Alternative Lifestyles





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Alternative Lifestyles
By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 09:26 pm: Edit

Personally, I just don't agree with homosexuality because I was raised that sheltered Christian home. But.. I'm not against it. Today I was watching this Lifetime movie on this woman to becoming a lesbian. My mother told me to change the channel because I shouldn't be watching such shameful acts. I was taken aback because she watches soap operas all day of murder and such. Even worse in my opinion. I personally think, outside of a religious perspective's, I don't think it's wrong, even though I can't stand seeing gay men but it is after all better than having people kill themselves because they can't be who they are.

Plus, I don't believe that a person is "born" transexual or gay. Your sexual oriention is based on your personality. How you live, the media, and ex cetera all have an impact on your personality. Your personality doesn't start inside the womb where you swim for nine months. It's based on your lifestyle. I hate hearing that "I was born with it" crap. I believe that homsexuality is a sexual tendency that should be discouraged and overcome (don't confuse me as an anti gay, I have tons of bi friends). It's your decision to further those feelings or stop them. And yes, I watched those transexuals on Oprah saying how they went and got married but still felt trapped. Well, I still don't believe that you are born with it. How do your genes tell you how a girl is supposed it act? I'm not feminine at all, but I don't want to be a guy (although a times, it would be easier). I'm consider myself a liberal conserative.

Plus, I hate people with homophobia. Just because a gay likes guys doesn't mean he likes any girl. I actually feel more comfortable I do actually with lesbians than I would with gays. Stop being scared of them. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I have to discrimate against them.

I really consider gay marriage as the interracial marriage of the new millenium. It's strange, but will become normal. We don't have to accept it but necessarily don't have to discrimate it.

Sorry about being to long about this post. You people have a short attention span, but I needed to let this out.. This is neither a pro or an anti statement, just a mere opinion by a girl who wants to become Oprah's next journalist. Anyways... I'm tired... Good night and sweet dreams.

Signing off for the night - Poison Ivy

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 09:48 pm: Edit

What scientific basis is there that being gay is a choice and not a genetic predestination? There is nothing besides your Christian perspective that tells you this. Step back from that perspective and think about it. Do we know really what causes it for certainty? No, so isn't it rash of you to make a statement like that without any scientific basis. I really don't know, and I think it's premature to speculate like you have done.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 09:54 pm: Edit

did dick cheney raise deliberately raise a lesbian daughter?

By Rugbyrocks (Rugbyrocks) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 09:57 pm: Edit

ouch

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 10:00 pm: Edit

Nice Eyesclozedtight, nice.

Speaking of which I find irony in the Republican stance that Kerry is a "flip-flopper" considering some of the things Cheney said about the Constitutional amendment a few years ago. Anyone see that footage? He states that federal government has no business dictating what should be left to the states. Fascinating.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 10:01 pm: Edit

fine. you people have a point. i'm open for some facts. how does a person's personality form then?

By Ktsmo (Ktsmo) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit

I don't think you're born with it (personal opinion, no scientific proof) I think that basically it's hormones. I don't want to offend anyone here, but I do think that the sexual part is mostly hormonal, while the emotional attachment to persons of the same sex gradually grows as a you mature. I have aboslutely nothing against gays, and am in favor of civil union. I was raised southern baptist, which takes quite a firm standpoint on homosexuals, but I don't agree with what the Christian church preaches with it being a sin and all, I'm not even gay and I find it offensive. The pastor of the church my parents force me to go to (literally) says to "Love the person, not the sin." Honestly, if I was gay, I would be so offended by this statement. I mean, who wants their lifestlye to be called a sin? I hate how a lot of the people who go to my church act so holier-than-thou and think they are so much better than gays.

Basically I'm fine with homosexuals, as long as they don't preach to me and constantly shove it in my face (I knew a guy in freshmman year who every five minutes was like, "Well, I'm gay."). And I think they should have the same rights as married heterosexual couples do, only not to call it marriage because that is a sacred religious vow, and instead have it be a civil union.

So that's my two cents. ;-)

By Magoo (Magoo) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 10:06 pm: Edit

wow...there is so much that i want to say but i don't know where to begin (so i wont)

this sounds kinda like a confession...if that's the way u feel fine u are have every right to your opinion.

i'll be back to make an necessary comments.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 10:07 pm: Edit

Sexual orientation is not a person's personality in my mind. By the way personality is very much related to genetic predispositions in my mind.

You do realize that you are starting a debate that has been raging for many years and there is no one true side -- nature v. nurture -- if you do believe that sexual orientation is part of someone's personality.

Let's switch this around though just to change perspective. Do you think you could control your attraction for the opposite sex and switch it to your own sex? Do you think that you can physically and mentally get yourself to do it? If you don't think you can, then aren't you being hypocritical?

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 10:43 pm: Edit

I think starting this was a big mistake. *takes a deep breath*

"Do you think you could control your attraction for the opposite sex and switch it to your own sex? Do you think that you can physically and mentally get yourself to do it? If you don't think you can, then aren't you being hypocritical?" First of all, I admire the way to let your words flow. Now, I think I possibly could. If I started to see qualities in a female that I would find attractive, then yes. But I don't.

Magoo, I'm dying to hear opinions whether they contradict mine.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 11:18 pm: Edit

homosexuality is a sin. bottom line. no matter whether it's genetic or environmental factors that cause it, it should not be acceptable. there are genetic factors that cause violent people, like xxy genes cause abnormally aggressive males, but you don't see lawyers using genes as a defense, becuase it isn't a good defense.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 11:23 pm: Edit

"homosexuality is a sin. bottom line. no matter whether it's genetic or environmental factors that cause it, it should not be acceptable. there are genetic factors that cause violent people, like xxy genes cause abnormally aggressive males, but you don't see lawyers using genes as a defense, becuase it isn't a good defense. "

EXCUSE ME. ARE YOU SERIOUS?

You can have your religious viewpoints and that's fine ... I guess. But don't ever compare homosexuals with violent criminals. Last time I checked homosexuals harmed NO ONE in their behavior. Who are you to judge other people because of your personal views? That is quite honestly the most frightening thing I have ever read. Sorry, if I imposed upon your religious freedom to practice and spread intolerance.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 11:26 pm: Edit

Oh shut the hell up. I hate all of you bible belt people.

And homosexuality is genetic. Studies have shown that children reared by gay or straight parents have no bearing on their sexual outcome. It is not determined by the enviornment.

And I'm straight BTW.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 11:29 pm: Edit

OMFG OMFG HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN. ALL GAY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HELL.

Don't you dare tell me that Matthew Shepard is in hell right now. I will personally come to your house and sh!t on your door.

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 11:33 pm: Edit

hi poisoin_ivy...just curious:

what if a set of twin identical sisters were raised and grew up under the *same* *exact* conditons... do you think it would be possible for one of them to be straight and the other, lesbian (or transexual, bisexual, etc.)?

does being raised under a certain set conditions as opposed to another set make a person more prone to "turning gay"? if so, which set of conditions/lifestyle is more likely to "turn" one gay?

when you said that it's up to the people themselves to control their reactions to outside influence in determining their sexual orientation, what force do you think within them is able to control such outside influence?

do you think that by undergoing years of therapy, a gay person can suddenly become straight?

what if a person lived in a 100% heterosexual community where the concept of homosexuality is unheard of (just pretend homosexuality doesn't exist in this particular community but it does in the outside world)...do you think it would be possible for this person to "turn" gay?

btw, i think that homosexuality is inborn.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 11:36 pm: Edit

what just happened? i hope this board didn't just take a huge step backwards in tolerance....

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 11:38 pm: Edit

lisasimpson...i respect your opinion. but could you please tell us why you think homosexuality is a sin?

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 11:38 pm: Edit

Gianscolere - In this situation, if they are identical sisters, they must either both turn out gay, or straight, there cannot be one gay and one straight.

In contrast, they did a study where they found two identical twins seperated at birth. One was raised by gay male-male parents, the other by a straight male-female couple. Both twins turned out to be straight.

So it is genetics.

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 11:49 pm: Edit

"homosexuality is a sin. bottom line. no matter whether it's genetic or environmental factors that cause it, it should not be acceptable."
--lisasimpson

lisasimpson, when you said homosexuality is a sin, whom is it a sin to? to God? you stated that homosexuality is a sin regardless of "genetic or environmental factors"...are you saying that if homosexuality is a sin, and it can be caused by genes, and if God put people on earth with such genes, did he deliberately put homosexuals and thus "sinners" (in your opinion) on earth?

TO POISONIVY: do you think that interests, like inclination for music, are inborn (nature) or developed (nurture)?

also, feel free to answer the questions i posted above.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:01 am: Edit

Wow, everyone's a sinner. Everyone is born a sinner, God didn't MAKE us that way, but ever since Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, we have had to bear the burden of original sin. Being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin, practicing homosexual behavior is. As is lying, stealing, having premarital sex, etc.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:07 am: Edit

I think the biggest problem I have with discussions like these is that the religious side is so sure of themselves. There is no doubt in their minds. It makes it impossible to debate because there is never any sort of flexibility. I guess that is my chief problem with religion itself as society knows it now (though not all religions by any means) -- it's naturally un-progressive.

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:08 am: Edit

wait i need to clarify things. lisasimpson, do you believe that homosexuality, in and of itself, is a sin OR homosexuality coupled with homosexual behavior is a sin? you said "homosexuality is a sin" and therefore i presumed the former is what you meant.

By Desrtswimer (Desrtswimer) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:10 am: Edit

Okay wow everyone wants tolerance for gays but no one wants tolerance for people who dont tolerate gays.

what happened to tolerance for the intolerant?

nycneedhelp says that he "hates all bible belt people" what gives him the right to say that more than lisasimpson saying that homosexuality is a sin? No one jumped all over nycneedhelp but people were sure quick enough to refute lisasimpson.

It just frustrates me that people call people who dont like gays intolerant and curse at them and call them stupid and yada yada. yet isnt it intolerant of these people to be doing this?

and that is my opinion to this conversation.


oh and ps. the person who said that by having gay people God must have created a sin, ie homosexuality. well obviously there are a lot of sins on this earth: murder, lying, cheating, ect. God does allow sin to exist, so its no surprise He allows homosexuality to exist.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:13 am: Edit

I'm on your side Craigk10...that is why I am agnostic.

Hey if guys want to screw each other or if girls want to do the same I don't care - I just say let them do what they want, it's their business, and they're not hurting you.

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:17 am: Edit

"well obviously there are a lot of sins on this earth: murder, lying, cheating, ect. God does allow sin to exist, so its no surprise He allows homosexuality to exist." --desrtswimer

but did God deliberately put people (who are homosexuals but don't necessarily practice homosexual behavior) on earth as sinners if being homosexuality in and of itself is a sin (for which lisasimpson argued that regardless of genes that homosexuality is a sin)?

the sins you are speaking of (murder, lying, cheating) are made by choice which is not parallel to being homosexual (without practicing homosexual behavior). again, i'm trying to refute lisasimpson who argued that REGARDLESS of genes, homosexuality is a sin.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:17 am: Edit

I'll rephrase what Gianscolere said to Desrtswimer:

God is perfect and all good, right? (Or so your religion says) So therefore, God cannot create bad, because he is perfect and all good. Good cannot create bad. Good can only create more good. But if homosexuality is genetic, how can he create homosexuals? In a sense, God would be creating sin. So therefore either one of three things must exist:

1. There is no God.
2. God is not all-good.
3. Homosexuality is not a sin.

Choose one. I choose #3

By Chickigirl (Chickigirl) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:22 am: Edit

God didn't create sin. when Adam ate the apple Eve gave him from the tree of good and evil, that produced sin. Therefore, God didn't create homosexuals; they chose their own paths, it's not genetic, people become homosexuals through the way their parents raised them and their lifestyle. God had no part in sin, all sin is the devil not God. Now, even thought that's what I believe ('cause that what my religious beliefs entitle me to), I don't judge other homosexuals because I can't judge myself on being a good Christian, so I don't have a problem with talking or being friends and if I did have a homosexual friend I won't pester them about, but I still think its wrong.

