVER said he did not want Adam or Eve to eat from the tree. Rather he told them that if they did they would die.
http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Genesis+3&version=31 Lines 2 and 3

No, a serpent under the Devil's influence. It wasn't paradise. It was a Garden (Eden)

But either say, we would have been clensed from our sins, am I not right? Or does it take the people to beleave and know of what happens for it to take effect? And wouldnt it been easier to just snap a finger then send a son to get killed?

~

Why do people beleave that Homosexuality is wrong? I cant find a reason why based on facts..
Because we'd have no way of knowing.

~

I already said I don't think homosexuality is "wrong" I just thing that there is no such thing as marriage for them. Marriage is religious and The Book of Genesis says it's between a man and a woman.

Bah! Thats like giving a baby a loaded and ready gun and telling it that it cal kill it. Its stupid to put the tree there in the first place. Might as well plant a tree of death in a day care <_<

EDIT: Thats like saying if India bombed Mexico and the rest of the world didnt know about it its okay. Even if no one knows about it or everyone does, it still happens.

Also, use the edit function next time to put any extra thoughts.

No, we owe evil our existence. without the Tree of Knowledge they wouldn't know how to have sex or reproduce. That event was VITAL.

Ah, now we get to the roots of the Bible. Read Genesis VERY closely. God NEVER said he did not want Adam or Eve to eat from the tree. Rather he told them that if they did they would die.

"You MUST NOT eat..."

Yeah, God says he doesn't want them to eat from it...and if you're gonna argue that it reads "must not" instead of "shall not", you're gonna need to cite the Hebrew itself...

"You MUST NOT eat..."

Yeah, God says he doesn't want them to eat from it...and if you're gonna argue that it reads "must not" instead of "shall not", you're gonna need to cite the Hebrew itself...
That was just a warning leading to the "you will surely die" part.

the story of adam and eve is not supposed to be interpreted literally.

it has subliminal meanings that should be interpreted in a way that the message can still apply to generation after generation.

just to try understand homophobe viewpoints, if there is anyone in this thread who actually hates gays, can they just actually quote me and state in black and white why? people keep ducking behind the bible to justify the fact that they are narrow minded people, the likes of which i though died out in the 40's i'd like to here a founded argument that doesnt refer to the bible.

That was just a warning leading to the "you will surely die" part.

That's an interpretation, NOT a result of "close reading."


just to try understand homophobe viewpoints, if there is anyone in this thread who actually hates gays, can they just actually quote me and state in black and white why? people keep ducking behind the bible to justify the fact that they are narrow minded people, the likes of which i though died out in the 40's i'd like to here a founded argument that doesnt refer to the bible.

I don't mind homosexuals...I just felt really uncomfortable when one of them tried to hit on me...:heh:

EDIT:

Marriage is religious and The Book of Genesis says it's between a man and a woman.

Wrong. Marriage is a legal institution. You can perform whatever religious ceremonies you want, but your marriage itself is not recognized until you sign that legal document. Besides, asserting that marriage is a Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition illegitimizes Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic, and atheist marriages as well.
There is currently the civil union for homosexuals, but if it's identical to marriage, why not just call it marriage? It'll simplify the legal code, after all...Some people will ask why they care so much about wanting to have the word marriage as opposed to civil union if it's just a word, but then they'd have to ask themselves why they want to keep the word civil union separate instead of marriage.

the story of adam and eve is not supposed to be interpreted literally.

it has subliminal meanings that should be interpreted in a way that the message can still apply to generation after generation.

just to try understand homophobe viewpoints, if there is anyone in this thread who actually hates gays, can they just actually quote me and state in black and white why? people keep ducking behind the bible to justify the fact that they are narrow minded people, the likes of which i though died out in the 40's i'd like to here a founded argument that doesnt refer to the bible.
I already said I don't hate homosexuals. I am not ducking behind the Bible. It's evidence, you don't duck behind it, you use it. Seems to me no one can refute it and thats the only reason that they want "new evidence" to be used. Well I don't have the need to if I have something that works.


Wrong. Marriage is a legal institution. You can perform whatever religious ceremonies you want, but your marriage itself is not recognized until you sign that legal document. Besides, asserting that marriage is a Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition illegitimizes Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic, and atheist marriages as well.
There is currently the civil union for homosexuals, but if it's identical to marriage, why not just call it marriage? It'll simplify the legal code, after all...Some people will ask why they care so much about wanting to have the word marriage as opposed to civil union if it's just a word, but then they'd have to ask themselves why they want to keep the word civil union separate instead of marriage.
ROFL, so you're telling me that when you sign the legal paper that's when the two souls unite? Ridiculous. Marriage ony has legal issues because a) the government in the US separated Religion and state so they had to 'copy' it over; b) married people, I dont exactly know, but it has something to do with health insurance, your status to the person incase of legal matters, what you're called in the person's will, if you have the right to tell doctoor's to pull the plug if they're in a coma... things like that.

b) married people, I dont exactly know, but it has something to do with health insurance, your status to the person incase of legal matters, what you're called in the person's will, if you have the right to tell doctoor's to pull the plug if they're in a coma... things like that.

Basically, if you deny homosexuals "marriage", you also deny them this aspect; which legalisation of gay marraige is about.

The question, then, is: what is your position?

Do you think homosexual couples should not have the option to legalise their union in the same ways, i.e. tax benefits, decision rights, etc.? (If so, I'm curious about your reasoning.)

If this package is part of what makes "legal marriage", IMO, it doesn't make sense to say they should not call it "marriage".

See, all kinds of people can marry before a state, who couldn't marry in church (people who are not members of any church being the most frequent; but also inter-religious marriages are legal [some religions might agree to those, too, I'm not sure]). They would - strictly speaking - not be married before god. But for all practical purposes they are married.

I will not interfere with any religions. On paper, I'm a Roman Catholic Christian, but really I'm an atheist. I can understand arguments that gays should not be allowed to be married before the church (they set the rules; their call).

The question, then, is - in part - a political game. Despite the separation of state and church, does the state promote a church's point of view, by taking the - say - Christian definition of marriage (union between man and woman), or do they redefine it to match the times.

I think gays should be allowed to marry before the law; if there is separation between church and state, the churche's definition of marriage should be irrelevant to the state, and see no non-religious reason why gay couples should not be allowed to have the same rights as hetero-couples.

I have no opinion whether gays should be allowed to marry before the Christian god. Since I don't believe in him, it would be absurd to have an opinion on that.

And, yes, as long as the legal union is called "marriage", homosexuals should be allowed to call their union "marraige", too. It doesn't make sense otherwise. If an atheist man and an atheist woman can be "married", so can "gays".

I have not seen Christians lobbying against the use of the word "marriage" in legal documents. Saying that gays should not refer to "marriage", then, is a rhetorical trick certain religious groups can use to gain more say in legislation (despite the separation of state and church).

I'm not saying that you wish your church had more political power; all I'm saying is that I don't think your position is very clear.

This is complicated, I hope I made sense without insulting you... @_@

the government in the US separated Religion and state so they had to 'copy' it over;

In Japan hardly anyone is catholic, yet a lot of people get married. Is that fake then?

Really, marriage isn't something for Christians only you know?

"ROFL, so you're telling me that when you sign the legal paper that's when the two souls unite? Ridiculous."

Since when did souls unite during marriage? "And the two will become one flesh." The union of souls violates the principle that each soul is judged individually.

Basically, if you deny homosexuals "marriage", you also deny them this aspect; which legalisation of gay marraige is about.

The question, then, is: what is your position?

Do you think homosexual couples should not have the option to legalise their union in the same ways, i.e. tax benefits, decision rights, etc.? (If so, I'm curious about your reasoning.)

