Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[Led-Zeppelin]

But a law against homosexual sex would prevent homosexual promiscuity and lower the STD frequency.

 

 

 

Yarrrrrrrrr me hearties, lets get us some pitch forks, torches and straighten up some queer folk, ya hear, hyuck hyuck![/prejudiced sarcastic pirate country hill folk]

 

 

 

A law against people acting on their feelings they can't help? Man, some Christians are so compasionate and loving, they really are.

 

 

 

Sorry 'bout the extreme flame, but I've been reading what you've said and mate.. Just.. mate, is all I have to say.

[IGoddessI]

Hence I refuse to ever marry a Christian... Not my cup of tea in open-mindedness.

[Korskin]

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).

 

Perhaps because this topic is about homosexuality.

 

 

 

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.

 

The reason why I brought up the law against homosexual sex was that there has been one before (generally talking about the western world). And I'm questioning whether removing it has made the world better or worse.

 

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'?

 

Sure, we can throw in a law against sex before marriage as well if you want. But I don't see the point as my law would still have a purpose if there was or wasn't such a thing as heterosexual sex.

 

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.

Yarrrrrrrrr me hearties, lets get us some pitch forks, torches and straighten up some queer folk, ya hear, hyuck hyuck![/prejudiced sarcastic pirate country hill folk]

 

 

 

A law against people acting on their feelings they can't help? Man, some Christians are so compasionate and loving, they really are.

 

 

 

Sorry 'bout the extreme flame, but I've been reading what you've said and mate.. Just.. mate, is all I have to say.

 

I'm not saying we should bring back the law. Just saying that a law like that would "prevent promiscuity and lower the STD frequence".

 

Hence I refuse to ever marry a Christian... Not my cup of tea in open-mindedness.

 

Even if you don't want to marry me, all christians are not the same. Saying all christians are close-minded isn't true, nor very open-minded. There are many branches of christianity, prehaps the super liberal ones would be your cup of tea?

[IGoddessI]

Naw we just wouldn't see eye to eye, ever :P

[Satenza]

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).

 

Perhaps because this topic is about homosexuality.

 

 

 

mm but your arguments not against homosexuality it's against promiscuity in all people.

[THEMASKEDMAN52]

I'm not saying we should bring back the law. Just saying that a law like that would "prevent promiscuity and lower the STD frequence".

 

 

 

Besides being misinformed, that idea is seriously stupid to put it bluntly. Oh yeah, let's make a law on the 2% who are promiscuous, out of what, 10% (including bisexuals) of Americans who are gay. And let the other 90% of straight Americans having sex and popping out unwanted babies 100x faster continue doing it. Smart one...

[jackalope14]

By the way, the religious people who say that hate gays because god is against it, how the hell can you know what god wants or does not want? Just face it, religion can make people think and do a whole lot of wacky things, like making people believe blowing yourself up and others will make you go to heaven, or, that intolerance against gays is justified, while tolerance is one of the universal moral laws Jesus wanted to teach to people, looks like people still don't get it. :thumbdown:

 

 

 

Ok I posted this same thing in your "Creepy Christian forums" thread but that has been deleted. So I will post it here since if is relevant to this topic.

 

 

 

You call religious people intolerant for thinking homosexuality is wrong, yet (in your "creepy christian forum" thread) you called Christians "creepy" for being excited about the day they found God. Sounds like your also intolerant.

[Kenshinjapan]

First off, people need to quit stereotyping all christians as close minded rascists. First off, I am a christian, always have been, and probably always will be. Second, I am not against gay people and the choices that they make. The only thing that really pisses me off are the people that blow things out of proportion. The main argument on who to vote for as president shouldn't be about whether or not they believe in homosexuality. :wall:

[GrimHams]

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.

 

 

 

Does that take into account how many gay people there are? If its a massive 35% overall that doesn't consider the fact that there are so many more heterosexuals.

[Mercifull]

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.

