Curing Homosexuality?

[Dissonance]

Perhaps she's choosing to marry a man when she "grows up" because doing anything else would be unacceptable to her family or something.

Crap reason.  If your family doesn't accept who you fall in love with then they should get the axe, not your lover.  Bending to a frowning father and a crying mother by dumping somebody you really love means you're actually quite weak and pathetic.

Maybe she's attracted to the opposite sex, but doesn't want to complicate her life by getting romantically involved with someone of the same sex and if that's the truth, it's completely justifiable.

Not really.  If you fall in love with somebody of the same sex but don't want to pursue a relationship because they're the same sex, that's pretty vile, discriminatory, petty... a whole bunch of words.  Long story short, you're a horrible person if you did it.

You don't get to decide who is gay or bi simply because they don't fit your criteria of what being gay or bi means. 

What?  It's not my criteria, it's the criteria.  Somebody who claims to be bi but completely discounts the possibility of falling in love and marrying the same sex is not bi at all.  People who are actually bi will be looking for a relationship from either gender - whoever they happen to fall in love with.

(Can you tell that I have a romantic streak yet?  LOVE CONQUERS ALL :3 )

And as far as there being a "cure" for homosexuality, no, there isn't one, because it's not a disease.  The thoughts are not a choice.  But, dwelling on those thoughts and playing them out in your mind?  Acting on those thoughts?  Those are choices that you have the ability to make and according to the Bible, a thought such as that does not become a sin until you actually entertain the thought in your mind or carry it out.  You make a choice to either continue living that lifestyle or to stop.  Being gay isn't a sin; living the lifestyle is.  "Hate the sin, not the sinner."

I agree, but since I'm not a christian i have no motivation to stop doin' it with girls.  I CHOOSE to have sex with other women and IT's quite awesome.  I have no plans to stop :3

If a Christian person tells you you should stop being gay, it's because they don't want you to go to hell; it's not because they just think it's gross or that you should just fit in with them, in most cases.  They just don't want you to go to hell. 

Bullshit.

What happens when Christian people come together and enact legislation that attempts to remove gay rights?  What about the father who flies into a rage when he finds out his son wants to have a sexchange because "my son ain't bein' a fuckin' faggot!"  What about nonchalant violence against people who might not even be gay at all, but just a little effeminate?  Do keep in mind that most of these things happen by people claiming to be Christians.

The majority of Christians don't care whether you go to hell or not - They want to expose your sins and make you feel like shit about them because it fills that need common to every humans to watch another person suffer.

I don't exactly want gay people going to schools and teaching kids what being gay means and that it's okay to be gay without giving me as a parent the option to make sure that they don't go to that lecture.  That's something that I as a parent would have the right to teach my children about, because it's an alternative lifestyle. 

And this is a right that you should not have for so many reasons.  Our country (or countries, as I'm Canadian and you're most likely American, but we ARE working together on this) is trying its damnedest to become more open and less discriminatory, and teaching your kids some backwards-ass notion about homosexuality is counterproductive to the kind of world we, as a collective, want to create.  The state has every right to expose your children to alternative cultures and lifestyles without your consent because exposure at a young age is the best way to absorb information - If you really want to prevent discrimination, prevent it when the subject is still a small child, because it's hard to do so when they're an adult and their parents have raised them in a poisonous atmosphere.

Don't be surprised that when you send your children to state-funded and state-controlled institutions, they will absorb information that the state wants them to, irregardless of your own wishes.  If you don't like it, homeschool your kids. 

You can say whatever you want, but it isn't natural. 

I see this phrase flung around so much.  What the hell does it even mean?

The components of the act are not natural? - It involves at least two human beings, both of which are products of nature.  If they are using toys or wearing their clothing during the act, then perhaps it's not 'natural' in the sense that they're not naked, but so what?

The act is not done in the natural world? - The animal kingdom is filled with species that masturbate, fuck other members of the same sex, fuck multiple partners, and gangbang.  On average the rest of the world is way smuttier than humans.  Gay activity is obviously 'natural' in this sense.

The act does not lead to procreation? - So all sex should be limited to procreative purposes only?  Fuck gays, fuck birth control, fuck masturbation, and of course people born sterile can never have sex with anyone ever.  Not only will DnD players be dying virgins anymore!

Whatever definition you use, you're wrong.  Being gay is quite natural - In fact, human beings who only have sex with one person of the opposite gender and only when they marry them are acting against every natural urge they have in their body.

Just like I don't want my kids exposed to other certain things or activities that could hurt them, I also don't want them exposed to the idea of being homosexual until they're older and able to understand the social and spiritual consequences of living that way.

Yes because homosexuality can so obviously be equated with physically damaging lifestyles like drug or alcohol abuse.

Like I said above, you have no right to reproduce your own ignorance and prejudice by poisoning the minds of your children.

You cannot live in unrepentant sin and go to heaven.  Which means you cannot live a lifestyle that you know is in direct contradiction to scripture and be able to get to heaven if you feel no guilt over it.  You can slip and make mistakes and they're taken "off the books" if you repent, as long as you're sincere.  You can't just say a half-hearted prayer and expect to be forgiven.

You're a person of faith and that's cool.  Most aren't, and don't need to be force fed this.  If you have a reason not to be gay that does not involve the bible, then by all means... otherwise, don't go influencing others with your 2000-year old superstitions that have proven time and again to be an obstacle to the progression of humanity.

I don't have a problem with gay people wanting to get married, because it's none of my business how they live their lives, but when they start trying to teach children that how they live is okay and that it's socially acceptable, that's a different.

They do it because if they don't, people like you will teach their kids that it's wrong, and either they will grow up discriminating against gay people, or they will be gay themselves and endure trauma by their uncivilized parents.

Such lectures have no place in the public school system and what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior concerning what type of lifestyle is "right" or "wrong" needs to be taught at home by parents who are supposed to be raising their kids instead of letting the state and civil rights groups do it for them.

What?  That is what the public school system is for.  Send your kids to a christian school or home school them if you don't like it.  That's why it's called a public school, because it's open to the general public - aka, all worldviews.

After reading your post I really hope you don't have kids, and if you do, I hope they're taken away and given to parents that are more socially responsible and less servile of a false god from our barbaric past that has no place in current society.

 

[thelivingphoenix]

What?  It's not my criteria, it's the criteria.  Somebody who claims to be bi but completely discounts the possibility of falling in love and marrying the same sex is not bi at all.  People who are actually bi will be looking for a relationship from either gender - whoever they happen to fall in love with.

No, it's not THE criteria.  Homosexuality and bisexuality is about just that: sexuality.  It is about what you are attracted to, not about who you fall in love with or end up being with later in life.  It's not about what sex you're looking for a partner in; it's about sexual attraction.

Crap reason.

