Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[superhappyfuntime]

Ok, so, yesterday, I was just sitting in my science class and my teacher asked me why I was wearing a rainbow belt. I simply told him that I was gay and he said that I'm going to burn in Hell for going against the Lord. Is this true?

[Happysniff]

Ok, so, yesterday, I was just sitting in my science class and my teacher asked me why I was wearing a rainbow belt. I simply told him that I was gay and he said that I'm going to burn in Hell for going against the Lord. Is this true?

 

 

 

Well no one can say for certain that God exists or not. No one here will be able to tell you if this is true. You should also get him fired for being an [wagon].

[RichieMcD]

Ok, so, yesterday, I was just sitting in my science class and my teacher asked me why I was wearing a rainbow belt. I simply told him that I was gay and he said that I'm going to burn in Hell for going against the Lord. Is this true?

 

 

 

My assumption is your troll as you only joined today, have 4 posts and there's so many better forums for this type of question, yet how you'd end up here? :shame:

 

 

 

Any way, no one knows if god exists, no one knows if he does exist which religion is right on what god wants us to do. You could end up in hell, you could end up in heaven or you could end up in a wooden box 6 feet below ground and that's that. I extremely doubt a teacher said that to you, especially a science teacher. Bring it up with the principal anyway.

[EdgedThesis]

Ok, so, yesterday, I was just sitting in my science class and my teacher asked me why I was wearing a rainbow belt. I simply told him that I was gay and he said that I'm going to burn in Hell for going against the Lord. Is this true?

 

 

 

Why'd you immediately associate what you were wearing with your sexuality?

[Princess Viola]

Ok, so, yesterday, I was just sitting in my science class and my teacher asked me why I was wearing a rainbow belt. I simply told him that I was gay and he said that I'm going to burn in Hell for going against the Lord. Is this true?

 

 

 

Why'd you immediately associate what you were wearing with your sexuality?

 

I'm pretty sure super is a guy and multi-colored things generaly are signs of gays.

[IGoddessI]

Ok, so, yesterday, I was just sitting in my science class and my teacher asked me why I was wearing a rainbow belt. I simply told him that I was gay and he said that I'm going to burn in Hell for going against the Lord. Is this true?

 

 

 

Who cares if it's true. If it happened get him fired for discrimination in the class room. Doubt we'll see you after this anyway, troll.

[Zierro]

Ok, so, yesterday, I was just sitting in my science class and my teacher asked me why I was wearing a rainbow belt. I simply told him that I was gay and he said that I'm going to burn in Hell for going against the Lord. Is this true?

 

 

 

Do you think it is?

[raven_gaurd0]

Homosexuality is, at any rate, something that can be ignored.

 

 

 

I know someone has already previously quoted this bit from you, but I too am somewhat confused as to what you're implying by this. What significance does it have with the overall argument?

 

 

 

After all, on the opposite side of the coin, heterosexuality is something that can be ignored. If you're a male who is naturally attracted to women, you can ignore this "primal hungering" of yours and choose to be with another man.

 

 

 

I just don't see what relevancy it has. (I know you quoted several people in the post this quote comes from, so perhaps it's just the continuation of a conversation that I missed...)

 

 

 

Homosexuals made a choice to follow their primal hungering, and I frown upon that. While I certainly do not think any punishment should be bestowed upon them upon this earth, I would hope that they understand that implications of their actions.

 

 

 

I strongly, strongly disagree with you here. Why would you frown upon the fact that someone is living their life? By your same logic, straight people make the choice to follow the "primal hungering" to be with people of the opposite sex - should this be frowned upon as well?

 

 

 

What "implications" are you talking about? Homosexuals going to some sort of hell?

 

 

 

Edit: I disagree with you on the last quote, because from how I read it, you're sounding very self-righteous and condecending. To me, it's coming off that you're saying, "For your sake, you'd better realize that your choice to be gay will have some serious consequences..."

 

 

 

I'm not going to hide who I am, or pretend to be something I'm not, just so I won't go to some fictional hell that I don't even believe in.

 

 

 

I feel I may clear up what I said a bit.

 

 

 

Homosexuality as the urge can be ignored, aye, as easily as heterosexuality can be. We call that Celibacy. There are hundreds of thousands of men and women who practice it. However, on the normal society level, heterosexuality is encouraged because, well, it's productive. It replenishes society's ranks.

 

 

 

As for the next thing, I also worded it poorly.