 

 

 

Does that take into account how many gay people there are? If its a massive 35% overall that doesn't consider the fact that there are so many more heterosexuals.

The data has already been weighted as they did not ask a proportionality compatible base.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

The only thing that really pisses me off are the people that blow things out of proportion.

 

What you meant to say: "people who are not on my side that blow things out of proportion"

[DegenerateX]

This is very much a religion debate.

 

 

 

Let me state that I'm an Atheist because "I believe" that there is no creator/god because I can prove how everything came to be and work with Science.

 

 

 

Now a lot of "brain-washed" children here think that homosexuality is wrong, and they are entitled to that opinion, however they undeniably stated that being homosexual is a CHOICE.

 

 

 

When asked for the source of that train of thought they replied that the Bible said that being homosexual is a choice.

 

 

 

So I'm going to give you guys a link that has evidence of over 500+ things that the Bible is wrong on, and therefor ruin the crediblity of the bible for which you use as your source of ultimate knowledge as well as ruin the credibility and authority of the catholic church because they base their church on the bible.

 

 

 

I tolerate others opinions and have nothing against someone being gay or not gay. They can't choose who they like, they just are attracted to those kinds of people. It's a mental stimulation caused by hormones much like any other "attraction" between species.

 

 

 

On the same argument, I don't care if people are religious because once again let people do whatever they want to. However I do have a problem when religious people say stupid [cabbage] as propose it as a FACT when it's really some [cabbage] from their religion. I don't care what you think personaly but when you try to tell other people a fact don't base it on your religious teachings.

[Kenshinjapan]

The only thing that really pisses me off are the people that blow things out of proportion.

 

What you meant to say: "people who are not on my side that blow things out of proportion"

 

 

 

Don't change my statement, I never said just people not on my side. So don't go making up crap like that.

 

Let me state that I'm an Atheist because "I believe" that there is no creator/god because I can prove how everything came to be and work with Science.

 

 

 

Actually you can't fully explain it. (But christians can't fully prove the existence of God either)

 

 

 

On the same argument, I don't care if people are religious because once again let people do whatever they want to. However I do have a problem when religious people say stupid [cabbage] as propose it as a FACT when it's really some [cabbage] from their religion. I don't care what you think personaly but when you try to tell other people a fact don't base it on your religious teachings.

 

 

 

Thats being hypocritical. How can you say that you believe in letting people have their own opinions and religions beliefs when your calling their ideas false information and downright stupid :-k? Come on man, your doing the exact same thing that your critisizing christian for. And how come your forcing your ideas of science into our faces as being right but we can't do the same thing about christianity? :-s :wall:

 

 

 

So I'm going to give you guys a link that has evidence of over 500+ things that the Bible is wrong on, and therefor ruin the crediblity of the bible for which you use as your source of ultimate knowledge as well as ruin the credibility and authority of the catholic church because they base their church on the bible.

 

 

 

1.Where's the link.

 

2.Not every christian is catholic. The catholic church has huge differences over other christian religions.

[THEMASKEDMAN52]

The main argument on who to vote for as president shouldn't be about whether or not they believe in homosexuality. :wall:

 

 

 

Yes, it should be. We need to vote candidates who aren't afraid of change, and are willing to live up to the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION which says, "everyone is equal".

 

 

 

What you're saying is essentially (in a context of past events): We shouldn't vote a president during the Civil Rights era based on if they believe in equality for all races or not. Or we shouldn't vote a president because of whether or not they support equal rights for woman.

 

 

 

These issues are important. It's on the level of racism denying us rights, and is very important, especially in the '08 elections, because the generation of tomorrow wants to make a change, and improve America.

 

 

 

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried?"

 

~President Abraham Lincoln

 

 

 

This whole debate stems from people being afraid of change, afraid of people unlike them.

[The Dark Lord]

 

Let me state that I'm an Atheist because "I believe" that there is no creator/god because I can prove how everything came to be and work with Science.

