According to the Bible, gay is not okay.

[CrabHelmet]

Dark, did you just refer to homosexuality as a "disease"? >_< And you were doing so well otherwise.

 

Anyhow, since Dark hit most of the main points, I'm just going to fill in a few gaps:

 

Regarding homophobia orientationism (we don't call sexist "gynophobia", so why should this get a nicer word?) not being comparable to sexism, racism, and handism because it's not physical: three objections.

 

First! Why on earth is whether it's physical or not a valid metric for determining whether hating it is acceptable?

 

Second! How exactly is being homosexual any less physical than being left-handed?

 

Third! Sexual orientation does have significant physical characteristics.

 

I love it when the orientationists complain when people object to their hateful beliefs. Hating a group of people because they feel sexual attraction toward one group rather than another? A-OK. Opposing a group of people because they hate an arbitrary and innocent segment of the population? Suddenly, the orientationists throw up their arms in protest! It boggles the mind that they can write things like "You can't stand that fact that someone opposes someone for being different" without getting a nagging feeling that something might just possibly be odd about that statement.

 

I also love the wordplay required to maintain this doublethink. For example, the bit about icons "hating on other people because they don't support their views" depends on the use of the phrase "don't support their views" rather than the more accurate "despise them simply for being who they are".

 

I love how the orientationists always break down into mindless flaming when they find that people outside of their narrow subculture think of them the same way they think of racists. It really is most fascinating to observe this strong positive association between orientationists and people who think swearing solves everything. (For the record, it was MarbleZone, not I, who banned Survivor; all that flaming and swearing put him over 100% Warn.)

 

 

Anyhow, I'm afraid I can't claim credit for this, but it's awesome so I'm going to post it anyhow.

 

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by an east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet.

 

Dear Dr. Laura:

 

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

 

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

 

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

 

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

 

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

 

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

 

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

 

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

 

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

 

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

 

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

 

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

 

Your devoted fan,

 

Jim

[Dark]

Dark, did you just refer to homosexuality as a "disease"? >_< And you were doing so well otherwise.

 

I absolutely know I meant to say disorder as opposed to disease. Bleh, I'm amazed I didn't catch that during my revision of that post. :/

 

orientationism

 

Well, at least it gets an -ism like every other hatred. :D

[TechnoDoomedOne]

I had already read that letter on another place I can't remember, but it's still awesome though.

[CrabHelmet]

Dark' date=' did you just refer to homosexuality as a "disease"? >_< And you were doing so well otherwise.[/i']

 

I absolutely know I meant to say disorder as opposed to disease. Bleh, I'm amazed I didn't catch that during my revision of that post. :/

 

Still a fail; it's not a disorder either. Try getting a DSM that was printed after 1973.

 

orientationism

 

Well' date=' at least it gets an -ism like every other hatred. :[b'][/b]D

 

Bigotry against non-heterosexuals needs a name that reflects that it is more like hatred of blacks than it is like fear of heights.

[Dark]

Still a fail; it's not a disorder either. Try getting a DSM that was printed after 1973.

 

I needed some way to compare homosexuality to cystic fibrosis, in the sense that both are genetically caused, cannot be removed, but only the former has discrimination against it.

 

I understand that they are not comparable in any way other than that, but there is no other way I could link the two. What, call them genetic faults? That doesn't sound correct altogether.

 

 

[CrabHelmet]

It's an orientation - or, if you want a more general term, it's a trait. It's no more a disease, disorder, or fault than is being left-handed or having brown hair.

[Dark]

Fair point; I never thought of using trait as a word.

 

But that still leaves the issue of trait not being associated with genetic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis, although the argument I made off of that was pretty stupid anyways.

[seattleite]

Let's get back on track.

 

This is all coming from the idea of whether it is a choice or not.

 

And no, scientists haven't proven that it is genetic or not, so let's stop saying "It's this way" or not. You can say what you believe, but don't say it like it's fact.

 

Something I've learned... that arguing about these kinds of topics gets you nowhere. I can guarantee that no one here is going to walk away from this, with their minds changed or having a feeling of peace. This subject is based on very deep-rooted beliefs, which cannot be changed just because someone on the internet told you your thinking was wrong.

 

Don't think I've come on here just to say "You're all WRONG!!". I've been wrong too, wrong for arguing about a topic that will never resolve.

 

So, this topic is about bible verses on homosexuality. Personally, I'd like to hear how a christian that supports homosexuality refutes that verse.

[Yasu]

I don't think you can choose/change your sexual orientation.

[Mr. Pipinpapancopalopolas]

Gays are like immagrints, its America f*** YEAH! in other words, Im completly ok with them, there part of Americas great culture

[Красивая Ведьма]

Let's get back on track.

