What's so wrong with being homosexual?

[Hans35]

Not that I'm gay, just wondering. I could understand that in the times when the bible was written, it was important to keep marriages between men and women, to keep up the population growth e. But now, as 7 billion people on the planet, I don't see any reason why gay people shouldn't be married?

Tell me pls!

[Skybringr]

That statistic honestly seems a bit dubious to me. It comes off more as people drawing any conclusion wherever one can.

The reason being is that homosexual marriage is really just not that high a number. And it doesn't take marriage to make a commitment.
It seems more like alleged persecution and so forth is being the scapegoat for an inevitably sex-based society.

Yet, the infection rate goes down. Funny how that happens in places where there is gay marriage, or the prospect of gay marriage, and it goes up when there is a gay marriage ban.

Because we are responsible for their deviance which inevitably spreads a deadly disease like wildfire.
Right.

All the more reason to not give them what they want, really. They should reap what they sow the same as everybody else. Like feminists, they don't really want equal rights, they want equal results.

With under a 100,000 marriages within a whopping 3% of the population, almost triple that of the amount of the population of prisons right now, it seems like only a vestige of them really wanted equal marriage in the first place. The loudest voice were heterosexual liberals.

So how does that correlate with your statistics? It doesn't make sense, and as I said before, is just a convenient conclusion. Fluctuation of the virus among them is in no way orchestrated in it, only a briefness in their rise.

Do you always try to make such large straw men? Let's see you find an example that counters that pattern. Patterns do mean a lot. The effect of being a victim of bigotry mean a lot too. Just because someone doesn't get married doesn't mean that they don't benefit from the stability that can happen if they don't have to HIDE the fact and live double lives. And, well, it seems to me that you don't know many gay people.. because they are the ones to push it to begin with.

Straw men, deflections, and the inability to actually show data to back up your claims.. hum.. fascinating.

The only thing that's fascinating is that we're supposed to believe the unbelievable: that 3% of the population are innate homosexuals.

Or that because homosexuals are unable to get married, a third more of them end up with HIV- blaming people against homosexuality for their own actions.

"Bigotry" is a loaded word in today's world. Just by disagreeing, one is going to be called a bigot by somebody. It's the secular world's version of 'heretic', even though bigotry is not commensurate to such by definition.


Women side with homosexuals because they see men as an oppressor, that is why one will see a great deal of women embrace them.
We are led to believe that they are being graceful, but they are not. There is an entirely different working there- they are embracing those they feel are in the same boat.

And many men have become feminist in their philosophy, and with that observation notwithstanding, they neglect their own interest and delve into theirs.
The entire reasoning for you being as you are on homosexuality has everything to do with that, and that is why I don't really feel the desire to present much because one cannot reason with radical positions.

[KCKID]

Since you are active on this thread, Skybringr, I wonder if you might respond to post 12?

[99percentatheism]

Unless the lemming dance of total celebration of gay sex is followed uber alles on this subject, this seems a setup for a report to a Mod to mete out discipline to any dissent of gay pride.

This post above has certainly gone unanswered. Gay liberation has rewritten morality laws and now, no one can do anything about it. The die has been cast and the new paradigm has gripped western society.

And for we Christians . . . we are back to living in a lascivious and licentious society much like the Roman environment of the first century Church. It is exciting on one hand and terrifying on the other. And it's fascinating that we are referred to in the same way hostis humani generis even by the supreme court of the u.s..

Been there, done that, own the T-Shirt bearing the stripes of Christians long past. And in the future as well?:

The Court . . . accuses the Congress that enacted this law and the President who signed it of something much worse than, for example, having acted in excess of enumerated federal powers—or even having drawn distinctions that prove to be irrational. Those legal errors may be made in good faith, errors though they are. But the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose� (ante, at 25) “to disparage and to injure� same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,� ibid.; to “impose inequality,� ante, at 22; to “impose . . . a stigma,� ante, at 21; to deny people “equal dignity,� ibid.; to brand gay people as “unworthy,� ante, at 23; and to “humiliat[e]� their children, ibid. (emphasis added).

I am sure these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution.

