For all those saying homosexuality is genetically decided: there is no scientific proof. There is scientific proof, however, that gender is genetically decided. To separate the two is a modern notion that has spurred this whole debate. In today's society, someone can be a man trapped in a woman's body, but fifty years ago, that idea was crazy. People keep comparing homosexuality to race, so I will continue. Imagine if I, a Caucasian, said to people that on the inside, I was Chinese. They would look at me like I was crazy. For some reason, the same thing (only with sexuality) has become accepted as fact, not as a potential disorder (I don't really like using that word, but I can't think of another one. I'm not saying people who are gay are worse than heteros, what I'm saying is that perhaps the behavior isn't normal, and thus homosexual marriage should not be allowed).
I hope I said that correctly, because I don't want to offend anyone. I believe that everyone is equal, but some behaviors are not right.
EDIT: zabel'd on all the religion talk, so this post might seem a bit out of place.
That religion talk is not going to end well so....
It's an interesting view on homosexuality. Lets transfer it away from humans and apply it to homosexual animals. The social construct does not apply so perhaps we could assume homosexuality if an animalistic trait. We evolved (don't pick up on this as an argument about religion) and created society, but maintained this animalistic trait. This would make homosexuality a sub-conscious thing we cannot control. Does that make it a wrong behavior? It would be on the same level as the drive to feed.
I can agree to that, but there is also for example drive to have sex with animals for some people and that is seen as wrong by absolute majority of the population i would say. Who decides what is okay and what is too much here? Why is drive to bang same sex a natural need that should be seen as okayish and why animal sex is deviance? Who is drawing the line here?
Both gay sex and animal sex are unnatural from viewpoint of nature not building our body to this (while different sexes sex-act is created by nature to save the kind from extinction)...
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 23-05-2014 12:52
For all those saying homosexuality is genetically decided: there is no scientific proof. There is scientific proof, however, that gender is genetically decided. To separate the two is a modern notion that has spurred this whole debate. In today's society, someone can be a man trapped in a woman's body, but fifty years ago, that idea was crazy. People keep comparing homosexuality to race, so I will continue. Imagine if I, a Caucasian, said to people that on the inside, I was Chinese. They would look at me like I was crazy. For some reason, the same thing (only with sexuality) has become accepted as fact, not as a potential disorder (I don't really like using that word, but I can't think of another one. I'm not saying people who are gay are worse than heteros, what I'm saying is that perhaps the behavior isn't normal, and thus homosexual marriage should not be allowed).
I hope I said that correctly, because I don't want to offend anyone. I believe that everyone is equal, but some behaviors are not right.
EDIT: zabel'd on all the religion talk, so this post might seem a bit out of place.
That religion talk is not going to end well so....
It's an interesting view on homosexuality. Lets transfer it away from humans and apply it to homosexual animals. The social construct does not apply so perhaps we could assume homosexuality if an animalistic trait. We evolved (don't pick up on this as an argument about religion) and created society, but maintained this animalistic trait. This would make homosexuality a sub-conscious thing we cannot control. Does that make it a wrong behavior? It would be on the same level as the drive to feed.
I can agree to that, but there is also for example drive to have sex with animals for some people and that is seen as wrong by absolute majority of the population i would say. Who decides what is okay and what is too much here? Why is drive to bang same sex a natural need that should be seen as okayish and why animal sex is deviance? Who is drawing the line here?
Both gay sex and animal sex are unnatural from viewpoint of nature not building our body to this (while different sexes sex-act is created by nature to save the kind from extinction)...
Their reasoning is that animals and kids should be protected from having sex with adults because they don't have the power to say no. It is therefore considered harmful to them to have sex with them so it is outlawed.
This also sparks a dilemma for me though. If different sexuality is okay, but sex (in some cases) isn't, how should we judge pedophiles? A pedophile isn't a necessarily a child molester: if he realizes having sex with kids is wrong he can decide never to do such a thing. Is it not hypocritical to accept homophilia but to still think of pedophilia as a sickness?
admirschleck wrote:
I am sorry if you find my message vulgar, but it's just like it is.
You're born. Man and a woman made you. Your sex was decided by either God or nature, whatever you do believe in. You are a male. You have the penis. It's supposed to go into vagina and it's NOT supposed to go in men asshole. Simple as that. Got it?