If this package is part of what makes "legal marriage", IMO, it doesn't make sense to say they should not call it "marriage".

See, all kinds of people can marry before a state, who couldn't marry in church (people who are not members of any church being the most frequent; but also inter-religious marriages are legal [some religions might agree to those, too, I'm not sure]). They would - strictly speaking - not be married before god. But for all practical purposes they are married.

I will not interfere with any religions. On paper, I'm a Roman Catholic Christian, but really I'm an atheist. I can understand arguments that gays should not be allowed to be married before the church (they set the rules; their call).

The question, then, is - in part - a political game. Despite the separation of state and church, does the state promote a church's point of view, by taking the - say - Christian definition of marriage (union between man and woman), or do they redefine it to match the times.

I think gays should be allowed to marry before the law; if there is separation between church and state, the churche's definition of marriage should be irrelevant to the state, and see no non-religious reason why gay couples should not be allowed to have the same rights as hetero-couples.

I have no opinion whether gays should be allowed to marry before the Christian god. Since I don't believe in him, it would be absurd to have an opinion on that.

And, yes, as long as the legal union is called "marriage", homosexuals should be allowed to call their union "marraige", too. It doesn't make sense otherwise. If an atheist man and an atheist woman can be "married", so can "gays".

I have not seen Christians lobbying against the use of the word "marriage" in legal documents. Saying that gays should not refer to "marriage", then, is a rhetorical trick certain religious groups can use to gain more say in legislation (despite the separation of state and church).

I'm not saying that you wish your church had more political power; all I'm saying is that I don't think your position is very clear.

This is complicated, I hope I made sense without insulting you... @_@
Very good, excellent post. Yes it made perfect sense and no I was not insulted. And half of your message is what I've been trying to say but you explained it a lot better than I did. I'm glad you acknowledge the fact that at least for ""eligious" marriage, homosexuals cannot marry. That is fact no matter how you look at it. But you thoroughly explain that because church and state are separated that the state can allow the parameters for "legal marriage" to deviate. I'm not 100% sure but I do not think that has been done. But in my honest opinion, I think that's just a cheap way to go behind God's back. You may not be religious but you will still be judged by God.
My friend said to me: what's the difference? They just want to be married for extra legal rights. if they say it's about love not gender then good for them, they can live with each other and love each other all they want without getting married.



@Angelic: and that's why I said "in the US"

@tanonev: Interpretation. People don't become Siamese twins when they marry, their flesh doesn't unite, I think it's metaphoric for souls because that is referenced that was in other Gospel and Epistle writings

Just because they come together doesn;'t mean they cannot be judged individually. Nothing is impossible for Godo. That and, he's God, I'm sure he knows (literally) the whole life story of each person, the location of their soul is irrelevant.

I already said I don't hate homosexuals. I am not ducking behind the Bible. It's evidence, you don't duck behind it, you use it. Seems to me no one can refute it and thats the only reason that they want "new evidence" to be used. Well I don't have the need to if I have something that works.

ROFL, so you're telling me that when you sign the legal paper that's when the two souls unite? Ridiculous. Marriage ony has legal issues because a) the government in the US separated Religion and state so they had to 'copy' it over; b) married people, I dont exactly know, but it has something to do with health insurance, your status to the person incase of legal matters, what you're called in the person's will, if you have the right to tell doctoor's to pull the plug if they're in a coma... things like that.

You make it seem like when two people get married they love each other to heart, they mold together like a chunk of clay and they are ment for each other. But then, why are there disfunctional families? Divorces? And to wonder how much it would hurt for a soul to rip apart...

If marriage is all you say, then whats up with all this costly crap like gowns and churches? You might as well get married the momments after you propose because you apprently dont need the government to approve of it. Heck, want to get married right here on this forum anyone? We obviously dont need our government to approve of it.

Interpretation. People don't become Siamese twins when they marry, their flesh doesn't unite, I think it's metaphoric for souls because that is referenced that was in other Gospel and Epistle writings

Ah, I'm glad you brought that up, because let's "interpret" what the Bible says about homosexuals.
(1) Sodom and Gomorrah: You know, there's a very similar story in Greek tradition, except homosexuality is removed. That might imply that Sodom's sin is inhospitality, not, er, sodomy. Either that, or it's excessive sex. It's one thing to have a homosexual relationship. It's another thing entirely to try to rape every person you meet in the street.
(2) Leviticus: Not all laws in Leviticus, when broken, constitute "sin." Eating pork, for example. Many Leviticus laws are there for the protection of the people. As the AIDS issue has shown, there are extra health risks associated with homosexual sex.
(3) Paul: Paul does not explicitly call homosexuality a sin. He instead calls it a result of sin. That's kind of like how we now have to till the land "as a result of sin." Now, unless you're gonna go arguing that tilling the land is unnatural...
Again, Paul calls homosexual acts being "inflamed with passion for each other", that is, having it being done to excess, without moral restraint.

This is not necessarily my interpretation; however, it just goes to show you the difficulty in finding the correct interpretation of the Bible. I believe there IS one correct interpretation; however, the most common or the most widely accepted interpretation is not necessarily the correct one...after all, "wide is the gate and straight the path"...the Bible is a VERY difficult text, and it should be used very carefully.


I'm glad you acknowledge the fact that at least for ""eligious" marriage, homosexuals cannot marry.
""eligious" should read Roman Catholic. I'm fairly certain that there are, er, liberal denominations of all religions that would recognize homosexual marriage.


They just want to be married for extra legal rights. if they say it's about love not gender then good for them, they can live with each other and love each other all they want without getting married.
Civil unions now function exactly the same according to the law as marriages do. They want the word "marriage" used so that they don't have to walk around with a yellow star on them. Yes, that's probably an unwarranted use of hyperbole, but it does go to show that this word IS a big deal. Let's assume for a moment that you're right, and homosexuality is a sin. Now, speeding, even 1 mph over the speed limit and even if you don't get a ticket, is a sin as well, because of the Fourth Commandment (again, interpreted). Now should people who speed have to use some term, say, "speeder" (since I'm not very creative), every time they want to refer to their transportation situation?

The marked speed is not the limit, but a suggested speed. The speed you drive at can vary from about 5 MPH bellow and above the suggested (or marked) speed on the signs. But the exact speed you drive at only depends on the suggested speed, the weather conditions and the time.

So driving at 51 in a 50 zone isnt breaking any laws, and if some jack ass cop thinks it is you are for sure to win a case if you bring one up.

NOTE: In many places where same sex marriages are illigal Civil Unions are allowed.

Once he decreed His Will the formation of Good and Evil started. If he doesn't have a Will then his purpose is meaningless. Without Evil there is no Good; without Dark there is no Light.I'm certain His Will had nothing to do with forming Evil.


Oh right, I forgot that the only actions people take are those of evil.And this is the reason why your original statement is wrong.


But why should he have to? Even if it was crystal clear people would still reject it. People focus on the difficulty of the Bible and make it sound like Jesus or God set it up. The "Bible" is just a bunch of writings that were "officially" gathered together into one book almost 400 years after Jesus died. God did not write the Bible, he inspired the works inside it.Because He's omnipotent? It's like putting child-proof caps on bottles of medicine. It is an intelligent act, which doesn't cost much effort, which will save a whole ton of trouble.


That's ridiculous. I think the death of His son was much more effective that just snapping his fingers. The purpose of Jesus' death is to wipe us clean from sin. How the heck would we know if God just snapped his fingers and redeemed us?How the heck would we know if God is omnipotent? How the heck would we know if we are plugged into the Matrix? Not to mention that sin wouldn've have existed had God willed it so, anyway.

The marked speed is not the limit, but a suggested speed.

Maybe it differs form state to state, but read this: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs19thru22.htm
Last sentence, first paragraph.