 

This is all coming from the idea of whether it is a choice or not.

 

And no, scientists haven't proven that it is genetic or not, so let's stop saying "It's this way" or not. You can say what you believe, but don't say it like it's fact.

 

Something I've learned... that arguing about these kinds of topics gets you nowhere. I can guarantee that no one here is going to walk away from this, with their minds changed or having a feeling of peace. This subject is based on very deep-rooted beliefs, which cannot be changed just because someone on the internet told you your thinking was wrong.

 

Don't think I've come on here just to say "You're all WRONG!!". I've been wrong too, wrong for arguing about a topic that will never resolve.

 

So, this topic is about bible verses on homosexuality. Personally, I'd like to hear how a christian that supports homosexuality refutes that verse.

 

You poor damn fool... I will say FACTS like they are facts. There are many factors that determine sexuality and all of them are out of the persons control and scientific evidence has backed it up. It has been studied that genetics and conditions in the womb are responsible for homosexuality. You can see that there are relationships between homosexuality and other genetic conditions such as being left-handed and even in finger length. It has also been shown that gay men have more androgens than straight men. It has also been shown that boys who have older brothers are more likely to be gay. See the link below to the APA so you can educate yourself.

 

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

 

You are so misguided to believe that what we say here means nothing. Yes, on a small scale it is pretty pointless, just like a vote. However, these issues WILL be resolved. Many people are using there voices, I being one of them, to destroy these ignorant WRONG ideas and traditions. People like you who choose not to voice your opinion and say "Oh, well this topic will never be resolved." are cowards and the same kind of people that let things like the Holocaust, slavery, female mutilation, selective suffrage, etc. happen. You are nothing because you preach nothingness and silence.

 

I am a Christian and I can explain some verses. Mostly in translation into the many different languages that the Bible was put into things were changed either by accident or by rulers who wanted to change the message. I assume we are using the King James Bible so I will go with that. In the society of the time there were believed to be 3 genders Men, Women, and the Third. They were not put into these groups by biology rather sexuality, which is biological by the way, but you know what I mean. Basically, if you were a man in society you were the one in sex who penetrated your partner. If you were a male who was penetrated you were not considered a man; you were considered a part of the third gender. So, in the original languages saying "A man may not lay with a man." or whatever this was usually referring to rape because a man by their standards would not be penetrated willingly. As times and writers changed this is not always the case. Some scripture is just homophobic that is why I only accept certain books of the Bible.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender

[The Dark One]

To anyone who ever says anything about their own opinions in this thread again:

 

I ask a simply question. If the legality of homosexual marriage was put to a vote in your state, would you vote for it to be banned? If so, the "opinion" that you say is such an unchanging and individual standard for you is now officially affecting others. You say you don't hate gays, that you even have gay friends? Not for long, you won't, because you just denied them their rights. They aren't going to be too happy with you. Maybe they should be exercising their right to call you an ignorant fool? Maybe everyone else who isn't as bigoted as you should be doing to same to help protect the rights of this discriminated minority?

 

Owait, that's what we're all doing, and you somehow felt like it was unfair. Sorry, you can think whatever bigoted bullshit you want on your own time, but as soon as it starts affecting others, I don't think your opinion deserves respect.

[Fidel Castro]

And your a idiot if you can't tell the diffrence between acceptence and support.

[LiAM]

God made me like men.

 

Therefore either God doesn't exist to make me that way or your God isn't what you know and trust and therefore becomes just like the Devil.

 

It's genetic, I didn't choose this. I find homophobics to be in the same league as Racists.

 

I don't believe in God, but I put it in terms you would understand.

 

Humans grow and evolve, there is no set law, only law of humans, and humans obviously created a bad example before.

 

Were lucky to have a more open minded society today, the odd outsider is bearable.

[seattleite]

Wow, this is all directed at me?

 

And I was rated down for my opinion, and called names... how mature.

 

 

All I'm saying is that ARGUING GETS YOU NOWHERE. Discussion and understanding, breeds learning. Arguing = Ignorance.

 

Now I've heard from the other side, and I'm just trying to understand them. But are you even TRYING to understand where i'm coming from? No no no, you shut yourselves away from that and just call me a fool, a bigot and an idiot.

 

 

The Dark One, I Would not call my friends "Ignorant Fools" if they voted for gay marriage. Not everyone is as spiteful and angry as you think they are.

[Supreme Gamesmaster]

Argument makes the world go round, Seattleite. And, more to the point, this is the debate forum. Read: The argument forum.