Tell me now, how on earth is it normal to be gay? It's not the normal nature circle. I find (most of) gay people the people who wants some attention. You just can't walk in lycra pants, fuck men, make up and pretend to be a man. It's not going like that.
You seem to forget that your sexuality is genetically decided. It's not a choice to be homosexual. If people have been created to like someone of the same sexe, then let them live like they have been created.
Do you have some scientific evidence for this, because i tend to agree with Manx here. Just look how it was sexualy in pre-medieval times and you will see that it is a social construct...
After some research I think I have to agree with you, there's no scientific evidence. I don't think it's a choice though, more something that overcomes you, just like straigjt love.
I'd agree with admirschleck that it most certainly isn't genetically inherited. As I'd agree with Selwink that it is something that overcomes you, a passion. However, I do not think that it is right, and that such passions can be overcome.
Why do you think it's wrong then? It's a natural minority of homosexuals. I'm left-handed, part of a small minority as well. Society is made for right-handed. Should I adapt or should I be tolerated?
I believe that it is wrong, that it is a sin which God condemns as deplorable in the Bible.
If God considers it a sin, why would he even create homosexuality at all?
God did not create homosexuality, it is a sin which man brought into the world when he first sinned against God by wanting to be God.
Then why wouldn't God interrupt and seemingly tolerate it?
Because if God was to punish us the way our sins deserve everytime we sinned, we would not be able to live another day.
It's His mercy which allows us to continue living. He does not wish to punish the whole human race, and so He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to live the perfect life that we never could, and then die the death He didn't deserve, taking the sin of His people onto Himself. The just was punished for the unjust. And so if you trust that Jesus Christ did indeed die for you, and more than that rose from the dead to proclaim His victory over death, then you will have your sins forgiven and go to be with Him in heaven.
However, if you do not choose to follow Christ, one day you will die, and rather than Jesus taking the punishment for your sins, you will be punished for all of your sins, in hell.
A gamble I'd be willing to take.
Surely purely from a gambling perspective is it not better to be a Christian than not?
If the Bible is true, then those who are Christians will go to heaven and those who aren't will go to hell.
If the Bible is not ture, and this life is all there is, what difference does it make whether I follow the Bible or not? There is not afterlife, so we both share the same fate.
Firstly, it depends on if you want to waste your life spouting, believing and adhering to this bullshit on the off-chance that it's actually true, or you want to enjoy it.
Secondly, I'd be at least as scared of Muslim hell than Christian hell.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Both gay sex and animal sex are unnatural from viewpoint of nature not building our body to this (while different sexes sex-act is created by nature to save the kind from extinction)...
We aren't designed to do a lot of things, yet we do them. Take swimming. We aren't designed to swim, yet we can and in fact we celebrate those who are really good at it.
We aren't designed to pleasure ourselves, yet we do. In fact we do it so much there are entire industries built around pleasuring ourselves.
We wouldn't call swimming unnatural and we don't vilify people for masturbating. Why is that step to loving (not sexual) someone of the same gender an issue? Is it because the sex (anal for men, don't even know how to describe womens in the same way) is against natural design, like a noticeable portion of human day-to-day activity, and therefore wrong?
admirschleck wrote:
I am sorry if you find my message vulgar, but it's just like it is.
You're born. Man and a woman made you. Your sex was decided by either God or nature, whatever you do believe in. You are a male. You have the penis. It's supposed to go into vagina and it's NOT supposed to go in men asshole. Simple as that. Got it?
Tell me now, how on earth is it normal to be gay? It's not the normal nature circle. I find (most of) gay people the people who wants some attention. You just can't walk in lycra pants, fuck men, make up and pretend to be a man. It's not going like that.
You seem to forget that your sexuality is genetically decided. It's not a choice to be homosexual. If people have been created to like someone of the same sexe, then let them live like they have been created.
Do you have some scientific evidence for this, because i tend to agree with Manx here. Just look how it was sexualy in pre-medieval times and you will see that it is a social construct...
After some research I think I have to agree with you, there's no scientific evidence. I don't think it's a choice though, more something that overcomes you, just like straigjt love.
I'd agree with admirschleck that it most certainly isn't genetically inherited. As I'd agree with Selwink that it is something that overcomes you, a passion. However, I do not think that it is right, and that such passions can be overcome.
Why do you think it's wrong then? It's a natural minority of homosexuals. I'm left-handed, part of a small minority as well. Society is made for right-handed. Should I adapt or should I be tolerated?
