Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[Satenza]

I agree with the above posters. Campaign against something which actually effects others in a negative way, like trafficking children for prostitution, the humans starving and dying through AIDS in Africa and other places. Even the children, men and women you find littering the streets because they have no place to go. Go help people and if thats to much effort take on something closer to home. Like those damn pesky women speaking in Church.

 

 

 

I know this thread is whether you agree or disagree with homosexuality. However really in comparison to the other things you deem disgusting in the world this sits very low on the list of issues to tackle.

[Kant]

Jeez, are the Christians still arguing their corner by repeating their tired mantra of "hate the act, love the person" and then trying to compare it to murder or other such wildly different acts? Thought so.

 

 

 

Give it a rest guys, you're fighting against equality and tolerance, you're never going to convince anyone except yourselves.

 

 

 

What do you think about bestiality?

[assassin_696]

Jeez, are the Christians still arguing their corner by repeating their tired mantra of "hate the act, love the person" and then trying to compare it to murder or other such wildly different acts? Thought so.

 

 

 

Give it a rest guys, you're fighting against equality and tolerance, you're never going to convince anyone except yourselves.

 

 

 

What do you think about bestiality?

 

 

 

I can see this getting off topic but i'll take the bait anyway...

 

 

 

Generally, I have no problem with private acts between consenting individuals which don't harm other people. But considering it's hard to figure out whether or not a sheep actually consents to sex with a farmer it's hard to say whether or not bestiality falls under that rule of thumb.

 

 

 

Bestiality is normally abusive towards the animal, and animals are pretty much incapable of expressing informed consent anyway, so in the vast majority of cases it's effectively rape and animal cruelty.

 

 

 

But anyway, you asked me what I think about it. I think zoophilia is essentially a fairly harmless, although somewhat desperate kind of practice. I don't like to see animals being subjected to unncessary cruelty, which bestiality normally results in. Of course, animals can form bonds with humans, although these are largely platonic, but who's to say that a human and an animal might form a mutual sexual relationship? Although it would be extremely odd behaviour on the animal's part.

 

 

 

Anyway, no matter how you twist it it's completely different to homosexuality, so I can't see how you're going to extrapolate anything relevant.

[Kant]

What do you think about bestiality?

 

 

 

Generally, I have no problem with private acts between consenting individuals which don't harm other people. But considering it's hard to figure out whether or not a sheep actually consents to sex with a farmer it's hard to say whether or not bestiality falls under that rule of thumb.

 

 

 

Bestiality is normally abusive towards the animal, and animals are pretty much incapable of expressing informed consent anyway, so in the vast majority of cases it's effectively rape and animal cruelty.

 

 

 

So you are a vegetarian, then? Or do you ask an animal for its consent first before eating it?

 

 

 

Anyway, no matter how you twist it it's completely different to homosexuality, so I can't see how you're going to extrapolate anything relevant.

 

 

 

Just seeing if your beliefs are consistent. I am curious as to where your draw the line when determining what an immoral sexual act is.

[assassin_696]

What do you think about bestiality?

 

 

 

Generally, I have no problem with private acts between consenting individuals which don't harm other people. But considering it's hard to figure out whether or not a sheep actually consents to sex with a farmer it's hard to say whether or not bestiality falls under that rule of thumb.

 

 

 

Bestiality is normally abusive towards the animal, and animals are pretty much incapable of expressing informed consent anyway, so in the vast majority of cases it's effectively rape and animal cruelty.

 

 

 

So you are a vegetarian, then? Or do you ask an animal for its consent first before eating it?

 

 

 

Heh, that's a reasonable point, except that I said i'm against unnecessary cruelty to animals. Eating meat is "necessary" not strictly so, but it serves a more obvious health purpose than intercourse with animals.

[Tigra00]

What do you think about bestiality?

 

 

 

Generally, I have no problem with private acts between consenting individuals which don't harm other people. But considering it's hard to figure out whether or not a sheep actually consents to sex with a farmer it's hard to say whether or not bestiality falls under that rule of thumb.

 

 

 

Bestiality is normally abusive towards the animal, and animals are pretty much incapable of expressing informed consent anyway, so in the vast majority of cases it's effectively rape and animal cruelty.

 

 

 

So you are a vegetarian, then? Or do you ask an animal for its consent first before eating it?