Therefore it's technically illegal, even if you aren't cited for it. And according to the traditional (and my) interpretation of the Fourth Commandment, anything that is technically illegal is a sin if done knowingly and it if the law does not violate God's law. Now since posting a speed limit has nothing to do with God's law in either way, speeding, even by such a small amount, is a sin.

The reason you'd win in a case of going 51 in a 50 mph zone is because it's virtually impossible to prove. IBecause of the way police radar guns work, unless they are directly behind you, they cannot measure your exact speed, but only something that's close to your speed (but always below your real speed; it's a trig thing). I'm referring right now to speed traps on the side of the road, as opposed to radar guns within police cars on the road. (Who would even think of speeding with a police car in your rear view mirror, anyway?) Therefore, if you go 51 in a 50 mph zone, the speed they record will be something like 45 (depending on which lane you're in). So, if you actually register above 50 on their radar gun, that means you've crossed the speed limit by a fair amount.


How the heck would we know if God is omnipotent? How the heck would we know if we are plugged into the Matrix? Not to mention that sin wouldn've have existed had God willed it so, anyway.

This is straying off topic, but for all practical purposes, God is omnipotent. We know there is the infinite in the universe, and since we are finite, even something along the first order of infinity would be omnipotent to us. So even if God were constrained to the universe, he'd still be omnipotent. If we hold that God is outside the universe, he's, er, omnipotently omnipotent...

Speaking of which, evil actually points towards, not away from, the existence of God. Think about it--evil has a negative effect on the species as a whole and therefore should have never come about through natural selection.

Very good, excellent post. Yes it made perfect sense and no I was not insulted.

Phew, relieve. ^_^


But you thoroughly explain that because church and state are separated that the state can allow the parameters for "legal marriage" to deviate. I'm not 100% sure but I do not think that has been done.

Hmm. What about divorce/re-marriage? Possible before the law, but not before God (true at least for Catholics, I think).


But in my honest opinion, I think that's just a cheap way to go behind God's back. You may not be religious but you will still be judged by God.

Does that mean you disagree with the separation of church and state? If so, what god should rule the state?


My friend said to me: what's the difference? They just want to be married for extra legal rights. if they say it's about love not gender then good for them, they can live with each other and love each other all they want without getting married.

Which they do. But that still doesn't explain why they should have to.

The irony is that the reverse case, a man and women living together "as married", but without marriage, is also reprehensible to the church. Which is basically, what you're asking them to do (well, actually, you're asking them to abstain, I think).

I think laws should reflect social realities, not religious ideologies. And they should do so in such a way that religious ideologies can be applied as "extras". Specifically, I think law should allow gay marriage, but should not force any religion to acknowledge it.

I'm certain His Will had nothing to do with forming Evil.

And this is the reason why your original statement is wrong.

Because He's omnipotent? It's like putting child-proof caps on bottles of medicine. It is an intelligent act, which doesn't cost much effort, which will save a whole ton of trouble.

How the heck would we know if God is omnipotent? How the heck would we know if we are plugged into the Matrix? Not to mention that sin wouldn've have existed had God willed it so, anyway.
Sure it did, you obviously did not understand what i typed. The very moment you create "good", "evil" is created as well. It will always be like this until Christ's Millennial Reign.

Actually I was using heavy sarcasm >.>

Okay now I have absolutely no idea where you're coming off at. God's omnipotency has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that human being have the free will and idiocy to reject anything they want to.

Because God is a being of infinite power, and yet he created a finite universe with finite laws. Refer to my first paragraph for your "sin" response.

______

People amaze me. When you die and your sould are judged you're going to be like: "God, rather than obeying your will, I sat around and questioned it, and I knoow that even though I had no divine help I could not understand divinity, and now I know it's true because I am here, but I did it anyway."



@Dawnstorm: correct, not before God.

Of course I disagree with sepaeation of church and state. Followinf God's Will requires your entire being and lifestyle, and then it gets thwarted when the government splits the two and makes different regulations, so now you have to be EXTRA careful not to break God's will or law of the country


(everyone bear wth me here)
The reason that people get marries it NOT to unite their souls. That's just an effect. The reason is, sex (*predicts instant flaming after people read this*) god created Adam and then eve and married them because they HAD TO havve sex to reproduce and start 'civilization'. Last time I checked, homosexual couples can't make a baby lol. And yes I know some married hetero couples dont have kids, but they still have the potential to.
And honestly, all I really said was that Homosexual "marriage" is wrong. The law can say whatever the heck it wants, it's still wrong. God's Will is above any law of any nation (I forgot exactly what verse that is >.<)

I'm surprised that you don't know why I appear to be going off on a tangent, Darksage. It al boils down to A using the Invisible Pink Unicorn to justify his opinion. If B doesn't agree with A, and if B disagree with A's opinion, he can then engage A in a one-upmanship by arguing that the root of A's opinion, which is A's believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, is wrong, which ultimately means that A's opinion is literally fundamentally flawed.

However, no one can disprove the existence of the Blessed Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Noodly Flying Spaghetti Monster, so I was only "going through the motions", with the sole intention of drawing out both sides of the argument based on the belief of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Of course I disagree with sepaeation of church and state. Followinf God's Will requires your entire being and lifestyle, and then it gets thwarted when the government splits the two and makes different regulations, so now you have to be EXTRA careful not to break God's will or law of the country.

Of course you have to be extra careful not to break God's will, but that's your problem because you believe in Him. Basically, what you're saying is that you want every one in a state to live under Christian rule, no matter what they believe. You'd be forcing many people into hypocricy, or condemn them to prison.

As amusing as the analogy may seem to you, God is not an Invisible Pink Unicorn. God is the basis of our belief system. The absence of God is the basis of your belief system. Either way, both of our systems are based on faith, not on logic. The belief in the nonexistence of God is just as "wrong" as the belief in the existence of God because it brings up innumerable logical problems (and if there is no God, then you HAVE to use logic to explain everything, which, as said before, you can't always do).

However, I agree that a belief system is not in and of itself a valid justification for making or breaking a law. A valid justification consists of determining the connection between the law and the belief.

If people believe in god, let them be. Let them think that homosexual marriage is wrong. However, other people who dont live beliving in god will wont necessarily be living under God's Will or Rule, so I dont really understand when people try to say, "If you people dont believe in god, you go to hell." It just sounds like God's some big ruler over all religions? (Offtopic, I know.)

If people believe in god, let them be. Let them think that homosexual marriage is wrong. However, other people who dont live beliving in god will wont necessarily be living under God's Will or Rule, so I dont really understand when people try to say, "If you people dont believe in god, you go to hell." It just sounds like God's some big ruler over all religions? (Offtopic, I know.)

I think the logic is like "even if you don't believe in or understand string theory, you're still bound by its effects"...

@Angelic: and that's why I said "in the US"


Ah right, so only people in the US have the right to get married? If it's not in the US it's called something else? Or at least not marriage?

Look, the US people think they are so great and advanced, but their way of thinking is in general - and don't hate me for expressing my opinion - retarded. Not saying all Americans are like that, but their government with it's 19th century view on matters such as gay marriage and abortion certainly is. The American government is composed of a bunch of stupid fucks who find it horrible to allow abortion but at the same time say it's okay to shoot a kid when they ring your bell for fun (<yes that happened in Florida and the guy didn't go to jail).

Either way, both of our systems are based on faith, not on logic.

And how do atheists have faith?

Ah right, so only people in the US have the right to get married? If it's not in the US it's called something else? Or at least not marriage?