 

The problem here is twofold:

A ) you're denying people legal rights based on arbitrary conditions, as showcased with blacks, Native Americans, non-Colonial immigrants, and, most egregiously, Japanese-Americans.

B ) you're ascribing the value of "evil" to something that, whether voluntary or not, doesn't actually hurt anyone or anything.

That's why the others here are reacting so badly, and that's the issue we have with homophobia.

Choose your own argument:

[spoiler=A]

Proposition A: Homophobia denies legal rights to citizens based on arbitrary conditions.

 

Argument 1: But they aren't arbitrary conditions!

Rebuttal 1: Research shows they are, but either way, go to B if you're sure.

Argument 2: Religion!

Rebuttal 2: But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:34)

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. (1 Samuel 18:1)

Argument 3: But it doesn't deny legal rights!

Rebuttal 3: See The Dark One and the nature of American civil union.

 

 

[spoiler=B]

Proposition B: Homophobia ascribes the value of evil to an action or tendency that, voluntary or otherwise, doesn't harm anyone or anything.

 

Argument 1: But it does harm something!

Rebuttal 1: Go ahead, make my day. Name who gets hurt by homosexuality. The following two are common among heterosexuals as well and will therefore be considered irrelevant: >rape victims, and >rejected suitors.

Argument 2: Religion!

Rebuttal 2: But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:34)

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. (1 Samuel 18:1)

Argument 3: But it's evil anyway!

Rebuttal 3: Then what is evil, if not that which harms?

Argument 4: But it doesn't ascribe the value of evil to something!

Rebuttal 4: ...except that's what it means. Head back to square 1.

 

 

 

I went through and negated all the premises; if there's any further quarrel you have with something stated here, please speak up. Also, please clearly state your own premises before we continue.

 

(See, this is civil debate. No need to get passionate, anyone.)

[seattleite]

Argument makes the world go round, Seattleite. And, more to the point, this is the debate forum. Read: The argument forum.

 

The problem here is twofold:

A ) you're denying people legal rights based on arbitrary conditions, as showcased with blacks, Native Americans, non-Colonial immigrants, and, most egregiously, Japanese-Americans.

B ) you're ascribing the value of "evil" to something that, whether voluntary or not, doesn't actually hurt anyone or anything.

That's why the others here are reacting so badly, and that's the issue we have with homophobia.

Choose your own argument:

[spoiler=A]

Proposition A: Homophobia denies legal rights to citizens based on arbitrary conditions.

 

Argument 1: But they aren't arbitrary conditions!

Rebuttal 1: Research shows they are, but either way, go to B if you're sure.

Argument 2: Religion!

Rebuttal 2: But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:34)

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. (1 Samuel 18:1)

Argument 3: But it doesn't deny legal rights!

Rebuttal 3: See The Dark One and the nature of American civil union.

 

 

[spoiler=B]

Proposition B: Homophobia ascribes the value of evil to an action or tendency that, voluntary or otherwise, doesn't harm anyone or anything.

 

Argument 1: But it does harm something!

Rebuttal 1: Go ahead, make my day. Name who gets hurt by homosexuality. The following two are common among heterosexuals as well and will therefore be considered irrelevant: >rape victims, and >rejected suitors.

Argument 2: Religion!

Rebuttal 2: But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:34)

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. (1 Samuel 18:1)

Argument 3: But it's evil anyway!

Rebuttal 3: Then what is evil, if not that which harms?

Argument 4: But it doesn't ascribe the value of evil to something!

Rebuttal 4: ...except that's what it means. Head back to square 1.

 

 

 

I went through and negated all the premises; if there's any further quarrel you have with something stated here, please speak up. Also, please clearly state your own premises before we continue.

 

(See, this is civil debate. No need to get passionate, anyone.)

 

 

First of all, I don't compare homosexuality to racial discrimination, because I believe it is a choice. According to psychologists sexuality is an emotional desire. And as such, changing your sexuality requires hard work, but it is possible. I'm not getting this from nowhere though. This is based off personal experiences. Encouraging things like gay marriage and such I think not only undermines the family but also discourages resolving problems that would result in homosexuality.

 

So, I think homosexuality harms traditional values and society. I think men and women are different and children need both a masculine and feminine figurehead. Also, I can see that marriage will deteriorate in meaning untill people can marry their pets, siblings or cardboard cutouts, because with anyone being able to marry anyone, the legistlature won't be able to deny these new changes. It could also create problems for churches who refuse to marry a same-sex couple.

 

Also, I could say that your take on this subject is arbitrary too, if you base it on the idea that sexuality cannot be changed. Then again, all takes on this subject are biased and practically based on personal belief. That's why I don't like arguing about things pertaining to religion - it's all personal.