 

 

 

Heh, that's a reasonable point, except that I said i'm against unnecessary cruelty to animals. Eating meat is "necessary" not strictly so, but it serves a more obvious health purpose than intercourse with animals.

 

 

 

Ack, don't sway to his inferior intellect by calling his "point" a "reasonable" one. It isn't reasonable, and it isn't a point. It's stupidity. He's trying to compare two dudes consensually having sex and a relationship with a human RAPING A DOG. That is the dumbest thing I have ever, ever heard. Beastiality is immoral because the animal cannot consent, and that has NOTHING to do with eating it, either.

 

 

 

Christ, if this is the amazing intellect God gives to his followers, I'd rather worship Satan out-right and take my chances.

[assassin_696]

Ack, don't sway to his inferior intellect by calling his "point" a "reasonable" one. It isn't reasonable, and it isn't a point. It's stupidity. He's trying to compare two dudes consensually having sex and a relationship with a human RAPING A DOG. That is the dumbest thing I have ever, ever heard. Beastiality is immoral because the animal cannot consent, and that has NOTHING to do with eating it, either.

 

 

 

Christ, if this is the amazing intellect God gives to his followers, I'd rather worship Satan out-right and take my chances.

 

 

 

Sorry, I meant to say that it was a reasonable point in relation to questioning my ethics base on animals, but only reasonable in the sense that it made me think for a bit before I discredited it. I know it's irrelevant to the topic.

 

 

 

I also wouldn't resort to calling someone else's intellect inferior than mine, it's a debate, but hey, that's just me.

[Kant]

What do you think about bestiality?

 

 

 

Generally, I have no problem with private acts between consenting individuals which don't harm other people. But considering it's hard to figure out whether or not a sheep actually consents to sex with a farmer it's hard to say whether or not bestiality falls under that rule of thumb.

 

 

 

Bestiality is normally abusive towards the animal, and animals are pretty much incapable of expressing informed consent anyway, so in the vast majority of cases it's effectively rape and animal cruelty.

 

 

 

So you are a vegetarian, then? Or do you ask an animal for its consent first before eating it?

 

 

 

Heh, that's a reasonable point, except that I said i'm against unnecessary cruelty to animals. Eating meat is "necessary" not strictly so, but it serves a more obvious health purpose than intercourse with animals.

 

 

 

Ack, don't sway to his inferior intellect by calling his "point" a "reasonable" one. It isn't reasonable, and it isn't a point. It's stupidity. He's trying to compare two dudes consensually having sex and a relationship with a human RAPING A DOG. That is the dumbest thing I have ever, ever heard.

 

 

 

Who said I was comparing? I was just looking for a contradiction in his beliefs, and I found one. He stated that Bestiality is immoral because the animal cannot consent, and then I retaliated by asking him if he asks animals for their consent before slaughtering and eating them. It is inconsistent to call bestiality immoral and carnivorous behaviour moral on the basis of consent.

 

 

 

Beastiality is immoral because the animal cannot consent, and that has NOTHING to do with eating it, either.

 

 

 

It has everything to do with eating it. The animal cannot (would not) consent to being eaten. I don't see how you can say it has nothing to do wtih being eaten.

 

 

 

Just because you missed the point of my post doesn't mean that I am stupid. I would encourage you to take time and make sure you know what you're talking about before you repeatedly insult me and make yourself look idiotic as a consequence.

[sparky697]

I'm a man of simple words.

 

 

 

"I'm not homophobic, just don't touch me."

 

 

 

hope I answered your question.

[Veiva]

Comparing beastility to homosexuality always happens in these topics.

 

 

 

The thing is, beastility is taking total advantage of animals. Killing them for meat is not the same thing -- they both may not require consent, but are a mule and human the same because they both have bones? No. Killing animals is for survival of the human race -- having sex with a goat is a totally different thing, which abuses an animal for no reason other than personal enjoyment.

 

 

 

Homosexuality is an act between two consenting parties. Beastility is not. Killing animals for food is not comparable to humping a goat. They both may not require consent, but thats the only reason they are the same.

[Led-Zeppelin]

Murderers do not require consent before they murder anyone either, what is your point exactly Kant?

[insane]

Comparing beastility to homosexuality always happens in these topics.

 

 

 

The thing is, beastility is taking total advantage of animals. Killing them for meat is not the same thing -- they both may not require consent, but are a mule and human the same because they both have bones? No. Killing animals is for survival of the human race -- having sex with a goat is a totally different thing, which abuses an animal for no reason other than personal enjoyment.