 

 

 

I meant that, on earth, nobody should be angry or bitter against them. Indeed, are we not all brothers, sisters, humans? We must not hate others for such an idle reason as this. Nor do I believe that homosexuality is necessarily a sin that is punishable by damnation. It may, or may not, be so. The implications of this, that I was hoping them to understand, is that it is, in fact, a sin. The degree of sin is debatable amongst us, but really without a definitive answer.

 

 

 

We've already fought long and hard about this, and I fear that should we discuss it further it shall only devolve into a flurry of blows and harsh words.

[meol]

I still fail to see the reasoning behind that. Why would two men loving each other/living together/having sex be a sin? I mean, killing, stealing or insulting can be sinful because it harms another human. Why homosexuality?

[raven_gaurd0]

Why is it a sin? Because it's a degree of intimacy that should only be shared between a man and a woman. It's a pleasure grab, without necessarily having to go through all the sacrifices and sacraments involved with having sexual intercourse. It's a big issues of beliefs, really. The only societal reasons I can think of is that two men can't be productive to society (can't raise their own family) and that it spreads STDs like wildfire.

[Nenga]

Why is it a sin? Because it's a degree of intimacy that should only be shared between a man and a woman. It's a pleasure grab, without necessarily having to go through all the sacrifices and sacraments involved with having sexual intercourse. It's a big issues of beliefs, really. The only societal reasons I can think of is that two men can't be productive to society (can't raise their own family) and that it spreads STDs like wildfire.

 

Well lets look at this, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, so lets stray away from religious excuses. Though the separation of church and state isn't written in the constitution; i'm reminded of that case a few years ago where the nativity scene had to be removed from government property. I'd be stupid to ignore that line here, but not there. (Though I don't doubt America would do that.)

 

 

 

Infertile couples also can't have their own children, what do we do with them? Who decides how intimate people can get and who they have to be with to be intimate? There is no proof gay people spread STDs more than straight people, so can you really quote that as a reason gays should not be aloud in society?

[Erk02]

I wouldn't be too sure about that. We had to watch a video about sexual orientation in sex ed, and they interviewed a bunch of parents who had homosexual kids, and all the parents said was that when they found out, they wished it wasn't so. That obviously doesn't mean that they're fundamental Christians or anything like that, but it gives the impression that they'd rather not have a homosexual child, most likely have taught their child some negative things about homosexuality, yet their child ends up gay.

 

Though I agree that a good deal of it is influence, if not genetic. (Which it could be, who knows) However, religion is also heavily influence, yet many kids with religious parents end up atheist.

 

That part confused me. Did they say why? Because they might have been completely fine with having a gay child, just worried about everything their child might have to go through. Obviously they were accepting or they wouldn't have been in a video. Perhaps the displeasure was at society and not their child.

 

I admit I didn't really pay attention, but from what I gather, there was some sort of "flashback" of the kid telling his mom and the mom breaking down into tears and yelling "NOOOOOO".

 

I'd assume that even if that was the case, they eventually became accepting. Even the most fundamental people would probably accept their child for who they are after a few years.

 

And murderers aren't accepted and embraced. Usually. :?

You probably weren't watching very closely. At least not closely enough to notice that the mom was crying most likely because her child was about to have a life of intolerance, a life of stereotypes, and just a life made unfairly harder because of something as trite as sexuality.

[venomai]

"Sin" is an arbitrary moral judgement based on one's upbringing in a given culture. It has no bearing in a debate. It's a shorter way of saying "X is bad because we have been brought up to see it as bad."

 

 

 

Rules like "blacks should only marry blacks" and "men should only be intimate with women" are worthless unless there is valid (i.e. objective) reasons to abide by them.

 

 

 

two men can't be productive to society (can't raise their own family)

 

Of course homosexuals can raise a family (many of them do).

 

 

 

"Productivity" is not based solely on one's ability to reproduce. Many extremely influential people have lived without ever contributing more newborns to our already over-populated society.

 

 

 

You said: "Homosexuality as the urge can be ignored, aye, as easily as heterosexuality can be. We call that Celibacy. There are hundreds of thousands of men and women who practice it."

 

 

 

Along the same vein, homosexuals, much like celibates, choose not to procreate. This, however, does not mean they cannot be productive to society. (And for the record, artificial reproduction now allows us to reproduce without intercourse.)