By Bartoastt (Bartoastt) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:24 am: Edit

My mom's a lesbian and I was raised with two mothers and turned out straight. It's completely genetic

By Smhop (Smhop) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit

"nycneedhelp says that he "hates all bible belt people" what gives him the right to say that more than lisasimpson saying that homosexuality is a sin? No one jumped all over nycneedhelp but people were sure quick enough to refute lisasimpson. "


That was my point in a previous thread. Those who tout extreme compassion and tolerance always seem to be the ones that are actually the least tolerant. That is, they are accepting of anything controversial (ie homosexuality) but they are never tolerant of the conservative viewpoint.

The very defination of tolerance, turning the other cheek, love your neighbor, embrace all lifestyles, etc should mean you respect the views of *all* others. You do not have to *agree* with the view, you do not have to *condone* the view... but if you are going to be tolerant of one extreme, than be tolerant of the other as well.

The gay culture offends the conservatives and the conservative culture offends the gays... fine, let them both be offended. BUT, those who claim to "be in the middle" should accept both extremes! But, sadly, those who claim to be "in the middle" never are-- they seem to be always against the conservative and pro the other. Gimme a break. The religious right is not stepping on the toes of gays any more than the gays step on the toes of the religious right-

Why so many people say the conservatives are to blame is beyond me--- it is a two way offensive battle. Both sides "offend" the other.


If you are truly "in the middle" , then accept both viewpoints.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:26 am: Edit

whoa. lots of response. i'll try to cover anything.

>>>>EXCUSE ME. ARE YOU SERIOUS?
yup. completely.

>>>> Who are you to judge other people because of your personal views?
what else am i supposed to judge people with if not my own views? i didn't say homosexuals were all bad people or anything. i didn't say they were all going to hell, either. God can forgive sins.

>>>>do you think that by undergoing years of therapy, a gay person can suddenly become straight?

i know for a fact that they can. my friend did a research paper on homosexuality, and he met somebody online who once was gay and turned straight after years of therapy (although not "suddenly" - it was a gradual transformation)

>>>>what if a person lived in a 100% heterosexual community where the concept of homosexuality is unheard of (just pretend homosexuality doesn't exist in this particular community but it does in the outside world)...do you think it would be possible for this person to "turn" gay?

depends what you mean by "turn". i believe this person may have homosexual thoughts, but he would suppress them. if he had never seen anybody gay on tv or in real life, i dont think he would realize that the concept even existed.

back to my violent person comparison. how many people here have thoguht about killing someone? i don't mean planning out some sort of murder or something, just having a quick thought "oh i wish that person didn't exist" or something. i have. but i've never done anything about it becuase it's morally unacceptable to society. but if suddenly it became "ok" to kill people, and it was glamorized on tv and in movies, and it was even considered normal, more people would do it.

look at very religious countries, such as muslim countries. homosexuality is considered completely unacceptable, and therefore there are very, very, very few gay people in the culture. it's not popular unless society accepts it.

>>>>So it is genetics.
with one example? that doesn't prove it's genetics. unless you were just talking about one example out of many or something.

>>>>are you saying that if homosexuality is a sin, and it can be caused by genes, and God put people on earth with such genes, did he deliberately put homosexuals and thus "sinners" (in your opinion) on earth?

i just said genetic/environmental factors to mean that that part of the debate didn't matter to me. i believe that environmental factors play a bigger role than genetic factors, although i guess people can be predisposed to homosexuality. God put all sorts of people on earth, though. people with diseases and congenital problems. maybe homosexuality is the result of a mutation or something, like the xxy gene i was talking about. i'm a big science person and don't necessarily believe God "put" people on earth. if he put people on earth, that would mean he also put bacteria and viruses here. who knows what His plan is?

i think homosexuality is a sin because i don't believe God intended for men to marry men and women to marry women. marriage is a sacred bond, the purpose of which is to have chlidren. sex is even more sacred and i believe it was meant for the sole purpose of having children, not for recreation. that's just how i was raised.


wow, long post.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:29 am: Edit

Who says God "creates" every human being? He *knows* every human being before they're even conceived, but I don't think God creates every aspect of a human being's personality (genetically). So, I choose #4 God doesn't singlehandedly create every human being.

By Asianalto (Asianalto) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:31 am: Edit

I tend to think that homosexuality is probably a combination of nature and nuture. I mean, no one's conclusively proved that homosexuality is genetic, but they just found a gene that supposedly promotes monogamy, so I'm not putting anything past the human body. However, one of the things about genes is gene expression, which largely depends on the environment. As for the religious side, believe what you want, but it irks me when it infiltrates the government. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:34 am: Edit

I never said I was in the middle. I am very ultra-liberal. Except for like maybe, one or two issues (for example, Welfare and Affirmative Action - but lets save those arguments for other threads)

...

And that's right, I hate all of you bible-thumping, Southern Baptists, who still belive that prayer in public schools is not only acceptable, it is required. Those who believe that homosexuality is a sin and that all gay people will go to hell. Those who, in the back of their heads, hate the blacks (and all minorities) and secretly believe that the Confederacy will rise up once again. Those who marry their cousins, and those who refuse to teach evolution in their schools. I sincerely hate you all, and I hope once day, you can all come to New York City, visit Greenwich Village, get scared of all the gays and transvestities there, and then run away north to Harlem where you will proceed to get mugged.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:35 am: Edit

>>>>>wait i need to clarify things. lisasimpson, do you believe that homosexuality, in and of itself, is a sin OR homosexuality coupled with homosexual behavior is a sin? you said "homosexuality is a sin" and therefore i presumed the former is what you meant.

i just meant homosexuality as 'having sex with or getting married to somebody of the same sex'. especially if it truly is genetic, i guess just having thoughts wouldn't be a sin.

>>>>Okay wow everyone wants tolerance for gays but no one wants tolerance for people who dont tolerate gays. what happened to tolerance for the intolerant?

awesome point.

>>> So therefore, God cannot create bad, because he is perfect and all good.

nyc, your reasoning didn't make much sense. God IS good, but that doesn't mean he can't create bad. it depends a lot on what you think he created. like he created bacteria and stuff, which is bad. like i said before, nobody knows why He does what He does.

By Desrtswimer (Desrtswimer) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:36 am: Edit

"God is perfect and all good, right? (Or so your religion says)"

I love how people automatically assume what religion you are.

Anyway, bear with me because i have only been a Christian for a few years I dont have all the answers nor will i ever pretend to.

Gianscolere,

your argument has no bearing on what christianity teaches. In Romans 3 it says that everyone has sinned and we are all born sinners and have fallen short of the Glory of God. So regardless of whether you practice homosexuality or not you are a sinner (as we all are). So regardless of whether homesexuals practice homesexuality bears no matter on the situation. Yes, people are born on this earth as sinners regardless of it they chose to commit murder. I hope this answers your question. I believe you are talking about God putting people on here "born homosexual" (which i dont know if i believe) and how could he do that. Well everyone on this earth is a sinner, so its just another sin.

Now to Nycneedhelp,

God is perfect and all good. There have been numerous arguments on whether God can create evil or not. I need more time to research this as i do not go by blind faith regardless of what most people may thing. My pastor believes God created evil; my brother does not think He did. The flaw in your argument is "but if homosexuality is genetic, how can he create homosexuals." I NEVER said that homosexuality is genetic. It is a choice. just as is everything else. please dont argue with me on that, you wont change your opinion on that and I wont either. There is no productive point to arguments like that on a forum such as this. There has been no gene found yet. so lets just leave it be as a difference of opinion okay? Moving on, since it is a choice, God did not create homosexuals. God created everyone perfect. Satan then convinced Adam and Eve to sin, thus creating sin. Since then everyone has been born from sinners and thus are sinners. Ever teach a little kid to be selfish or disobey their parents? no they just do it naturally. human nature. So God didn't create sinful people, adam and eve sinned and thus sin is born. So God is Good, God did not create Evil because Good cannot create bad.

I acknowledge that what I say is not absolute truth. That you cant trust me, "desrtswimer" on the internet. While i do believe in absolute truth (obviously) I dont have all the answers to please please please dont take what i say and try to twist it and turn it--because you will be able to. I am only 17 years old and dont have all the answers!! I have only been a Christian for 3 years so i have lots of catching up to do! I love conversation up to a point, but eventually on things like this it becomes too much of eachother trying to prove eachother wrong. I am assured of my belief system but i dont believe that I will be able to pursuade you of anything productive online.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:38 am: Edit

Craig said and NYC agreed that~
"I think the biggest problem I have with discussions like these is that the religious side is so sure of themselves. There is no doubt in their minds. It makes it impossible to debate because there is never any sort of flexibility. I guess that is my chief problem with religion itself as society knows it now (though not all religions by any means) -- it's naturally un-progressive."

Of course we will be sure of ourselves, religion is something ingrained into my brain. I have a certain set of values/core beliefs that I won't budge on (as, I'm sure, you do). However, there is a vast difference (although many refuse to accept this) between what is morally right and what is, according to the constitution and our ideas about freedom, politically just. Religious people who cannot seperate religion and politics are the problem, not religion itself. In short religious sin does not have to =political crime/something prohibited by the gov't

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:40 am: Edit

>>>>>>>>I never said I was in the middle. I am very ultra-liberal. Except for like maybe, one or two issues (for example, Welfare and Affirmative Action - but lets save those arguments for other threads)

...

And that's right, I hate all of you bible-thumping, Southern Baptists, who still belive that prayer in public schools is not only acceptable, it is required. Those who believe that homosexuality is a sin and that all gay people will go to hell. Those who, in the back of their heads, hate the blacks (and all minorities) and secretly believe that the Confederacy will rise up once again. Those who marry their cousins, and those who refuse to teach evolution in their schools. I sincerely hate you all, and I hope once day, you can all come to New York City, visit Greenwich Village, get scared of all the gays and transvestities there, and then run away north to Harlem where you will proceed to get mugged.


-----
i'm ultra-liberal too. except for in the case of homosexuality. i'm 100% in favor of separation of church and state. i've never thumped a bible. i'm not a souther baptist. i don't believe all gay people will go to hell. i don't hate the blacks. i AM a minority. i believe lincoln was the greatest president our country has ever had. i've never married a cousin and don't plan too, although there's nothing wrong with that. they teach evolution in my school. i haven't protest. although if they can teach that theory, why can't they teach the one about adam and eve? why do you hate people who are? you're the one preaching tolerance. i don't understand you.

By Fenix_Three (Fenix_Three) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:40 am: Edit

Well, I know that everyone here has very strong opinions. Here is an interesting situation:

Suppose that a dear friend (or yourself) is gay/lesbian. Now, suppose that your friend is also very religious and believes that homosexuality is a sin. But no matter how hard he tries he cannot overcome this. He does not have enough money or time to go through years of therapy and he feels ashamed for his thoughts. He does not act out on his behavior physically, but he does wish to do something.

Now, some of you would say that he is not a sinner because he does not act out on his thoughts. He is a good Christian in every other way. Do you think that he should be forced to live with this mindset? Do you think that it is better to stay a "true" Christian and have a completely miserable life? And like it or not, sexual orientation will be a significant part of his life.

Okay, obviously the liberals/atheists/both would say that of course his thoughts should not be restricted and he should enter society as a homosexual person.

The mildly religious people would say that well perhaps it is a better idea to let him be.

What would the radically religious people say? Would (Lisasimpson) say that he must not act out because he can definitely control this. But what if he can't? What if you're wrong? What if homosexuality is truly genetic? Do you know what kind of harm this person will be suffering? Did you ever feel like trapped like this? Do you know that the suicide rate among gay youths is 3X that of heterosexual people? Do you think it could be because they thought that they were disappointing GOD?