 

 

 

Homosexuality is an act between two consenting parties. Beastility is not. Killing animals for food is not comparable to humping a goat. They both may not require consent, but thats the only reason they are the same.

 

 

 

Your argument would be sound if vegetarians were malnourished people, but they aren't. They are quite healthy.

[The Real ET]

Comparing beastility to homosexuality always happens in these topics.

 

 

 

The thing is, beastility is taking total advantage of animals. Killing them for meat is not the same thing -- they both may not require consent, but are a mule and human the same because they both have bones? No. Killing animals is for survival of the human race -- having sex with a goat is a totally different thing, which abuses an animal for no reason other than personal enjoyment.

 

 

 

Homosexuality is an act between two consenting parties. Beastility is not. Killing animals for food is not comparable to humping a goat. They both may not require consent, but thats the only reason they are the same.

 

 

 

Your argument would be sound if vegetarians were malnourished people, but they aren't. They are quite healthy.

 

 

 

Right, but then according to such logic, beastility is on the same moral standards as eating meat. While some would argue that to be true, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

 

 

Last I checked this thread was about homosexuality and not beastility. I'm not even sure how beastility got thrown in, but I still have yet to see how it's in anyway related, similiar, and/or comparable to homosexuality.

[insane]

Comparing beastility to homosexuality always happens in these topics.

 

 

 

The thing is, beastility is taking total advantage of animals. Killing them for meat is not the same thing -- they both may not require consent, but are a mule and human the same because they both have bones? No. Killing animals is for survival of the human race -- having sex with a goat is a totally different thing, which abuses an animal for no reason other than personal enjoyment.

 

 

 

Homosexuality is an act between two consenting parties. Beastility is not. Killing animals for food is not comparable to humping a goat. They both may not require consent, but thats the only reason they are the same.

 

 

 

Your argument would be sound if vegetarians were malnourished people, but they aren't. They are quite healthy.

 

 

 

Right, but then according to such logic, beastility is on the same moral standards as eating meat.

 

 

 

EXACTLY. That is Kant's point. It is inconsistent to believe that bestiality is immoral and not be a vegetarian. It sounds outlandish to you because it's contrary to what you've grown up believing, but it is logical. Both eating meat and bestiality harms an animal without their consent. Both provide pleasure and benefits to living but both are unnecessary acts. The difference between the two is that the animal can go on living after it is "bestialized".

[The Real ET]

Comparing beastility to homosexuality always happens in these topics.

 

 

 

The thing is, beastility is taking total advantage of animals. Killing them for meat is not the same thing -- they both may not require consent, but are a mule and human the same because they both have bones? No. Killing animals is for survival of the human race -- having sex with a goat is a totally different thing, which abuses an animal for no reason other than personal enjoyment.

 

 

 

Homosexuality is an act between two consenting parties. Beastility is not. Killing animals for food is not comparable to humping a goat. They both may not require consent, but thats the only reason they are the same.

 

 

 

Your argument would be sound if vegetarians were malnourished people, but they aren't. They are quite healthy.

 

 

 

Right, but then according to such logic, beastility is on the same moral standards as eating meat.

 

 

 

EXACTLY. That is Kant's point. It is inconsistent to believe that bestiality is immoral and not be a vegetarian. It sounds outlandish to you because it's contrary to what you've grown up believing, but it is logical. Both eating meat and bestiality harms an animal without their consent. Both provide pleasure and benefits to living but both are unnecessary acts. The difference between the two is that the animal can go on living after it is "bestialized".

 

 

 

I disagree. I feel beasility is wrong because the animal does not share the same conciousness as humans and cannot understand the pleasure we get from sex (the only animals to get pleasure from sex is dolphins, humans, and a few others I can't remember). Sex hurts most animals, but is so commonly practiced to reproduce. Also, carnivorism is very common in the animal kingdom as part of instict, and the only way some animals can live. So, eating meat for them is okay, but interspecies sex is a lot less common than homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

 

 

 

I still don't see the moral conundrum between eating meat and beastility, the connection with homosexuality, and you didn't address the rest of my post, which was about how any of this had any relevance to homosexuality.

[Led-Zeppelin]

How is beastiality and eating meat even related? So stupid, humans have eaten meat throughout all times, and is socially accepted, beastiality isn't. There is a reason you can't go into McD's and order a BigMac with side order of cow sex..