To you, it's a crap reason.  But, I wouldn't exactly throw away my whole family life and create those kinds of problems just for one person.  A lover may be for today or tomorrow or 10 years or more, but family is forever.     

you're a horrible person if you did it.

The solution to that is to avoid the situation by not getting involved in the first place.

Bullshit.

What happens when Christian people come together and enact legislation that attempts to remove gay rights?  What about the father who flies into a rage when he finds out his son wants to have a sexchange because "my son ain't bein' a fuckin' faggot!"  What about nonchalant violence against people who might not even be gay at all, but just a little effeminate?  Do keep in mind that most of these things happen by people claiming to be Christians.

The majority of Christians don't care whether you go to hell or not - They want to expose your sins and make you feel like shit about them because it fills that need common to every humans to watch another person suffer.

The majority of pretend Christians don't care whether you go to hell or not.

And anger boils down to fear of something 99.999% of the time.  If the father is a TRUE Christian, that anger stems from the fear of his son ruining his life and going to hell.  Does it give the father the right to beat the shit out of his son for it?  No, it doesn't.  Haven't ever been so scared that someone's going to hurt themselves that you're angry about it?  Must not deal with children who go and do things that can get them hurt after you tell them not to.

And this is a right that you should not have for so many reasons.  Our country (or countries, as I'm Canadian and you're most likely American, but we ARE working together on this) is trying its damnedest to become more open and less discriminatory, and teaching your kids some backwards-ass notion about homosexuality is counterproductive to the kind of world we, as a collective, want to create.  The state has every right to expose your children to alternative cultures and lifestyles without your consent because exposure at a young age is the best way to absorb information - If you really want to prevent discrimination, prevent it when the subject is still a small child, because it's hard to do so when they're an adult and their parents have raised them in a poisonous atmosphere.

Don't be surprised that when you send your children to state-funded and state-controlled institutions, they will absorb information that the state wants them to, irregardless of your own wishes.  If you don't like it, homeschool your kids.

Um, sorry, but I live in America where we're supposed to have freedom of religion.  My religion says that homosexuality and bisexuality is a no-go.  So, before someone has a right to teach my kids that their lifestyle is okay, I have a right to remove them from the discussion because of my religion.  Period.

Poisonous atmosphere?  On average, the number of homosexuals that have STDs is significantly higher than the average of heterosexuals who have the same STDs. That's not a "poisonous atmosphere"?  Even the CDC calls the act of a heterosexual person having sex with a bisexual person "high-risk heterosexual activity".  You don't think that supporting a lifestyle that carries significantly higher health risks and a lower life span is "poisonous" to children? 

And unfortunately, the right to home school children is slowly being taken away in the United States.  I guess I'll just have to resort to debriefing my kids when they get home from school every day.

I see this phrase flung around so much.  What the hell does it even mean?

The components of the act are not natural? - It involves at least two human beings, both of which are products of nature.  If they are using toys or wearing their clothing during the act, then perhaps it's not 'natural' in the sense that they're not naked, but so what?

The act is not done in the natural world? - The animal kingdom is filled with species that masturbate, fuck other members of the same sex, fuck multiple partners, and gangbang.  On average the rest of the world is way smuttier than humans.  Gay activity is obviously 'natural' in this sense.

The act does not lead to procreation? - So all sex should be limited to procreative purposes only?  Fuck gays, fuck birth control, fuck masturbation, and of course people born sterile can never have sex with anyone ever.  Not only will DnD players be dying virgins anymore!

Whatever definition you use, you're wrong.  Being gay is quite natural - In fact, human beings who only have sex with one person of the opposite gender and only when they marry them are acting against every natural urge they have in their body.

Sexual attraction is quite natural and you can be attracted to just about anything, but that doesn't mean that it's right or natural for you to be attracted to that thing.  Animals may have sex with other animals of the same sex in the wild, but I don't know of a single species that takes a mate of the same sex for longer than a "one-night stand".  And you said it yourself: "against every natural urge they have in their body".  Taking a mate of the same sex is what's completely unnatural and is a man-made concept.  Sexuality is quite simply "lust of the flesh" and while it may be natural to have sexual urges toward a member of the same sex, it isn't natural to take that person as a mate.  Males and females have parts that fit together for a reason.  And I never said that sex should be limited to procreative purposes only.

Yes because homosexuality can so obviously be equated with physically damaging lifestyles like drug or alcohol abuse.

Like I said above, you have no right to reproduce your own ignorance and prejudice by poisoning the minds of your children.

It most certainly can be equated with those things.  Go look at the statistics that I mentioned a bit earlier on the CDC website and tell me that's not a physically damaging lifestyle.  You can't do it.

And I have a right to raise my kids any way I wish in a free country as long as it isn't hurting anybody.  I already said that I don't advocate the persecution of gay people or the attacking of their right to marriage, what more do you want?  I have a right to teach my children "it's not right, but mind your own business".  Now, if I was teaching my kids "hey, it's okay to go beat up that gay kid because he's gay", no, that wouldn't be right and if I DID catch my own child beating someone else up because of the way they choose to live their lives, then mine would probably get a "beating" of his own when he got home from school.  I don't tolerate or advocate violence against someone else just because they're living in a way I view as sinful.

You're a person of faith and that's cool.  Most aren't, and don't need to be force fed this.  If you have a reason not to be gay that does not involve the bible, then by all means... otherwise, don't go influencing others with your 2000-year old superstitions that have proven time and again to be an obstacle to the progression of humanity.

"Most aren't?"  Sorry, wrong.  Most people in the United States and the world are people of faith.  Don't believe me?  Here.  So, if you're not religious, you're a minority, not me.

They do it because if they don't, people like you will teach their kids that it's wrong, and either they will grow up discriminating against gay people, or they will be gay themselves and endure trauma by their uncivilized parents.

Again, I have a right to exercise my freedom of religion, which says that being homosexual is wrong.  I don't discriminate against gay people and I wouldn't tolerate my children doing it, because it's wrong to discriminate against someone who isn't living the way you live.  According to my religion, taking a homosexual partner is unnatural.  And according to statistics, living a homosexual lifestyle is dangerous.

What?  That is what the public school system is for.  Send your kids to a christian school or home school them if you don't like it.  That's why it's called a public school, because it's open to the general public - aka, all worldviews.

After reading your post I really hope you don't have kids, and if you do, I hope they're taken away and given to parents that are more socially responsible and less servile of a false god from our barbaric past that has no place in current society.

I shouldn't have kids because I don't want them to grow up living a physically dangerous (heightened risk of STD, suicide, depression, lower lifespan, etc.) and spiritually dangerous lifestyle?  Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have children for promoting a lifestyle that carries those higher risks.  Sure, it's okay to promote a lifestyle where you're a number of times more likely to get AIDS (or probably just about any other STD) than if you were heterosexual, but it's not okay for me to teach my kids that taking part in that lifestyle is bad because it's both physically and spiritually unhealthy.