 

And the scripture quotes - this doesn't mean that all of a sudden I hate homosexuals. I will still follow the bible and "love thy neighbor as thyself". The other one with saul, are you trying to say it's an example of homosexual love? Because it's not, he "loved him as his own soul" is being selfless and showing compassion.

[CrabHelmet]

First of all, I don't compare homosexuality to racial discrimination, because I believe it is a choice. According to psychologists sexuality is an emotional desire. And as such, changing your sexuality requires hard work, but it is possible.

 

You're wrong in pretty much every possible way. Psychologists have unanimously found that homosexuality is not a choice. Furthermore, you orientationist bigots have tried for a long time to turn homosexuals heterosexual, without a single success.

 

I'm not getting this from nowhere though. This is based off personal experiences.

 

And psychology is based off the experience of the entire scientific community.

 

Psychology wins.

 

Encouraging

 

The phrase you're looking for is "Not forbidding".

 

things like gay marriage and such I think not only undermines the family

 

That's right. As soon as gay marriage becomes legal, all the heterosexual married couples in the world will be divorced, and children will try to murder their parents.

 

but also discourages resolving problems that would result in homosexuality.

 

You have taken as your premise that homosexuality is a problem caused by problems.

 

I think I'll take as my premise that being left-handed is a problem caused by problems.

 

So, I think homosexuality harms traditional values and society.

 

By definition, homosexuality runs contrary to traditions that forbid homosexuality. Apparently, you have also accepted as an additional premise that nothing should ever change ever ever ever.

 

I think books harm traditional values and society. Back in the good old days when everyone worked solely with oral tradition, people could carry the most brilliant of poems in their minds alone. Books undermined that tradition, so they should all be outlawed.

 

And then there was freeing the slaves and treating blacks as equals. That tore up traditional society. Can't we just go back to the good old days when the majority was allowed to select any minority they wanted and treat them as inferiors and oppress them?

 

I think men and women are different and children need both a masculine and feminine figurehead.

 

Studies have actually shown that children raised by lesbian couples actually end up better-adjusted on average than children raised by heterosexual couples.

 

Throwing the phrase "I think" before a claim doesn't magically make it true, or justified, or sensible.

 

Also, I can see that marriage will deteriorate in meaning untill people can marry their pets, siblings or cardboard cutouts, because with anyone being able to marry anyone, the legistlature won't be able to deny these new changes.

 

My favourite counterargument to this idiotic line of "reasoning" is a quote from someone named Bill Maher:

 

"Gay marriage will not lead to dog marriage! When we gave women the vote we did not also have to give it to parakeets. When we freed the slaves we were not obligated to free the gerbils."

 

By the way, giving women the rights to vote and work and own property and be treated as equals? Huge blow to traditional values and society, and massively warped traditional family values.

 

It could also create problems for churches who refuse to marry a same-sex couple.

 

No, it couldn't. No church would be required to recognize or perform same-sex marriages if they did not want to. The idea of rainbow stormtroopers marching into churches and forcing the ministers to perform gay marriages at gunpoint is a lie spread by the anti-homosexuality lobby to spread baseless fear in idiots like you who are stupid enough to believe them.

 

Also, I could say that your take on this subject is arbitrary too, if you base it on the idea that sexuality cannot be changed. Then again, all takes on this subject are biased and practically based on personal belief. That's why I don't like arguing about things pertaining to religion - it's all personal.

 

Maybe we can't fly because gravity pulls us down. Maybe we can't fly because magic elves from Switzerland cast an anti-flight spell on us. It's all just personal opinion! Neither claim is in any way more legitimate than the other! The only difference between the two is that one is backed by all observation and science and one is backed by fantasy and wishful thinking, but besides that, it's all arbitrary.

[Dr. Cakey]

You're wrong in pretty much every possible way. Psychologists have unanimously found that homosexuality is not a choice. Furthermore, you orientationist bigots have tried for a long time to turn homosexuals heterosexual, without a single success.

 

 

 

And psychology is based off the experience of the entire scientific community.

 

Psychology wins.

 

 

 

The phrase you're looking for is "Not forbidding".

 

 

 

That's right. As soon as gay marriage becomes legal, all the heterosexual married couples in the world will be divorced, and children will try to murder their parents.

 

 

 

You have taken as your premise that homosexuality is a problem caused by problems.

 

I think I'll take as my premise that being left-handed is a problem caused by problems.

 

 

 

By definition, homosexuality runs contrary to traditions that forbid homosexuality. Apparently, you have also accepted as an additional premise that nothing should ever change ever ever ever.