 

 

 

EDIT ::

 

Although the guy below me may enjoy it.. :-X

[kelem_ryu]

I don't think most animals would mind poking them, as long as you are gentle =P (and those who do mind, would let you know in a very ungentle way.) There are after all women that do it with their dogs. I think it makes the dog happy, when their *however you call that in english* feels good.

[Tigra00]

What do you think about bestiality?

 

 

 

Generally, I have no problem with private acts between consenting individuals which don't harm other people. But considering it's hard to figure out whether or not a sheep actually consents to sex with a farmer it's hard to say whether or not bestiality falls under that rule of thumb.

 

 

 

Bestiality is normally abusive towards the animal, and animals are pretty much incapable of expressing informed consent anyway, so in the vast majority of cases it's effectively rape and animal cruelty.

 

 

 

So you are a vegetarian, then? Or do you ask an animal for its consent first before eating it?

 

 

 

Heh, that's a reasonable point, except that I said i'm against unnecessary cruelty to animals. Eating meat is "necessary" not strictly so, but it serves a more obvious health purpose than intercourse with animals.

 

 

 

Ack, don't sway to his inferior intellect by calling his "point" a "reasonable" one. It isn't reasonable, and it isn't a point. It's stupidity. He's trying to compare two dudes consensually having sex and a relationship with a human RAPING A DOG. That is the dumbest thing I have ever, ever heard.

 

 

 

Who said I was comparing? I was just looking for a contradiction in his beliefs, and I found one. He stated that Bestiality is immoral because the animal cannot consent, and then I retaliated by asking him if he asks animals for their consent before slaughtering and eating them. It is inconsistent to call bestiality immoral and carnivorous behaviour moral on the basis of consent.

 

 

 

Beastiality is immoral because the animal cannot consent, and that has NOTHING to do with eating it, either.

 

 

 

It has everything to do with eating it. The animal cannot (would not) consent to being eaten. I don't see how you can say it has nothing to do wtih being eaten.

 

 

 

Just because you missed the point of my post doesn't mean that I am stupid. I would encourage you to take time and make sure you know what you're talking about before you repeatedly insult me and make yourself look idiotic as a consequence.

 

 

 

No, your "point" is moronic. There is a big difference between raping an animal and eating an animal. First, you're entertaining the idea that eating an animal is somehow "wrong" in the first place, when it isn't. Secondly, you aren't taking into account that a raped animal has to live on and remember the abuse, traumatizing it, whereas a slaughtered and eaten animal is just dead, nothing more. It's a hunk o' meat. Frankly, I don't know about you, but I'm sure most rape victims wish they were dead rather than having to remember it.

 

 

 

Frankly I find it sad that you've now turned this into a topic about the morality of raping a [bleep]in' sheep or eating a [bleep]in' sheep. That is the dumbest debate I have ever heard. Even Bible-Banging whacko's would not make such a ridiculous claim as "Beastiality and eating meat are similar moral-wise!" The Bible even says it's cool to eat meat, but not cool to rape said animal the meat came from. So now, all of a sudden, you guys are questioning God's judgement. So God knows the difference between the two, but you guys are trying to take the line away and make it the same. Sorry - not happening.

[Guest]

Jeez, are the Christians still arguing their corner by repeating their tired mantra of "hate the act, love the person" and then trying to compare it to murder or other such wildly different acts? Thought so.

 

 

 

Give it a rest guys, you're fighting against equality and tolerance, you're never going to convince anyone except yourselves.

 

 

 

Give it a rest? Um, If we weren't asked the question in the first place then we wouldn't of kept on about it. And I'm not here to convince anyone, there's no convincing to be done in a forum such as this we're everyone practically has their own solid beliefs. I'm not making the round trips from door to door like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses trying to convert the masses.