Look, the US people think they are so great and advanced, but their way of thinking is in general - and don't hate me for expressing my opinion - retarded. Not saying all Americans are like that, but their government with it's 19th century view on matters such as gay marriage and abortion certainly is. The American government is composed of a bunch of stupid fucks who find it horrible to allow abortion but at the same time say it's okay to shoot a kid when they ring your bell for fun (<yes that happened in Florida and the guy didn't go to jail).

You speak as though those incidents are from one and the same government. Because America is such a large country, our government has to have many levels, many employees, and inevitably many differences of opinion. We see America as "great" because in spite of this tension, we have remained one nation, and a democratic, flourishing nation at that. Compare that with the other large nations: China, Russia, India. Not to say that they aren't flourishing as well, but any government that can successfully manage a large number of people over a large landmass isn't a "retarded" "bunch of stupid fucks."

"19th century" views? Let's stop and think for a minute. What exactly is so good about "20th century" thinking? Eugenics? Relativism? An old idea is certainly not necessarily a bad idea. After all, there is no such thing as progress; there is only change.

As for contradictory opinions, those are different people making different decisions. Even if these were contradictions within the same body, do you dare assert that your opinions are 100% consistent?

Speaking of which, it seems you're asserting that left views are correct and right views are wrong. While it's fine to side with one view over the other, to condemn the other as stupid is nothing short of judgmental arrogance.

[offtopic]Abortion should be illegal because it simplifies the legal code. If a pregnant woman is murdered, it counts as a double murder. If a pregnant woman is sentenced to death, her child is not. The legality of abortion contradicts the rest of the legal code.


And how do atheists have faith?

Faith is defined to be belief in that which cannot be proven. If you believe that there is no God, that is an unprovable belief; therefore, atheists have faith in the nonexistence of God.

Don't bother searching for a proof on the nonexistence of God; it's provable that no such proof exists.

I really don't understand those atheists who believe they're absolutely right (i.e., that it's grounded in science); after all, if they were absolutely right, then their system would require that there be no absolutes, in which case their being absolutely right is a contradiction. The atheists I've spoken to at school admit that it is a faith-based belief system, NOT a logical conclusion.

okay time for my opinion......IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT POLITICAL AFFILIATION(sp) ALL POLITITIONS WILL LIE, CHEAT, BLACKMAIL, AND DO ANYTHING TO BE IN CONTROL.........so saying americas government is a bunch of dumb fucks isnt totaly off, however its not totally right.... theres different forms of intelligence, different beleifs, different backrounds, and different forms of expression. this is all incorperated into the Democtratic form of government.......

My other opinion is that there really is no right and wrong, its all shades of gray. For example i approve of owning weapons (weapons dont kill people, the ones with the weapon in hand do), however i also approve of abortion. is it wrong that i have both conservative and liberal views? no. so is it wrong to be totally one-sided? again, no. However it is rude, prejudiced, and futile, to attack someone for that.

in short attacking someone for his/her beleif makes you no better than a pro-segregationist, we should respect that people have their own beleif. its okay to disagree and argue however when it gets to the point of harrasment, the argument should stop

personaly im not very religious at all, i need proof for my acceptence, but i respect both athiests and devout religious followers opinions, just like i accept and respect both homosexuality, and those who disaprove of it

the only time i think negativly of a gay man is when he comes on to me, when im obviously with my girlfriend.

i approve of homosexuality, but i dont understand it
i approve of religion, but i dont understand it

Very nice post silver. The only part I don't agree with is the following:


My other opinion is that there really is no right and wrong, its all shades of gray.

I hold that there IS real right and wrong; we just have an insanely hard time figuring some instances out. My reason is as follows: if there is no real right or wrong, then if I truly believe that it is right to bring about the destruction of the world and go on a suicidal shooting spree, then I would be justified. You may then say "no, that's not right, because that harms others." THAT, then, is a real wrong. And if we have real wrongs, then I'd imagine we have real rights as well. And as for actions that are "gray," I hold that they contain both right and wrong and they should be evaluated based on the existence of both within them.

There is no right or wrong though. Right or wrong, left and right, all those things differ from a persons perspective. You may think that bombing Iraq with a nuke is wrong, but then someone else may think its right. And from there you cannot just say that because you say its wrong its the ultimate truth and no one else is right. Its like saying this other person likes oranges but you dont, so they are wrong for the only reason that you personaly dont have the taste for a food.

There is no white, black or gray IMO. I only think ideas like that are a void that is never definable, because even a stupid, radical idea can pop up. And even though its stupid, it doesnt mean it isnt true. And just because you think your doing good doesnt mean it is good.

If there is no right or wrong, how can you know whether you're right or wrong in asserting that there is no right or wrong?

I never said I knew what the absolute right and wrong are. I just said they existed. It's kinda like the uncertainty principle: sure, we can't know both velocity and position exactly, but they're still there.

Based on what you have learned you do somthing. You think its right, but someone could just as easly think what your doing is wrong. So who is the one with the correct thoughts here? You cant say either one because these things cannot be proven, but only determined on moral values and what you have learned in your life.

Just because I don't know which one is right doesn't mean that one of them isn't right. If I give you a multiple choice question about Dijkstra's Algorithm (for example; you might know what it is, but let's assume you don't for the sake of my argument), just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer.


but only determined on moral values
Aha! So do you agree that there are basic moral values? Or do you claim that morals themselves are based on what we learn in life? If you do so, then for the sake of argument, let's say my morals tell me to kill you. Would I be justified in doing so? If not, then there IS some basic moral foundation. If so, then why should I be punished? Because my morals are "dangerous"? Who decides what is and isn't dangerous?

You arnt justified to kill me by my standards and moral laws, but apprently it is by yours, so once agian we are at a stalemate. You think its okay, but I dont. So who is the ultimate winner? No one. Actualy, you are because im dead and your not.

You arnt justified to kill me by my standards and moral laws, but apprently it is by yours, so once agian we are at a stalemate. You think its okay, but I dont. So who is the ultimate winner? No one. Actualy, you are because im dead and your not.

But if I "win", then I go to jail, evidently because the morals of the people in power contradict mine. So theoretically, if I had a lot of power (connections, technology, phenomenal psychic abilities, what have you) so I could defend myself against the authorities, then my moral system will win out again.

So I'm guessing from this logic, then, that "might makes right." Sorry, but that's just way too cynical for me. I'm gonna go with absolutes and collect my extra 20 years of life ^^ (I believe that's the difference in average life spans between pessimists and optimists...the number may just be an old wives' tale, but optimists do live happier, healthier, longer lives)

If we extend this, though, then if God is infinitely powerful, then his morals form the winning standard. And if He's an absolute, we can't call his morals relative because that would require something more absolute than him, in which case we could call that thing God instead, and so on. Working a little backwards from this, whatever is the strongest being in/around? the universe is therefore the moral standard.

But by the almightly Darksage's way of thinking, for ones exsistance there must be somthing to oppose it, so is there not somthing just as powerfull and with a diffrent point of veiw? So if they are equaly perfect, who is right?

The devil is thy god....

*offends people*

Is it just me, or did this whole thread jump off a clif and landed into the big blue :topic: ?

Homosexuality is not even a sin.

Is it just me, or did this whole thread jump off a clif and landed into the big blue :topic: ?

Sort of; but we're actually getting to the root of the problem, as whether or not homosexuality is wrong is based on belief and moral systems, and we're analyzing said systems right now.


But by the almightly Darksage's way of thinking, for ones exsistance there must be somthing to oppose it, so is there not somthing just as powerfull and with a diffrent point of veiw? So if they are equaly perfect, who is right?

The devil is thy god....

