Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[Agunimon979]

 

 

 

Also, I doubt that pro-gay campaigners are trying to turn you gay. I seriously hope not, anyway, because that would make them as bad as the nutcases who try and "fix" homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

You've not seen the commercials? "CELEBRATE HOMOSEXUALITY" or using characters like spongebob to promote homosexuality in children (we are family organization). And then there's the people that try to promote homosexuality to make money off of it. as said before, despicable.

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

Also, I doubt that pro-gay campaigners are trying to turn you gay. I seriously hope not, anyway, because that would make them as bad as the nutcases who try and "fix" homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

You've not seen the commercials? "CELEBRATE HOMOSEXUALITY" or using characters like spongebob to promote homosexuality in children (we are family organization). And then there's the people that try to promote homosexuality to make money off of it. as said before, despicable.

 

 

 

Not where I'm from. But that does sound over the top.

[magekillr]

 

 

 

Also, I doubt that pro-gay campaigners are trying to turn you gay. I seriously hope not, anyway, because that would make them as bad as the nutcases who try and "fix" homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

You've not seen the commercials? "CELEBRATE HOMOSEXUALITY" or using characters like spongebob to promote homosexuality in children (we are family organization). And then there's the people that try to promote homosexuality to make money off of it. as said before, despicable.

 

 

 

Not where I'm from. But that does sound over the top.

 

 

 

I don't know what he's talking about, at all. I've been to gay parades, and I am a member of the LGBT too, and I have yet to see any of this. Methinks his homophobia is showing.

[Ginger_Warrior]

To be fair, I think the action in question is anal sex. Or sex between two males or two females.

 

I fail to see the difference between being a bi/homosexual and participating in homosexual acts. I'm a heterosexual, which is widely regarded as normal, and if were to participate in heterosexual intercourse, that too would be deemed normal within reason. I can't see the difference just because the action in question is between two people of the same gender.

 

 

 

Simply put, if being a homosexual is OK by them, why isn't participating in homosexual acts? One logically follows the other.

 

 

 

You've not seen the commercials? "CELEBRATE HOMOSEXUALITY" or using characters like spongebob to promote homosexuality in children (we are family organization). And then there's the people that try to promote homosexuality to make money off of it. as said before, despicable.

 

No I haven't, not even during the annual Manchester Pride festival when I was in Manchester this year.

[llcoolguy972]

 

 

 

Also, I doubt that pro-gay campaigners are trying to turn you gay. I seriously hope not, anyway, because that would make them as bad as the nutcases who try and "fix" homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

You've not seen the commercials? "CELEBRATE HOMOSEXUALITY" or using characters like spongebob to promote homosexuality in children (we are family organization). And then there's the people that try to promote homosexuality to make money off of it. as said before, despicable.

 

 

 

I just spent like 15 minutes trying to track down that organization and the video and after I read this article, it seems to me like an overly conservative Christian group is just bored and needs a hobby to fill their time. After I watched the video, I realized I was right. There was about 2 seconds of SpongeBob, and one probably wouldn't even notice him if they weren't looking. And I was searching for some kind of hidden message to turn kids gay, but I didn't find one. TBH, I think the only "despicable" one here is you.

[magekillr]

 

 

 

Also, I doubt that pro-gay campaigners are trying to turn you gay. I seriously hope not, anyway, because that would make them as bad as the nutcases who try and "fix" homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

You've not seen the commercials? "CELEBRATE HOMOSEXUALITY" or using characters like spongebob to promote homosexuality in children (we are family organization). And then there's the people that try to promote homosexuality to make money off of it. as said before, despicable.

 

 

 

I just spent like 15 minutes trying to track down that organization and the video and after I read this article, it seems to me like an overly conservative Christian group is just bored and needs a hobby to fill their time. After I watched the video, I realized I was right. There was about 2 seconds of SpongeBob, and one probably wouldn't even notice him if they weren't looking. And I was searching for some kind of hidden message to turn kids gay, but I didn't find one. TBH, I think the only "despicable" one here is you.

 

 

 

Are they freaking insane? What the hell is wrong with that video? Are these people THAT uncomfortable with their sexuality that they can't embrace and hug and love other members of the human family without feeling that they might be "gay"?

[jackattack]

Yes because anyone who disagrees with you is insane.

[magekillr]

Yes because that's DEFINITELY what I said.