 

 

 

Oh and also would you like to fill me in with another argument, so I don't dull you with my "hate the act" argument. Or would you rather me lie myself so I can fulfill your intense internet forum fantasies of a pure blissful argument on homosexuality? Just one sec, I'll come up with a more exciting argument in the not to distant future...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa...There is a big difference between accepting Jesus and being a Christian. You can accept Jesus and not be a Christian. I feel no need to label myself into a group of people I largely despise for their hypocracy and general stupidity about pretty much EVERYTHING they talk about due to the fact that their minds are clouded by their own interperetations of the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

You hypocrite! I see nothing but your own interpretations on the Bible, when it comes to discussing such matters! In fact its you who despises the people such as myself who take the Bible as truth. Hypocrite! :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

*Ahem* Once again, you fail to see the point. You keep continuing to say your crusade is against the act, not the person...Even if that were the case, which it isn't...Why would that all of a sudden make it "better" in anyones eyes? You're still suppressing people's way of life just because they disagree with yours, which is wrong. How would you like it if every Muslim country invaded and overtook your country and banned Christianity because they think it's "wrong"? You'd still want to practice it, but they'd not let you. Is that fair? oh, of course...It's only fair when you're not the one losing anything. I ask again, why can you not just let gay people live their lives? They do not hurt you in the least bit, no matter how icky you think it is to look at them.

 

 

 

@ First Bold: Yeah you'd know wouldn't you. Don't make comments such as that, when your completely wrong, in fact you've got nothing to back that comment up.

 

 

 

@ Second Bold: How am I suppressing their live? Not once have I confronted any homosexual on their way of living. In fact my stance against homosexuality is quite private in life. Idiot.

 

 

 

 

 

@ Underline: Oh Bravo! A perfect analogy. Considering that I'm not actually campaigning for homosexuality to be a banned act. So therefore the two can't be compared. Which leads me to your question, why would I want to ban and make it illegal lying or homosexuality? I know I wouldn't win in either case (not that I'd waste my life trying). And when have I ever avoided the question? Not once has anyone asked me that question until now (well atleast I haven't read it). If people want to live their live sinning in one way or another then I believe they'll have to face God on the day of Judgment and give account. I have no reason to try and ban such an act on Earth. But that doesn't mean I don't disagree with the perverted act.

 

 

 

 

 

If striving for righteousness is what you wish for, perhaps parading around acting like you're above others, persecuting people for their lifestyles, etc etc, isn't the way to go about it. If you see two dudes kissing, perhaps the wrong course of action for God to see you in a "good" view is to sneer and say "Those people disgust me.", for I'm sure that would likely make God disgusted in you.

 

I actually love the individuals as I'm called to, that being a homosexual or anyone else.

 

 

 

@ Bold: The irony of that is God wouldn't be disgusted at me, rather the homosexuals themselves. Mind explaining though how being disgusted at the 2 homosexuals is a sin? Instead of just making pathetic judgmental statements.

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps instead, you should approach them and tell them about Jesus. If they care not to hear it, then at least you've tried and perhaps planted a seed in their head that will make them think, even!

 

 

 

Good thinking Tigra, the first quality thought-provoked piece of writing I've read from your post. Though I've got a bit of a feeling they won't be interested in hearing, but that isn't an excuse to not to.

[Tigra00]

Do you even know what a hypocrite is? I mean, it's clear that you do, but applying it to myself isn't the most genius idea you've ever had. My stances are quite clear and unchanging. I've never tried to sit here and tell you what the Bible means when it says statement X. What I *have* done is questioned the Christian stance on God, which is that he apparently forgets that he loves all of his children whenever one of them is a homosexual. Is God disgusted by them? Sure, let's entertain your little notion. He's totally digusted in them, 'kay? Be that as it may, that DOESN'T give you the right to be disgusted. Christians have this odd notion that whatever God can do, they can do, and when God feels one way, Christian's can forget all their teachings and the word of God and jump onto the Judgement-Train. Wrooooong. You haven't got the right. You know how Jesus said the path into Heaven was a very narrow one? This is part of what he meant. You honestly think that there are like a billion Christians (well, most Christians think it's more like 3 billion, because they're dumb) who are all going to Heaven just because they ask Jesus for forgiveness? I don't think so. Most of you are going to the same "Hell" (I don't believe in Hell, obviously) that you say other people are going to. Why and how can this be? Because most of you don't know how to keep your damn mouth shut and follow what you've been taught. Most of you completely forget 99% of what you've been taught while you're railing against the 1%. It's why it is so freakin' simple to call you guys out on your [cabbage]. We've read the Bible, or at least we're familiar with it, and we know what it says. Hell, we follow it more closely than you do because we don't rail against things the Bible says is wrong. There are just some things you cannot help or control. We realize this, you do not.