Why don't you take that argument up with the rest of the majority of the world that has religion?  It seems you think that people who aren't religious, like you, are the majority while those of us who do believe are in the minority.  I assure you that the opposite is true.  You are the one that is in the minority, so don't delude yourself into thinking that people who don't believe in some form of spirituality or god make up the majority of the world. 

And if you believe in the "big bang theory", you are also practicing faith (it's called a "theory" for a reason), so what gives you the right to force your disbelief in God and the way you choose to live upon the rest of us who do believe in some form of deity, whether it's the Christian God or Allah or any other theory concerning creation and the universe?  You don't have that right.  A school in a predominantly Muslim community probably wouldn't let me go into their school and preach the Christian point of view, so why should gay people be allowed to go and "preach" their lifestyle to impressionable children who don't understand the physical and spiritual consequences of making that lifestyle choice?  They don't have that right.  They have a right to practice their lifestyle and teach their own children that what they do is okay, but they don't have a right to go and teach someone else who disagree's child that what they do is okay.

 

[mawk]

Can we please scratch "they'll go to hell" out as an arument against homosexuality? I for one am a religious dude, and even I think that it's an awfully patronizing and self-righteous train of thought.

Besides, I hardly trust anything the Bible says anymore. Two thousand years of translation, re-translation, and "clarification" have greatly distorted things to better fit the mindsets of the people who were doing the translation/revision.

Basically, we don't know for sure that gheys go to hell, and I doubt that the persecution that gays sometimes face is based in Good Samaritanism anyway -- I don't want you to go to hell, so I'm going to hold you up against a fence and hit you with hammers in order to save your immortal soul!

Let's keep religion the fuck out of this discussion! Yeah, I believe in invisible dudes in the sky, but I don't pretend that those dudes made of light are a valid point in any argument! What if I told you I was opposed to people who ate meat because it attracts the ghosts of the animals that were slain to produce it!? You might not believe it, but if I do, that makes it a valid point for use in a non-religious argument, right!? I'd say the same sort of thing applies to arguments based in religion, as well!

 

[thelivingphoenix]

Can we please scratch "they'll go to hell" out as an arument against homosexuality? I for one am a religious dude, and even I think that it's an awfully patronizing and self-righteous train of thought.

Besides, I hardly trust anything the Bible says anymore. Two thousand years of translation, re-translation, and "clarification" have greatly distorted things to better fit the mindsets of the people who were doing the translation/revision.

Basically, we don't know for sure that gheys go to hell, and I doubt that the persecution that gays sometimes face is based in Good Samaritanism anyway -- I don't want you to go to hell, so I'm going to hold you up against a fence and hit you with hammers in order to save your immortal soul!

Let's keep religion the fuck out of this discussion! Yeah, I believe in invisible dudes in the sky, but I don't pretend that those dudes made of light are a valid point in any argument! What if I told you I was opposed to people who ate meat because it attracts the ghosts of the animals that were slain to produce it!? You might not believe it, but if I do, that makes it a valid point for use in a non-religious argument, right!? I'd say the same sort of thing applies to arguments based in religion, as well!

Okay, again... I don't advocate violence against gay people or anyone else who doesn't live like I do, so stop acting like ALL Christian people treat gay people like that, because they don't.  A REAL, HONEST Christian person doesn't advocate violence against people who don't live the way they do.  That's just the way it is.  It's what the book says.  "Love thy neighbor".  Just because I don't like the way you're living doesn't mean that I'm supposed to go and beat you up because you're living differently than I am.  If these "Christian" people who go around beating gay people up would actually READ scripture, they might figure out that they have some heavy repenting to do for what they've done.  We are to be "harmless as doves".

And if you don't trust anything the Bible says anymore, go look at the book in the original language and study the original meanings of the words.  In many cases, it says what it says and isn't retranslated or mistranslated to fit the mindsets of the people who were doing the translation at the time.

And in case you didn't notice, religion wasn't my only argument there. 

 

[Dissonance]

No, it's not THE criteria.  Homosexuality and bisexuality is about just that: sexuality.  It is about what you are attracted to, not about who you fall in love with or end up being with later in life.  It's not about what sex you're looking for a partner in; it's about sexual attraction.

Yes but that's the point.  Who falls in love with somebody but is not physically attracted to them????  I mean they might grow to view them as ugly but there must've been some kind of physical hook there to kick things off.  Therefore, a person who is truly bisexual would be physically attracted to members of either sex, and therefore be open to relationships with either sex.

To you, it's a crap reason.  But, I wouldn't exactly throw away my whole family life and create those kinds of problems just for one person.  A lover may be for today or tomorrow or 10 years or more, but family is forever.

Family is not forever.  Family is for 80 years or so - your birth until your death.  Hell, that 80 years is a MAXIMUM because I guarantee that the majority of your family that existed during the first 5 years of your live will die before you.

In any case, it's whichever party is restrictive that needs to be axed.  If your lover has no problem with your family, but your family has an issue with your lover, then your family is not worth your time.  If your family has no problem with your lover, but your lover has an issue with your family, then you need to find another lover.

If your family truly loved you they'd accept whoever you chose to spend your life with, and if your lover truly loved you they'd understand that your family comes with you as much as you want them to.  Period.

The majority of pretend Christians don't care whether you go to hell or not.

Semantics.  People still suffer.

And anger boils down to fear of something 99.999% of the time.  If the father is a TRUE Christian, that anger stems from the fear of his son ruining his life and going to hell.  Does it give the father the right to beat the shit out of his son for it?  No, it doesn't.  Haven't ever been so scared that someone's going to hurt themselves that you're angry about it?  Must not deal with children who go and do things that can get them hurt after you tell them not to.

Again, you're going into the "homosexuality = goin' to hell" thing again.  Non-christians don't believe it.  Your own superstition is not an excuse to interfere negatively in another person's life, regardless of intentions.

Um, sorry, but I live in America where we're supposed to have freedom of religion.  My religion says that homosexuality and bisexuality is a no-go.  So, before someone has a right to teach my kids that their lifestyle is okay, I have a right to remove them from the discussion because of my religion.  Period.

No, not period.  Freedom of religion means that your right to teach your kids about Christianity is equal to every body else's right to teach your kids about other faiths and about non-faith schools of thought, as well.  Freedom of religion applies to everyone.

Poisonous atmosphere?  On average, the number of homosexuals that have STDs is significantly higher than the average of heterosexuals who have the same STDs. That's not a "poisonous atmosphere"?  Even the CDC calls the act of a heterosexual person having sex with a bisexual person "high-risk heterosexual activity".  You don't think that supporting a lifestyle that carries significantly higher health risks and a lower life span is "poisonous" to children?  