 

I think books harm traditional values and society. Back in the good old days when everyone worked solely with oral tradition, people could carry the most brilliant of poems in their minds alone. Books undermined that tradition, so they should all be outlawed.

 

And then there was freeing the slaves and treating blacks as equals. That tore up traditional society. Can't we just go back to the good old days when the majority was allowed to select any minority they wanted and treat them as inferiors and oppress them?

 

 

 

Studies have actually shown that children raised by lesbian couples actually end up better-adjusted on average than children raised by heterosexual couples.

 

Throwing the phrase "I think" before a claim doesn't magically make it true, or justified, or sensible.

 

 

 

My favourite counterargument to this idiotic line of "reasoning" is a quote from someone named Bill Maher:

 

"Gay marriage will not lead to dog marriage! When we gave women the vote we did not also have to give it to parakeets. When we freed the slaves we were not obligated to free the gerbils."

 

By the way, giving women the rights to vote and work and own property and be treated as equals? Huge blow to traditional values and society, and massively warped traditional family values.

 

 

 

No, it couldn't. No church would be required to recognize or perform same-sex marriages if they did not want to. The idea of rainbow stormtroopers marching into churches and forcing the ministers to perform gay marriages at gunpoint is a lie spread by the anti-homosexuality lobby to spread baseless fear in idiots like you who are stupid enough to believe them.

 

 

 

Maybe we can't fly because gravity pulls us down. Maybe we can't fly because magic elves from Switzerland cast an anti-flight spell on us. It's all just personal opinion! Neither claim is in any way more legitimate than the other! The only difference between the two is that one is backed by all observation and science and one is backed by fantasy and wishful thinking, but besides that, it's all arbitrary.

How many times have you repeated this post? I'm totally waiting for someone to say the APA is run by gay Nazis or something.

[CrabHelmet]

Well, I'm pretty sure some random person's "opinion" (read: claim they made up on no evidence) totally trumps the findings of the American Psychological Association.

[Chaos Pudding]

I hate debate topics when salty gets to them first because then I'm just parroting what he said.

 

But I will say that, if I was allowed, I would pass out warnings to each and every member who made a disparaging remark to someone in regards to their sexual orientation just like I would to any member who did so in regards to a member's race. And the only reason I don't say ban is because I haven't quite figured out how to outright ban members in this new format yet.

[seattleite]

No sexual slurs, Chaos pudding. Promise.

 

You're wrong in pretty much every possible way. Psychologists have unanimously found that homosexuality is not a choice. Furthermore, you orientationist bigots have tried for a long time to turn homosexuals heterosexual, without a single success.

 

That's not what My psychologist said, when I had one. I'm also taking into account this is from a society based on political correctness. And Without a single success? http://pfox.org/default.html

 

And psychology is based off the experience of the entire scientific community.

 

Psychology wins.

 

Let's say that god came to you one day and you saw him with your own eyes. You weren't dreaming, drunk or anything else. Later, a scientists tells you you're crazy. Who would you believe?

 

The phrase you're looking for is "Not forbidding".

 

 

That's right. As soon as gay marriage becomes legal, all the heterosexual married couples in the world will be divorced, and children will try to murder their parents.

 

Very Funny, but that's not what i'm saying at all. What i said about children requiring a male and female figurehead.

 

 

You have taken as your premise that homosexuality is a problem caused by problems.

 

I think I'll take as my premise that being left-handed is a problem caused by problems.

 

If that is seriously your premise, well ok then.

 

 

By definition, homosexuality runs contrary to traditions that forbid homosexuality. Apparently, you have also accepted as an additional premise that nothing should ever change ever ever ever.

 

I'm not against change. I just don't like most of the changes proposed so far.

 

I think books harm traditional values and society. Back in the good old days when everyone worked solely with oral tradition, people could carry the most brilliant of poems in their minds alone. Books undermined that tradition, so they should all be outlawed.

 

I have already said my premise for why I am against gay marriage/homosexuality.

 

And then there was freeing the slaves and treating blacks as equals. That tore up traditional society. Can't we just go back to the good old days when the majority was allowed to select any minority they wanted and treat them as inferiors and oppress them?

 

You can stop using race as an argument against me since it's just not going to work. Race is predetermined and I think sexuality is possible to change.

 

Studies have actually shown that children raised by lesbian couples actually end up better-adjusted on average than children raised by heterosexual couples.

 

I could argue for either side using just scientific studies: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_indispensable_dad/

 

Throwing the phrase "I think" before a claim doesn't magically make it true, or justified, or sensible.

 

Neither does not saying it automatically make it a fact.