 

 

 

Which leads me to my next point, when I say "you", I don't necessarily mean YOU PERSONALLY. I mean people like you. Christians. The dudes who run around with signs saying hateful things against homosexuals and rallying against them to never be able to get married so that you can "protect the sanctity of marriage"...Whatever the Hell THAT means. Gay people don't want pretty white-dressed Christian weddings. They want to be recognized as a legit couple so they can get the same benefits all other couples get. Do you have a problem with THIS? If your answer is yes, I can most definately say you have a problem with homosexuals. If you want your marriage rituals protected, that's fine, but homosexuals don't give a damn about your rituals. I can't imagine a homosexual saying "I want a Christian wedding!" when Christians so obviously despise them as a whole.

 

 

 

I can see your hatred in your posts. Simple example? You probably don't even realize you're doing this, but this little sentance...

 

 

 

"But that doesn't mean I don't disagree with the perverted act."

 

 

 

...Gives it away. Rather than just refering to it as an "act", you threw in an adjective..."perverted". Why would you do this? We know what act you're talking about. I'm sure you'll say you only added it because you believe it is a perversion, but "perverted" is a hateful word when used in the correct context. People call others "perverts" all the time to make fun of them for something, usually of sexual nature. Basically, you just threw it in because you think the act is disgusting, and cry all you want, that means you think the people are disgusting too. I know it SOUNDS great to play Jesus and say "no, no! I love the people, I just hate the act!", but humans are uncapable of such feelings. They're uncapable to love someone and hate the act they've committed. Would you say you loved someone who murdered your whole family? Of course not, you'd hate that person. Look, there is no way you're going to love someone who's committing an act you hate. There's just NO WAY. You're just channeling the words of Jesus, and it's totally fake. You're not even capable of loving ME, and I haven't committed anything you hate. This statement, of course, will make you go into a rant about how you DO love me aswell, but you don't. Look at your post - filled with hate towards me. Name calling n' whatnot, you see. And I know I call names too, but I'm not the one pretending to be Jesus here. I'm not the one running around feigning love for everyone. You are. And like you said before, would I hate my mother if she killed someone? You assumed I'd just hate her act and still love her, but you're wrong. I'd hate her aswell. She'd bring shame and ridicule upon my family, so that's obvious. Humans aren't responsible enough or "perfect" enough to be capable of such things. You can SAY you love these people all you want, but you're not going to be able to fool God if you can't even fool me.

[warri0r45]

Call me crazy, but besides plugging the peripheral issues, I don't seem to recall anyone answering (or rather in any way justifying) thier opinion that there is something wrong with consentual homosexual sex between two responsible adults behind closed doors. As always, I'm happy to be corrected here if I ignorantly brushed past said justification.

 

 

 

I recall hearing one 'it dosen't help society' but that's as much justification against watching television as it is against consenting homosexual sex. I want to hear, if anyone is willing, the justification of homosexual sex being wrong based on it's detriment to you and the greater populace.

[Guest]

Do you even know what a hypocrite is? I mean, it's clear that you do, but applying it to myself isn't the most genius idea you've ever had. My stances are quite clear and unchanging. I've never tried to sit here and tell you what the Bible means when it says statement X. What I *have* done is questioned the Christian stance on God, which is that he apparently forgets that he loves all of his children whenever one of them is a homosexual. Is God disgusted by them? Sure, let's entertain your little notion. He's totally digusted in them, 'kay? Be that as it may, that DOESN'T give you the right to be disgusted. Christians have this odd notion that whatever God can do, they can do, and when God feels one way, Christian's can forget all their teachings and the word of God and jump onto the Judgement-Train. Wrooooong. You haven't got the right. You know how Jesus said the path into Heaven was a very narrow one? This is part of what he meant. You honestly think that there are like a billion Christians (well, most Christians think it's more like 3 billion, because they're dumb) who are all going to Heaven just because they ask Jesus for forgiveness? I don't think so. Most of you are going to the same "Hell" (I don't believe in Hell, obviously) that you say other people are going to. Why and how can this be? Because most of you don't know how to keep your damn mouth shut and follow what you've been taught. Most of you completely forget 99% of what you've been taught while you're railing against the 1%. It's why it is so freakin' simple to call you guys out on your [cabbage]. We've read the Bible, or at least we're familiar with it, and we know what it says. Hell, we follow it more closely than you do because we don't rail against things the Bible says is wrong. There are just some things you cannot help or control. We realize this, you do not.