That's quite interesting, because in Canada it's actually the opposite - The lesbian community has the lowest rates of STDs by a large number.  The gay community is only slightly lower than the straight community.  Does your study point to higher rates of STDs, or higher rates of ignorance concerning safe sex?  Hell, your public schools seem to be blocking HETEROSEXUAL safe sex educational programs at every turn, there is no way they would EVER allow homosexual ones.  So it very well could be your lack of adequate sexual education (which, byu the way, people like you fight for) that leads to this predicament.

But let's forget that - Let's assume that I'm wrong for a minute, and that a lack of Sex Ed is not the cause.

Perhaps these statistics are not simply 'natural' for gay people (those fuckin promiscuous gays fuck everything they can cause they have no morals), but perhaps they are learned?  Think about it.

Gay people live in a society where they are heavily stigmatized.  The culture around them indoctrinates them from birth that fucking the opposite sex and giving birth to a litter of kids is how you're supposed to live your life.  And when a person, at a young age, begins to feel urges contrary to these cultural expectations, it can be quite distressing for some.  Distressing enough, that they worry daily that their friends and family will abandon them if they ever mention it?  Distressing enough, that they begin to look quick and easy companionship to try and fill a large void that their discriminatory culture and upbringing has gouged out of them?

Homosexuals generally have a harder time finding true love, and having stereotypes about gays and lesbians forced on them constantly, as well as pressure from people immediately around them to be straight, can often lead to psychological trauma.  I'm not surprised they're out fucking everything in sight to try and find love somewhere.

Go discriminate against a young straight girl the way gays and lesbians are, and don't be surprised if she grows up being a prostitute.

And unfortunately, the right to home school children is slowly being taken away in the United States.  I guess I'll just have to resort to debriefing my kids when they get home from school every day.

This is because idiot parents think they're actually qualified to educate their children.  Sorry honey, but simply squeezing them out of your crotch doesn't give you the right to teach them about how the world works.

Sexual attraction is quite natural and you can be attracted to just about anything, but that doesn't mean that it's right or natural for you to be attracted to that thing.  Animals may have sex with other animals of the same sex in the wild, but I don't know of a single species that takes a mate of the same sex for longer than a "one-night stand".  And you said it yourself: "against every natural urge they have in their body".  

Uh, I said that marriage and having sex with ONE PERSON FOREVER was against natural urges.  Humans are innately sexual and we feel the urges to fuck everything everywhere, our gender or not.  The majority of us have these urges heavily suppressed by our culture and upbringing.  The fact that we are even considering not having sex with members of the same sex, or only having sex with one person, is what's unnatural about human behaviour.

Taking a mate of the same sex is what's completely unnatural and is a man-made concept.

Taking a mate AT ALL is what's completely unnatural.

Sexuality is quite simply "lust of the flesh" and while it may be natural to have sexual urges toward a member of the same sex, it isn't natural to take that person as a mate.

Why not?

Or here's a more important question: Even if it is, why shouldn't we still do it anyway?

Males and females have parts that fit together for a reason.  

You mean... to procreate?

And I never said that sex should be limited to procreative purposes only.

BUT YOU JSUT SAID FGHFDHBDRFYHRSDYHYRDTYHRDTGUHNDFHFGBGHFD

It most certainly can be equated with those things.  Go look at the statistics that I mentioned a bit earlier on the CDC website and tell me that's not a physically damaging lifestyle.  You can't do it.

And it's systematic oppression and discrimination that drive gay people to get into that kind of damaging lifestyle.  The more you (and the millions like you) say "IT'S BAD" the more many of the more isolated gays and lesbians in our society will be forced deeper and deeper into the pit that you're condemning them for being in in the first place.

And I have a right to raise my kids any way I wish in a free country as long as it isn't hurting anybody.

Your discrimination is damaging both your children and the people they would discriminate against.

I already said that I don't advocate the persecution of gay people or the attacking of their right to marriage, what more do you want?  I have a right to teach my children "it's not right, but mind your own business".  Now, if I was teaching my kids "hey, it's okay to go beat up that gay kid because he's gay", no, that wouldn't be right and if I DID catch my own child beating someone else up because of the way they choose to live their lives, then mine would probably get a "beating" of his own when he got home from school.  I don't tolerate or advocate violence against someone else just because they're living in a way I view as sinful.

If you want to tell them it's bad, go ahead.  Then, you will allow somebody else to refute your archaic arguments, tell them it's fine, and allow them to make up their own minds on the subject without your interference.

"Most aren't?"  Sorry, wrong.  Most people in the United States and the world are people of faith.  Don't believe me?  Here.  So, if you're not religious, you're a minority, not me.

"People of faith" =/= "Christian".  There are a great many faiths that encourage/tolerate homosexual behavior rather than condemn it.  I know Buddhism and Taoism do, and that's over a billion people right there.

And besides, didn't you just talk about pretend Christians?  Should they even be included in your account of 'people of faith'?  They are, by your own admission after all, not following the actual teachings of Christianity.

Your numbers aren't as large as you think.

Why don't you take that argument up with the rest of the majority of the world that has religion?  It seems you think that people who aren't religious, like you, are the majority while those of us who do believe are in the minority.  I assure you that the opposite is true.  You are the one that is in the minority, so don't delude yourself into thinking that people who don't believe in some form of spirituality or god make up the majority of the world.  

This is a logical fallacy - appeal to consensus.  Being the majority doesn't make you correct.  There is no logical link between "This group is in the majority" and "this group is correct".

In fact considering the state of humanity at its current stage of sociocultural evolution, I'm more inclined to believe that the majority opinion is dead fucking wrong.

And if you believe in the "big bang theory", you are also practicing faith (it's called a "theory" for a reason), so what gives you the right to force your disbelief in God and the way you choose to live upon the rest of us who do believe in some form of deity, whether it's the Christian God or Allah or any other theory concerning creation and the universe?  You don't have that right.  

When the dick did I say I believed in the Big Bang theory?

A school in a predominantly Muslim community probably wouldn't let me go into their school and preach the Christian point of view, so why should gay people be allowed to go and "preach" their lifestyle to impressionable children who don't understand the physical and spiritual consequences of making that lifestyle choice?  They don't have that right.  They have a right to practice their lifestyle and teach their own children that what they do is okay, but they don't have a right to go and teach someone else who disagree's child that what they do is okay.

Both the school in the predominant muslim community and you don't have the right to preach your own worldviews to others without allowing them to be critiqued and other alternatives to be presented.  If you really are right, then your ideas will withstand an analysis.

You keep acting like you actually should have the final say over what your child learns.  Most parents shouldn't have that kind of authority because they're largely ignorant about the rest of the world outside of their tiny existence.  You want to take your impressionable children and poison them with CHRISTIANITY and ONLY CHRISTIANITY - the school systems are in place to make sure you don't completely brainwash them by introducing other methods of thought to them at a young age so they can absorb everything and make their own choices.

 

[Sithjester]

And if you don't trust anything the Bible says anymore, go look at the book in the original language and study the original meanings of the words.  In many cases, it says what it says and isn't retranslated or mistranslated to fit the mindsets of the people who were doing the translation at the time.