In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,� �injure,� “degrade,� �demean,� and “humiliate� our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined� to those couples “joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.� Ante, at 26, 25. I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[s]� before. Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.� Id., at 578. Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,� ante, at 23—with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine� the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

Chief Justice Antonin Scalia

- http://www.libertylawsite.org/2013/06/2 ... a-dissent/

[Goat]

That statistic honestly seems a bit dubious to me. It comes off more as people drawing any conclusion wherever one can.

The reason being is that homosexual marriage is really just not that high a number. And it doesn't take marriage to make a commitment.
It seems more like alleged persecution and so forth is being the scapegoat for an inevitably sex-based society.

Yet, the infection rate goes down. Funny how that happens in places where there is gay marriage, or the prospect of gay marriage, and it goes up when there is a gay marriage ban.

Because we are responsible for their deviance which inevitably spreads a deadly disease like wildfire.
Right.

All the more reason to not give them what they want, really. They should reap what they sow the same as everybody else. Like feminists, they don't really want equal rights, they want equal results.

With under a 100,000 marriages within a whopping 3% of the population, almost triple that of the amount of the population of prisons right now, it seems like only a vestige of them really wanted equal marriage in the first place. The loudest voice were heterosexual liberals.

So how does that correlate with your statistics? It doesn't make sense, and as I said before, is just a convenient conclusion. Fluctuation of the virus among them is in no way orchestrated in it, only a briefness in their rise.

Do you always try to make such large straw men? Let's see you find an example that counters that pattern. Patterns do mean a lot. The effect of being a victim of bigotry mean a lot too. Just because someone doesn't get married doesn't mean that they don't benefit from the stability that can happen if they don't have to HIDE the fact and live double lives. And, well, it seems to me that you don't know many gay people.. because they are the ones to push it to begin with.

Straw men, deflections, and the inability to actually show data to back up your claims.. hum.. fascinating.

The only thing that's fascinating is that we're supposed to believe the unbelievable: that 3% of the population are innate homosexuals.

Or that because homosexuals are unable to get married, a third more of them end up with HIV- blaming people against homosexuality for their own actions.

"Bigotry" is a loaded word in today's world. Just by disagreeing, one is going to be called a bigot by somebody. It's the secular world's version of 'heretic', even though bigotry is not commensurate to such by definition.


Women side with homosexuals because they see men as an oppressor, that is why one will see a great deal of women embrace them.
We are led to believe that they are being graceful, but they are not. There is an entirely different working there- they are embracing those they feel are in the same boat.

And many men have become feminist in their philosophy, and with that observation notwithstanding, they neglect their own interest and delve into theirs.
The entire reasoning for you being as you are on homosexuality has everything to do with that, and that is why I don't really feel the desire to present much because one cannot reason with radical positions.

AH yes, the argument from personal incredulity, and then some misdirection.

Now, let's see you back up the statement 'women side with homosexuals because they see men as an oppressor.

As for percentages.. meh. I don't know what the actual percentages are.. doesn't matter one bit. I figure it has to be innate, if even Iranian Muslim homosexuals, who are not supposed to exist, admit it, and will still be gay even though they execute people for being gay over there.

Now, when it comes to arguments and reactions, if someone is being very much anti a certain segment of a population, and their arguments tend to be logical fallacies, and irrelevancies, I would have to say that is evidence of prejudice.

[Skybringr]

That statistic honestly seems a bit dubious to me. It comes off more as people drawing any conclusion wherever one can.

The reason being is that homosexual marriage is really just not that high a number. And it doesn't take marriage to make a commitment.
It seems more like alleged persecution and so forth is being the scapegoat for an inevitably sex-based society.

Yet, the infection rate goes down. Funny how that happens in places where there is gay marriage, or the prospect of gay marriage, and it goes up when there is a gay marriage ban.

Because we are responsible for their deviance which inevitably spreads a deadly disease like wildfire.
Right.

All the more reason to not give them what they want, really. They should reap what they sow the same as everybody else. Like feminists, they don't really want equal rights, they want equal results.