I believe that it is wrong, that it is a sin which God condemns as deplorable in the Bible.
If God considers it a sin, why would he even create homosexuality at all?
God did not create homosexuality, it is a sin which man brought into the world when he first sinned against God by wanting to be God.
Then why wouldn't God interrupt and seemingly tolerate it?
Because if God was to punish us the way our sins deserve everytime we sinned, we would not be able to live another day.
It's His mercy which allows us to continue living. He does not wish to punish the whole human race, and so He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to live the perfect life that we never could, and then die the death He didn't deserve, taking the sin of His people onto Himself. The just was punished for the unjust. And so if you trust that Jesus Christ did indeed die for you, and more than that rose from the dead to proclaim His victory over death, then you will have your sins forgiven and go to be with Him in heaven.
However, if you do not choose to follow Christ, one day you will die, and rather than Jesus taking the punishment for your sins, you will be punished for all of your sins, in hell.
But wouldn't God want to get rid of punishments. The most effective way of doing so is punishing people publicly, so others can learn from it. He however doesn't do that, but why wouldn't he?
It's a question of free will. God is not imposing His will upon the world. He has given us His guidebook on how to live, and it is up to us to choose whether to follow it or not.
God's will is in the bible right?
and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. (Deuteronomy 7:2)
admirschleck wrote:
I am sorry if you find my message vulgar, but it's just like it is.
You're born. Man and a woman made you. Your sex was decided by either God or nature, whatever you do believe in. You are a male. You have the penis. It's supposed to go into vagina and it's NOT supposed to go in men asshole. Simple as that. Got it?
Tell me now, how on earth is it normal to be gay? It's not the normal nature circle. I find (most of) gay people the people who wants some attention. You just can't walk in lycra pants, fuck men, make up and pretend to be a man. It's not going like that.
You seem to forget that your sexuality is genetically decided. It's not a choice to be homosexual. If people have been created to like someone of the same sexe, then let them live like they have been created.
Do you have some scientific evidence for this, because i tend to agree with Manx here. Just look how it was sexualy in pre-medieval times and you will see that it is a social construct...
After some research I think I have to agree with you, there's no scientific evidence. I don't think it's a choice though, more something that overcomes you, just like straigjt love.
I'd agree with admirschleck that it most certainly isn't genetically inherited. As I'd agree with Selwink that it is something that overcomes you, a passion. However, I do not think that it is right, and that such passions can be overcome.
Why do you think it's wrong then? It's a natural minority of homosexuals. I'm left-handed, part of a small minority as well. Society is made for right-handed. Should I adapt or should I be tolerated?
I believe that it is wrong, that it is a sin which God condemns as deplorable in the Bible.
If God considers it a sin, why would he even create homosexuality at all?
God did not create homosexuality, it is a sin which man brought into the world when he first sinned against God by wanting to be God.
Then why wouldn't God interrupt and seemingly tolerate it?
Because if God was to punish us the way our sins deserve everytime we sinned, we would not be able to live another day.
It's His mercy which allows us to continue living. He does not wish to punish the whole human race, and so He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to live the perfect life that we never could, and then die the death He didn't deserve, taking the sin of His people onto Himself. The just was punished for the unjust. And so if you trust that Jesus Christ did indeed die for you, and more than that rose from the dead to proclaim His victory over death, then you will have your sins forgiven and go to be with Him in heaven.
However, if you do not choose to follow Christ, one day you will die, and rather than Jesus taking the punishment for your sins, you will be punished for all of your sins, in hell.
But wouldn't God want to get rid of punishments. The most effective way of doing so is punishing people publicly, so others can learn from it. He however doesn't do that, but why wouldn't he?
It's a question of free will. God is not imposing His will upon the world. He has given us His guidebook on how to live, and it is up to us to choose whether to follow it or not.
God's will is in the bible right?
and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. (Deuteronomy 7:2)
You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13)
What does he actually want then?
The difference between the 2 passages you have quoted is that the 10 commandments is speaking of murder, whereas Deuteronomy 7 is speaking of a war. The Bible does differentiate.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
What he wants? Souls, money, your life and to feel your fear. also to kneel in front of hiim. Pretty greedy bastard, isnt he?
He doesn't want your money, nor for you to feel your fear. He doesn't want your life or soul as a possession. He wants a relationship with you.
Neillster wrote:
He doesn't want your money, nor for you to feel your fear. He doesn't want your life or soul as a possession. He wants a relationship with you.
