Satenza

Bringing thread back again, as someone made a new one.

One homosexual male has given an opposing unsound (as Locke pointed out) theory that says it is not genetics. Thats not cleared up.

It would help establish rules of debate. It's true those posters probably wouldn't read it, but then those posters don't read the forum rules either. Yet we have those on display because they are helpful to your average user. It may help stop them a little, but they would be useful to everyone as well.

Hopefully some guidelines people would read before posting.

Vietnamn

Thats why we need a debate forum, where we can at least have some guidelines on how to debate. Instead of some people who parade in and say stupid things, and everyone who does not wish to enter them can avoid them if they like. :D

- The Beatles - Bob Dylan - Pink Floyd - The Rolling Stones - The Who - Johnny Cash Reasons why, later. If i can be bothered.

Exactly Rebby, like I said before. People get to caught up in the rights and wrongs and forget the meaning on what religion attempts to achive here on earth. Thats peace. Liberty is peace.

I hate everyones cover version of Imagine, save Bob Dylans. As he was pretty much in the same boat as Lenon for a time. Speaking of Dylan; Mr. Tambourine Man - Bob Dylan.

I was saying you wern't a true christian for even considering helping people with it. All your choices were for matierial possessions not for others. And now somethings not a commandment we can all of a sudden loosen the rules on it?

Yeah, Jesus the son of God never mentioned the immorality of homosexuality, what an awful sin it must be then! Sex using a condom is COMPLETELY irrelevant! No, i'm not avoiding your question. But thats the truth. Its a completely different case situation, after the first case (what I said above) is solved. But you also have to be more specific. A guy doesn't need a condom if he's have sex with another guy.. so i'm asumming your refering to a woman. The purpose of a Condom is to prevent pregnacy, how a condom has to do anything with lust is beyond me.. could you explain more what your getting at? Sorry, i was refering to man and woman, and you said; So man and woman having sex, using a condom can't create life. So it's the wrong way to live according to your rationality. So grown men are incapable of making decisions about themself, and your a better candidate to make that decision for them? If it's genetical then God created people to have those feelings. Meaning those feelings are not the product of Satan, or sin. So why should acting on them be? Ridiculous, America is founded upon the seperation of church and state ever read the first amendment? And the founding fathers were not even Christian.

If life is about asking for forgiveness and accepting God then why does your signature say; It's a lie. Your saying Life is only about accepting God and asking for forgiveness. Thats not moral, thats just a cheap way out of having to pay for the bad you have done. Your life isn't about life, it's about the afterlife. It's not about the people, it's about saying sorry to God.

Thats foolishness. Do we have laws? Why do we have laws if we are telling other people what to do and how to live their lives? Better not go out and kill anyone today.. but then again, because its law, the government is telling you what to do. Religion is not law, it's all about how we should live. Some of it overlaps with law, some does not. Where did Jesus say this? Would you say sex using a condom is an act of lust and not love in all circumstances? If not your point is not valid. Anyway, thats a subjective opinion and I'm sure many gay people will tell you that it is an act of love. Your blurring the lines between opinion and fact. It's not proven either way if someone is gay because of genetics or enviroment. The only reason you're against it being Genetics is because that would mean God made them that way, and therefore their feelings are fine.

You're too caught up into telling others how to live their lives, you forget. Would Jesus have said "Lets throw homosexuals out of society"?

When Defender had a thread about what to spend his $1000 dollars he had on. He put things like a car, television, material things. I told him that if he truley followed his religion he would give it to the poor, or use it to help people. Needless never responded, just said get back on topic, and even said that I needed help for not giving him a "real suggestion". Most people just beleive, they talk the talk but when it comes to it they don't do much. I think you should look a little futher than him if you are to find someone who really is devout enough to answer that.

When you say the world has changed from being moral to immoral what time was this word ever moral? During Word War One and Two? When? The world has always been an unsettles "immoral" place where wars continue. Sorry to break it to you, there has never been a standard of utopia in the world. And this ain't a dystopia we are living in. Infact the world is becoming more moral, what with civil rights and the like. So what the hell are you talking about? In his eyes the world was perfect in the garden of Eden until man sinned, then it fell and became immoral No, he said; Adam and Eve is not a society, so which society did we perfectly live in utopia by your morals. Then adopt the evil objective reasoning and begin the slippery slope to "immorality". Your beliefs don't make sense then, how can you "respect each others opinions" then not allow people who think differentley to you to live in society? I don't care whether or not you like or dislike homosexuality, what i care about is when you incite harm to homosexual people. Rejection from society is harm, face it your nothing other than a fascist. As if you throw out people who are homosexual, i guess you are going to throw out people who master|bate, or lie, or commit any type of immoral act? Edit: Also Doesn't mention homosexuality at all. Infact, Jesus didn't really mention homosexuality at all being bad. Which brings about the question, if it really was such an evil, and immoral act why did he never mention it as such?

When you say the world has changed from being moral to immoral what time was this word ever moral? During Word War One and Two? When? The world has always been an unsettles "immoral" place where wars continue. Sorry to break it to you, there has never been a standard of utopia in the world. And this ain't a dystopia we are living in. Infact the world is becoming more moral, what with civil rights and the like. So what the hell are you talking about?

I think I'm done debating with you, as well actually. Everytime you seem to stoop to personal attacks as above. My question was completley valid, as you are still relying on two assumptions. My interpretation of the Bible is correct. God with x qualities exists. Which makes it illogical. That's one assumption. If we assume that the Bible is correct, then it follows logically without assumption that a God with x qualities exists since they are recorded in the Bible, which we are assuming to be correct. Ok, one assumption God exists. I can handle that. Piling two other assumptions onto that and trying to make it look like one I can't. Your assuming (1) a God exists, then your assuming (2)she has X qualities you (3) assume from your interpretation from the Bible. Two assumptions that rest on your interpretation of the Bible. = Illogical Morality.

I think I'm done debating with you, as well actually. Everytime you seem to stoop to personal attacks as above. My question was completley valid, as you are still relying on two assumptions. My interpretation of the Bible is correct. God with x qualities exists. Which makes it illogical.

It's quite clearly not irrelevant. As if you say the bible your morals become illogical because you are making two assumptions again. The Bible is divinley inspired God with x qualities exists.

And where do you get the basic principles of what Gods qualitys are from?

Thats still two assumptions. God exists. God has those characteristics that defines morality. Unless you are assuming that if your God does not exist, no other God can exist?

Would you agree that relying on God for an absolute standard of morality is illogical then. Since the next step after assuming God exists is the assumption that Gods laws are moral?

Let's say that Johnny across town wants to have sex with his sister Susie, and Susie wants to have sex with Johnny. Are you going to respect that? After all it contributes to their individualism People backing up homosexuality say people need to be more accepting of it and need to respect other peoples choice. Well from my angle you need to take a leaf out of your own book and respect that its against my beliefs to be ok with homosexuality. Incest has nothing to do with homosexuality. However no, that wouldn't be right. Incest causes all sorts of emotional harm, not to mention the fact incest can lead to pregnency (again emotional harm to the child) and physical disorders for the child. I Understand your point about "taking a leaf from our own book" which is not the case. I accept your views, i disagree with them but i accept them. That doesn't mean i can't argue with them now does it? My views don't supress people, your views clearly do.

Ahaha, Graham Norton and Paul O'Grady arn't cool. Whats all this about sexual abuse = homosexual anyway? People are different to each other, it's called individualism and everyone should be able to respect that.