Mercifull Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 To explain how I think. I look at the world today. I see what has happened since homosexuality was taken out of the sin bin and considered normal. Are there more promiscuous homosexuals now or let say 100 years ago? Have sexually transmitted diseases become a bigger problem? My answer to both questions would be: Yes.For a start you are assuming a correlation between sexually transmitted diseases and the legalisation of homosexual sex. Homosexual sex (pederasty) was incredibly common among the Greeks and the Romans as well as being noted in history by pagans and celts. Moving onto your claim of increased STD's well the most common STDs are Syphilis and Chlamydia and considering that the average gay population is only 5% this means that most infections are transmitted by heterosexual couples. Your arguments are flawed and unsubstantiated. p.s 1. Has Christianity has been increasing in America. 2. Is the earth getting warmer. The answer to both questions is Yes. Therefore Christians create global warming. ^^ you cant pick two stats at random and claim a correlation. Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 To explain how I think. I look at the world today. I see what has happened since homosexuality was taken out of the sin bin and considered normal. Are there more promiscuous homosexuals now or let say 100 years ago? Have sexually transmitted diseases become a bigger problem? My answer to both questions would be: Yes. No because you're attributing that only to homosexual people when the amount of people spreading these diseases much more to do with hetereosexual sex and population growth. Sure it's contributed some you cant deny that but to make something immoral because of how some people operate isn't right nor is it fair and again only refers to promiscuous gay people. Because you can argue the exact same again for pre-marital sex. And we can apply your argument for anything really, i mean cars can be immoral because of it. Are more people killed each year because of cars? Yes. Are we therefore right to condem them as immoral since they're existance doesn't give us new life? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkforaster Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 I view it as a sin (since it is clearly condemned in the Bible), but I don't look down on people who practice it. To each his own, as the saying goes. The only people who I really look down upon are criminals; murderers, robbers, con artists, drug dealers ect. Those people obviously hurt people by what they do. Homosexuals, however, don't really hurt anyone by what they do. So as far as I'm concerned, because of that fact, it isn't our place to judge them. My thoughts exactly. Of course if everyone were homosexuals then the human race would no longer continue. But i would say that there is a 0% chance that it will ever happen. Lumbridge and it's past. Read here to find out about it.if you have time to waste then click hereTake the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korskin Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 For a start you are assuming a correlation between sexually transmitted diseases and the legalisation of homosexual sex. Homosexual sex (pederasty) was incredibly common among the Greeks and the Romans as well as being noted in history by pagans and celts. Moving onto your claim of increased STD's well the most common STDs are Syphilis and Chlamydia and considering that the average gay population is only 5% this means that most infections are transmitted by heterosexual couples. Your arguments are flawed and unsubstantiated. p.s 1. Has Christianity has been increasing in America. 2. Is the earth getting warmer. The answer to both questions is Yes. Therefore Christians create global warming. ^^ you cant pick two stats at random and claim a correlation. I didn't pick anything at random. Prove me wrong with statistics that the legislation of homosexual hasn't increased the amount of STD's among people. Then I'll admit that I'm wrong. No because you're attributing that only to homosexual people when the amount of people spreading these diseases much more to do with hetereosexual sex and population growth. Sure it's contributed some you cant deny that but to make something immoral because of how some people operate isn't right nor is it fair and again only refers to promiscuous gay people. Because you can argue the exact same again for pre-marital sex. And we can apply your argument for anything really, i mean cars can be immoral because of it. Are more people killed each year because of cars? Yes. Are we therefore right to condem them as immoral since they're existance doesn't give us new life? That's pretty much all I'm saying. Even if it's heterosexual promiscuity that is accountable for 95% of the increase and the rest is homosexuality, I still think it contributes. The only thing that it proves is that I got a much stronger case when arguing against premarital-sex. The reason why I think it's immoral as with everything in the world that's immoral is because of the Bible. We have to differentiate between why it's immoral and why it does more harm than good. But it seems as if homosexuality leads to more bad things than good things. Is the world better off with or without cars? I don't know, perhaps it would be better without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 The reason why I think it's immoral as with everything in the world that's immoral is because of the Bible. We have to differentiate between why it's immoral and why it does more harm than good. But it seems as if homosexuality leads to more bad things than good things. Is the world better off with or without cars? I don't know, perhaps it would be better without them. I still don't see how these bad things outweigh the good. If those promiscuous homosexuals were not homosexual they'd still be promiscuous and the chances of spreading infection would be the same. I don't know whether you think it inherently leads to bad things - because "homosexual" doesn't entail promiscuity. Or if you are basing why it's bad soley on culture/enviroment and diversity in people which would be present with or without it. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korskin Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 I still don't see how these bad things outweigh the good. If those promiscuous homosexuals were not homosexual they'd still be promiscuous and the chances of spreading infection would be the same. I don't know whether you think it inherently leads to bad things - because "homosexual" doesn't entail promiscuity. Or if you are basing why it's bad soley on culture/enviroment and diversity in people which would be present with or without it. There's nothing wrong with being born homosexual. It's the sex I'm arguing against. If homosexuals aren't having homosexual sex, I doubt they would be having sex with women. An example is the story of Lot, where Lot offers his daugthers to homosexual men (instead of the angels). It wasn't such a bad move considering the homosexuals probably wouldn't want to have sex with his daugthers anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Futurama Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 Sorry to not read anyone's posts and just butt in with an opinion, but if you ask me, let people do what they want. If someone wants to shove their love where people tell them not to, let them, there's much bigger problems in the world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 I still don't see how these bad things outweigh the good. If those promiscuous homosexuals were not homosexual they'd still be promiscuous and the chances of spreading infection would be the same. I don't know whether you think it inherently leads to bad things - because "homosexual" doesn't entail promiscuity. Or if you are basing why it's bad soley on culture/enviroment and diversity in people which would be present with or without it. There's nothing wrong with being born homosexual. It's the sex I'm arguing against. But your arguments still only identify to promiscuous people, homo or hetero because they apply in the same way. Which is why I am saying that you only seem to have reason to object to pre-marital and promiscuous sex. I can't see an argument singling out why 2 consenting gay adults who are married or have a civil union or whatever shouldn't have sex. It just seems like you're saying homosexual sex is inherently bad and then only justifying why some of it is. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaperClipsYaaaar Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 If homosexuals aren't having homosexual sex, I doubt they would be having sex with women. An example is the story of Lot, where Lot offers his daugthers to homosexual men (instead of the angels). It wasn't such a bad move considering the homosexuals probably wouldn't want to have sex with his daugthers anyway. Yeah and remember how Lot screwed his daughters afterwards? That [cabbage] was hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korskin Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 But your arguments still only identify to promiscuous people, homo or hetero because they apply in the same way. Which is why I am saying that you only seem to have reason to object to pre-marital and promiscuous sex. I can't see an argument singling out why 2 consenting gay adults who are married or have a civil union or whatever shouldn't have sex. It just seems like you're saying homosexual sex is inherently bad and then only justifying why some of it is. I think you have a good point. The reason why "2 consenting gay adults who are married or have a civil union or whatever shouldn't have sex" originates from the Bible and I don't really have a solid argument against that particular case. But a law against homosexual sex would prevent homosexual promiscuity and lower the STD frequency. Yeah and remember how Lot screwed his daughters afterwards? That [cabbage] was hot. I knew I would regret bringing up that story. But let's try to stay on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 But a law against homosexual sex would prevent homosexual promiscuity and lower the STD frequency/ But a law against pre-marital sex would prevent promiscuity and lower the STD frequence. It's the same thing i think it's strange that you're singling out homosexuality when heterosexuality creates the exact same problem (or an even worse one). With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedofsound Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 I'm not against homosexuality at all, some of my relatives are gay. Sure it may be un comfortable being around a super flamboyant gay, but that doesn't mean i think its wrong. You can't ever find a place that's nice and peaceful, because there isn't any. You may think there is, but once you get there, when you're not looking, somebody'll sneak up and write "(bleep) you" right under your nose. Try it sometime. I think, even, if I ever die, and they stick me in a cemetery, and I have a tombstone and all, it'll say "Holden Caulfield" on it, and then what year I was born and what year I died, and then right under that it'll say "(bleep) you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meol Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 [...]But a law against homosexual sex would prevent homosexual promiscuity and lower the STD frequency. A law against sex would prevent promiscuity and stop the STD frequency. We'd still be able to reproduce by artificial insemination, so don't say the human race would cease to exist. Some teenager soccer fans are violent, although most of the violent teens have some other reasons (like gangs, defiance, etc.) Using your logic, we should have a law against soccer fans because it would prevent soccer-fanatic-violence and lower the amount of violent acts. This signature is intentionally left blank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 But your arguments still only identify to promiscuous people, homo or hetero because they apply in the same way. Which is why I am saying that you only seem to have reason to object to pre-marital and promiscuous sex. I can't see an argument singling out why 2 consenting gay adults who are married or have a civil union or whatever shouldn't have sex. It just seems like you're saying homosexual sex is inherently bad and then only justifying why some of it is. I think you have a good point. The reason why "2 consenting gay adults who are married or have a civil union or whatever shouldn't have sex" originates from the Bible and I don't really have a solid argument against that particular case. But a law against homosexual sex would prevent homosexual promiscuity and lower the STD frequency. Yeah and remember how Lot screwed his daughters afterwards? That [cabbage] was hot. I knew I would regret bringing up that story. But let's try to stay on topic. A law against sex before marriage for hetrosexuals would prevent hetrosexual promiscuity and lower STD rates. Why single out homosexuals? They make up a lesser fraction of the population. More STDs in hetrosexuals = more money needed from the health system and more of a burden on taxpayers. Or is your argument just an overall 'promiscuous sex is wrong'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Futurama Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 Homosexuals have a habit of spreading AIDS, i'm not being funny, it's just a fact, because they think it's okay to have unprotected sex because there's no risk of pregnancy. A law against sex would just NOT be adhered to. It'd be a waste of time (: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGoddessI Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 But a law against homosexual sex would prevent homosexual promiscuity and lower the STD frequency Why single out homosexuals? That is like me saying heterosexuals (the larger accountable population between the