Eh? O_o It most certainly is. For example, here's what I posted earlier on homosexuality being mentioned (and condemned) at all in the Bible:

That's a modern interpretation, there was no word for 'homosexual' as we know it in the Greek it was written in. To quote http://www.whosoever.org/v4i5/heaven.html <~ that site, though I've seen this many places (and have looked the word up):

"In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 we have a word that has been at times translated "homosexual". But first remember that the New Testament was written primarily in Greek. The Greeks didn't have a word which corresponds to our word "homosexual". The Greek word here is arsenokoitai. Historian and linguistic expert John Boswell translates it "male temple prostitute", a man who was paid to have sex in a pagan temple as a means of offering sacrifice or homage to a heathen god."

Regardless of how one translates the word, 'man' is definitely a part of the word, so it CAN'T mean 'homosexual', since that implies women. lol If you google the word, you'll find plenty of studies and sites pointing out that the New Testament doesn't actually say anything about homosexuality. Not that it really matters to me, a non-Christian, but the majority of the country IS, so I'd rather they not discriminate against me and such because of a simple misinterpretation.

 

[mawk]

And in case you didn't notice, religion wasn't my only argument there. 

I'd prefer it if you kept things so that religion wasn't one of your arguments at all, thanks.

 

[thelivingphoenix]

This is because idiot parents think they're actually qualified to educate their children.  Sorry honey, but simply squeezing them out of your crotch doesn't give you the right to teach them about how the world works.

And where exactly did you go to school, the school of Hitler?  The only countries in that I know of that don't allow the parents to educate the children about how "the world works" and about morality haven't been the greatest examples for the rest of us.  Talk about civil rights?  Yeah, I have a right to teach my children to believe in basically whatever I want to, as long as they're not hurting anyone and I'm not teaching my kids that it's okay to beat people up because they're different, so I'm not hurting anyone.

Eh? O_o It most certainly is. For example, here's what I posted earlier on homosexuality being mentioned (and condemned) at all in the Bible:
Quote from: Sithjester on April 28, 2008, 07:08:50 pm


That's a modern interpretation, there was no word for 'homosexual' as we know it in the Greek it was written in. To quote http://www.whosoever.org/v4i5/heaven.html <~ that site, though I've seen this many places (and have looked the word up):

"In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 we have a word that has been at times translated "homosexual". But first remember that the New Testament was written primarily in Greek. The Greeks didn't have a word which corresponds to our word "homosexual". The Greek word here is arsenokoitai. Historian and linguistic expert John Boswell translates it "male temple prostitute", a man who was paid to have sex in a pagan temple as a means of offering sacrifice or homage to a heathen god."

Regardless of how one translates the word, 'man' is definitely a part of the word, so it CAN'T mean 'homosexual', since that implies women. lol If you google the word, you'll find plenty of studies and sites pointing out that the New Testament doesn't actually say anything about homosexuality. Not that it really matters to me, a non-Christian, but the majority of the country IS, so I'd rather they not discriminate against me and such because of a simple misinterpretation.

Maybe you should read Romans, which IS in the New Testament and it's pretty difficult to mistake what this says.

"Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient..."

BUT YOU JUST SAID

And yes, our parts do fit together for the purposes of procreation, but I never said that sex should be limited to the purposes of procreation ONLY.

And what you said was that most people aren't "people of faith".  I pointed out that you are wrong.  People may be misguided in their faith, but they have faith all the same.

No, not period.  Freedom of religion means that your right to teach your kids about Christianity is equal to every body else's right to teach your kids about other faiths and about non-faith schools of thought, as well.  Freedom of religion applies to everyone.

It applies to everyone who has a religion and is teaching that religion to others old enough to make an informed decision on their own without anyone else's input.  Uh, no, a Buddhist or an atheist or anyone else doesn't have the right to teach anyone else's child that I'm wrong for believing what I believe.  You don't teach children that "ways of the state = good and ways of the parents = bad" for a number of reasons, but that gets into the argument over whether your children are owned by the state or not and is a completely different discussion.  My kids aren't owned by the state and they're not owned by you.  Freedom of religion doesn't protect "non-faith schools of thought", because they're UNRELATED TO RELIGION.  Non-faith = nonreligious.  "Freedom of religion", not "Freedom of religion and non-religion".

You don't have a right to teach my children jack squat and what makes you or anyone else think that you're any more qualified to educate my children about the world than I am?  Going to school and getting a teaching degree doesn't make you more qualified to teach about morals than me, because morals are relative to culture, for the most part.  You may be more qualified to teach math class, but you have no right to say that you're better qualified to teach morals than I am.  It's the state's job to educate children about math, economics, history (to an extent, since history is skewed and written by those in power), and a number of other non-religious, non-moral aspects of life, but when it comes to morality and religion, I'll take care of that at home.  Some things the state should keep their nose out of, like morality.

I'd prefer it if you kept things so that religion wasn't one of your arguments at all, thanks.

Well, it's not your topic, so I don't really care.

When the dick did I say I believed in the Big Bang theory?

Well, the two main theories out there are that of "intelligent design" or creationism OR the big bang theory.  There are other smaller theories that vary from place to place and culture to culture, but I decided to mention the most likely alternative, since you're not Christian (or maybe I misread somewhere?).  Which goes back to what right do you have to teach my kids about anything concerning faith and the way the world works that I don't teach them at home?  You have no justification to say that you're any more qualified to teach children morality than anyone else is.

And public school is for "all worldviews"?  No, it's not.  I can't go into a school and preach Christianity (a "worldview"), so why should a gay person have the right to go into a school and talk about their lifestyle and play it up like it's okay and wonderful?  They don't have that right.  And don't even get me started on "separation of church and state", because it doesn't exist.  As the first amendment is read, it protects religion from the state NOT the state from religion.  It protects people from being forced to follow religious and "lifestyle" beliefs which are not their own.  The government can't force me to practice a religion or live a lifestyle that I don't agree with and neither can they force feed my kids those things.

 

[CERU]

What? Freedom of Religion doesn't include people who don't have a religon? BS.

You say that no one has the right to tell you what to believe, Buddhist or Atheist. What you really mean is that you don't want people contradicting your beliefs in the education system.

Someone's free to believe that rain is caused by the rain god. They don't get to bitch, however, when science classes tell where it really comes from.

You can honestly believe whatever you want. But you don't get to change the education system just because it contradicts whatever nonsense you believe in.

Edit: So according to you, about morality, the state doesn't have the right to teach morals. So, hypothetically, if the state were to teach that being gay was wrong (which coincides with your "morals"), they wouldn't have any right to do so? I mean, as long as it deals with morals its off limits.

Schools have no right to tell students that stealing, cheating, etc is wrong ... because they're under the umbrella of morals (or lack thereof)

 

[thelivingphoenix]

What? Freedom of Religion doesn't include people who don't have a religon? BS.