 

 

 

Good for you. If you know how everything came to be, why don't you share something with us? Can you explain what happened before the Big Bang Model came into effect? And since when does science have to mean that there is no God?

 

 

 

 

So I'm going to give you guys a link that has evidence of over 500+ things that the Bible is wrong on, and therefor ruin the crediblity of the bible for which you use as your source of ultimate knowledge as well as ruin the credibility and authority of the catholic church because they base their church on the bible.

 

 

 

If you promise us a link, you really should post it as you write your inflammatory post... That's rude of you by the way.

 

 

 

 

On the same argument, I don't care if people are religious because once again let people do whatever they want to. However I do have a problem when religious people say stupid [cabbage] as propose it as a FACT when it's really some [cabbage] from their religion. I don't care what you think personaly but when you try to tell other people a fact don't base it on your religious teachings.

 

 

 

You contradicted what you said... Calling one's beliefs a "bunch of stupid [cabbage]" does not mean you are tolerant of what they believe.

[Kenshinjapan]

The main argument on who to vote for as president shouldn't be about whether or not they believe in homosexuality. :wall:

 

 

 

Yes, it should be. We need to vote candidates who aren't afraid of change, and are willing to live up to the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION which says, "everyone is equal".

 

 

 

What you're saying is essentially (in a context of past events): We shouldn't vote a president during the Civil Rights era based on if they believe in equality for all races or not. Or we shouldn't vote a president because of whether or not they support equal rights for woman.

 

 

 

These issues are important. It's on the level of racism denying us rights, and is very important, especially in the '08 elections, because the generation of tomorrow wants to make a change, and improve America.

 

 

 

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried?"

 

~President Abraham Lincoln

 

 

 

This whole debate stems from people being afraid of change, afraid of people unlike them.

 

 

 

What about poverty? sickness? disabled people? Do they suddenly not matter because everyone cares about 1 stupid issue?! And comparing homo-sexualty to womens'/slaves' rights duringthe Civil War doesn't make any sense. During those times, slaves were beaten and women were abused on a daily bases and had no rights at all. A home-sexual individal isn't going to be hanged for their differences.

 

----------

 

 

 

 

Let me state that I'm an Atheist because "I believe" that there is no creator/god because I can prove how everything came to be and work with Science.

 

 

 

Good for you. If you know how everything came to be, why don't you share something with us? Can you explain what happened before the Big Bang Model came into effect? And since when does science have to mean that there is no God?

 

 

 

 

So I'm going to give you guys a link that has evidence of over 500+ things that the Bible is wrong on, and therefor ruin the crediblity of the bible for which you use as your source of ultimate knowledge as well as ruin the credibility and authority of the catholic church because they base their church on the bible.

 

 

 

If you promise us a link, you really should post it as you write your inflammatory post... That's rude of you by the way.

 

 

 

 

On the same argument, I don't care if people are religious because once again let people do whatever they want to. However I do have a problem when religious people say stupid [cabbage] as propose it as a FACT when it's really some [cabbage] from their religion. I don't care what you think personaly but when you try to tell other people a fact don't base it on your religious teachings.

 

 

 

You contradicted what you said... Calling one's beliefs a "bunch of stupid [cabbage]" does not mean you are tolerant of what they believe.

 

 

 

And you said the exact same things that I did 2 posts above yours :lol: :anxious: .

[THEMASKEDMAN52]

The main argument on who to vote for as president shouldn't be about whether or not they believe in homosexuality. :wall:

 

 

 

Yes, it should be. We need to vote candidates who aren't afraid of change, and are willing to live up to the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION which says, "everyone is equal".

 

 

 

What you're saying is essentially (in a context of past events): We shouldn't vote a president during the Civil Rights era based on if they believe in equality for all races or not. Or we shouldn't vote a president because of whether or not they support equal rights for woman.

 

 

 

These issues are important. It's on the level of racism denying us rights, and is very important, especially in the '08 elections, because the generation of tomorrow wants to make a change, and improve America.