two for STDS) should have a law to lower the STD frequency. The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hohto Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Homosexuals have a habit of spreading AIDS, i'm not being funny, it's just a fact, because they think it's okay to have unprotected sex because there's no risk of pregnancy. http://data.unaids.org/pub/EpiReport/20 ... WCE_en.pdf According to the United Nation's programme on HIV/AIDS, in western Europe 35% of people carrying aids got it from gay sex while 56% got it from hetero sex. I'd rather die for what I believe in than live for anything else.Name Removed by Administrator ~Turtlefemm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEMASKEDMAN52 Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Of course if everyone were homosexuals then the human race would no longer continue. But i would say that there is a 0% chance that it will ever happen. If homosexuality ever became a problem in the human species, and as INCREDIBLY doubtful as that is with overpopulation, and reproduction from every member of society was an absolute must, we can just use a surrogated mother or father like in the over 1500 species of animals. And then go on living our lives with or without the child(ren) at our own discretion. There, problem solved. Now don't give me the, "society will collapse" argument ever again. Because you forgot, we CAN reproduce, it's just we don't because of who we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Lord Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 After reading about the 3:4 chance of "feminized" males becoming homosexuals, I feel grateful. I guess I would be considered "feminized" because my brain is adept at memory, language, etc., seem to think a little differently from most males, I'm an empathizer, I'm sensitive to emotion, and I'm more self-conscious about my appearance than most males. I'm also non-aggressive and probably don't have dominance. But I'm also extremely attracted to women, but I am more controlled about it. I also am repulsed by the male body. So really I'm not ashamed, but if I had developed a homosexual/bisexual sexual orientation, I would be too discouraged to even live. It would be just too much pressure because of how I would be treated. SWAG Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEMASKEDMAN52 Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 After reading about the 3:4 chance of "feminized" males becoming homosexuals, I feel grateful. I guess I would be considered "feminized" because my brain is adept at memory, language, etc., seem to think a little differently from most males, I'm an empathizer, I'm sensitive to emotion, and I'm more self-conscious about my appearance than most males. I'm also non-aggressive and probably don't have dominance. But I'm also extremely attracted to women, but I am more controlled about it. I also am repulsed by the male body. So really I'm not ashamed, but if I had developed a homosexual/bisexual sexual orientation, I would be too discouraged to even live. It would be just too much pressure because of how I would be treated. Is your index finger longer then your ring finger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Lord Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 After reading about the 3:4 chance of "feminized" males becoming homosexuals, I feel grateful. I guess I would be considered "feminized" because my brain is adept at memory, language, etc., seem to think a little differently from most males, I'm an empathizer, I'm sensitive to emotion, and I'm more self-conscious about my appearance than most males. I'm also non-aggressive and probably don't have dominance. But I'm also extremely attracted to women, but I am more controlled about it. I also am repulsed by the male body. So really I'm not ashamed, but if I had developed a homosexual/bisexual sexual orientation, I would be too discouraged to even live. It would be just too much pressure because of how I would be treated. Is your index finger longer then your ring finger? No. My body isn't really androgynous, but if you're saying that I'm wrong (which I might be), then how can you explain my behavior and the fact that I feel and think a little differently from most males? It's all natural, and my childhood was in fact a little different. If you really want to know more about what I mean by my childhood, PM me. People on these boards are too immature. SWAG Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evilperson Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I am not going to even bother reading the first 10 pages of this article, nor will i continue to read any of the posts following this one. For one and only one reason. You cannot break down something so delicate in our society today such as Homosexuality into "right and wrong". You must first establish what right and wrong are, and how homosexuality is related to being right or wrong. Since i am against the basis of society and "accepted" morals, i feel it is impossible to determine the basis on which you base your claims crediting or discrediting the status of homosexuality. Everybody lovin' it, but ain't no body touchin' it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 its not a choice to feel that way but it is to act on it. and its no worse than having premarital sex which i dont think is bad :mrgreen: i wouldnt mind if they stopped that parade jeez thats a little much some of them are freaks especially in the castro never go through there. My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGoddessI Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 its not a choice to feel that way but it is to act on it. and its no worse than having premarital sex which i dont think is bad :mrgreen: i wouldnt mind if they stopped that parade jeez thats a little much some of them are freaks especially in the castro never go through there. It's a choice to act straight, how would you feel if you weren't allowed to act on it. The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEMASKEDMAN52 Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 its not a choice to feel that way but it is to act on it. and its no worse than having premarital sex which i dont think is bad :mrgreen: i wouldnt mind if they stopped that parade jeez thats a little much some of them are freaks especially in the castro never go through there. It's a choice to act straight, how would you feel if you weren't allowed to act on it. I think I love you. No. My body isn't really androgynous, but if you're saying that I'm wrong (which I might be), then how can you explain my behavior and the fact that I feel and think a little differently from most males? It's all natural, and my childhood was in fact a little different. If you really want to know more about what I mean by my childhood, PM me. People on these boards are too immature. Just curious. But nothing is black and white in nature, so don't worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now