[assassin_696]

I have a hypothetical question i'd like to put forward. We've already established that in many cases homosexuality is not a simple choice that you can turn on and off at will. However, if it was (solely a personal choice) would you still support it?

 

 

 

Personally I absolutely would, I see no reason why it being a choice should make it any less okay, since it's a private "act" between consenting adults. However I suspect that many religious people who previously thought it was acceptable on the premise that it wasn't a choice might change their minds, and i'm curious if this would be the case. Or maybe even people for whom religion plays no part in their decision making process would suddenly be less comfortable with the idea. I don't know.

 

 

 

My principles are fundamentally libertarian, and not based on what is and isn't genetically predetermined.

[Ginger_Warrior]

That's the thing that concerns me. There are many homosexuals seeking scientific answers as to why they are homosexuals, and this concerns genetics (a documentary with John Barrowman springs to mind). If it turns out genetics do have a role to play, then that makes the anti-homosexual case even stronger and it especially adds to the religious view that it isn't natural.

 

 

 

Of course I would still accept it though. People with Downs' Syndrome can't just turn it off, their condition is down to genetics, yet of course we accept their legitimate right to be. If homosexuality comes down to genetics, and it isn't a medical condition, I still see no reason why it shouldn't be accepted.

[RichieMcD]

I would support homosexuality whether if it was a genetic thing or a personal choice. Who people are attracted to is in a way their own choice and if it's a homosexual attraction I'd support them the whole way. What I think is saddening in modern times is how many people base their decision on what their told by their religious beliefs. That's not their opinion, but instead the opinion of a powerful and often corrupt church.

 

 

 

If someone can come up with a good argument for it other than that according to the bible it is not allowed then I will respect their opinion, but if they say it's not ok because it says "x" in the bible I will hold very little respect for you :|

[magekillr]

Being a Christian is a choice. Of course I would still support their decision that they make in their own bedroom.

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

Also, I doubt that pro-gay campaigners are trying to turn you gay. I seriously hope not, anyway, because that would make them as bad as the nutcases who try and "fix" homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

You've not seen the commercials? "CELEBRATE HOMOSEXUALITY" or using characters like spongebob to promote homosexuality in children (we are family organization). And then there's the people that try to promote homosexuality to make money off of it. as said before, despicable.

 

 

 

I just spent like 15 minutes trying to track down that organization and the video and after I read this article, it seems to me like an overly conservative Christian group is just bored and needs a hobby to fill their time. After I watched the video, I realized I was right. There was about 2 seconds of SpongeBob, and one probably wouldn't even notice him if they weren't looking. And I was searching for some kind of hidden message to turn kids gay, but I didn't find one. TBH, I think the only "despicable" one here is you.

 

 

 

Damn, I had no idea. You're absolutely right, the only despicable people here are Agunimon and "Focus on the Family" for making a big issue out of absolutely nothing.

 

 

 

Seriously, the idea that you can get a pro-gay agenda from that video is just insane.

 

 

 

And as for the question of would I support homosexuality if it was a choice, yes. The idea that this private act between consenting adults is a choice is not something that concerns me morally.

[silver_wits]

I have a hypothetical question i'd like to put forward. We've already established that in many cases homosexuality is not a simple choice that you can turn on and off at will. However, if it was (solely a personal choice) would you still support it?

 

 

 

Personally I absolutely would, I see no reason why it being a choice should make it any less okay, since it's a private "act" between consenting adults. However I suspect that many religious people who previously thought it was acceptable on the premise that it wasn't a choice might change their minds, and i'm curious if this would be the case. Or maybe even people for whom religion plays no part in their decision making process would suddenly be less comfortable with the idea. I don't know.

 

 

 

My principles are fundamentally libertarian, and not based on what is and isn't genetically predetermined.

 

 

 

 

 

Which brings me to question.. what if our genes make us more likely to choose one thing over another?

 

also... what about...

 

oh.. fudge it... people just want to prove that they['re not liable for the choices they make.

 

 

 

however, to ansqwer your question assasin, I would still support homosexuality even it was choice... even if you just picked waht you wanted to be... it's not as if it's hurting me right? So I support it.

[Giordano]

I agree too, Warrior. Being a choice or naturally shouldn't matter. Its their lives and they can live it however they want.