It protects your lack of religion, sure, but the way it's worded doesn't allow you to attempt to steer me or my children away from our religion via the avenue of state-sponsored education.  I said that it doesn't protect non-faith-based systems of belief, like homosexuality.  The idea of homosexuality isn't protected, BDSM isn't protected, none of that falls under the protection of the first amendment where religion is concerned. 

You say that no one has the right to tell you what to believe, Buddhist or Atheist. What you really mean is that you don't want people contradicting your beliefs in the education system.

Someone's free to believe that rain is caused by the rain god. They don't get to bitch, however, when science classes tell where it really comes from.

You can honestly believe whatever you want. But you don't get to change the education system just because it contradicts whatever nonsense you believe in.

I'm not the one changing the education system based upon whatever "nonsense" I believe in; it's people like you and others who are introducing things like "homosexuality" into the school curriculum that are changing things.  Things are the way they are now because of the changes that people like you proposed because the current system contradicted the nonsense that they believed in.  I didn't take prayer out of schools, people like you did.  Not that state-sponsored prayer belongs in school, but nobody has the right to tell my kid that he can't pray in the classroom before class begins or tell him/her that he/she can't read the Bible at recess or make art projects with Christian imagery for art class.

You want a police state where the government tells you what you're supposed to think and how you're supposed to think it?  Go to China.  That's eventually what you'll get here if you don't stop the government from trying to teach your kids "the way of the world".

Edit: So according to you, about morality, the state doesn't have the right to teach morals. So, hypothetically, if the state were to teach that being gay was wrong (which coincides with your "morals"), they wouldn't have any right to do so? I mean, as long as it deals with morals its off limits.

Schools have no right to tell students that stealing, cheating, etc is wrong ... because they're under the umbrella of morals (or lack thereof)

No, the state doesn't have a right to teach that any particular lifestyle is right or wrong.

And rain being created by a "rain god" isn't exactly the same issue as a human being making a choice to live a gay lifestyle.  Not only that, but who says that the "rain god" doesn't make rain fall the way that you're taught in science class, anyway?  I don't disbelieve in God just because of the science that tells me what rain is caused by; it doesn't mean that God didn't create the whole system.  I don't really care if they want to teach other religions in school, as long as I have the ability to opt my child out of that class or that lecture.

 

[CERU]

"I'm not the one changing the education system based upon whatever "nonsense" I believe in; it's people like you and others who are introducing things like "homosexuality" into the school curriculum that are changing things. "

The only reason homosexuality belongs in schools is to provide sex education. Its a very confusing time, and for girls or boys who don't like the opposite sex it would probably be an even more confusing one. Also to make straight children aware that they're not weird for it.

Of course, you as the parent are perfectly free to tell your kids "well being gay isn't actually natural, and they are weird." Its your prerogative. You're their mother, and honestly, they're probably going to believe you more than the school.

"nobody has the right to tell my kid that he can't pray before he starts class in the morning.  "

Nobody is. If they are, they are infringing upon your child's religious rights and you have the right to sue the school.

"No, the state doesn't have a right to teach that any particular lifestyle is right or wrong."

Thievery is a lifestyle? Okay.

"And rain being created by a "rain god" isn't exactly the same issue as a human being making a choice to live a gay lifestyle.  Not only that, but who says that the "rain god" doesn't make rain fall the way that you're taught in science class, anyway?"

First of all, its only a life style in YOUR opinion. What happens when they discover how gay genetics work in science? What then? Don't think they won't, because they're already contradicting Christianity with evolution. The rain god is just a hypothetical situation. I'm saying that in the case when religion contradicts whats being taught (like yours), it doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't be taught.

And yeah, go ahead and opt your kid out of the lecture. Like I said, it belongs in sex ed which you can opt your kid out of.

But good luck having your kid graduate without them learning about evolution.

You can't just opt your kid out of everything that contradicts your beliefs. If so, ciriculum would be based on what didn't contradict anyone's beliefs, and people would be graduating that didn't learn the materials that other kids did.

 

[Sithjester]

Maybe you should read Romans, which IS in the New Testament and it's pretty difficult to mistake what this says.

"Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient..."

Did you even look at the link I gave? It addresses that specific quote. As do various other sites. I googled 'homosexuality bible' and it gave me plenty of sites that explain why these various quotes are NOT against gays, and are misinterpretations. The only sites I can find that consider them as-is and anti-gay are conservative Christian sites.

Not that it should mean anything, anyway. Our society should not be based on books that were written by various people in a time period and place so different it may as well be a different planet from our own, translated and interpreted freely between languages that really aren't compatible. Especially since not everyone follows those books.

But by all means, keep thinking homosexuality is vile and evil. I'll keep living a happy life free of hate, grateful that I am not fettered by any superstition that requires me to dislike innocent, harmless people, and believe that good people will be tortured for all eternity for things they can't even control. I rather like it that way.

 

[thelivingphoenix]

My problem with the theory of evolution isn't that they teach it in school.  It's the fact that they don't teach the other mainstream alternative, which is creationism, whether it's by the Christian God or any other deity out there.  The theory of evolution is no more or less of a theory than the theory of creationism (other Christians would bash me for calling it a "theory", but it is what it is... it takes faith to believe in it and so, is therefore a theory) and I don't see why the theory of creationism isn't also taught.  As long as they're not teaching any specific religion's "creationism" theory as right or wrong, I don't see the problem.  You can't prove the big bang theory or evolution any more than I can prove that God snapped His fingers and the world came into being. 

No, thievery isn't a lifestyle, it's an action.  An action that, the world over, is considered wrong in most circumstances. 

And it's not my opinion that someone who chooses to take part in gay life and do gay things is living a gay lifestyle.  They simply are.  You can think gay thoughts all day long and not live the lifestyle.

As long as I'm not teaching my children to inflict violence on another group because of how they live, I don't see why I shouldn't be free to teach them whether how someone else is living is right or wrong.  Is it right to discriminate against hiring someone because they're gay?  No.  Is it right to discriminate against someone who is gay when it comes to allowing them to rent a room in your house?  It's my house, I'm paying for it, and the state doesn't really have a right to tell me who to rent a room to.  Now, if I was a landlord at an apartment complex, it's a much different story.

I don't advocate violence against gay people; I just don't think that the way they're living is correct and I have a right to teach my kids that that's how it is.  The point is to raise children to respect the beliefs and ways of life of other people by teaching them to not be poking their nose in other people's business.  There is a fine line to tread when it comes to what the state should be allowed to teach and not allowed to teach when it comes to lifestyle and morals.

And I would be fine with homosexuality coming up in a sex education class, but I'm not fine with lectures about what it "means" to be gay for children still in elementary school or even junior high.  High schools get a little more room to breathe when it concerns these things, but not much.  I wouldn't care if they had a "gay club" in high school, as long as it was developed and maintained by students and not the faculty.