So God is gay? I knew these two discussions have more connection than i thought.
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 23-05-2014 13:29
Neillster wrote:
He doesn't want your money, nor for you to feel your fear. He doesn't want your life or soul as a possession. He wants a relationship with you.
So God is gay? I knew these two discussions have more connection than i thought.
I'm sorry what? There is such a thing as a non-sexual relationship
and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. (Deuteronomy 7:2)
You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13)
What does he actually want then?
Neillster wrote:
The difference between the 2 passages you have quoted is that the 10 commandments is speaking of murder, whereas Deuteronomy 7 is speaking of a war. The Bible does differentiate.
How about
When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt. This is why I sacrifice to the Lord the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.
Neillster wrote:
He doesn't want your money, nor for you to feel your fear. He doesn't want your life or soul as a possession. He wants a relationship with you.
So God is gay? I knew these two discussions have more connection than i thought.
I'm sorry what? There is such a thing as a non-sexual relationship
There is also such a thing like joke, but they are not teaching that in Bible though...
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 23-05-2014 13:35
The difference between the 2 passages you have quoted is that the 10 commandments is speaking of murder, whereas Deuteronomy 7 is speaking of a war. The Bible does differentiate.
But I thought it would raise me to a higher power, not drop me to a lower one! Edited by jph27 on 23-05-2014 13:36
and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. (Deuteronomy 7:2)
You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13)
What does he actually want then?
Neillster wrote:
The difference between the 2 passages you have quoted is that the 10 commandments is speaking of murder, whereas Deuteronomy 7 is speaking of a war. The Bible does differentiate.
How about
When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt. This is why I sacrifice to the Lord the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.
(Exodus 13:15)
God has control over all life and death. It is He who determines the length of our days, and when we are to die. Is that any different from the verse quoted?
Psalm 139:16
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.
ShortsNL wrote:
Question for you Neillster:
You seem to be fully convinced of your perspective on religion and the world.
Would you say you 'believe' in God and Jesus, or do you 'know'? And in any case, why?
In a way both. I believe that God exists. I have faith in His Son Jesus Christ. And this faith has been born out by my life experiences, and so through this in a small way I have come to know God and His will for my life.
Martial1 wrote:
The thing is, sex has two purposes. One: to unite/please the couple, and two: to make children. In the same way as trying to using a hammer to open a water bottle goes against the purpose of the hammer, using sex for something other than it's purposes goes against its purpose.
Now, I'm sure people are going to bring up infertile couples. Even though couples may be infertile, the act that they are doing is still open to both purposes of sex, even though both might not actually happen. And "infertile" couples have had children. No gay couple has had children due to sex.
Questions:
1. Who determines purpose? Especially for sex?
2. You state 'infertile couples have had children'. Also: 'infertile couples can still have sex for the purpose of making children'. This seems a contradiction in terms: Infertility, doesn't that mean you make children at all? Please define 'infertile' as well as 'making/having children'.
Martial1 wrote:
The thing is, sex has two purposes. One: to unite/please the couple, and two: to make children. In the same way as trying to using a hammer to open a water bottle goes against the purpose of the hammer, using sex for something other than it's purposes goes against its purpose.
Now, I'm sure people are going to bring up infertile couples. Even though couples may be infertile, the act that they are doing is still open to both purposes of sex, even though both might not actually happen. And "infertile" couples have had children. No gay couple has had children due to sex.
Firstly i feel i must go and try to open a water bottle with a hammer, that just sounds fun and a real challenge.
Granted sex is primarily used to procreate, but it is a pleasurable act and in Western cultures sex is most often for pleasure and not procreation. Dolphins have sex just for pleasure. Heterosexual couples have sex just for pleasure. What is wrong with a Homosexual couple having sex just for pleasure, especially if they love each other and are devoted to loving just that one other person?
When you say "infertile" couples have had children i am confused. Do you mean they had kids and then became infertile? Or something like IVF? If it is IVF then why can a lesbian not get sperm from a donor and have a child?
TheManxMissile wrote: What is wrong with a Homosexual couple having sex just for pleasure, especially if they love each other and are devoted to loving just that one other person?
Nothing, but i thought we are also discussing marriage and adopting children here, which are both different things to having a sex for pleasure.
@Shorts: Who defines purpose? Of course nature, you would not have your penis if it wasnt for purpose of reproduction.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