By Desrtswimer (Desrtswimer) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:41 am: Edit

ADDITIONALLY,

Wow lots of you posted so much stuff while i was typing and formulating my response!!

"And that's right, I hate all of you bible-thumping, Southern Baptists, who still belive that prayer in public schools is not only acceptable, it is required. Those who believe that homosexuality is a sin and that all gay people will go to hell. Those who, in the back of their heads, hate the blacks (and all minorities) and secretly believe that the Confederacy will rise up once again. Those who marry their cousins, and those who refuse to teach evolution in their schools. I sincerely hate you all, and I hope once day, you can all come to New York City, visit Greenwich Village, get scared of all the gays and transvestities there, and then run away north to Harlem where you will proceed to get mugged."

As a generalization YOU CANNOT group all those things together. I believe homosexuality is a sin and you cannot go to heaven as a sinful person (no sin is greater than the other) BUT i DO NOT BELIEVE any of those other things.

I dont have ultra-liberals nor do i pretend to stigmatize them as you just have. now you not only sound intolerant but ignorant. not every "bible-thumping" person is what you described. very few are in fact.

By Chapter322 (Chapter322) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:42 am: Edit

Ok..can someone tell me how a person can be homosexual and not practice homosexual behavior? That homosexual would have to live a very dull life. Re-check your theories, they don't make sense.

But, I believe that only a boy and a girl should be together. Although, sin is a strong word. What actions and in what context are these actions between two people of the same sex considered a sin?

Is there no such thing as extreme love between straight people of the same sex? (Ok...that sounds wierd. I think I just took things to a whole new level.)

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:43 am: Edit

One of these days...they will find the gene for homosexuality and prove you all wrong.

Lol Lisasimpson. I could go into an online chat room and tell people that I was gay and turned straight. PEOPLE LIE ONLINE, you have to allow for that.

As for my "example", I'll give you a few more. Bartoastt's case is another. Also they studied the children raised by homosexual parents. 4-5% of those children turned out gay, which, not surprisingly, is the same percentage of homosexuals around the world. So it is genetics. Not enviornment.

And about your religious countries comment - Lol. No. You may THINK that there are very few gays in that country, but the fact is, they just don't admit to their homosexuality for fear of punishment.

Oh yeah Marriage is "sacred". It's so "sacred" that half of all marriages end up in divorce. 94% of those divorcees get remarried, and half of those second marriages end up in divorce too. Not to mention that domestic violence and child abuse has gone up throughout the years. Yes. Very "sacred".

By Desrtswimer (Desrtswimer) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:45 am: Edit

Fenix__Three,

You have described a situation where a person is struggling with a sin. I struggle with certain sins all the time. continuously. however they make me stronger in the end.

It would not take extensive, expensive therapy. Many churches over such therapy for free and are very good. one of my mentors offers therapy and he once counseled a couple who had been married for 30 years and the man had been cheating on the wife with another man for 15 years. yes 15 years. he counseled them through that and with the help of prayer and God and such the man got through it, ended the affair, and now preaches against homosexuality.


I feel ashamed for many of my sins. some continually plague me. However, thats what is called dying to the flesh, and to yourself. Homosexuality is only a sin like everything else is a sin. I therefore, treat it the same way as every sin.

By Fenix_Three (Fenix_Three) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:47 am: Edit

Well, I know that everyone here has very strong opinions. Here is an interesting situation:

Suppose that a dear friend (or yourself) is gay/lesbian. Now, suppose that your friend is also very religious and believes that homosexuality is a sin. But no matter how hard he tries he cannot overcome this. He does not have enough money or time to go through years of therapy and he feels ashamed for his thoughts. He does not act out on his behavior physically, but he does wish to do something.

Now, some of you would say that he is not a sinner because he does not act out on his thoughts. He is a good Christian in every other way. Do you think that he should be forced to live with this mindset? Do you think that it is better to stay a "true" Christian and have a completely miserable life? And like it or not, sexual orientation will be a significant part of his life.

Okay, obviously the liberals/atheists/both would say that of course his thoughts should not be restricted and he should enter society as a homosexual person.

The mildly religious people would say that well perhaps it is a better idea to let him be.

What would the radically religious people say? Would (Lisasimpson) say that he must not act out because he can definitely control this. But what if he can't? What if you're wrong? What if homosexuality is truly genetic? Do you know what kind of harm this person will be suffering? Did you ever feel like trapped like this? Do you know that the suicide rate among gay youths is 3X that of heterosexual people? Do you think it could be because they thought that they were disappointing GOD?

By Fenix_Three (Fenix_Three) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:48 am: Edit

sorry double post

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:50 am: Edit

you missed the "i belive", nyc

I BELIEVE that marriage is sacred. those other people don't. i don't believe divorce should be as common as it is over little things, although in extreme cases like abuse it's necessary.

it's funny that i'm coming across as a really religious person. i'm not one. i just feel strongly about this.

my friend had contact for several months with the person he met online. they talked on the phone several times. he COULD have been lying, but that's very, very unlikely.

your examples don't prove that it's genetics and not environment at all. it could be a combination, or it could be purely environmental. that doesn't mean if you have gay parents, you'll be gay. it's hard to gauge how things like that affect you. for example, if you say gay people glamorized on tv, you might think it was cool and want to try it out, or you might think it was disgusting and be repulsed. you can't say environmental factors would affect everyone the same way.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:54 am: Edit

NYC said~
"And that's right, I hate all of you bible-thumping, Southern Baptists, who still belive that prayer in public schools is not only acceptable, it is required. Those who believe that homosexuality is a sin and that all gay people will go to hell. Those who, in the back of their heads, hate the blacks (and all minorities) and secretly believe that the Confederacy will rise up once again. Those who marry their cousins, and those who refuse to teach evolution in their schools. I sincerely hate you all, and I hope once day, you can all come to New York City, visit Greenwich Village, get scared of all the gays and transvestities there, and then run away north to Harlem where you will proceed to get mugged. "

Wow, um, I'm from Minnesota and I'm not baptist and I dated a gay guy and am friends with at least to more (I don't have gaydar, obviously). Yeah...I find that offensive. I DO think there should be time for prayer/reflection during the school day, but that doesn't mean ALL kids should have to pray. And sorry to say, all gays will go to hell...if they don't repent. But that goes for ALL sinners (including me). Would you teach creation in schools? No, because agnostics don't believe in it as I wouldn't teach evolution, because i don't believe in it (I actually belive in comething in between). Not everyone who believes homosexuality is a sin is SCARED of gays or transvestites. Way to generalize.

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:56 am: Edit

"Ok..can someone tell me how a person can be homosexual and not practice homosexual behavior? That homosexual would have to live a very dull life. Re-check your theories, they don't make sense." --chapter

we are assuming that homosexuality is inborn. and if it is, then a homosexual would have no control over which gender he/she's attracted to. but it's possible for such a person to keep these feelings inside and not express it by having sex with a person of the same gender.

By Asianalto (Asianalto) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:56 am: Edit

TV certainly does (overall) portray homosexuals in a favorable light, while people who are against homosexuality are stereotypically fusty old uptight religious rednecks, and are therefore, out of fashion.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:59 am: Edit

How could it be a combination?! There is NO EVIDENCE that homosexuality is caused even party by the enviornment. However, the studies prove a basis for it being purely genetic.

Nobody chooses to be gay. I could not say "Hmm I think for the rest of my life I want to be gay" and actually carry that out because I would always have a sexual attraction for the opposite sex.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 12:59 am: Edit

i'm NOT a fusty old uptight religious redneck

i dont know what fusty means
i'm 17
i'm not very religious at all
my neck is light brown

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:00 am: Edit

"your argument has no bearing on what christianity teaches. In Romans 3 it says that everyone has sinned and we are all born sinners and have fallen short of the Glory of God. So regardless of whether you practice homosexuality or not you are a sinner (as we all are). So regardless of whether homesexuals practice homesexuality bears no matter on the situation. Yes, people are born on this earth as sinners regardless of it they chose to commit murder. I hope this answers your question. I believe you are talking about God putting people on here "born homosexual" (which i dont know if i believe) and how could he do that. Well everyone on this earth is a sinner, so its just another sin." --desrtswimer

i'm assuming that your stance is anti-homosexuality. may i ask you why you think it's wrong?

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:02 am: Edit

Fenix Three~
I would say that his/her urges are still sinful, but s/he can find salvation through repentance, just as I find salvation when I have sinful urges (like the ones about doing my pastor in church, eww and totally beyond my control).
Chapte322~
Yes, they can be "predisposed" (if we are talking genes here) to homosexuality and not practice it. Being predisposed isn't a sin.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:02 am: Edit

>>>>>>>How could it be a combination?! There is NO EVIDENCE that homosexuality is caused even party by the enviornment. However, the studies prove a basis for it being purely genetic.


ok, i used this example before. in very religious communities, such as the middle east, where homosexuality is considered hugely unacceptable, there are hardly any gay people at all. i'm not saying they don't have gay thoughts, i'm just saying they don't marry or have sex with people of the same gender. if they have gay feelings, they learn to suppress them because they know they're not appropriate.
in this country, being gay is glamorized and seen as normal and acceptable, so a lot of people are openly gay.

^^environmental factors at work^^

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:03 am: Edit

I am reposting what i said earlier in hopes that the anti-homosexuality group especially would offer to say what they think:

what if a set of twin identical sisters were raised and grew up under the *same* *exact* conditons... do you think it would be possible for one of them to be straight and the other, lesbian (or transexual, bisexual, etc.)?

does being raised under a certain set conditions as opposed to another set make a person more prone to "turning gay"? if so, which set of conditions/lifestyle is more likely to "turn" one gay?

when you said that it's up to the people themselves to control their reactions to outside influence in determining their sexual orientation, what force do you think within them is able to control such outside influence?

do you think that by undergoing years of therapy, a gay person can suddenly become straight?

what if a person lived in a 100% heterosexual community where the concept of homosexuality is unheard of (just pretend homosexuality doesn't exist in this particular community but it does in the outside world)...do you think it would be possible for this person to "turn" gay?

do you think that interests, like inclination for music, are inborn (nature) or developed (nurture)?

By Chapter322 (Chapter322) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:04 am: Edit

So, what you're saying is that they should join a convent or commit suicide...wait, that's a sin too...join a convent?

There is no way for a person in a non-isolated world to keep such feelings bottled inside. That's just crazy.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:05 am: Edit

Lisasimpson -

NO THERE IS THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF GAY PEOPLE AS ANYWHERE ELSE, THEY JUST DON'T CHOOSE TO "COME OUT OF THE CLOSET" FOR FEAR OF PUNISHMENT

I said this before!!

By Asianalto (Asianalto) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:05 am: Edit

Lisasimpson: I did not presume that you were any of the stereotypes I listed. I was trying to say that many people (IF homosexuality is indeed caused by the environment) are probably more attracted to it than normally would be because of the presentation of the opposition

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:06 am: Edit

they shouldn't keep the feelings bottled up. they should get rid of the feelings through therapy.

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:07 am: Edit

"if they have gay feelings, they learn to suppress them because they know they're not appropriate." --lisasimpson

indeed environmental factors may cause them to suppress their homosexual tendencies but can they ever become naturally straight?

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:07 am: Edit

>>>>NO THERE IS THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF GAY PEOPLE AS ANYWHERE ELSE, THEY JUST DON'T CHOOSE TO "COME OUT OF THE CLOSET" FOR FEAR OF PUNISHMENT

right. they overcome the urge to sin. kudos to them.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:07 am: Edit

You have just proved yourself wrong. Kudos to you.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:09 am: Edit

>>>>indeed environmental factors may cause them to suppress their homosexual tendencies but can they ever become naturally straight?

truthfully, i believe everyone is born naturally straight. i know there's all this research and stuff to prove me wrong, but i have a hard time believing it.
i also believe everyone is born naturally good. that's a different debate, though.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:09 am: Edit

Frankly, they can have all the Man/Woman sex they want and God will fogive them, but it doesn't mean it's not a sin.