Did you even look at the link I gave? It addresses that specific quote. As do various other sites. I googled 'homosexuality bible' and it gave me plenty of sites that explain why these various quotes are NOT against gays, and are misinterpretations. The only sites I can find that consider them as-is and anti-gay are conservative Christian sites.

Yeah, I looked at it and it looks like a pretty biased source, to me.  It's not an analogy or a metaphor or whatever for worshipping other gods.  Your source also says "some theologians" (i.e. picking and choosing). 

"Some theologians assert that the original meaning of these verses has something to do with temple prostitution, a practice which is very foreign to our modern concept of worship."

"Some" which probably means not enough to be a majority.  Since you've given a biased source, I'll feel free to give one, as well.

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj3h.pdf

Have fun.

 

[Sithjester]

Oh my, did you even read past the first sentence? I already said I've found anti-gay Bible quote sites, and that they're all biased Christian sites. And I already said that I've found plenty of pro-gay Bible sites explaining things, not just the one example I gave.

Why is it so important to you to cling to the belief that being gay is bad? Why do you refuse to give a moment's thought that maybe your Bible-inspired dislike of homosexuality could be a mistranslation? Would that shatter your worldview? Would it make you a bad person? Why do you cling to that belief so tightly when so many other beliefs in the Bible aren't followed, are shrugged off by Christians as being 'from a different time', or otherwise explained away? What possible positive effect could disapproving of gays do for you? Why does it improve your life? Does it make you feel better about yourself, much like school bullies, that there are people to look down on? Or is it because your parents always told you it was bad and you refuse to give that up? Would you keel over and die if you admitted that we homosexuals are moral, wholesome people living good lives (which we are)? Because I don't get the point of clinging to that old-fashioned belief when there's no good reason to.

 

[CERU]

Creationism is not science. It does not follow the scientific method and cannot be proven false. Creationism is basically a critique of the logic behind evolution, rather than an actual scientific theory. There is no evidence that anything has been created, just evidence of complexity creatures and then the judgement "well it must have been created." Because it is poor science it is not considered to be science.

Even a Christian biology teacher I knew when I went to church did not believe it should be taught in schools, nor was it science.

Phoenix, a scientific theory is not the same as a theory that we refer to in everyday conversation. A scientific theory takes a lot of testing and research before it can be considered a theory. After there has been multiple tests done to prove a HYPOTHESIS wrong, and they have not successfully proved the hypothesis wrong, it can be a scientific theory.

The problem is you can't prove creationism wrong. And while we have skeletons that change over time through the different layers of rock and many other pieces of evidence for the theory of evolution, there is no real concrete data behind creationism because it involves things that we cannot see; spiritual forces. Spritual forces cannot be observed in science.

I understand what you're saying about lifestyles. But its not like the education system is going to be say "go have sex with the same sex kids!" What does it "mean" to be gay? I mean, how could a sex education class cover homosexuality without covering what it means?

 

[Diaforetikos]

Sorry to be very off topic but isn't homosexuals having sex the same as a brother or sister having sex? Now don't go buck wild crazy saying are you out of your mind. Think of it logically. Two people who shouldn't have sex, brother and sister do. Now has is that any different from two men having sex?

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Well it depends on how you look at it.  In the bible brothers and sisters had sex and were married, and so on - which was fine.  Homosexuality was still wrong.  It's a culture thing.

In many cultures brothers and sisters are allowed to have sex.  Like in other cultures same sex couplings are allowed.

 

[Ellie]

Sorry to be very off topic but isn't homosexuals having sex the same as a brother or sister having sex? Now don't go buck wild crazy saying are you out of your mind. Think of it logically. Two people who shouldn't have sex, brother and sister do. Now has is that any different from two men having sex?

NO.

A brother and sister shouldn't have sex, because there is actually a medical reason. You know, the whole mutations thing and all that jazz. You know, things like sickle cell (I think), and things like that, where the parents give their kids a recessant gene, and if both kids screw each other the baby's more likely to get both genes and thus have the disease. Something like that anyway.

Even if that isn't true, there's absolutely no proven medical reason why two guys (or two gals) can't have sex. (And don't say "lulz aids" because you're more likely to get aids through Heterosexual sex.)

The only reason why "gay people shouldn't have sex" is through people's opinions. In which case your sentence is a load of BS because in my (and other people's) opinion, gay people can have sex all they like.

 

[thelivingphoenix]

Oh my, did you even read past the first sentence? I already said I've found anti-gay Bible quote sites, and that they're all biased Christian sites. And I already said that I've found plenty of pro-gay Bible sites explaining things, not just the one example I gave.

Why is it so important to you to cling to the belief that being gay is bad? Why do you refuse to give a moment's thought that maybe your Bible-inspired dislike of homosexuality could be a mistranslation? Would that shatter your worldview? Would it make you a bad person? Why do you cling to that belief so tightly when so many other beliefs in the Bible aren't followed, are shrugged off by Christians as being 'from a different time', or otherwise explained away? What possible positive effect could disapproving of gays do for you? Why does it improve your life? Does it make you feel better about yourself, much like school bullies, that there are people to look down on? Or is it because your parents always told you it was bad and you refuse to give that up? Would you keel over and die if you admitted that we homosexuals are moral, wholesome people living good lives (which we are)? Because I don't get the point of clinging to that old-fashioned belief when there's no good reason to.

Yes, I read past the first sentence.  My point was that since you posted something from a biased source, I also posted something from a biased source, even if my biased source goes into a lot more detail about how your source's source is completely wrong about his interpretation of scripture.  Instead of citing someone else's work and reposting the general concept somewhere like the source that you listed seems to have, the source I listed actually gets deeper into the interpretation of the Greek word, where the word came from, and spells out the justification for the interpretation of it meaning "homosexuals" on the basis of historical and linguistic grounds.

No good reason to?  It's only "old-fashioned" if you believe that it's not the will of God that that's the way it's supposed to be.  As for your questions, I could ask the some of the same questions back at you.

Why is it so important to you to cling to the belief that being gay is okay?  Why do you refuse to give a moment's thought that maybe your world-inspired like of homosexuality could be misguided?  Would that shatter your worldview?  Does it make you feel better about yourself because you're different?  Would you keel over and die if you admitted that we real Christians are moral, wholesome people living good lives (which we are)?  Because I don't get the point of clinging to a lifestyle that's wrought with physical risk when there's no good reason to.

I'll keep living a happy life free of hate

I don't believe I said that I hated anybody.  I don't hate anyone for how they choose to live their lives, but just because I don't hate them doesn't mean that I want to have to be exposed to it all the time.  You're brainwashed into believing that all Christian people "hate" gay people and we don't.  That's the media playing that up and making one bad apple an example of the quality of the rest of the crop.  We don't "hate" you.  Christians that follow the scripture the way that it's supposed to be followed do not hate people.  You're free to live however you want, but I don't want my kids exposed to it at school when they're supposed to be learning reading, writing, and arithmetic, not about alternative lifestyles or homosexuality (except maybe in sex ed class and even then, the statistics concerning STDs such as AIDS need to be brought up).