*offends people*

I can't speak for Darksage, and I do believe we will differ on this point, but while having the opposite of something makes that something more so, the opposite itself need not be a total opposite. For example, say I give you a sheet of perfectly white paper. Say you've never experienced vision before (bear with me). You wouldn't know what white was until I showed you a piece of paper that wasn't white. However, I could give you a light gray piece of paper, and a darker gray piece of paper, and you would then understand what white was. I don't need to give you a piece of perfectly black paper. Similarly, we can't understand what good is unless we see evil. However, we do not need to see absolute evil to understand absolute good.

Even if we did need the extreme opposite, if God is the absolute good and absolute power, then the devil is the absolute evil and the absolute weakness. So we still don't have an all-powerful evil being.


Homosexuality is not even a sin.
Probably not, but we'll never know for sure...though I can think of many more sins that are more worth working on and preaching about instead of homosexuality, and as such, that's where we should focus our attention. In the extremely unlikely case that we conquer everything that we generally agree is a sin, then we can look at the borderline cases.

However dun you guys find incest harder to condone compared to homosexuality?

You speak as though those incidents are from one and the same government. Because America is such a large country, our government has to have many levels, many employees, and inevitably many differences of opinion. We see America as "great" because in spite of this tension, we have remained one nation, and a democratic, flourishing nation at that. Compare that with the other large nations: China, Russia, India. Not to say that they aren't flourishing as well, but any government that can successfully manage a large number of people over a large landmass isn't a "retarded" "bunch of stupid fucks."

"19th century" views? Let's stop and think for a minute. What exactly is so good about "20th century" thinking? Eugenics? Relativism? An old idea is certainly not necessarily a bad idea. After all, there is no such thing as progress; there is only change.

As for contradictory opinions, those are different people making different decisions. Even if these were contradictions within the same body, do you dare assert that your opinions are 100% consistent?

Speaking of which, it seems you're asserting that left views are correct and right views are wrong. While it's fine to side with one view over the other, to condemn the other as stupid is nothing short of judgmental arrogance.

[offtopic]Abortion should be illegal because it simplifies the legal code. If a pregnant woman is murdered, it counts as a double murder. If a pregnant woman is sentenced to death, her child is not. The legality of abortion contradicts the rest of the legal code.

Fair enough, leaves us with the matter of that fact that gay people don't bother anyone else, and just because Christians think it's wrong the government forbids it. What's wrong with doing something if it doesn't harm anyone else in any way? That's the problem with Christians, as soon as they think something is wrong they have to force it up to others. Preferrably the whole world if they are given the chance.

Fair enough, leaves us with the matter of that fact that gay people don't bother anyone else, and just because Christians think it's wrong the government forbids it. What's wrong with doing something if it doesn't harm anyone else in any way? That's the problem with Christians, as soon as they think something is wrong they have to force it up to others. Preferrably the whole world if they are given the chance.

*agrees*

also- christians are all hypocrites anyway; why should anyone listen to anything they say? one minute they are all "love thy neighbour" and the next they are like "follow God and Jesus and the Bible or you will go to hell"

well you know what? I'd much rather be in hell than somewhere where you are constantly reminded of your imperfections

christians are all hypocrites anyway

What is it with these sweeping generalizations? Would you call, say, Mother Theresa a hypocrite?


why should anyone listen to anything they say?
So if I'm a Christian, then all my opinions are worthless?

Who's being the hypocrite here?

*gigantic sigh of unending frustration*..........not all christians are hypocrits, but many of the leaders are.

moral values are more guidelines than absolute law, say that my friend was about to be killed, and i kill the attacker in defense of my friend. Moraly, killing is wrong, however since i was saving a life, most would say that i did the "right" thing. so morals are not absolute, there are exceptions to almost every moral.

If God was in fact the all powerful, absolute good, then he is unblanced, if Lucifer was not his equal, in terms of power than why would he bother to keep his soul in existance? if god created the soul he can just as easily destroy it.

think of Good and evil as a symmetrical shape, just different colors.
thats assuming there is any true evil and any true good, mind you

as for homosexuality being "wrong" or a "sin". if we cant prove there isnt an abslote good or evil, we cant prove these now can we?

If I recall my Bible correctly, which I probably don't, sodomy is a sin. No idea about homosexuality, though.

I think I've posted that before . . . ?

EDIT: What? Who? When? Where? I don't know what I'm posting; disregard this post.

What is it with these sweeping generalizations? Would you call, say, Mother Theresa a hypocrite?

Why not? Just because someone calls her a saint and she was really old doesnt mean you must automaticly respect her and you cant call her a hypocryte. The only thing I respect her for was all the kindness she had and all the help for others she did.

Hypocrisy = insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have. Mother Theresa does have the qualities or beliefs, she is not pretending thus she is not a hypocrite.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Clever...but leaving out God creates the even harder question of "how did evil arise spontaneously?" The answer people often give in response is that there is no good or evil, to which they must conclude that there is only power.

I think the difference between theism and atheism is like the difference between "This statement is true" and "This statement is false." Both are trapped because of circular logic; however, only the first can have a good outcome.

Anyhow, in answer to your question, God is willing and able to prevent evil, but He is even more willing and able to promote good. The two are not the same thing. A teacher is willing and able to keep you from failing their class, but that teacher is much more willing and able to see you succeed and would rather you fail that you may later come to success rather than to tweak your grade so that you don't fail.

Sorry, guys, but I didn't expect people to respond to my signature.

We've gone from homosexuality to the status of God-- pretty off topic, if you ask me. >>;

Ok, there is this rumor going around my little group of friends that I am a homosexual...but I'm not, and I'm telling the truth. How they got the idea is that one of my friends is a huge homophobe, so I decided to scare him a bit and have a little fun, so playingly I started to prented to flirt with him. He got all upset and all and I was laughing and making fun of him. So the next thing that I hear from my best friend a few days later is that he seriously thinks that I am, and he is going around convincing everyone that I am. But that is not the worst part, I'm afraid that by hearing this all the time from that jack-ass this it will hurt my chances of getting back together with this girl that I am in love with...I'm just afraid that she might loose intrest in me by thinking that I lost intrest in her...god I hate him so much! I mean I'm just that comfotable with me sexuality that I don't need to worry about ever really getting involved with another guy soI joke around like that...just never thought that I would be taken seriously and shunned by my friends for it...

Ok, there is this rumor going around my little group of friends that I am a homosexual...but I'm not, and I'm telling the truth. How they got the idea is that one of my friends is a huge homophobe, so I decided to scare him a bit and have a little fun, so playingly I started to prented to flirt with him. He got all upset and all and I was laughing and making fun of him. So the next thing that I hear from my best friend a few days later is that he seriously thinks that I am, and he is going around convincing everyone that I am. But that is not the worst part, I'm afraid that by hearing this all the time from that jack-ass this it will hurt my chances of getting back together with this girl that I am in love with...I'm just afraid that she might loose intrest in me by thinking that I lost intrest in her...god I hate him so much! I mean I'm just that comfotable with me sexuality that I don't need to worry about ever really getting involved with another guy soI joke around like that...just never thought that I would be taken seriously and shunned by my friends for it...

You see, in order to turn the tides, go find something about him that is really embarassing, and tell everyone so you can shut him up.

<--- is half/awake

Then that just makes me seem desperate to try to get back at him...and just seems like a little kid thing to do...if you see where I'm comming from

I dont know. Beat him up? You can't just sit there and stay mute like that, or else people will really believe it.

I dont know. Beat him up? You can't just sit there and stay mute like that, or else people will really believe it.
and beating him up is a realy good way to prove the point?

More likely to work would be getting back together with this girl, or just damn well pulling a girl.

Talk to him and tell him to stop properly.

Just find yourself a girlfriend.
and also who cares what other people think! Even if you were gay it shouldn't matter. Nothing anyone else says means anything as long as "you" know the real truth. let them think what they want. they'll eventually stop once they figure out that you're not gay.