 

My favourite counterargument to this idiotic line of "reasoning" is a quote from someone named Bill Maher:

 

"Gay marriage will not lead to dog marriage! When we gave women the vote we did not also have to give it to parakeets. When we freed the slaves we were not obligated to free the gerbils."

 

Yes, why not? It's "Love" just like anything else. Ok, seriously, i was using animals as a joke. But things like polygamy, and incest can follow this. Why not, people will ask.

 

By the way, giving women the rights to vote and work and own property and be treated as equals? Huge blow to traditional values and society, and massively warped traditional family values.

 

Women's rights are not the issue here.

 

No, it couldn't. No church would be required to recognize or perform same-sex marriages if they did not want to. The idea of rainbow stormtroopers marching into churches and forcing the ministers to perform gay marriages at gunpoint is a lie spread by the anti-homosexuality lobby to spread baseless fear in idiots like you who are stupid enough to believe them.

 

Wow, language! Listen to Supreme Gamesmaster on being mature, and calm down. I am talking about things like bags of urine being tossed on mormon temples http://chico.newsreview.com/LegalServices/the-storm-over-mormons-the-lds-mormon-church-proposition-8-and-marriage-equality/1835007

 

Maybe we can't fly because gravity pulls us down. Maybe we can't fly because magic elves from Switzerland cast an anti-flight spell on us. It's all just personal opinion! Neither claim is in any way more legitimate than the other! The only difference between the two is that one is backed by all observation and science and one is backed by fantasy and wishful thinking, but besides that, it's all arbitrary.

 

EXACTLY! Everything in this topic is arbitrary. You have your reasons and I have mine, based purely on personal opinion. And simply put, we only listen to the facts when it supports our beliefs already. Things like evolution have several flaws, and practically require just as much faith if not more than religion. Even Darwin had his reasons to search for evolution. His daughter died at a young age and he hated god for that. He used to be christian. It wasn't just "for the sake of science".

 

@ Dr. Cakey - I only posted that because Supreme Gamesmaster wanted me to put my premises.

[TechnoDoomedOne]

Seattleite...

 

That's not what My psychologist said, when I had one. I'm also taking into account this is from a society based on political correctness. And Without a single success? http://pfox.org/default.html

 

There are many people that believe that homosexuality is a choice. But contrary to the popular opinion, to believe something doesn't mean that's true.

 

First of all, do you think someone will be SO STUPID to change their sexual orientation to one that is seen as bad, gets a lot of hatred, makes your life harder and is even condemned in some countries? Why? Because you can't have a girlfriend? I have many friends that don't have one and they are still straight, or are you suggesting they will all turn gay by some miracle? Wow, I know human beings were stupid, but man, you're taking this to a new whole level.

 

Second, there are some psychologists (those that are bigots too) that say homosexuality is a choice and try to "cure" homosexuality. How many cured gays exist? I don't think that many. And most of them are just repressing what they feel, they have not changed a bit who they are. They are just denying their gay feelings because by x-reasons they feel being gay is something horrible, and most of the times because someone has made them feel like it.

BECAUSE LOVE is so, so horrible.

 

So, as I said, some psychologist think that way. However, many more psychologists approve that it is not a choice, and scientific research demonstrates some things to actually gives us enough material to make a basis on how more hormonal and biology-based is homosexuality than anything else. Did you know that if a twin is gay, the other has more chances to be also gay? Did you know that as more children a family has, more possibilites has the latter to be gay? Check it out, wikipedia is full of information. I suggest you to return informed about this topic if you plan to withstand your position.

 

Third, homosexuality and bisexuality are commonly accepted standards in the animal world. Its a natural thing. Get documented, is pretty normal, especially in mammals. Wikipedia has a vast list of animals that get engaged in homosexual relationships. So... Why do humans still obsess about the evilness of it, and think that allowing gays to not be oppressed and have the same rights as everyone will cause the armaggeddon?

 

 

 

Let's say that god came to you one day and you saw him with your own eyes. You weren't dreaming, drunk or anything else. Later, a scientists tells you you're crazy. Who would you believe?

 

I really expect this is not your case, because if it is, maybe your psychologist should do something more with you. Like putting you in the asylum, you know.

 

Why, you wonder? Well, first because it's your word against everyone elses, you have no proof, and God has done nothing to prove its existance either recently. Also, you're viewing it from your religion's point of view. There are tons of them. What proof do you have to ensure yours is the correct one?