 

 

 

But, what strikes me odd, is why is male homosexuality shunned far worse than female? Is this some sort of pornographic enjoyment the chruches want to let it stay? In fact, how many female priests/pasteurs/whatever are there in a Christian/Catholic/whatever church?

[silver_wits]

this has probably been said already... but it's because of the way two males would have sex versus two females. :shock: :? :roll: :-#

[jackattack]

I agree too, Warrior. Being a choice or naturally shouldn't matter. Its their lives and they can live it however they want.

 

 

 

But, what strikes me odd, is why is male homosexuality shunned far worse than female? Is this some sort of pornographic enjoyment the chruches want to let it stay? In fact, how many female priests/pasteurs/whatever are there in a Christian/Catholic/whatever church?

 

 

 

 

 

It's not shunned at all. There is no difference. And there aren't female priests only nuns.

[l0l0lpur32]

I agree too, Warrior. Being a choice or naturally shouldn't matter. Its their lives and they can live it however they want.

 

 

 

But, what strikes me odd, is why is male homosexuality shunned far worse than female? Is this some sort of pornographic enjoyment the chruches want to let it stay? In fact, how many female priests/pasteurs/whatever are there in a Christian/Catholic/whatever church?

 

Where do you get that idea from?

[Shiny]

I'd agree with you for the most part Assasin.

 

 

 

I think that male-male is despised a lot more than female-female merely for the way male-male primely have sex. There are guy in my class who are very anti-gay, calling gay people bumboys, receivers etc etc, but when two girls in our class kiss, they cheer and holler, wolf whistle and the like.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But, what strikes me odd, is why is male homosexuality shunned far worse than female? Is this some sort of pornographic enjoyment the chruches want to let it stay? In fact, how many female priests/pasteurs/whatever are there in a Christian/Catholic/whatever church?

 

 

 

 

 

In my church (I'm anglican) we support gay freedom and women in the church. It is only really the Catholic Church which is anti gay, and anti-women-ordainment, and Babtist Churches which are anti-gay. (see Westboro Baptist) I'm probably wrong but there the main ones.

 

 

 

 

 

I fully support gay marriage, and gay rights.

[Orpheus]

Unfortunately, due to societal standards, if you're gay, and someone catches wind of it, most jobs might turn you down, but then they can be charged for discrimination. I personally don't think homosexuality is "right or wrong". You can't just say it's the right or wrong thing to do. It can be right or wrong, depending on the point of view, however. That's like saying that not supporting your country is wrong, which it isn't. I honestly don't have anything against homosexuals, but I only ask that you don't bring me into it. I still find it a bit odd though, it just seems a bit awkward.

[Ginger_Warrior]

this has probably been said already... but it's because of the way two males would have sex versus two females. :shock: :? :roll: :-#

 

It has to be said, most of the immature "Eww... gays kissing! No!!" sort of arguments on this thread have been made with males in mind.

 

 

 

But then, ignorance and stereotyping are their fortés after all. ;)

 

I think that male-male is despised a lot more than female-female merely for the way male-male primely have sex. There are guy in my class who are very anti-gay, calling gay people bumboys, receivers etc etc, but when two girls in our class kiss, they cheer and holler, wolf whistle and the like.

 

I'm not afraid to say this generalisation, because I believe it's true: guys like looking at [woman-woman] more than women like looking at gay men, for reasons I won't go into through fear of breaking the forum's G rating.

 

 

 

While we're on this topic, why is the "L" word even blocked? I love it when apparently anti-homophobic people go overboard and start banning all gay terms, even when they're accepted by gays themselves.

[Sly_Wizard]

Stop using cop-out arguments and answer the point.

 

 

 

It's not a cop-out. If you were to leave the comfort of your home and travel to, say, Russia or China or even Japan (Places with an even less tolerance of gays than the U.S.), the entire "seperation of church and state" argument wouldn't hold valid in those places mainly because the majority of the population is irreligious (In the Western sense, at least). The fact of the matter is, unless a law exists which bans gay marriage explicitly on account of religious beliefs, you cannot use the "seperation of church and state" argument as you wouldn't be arguing against the seperation of church and state, but rather against people's personal convictions. And there is no law stating that people cannot vote, or even enact laws, according to their own personal convictions (Otherwise, you'd be living in a totalitarian state, and I know how much you'd hate that)-- Only that the government cannot enact a law promoting one religion over another. By their very nature, a government is going to have laws with coincide with some religious ideal. A government which has laws which doesn't is either non-functional or non-existant.