 

 

 

Which leads me to my next point, when I say "you", I don't necessarily mean YOU PERSONALLY. I mean people like you. Christians. The dudes who run around with signs saying hateful things against homosexuals and rallying against them to never be able to get married so that you can "protect the sanctity of marriage"...Whatever the Hell THAT means. Gay people don't want pretty white-dressed Christian weddings. They want to be recognized as a legit couple so they can get the same benefits all other couples get. Do you have a problem with THIS? If your answer is yes, I can most definately say you have a problem with homosexuals. If you want your marriage rituals protected, that's fine, but homosexuals don't give a damn about your rituals. I can't imagine a homosexual saying "I want a Christian wedding!" when Christians so obviously despise them as a whole.

 

 

 

I can see your hatred in your posts. Simple example? You probably don't even realize you're doing this, but this little sentance...

 

 

 

"But that doesn't mean I don't disagree with the perverted act."

 

 

 

...Gives it away. Rather than just refering to it as an "act", you threw in an adjective..."perverted". Why would you do this? We know what act you're talking about. I'm sure you'll say you only added it because you believe it is a perversion, but "perverted" is a hateful word when used in the correct context. People call others "perverts" all the time to make fun of them for something, usually of sexual nature. Basically, you just threw it in because you think the act is disgusting, and cry all you want, that means you think the people are disgusting too. I know it SOUNDS great to play Jesus and say "no, no! I love the people, I just hate the act!", but humans are uncapable of such feelings. They're uncapable to love someone and hate the act they've committed. Would you say you loved someone who murdered your whole family? Of course not, you'd hate that person. Look, there is no way you're going to love someone who's committing an act you hate. There's just NO WAY. You're just channeling the words of Jesus, and it's totally fake. You're not even capable of loving ME, and I haven't committed anything you hate. This statement, of course, will make you go into a rant about how you DO love me aswell, but you don't. Look at your post - filled with hate towards me. Name calling n' whatnot, you see. And I know I call names too, but I'm not the one pretending to be Jesus here. I'm not the one running around feigning love for everyone. You are. And like you said before, would I hate my mother if she killed someone? You assumed I'd just hate her act and still love her, but you're wrong. I'd hate her aswell. She'd bring shame and ridicule upon my family, so that's obvious. Humans aren't responsible enough or "perfect" enough to be capable of such things. You can SAY you love these people all you want, but you're not going to be able to fool God if you can't even fool me.

 

 

 

Wow you ramble and ramble on with your judgmental opinion. Seriously Tigra, you try and judge the type of person I am over the internet. You wouldn't know me from a bar of soap in real life, and yet you accuse me of doing something or being something when I'm not. You don't even provide any factual backing, its just all opinionated rubbish.

 

 

 

When will you realize that its not a sin to be disgusted at someone's perverted act. And Yes I used the word perverted since its a perfectly acceptable adjective to describe their act. You know so little about the Christian faith, its astonishing. I've gotten to the point where I believe (yes I'm now going to have a non factual opinion on you) you only say your of the same faith as me, so that you can't be accused of coming from a biased opinion when relating to issues about the Bible. Since your so against all things Christian.

 

 

 

And @ the Bold: I'm not trying to be Jesus here (although I do strive for righteousness). As I have said in the past is that I'm a sinner like everyone else out there, but the difference is I'm forgiven. You should know that, or do you not believe in repentance as well, since the normal "Christian" believes in that and their just a bunch of bigot hypocrites? :roll:

[BlueLancer]

When will you realize that its not a sin to be disgusted at someone's perverted act. And Yes I used the word perverted since its a perfectly acceptable adjective to describe their act.

 

 

 

I seriously don't understand where you come up with stuff like "prostitution doesn't hurt anyone" and "it's perfectly acceptable to call gays and their acts perverted".

 

 

 

It's not acceptable, you may want to read up on Defamation, Libel and Slander Law approved by the senate. You can read about it here without layman's terms, in clear english:

 

 

 

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/person ... ation.html

 

 

 

Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation

 

 

 

Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;

 

Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;

 

Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;

 

Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;

 

 

 

You should keep your "perfectly accepted" opinions to your conversations between you and your head, because if you're an american and you take the freedom to call gays "perverted", they can sue you. And these cases do happen, I'm sure most of us aren't idiotic enough to sue you over something you said over the internet. Heck I'm not a gay rights advocate or anything. I don't want to profit from some random guy online.