 

 

 

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried?"

 

~President Abraham Lincoln

 

 

 

This whole debate stems from people being afraid of change, afraid of people unlike them.

 

 

 

What about poverty? sickness? disabled people? Do they suddenly not matter because everyone cares about a stupid issue?! And comparing homo-sexualty to womens'/slaves' rights duringthe Civil War doesn't make any sense. During those times, slaves were beaten and women were abused on a daily bases and had no rights at all. A home-sexual individal isn't going to be hanged for their differences.

 

 

 

They all are important respectably.

 

 

 

Slaves were beaten, but I'm talking Civil Rights, colored vs. white, it was worse yes, but they weren't beaten. We can be denied rights in employment, we can't get married and give the USA $1 billion dollars in extra taxes because of the Married Tax Penalty law, the list goes on. And for your information, homosexuality is a high penalty in over half the world's countries, with a few even having the death penalty.

 

 

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/World_homosexuality_laws.png

[Defender2516]

I think we should talk logic here.

 

 

 

Its good to be close minded, because if your open minded your brains will fall out. :

 

 

 

Gotcha.

 

 

 

~Defender~

[Satenza]

I think we should talk logic here.

 

 

 

Its good to be close minded, because if your open minded your brains will fall out. :

 

 

 

Gotcha.

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

 

 

Thats not logical.

[Kenshinjapan]

The main argument on who to vote for as president shouldn't be about whether or not they believe in homosexuality. :wall:

 

 

 

Yes, it should be. We need to vote candidates who aren't afraid of change, and are willing to live up to the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION which says, "everyone is equal".

 

 

 

What you're saying is essentially (in a context of past events): We shouldn't vote a president during the Civil Rights era based on if they believe in equality for all races or not. Or we shouldn't vote a president because of whether or not they support equal rights for woman.

 

 

 

These issues are important. It's on the level of racism denying us rights, and is very important, especially in the '08 elections, because the generation of tomorrow wants to make a change, and improve America.

 

 

 

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried?"

 

~President Abraham Lincoln

 

 

 

This whole debate stems from people being afraid of change, afraid of people unlike them.

 

 

 

What about poverty? sickness? disabled people? Do they suddenly not matter because everyone cares about a stupid issue?! And comparing homo-sexualty to womens'/slaves' rights duringthe Civil War doesn't make any sense. During those times, slaves were beaten and women were abused on a daily bases and had no rights at all. A home-sexual individal isn't going to be hanged for their differences.

 

 

 

They all are important respectably.

 

 

 

Slaves were beaten, but I'm talking Civil Rights, colored vs. white, it was worse yes, but they weren't beaten. We can be denied rights in employment, we can't get married and give the USA $1 billion dollars in extra taxes because of the Married Tax Penalty law, the list goes on. And for your information, homosexuality is a high penalty in over half the world's countries, with a few even having the death penalty.

 

 

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/World_homosexuality_laws.png

 

 

 

First off, you can't legally be denied employment because your gay. (You could sue them for millions) And I'm not talking third world countries and their screwed up governments (and they say America is bad :roll: ); I'm talking about electing the new president. Also, I don't really know how rascism goes together with home-sexuality. If you are trying to fit it in with discrimination, it's doesn't really compare. Minorities had it much worse than gays imo. And your graph didn't seem entirely accurate to me. As far as I could tell, it was saying that you can only have a gay marriage in California? Sorry but I'm colorblind so I couldn't really tell some of the graph's colors apart.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

What about poverty? sickness? disabled people? Do they suddenly not matter because everyone cares about 1 stupid issue?! And comparing homo-sexualty to womens'/slaves' rights duringthe Civil War doesn't make any sense. During those times, slaves were beaten and women were abused on a daily bases and had no rights at all. A home-sexual individal isn't going to be hanged for their differences.

 

 

During the Civil Rights era (Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, etc), blacks were no longer in slavery but were still denied equal rights. Does that mean it would have been okay for Americans to continue their prejudices?