By Chapter322 (Chapter322) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:10 am: Edit

Oh yea. Or hormone injections maybe (or pills of some sort). Someone should capitalize on this. It could be big business. (God, I'm so business minded.)

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:11 am: Edit

I believe *MOST* people are born bisexual

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:12 am: Edit

i believe a lot of things commonly found in western culture are sinful. infcluding homosexuality, premarital sex, promiscuity,etc. etc.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:15 am: Edit

Where are you located?

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:15 am: Edit

lisasimpson and desrtswimer (or anyone else for that matter)- please try to answer my set of questions above. i'm just dying to know.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:16 am: Edit

i live in pennsylvania... what about you?
- i'm trying giansclorere, but everytime i refresh there's like five more posts with shorter answers that i just feel like answering first.

By Chapter322 (Chapter322) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:17 am: Edit

I believe people are BORN gay. (More feminine hormones or masculine hormones.)

Just like someone said before about a straight twin, the other would be straight too. Well, I personally know these twins who are both homosexuals. They have an older brother who is not, so it's not how they were raised. Their brother was raised just the same.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:18 am: Edit

NYNEED: And that's right, I hate all of you bible-thumping, Southern Baptists, who still belive that prayer in public schools is not only acceptable, it is required. Those who believe that homosexuality is a sin and that all gay people will go to hell. Those who, in the back of their heads, hate the blacks (and all minorities) and secretly believe that the Confederacy will rise up once again. Those who marry their cousins, and those who refuse to teach evolution in their schools. I sincerely hate you all, and I hope once day, you can all come to New York City, visit Greenwich Village, get scared of all the gays and transvestities there, and then run away north to Harlem where you will proceed to get mugged. "


DISCLAIMER: Though the person you describe above does actually exist, he cannot get phone or cable into the trailer therefore he does not have access to the internet. Thusly, you won't find such a person on this forum.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:18 am: Edit

People are born gay, straight, or bisexual. This is determined by the prenatal hormones. (Basically when the baby is in the mother). This is scientific fact.

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:19 am: Edit

WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY WRONG?

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:21 am: Edit

>>>>>>>>what if a set of twin identical sisters were raised and grew up under the *same* *exact* conditons... do you think it would be possible for one of them to be straight and the other, lesbian (or transexual, bisexual, etc.)?
hm. tough question. i think it's possible if there was a SLIGHT difference, like maybe one of them read a book that the other didn't or maybe saw something different while they were both walking down the street. i bleieve little things like that can make a huge difference on how you feel about things.

>>>>does being raised under a certain set conditions as opposed to another set make a person more prone to "turning gay"? if so, which set of conditions/lifestyle is more likely to "turn" one gay?
i don't think there are certain conditions that will result in gay people and certain conditions that will produce straight people. it's very, very complex, and one SLIGHT difference can totally change your outlook on something.


>>>when you said that it's up to the people themselves to control their reactions to outside influence in determining their sexual orientation, what force do you think within them is able to control such outside influence?
huh?

>>>>do you think that by undergoing years of therapy, a gay person can suddenly become straight?
yea, i talked about my friend's acquaintance.

>>>>what if a person lived in a 100% heterosexual community where the concept of homosexuality is unheard of (just pretend homosexuality doesn't exist in this particular community but it does in the outside world)...do you think it would be possible for this person to "turn" gay?
i don't the person would marry or have sex with a person of the same sex. i responded to this before.

>>>>do you think that interests, like inclination for music, are inborn (nature) or developed (nurture)?
um. both?

By Asianalto (Asianalto) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:22 am: Edit

Because the bible says so?

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:23 am: Edit

Smhop you made me feel a lil' bit better. Thanks lol.

And please answer Gianscolere's questions.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:23 am: Edit

Here you go...

I am reposting what i said earlier in hopes that the anti-homosexuality group especially would offer to say what they think:

"what if a set of twin identical sisters were raised and grew up under the *same* *exact* conditons... do you think it would be possible for one of them to be straight and the other, lesbian (or transexual, bisexual, etc.)? "

I don't see how this matters AT ALL. But, yes. I think people have the power to change their own feelings.

"does being raised under a certain set conditions as opposed to another set make a person more prone to "turning gay"? if so, which set of conditions/lifestyle is more likely to "turn" one gay? "

I don't know, once again, I don't think it matters. Of course people in more open conditions are more likely to come out.

"when you said that it's up to the people themselves to control their reactions to outside influence in determining their sexual orientation, what force do you think within them is able to control such outside influence?"

I didn't say that, as far as controlling sexual behavior (which, I don't think you're talking about) I think anyone can control that (however difficult it may be)

"do you think that by undergoing years of therapy, a gay person can suddenly become straight?"

Yes. As I said, I think anyone can change their feelings.

"what if a person lived in a 100% heterosexual community where the concept of homosexuality is unheard of (just pretend homosexuality doesn't exist in this particular community but it does in the outside world)...do you think it would be possible for this person to "turn" gay?"

I really don't know, I don't think it matters. I do, however, think social stigma would prevent this.

"do you think that interests, like inclination for music, are inborn (nature) or developed (nurture)?"

Developed, but sexual attraction is so much more essential for suvival, so I don't know about it.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:25 am: Edit

And the bible says that if your child talks in church without your permission, you should smack them in the head.

Please do not be a bible-thumper.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:26 am: Edit

BIGOTRY :\Big"ot*ry, n. [Cf. F. bigoterie.] The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.


DON'T you see that you are ALL being bigots just now? You gotta learn to stop mudslinging, and accept that you happen to have differences of opinion. Those on the left NEED to stop bible-bashing &Those on the right are going to have to accept compromise too.

NYNEED: I didn't see any questions directed at me... did I miss one? I am staying out of the *opinion* aspect of this conversation. I am only here to add hunmor and occasionally throw water at people... (HEY! You over there! Cool it! (SPLASH!)

See, thread has cooled down already... just doin my job. =)

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:27 am: Edit

the bible doesn't say that nyc. i don't believe you own a bible.

i don't, either.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:40 am: Edit

"does being raised under a certain set conditions as opposed to another set make a person more prone to "turning gay"? if so, which set of conditions/lifestyle is more likely to "turn" one gay? "

Ok, I have a possible answer for this one. (trying to recall my anciept sociolgy/psychology)
Isn't there a theory of sexual imprintation? It has been studied in the animal kingdom, that at a certain age, animals imprint on the opposite sex and later seek the appropriate mate, right? I believe it is commonly thought that at a certain (very young) age we imprint on another human being... usually the opposite sex.. sometimes not... in fact, some say that people who have fetishes (like feet for example) got thier wires crossed and imprinted on the wrong thing. Also, they say cross-dressers, for example, may have imprinted on women's feminine clothes, instead of on women... SO, IS IT POSSIBLE that homosexuals are just victims of sexual "misprint"?

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:41 am: Edit

sure, why not? i don't think it really matters what the cause of it is, i just think it's wrong.

By Desrtswimer (Desrtswimer) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:42 am: Edit

Everyone i know you are in tears because, alas, it has taken me about thirty minutes to respond! Believe it or not, I do have a life and become occupied! :-). Now you may dry your eyes because I am back...weee! Just kidding. Well half kidding.

Moving on,

Smhop,

I guess I could be one of those on the right and I do accept compromise. I never said there was anything wrong with being a liberal, in fact if it wasnt that i passionately believe that John kerry will do nothing for our country, i would vote democratic. I am tolerant that Nycneedhelp will never go my side of the question, as i even said in my first post I think things like this are rarely productive. However, there is always that slim hope that someone can just learn something and stop stating ignorant comments like "please do not be a bible-thumper."


To Gianscolere,

WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY WRONG?

I believe it just is. Somethings are right. some things are wrong. To some people having pre-marital sex is fine and dandy. to me its not. To some doing drugs is okay. To me its not. To each their own belief system (regardless of whether it is right or not and if in the end it was the correct one). So to me homosexuality is just plain old wrong. Besides the fact that "the bible tells me so" ahahah couldn't resist that one, there is just the cringe i get inside me when i see two females making out at school. Anytype of MAJOR PDA disgusts me and just when its two girls i believe is a cry for attention. take it at home, dont do it in the middle of my passing period. and then if they happen to see me glance at them they shout at me "WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT YOU IDIOT." So yes, doesnt make me feel to favorably on them. Besides my faith, just the thought of two women is wrong to me. I cannot comprehend it and my mind doesnt want to accept it. Sex obviously is designed for a purpose, and i hope this doenst sound to crude, but everything fits together right. Obviously with the same couples it doesnt.

Here you go...

I am reposting what i said earlier in hopes that the anti-homosexuality group especially would offer to say what they think:

"what if a set of twin identical sisters were raised and grew up under the *same* *exact* conditons... do you think it would be possible for one of them to be straight and the other, lesbian (or transexual, bisexual, etc.)? "

No one can be raised under the *same* exact conditions. isn't possible. there is always a variance of sports one does, or friends one has, of influences one has upon them. one may be a daddys girl and follow his believes and one may be a mommas boy. so yes it would be possible for one to be straight and one to be other (to simplify that long list).

"does being raised under a certain set conditions as opposed to another set make a person more prone to "turning gay"? if so, which set of conditions/lifestyle is more likely to "turn" one gay? "

I don't know, once again, I don't think it matters. Of course people in more open conditions are more likely to come out.

Whoevers answers i copied i'll just go with that. The question is a little broad to be answered at all. who knows what conditions affect certain people. everyone is affected by something else.

"when you said that it's up to the people themselves to control their reactions to outside influence in determining their sexual orientation, what force do you think within them is able to control such outside influence?"

I never said it was up to the people themselves to control their reactions to outside influence. This is where my religious side comes in which you can all mock but whatever. In phillipians it says " i can do all things through Christ who streghnthens me." It is a sin, sin can only be conquered through God in you. Like any sin.

"do you think that by undergoing years of therapy, a gay person can suddenly become straight?"

Yes, i gave my example earlier about this. In summary. Guy and girl married for thirty years. guy been having affair for fifteen years with another guy. repents, turns from his sin, not gay anymore. True story, met the guy.

"what if a person lived in a 100% heterosexual community where the concept of homosexuality is unheard of (just pretend homosexuality doesn't exist in this particular community but it does in the outside world)...do you think it would be possible for this person to "turn" gay?"

I dont know. I said i dont know all the answers. What if a murderer (NOT COMPARING GAYS TO MURDERERS...actually dont know why im saying that a sin is a sin so lets just say any sinner doesnt matter whether lie or murder) still does so even if no one else in the community murders.

"do you think that interests, like inclination for music, are inborn (nature) or developed (nurture)?"

Developed.


So sorry it took me so long to reply. I became distracted. Go forth and be merry from here on out.

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:46 am: Edit

smhop, that's an interesting theory. how exactly would a person "imprint" on someone or something?

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:47 am: Edit

i have another question:

do you think it's possible for humans to grow and not be attracted to either gender?

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:48 am: Edit

>>>do you think it's possible for humans to grow and not be attracted to either gender?

why not. like if someone was raped when they were little, they might be turned off from sex completely and not feel any sexual attraction towards anybody.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:50 am: Edit

Gian~
If people can be attracted to the wrong gender, than why not? (There's really no explanation as to why this would be favorable to an organism (the inability to reproduce))

By Desrtswimer (Desrtswimer) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:52 am: Edit

Gina,

i answer so so so many of your questions and nothing is good enough for you is it?!? ;-)

the answer:

sure, why not. go at it!