 

 

 

It is a perfectly valid factor so long as religious organisations are the only bodies that can legally marry two people.

 

 

 

I don't know what country you live in, but last I checked anyone can marry anyone so long as you have the (State) license to do so.

 

 

 

It's quite the opposite. It's actually allowing the Church to carry on with its homophobia, while allowing homosexuals the basic principles of equality to their hetereosexual counterparts.

 

 

 

No, it's the exact same thing only you tried to word it differently.

 

 

 

Believe me, if I wanted to force people into believing what *I* believe is right, the concept of religion deciding who can and cannot get married would be a non-issue - they'd do it or face charges on discrimination.

 

 

 

Okay. Fine. Show me the law which bans gay marriage on account of religious beliefs. The only place you're going to find said laws are in the Middle East. They don't exist in any (To my knowledge) Western country. Oh! And I believe I said this earlier, but if marriage is a contract then it becomes subject to regulation by the local government, meaning each state can decide who can and cannot enter into that specific contract (Unless Federal law overrides it).

 

 

 

My solution is actually incredibly lenient, given my moral principles.

 

 

 

Not terribly.

 

 

 

I wasn't aware it was one's action to be black, or a homosexual for that matter. Through fear of sounding like a broken record, neither is a conscientious choice.

 

 

 

*Sigh*

 

 

 

1.) That isn't what I said. I said hating one's actions does not equate to hating the person. Since you used the term earlier, I'll use it again. That's called a strawman and is a blatant misrepresentation of a person's actual position. Holding the belief that homosexuality is wrong does not equate to hating gay people anymore than thinking homosexuality is wrong equates to hating all black people because some black guy happens to be gay.

 

 

 

2.) No one is born gay. No one is naturally inclined to be gay. The corollary also holds true.

 

 

 

Oh, and before I forget, I'd better add this in. Few people, if any, care what two people do in their own bedroom. The problem is that marriage is not something confined to the bedroom. It's a public affirmation of two people's relationship (Or whatever you want to define what they're doing as). When something stops being a private matter and creeps into the public eye, then people begin to care.

[Giordano]

I agree too, Warrior. Being a choice or naturally shouldn't matter. Its their lives and they can live it however they want.

 

 

 

But, what strikes me odd, is why is male homosexuality shunned far worse than female? Is this some sort of pornographic enjoyment the chruches want to let it stay? In fact, how many female priests/pasteurs/whatever are there in a Christian/Catholic/whatever church?

 

Where do you get that idea from?

 

From the various female couples kissing, holding hands, etc but when two men do it everyone stops and stares.

[Ginger_Warrior]

[hide=]

Stop using cop-out arguments and answer the point.

 

 

 

It's not a cop-out. If you were to leave the comfort of your home and travel to, say, Russia or China or even Japan (Places with an even less tolerance of gays than the U.S.), the entire "seperation of church and state" argument wouldn't hold valid in those places mainly because the majority of the population is irreligious (In the Western sense, at least).

[/hide]

 

Would that include the 63% of Russians who consider themselves Orthodox? Or the 89% of Poles who consider themselves part of the Roman Catholic Church (of which more people accept homosexuality than oppose it, by the way)? Hardly a majority of irreligious people.

 

 

 

[hide=]

The fact of the matter is, unless a law exists which bans gay marriage explicitly on account of religious beliefs, you cannot use the "seperation of church and state" argument as you wouldn't be arguing against the seperation of church and state, but rather against people's personal convictions.

[/hide]

 

You're quite naive if you think the legislature is the only body in the land which facilitates or puts into practice the Law. You can make all the legislation you like - if the Church doesn't agree with homosexual marriage, it won't do them. It's called de facto discrimination, and it's fairly simple to comprehend.

 

 

 

Hence they should abide by the Law just like the rest of society has to, in other words, it needs to be disestablished.

 

 

 

[hide=]

And there is no law stating that people cannot vote, or even enact laws, according to their own personal convictions

[/hide]

 

People don't vote on legislation. Again, your beliefs are mistaken. People vote representatives, who vote on legislation. Neither of us live in a plebiscite.

 

 

 

[hide=]

It is a perfectly valid factor so long as religious organisations are the only bodies that can legally marry two people.