[raven_gaurd0]

"Sin" is a label of 'bad' based on something that has been the moral guideline for pretty much every single human for the past 2500 or so years. Honestly, I don't have much pragmatic force against homosexuality, other than the fact that I think that the whole thing is a counter-culture.

 

 

 

I know all the arguments here, and I honestly don't want to waste my time posting any more here. My view is relatively groundless outside of my religion, but that's quite honestly not well respected here, either. Besides, this entire thread is subject to a ridiculous amount of flaming and trolling.

 

 

 

Venomai, if you really want to see my response, I think it's around page 45.

 

 

 

I'll state it one more time, so I won't get bogged down in the muck of debate.

 

 

 

My opinion on homosexuality is that it is wrong, but to judge it and punish gays is wrong on this mortal earth. If you don't believe in an afterlife, a punishment for the sins of your life, then this doesn't matter and you should go on living happily. I think that in the event there is an afterlife, they should know what they're getting into, but as for my 'arbitrary' concept of sin, if you're an atheist, then my argument is null and shouldn't be responded to.

 

 

 

-Raven

[3rkid]

Raven, it'd be wise to stop posting your opinions here (if you haven't already) unless you want to be furtherly flamed.

 

 

 

And by the way, Off-Topic could be very liberal/Athiest so don't bother bring religion into these types of topics.

[venomai]

"Sin" is a label of 'bad' based on something that has been the moral guideline for pretty much every single human for the past 2500 or so years.

 

Times change, and so does society.

 

 

 

I think that the whole thing is a counter-culture.

 

Hence the need for equality and acceptance.

 

 

 

(EDIT: Not that a counter-culture is necessarily a bad thing in society. In many cases it can be very beneficial.)

 

 

 

My opinion on homosexuality is that it is wrong

 

Stop there. Why is it wrong?

 

 

 

Off-Topic could be very liberal/Athiest so don't bother bring religion into these types of topics.

 

Most of us welcome religious debate with open arms. Don't discourage it. :thumbdown:

[warri0r45]

 

My opinion on homosexuality is that it is wrong

 

Stop there. Why is it wrong?

 

 

 

He already said his view is pretty much groundless outside of religion. I think that's a pretty forgone conclusion by now, and there's no need to belabour the point any further.

[venomai]

i.e. He sees it as wrong only because he was brought up to see it as wrong.

 

 

 

There is something very "wrong" with an entire population of people who are satisfied with this conclusion.

[RichieMcD]

two men can't be productive to society (can't raise their own family)

 

 

 

Neither can infertile couples or those who choose not to have children? Now what's your opinion on that? Do they deserve special privileges and you'll contradict yourself or are marriages only for those who plan to reproduce?

 

 

 

I'd view two taxpaying married homosexuals much more productive to society than a lot of people right now who are in straight relationships, the ability to raise children is a very minor measurement of productivity in an all ready over-crowded and heavily strained world.

[Dizzle229]

The religious argument doesn't enter into this. The church is against gay marriage, not homosexuality in itself.

[mmmcannibalism]

Neither can infertile couples or those who choose not to have children? Now what's your opinion on that? Do they deserve special privileges and you'll contradict yourself or are marriages only for those who plan to reproduce?

 

 

 

I'd view two taxpaying married homosexuals much more productive to society than a lot of people right now who are in straight relationships, the ability to raise children is a very minor measurement of productivity in an all ready over-crowded and heavily strained world.

 

 

 

this, is why there is no legal argument against gay marriage.

 

 

 

edit--a decent amount of churches do say homosexuality is a sin

[Dizzle229]

Those churches are wrong, it's not in any of the commandments.

[Bauke]

Those churches are wrong, it's not in any of the commandments.

 

There's more stuff not in the commandments. Yet people still made stuff up. Religion damages society when they force their morals upon other people.

[mmmcannibalism]

Those churches are wrong, it's not in any of the commandments.

 

 

 

Not all churches are christian, I agree its not in there but Im not good versed well enough in scripture to say where that comes from.

[raven_gaurd0]

Those churches are wrong, it's not in any of the commandments.

 

 

 

Not all churches are christian, I agree its not in there but Im not good versed well enough in scripture to say where that comes from.

 

 

 

It's Leviticus.

 

 

 

Le sigh. More encouraged flaming against the Church and it's followers. I wish we'd leave them out of this.

 

 

 

Edit: We share 50% of our genes with bananas because we're both carbon-based lifeforms. Don't get so impressed by genetic statistics unless you actually know the extreme difference small protein changes in the helix makes.