 

 

 

I'm just wondering where your naive thoughts about prostitution, gays, christianity, etc. are coming from. You're entitled to your opinions but if you speak them aloud and hurt somebody, you're held accountable by society's laws, not what the Bible tells you. Being tolerant isn't just a choice you can make; If you want to live by society standards, you have to tolerate people without resorting to calling them names like little children do in the sandbox.

[Guest]

When will you realize that its not a sin to be disgusted at someone's perverted act. And Yes I used the word perverted since its a perfectly acceptable adjective to describe their act.

 

 

 

I seriously don't understand where you come up with stuff like "prostitution doesn't hurt anyone" and "it's perfectly acceptable to call gays and their acts perverted".

 

 

 

It's not acceptable, you may want to read up on Defamation, Libel and Slander Law approved by the senate. You can read about it here without layman's terms, in clear english:

 

 

 

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/person ... ation.html

 

 

 

Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation

 

 

 

Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;

 

Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;

 

Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;

 

Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;

 

 

 

You should keep your "perfectly accepted" opinions to your conversations between you and your head, because if you're an american and you take the freedom to call gays "perverted", they can sue you. And these cases do happen, I'm sure most of us aren't idiotic enough to sue you over something you said over the internet. Heck I'm not a gay rights advocate or anything. I don't want to profit from some random guy online.

 

 

 

I'm just wondering where your naive thoughts about prostitution, gays, christianity, etc. are coming from. You're entitled to your opinions but if you speak them aloud and hurt somebody, you're held accountable by society's laws, not what the Bible tells you. Being tolerant isn't just a choice you can make; If you want to live by society standards, you have to tolerate people without resorting to calling them names like little children do in the sandbox.

 

 

 

Well done on getting technical. []I'm sure there'd be thousands of cases of someone slandering someone and them sueing[/sarcasm] People "slander" others (which I wasn't even doing mind you, I was slandering the act [don't make me quote - you can read it above]) all the time in real life. It happens in sport it happens on Tv, in fact it happens all the time. Or are you living in a box? And why are you going all technical to try and prove a point which doesn't even apply to the situation - since I'm slandering the act, not any homosexual themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

Being tolerant isn't just a choice you can make; If you want to live by society standards, you have to tolerate people without resorting to calling them names like little children do in the sandbox.

 

 

 

Since when did I ever call the homosexuals themselves (not the act) names!? Seriously where do you pull this crap from? Atleast make up a valid argument when you're trying to slander me personally (ironic?) in the future, instead of just making up false arguments to prove your irrelevant posts.

 

 

 

Once again, I tolerate them, I have no problem with them as individuals in our society (someone you'd just have to believe me on - or not) but there is no way I'm accepting of their act. Stop repeating yourself with your "you have to tolerate them" garbage which we've already been through a thousand times, so I don't have to keep repeating my argument to defend myself.

 

 

 

Oh and by the way I already admitted it was a stupid comment by me about the statement "prostitution doesn't hurt anyone," as Tigra kindly showed. It was a analogy I used quickly to try and prove my point without thinking of issues about prostitution outside of the act of sex itself.

 

 

 

 

 

edit: And Just to reiterate my point, that you pull comments from nowhere, in which I didn't even write. You Fail Badly. :roll:

 

 

 

When will you realize that its not a sin to be disgusted at someone's perverted act. And Yes I used the word perverted since its a perfectly acceptable adjective to describe their act.

 

 

 

 

 

I seriously don't understand where you come up with stuff like "prostitution doesn't hurt anyone" and "it's perfectly acceptable to call gays and their acts perverted".

 

 

 

 

 

See how you decided to write that I somewhere called the gays themselves perverted, as shown by the bold. Yet the statement above that I wrote, in which you quoted it said nothing about me calling the gays themselves perverted but the act itself. Which totally cancels out your whole last post, and shows that you'll just make things up to back up your argument. Bravo.

[Tigra00]

It seems to be a recurring theme with you, Eels, that you think just because this is the internet, you are free from judgement based on what you say.

 

 

 

That in itself is quite telling of you. Just because I'm not looking at you face to face doesn't mean I can't tell that you're dumb. I've never met George Bush, but I know for a fact that man is a [bleep]ing moron based only on how he acts in the public forum, which is, quite literally, where you are.

 

 

 

And again, don't lump me into your religion. Now you're claiming that *I* am claiming to be a Christian for my own gain in a debate (HUH? That's more of a hinderment) when infact I've said the opposite.