By Magoo (Magoo) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:52 am: Edit

wow, this thread is so explosive...i can't keep up

no wonder why GAY MARRIAGE is the hottest issue this election (besides war)

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:54 am: Edit

whoa i just realized gianscholer and geniusash are two different people. i think i justlooked at the first letter and thought they were the same...i was like wtf is up with this person?

ok, everything makes more sense now.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:54 am: Edit

I hate that gay MARRIAGE is even an issue. I'm sick of MARRIAGE period being an issue. It should be like this.
church..........................................................................state
marriage.......................................................................civil union

By Seleucus26 (Seleucus26) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:55 am: Edit

this is purely physical:

has anyone else heard that Homosexuality could be a form of population control?

It probably started out as 'practice' for real mating and is used that way in some cultures today and could explain homosexuality in animals. but could it be more widespread because it has a purpose? Humans exist beyond the resources available (we have the food, but people are starving, thats another debate) and traditional forms of population control such as canabalism and killing children dont flow with modern humans. Could homosexuality be some latent evolutionary effect that is prominent when poulations are too great?

i no it has existed for millenia, but humans in cities could physically feel that overpopulation exists even in their part of the world

or does homosexuality just seem widespread due to media attention?

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:56 am: Edit

yea it should. but as nycneedhelp would say, dubya a good ole fashioned bible thumper.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:56 am: Edit

OMG LS, and you're on MY side? we're doomed

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:57 am: Edit

seleceus, i would say media attention and how the media is trying to make it all glamorized and common.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:58 am: Edit

lol. sorry geniusash. i'm really sleepy.

By Desrtswimer (Desrtswimer) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:59 am: Edit

hahhaha have you guys even been READING ANYTHING lisa has been saying.

she only said like a thousand times that she is not that religious and is a liberal (i believe that was you right lisa) except on matters of homosexuality but she does believe in civil unions.

d

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:01 am: Edit

yup, thanks for clearing that up for everyone desertswimmer.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:02 am: Edit

D~
Are you talking to me? I wasn't responding to her, if you were.

LS~
I would launch into an attack on the liberal media right now, but we all know how that will turn out...
GO FOX!

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:02 am: Edit

Lisasimpson:"NO THERE IS THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF GAY PEOPLE AS ANYWHERE ELSE, THEY JUST DON'T CHOOSE TO "COME OUT OF THE CLOSET" FOR FEAR OF PUNISHMENT

right. they overcome the urge to sin. kudos to them."

how natural

Lisa simpson: "ok, i used this example before. in very religious communities, such as the middle east, where homosexuality is considered hugely unacceptable, there are hardly any gay people at all. i'm not saying they don't have gay thoughts, i'm just saying they don't marry or have sex with people of the same gender. if they have gay feelings, they learn to suppress them because they know they're not appropriate.
in this country, being gay is glamorized and seen as normal and acceptable, so a lot of people are openly gay."

i vote that we model our nation after the middle east.(ps: i'm a regular watcher of "queer eye for the straight guy" and have no homosexual urges whatsoever... hmmm...)

Geniusash:"Yes. As I said, I think anyone can change their feelings."

even if it's the feelings towards your true love heterosexually or otherwise?

Lisasimpson:"truthfully, i believe everyone is born naturally straight."
Geniusash:"I believe *MOST* people are born bisexual."
Chapter322:"I believe people are BORN gay."

hahahahaha yeah, you guys are probably all right.

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:03 am: Edit

lol @ geniusash. i agree that gay marriage shouldn't even be this big an issue in the election.

seleucus...that's an interesting theory but the question then would be *who* is creating such a force? many people believe it's not God...must it be some evolutionary tactic that's going against God's teachings?

before i put this topic to rest for the night, i just have to know:
for those of you who dislike homosexuals, how would you perceive asexuals (not attracted to either gender)? would being that be against your beliefs since it's not pro-creation?

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:05 am: Edit

notice we all said I BELIEVE before our opinions.

i'm not saying we should model our nation off the middle east. where did i say that? stop making stuff up. although i think a lot of the muslim values are awesome

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:06 am: Edit

ECT~
Yeah, it's a matter of comparing costs/benefits every feeling is a choice. (Although I'm sure that the benefits of homosexuality in a gay person prolly outweigh the costs (or else, honestly, why wouldn't they ALL change))

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:06 am: Edit

nope, gianscolere, i don't have a problem with asexuals.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:07 am: Edit

Who said they don't like homosexuals?

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:09 am: Edit

nobody said that, geniusash. they're just assuming things.

By Desrtswimer (Desrtswimer) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:09 am: Edit

Gianscolere,

i dont think anyone said they "dislike" homosexuals. Unlike those who feel intense hatred for bible-thumpers, i dont feel intense hatred for homosexuals. I dont like what they are doing, as someone said their pastor said and they found offensive "hate the sin not the person." i hate lying but i dont hate the person who IS lying. i lie occasioinally its still a sin but obviously i dont hate myself! homosexuality is just another sin.

I dont know how i perceive asexuals. and i never said anythign was against my believe because it's not pro-creation. sex is not just for creation, used inside the context of marriage it can obviously be for pleasure also. ive never heard of anyone ACTUALLY BEING asexual so i've never really thought about it. in the bible it says that God calls some people to be single, maybe God has just caused those people to be single. Getting married is not a requirement of being a christian.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:13 am: Edit

i'm definitely going to sleep now -- if anybody has any quesitons/comments specifically for me, put my in bold or caps or sometihng in your post, and i'll try to respond tomorrow evening after work. goodnight everyone!!

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:16 am: Edit

dang we hit almost 110 posts in a matter of only 4 hours.

anyway, thanks for having patience in answering all of my questions. when i asked "for those of you who dislike homosexuals, how would you perceive asexuals (not attracted to either gender)?" what i meant was "for those of you who think homosexuality is a sin...?"

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:18 am: Edit

no...why? The bible doesn't say anything about asexuals (that I can remember).

By Desrtswimer (Desrtswimer) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:18 am: Edit

haha WOW is poison_ivy going to be in a shock when she reads this. i think this is THE FIRST time i've read a thread this big all the way through. normally i start too late and dont care enough to read everything!

By Smhop (Smhop) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:19 am: Edit

can I interject a little reson?

As for homsexuality; We can hate the act(if we so choose), while not hating the perpetrator. For even in this most controversial area, biological disturbances may be to blame. It is not these persons' moral failings, but biological failings that are likley at work.

So, that would lead to this: Being homosexual is not a sin, nor a moral failing. For did God not create the homosexual, allow him his genetics or environment? Given that as fact, the question is " Is it a moral failing (or 'sin')for him to refuse to CONTROL the (unusual) sex urge? If we were talking about pedophilies or sadists or animal fetishits, we would say Heck yes... you darn well better control that urge! Talking about Homosexuality, however, is a gray ara because it is consentual and between adults.

Now, I do believe anyone can control any behavior. Period. But sex drive is inate in humans, and it would be folly to deny someone their humanity and right to healthy sexual relations. While any person can "control" thier sex urge, it is unlikely they can "change" or "alter" it. The gay man cannot be aroused by the female form-- he is aroused by the male form.-- it is unlikely this could ever CHANGE. However, it is within his control, if he so chose, to NOT act upon his urges.

I think this is where some here are confused. Someone said Gay persons can change thier sexual tendencies. I say NO-- they cannot "change" it, only "control" it. As to whether or not this is behavior which should be controled by the individual is a matter of (much debated) opinion.

By Desrtswimer (Desrtswimer) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:27 am: Edit

Smhop,

you may call what you interjected "reason"

i call it opinion.

your opinion that you cannot "change" your sexual tendencies. your opinion that being homosexual is not a sin or a moral failing.

I believe we already had the debate about God creating the homosexual. You believe God created it making it okay. i don't. i believe its another sin like all other sins that were created due to teh fall of adam and eve. God created environments that turn people into abusers doesnt make being an abuser okay (not saying homsexuals are abusers).

so i say you're injected more opinion than reason.

we're allowed to have different opinions. although i do believe in an absolute truth. so something somewhere has to be right in the matter. two opposing things cannot both be true. you think homosexuality is innate only not environmental. i think its environmental and not innate. hence absolute truth. only one can be right.

but for now neither of us will believe the other side so whateva!

what the world needs now is love sweet love (hahahahah i cant resist this---except that of the homosexual kind ;-p) its the only thing that there just too little of!

By Magoo (Magoo) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:32 am: Edit

smhop...

so are u saying that all gays should be abstinent?

By Smhop (Smhop) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:42 am: Edit

THE SEXUAL IMPRINT THEORY: In animals, it is different, and very widely studied. Certain species inprint positively upon thier own species, thus we don't see dogs having sex with cows. Other animals create an imprint of thier own kin, and use "dissassociate sexual imprintation" which means have relations with something OTHER THAN what you imprinted on-- in this way, nature prevents inbreeding in certain species.

In humans though, it is thought that we may "imprint" in any number of ways. It is surmised that something which first arrouses us at an early age can become the permanent and fixed object of arrousal later in life. For most, we are arroused by the opposite sex... but for some people, it may go amiss, and when the body/brain accidentally sends an arrousal signal to the wrong stimuli, it still ends up being the permanent and fixed item that will continue to excite us later in life. It is even theorized, though not widely, that the homosexual being has "sexually imprinted" upon thier own body... I don't mean some sort of bizaree auto-errotic thing-- but more like a human boy associates his own ••••• with sexual excitement, and if this gets "fixed" in the hard-wiring of his brain, he may become permanantly attracted to male sexual organs. It can even be simpler than that though... a person may find "machismo" sexy and arrousing, so they imprint on "mascualinity" instead of "femininity"-- again, resulting in homosexual behavior, because the femine personas do not ecite him.

There is another thing too: we all create a gender identity imprint, and sexually dissacociate ourselves from that gender. Like the animals described above, we dissociate from this imprint, and mate with anything OTHER THAN the gender we attribute ourselves to. Its possible that a gay man feels feminine because he has mistakenly created the wrong gender identity imprint at the developmental age (this happens young, like age 2) He knows he is physically a male, but the brain feels/acts/thinks female.

It is far more likely that homosexual behavior is attributed to biological process which occur at the sexual developmental stage. It is unlikley there is a gay gene or that hormones in the womb come into play. The devolpment of human sexuality is surely beyond anyone's control...

By Smhop (Smhop) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:00 am: Edit

"smhop...
so are u saying that all gays should be abstinent? "


This is what I said: "As to whether or not this is behavior which should be controled by the individual is a matter of (much debated) opinion. "

To answer your question: In my opinion, no, this particular behavior need not be controlled. I think sexual drive is a Gift from God actually. He gave us this beautiful act of love with which to procreate humanity. We should express our humanity and act upon it... sex is not a sin!

So, ask me if homosexual sex is a sin? I'd say that the act goes against God's intentions and nature's well designed population propogating function-- BUT it is not a moral aberation. I think that gay persons should express thier love or sex drive or whatnot as they see fit. Now, I do believe that somewhere, somehow, something has gone wrong... but I do NOT blame the individual! I do not see it as a villifying act (provided it is between two mutually consenting adults).

It is not my place to judge this behavior. So, no, I do not think Gays should be celibate... I don't see it as any worse crime that masturbation... or shoe-worship or whatever other kink you might have. So long as it doesn't hurt anyone, I am okay with it.

For those who do feel it is some horrible crime against God and humanity-- I will repeat myself and say "if you must condemn *something*, please condemn the act and not the person!

By Magoo (Magoo) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:07 am: Edit

its not that i was against u i just needed a little clarification...sorry if that got ya wound up...but thanks for sharing anyways.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:10 am: Edit

Hmmm ... I was gone for two hours and apparently this exploded. I really do not know what to say ...

Well I'll respond to the comment that I made about religion being naturally un-progressive. Someone responded that the problem isn't religion but people who bring religion into politics. Can you honestly say that this does not happen every single time? You cannot separate who you are as a religious person with your political views. They go hand in hand.

Man ... I wish I had been here but I don't really feel like reading every single post. From what I have read it looks like little progress was made so maybe that comment my point about inflexibility was right. Anyway, damn ... what happened?

