The Dark One Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 Eh. Gay people are alright. However' date=' most of the time, people say it's none of our buisness. Have you not seen most of them? They are basically telling you at times...DX[/quote'] You're talking about the way that gays often look, act, and speak differently than heterosexual men. Aside from the fact that not all gays do this in the first place, it's still a moot point. Women look, act, and speak differently from men, goths from preps, etc etc. There's simply no reason why there can't be certain traits that tend to characterize a sexual orientation. It's not the gay's mission to try to appear "straight" to the rest of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Issun Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 Exactly, thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 So bassicly' date=' we shouldnt make it apperant that were straight, because its not any of Gays buisness right?[/quote'] You're not good at this, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frlf Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 I think that Resonating Lust was referring to the flaming homosexuals. I don't get how disliking someone rubbing their ideas in your face is bashing gays. It's no different than rednecks wearing moronic shirts about how IF UR GONNA MARRY A DUDE, U MITE AS WELL MARRY A DAWG. It's just annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Issun Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 Well I'm just saying, your saying Gays shouldnt make it apperant there Gay correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Phoenix Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 Several mental disorders that can result in serial killers' date=' among other things, also happen to be genetic. However, they are not justified due to being genetic.[/quote'] People harmed by serial killers:Everyone they killEveryone who knows anyone they killEveryone who knows them when they are caught People harmed by gays:... Like usual, Crab does somthing Pwng that makes her even more awsome So misinterpreting posts makes you awesome? The point of that post wasn't to equate serial killers to gays, or say "Serial Killers are that way because of genes and are bad, so Gays must be bad too due to also gaining their defining trait via genes." The point of my post was to shoot down absolute bullshit. Namely, the argument that genetics justify behavior. Serial killers can't help it due to genetics, yet they still are punished for murder. Gays engage in sexual intercourse with same gender partners due to genetics, and that is all the evidence we need to say they are in the right. The above two statements are in direct contradiction to each other when it comes to their logic, yet everyone seems content to pretend they aren't because it is convenient for their argument. If it really is that mind-numbingly easy to prove homosexuality isn't wrong, then you can damn well take the time and effort to due so without resorting to logical fallacy. You're also all hypocrites for condemning homophobics (read: group intolerant of another group), and then making radical generalizations about a religion, which, yes, showcases your intolerance for another group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraveHorizon Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 I think there's a misunderstanding about intolerance here. Homophobes hate homosexuals for being who they are, just people that happen to be homosexual. Atheists only want to point out the contradictions and inaccuracies in religion and wrongdoings done by the people proclaiming to be religious, using logic and reason. There's no hate involved. The goal isn't to repress an entire group of people. They can believe in whatever they want, however silly it might seem to us, but they still have the right to express themselves, as does everyone else. If you were to replace "gay" with "black", the sentiment would sound a bit different. "I don't have a problem with the blacks, I just wish they wouldn't flaunt their blackness all the time in public." That sounds terrible. If you don't have a problem with homosexual people but you dislike their public displays of affection, shouldn't you just say you have a problem with public displays of affection? Does it have to necessarily be an issue with gay people? And the idea that people can choose who they are attracted to, I'm sure there are some who can do that. Anyone want to take that challenge? If you're hetero, try being attracted to the same sex. I know I can't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 stuff What you're overlooking is that the genetic argument is a negation of an opposing argument: that being gay is a choice. It is not used - or' date=' to be more precise, is not [i']properly[/i] used - as a standalone justification; rather, it is used to shoot down the nonsense that homosexuals choose to be gay because, uh, they're all masochists who like being discriminated against. Of course, by this point I'm replying to your reply to my someone's reply to my reply to someone else's reply to someone else's reply to someone else, so the original context of what we're all replying to has been obscured. You're also all hypocrites for condemning homophobics (read: group intolerant of another group)' date=' and then making radical [b']generalizations[/b] about a religion, which, yes, showcases your intolerance for another group. EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU IS GENERALIZING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Womi Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 I know a gay Christian.Funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Phoenix Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 stuff Things I find this to be acceptable. You're also all hypocrites for condemning homophobics (read: group intolerant of another group)' date=' and then making radical [b']generalizations[/b] about a religion, which, yes, showcases your intolerance for another group. EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU IS GENERALIZING I do suppose that's a pretty horrible word choice for a statement like that. But at this point it was 3 AM and I really didn't feel like carefully extracting every person's name who did and putting them in a list. Suffice it to say a vast majority of the thread seems to be doing this, and it's easy to figure out who I'm referring to. If you'd like I can send a fruit basket to everyone who didn't make this generalization later after I have my tea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Gamesmaster Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 You're also all hypocrites for condemning homophobics (read: group intolerant of another group)' date=' and then making radical generalizations about a religion, which, yes, showcases your intolerance for another group.