With under a 100,000 marriages within a whopping 3% of the population, almost triple that of the amount of the population of prisons right now, it seems like only a vestige of them really wanted equal marriage in the first place. The loudest voice were heterosexual liberals.

So how does that correlate with your statistics? It doesn't make sense, and as I said before, is just a convenient conclusion. Fluctuation of the virus among them is in no way orchestrated in it, only a briefness in their rise.

Do you always try to make such large straw men? Let's see you find an example that counters that pattern. Patterns do mean a lot. The effect of being a victim of bigotry mean a lot too. Just because someone doesn't get married doesn't mean that they don't benefit from the stability that can happen if they don't have to HIDE the fact and live double lives. And, well, it seems to me that you don't know many gay people.. because they are the ones to push it to begin with.

Straw men, deflections, and the inability to actually show data to back up your claims.. hum.. fascinating.

The only thing that's fascinating is that we're supposed to believe the unbelievable: that 3% of the population are innate homosexuals.

Or that because homosexuals are unable to get married, a third more of them end up with HIV- blaming people against homosexuality for their own actions.

"Bigotry" is a loaded word in today's world. Just by disagreeing, one is going to be called a bigot by somebody. It's the secular world's version of 'heretic', even though bigotry is not commensurate to such by definition.


Women side with homosexuals because they see men as an oppressor, that is why one will see a great deal of women embrace them.
We are led to believe that they are being graceful, but they are not. There is an entirely different working there- they are embracing those they feel are in the same boat.

And many men have become feminist in their philosophy, and with that observation notwithstanding, they neglect their own interest and delve into theirs.
The entire reasoning for you being as you are on homosexuality has everything to do with that, and that is why I don't really feel the desire to present much because one cannot reason with radical positions.

AH yes, the argument from personal incredulity, and then some misdirection.

Now, let's see you back up the statement 'women side with homosexuals because they see men as an oppressor.

As for percentages.. meh. I don't know what the actual percentages are.. doesn't matter one bit. I figure it has to be innate, if even Iranian Muslim homosexuals, who are not supposed to exist, admit it, and will still be gay even though they execute people for being gay over there.

Now, when it comes to arguments and reactions, if someone is being very much anti a certain segment of a population, and their arguments tend to be logical fallacies, and irrelevancies, I would have to say that is evidence of prejudice.

My arguments are not logical fallacies, they are observational truths.

You say that I am anti-homosexual, and being Roman Catholic, that's not entirely incorrect.
While it may sound like a cliche, I don't revolt against the sinner, but the sin. This manifests toward the group of sinners, but it isn't a prejudice of their souls.

When I look at a lot of contemporary Christians, I see this notion that we 'shouldn't judge'.
This standard makes Christianity a worthless and void religion. It says that Christians cannot stand to sin, but should rather condone evil.

And that is a big mistake of modern Christianity. The Bible states to 'judge righteous judgement', it does not say to sit idly by and call good evil. In fact, Isaiah reveals that those who call good evil and evil good should be anathema.

~which brings me to relevant points~

Homosexuality being immoral goes back all the way to ancient Judaism. The virtue stems from that to Paul, and to the Church Fathers.
Consider St. Augustine when he says it is unnatural for man and women to have intercourse in any way not intended for pregnancy.

By extension, it is inevitable that even Augustine believed homosexuality to be immoral- if it's unnatural for even men and women to have sex contrary to regular intercourse, what is it for homosexuals to have sex?

It's an inarguable fact that Abrahamic religion dictates homosexuality to be fundamentally unnatural!

Therefore, it is also inarguable that one can believe in God and yet find homosexuality to be innate, let alone 3% of the population
In fact, the statistic alone sort of works against homosexuality being innate; it is rather a proof to the contrary.
It is extremely radical to believe that, especially considering- and probably one if the most condemning factors of all, that a lot of them had heterosexual marriages, relationships, and have children_


And on the note of radical standing comes feminism.

The going idea in today's world is a miserably false one. It states that men and women are equal.

And this is utterly false- we know that it's false, and everyday practice the contrary to that alleged equality- yet we try to convince ourselves that this is not the case.