 

Without proof, yeah, maybe you saw him. And what? Did he tell you that gays are evil and that they will go all to Hell, or was it the Bible who told you that, a book that was written more than a milennia ago and has suffered all kind of translations and deformations of its initial text? Wow, your God hates something that he created, iis naturall, widespread, and that affects tons of innocent people that may have done a lot of good things while alive. But they must repent the sin they were bornt with or they will go to Hell!!!!

 

I'm sure Hitler is in Heaven by God's standards, as he killed a lot of gays too. Seriously, Baal is like an angel compared to him if you put it that way, and Baal required children as sacrifices. I mean it, if God is like that, we are better off without him.

 

 

 

I'm not against change. I just don't like most of the changes proposed so far.

 

Because change that promotes equality is so, so bad. Let me fix your quote, then...

"I'm not against change. I just don't like it."

 

 

EXACTLY! Everything in this topic is arbitrary. You have your reasons and I have mine, based purely on personal opinion. And simply put, we only listen to the facts when it supports our beliefs already. Things like evolution have several flaws, and practically require just as much faith if not more than religion. Even Darwin had his reasons to search for evolution. His daughter died at a young age and he hated god for that. He used to be christian. It wasn't just "for the sake of science".

 

Not only personal opinion, but a collective's opinion, scientific research, proof... For the part that people only listen to the facts that supports their beliefs: well, it's true. It has always been, but there are people that are more open-minded, and listen to both. They defend theirs, and try to see if the others are true and seek flaws in them. In the end, proof wins the contest.

 

You have some marginal scientific opinions and religion on your side, while we have the Human Rights and science on ours. Let's see who wins.

 

 

Oh, and I almost forgot it, Evolution has some flaws, but at least it is based on scientific experiments and empiric proofs. I suggest you to find a biologist and discuss the Evolution vs. Creationism issue with him/her.

[Dr. Cakey]

You're wrong in pretty much every possible way. Psychologists have unanimously found that homosexuality is not a choice. Furthermore' date=' you orientationist bigots have tried for a long time to turn homosexuals heterosexual, without a single success.

[b']

That's not what My psychologist said, when I had one. I'm also taking into account this is from a society based on political correctness. And Without a single success? http://pfox.org/default.html[/b]

 

So, I skimmed PFOX (they need to work on their acronym, by the way), and it seems to bounce between a few different opinions. Dr. Spitzer's minute-long crash course in his opinion said, "being gay is a choice, and several leading Dr. Spitzers agree with me." Then there was another opinion that all people are bisexual - which is technically true, since all people fall on some point on the scale between homosexuality and heterosexuality. The more accurate statement might be "sexuality is not a choice". Eh, and I might as well ask my psychiatrist his particular opinion on this subject (we're liberal as hell here in New England, though).

 

 

And psychology is based off the experience of the entire scientific community.

 

Psychology wins.

Let's say that god came to you one day and you saw him with your own eyes. You weren't dreaming, drunk or anything else. Later, a scientists tells you you're crazy. Who would you believe?

 

Any good scientist has no reason to believe that you weren't dreaming, drunk, etc. even if you yourself believe/know you weren't. So I would say a scientist who didn't say I was crazy has no right being a scientist.

 

The phrase you're looking for is "Not forbidding".

 

 

That's right. As soon as gay marriage becomes legal, all the heterosexual married couples in the world will be divorced, and children will try to murder their parents.

 

Very Funny, but that's not what i'm saying at all. What i said about children requiring a male and female figurehead.

 

ITT: All single parents should be required to remarry.

 

 

You have taken as your premise that homosexuality is a problem caused by problems.

 

I think I'll take as my premise that being left-handed is a problem caused by problems.

If that is seriously your premise, well ok then.

 

Crab Helmet's point is that you are arguing that homosexuality is caused by problems from upbringing. Her response is that left-handedness is caused by problems from upbringing (most significantly, demonic possession, I believe).

 

By definition, homosexuality runs contrary to traditions that forbid homosexuality. Apparently, you have also accepted as an additional premise that nothing should ever change ever ever ever.

 

I'm not against change. I just don't like most of the changes proposed so far.

 

And these changes would be what? I hate to re-re-replay the race card, but wouldn't you consider the Civil Rights Movement to be a fairly major change, severely opposed at the time by many people, and happened not too much more than a generation ago. But, uh, reply to my question, not to how this statement has nothing at all to do with our debate.

 

I think books harm traditional values and society. Back in the good old days when everyone worked solely with oral tradition, people could carry the most brilliant of poems in their minds alone. Books undermined that tradition, so they should all be outlawed.

 

I have already said my premise for why I am against gay marriage/homosexuality.

 

Yes, because it harms traditional values and society, or something. Books do the same. Divorce sure as hell does.