Starting your own rumor about him doesn't hurt either... lol just be careful when doing that.

If I recall my Bible correctly, which I probably don't, sodomy is a sin. No idea about homosexuality, though.

I think I've posted that before . . . ?

EDIT: What? Who? When? Where? I don't know what I'm posting; disregard this post.

Sodomy is something that straight couples do too.... so saying sodomy= sin therefore homosexuality=sin, is just the same as saying sodomy=sin therefore heterosexuality=sin.

All this says to me is that there is nothing wrong with different sexual orientations, just with a particular sexual practise.

Sodomy is something that straight couples do too.... so saying sodomy= sin therefore homosexuality=sin, is just the same as saying sodomy=sin therefore heterosexuality=sin.

All this says to me is that there is nothing wrong with different sexual orientations, just with a particular sexual practise.Like I said, I don't know much about this, but I recall an article some time ago arguing that Sodomy is a sin to God, not homosexuality. =/

That, and I did not say sodomy = sin, therefore homosexuality = sin. =/

Holy crap. . . way too many posts. But I'm flattered one mentioned my name :D so I'll respond to that:

But by the almightly Darksage's way of thinking, for ones exsistance there must be somthing to oppose it, so is there not somthing just as powerfull and with a diffrent point of veiw? So if they are equaly perfect, who is right?

The devil is thy god....

*offends people*
Actually the devil is not God's equal or the battle of good and evil would be everlasting. When Lucifer betrayed God and fell from Heaven, he only took 1/3 of the angels and 1/3 of the stars in the sky. While that is not enough to "defeat" God, It is closer to rivaling his power than any other being.

But I never even said any of that. When you want to put things into words then you have to think that way, it's just how it is.

we can't understand what good is unless we see evil. However, we do not need to see absolute evil to understand absolute good.

Precisely. It's like if there wasnt evil, there wouldn't be good because it would just be the way everything is. Every word has an antonym. Like when tv used to be black and white, they didnt call it B&W cause thats just the way it was, but now that we have color we do call it black and white tv to differentiate.


And the whole sodomy thing is simple. (speaking from the bible)
God said "be fruitful and multiply", not "be horny, pleasurable to each other, and then multiply". lol

I don't care what God says. Why should we care what he says? It's our life, not his. He gave it to us? Good, then we can do what we want with it, a gift is a gift after all.

Okay

Well spoken Angelic!

Lots of people lately think homosexuals are a different person, and belong to a different class then themselves.

What do others think that is so bad with homosexuals? I just dont get it.

Talk about other issues with homosexuals if you want. I'm just starting the discussion.


Homosexuals are just like anyone else, they are like the new targeted minority of the era. I mean, before them were women and you had rights for women marches and such during the 60s and stuff. I mean now, you're probably going to have more of that in the future but with homosexuals then women.

Prejudice and racism never goes away, it simply finds a new target. I mean besides homosexuals and women, you had blacks and close to them you have hispanics and then before them you had the jews who were treated different simply because others found them "different".

I mean, I know most of you like anime and such, but there was a time where America hated Asia and mostly Japan (WWII) which Americans labeled them as "JAPS" and put them in camps closely resembling the consentration camps for the jews in Gemany.

No miniority is safe from racism, even white people are spoken against by those of other miniorities.

So in other words, you simply deal with the situation and people at hand and move on with your daily life.

Nowadays it's the Muslims (OMG TERRORISTS!~!!~) that get picked on the most. Bush is just using gay marriage as a way to win the elections.

true

Something funny I found:

http://www.walking-across-america.com/web/27.gif

(from walking-across-america.com)

I don't care what God says. Why should we care what he says? It's our life, not his. He gave it to us? Good, then we can do what we want with it, a gift is a gift after all.

well said...

I think we dislike homosexuals because they are different, no matter how you want to look at it. Most people ultimately feel uncomfortable towards those that are different, though in this generation, most people chose to keep their opinions to themselves, afraid to being called out as a *-hater. It's not something that's going to go away for at least a few more generations, for it is up to our generation (one more liberal and less religious, but also more ethical and spiritual) and the ones after to better teach tolerance to our children.

Well, I don't really know any homosexual people...I think, though I'm not so sure about it :P...Anyways, have nothing against them as persons, though it's wrong to "practice" it (not sure what word to use :P), it's not how God intended humans to be. That is my view as a Christian. Else, they are probably nice persons even though they act a bit different (Ain't it a good thing to be a bit different anyways? :P)

If it's not how God intended humans to be then why are there humans like that?

I remember that there was a time when Christians ate no pork and several other kinds of meat because it was impure (like the muslims still do I believe). Then God said "Why not eat them? They are my creations so they aren't impure". The Christians started eating pork.

I'm not saying gay people are pigs or that they should be eaten, I'm saying that they are also God's creation and thus Christians should accept them.

If it's not how God intended humans to be then why are there humans like that?
Cause he gave us free will.

And God Created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, to be married (lol)

Cause he gave us free will.
Exactly! So they also have free will to do as they please and remain as homosexuals. And even if it isn't there fault because they were born that way then that was God's choice, right?

And if you are going to use Adam and Eve to show what doesn't belong then were Adam and Eve both white? If so then black people don't belong. Are you going to go "preach" to them that they should go and turn white? I seriously hope not. Just leave the homosexuals alone. It was either there choice and you have no right to go up to them and try to convert there beliefs because it is there free will to there belief. And if they were born homosexual then that was God's choice and you were going agaisnt God's will.

We have a free will. So, I guess it's okay to kill people too? I mean, we got a free will, right?

And it is God's choice that people get born homosexual? Is it his choice that people are born with "sicknessess", like Down's Syndrome and such?

(As a Christian, I believe through people's prayer, God can heal anyone of any sickness, even these Syndromes. Though some people wouldn't agree with that.)

umm hello god did not make them gay he made them right but sin and other stuff in there lives made tem think that this was the way for them but in all reality thats not how things work. I think that its a way of thinking thats wrong. If everyone was gay then i guess humanity would just die out and then all the gays would go to ****. You just have to remember that if gays bug you just think. They wont be your problem when they burn and your living the life of luxery that was bought for you from you know who

We dont know if adam and eve were both white either and the big man made people different colors when they tried to reach heaven with the tower of bable soo that doesnt count either and for people with down syndrom and other stuff come from sin u idiot:bleh:

umm hello god did not make them gay he made them right but sin and other stuff in there lives made tem think that this was the way for them but in all reality thats not how things work. I think that its a way of thinking thats wrong. If everyone was gay then i guess humanity would just die out and then all the gays would go to ****. You just have to remember that if gays bug you just think. They wont be your problem when they burn and your living the life of luxery that was bought for you from you know who

oh shut up you ignorant little boy. this isn't a thread where you rant about homosexuality when really theres a deep issue somewhere in your life that makes you so bitter.

if you're not gay then please don't talk crap you know nothing about. 'sin and other stuff'? thats a founded argument? i think god did make gay people because why on earth would you choose to be part of a minority that is predudiced and ridiculed by narrow-minded neanderthals like some people.
please tell me what gay people have done that is so evil, i'd love to know what all the fuss is about.

We dont know if adam and eve were both white either and the big man made people different colors when they tried to reach heaven with the tower of bable soo that doesnt count either and for people with down syndrom and other stuff come from sin u idiot:bleh:

eughh your sickening views just got worse. people with mental illnesses are like that because they have original sin? and you say gay people are going to hell? your the one thats going to burn.
what a disgusting person you are.

And it is God's choice that people get born homosexual? Is it his choice that people are born with "sicknessess", like Down's Syndrome and such?Of course not! God merely gave us the freedom to do things he don't like so that he can punish us for stepping out of line.

That's your story, isn't it?