By Smhop (Smhop) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:14 am: Edit

haha Magoo-- I edited and you already responded... I'm not riled up.. just tired and feel like I can't make any sense! Going to bed.

'night!

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:16 am: Edit

Oh by the way, this whole deal about tolerance and intolerance ... criticism is naturally intolerant. The whole idealism of tolerance is overblown. I'll be honest, I am not tolerant of the religious outlook and I am all right with that. The reason I am fine with that is because I believe that their beliefs are holding people down.

My point is that you are being too idealistic Smhop. There is no true tolerance since criticism itself is intolerance. Don't take this analogy the wrong way (i.e. literal comparison to this situation), but it is proving this specific point: were abolitionists tolerant of the slave owners' viewpoints? No. But were they right? Yes.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:23 am: Edit

Craigk10, I was going to put my two cents worth into this discussion, but I think you covered every point I was going to make! Right on! No sense arguing, no one's opinion is going to be changed.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:26 am: Edit

craig~
Who am I holding down?

By Smhop (Smhop) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:32 am: Edit

quote CRAIG: "My point is that you are being too idealistic Smhop. There is no true tolerance since criticism itself is intolerance... were abolitionists tolerant of the slave owners' viewpoints? No. But were they right? Yes. "

Point taken. I understand what you mean, and that is a failrly good analogy. I do not agree in this particular case that those who hold religious beliefs are holding any one back, however. Its more like, they are condeming a behavior on moral grounds, but they haven't any power to stop it.
So, allow them thier belief-- bc thier "belief" hasn't hurt anyone in this case.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:34 am: Edit

By holding the belief that homosexuality is a sin then you are naturally going to hold prejudice against the sinners. It's natural. I don't know how you can separate the two. How can these people escape that label?

Plus you are denying privileges (i.e. marriage) based on something that they cannot control in my opinion. It's like denying privileges based on race.

Clearly you will disagree with this assessment. Nevertheless if you agree with what I've just said, then you are most certainly holding people down with your beliefs.

(By the way, from earlier, values should be adjusted throughout life based on experience. It's how we grow as people. I certainly have changed during my lifetime, and I believe religion as we know it restricts growth and change. Thus it is un-progressive.)

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:35 am: Edit

But their "beliefs" have hurt people as I've just stated. While the people who are being punished by their "beliefs" have not done anything to hurt anyone else.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:39 am: Edit

Yeah, I don't understand exactly why christian based/organized religion is holding people down. I haven't thought of it in that way, but I guess you have a point. Look at stem cell research if you want an example. That would help a great many people.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:40 am: Edit

Are you saying that the world would be better off without organized religion?

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:43 am: Edit

Are you seriously saying you don't have an unwavering core set of values?!
I find that very scarey/hard to believe. As for your theory that because most religions recognize homosexuality as a sin we therefore have prejudice against the sinners...that doesn't make sense. All sins are equal, everyone sins, are we prejudice against everyone, even ourselves? Also, I have said a million+ times that the whole marriage thin is just a semantic issue. Marriage is a religious act that some how, some where transfered to become a political contract. Homosexuals should certaintly have a right to civil unions, but calling it marriage (the government calling any union marriage) is ridiculous, marriage is a religious ceremony.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:45 am: Edit

Craig~
the rights thing is not religion's fault. It's the fault of the government for calling it marriage in the first place.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:48 am: Edit

It's difficult to say ... I think the world would be better off without organized religion as we know it for sure. It has done some good things, but think of all the harm it's done. One of my favorite quotes:

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

The lack of progressiveness and intolerance has really done some terrible things. Institutional changes are necessary in my opinion, and I think that is the most realistic. To be honest the question is almost not worth asking because it's impossible. The one hope is that as society progresses, religion is forced to, although always dragging behind. What frightens me is that religion itself might prevent society from progressing.

One thing I do believe is that every religion MUST accept the Buddhist principle that there are infinite ways to God. Although I think I'm agnostic (how can anyone really be certain?), this would do a lot of good.

Sorry for jumping off topic.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:50 am: Edit

Geniusash-- What's in a name? You're right about it being semantics. Marriage, civil union; what's the difference? So let them call it what they like. It amounts to the same thing. As for all sins being equal-- I hope not! I sincerely hope that murder trumps foul language, and that pedophelia is worse than jealousy.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:51 am: Edit

Craig: I am apparently confusing everyone and not being at all clear, so here goes:

I don't think homosexuality a sin.

Some people here do think homosexuality is a sin

I do not judge the homosexuals
nor do I judge those people that are opposed to homosexuality.

Neither is offending me!

I've made a few comments to MEDIATE on both sides-- and maybe that is what is confusing people.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:54 am: Edit

Craigk10-- that's my new favorite quote :) Much obliged. As far as mine being a pointless question to ask-- isn't this entire discussion somewhat pointless if you judge worth by ability to effect change? We're not changing anyone's mind! But it is an enjoyable intellectual exercise, which is the most we can hope for.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:57 am: Edit

"Look at stem cell research if you want an example"

Do you know that these cells can be easily and readily harvested from cord blood? Thats correct-- when I gave birth to my 2 kids, I was able to DONATE the blood that came from thier umbilical cords. Its painless.. the thing is there, they cut it and it becomes medical waste, so why not donate it!

Anyway, stems cells are found in that blood that comes with *every single live birth*.

SOOOO, why don't the research firms spend more time experiemneting on those cells than on the ones which are harvested from embryos (and thus the subject of so much debate). I think the media has screwed this up.

NO one is against stem cell research. NO ONE. What people *are* against is the harvesting of the stems cells from embryos.. and the freakin media convolutes this all the time trying to make it sound like the religious folk are against the research. Bull.

Sorry, off topic, but totally needed clarification.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:59 am: Edit

Anglophile~
One sin should condemn a person to hell. (At least from the Lutheran perspective). So, for all intents and purposes
murder=jealosy=pedophilia=swearing

The difference in the name is that the word marriage is attatched to a religious ceremony. What are we suppose to call marriage if men are allowed to marry each other.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:01 am: Edit

"Also, I have said a million+ times that the whole marriage thin is just a semantic issue. Marriage is a religious act that some how, some where transfered to become a political contract. "

Well, it has been transferred to a legal/political contract, so guess what? Until that changes homosexuals should be entitled to it just as much as anyone else. Switch it back to a religious issue only, and I wouldn't even give a damn about the issue.

Now the part about my value system: what's wrong with changing it due to what I've learned? Of course I have fundamental moral beliefs that everyone does, but what's wrong with changing my other values based on what I learn through life? Everything is so situational as well -- I find some of the value systems (largely religious based) other people have unbelievably binding.

Now the part about homosexuality as a sin: I admit, I don't know too much theology and what not. But the sins that you and others committ are actions chosen by you. By categorizing acts of homosexuality as sin, you are defining the very essence of that person as sin. Do you understand the differentiation I am making (I did not make it that clear, sorry)?

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:04 am: Edit

Jeeez! If I can go to hell for anything, I'm going to start having a lot more fun-- Frat parties here I come! Sorry, I'll stop poking fun. It's not nice. There are things about christian based religions that I can/will never understand. And to your last question-- um... marriage (shrugs). They can call it "fudge pop" or "pink bunnies" if they want, but marriage has a more romantic sound to it.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:05 am: Edit

Smhop --
I understand your position. I just saw the tolerance issue as a sidenote. Did you see my response to the last time you made this comment (gay marriage, maybe)? Anyway, I just thought that was worth discussing as well.

This is getting intense.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:07 am: Edit

This is off topic and probably offensive to some of you, but I like it (it's a saying, but I don't know the exact wording):
"I don't want to go to heaven; all the interesting people are in hell anyway."

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:08 am: Edit

I agree with you on the first point (why won't they just change the language! It would be so easy!)

Phew, you do have a set of values! Good. I would say that my values haven't changed so far, maybe they will in the future, I don't know. What I DO know is that my values do not always = my actions, which I think is true of everyone.

No, I understand what you are saying...but according to the idea of original sin, EVERYONE is inherently sinful, sinful to the core of their being. We are BORN sinful, that is surely not chosen

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:10 am: Edit

Damn, that's a pretty pessimistic religon. I don't know really where to go with that ...

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:11 am: Edit

Anglo~
Marriage does sound romantic, but it carries with it a whole bunch of unnecessary baggage.
(My spelling is getting really bad)

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:11 am: Edit

Craig-- Of course she thinks homosexuality is a sin, because her religions says that homosexuality is a CHOICE. If it is a choice, then it can be a sin. I understand the differentiation, but too many people on this board think that it is a negotiable issue to the christians that homosexuality is a choice or something you're born with. To them it is a CHOICE. I apologize for the repetition.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:13 am: Edit

It's not pessimistic, we are able to repent for our sins because of jesus' sacrifice. (Wow, I really sound hardcore sunday school teacher right now)

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:14 am: Edit

Engaging in homosexual behavior IS a choice. How is it not?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:14 am: Edit

Hmmm, but it still means that we are inherently bad/evil ...

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:15 am: Edit

We all have sin...

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:16 am: Edit

No one is pure good.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:18 am: Edit

Yeah, but not engaging in homosexual behavior is denying who they are.

"To thine self be true."

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:19 am: Edit

Good is a fairly subjective term anyway. My good is probably very different from Geniusash's good. But then there are the unarguable goods like Mother Theresa. I think I had a point there, but I lost it.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:20 am: Edit

But it means that we will naturally do the wrong thing, making the wrong choice, etc. I really don't want to argue this because
a. I know that you hold your beliefs strongly
b. Because I really don't care about this because it has nothing to do with how I live my life.
c. Because I don't really know what you belief in totality so I'm sort of blind-folded.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:21 am: Edit

Okay, by that logic a serial killer would also being true to himself. No one else is bound by my religion, they can do WHATEVER they want and be true to themselves. I too live by that mantra, but my religion is an integral part of who I am.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:22 am: Edit

LOL You're just getting tired! It's late. None of these things seemed to bother you earlier (wink)--just teasing.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:24 am: Edit

I'm a little bit tired of the comparisons to violent criminals -- let me alter it if I must:
"To thine self be true if it doesn't hurt anyone else."

The problem is that you are extending your religion to others. Marriage is now a legal/political contract and you are denying that contract to people because of your religion. That means that they are bound by your religion.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:25 am: Edit

It is an interesting argument that if homosexuality is in their nature and cannot be altered=they cannot be blamed or persecuted for their orientation, then the mentally insane violent criminals have the same excuse. However, that argument is weak because while the criminally insane are doing DAMAGE (killing etc), the homosexuals merely want the ability to love in peace. There is a difference there I believe. No, I'm not saying that homosexuals have mental problems, so no one even go there.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:26 am: Edit

I agree with you on a and b craig. Let me just explain original sin to you, so that you know in the future. Human beings are born with sin, however God gave man kind free will to do as we pleased. We do not atomatically (I really can't spell any more) make wrong choices, we are not inherently evil, but we are not born perfect like God either.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:29 am: Edit

I think we have officially beaten the dead horse to death. Good night all. :)

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:30 am: Edit

craig~
touche

And I absolutely (I spelled this with a p before I figured out it was a b, btw) am completely for same sex marraige (although, as you know, I don't like that it's called that)
I'll say this again
church.....................................................................state

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:30 am: Edit

Yes, I agree Anglo.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:33 am: Edit

I have a two comments with what you just said. One is admittedly petty, but it is a problem I have with religious people -- the rest of us would really like to see you preface your beliefs with something like "I believe", etc. Second, I don't like the thought of God being perfect. Either God doesn't do anything or allows a lot of bad things to happen along with doing good things. I'm not sure which way it is (since I'm agnostic I like taking this stance), but perfect?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:35 am: Edit

Can church and state ever be truly separated as long as there are people highly influenced by religion making political decisions?