 

And then there was freeing the slaves and treating blacks as equals. That tore up traditional society. Can't we just go back to the good old days when the majority was allowed to select any minority they wanted and treat them as inferiors and oppress them?

You can stop using race as an argument against me since it's just not going to work. Race is predetermined and I think sexuality is possible to change.

 

You know my opinion on the second sentence, so I'll just stick to the first. Notice how Crab Helmet said, "any minority". Sure, there are blacks, Mexicans, Native Americans, and so forth. But what about Protestants? They can change, so treating them as inferior seems reasonable, right?

 

Studies have actually shown that children raised by lesbian couples actually end up better-adjusted on average than children raised by heterosexual couples.

 

I could argue for either side using just scientific studies: http://www.mercatorn...ispensable_dad/

 

Throwing the phrase "I think" before a claim doesn't magically make it true, or justified, or sensible.

Neither does not saying it automatically make it a fact.

 

Well, I don't know if these studies are true or not, but I will say this: studies are created that support either view. But all studies are not created equal. Now, I haven't and don't intend to research as to which of these opinions is correct, but it is true that a larger study, done by a more reputable organization/university is more likely to be accurate, without having interest in the outcome of the study. A study by a Gay Rights organization is likely to be fudged, and so is one sponsored by the US Catholic Bishops. It should be noted, however, that Crab Helmet said "It is suggested that this may be true" and your reply was "This is true. By the way, scientific studies are fake."

 

My favourite counterargument to this idiotic line of "reasoning" is a quote from someone named Bill Maher:

 

"Gay marriage will not lead to dog marriage! When we gave women the vote we did not also have to give it to parakeets. When we freed the slaves we were not obligated to free the gerbils."

 

Yes, why not? It's "Love" just like anything else. Ok, seriously, i was using animals as a joke. But things like polygamy, and incest can follow this. Why not, people will ask.

 

His quote already answered that - manipulating precedent in that way is stupid and bad and stupid. And I hate to throw this out there, but polygamy is not a terribly radical concept. Incest contains its own set of problems - biological and psychological - that I really don't feel like delving into.

 

By the way, giving women the rights to vote and work and own property and be treated as equals? Huge blow to traditional values and society, and massively warped traditional family values.

 

Women's rights are not the issue here.

 

Ah, but the right of women to own property and work was a horrible blow to to traditional values - and I'm not being sarcastic. It completely warped the view of society as to what a family was supposed to be like. So it is very much analogous.

 

No, it couldn't. No church would be required to recognize or perform same-sex marriages if they did not want to. The idea of rainbow stormtroopers marching into churches and forcing the ministers to perform gay marriages at gunpoint is a lie spread by the anti-homosexuality lobby to spread baseless fear in idiots like you who are stupid enough to believe them.

 

Wow, language! Listen to Supreme Gamesmaster on being mature, and calm down. I am talking about things like bags of urine being tossed on mormon temples http://chico.newsrev...quality/1835007

 

Individual actions (Individual, illegal actions, shall I add), can't be equated to churches' being "forced" to perform gay marriages. The government can't and won't mandate that churches perform the marriages, all they can do is allow homosexual civil unions. Whatever activists do (reasoned or puerile) has nothing to do with the government.

 

Maybe we can't fly because gravity pulls us down. Maybe we can't fly because magic elves from Switzerland cast an anti-flight spell on us. It's all just personal opinion! Neither claim is in any way more legitimate than the other! The only difference between the two is that one is backed by all observation and science and one is backed by fantasy and wishful thinking, but besides that, it's all arbitrary.

 

EXACTLY! Everything in this topic is arbitrary. You have your reasons and I have mine, based purely on personal opinion. And simply put, we only listen to the facts when it supports our beliefs already. Things like evolution have several flaws, and practically require just as much faith if not more than religion. Even Darwin had his reasons to search for evolution. His daughter died at a young age and he hated god for that. He used to be christian. It wasn't just "for the sake of science".

 

Microevolution has no flaws. Macroevolution is an extrapolation based on the theory of microevolution, and has no apparent flaws. The only flaw is that we can't watch it as it happens, though we can look back at the fragments of the fossil record and interpet. Darwin compiled his theory of evolution before his daughter died, I believe. And I believe he had always been a Christian, even after his daughter died - perhaps not, I have not made a study of the fellow. Either way, his theory was refined, and that improved theory has remained steady for a very long time. There's not much you have to take on faith.

 

EDIT: Oh. Ninja'd.

[TechnoDoomedOne]

EDIT: Oh. Ninja'd.

 

Not really, you defended Evolution better than me and you have your own points. Better 2 than 1, no?