Exactly! So they also have free will to do as they please and remain as homosexuals. And even if it isn't there fault because they were born that way then that was God's choice, right?

And if you are going to use Adam and Eve to show what doesn't belong then were Adam and Eve both white? If so then black people don't belong. Are you going to go "preach" to them that they should go and turn white? I seriously hope not. Just leave the homosexuals alone. It was either there choice and you have no right to go up to them and try to convert there beliefs because it is there free will to there belief. And if they were born homosexual then that was God's choice and you were going agaisnt God's will.
What the hell are you talking about? the color of your skin is determined by melanin and sun exposure, and how the hell is that even related to homosexuality?.
Right God gave you free will, meaning it's YOUR choice so dont try blaming him. Don't take pride in ignorance.


And, we get sick, because of anomoly. the universe is perfect, but that does not mean everything inside it is. There is much room for error after fertilization in the mother's body and that is where "sicknesses" occur. don't even try using that. I have arthrogryposis, what's it got to do with god? Humans are all created euqually. think it it like this, there are talents, and for each talent in each person, there is a meter, 1 - 10 let's say. Now, we each get a random number all total for talent, like, 100 (random). meaning, we can have more talent in one area than another, and so will everyone else, but it all adds up the same.

so my dyslexia is because of sin? a little kid who allways behaved hiself and was allways good is filled with enough sin to be givenraynards syndrom aswell. to hell with that.

people with down syndrom and other stuff come from sin u idiot:bleh:

Thank you for this nice comment. You are now banned. Have a nice day. Fuckhead.

If it's not how God intended humans to be then why are there humans like that?

I remember that there was a time when Christians ate no pork and several other kinds of meat because it was impure (like the muslims still do I believe). Then God said "Why not eat them? They are my creations so they aren't impure". The Christians started eating pork.

I'm not saying gay people are pigs or that they should be eaten, I'm saying that they are also God's creation and thus Christians should accept them. I feel ya, there was also a time when God told the people not to eat of the churches store house, But when Jesus came down he told them that he was their provider and that they could and should eat from it.

I don't think people should use religion as a source to shed their thoughts on homosexuality. Does anyone remember those moments when you asked your parents "Why can't I do this" and they said "Because I said so"? That was never a good reason then and this is just another simulation.


If you really are against homosexuality discuss something more tangible rather than "It's in the bible". Have you ever wondered Whyyy your God is against homosexuality? Find that out and then you may actually have a good arguement for once.

What the hell are you talking about? the color of your skin is determined by melanin and sun exposure, and how the hell is that even related to homosexuality?.
Right God gave you free will, meaning it's YOUR choice so dont try blaming him. Don't take pride in ignorance.


And, we get sick, because of anomoly. the universe is perfect, but that does not mean everything inside it is. There is much room for error after fertilization in the mother's body and that is where "sicknesses" occur. don't even try using that. I have arthrogryposis, what's it got to do with god? Humans are all created euqually. think it it like this, there are talents, and for each talent in each person, there is a meter, 1 - 10 let's say. Now, we each get a random number all total for talent, like, 100 (random). meaning, we can have more talent in one area than another, and so will everyone else, but it all adds up the same.
I don't know. It was early and I was a little distracted. Disregard that post, please. It made no sense.

oooooooooooo fun, lets talk about jesus.

lets get a point through, you cant say something is wrong because the bible says so, because not everyone beleives in god, or follows the bible. Im an Agnostic, i need proof. If homosexuality is a sin, then some of the nicest, most unpredjudiced people i know are going to hell, right? I think thats just wrong, if its a sin, than it should be a minor sin, though preferably noy one at all, but if it had to be, it should be a forgivable sin

this religion stuff makes no sense to me. so using it as an argument doesnt make sense to me either. thats my view, get over it you predjudiced losers.

im a straight guy, so i cant pretend to understand it, and i dont like it when im hit on by other guys, but i accept it, its part of them, as noral to them as hitting on girls is to me.

normalcy is a point of view, i dont view wiggers as normal, and they dont view emo/goths normal. its a point of view

yay lectures are fun! not

oooooooooooo fun, lets talk about jesus.

lets get a point through, you cant say something is wrong because the bible says so, because not everyone beleives in god, or follows the bible. Im an Agnostic, i need proof. If homosexuality is a sin, then some of the nicest, most unpredjudiced people i know are going to hell, right? I think thats just wrong, if its a sin, than it should be a minor sin, though preferably noy one at all, but if it had to be, it should be a forgivable sin

this religion stuff makes no sense to me. so using it as an argument doesnt make sense to me either. thats my view, get over it you predjudiced losers.

im a straight guy, so i cant pretend to understand it, and i dont like it when im hit on by other guys, but i accept it, its part of them, as noral to them as hitting on girls is to me.

normalcy is a point of view, i dont view wiggers as normal, and they dont view emo/goths normal. its a point of view

yay lectures are fun! not
Thank you! Exactly that for me, too except replace girls with guys and guys with girls.

Wel wait wait wait. People who sin DO go to heaven ya know, or we'd all be screwed right now because we've all sinned at least once. You enter heaven by becoming perfect through god's love. You gain his love by following his word. People dont believe in the law, but if they break it they are still judged by it. Same goes with God.

uh huh, i share views with many friends, but only i express them, a few of my geekier friends are scared of the wiggers in my school, but i kick their asses (thank you martial arts). oh and i hate all the predjudiced redneck idiots in my school, i have gotten into fights defending my gay/bi friends (and of course the principal placed the blame on me, my principle is a redneck and openly fights the gay straight alliance in my school

People seems to get the idea a bit wrong...First of all, people ain't meant to be homosexual, there is no way humanity would survive then, as no kids would be born. That is for those who don't believe in the Bible and such. And, it is not a sin to be homosexual in itself, it's when you start having sex with people of same sex and such that you acctually sins (many people choose to don't "live out" their homosexuality). And here is the main point (hope I manage to explain it how I meant to :P):
We all have sinned at least once in our life, so you're doomed to hell anyways! UNLESS you belive in Jesus and asks for his forgivness. He can save you from hell, even though you've begone lots of sins. That part many of you seems to forget, your friends who is gay, even if they weren't, they would not get to Heaven unless they accepted the truth, that Jesus died for us to take our sins, and so asks for his forgiveness. It's not to keep away from sinning that is the true way to Heaven, it's through Jesus.

EDIT: And sickness and such, that is the work of Satan. That he has too much power in this world, because people don't believe in God. If all people of the world had believed, I believe the world would be much better. As Jesus lives in us who believe, and Satan has no power over us, the same way I believe Satan and his demons is a part of very many unbelieving people's life, and that is what affects them.
I belive that if people only had knew that they were not sick, as Jesus took our sickness at the cross, then I mean really knew, don't just believe a little in it, then we would see that we never would be sick.
And don't flame me for saying this (it might sound a bit wrong to some people), but people have gotten "cured" of homosexuality, through God.

First of all, people ain't meant to be homosexual, there is no way humanity would survive then, as no kids would be born.

Since the world is already becoming over populated, you say that people arent meant to be homosexual because they cannot produce babies which later turns out to be a bad thing because we are trying to live with an overpopulated country?

It's not like people have to have a baby each time they have sex, you know...If people just get less kids, there would be no problem :P

People seems to get the idea a bit wrong...First of all, people ain't meant to be homosexual, there is no way humanity would survive then, as no kids would be born. That is for those who don't believe in the Bible and such. And, it is not a sin to be homosexual in itself, it's when you start having sex with people of same sex and such that you acctually sins (many people choose to don't "live out" their homosexuality). And here is the main point (hope I manage to explain it how I meant to :P):
We all have sinned at least once in our life, so you're doomed to hell anyways! UNLESS you belive in Jesus and asks for his forgivness. He can save you from hell, even though you've begone lots of sins. That part many of you seems to forget, your friends who is gay, even if they weren't, they would not get to Heaven unless they accepted the truth, that Jesus died for us to take our sins, and so asks for his forgiveness. It's not to keep away from sinning that is the true way to Heaven, it's through Jesus.