[/quote']Does using the religion in a historical and political sense without saying a word about people who practice it count as generalizing about the religion? If so, well, blow me down. >.> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Phoenix Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 You're also all hypocrites for condemning homophobics (read: group intolerant of another group)' date=' and then making radical generalizations about a religion, which, yes, showcases your intolerance for another group.[/quote']Does using the religion in a historical and political sense without saying a word about people who practice it count as generalizing about the religion? If so, well, blow me down. >.> The figurehead of a religion is not the religion them-self. Strict Catholic schools even teach that old popes were corrupt pedophiles. Pope started crusades, Christianity was just his excuse to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 Well I'm just saying' date=' your saying Gays shouldnt make it apperant there Gay correct?[/quote'] No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Issun Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 Ok, well then I misread your post, thus my arguement is invalid, thank you for using "F* your beliefs Inc" We hope to serve you agian :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidel Castro Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I find it kinda strange that jesus only had male followers... 12 of them to be exact. Gay much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Phoenix Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I find it kinda strange that jesus only had male followers... 12 of them to be exact. Gay much? He had 12 Apostles. He had many other followers, one of the most prominent being Mary Magdalen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I find it kinda strange that jesus only had male followers... 12 of them to be exact. Gay much? I find it kinda strange that George Washington's cabinet was entirely male. MASSIVE SECRET GAY ADMINISTRATION? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seattleite Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I personally don't approve of homosexuality but does that make me a homophobe? I don't hate gay people or fear them, that is what homophobia is. I agree with Revolver Amethyst, that hating on christians that don't approve of homosexuality is hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I personally don't approve of homosexuality but does that make me a homophobe? I personally don't approve of being black but does that make me a racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seattleite Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I personally don't approve of homosexuality but does that make me a homophobe? I personally don't approve of being black but does that make me a racist? I think homosexuality is a choice. That's what's different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidel Castro Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 Since this is a topic about the bible i feel like i should make a theological arguement. God has a plan for everyone. God has the power to destroy sinners. Gays according to the bible are sinners. God has yet to destroy gays, so that means a person being gay is just a part of his divine plan. As i said quite a few pages back... If gayness is a sin then why do we have 'devout' cathloic priests 'playing' with the altar boys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Phoenix Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I personally don't approve of homosexuality but does that make me a homophobe? I personally don't approve of being black but does that make me a racist? There's a distinction between disliking a behavior and hating someone for that behavior. For example, let's say you have a relative that smokes in their house. Every time you visit them, you have to deal with the horrible smell. You wish they wouldn't smoke, but you don't hate them for it, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Womi Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 As i said quite a few pages back... If gayness is a sin then why do we have 'devout' cathloic priests 'playing' with the altar boys? Because it obviously wouldn't be a sin if the bible approved "gayness". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Gamesmaster Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I personally don't approve of homosexuality but does that make me a homophobe? I personally don't approve of being black but does that make me a racist? There's a distinction between disliking a behavior and hating someone for that behavior. For example' date=' let's say you have a relative that smokes in their house. Every time you visit them, you have to deal with the horrible smell. You wish they wouldn't smoke, but you don't hate them for it, do you?[/quote']Methinks that, by RA's logic, disapproving of homosexuality makes one homophobic, but not a homophobe. It's still pretty bad, but it's better than being a homophobe. ...semantics, semantics. Let's change the subject back to something Crab brought up earlier: What, exactly, is bad about being homosexual? Who or what does it harm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seattleite Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 Since this is a topic about the bible i feel like i should make a theological arguement. God has a plan for everyone. God has the power to destroy sinners. Gays according to the bible are sinners. God has yet to destroy gays' date=' so that means a person being gay is just a part of his divine plan. [b']you say the bible says gayness is a sin. If it is a sin then god is waiting for them to repent.[/b] As i said quite a few pages back... If gayness is a sin then why do we have 'devout' cathloic priests 'playing' with the altar boys? I'm not catholic, but we are only human. You can't blame a whole religion for the mistakes of the few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.