 

 

 

I don't know what country you live in, but last I checked anyone can marry anyone so long as you have the (State) license to do so.

[/hide]

 

It would have taken you all... 5 seconds to look up my profile? It even states what city I live in. You can't go wrong.

 

 

 

Of course, if you had, you'd realise I live in the UK, where marriages (specifically marriage, not civil partnerships) are only provided by religious organisations on grounds that a marriage is itself a religious ceremony. However, the fact it is a religious ceremony does not remove the principle that a marriage is unequal to a civil partnership, and therefore, secular marriages should be granted alongside religious marriages in order to provide said equality of rights.

 

 

 

[hide=]

As it stands, using the argument for the seperation of church and state is a subtle way of saying that people should believe what you believe is right, not what they believe is right.

[/hide][hide=]

It's quite the opposite. It's actually allowing the Church to carry on with its homophobia, while allowing homosexuals the basic principles of equality to their hetereosexual counterparts.

 

 

 

No, it's the exact same thing only you tried to word it differently.

[/hide]

 

How is offering a secular alternative (read: not replacement) telling people what is right and what is wrong? There's only one person in this debate telling others that homosexuality is not a choice and therefore homosexual marriages should be banned.

 

 

 

You can flower up your argument with fancy wording all you like - you're the one here telling people to believe homosexuality is wrong, and with absolutely no evidence to back the claim up too.

 

 

 

[hide=]

Believe me, if I wanted to force people into believing what *I* believe is right, the concept of religion deciding who can and cannot get married would be a non-issue - they'd do it or face charges on discrimination.

 

 

 

Okay. Fine. Show me the law which bans gay marriage on account of religious beliefs. The only place you're going to find said laws are in the Middle East. They don't exist in any (To my knowledge) Western country. Oh! And I believe I said this earlier, but if marriage is a contract then it becomes subject to regulation by the local government, meaning each state can decide who can and cannot enter into that specific contract (Unless Federal law overrides it).

[/hide]

 

Law =/= religion. Me stating religion acts as a conservative body against homosexual marriages does not equate to there being a law against it too.

 

 

 

Jesus, do you have any understanding of a legal system?

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=]

That's pretty much the same as the old strawman argument against racism: "My best mate is black, so I can't be racist".

 

Hating someone's actions does not equate to hating someone as a person.

[/hide]

 

[hide=]

I wasn't aware it was one's action to be black, or a homosexual for that matter. Through fear of sounding like a broken record, neither is a conscientious choice.

 

1.) That isn't what I said. I said hating one's actions does not equate to hating the person. Since you used the term earlier, I'll use it again. That's called a strawman and is a blatant misrepresentation of a person's actual position.

[/hide]

 

You quite clearly implied being black was an action. I'm not the only one in this thread to believe in that implication either. It's not a strawman - it's a sign of your complete ignorance towards other people's inescapable destinies.

 

 

 

[hide=]

2.) No one is born gay. No one is naturally inclined to be gay. The corollary also holds true.

[/hide]

 

What corollary?

 

 

 

If you're going to Bible bash me with the whole "Homosexuality is a sin" and tell me it's a choice then don't bother. I and about three-quarters of this board really aren't interested in a theological claim which has no tangible evidence to back it up.

 

 

 

[hide=]

Oh, and before I forget, I'd better add this in. Few people, if any, care what two people do in their own bedroom. The problem is that marriage is not something confined to the bedroom. It's a public affirmation of two people's relationship (Or whatever you want to define what they're doing as). When something stops being a private matter and creeps into the public eye, then people begin to care.

[/hide]

 

Source: Wikipedia (it's sourced too)

 

 

 

"Should homosexuality by accepted by society?"

 

 

 

United States: 49% Yes; 41% No.

 

Britain: 71% Yes; 21% No

 

Canada: 70% Yes; 21% No.

 

 

 

The Netherlands have had same-sex marriages (not just unions) for seven years now.

 

 

 

If you're arguing it should be banned because the majority of people don't like it, you lose this argument anyway.

 

 

 

Unless you can prove me to me homosexuality is a choice (and I mean homosexuality, not the act of), then I'll continue to support pro-Gay campaigns, and I'll get at religion if it chooses to be a force for conservatism.

[jackattack]

Wow. You want to get rid of the Church because they won't marry gays? I've never even heard a gay person say that.