EDIT: And sickness and such, that is the work of Satan. That he has too much power in this world, because people don't believe in God. If all people of the world had believed, I believe the world would be much better. As Jesus lives in us who believe, and Satan has no power over us, the same way I believe Satan and his demons is a part of very many unbelieving people's life, and that is what affects them.
I belive that if people only had knew that they were not sick, as Jesus took our sickness at the cross, then I mean really knew, don't just believe a little in it, then we would see that we never would be sick.
And don't flame me for saying this (it might sound a bit wrong to some people), but people have gotten "cured" of homosexuality, through God.
um, why do we have to beleive in jesus? isnt free will what seperates humanity from all other animals? the ability to choose are own beleifs and actions is the idea that america was founded on right? so it is an excersize of my freedom when i dont go to church

oh yeah, and what about jews and muslums? they dont beleive in jesus, are they going to hell?

if all you said is true, then i will accept it when i die, until then, my beleifs will remain, and i will argue my side

:bleh:

i know quite a few pepole who are gay and they are just normal pepole who happen to like the same sex nothing bad comes out of it at all

You don't HAVE TO believe in Jesus, but it's a criterium to get into Heaven...

How do the Muslims get into Heaven, then?

If they choose to not believe in Jesus, then they can't get into Heaven. There is no way to Heaven other than through Jesus.

If they choose to not believe in Jesus, then they can't get into Heaven. There is no way to Heaven other than through Jesus.So much for respecting someone else's religion, I guess.

What you mean I should say? Should I lie and tell that of course all Muslims gets into Heaven?

What you mean I should say? Should I lie and tell that of course all Muslims gets into Heaven?I don't know what you should say, but you know very well what a Muslim's point of view is on Christians going to Heaven. Go on, spell it out for us. And as for lying, well, it makes you sound as if you are telling the truth.

Muslims believe that we go to hell and they go to Heaven, yeah, so what is the point? Should I just admit that their god is as real as mine, when I know for sure (I have no "proofs" for you, that you would accept) that the Christian God is the true God?

well you believe your proofs are so powerful and it is you who will not accept evidence.

. . . I know for sure that the Christian God is the true God?Thank you, this is what I'm after. If you would like to carry on this discussion, please take it into the Religion thread, as there is no need of hijacking the Homosexuality thread.

lol "hijacking"

I have two views on this matter: one religious and one political. The political being for America anyway. Marriage can be considered a civil liberty or a form of expression. Those are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Therefore legally homosexuals should have the legal right to be married.

On the other hand, I honestly think marriage is something spiritual, mand that some legal paper is just for insurance and economic reasons because honestly, the government could care less if you get married. because I believe that we are all modeled off of Adam and Eve, and that they were modeled from god's image, because the first two human beings in existance were male and female and they two got married, and there is no mention os a man having sex with a man or a woman doing so with a woman, that it is morally wrong for homosexuals to get married. god clearly defines sex and reproduction. meaning sodomy is immoral. Also, because it is impossible for two males or two females to respectively reproduce, they do not "have sex"', they just play around with each other, and thus the whole process is sodomy, and against god's Will. So morally marriages can only be made between a man and a woman.

Marriage is for sex. sex is for reproduction. So if you can't reproduce you shouldn't be able to get married (unless you're too old or you have some sorta condition)

Marriage is for sex.-_-

-_-
That's the way I see it.

Marriage is for sex.
Just so you know, people can have sex and reproduce (considering there organs let them do so) with OUT getting married. Marriage is about love. In the case of arranged marriage it id for money or power, etc. You don't need to get married to have sex so why should marriage be about sex.

As you said, Marriage is a joining of the souls and if I have to get my soul "joined" with someone else I would really like it to be someone I truly care for and love instead of someone who I dispise just so I can have a baby and add more people to this already over populated. I think not.

And honestly, I don't care what God says. I pretty sure just about every homosexual has heard your Christian "preaching". If they heard it and don't care to change it then they obviously don't care. So just leave them the hell alone.

I'm not attacking them, so don't tell me leave them alone. I already said that it should be legal for them to get married. I'm supporting them. Idiot.

I'm not attacking them, so don't tell me leave them alone. I already said that it should be legal for them to get married. I'm supporting them. Idiot.
Dont call be and idiot because if you don't attack them then I'm not reffering to you. <_< Geez, like if calling me an idiot helps you prove your point. It just makes you look immature. ((Yes, I'm sure I'm being a hypocrite(sp?)))

I think it's disgusting. No, i'm not a homo hater. But i still think it's a very perverse and sick thing. Don't get me wrong, i hate the homosexuality, but i don't hate the person themselves. I still treat them like i would everyone else. *shrugs* I hate these conversatons because i always get attacked once i say something. lol

Dont call be and idiot because if you don't attack them then I'm not reffering to you. <_< Geez, like if calling me an idiot helps you prove your point. It just makes you look immature. ((Yes, I'm sure I'm being a hypocrite(sp?)))
Well you quoted my post, so what was I supposed to assume?

Well you quoted my post, so what was I supposed to assume?
You're wrong, marriage isn't for sex. Sex is for marriage.

...Whatever, i don't want to get deeply envolved in this.-_-

You're wrong, marriage isn't for sex. Sex is for marriage.
Says who?

................. im with septermagick on this, if you had to be married for sex, then teen pregnancy wouldnt be an issue, but lets get to the point

my definition of marriage is a spiritual joining of a loving couple, no matter their orientation, so you can go read the bible or something, to me its a book, thats it, so why should everyone abide by it? life is about choices you make, if you dont like and respect that, then leave america

You marry a person because you love them, and want to be with them for the rest of your life. Not for any other reason. I could end up with either a guy or a girl, but what does it really matter who I love?

When it comes down to it, you love whom you love, and nothing else matters.
TifaVII there is nothing wrong wih being gay, or bi, or anything, no one choses to be the way they are. And if you think it's a choice you need to get a proper education. I will say no more. This subject is totally pointless.
Get rid of the bible thumpers and make room for a more tolerant era of people.

Marriage is for sex. sex is for reproduction. So if you can't reproduce you shouldn't be able to get married (unless you're too old or you have some sorta condition)

I'm curious to know why "being too old", or "being sterile etc." (that's what you meant by "some sort of condition", I assume?), is an exception to the rule that "marriage --> Sex --> Reproduction"; but "homosexuality" is not.

In short:

Why are there exceptions at all?

And what determines what's allowed to be an exception?

I'm be curious to know why "being too old", or "being sterile etc." (that's what you meant by "some sort of condition", I assume?), is an exception to the rule that "marriage --> Sex --> Reproduction"; but "homosexuality" is not.

In short:

Why are there exceptions at all?

And what determines what's allowed to be an exception?
I agree with you.

I'm curious to know why "being too old", or "being sterile etc." (that's what you meant by "some sort of condition", I assume?), is an exception to the rule that "marriage --> Sex --> Reproduction"; but "homosexuality" is not.

In short:

Why are there exceptions at all?

And what determines what's allowed to be an exception?
When women reach a certain age they become incapable of fertilization. And the sperm of some men somehow are not capable of fertilizing an egg in the mother.

dude, your outnumbered, you cant sway us, leave before you have 15 people questioning you, unless you like the pressure of pleasing us

if you do than, well, youv got some strangeness

You're not ansering his main question.

Why are there exceptions at all?

And what determines what's allowed to be an exception?