 

 

 

Also, calling homosexuality "1 stupid issue" is not helping your claim that you are somehow fair and impartial:

 

Don't change my statement, I never said just people not on my side. So don't go making up crap like that.

[THEMASKEDMAN52]

First off, you can't legally be denied employment because your gay. (You could sue them for millions) And I'm not talking third world countries and their screwed up governments (and they say America is bad :roll: ); I'm talking about electing the new president. Also, I don't really know how rascism goes together with home-sexuality. If you are trying to fit it in with discrimination, it's doesn't really compare. Minorities had it much worse than gays imo. And your graph didn't seem entirely accurate to me. As far as I could tell, it was saying that you can only have a gay marriage in California? Sorry but I'm colorblind so I couldn't really tell some of the graph's colors apart.

 

 

 

Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Belgium, and the Netherlands, that's it. Now, I want to ask any Canadians or any Dutch people here whether or not the fabric of their society has been torn by allowing gay marriage. America needs gay marriage, not gay civil unions, separate but equal, is not equal.

 

 

 

Since homosexuality is something that we DON'T choose (ask the 1500 can be gay animals) it is equivalent to racism.

 

 

 

Besides, I don't get it, you don't want $1 billion+ extra tax dollars?

 

 

 

Also, it is legal in America to deny someone a job because of their sexual orientation. Heck, even the military uses it with DADT.

[Satenza]

I don't really understand your contempt in comparing homophobia to racism.

 

 

 

prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

 

 

 

Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

 

 

 

Just because one minority has been treated worse than another minority doesn't mean both don't go through similar things. Homophobia is just as bad as racism and it really annoys me when otherwise good people hold homophobic opinions because of religion as if religion is an excuse or a good reason to hold that opinion and as if we should respect prejudice opinions because of that.

[Kenshinjapan]

 

What about poverty? sickness? disabled people? Do they suddenly not matter because everyone cares about 1 stupid issue?! And comparing homo-sexualty to womens'/slaves' rights duringthe Civil War doesn't make any sense. During those times, slaves were beaten and women were abused on a daily bases and had no rights at all. A home-sexual individal isn't going to be hanged for their differences.

 

 

During the Civil Rights era (Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, etc), blacks were no longer in slavery but were still denied equal rights. Does that mean it would have been okay for Americans to continue their prejudices?

 

 

 

Also, calling homosexuality "1 stupid issue" is not helping your claim that you are somehow fair and impartial:

 

Don't change my statement, I never said just people not on my side. So don't go making up crap like that.

 

It is 1 big stupid issue. Does it really matter if your gay or not? NO. And you keep comparing racism to homo-sexuality. Last I checked, gays could sit anywhere on a bus, didn't have a seperate water fountain, and can get a job if they are gay. Quit acting like gays are discriminated the same as African Americans were.

 

 

 

And how is that last quote relevant? You changed what I said to make me sound like a hypocrite. I never said anywhere that I was against gay marriage. So tell me, how am I being unfair? I'm just saying that rascism and home-sexuality shouldn't be seen as equal discriminations.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

It is 1 big stupid issue. Does it really matter if your gay or not? NO. And you keep comparing racism to homo-sexuality. Last I checked, gays could sit anywhere on a bus, didn't have a seperate water fountain, and can get a job if they are gay. Quit acting like gays are discriminated the same as African Americans were.

 

 

 

And how is that last quote relevant? You straight up lied about what I said.

 

I never said gays are discriminated against the same as African Americans were. What's important is that they have both been discriminated against. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter the quantity.

 

 

 

Let's replace "homosexuals" with "blacks." If, in the year 2007, black people can sit anywhere on a bus, drink at any water fountain, and get jobs, but can't get married, would you still think it's a stupid issue?

 

 

 

Also, I straight up proved that you left some things unsaid in your post because afterwards you began to refer to homosexuality as a "stupid issue."