The state has got out of church, but the church isn't out of the state.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:36 am: Edit

1) I take I believe as a given, believe whatever you want. I'm so not here to convert (I'm not a witness).
2) That's the whole free will thing again.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:39 am: Edit

I'm highly influenced by religion and yet believe I do quite well seperating my political/religious beliefs...I don't play the religion card.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:50 am: Edit

Craig~
Thanks for the discussion, I must go to bed before my spelling gets any worse.
Sincerely,
Ashley

By Aim78 (Aim78) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:54 am: Edit

I could sooner read all 600 pages of East of Eden for AP English than this thread, but I will say one thing. Do you really believe that people CHOOSE to be gay? That a boy becomes 10 years old and then says, "You know what? Maybe I should start liking guys. Submit myself to a world of harassment and discrimination. That sounds splendid." Homosexuality could be considered a genetic barrier that prevents reproduction, but I think that as humans we are above those laws. Gays can still have children through modern techniques, so they are at no disadvantage in that way. So what the hell is the problem? Let people live their own lives.

By Lame (Lame) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 07:00 am: Edit

Gays are people, and God hates gay-haters.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 07:44 am: Edit

by the same token:

gay-haters are people, and God hates gays.

^^i'm just saying to show how flawed that logic is. i don't believe it at all. i can't believe that God hates ANYBODY. hate the sin, not the sinner, as people mentioned before.

By Uknowwho42 (Uknowwho42) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 09:23 am: Edit

Show me one person against gay marriage who isn't religious and I'll show you 100 who are. The fact is that the vast majority of people who oppose gay marriage do so blindly as a result of their religious beliefs. Obviously, politicians have their own set of beliefs which will get them elected if the people want those beliefs guiding their government. It's perfectly acceptable for politicians to let their religion influence them...to a point. But the extent to which gay marriage opponents fail to consider the relationship between their own comfort and the innate rights of other Americans goes well beyond any rational limit of religion influencing political action.

By the way, you guys stayed up way too late last night.

By Gidget (Gidget) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 09:32 am: Edit

I think former Canadina Prime Minsiter Peirre Trudeau said it best

" The government has no place in the bedroom of Canadians"

So they are gay, why do so many people care? Does it physically hurt you in some way that out their people are gay?

A lot say it is a sin, says who, the bible, I personally can't put too much faith in a book that a bunch of guys got together and wrote a long time ago. They are tales, they may be the word of god or whatever but they could also be as true as the stories of the Brothers Grimm...

" That is quite honestly the most frightening thing I have ever read. Sorry, if I imposed upon your religious freedom to practice and spread intolerance. " - Craigk , this along with all your other posts have been beyond accurate and you have said eveything I wanted to .

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 10:23 am: Edit

I just woke up. Damn, you people don't sleep... I feel popular now! *jumps*

This is too long that I can only read a few sentences. I really only read Craigk and Geniusash's completely.

I don't think homosexuality as in thoughts is a sin. But engaging in the behavior in personally wrong. I could elaborate more but that wrong be taking a risk.

It does not physically hurt me that people are how they are. But what hurts me is that DON'T COMPARE A CRIMINAL TO A INNOCENT PEOPLE no matter what their sexual oriention. That's wrong.

I want some Starbucks...

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Sorry, I was just comparing sins, I'm not saying homosexuals=murders (although, in the eyes of GOd, they do). I would never be friends with murderers.

By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:45 pm: Edit

I'm baaaaack

And just one question before I ask more:

WHAT IF THERE WAS NO GOD? WHAT IF GOD DIDN'T EXIST? WHAT IF AFTER YOU DIE, YOU EXPERIENCE NOTHING (LIKE SLEEP)?

THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT WOULD BE MOOT WOULDN'T IT, SINCE THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH THING AS A "SIN"?

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:12 pm: Edit

NYC, you are such a hypcrite. How can you claim being anit-gay is so terribly wrong when you are so anti-Christian/southern? That, my little friend, is the pot calling the kettle black. You have no room to talk.

btw, if there's not such thing as sin, why don't we all just go on killing sprees!

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:25 pm: Edit

becuase it's morally unacceptable. like homosexuality should be.

By Missegg (Missegg) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:53 pm: Edit

ok i don't know if it's been touched on at all, but there are alot of gay people out there that that aren't open about it, but still practice it. just because they don't come out of the closet doesn't mean they aren't bumping uglies with the same sex. as far as sinning goes, i was always taught that thinking about it is just as bad as doing it and that all sins are the same. Ergo murder, adultry, saying god damn it, all the same. That's why I quit the church, way too hypocrital.

Besides, all you need is love.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Benjamin, do you really think that "if there's not such thing as sin" we'd all go on killing sprees? Do we need religion to figure out right from wrong? UGH! I am proud to say that I am a very moral person, I do harm to no one, and I wouldn't come within 3 ft of a church!(metaphorically speaking, there have been way too many weddings in the family lately). Atheists/agnostics/other are lovely people for the most part (all must be taken on an individual basis of course)-- but my point is that we do not need a God to police our actions. I don't tell lies, I don't swear, I don't kill people, I try to be a nicer better person every day, and I do not have a religion that tells me to do any of it. I live this way because I care about other people, their feelings, and their welfare, and my own conscience. Thankyouverymuch. My apologies for the soapbox, I do not intend to offend or sound horribly self-rightious (though I probably did).

By Crypto86 (Crypto86) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 05:27 pm: Edit

I have to agree with Lisa Simpson on this. I am new to Christianity (about 1.5 years) and there are specific passages in the Bible that say that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman (just like there are passages that say that any thought of lust is sinful and so on). I will show you some in a bit (I have dinner now). I'm not against homosexuals at all (my uncle is gay) but I do follow God's word. And don't call me a neo-conservative cause I got myself two Kerry stickers on my car. You can be connected to God without being an extremeist. I used to think like you NYC but through my own experiences (no one forced it on me) I was shown God's grace and I couldn't turn back. I hope the same for you.

By Silvermyst (Silvermyst) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Smhop said "he religious right is not stepping on the toes of gays any more than the gays step on the toes of the religious right- "

thats not exactly true today though, is it? the religious right is trying to prevent gays the right the an form of civil union. in the past the religion right has pushed for states allow employers to fire gays simply because they are gay (which many states allow for), the religious right has also worked hard to make sure people are punished under hate crime laws or harrassing, hurting and/or killing gays. (they are still punishing mind you, thank goodness people cant get away will killing gays, they just dont receive the harsher punishments that come into effect when someone commits a hate crime)


Lisasimpson said "look at very religious countries, such as muslim countries. homosexuality is considered completely unacceptable, and therefore there are very, very, very few gay people in the culture. it's not popular unless society accepts it."

Homosexuality exists in muslim counteries. They don't called is homosexuality - but it exists (for men at least). You wouldn't fall inlove with another man but you could have sex with one. There a lots of male prostitutes (I am not sure what to call them, but that would be the closest american equivalant). I am not sure about all muslim countries - I am not going to stereotype the entire muslim culture, but I know it is a fairly common practice in several countries.


Geniusash said " However, there is a vast difference (although many refuse to accept this) between what is morally right and what is, according to the constitution and our ideas about freedom, politically just. Religious people who cannot seperate religion and politics are the problem, not religion itself. In short religious sin does not have to =political crime/something prohibited by the gov't"

I agree with you whole heartedly. I only wish I could find more christians/conservatives that understand this concept! I could discuss and debate with them - it could be respectful and probably quite fun!


Lisasimpson said "why can't they teach the one about adam and eve?"

If we are going to teach children in public school about adam and eve, then we really need to teach all religions beliefs on creation. I actually don't think thats a bad idea. I think a person can grow so much by learning about other cultures, religions, customs, etc. I would be happy to have my children learn the creation beliefs of the larger religious groups: Judism, Islam, Christianity, Hindu.... it would be nice to learn about some of the smaller ones as well. Of course there is the problem with which story to go by - as each religion as has several denominations which many times can interpret things differently. If a school is only going to teach one religions belief on creation, it should be a private school. Private school have many great things to offer the students and parents the cater to.

By Desrtswimer (Desrtswimer) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 06:23 pm: Edit

"A lot say it is a sin, says who, the bible, I personally can't put too much faith in a book that a bunch of guys got together and wrote a long time ago. They are tales, they may be the word of god or whatever but they could also be as true as the stories of the Brothers Grimm..."

Just wanted to throw in here that the bible was written by over 50 different men in like 1000 years on three different continents. Most didnt live during the same time, and as such didnt just get together and write.


Anyways, no one even asked my opinion on this, rather all they cared about was why I think homosexuality is a sin (which i thought was pretty obviously my answer) but anyway,

I never ever said i don't think homosexualities should be allowed to have civil unions. it is more than likely unconstitutional to deny it, and I do believe in following the laws of the land (as the bible says). So if the law allows it, i will follow it. that DOES NOT mean i agree with it. do i agree with my 17 year old friends having sex and doing drugs? no! are they still my friends...yes!

Okay going on about adam and eve being taught in school. I agree with lisasimpson on this. Evolution CANNOT be proved. no matter how much you have about bone structure and carbon dating and yada yada it is still called the evolutionary THEORY. therefore i believe teaching evolution is just like teaching a religion, BUT AS FACT. growing up i believe in evolution just because i knew nothing else. no one ever told me that it was a theory, that is might not be true. so i blindy believed what i was taught in school. i believe that this is such a crime! just teaching kids to blindly believe in one thing. at least MENTION other beliefs and theories.

okay whoever said they dont think that lying should be compared to murdering someone. God IS perfect (what would be the point of worshiping a God who is not perfect? Also, there are bad things on earth because of things like free will. God does not want a bunch of robots worshipping him. he desires relationships with us and as such we need to be able to make our own decisions. only in times of bad, often, to i realize how much good i have and how much God hs given me. God shows his grace and his mercy through bad. so lack of robots and mercy and grace are the reasons for God allowing evil on this earth). Anyway, all sin is equal because God cannot be in the presence of sin. that is why on the cross God had to turn away from jesus because of Jesus taking on everyone's sin. God couldnt even look at him. and that is why Jesus cried "Lord, God, why have you forsaken me?!" Because God had to look away for that instant. Soooo if anyone commits any sin they have eternal seperation (and everyone is born as sinners because of adam and eve and everyone sins anyway...tell me you're perfect) and so THAT is why all sin is equal and why i could care less if you are gay or straight or a liar or an honest person, its all equal and its all a sin.

Finally, wow i totally feel like im going on a religious rant but im just trying to explain some things so at least you dont have to believe it but you will know of others point of view. trust me ive been hearing my whole life your point of view, it could do everyone some good for some basic education. Whoever said that they are just trying to be a "good person" has failed logic. how good is good enough? WHAT is good enough for God? "be holy as i am holy" or "be perfect as I am perfect" obviously that is what God calls good enough so there is no way we can be that good. you cant earn your way into Heaven through being good enough because you will always have one sin, and as i said earlier, one sin seperates you.

Oh one more thing, whoever said that they think everyone should believe that their are many paths to God. I explained earlier about absolute truth. one religion says just to "be a good person" another religion says "believe in Jesus and you will be saved but you cannot be good enough on your own." obviously these conflict. There is one God (again absolute truth, one God or many Gods but one of these options has to be right) and if this one God must have his set of standards. they cant be different for everyone. So whoever asked what about if Im wrong. what about all this wasted life. well thats fine so i wasted my life striving to be more Godly, more perfect. nothing wrong with that. what if you are wrong? well now that just plain old sucks for eternity.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 08:29 pm: Edit

question for everyone who supports homosexual marriages - would you approve of siblings (whether same sex or different sex) getting married?