We are mesmerized, for example, movies which have an extraordinary female hero. We find this awesome because, quite frankly, it doesn't exist in the real world.
It is a fantasy- men are the champions. We invented reading and writing, art and mathematics, and most importantly, philosophy and morals. Or at the very least, God gave it to men exclusively.

We did all these things, but it's 'misogynistic' to reveal such things. We should rather put our heads to the heels of women for our role of being, as ordained by God, the leaders of mankind.

This is the current state of men and women collectively. Females side with homosexuals because they see them as being in the same boat, as I mentioned earlier. It is a movement against heterosexual men. And when you add race to the equation, white heterosexual men.


We sit here and talk about homosexual equality, female equality- but nothing is spoken on their duties and accountability.
This is easily observed by the fact that you, for example, are offended by the fact that homosexuality is a haven for disease. You blame society before you blame the ones actually responsible; the same as when a female divorces a male, you would bring up abusive husbands before admitting the fact that women tend to simply be selfishly discontent- they are typically the ones who enact divorce out of a virtually predictable deviation from their nuclear home.

[connermt]

Not that I'm gay, just wondering. I could understand that in the times when the bible was written, it was important to keep marriages between men and women, to keep up the population growth e. But now, as 7 billion people on the planet, I don't see any reason why gay people shouldn't be married?

Tell me pls!

In today's world, there's no need for marriage for reproduction. That whole reasoning why being gay is wrong (gay people can't reproduce as a couple so it's wrong) is valid only for those who refuse to accept the modern world. Meaning, women can reproduce without being married, married couple don't have to produce children, etc.
One can have their own opinion about it, but there's nothing 'wrong' with it past that.

[Ooberman]

Not that I'm gay, just wondering. I could understand that in the times when the bible was written, it was important to keep marriages between men and women, to keep up the population growth e. But now, as 7 billion people on the planet, I don't see any reason why gay people shouldn't be married?

Tell me pls!

I think the question in and of itself is a sheer example of what's becoming wrong with this world.
A century ago, the answer would be self-evident. One may as well have been asking why bestiality or incest is wrong.

But a lot of society today has tried to rationalize the concept of homosexuality, much like what you've done in your post.

Gay sex has led to the spread of HIV and other diseases due to ignorance and promiscuity and has weakened the family unit considerably.

Correction: promiscuous sex and ignorance have led to the spread of HIV.

The majority of all HIV among the human population collectively- rests exclusively among homosexuals: the rising 3%.

Saying what you have said is just completely reaching around reality to get homosexuality to seem okay.

1. Are all opinions from 100 years ago correct?

2. How does HIV make homosexuality bad? There doesnt seem to be a connection. The disciples allegedly died from Xianity, does that mean Xianity is bad?

[for_his_glory]

God said it's a sin

[Elijah John]

God said it's a sin

Moderator Final Warning

A final warning may be redundant here, because the poster has already been banned. This is an example of preaching, and a non-constructive one-liner. Someone "speaking for God".

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[RottenHead]

I don't believe that homosexuality is wrong. I trust my understanding of the true character of God and it doesn't support hatred or rejection of anyone for reasons like that. I didn't choose the way I am and I would die for my Lord. I know my heart is right and so there isn't a person on this earth that can tell me I am wrong or any of my brothers and sisters who had to face being outside the mainstream way of life are wrong just for the way their mind works.

I was trying to be with people that I loved but felt nothing for sexually, that is not what God intended. It is my belief that God intends us to live exactly what we are to the fullest and expressing what is beautiful inside us to the outside world. If God is Love then there is no hate or rejection in His plan. It just doesn't mix, the math is no good. There is only one way to see God, with the trust of your entire being that He loves you. If you can't do that then you have missed the bus completely in terms of understanding God. That is why I have no anger for anyone who talks sh*t about God or Christianity, they obviously don't get it! So don't be mad. These people are ultimately on their own path and they are actually thinking it's okay to yell in your face about how you are, that is going to explode in their faces and we don't need to fan the flames. Feel sorry for the people who judge you because they are asking to be judged.

Rest in the knowledge that you are who and what you are supposed to be and work to push it out with style.