By Alphamom (Alphamom) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit

With a divorce rate of over 50% that would make for very hostile relations, and volatile family dynamics. Who would Mom and Dad side with? How about the mother-in-law from whom you could never escape? The genetic pool may have interesting results, as exemplified by the royal families. Then there are child support and custody issues. It would be a lot harder for the father to desert, I suppose. I wonder how appealing this idea would be to siblings who are very often not that compatible anyway:). These situations don't seem to parallel well enough to me, but I am glad to see the issue discussed and eventually a better perspective should evolve, but not overnight. It's important to really listen to all sides.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 09:25 pm: Edit

...good point, LisaSimpson, to equate homosexual marriages to incestual relationships. You know, you really should tack on marriage between a dog and a man/woman. Then your argument would truly be flawless.

Yeah, okay. Sorry for the bitterness, today's been kinda bad.:) The argument still stands. In incestual relationships, there are inherent risks. They are numerous, including physical, emotional, and psychological, some of which Alphamom so kindly pointed out. :) This is why it is illegal, besides the fact that it is really, really nasty. The only risk I see in homosexual marriage is a "spiritual" one, at least from me looking at your side.

To say that two people are not allowed to get married because of these "spirtual" reasons is extremely contrary to the principles of equity, equality, and justice upon which this country was founded. Every person who is a United States citizen is entitled to the same rights. This is not exclusive to anyone. People who are inherently corrupt are allowed the same rights as the visible saints. This is why Republicans are allowed to be happy. (J/k j/k.)

So why should heterosexual couples get more rights than gay couples? Afterall, marriage--a flawed and outdated institution--is little more than a contract between two people and the state. Everyone is entitled to such a contract, or else we're discriminating. And for all of you who think marriage is a "sacred vow," yeah, okay, sure it is. Then divorce should be against the law, going on the same reasoning, since it's morally corrupt and all. So take it as you want from the religious aspect. You can complain and say, "It's not REAL marriage," which it isn't, I agree. However, in the eyes of the state, it IS the same.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't support acts of homosexuality. I think they're morally reprehensible. (Just the acts, not the individuals.) But that doens't mean they aren't entitled to the same rights that come along with marriage.

And sorry if I've repeated other posts, it's just that I'm too lazy to go back and read all the messages. And to show no hard feelings... :)

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 09:37 pm: Edit

>>>In incestual relationships, there are inherent risks. They are numerous, including physical, emotional, and psychological

uhh, didn't diseases like aids spread in america through homosexual and bisexual relationships? that's definitely a risk. what do you mean by physical risks? i'm guessing you mean mutations in the gene pool or something, but what if the sister has her tubes tied and won't be able to reproduce naturally? a lot like a gay couple can't reproduce naturally.
i also don't see how there's more emotional and psychological risks in a sibling marriage than in a homosexual marriage.

>>>>it is really, really nasty.

a lot like homosexual marriages.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Well, to play the devil's advocate, then infertile heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married. And it's not that there would be mutations in the gene pool, just a higher incidence of genetic diseases, since the same genes are there.

"uhh, didn't diseases like aids spread in america through homosexual and bisexual relationships?"

There is no foundation/truth to this statement. Besides the fact that AIDS cannot spread, only HIV can, and that while homosexual sex CAN spread it, it is MUCH more common for HIV and other STIs to be spread through heterosexual relationships.

"Although the first reported cases involved homosexual men in Los Angeles who were infected through sexual contact, the principal mode of transmission throughout the world is through the exchange of bodily fluids during heterosexual intercourse. According to the World Health Organization, extensive spread of HIV appears to have begun in the late 1970s and early 1980s."
source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0106323.html

By Neo (Neo) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 10:06 pm: Edit

What?

I've stayed out of the thread to this point, but Lisa -- your last post was just dumb.

Incest does *not* compare with homosexuality.

By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 10:08 pm: Edit

While the HIV may have initially been spread through homosexual relationships, it was not nearly as widespread as it is today. But it's kinda interesting (and also very sad) that so many heterosexuals have developed AIDS nowadays, which is indicative of the extent to which HIV is spread through heterosexual intercourse today.

i also don't see how there's more emotional and psychological risks in a sibling marriage than in a homosexual marriage.
Well, I guess that's just your perspective and I'll have to live with it, despite the fact that I find it particularly revolting. :)

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 10:12 pm: Edit

i don't think they're anything alike, but the arguments against them are similar:

1. consensual between grown adults
2. not harming anybody else
3. you can't help who you fall in love with

that's why people on this board are saying homosexual marriages are fine, so shouldn't they also support sibling marriage? i don't think the comparison is too wild.

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 12:37 am: Edit

Actually, one of the major reasons that sibling marriage is outlawed is because of the high probability of birth defects, and the government (and indirectly taxpayers) would end up paying for the child's treatments, surgeries, medicine, etc.

But, the same point could be made with polygamy. If gay marriage is legal, why not let a group of people get married?

By Techieguy (Techieguy) on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 03:12 am: Edit

Okay, just to make things go quicker:

________________________________________________
If homosexuals are allowed to get married...

why can't a man marry a dog?
why can't a man marry a woman and another man at the same time?
why can't a man marry a table stool?
________________________________________________

This argument has been needlessly repeated throughout the many threads on this topic on CC. I believe the anti-gays are trying to make pro-gay rights people seem hypocritical (if you want gays to marry, why not another unconventional faction of society?)

To be honest, I can not think of a cogent reason right now for why a man cannot do these things. If I were to say "that's just absurd though..." it WOULD be hypocritcal as some of you can turn it around and use the same reasoning for homosexuals.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 04:09 am: Edit

A man *shouldn't* marry a woman and another man because it is exploitive. Does a woman really want to clean up after/put up with TWO men?! No!-- Not that I place women automatically in stereotypical gender roles. For a marriage to happen, the relationship must be between equals-- so no dogs or table stools, and no more than 2 adults involved. That's my rational anyway.

By Aim78 (Aim78) on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 05:04 am: Edit

This thread is useless because no one ever backs down. The same points are repeated over and over, and many of them are stupid as hell, especially the equating of gay marriages to incestual marriages. If you don't mind giving your kids 3 teeth and webbed toes, then go right on ahead.

By Techieguy (Techieguy) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 02:12 pm: Edit

is the civil rights progression over with after gay rights? I'm just wondering. who would be the next group of society after LGBT people get their eventually...

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 02:13 pm: Edit

STOP BUMPING THIS THREAD! ITS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Techieguy (Techieguy) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 02:49 pm: Edit

OKAY I'LL STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 03:46 pm: Edit

GOOD JOB!!


:)

By Apocalypse_Now (Apocalypse_Now) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 10:21 pm: Edit

bump

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 11:12 pm: Edit

lol

apocalpyse now? isn't that a movie? i remember a cow or something.

By Apocalypse_Now (Apocalypse_Now) on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 11:50 am: Edit

Bah! Don't poison me with your ignorance!!

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 05:40 pm: Edit

sorry.

By Killertofu (Killertofu) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 12:14 pm: Edit

Being a gay male, I can give you all some insight into whether gay people are born gay or if this is a choice.

First of all, I must tell you all that I was born in a very Christian home. Growing up, I knew something was different about me from a very young age. I was better at arts (acting, singing) than sports like all the other boys. I got along better with girls more than I did with boys (even though I had plenty of friends of both genders).

When puberty hit, whenever I saw sexual material, the guy would attract me more. At this point, the concept of me being gay was never even a thought. I was a Christian. I couldn't be gay- God wouldn't make me this way. I dated girls, thought girls were cute, and always thought I was straight- but I secretly liked guys.

Eventually the dreaded thought entered my head- could I be gay? Upon this thought creeping into my head I tried extra hard to like girls. I prayed every night for God to make me straight. Who wanted to be gay? Who wanted to live their lives being discriminated against and being a freak? Not me. All I ever wanted was to fit in.

I don't see how any of you seemingly intelligent people can call homosexuality sinful and say it is a choice. I recognize that people do make that choice but they are the exception and not the rule. Why would all these people choose a life where full of people such as yourselves call them sinful and don't allow them the same rights as everyone else?

I most definitely did not make the choice to be gay. Being straight would make my life a whole lot easier. Sorry this post is so long but I just have to let some of you know just how wrong you are.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Killertofu -

The true Christian viewpoint on homosexuality is basically that it is a cross to be borne. Gay inclinations in and of themselves are not sinful. But God does not want you to act upon them. Christianity considers homosexuality an aberration, something gone wrong with mother nature. It doesn't mean you are bad or evil, but it is disordered. This belief stems from the belief that man and woman were created to help each other and to procreate. The purpose of sex is procreation and to cement the bonds between the husband and wife. The purpose of marriage is procreation, although that doesn't always happen due to another kind of disorder of nature (infertility). The question I'm sure you'll ask is so what am I expected to do about it? The hard answer is the same for anyone not wishing to marry a member of the opposite sex: remain chaste and live out God's will for your life.

I'm just trying to explain the religious point of view. I know many so-called Christians don't understand it themselves and call you names and act in a hateful manner. But there are many who really do believe as I stated above and wish to offer you only kindness and understanding, but not condone your lifestyle. Just because someone doesn't condone the lifestyle and considers it sinful, don't jump to the conclusion that they are hateful and wish you any harm. But they do view the universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle to be harmful to society.

I believe you when you say you didn't choose to be gay. But there are many others who have different levels of inclination, let's say, who would be tempted to live the gay or bi-sexual lifestyle if it were more accepted, but who are otherwise capable of being heterosexual. And there are people who are inclined to sexual experimentation just for the sheer thrill of it and who feel they have to go to further and further lengths to get another thrill, which often includes gay sex (Madonna comes to mind). You get my drift. The more accepted the gay lifestyle and loose sexual morals in general become, the more hedonistic society becomes in general, leading to more AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, more breakups of families, more childless couples, etc.

The bottom line is that God has a plan for our lives, and gay sex isn't in the plan. We are all called to bear many difficult things in life. Jesus told many a man that to enter the kingdom of heaven, they must leave everything else behind. I don't expect you to agree with what I've said, but I just want to communicate another viewpoint that might help shed some light on what Christians are really thinking when they oppose gay marriage, for instance. It is not a personal attack on you. And please don't stop praying.

By Kewlkiwi102 (Kewlkiwi102) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 08:11 pm: Edit

lisasimpson:
"i'm ultra-liberal too. except for in the case of homosexuality. i'm 100% in favor of separation of church and state. ... they teach evolution in my school. i haven't protest. although if they can teach that theory, why can't they teach the one about adam and eve?"

Why cant they teach about adam and eve? Becuase of separation of church and state.
Sorry, I just had to.


Smhop: "SOOOO, why don't the research firms spend more time experiemneting on those cells than on the ones which are harvested from embryos (and thus the subject of so much debate). I think the media has screwed this up."

No, sorry, the media has not messed this one up. Misinterpretation of the science behind stem cells has. Indeed there are stem cells in umbilical cord blood. Indeed, there are even stem cells in our bodies at this every instant, growing and dividing and becoming specialized as we speak. But you wanna know the real difference between umbilical/adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells? adult stem cells are not nearly as pluripotent (pluripotent: can differentiate into any type of cell) as embryonic stem cells. They are very limited. The forefront of stem cell research is with embryonic stem cells. Its sad to think you (you meaning those of you in general who oppose embryonic stem cell research) would prefer that embryos which are slated to be destroyed in 5 years time (as the embryos currently used for stem cell research are the unused embryos from in vitro fertilization attempts, and are to be destroyed 5 years after conception if not used and otherwise unspecified by the parents) be "saved" and allow millions of LIVING people suffering from countless diseases which could possibly be cured with embryonic stem cell therepies that should be explored. Way to go- save the embryos which never were indended to become human beings as they were never implanted in a female uterus, and make the people who are already born suffer more than they might need to.
Embryonic stem cell research is necessary.

PS to smhop- (i really mean this, this isnt sarcastic) it is a wonderful and excellent thing that you donated the umbilical cord blood. your generosity may have saved lives. i thank you, as a member of society.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page