No, it doesn't make me feel "better" about myself to believe that acting on gay impulses is wrong.  It makes me feel sad for the people who do live that way, because I believe that I know what lies at the end of the path for them.  I don't look at homosexuals and think "disgusting", I look at homosexuals and I grieve.  Why do I "cling" to the belief?  Because to disbelieve what the scripture says is to call God a liar and I don't want to go there.

Because failing to inform someone of their sin makes me just as guilty as if I'd committed the sin myself.  Their blood is on my hands and if I don't try to lead them in the right direction, I will be faulted for it in the eyes of God.  I will be judged.  Christian people who go and harass others and scream "you're goin' to hell, faggot!" are no more in the right than I am for not telling them the consequences of their lifestyle.  They have no right to yell slurs at people any more than I have a right to let someone walk the way that leads to fire without advising them of what lies at the end of the path, however fun and physically pleasing it may be before getting there.  I have gay friends that I've witnessed to and while they don't accept that I don't believe how they're living is right, they respect my religious beliefs and have never once called what I believe in "superstition" or "nonsense".  I plead my case with them before and they rejected it and after that discussion was over, I didn't bring it up again, because there was no point.  I did what I was supposed to do; I warned them.  My hands, as far as that is concerned, are clean.

Why do I refuse to give a moment's thought that maybe my Bible-inspired dislike of homosexuality could be a mistranslation?  Actually, I have and up until the past couple of years, I did my best to accept gay "Christians" as going to heaven, even though they're "technically" living in sin.  I also tried doing some research on the movement that says that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality at all, but have found most of that evidence to be in complete contradiction of scripture.  Both my grandfather and my current business partner have studied the book in the original languages for a number of years and I trust their judgment now, but I didn't used to.  I've spent hours and hours talking with both of them about this very issue and at every arguing point, they win.  They know the language better than I do and they know the book better than I do.

Creationism is not science. It does not follow the scientific method and cannot be proven false. Creationism is basically a critique of the logic behind evolution, rather than an actual scientific theory. There is no evidence that anything has been created, just evidence of complexity creatures and then the judgement "well it must have been created." Because it is poor science it is not considered to be science.

Actually, evolution is basically a critique of the logic behind creationism because creationism came first, not after.  Entire cultures and societies have majorities that believe in creationism, so why should it not be introduced alongside the theory of evolution and the "big bang" theory?  There is science behind the theory of intelligent design, which is essentially the same thing as creationism.

"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life." -- http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... php/id/832

I understand what you're saying about lifestyles. But its not like the education system is going to be say "go have sex with the same sex kids!" What does it "mean" to be gay? I mean, how could a sex education class cover homosexuality without covering what it means?

What I mean by "what it means to be gay" isn't talking about the physical act of engaging in sex with someone of the same sex.  I'm talking about the social consequences of being gay, what kind of hardships they have to endure because they're gay, etc.  I don't want my kids to come home from school, scowl at me, and inform me that I'm a "homophobe", like I'm a bad person because I don't believe living a gay lifestyle is correct.  The last thing people need is for the state to start teaching them that their parents are bad people for not being "politically correct" or taking part in "progressive" society's beliefs.  We know what happens when the state takes control of the children away from the parents.  Nazi Germany, anyone? "Your child doesn't belong to you, he/she belongs to the community and we'll teach them what we (the elite and ones in power) like and there's nothing you can do about it.  If you make a scene about it, we'll just take your kids from you until you conform to what we, the state, say is acceptable".   

Even if that isn't true, there's absolutely no proven medical reason why two guys (or two gals) can't have sex. (And don't say "lulz aids" because you're more likely to get aids through Heterosexual sex.)

Well, I won't say "lulz, AIDS", because it's not something to make a joke about, but I do believe you're wrong.  I don't know where you get your information, but I think you're misinformed.  The CDC has the statistics of how AIDS is transmitted and overwhelmingly, the majority come from homosexual sex, injection drug use, and "high-risk heterosexual activity".

Well it depends on how you look at it.  In the bible brothers and sisters had sex and were married, and so on - which was fine.  Homosexuality was still wrong.  It's a culture thing.

It was fine until Mosaic law.  After that, no, for reasons which are complicated and that I'd rather not get into, since it's too far off subject and I've typed enough on this topic already.

 

[Sithjester]

Why is it so important to you to cling to the belief that being gay is okay? 

Because it is okay. I'm not religious, so I don't base my morals on books written thousands of years ago. I base my morals on real life. Homosexuality is a natural occurance that harms no one, so it's okay.

Why do you refuse to give a moment's thought that maybe your world-inspired like of homosexuality could be misguided?  Would that shatter your worldview?

Seeing as how there aren't very many good non-religious arguments against homosexuality, that's irrelevant. I don't really see how that argument applies to me, since I don't hold any beliefs. Even if I were Christian, I wouldn't believe homosexuality was wrong. The Bible was written by men. If I believed in a god, I would believe that he made everything. And that includes gays, since, as has been pointed out a bazillion times, it is not a choice. So I'd be a bit leery on thinking something that god made was 'immoral', and would go with my gut instinct (since gays do nothing wrong, anyway, and are good people) rather than a book written by men.

  Does it make you feel better about yourself because you're different? 

Again, that argument doesn't make any sense in reverse. I'm not looking down on people for something harmless they have no say in. I do look down on people who hate or discriminate for no good reason. It doesn't make me feel better about myself. I just believe it's wrong to discriminate. *shrug* I feel the same way about anti-gay folks as racists and others of the sort. I'm not too keen on hateful anti-religious folks, either. It's only when religious people use it as an excuse to treat me poorly that I become upset.

Would you keel over and die if you admitted that we real Christians are moral, wholesome people living good lives (which we are)? 

I never said they weren't.

Because I don't get the point of clinging to a lifestyle that's wrought with physical risk when there's no good reason to.

Um, are you talking about homosexuals? Yeah, we kinda don't have a choice. We don't 'cling' to it, any more than you cling to heterosexuality. I have a good reason. If I decided to date men, I'd be completely miserable because I'm not emotionally, mentally, or physically attracted to them, and am not capable of having a real, romantic relationship with them. And physical risk? Like what? As for me, I'm a lesbian. We have a much, much, much lower risk of catching STDs than straight women.

Now, don't get me wrong phoenix. I'm not trying to bash or hate on you. You seem to be a decent person, and are not out screaming about how fags suck and shouldn't get married. You're lightyears ahead of lots of other religious folks in that regard. lol If I've sounded harsh, it's only because I'm weary of being told that I - a loving, caring person who adores animals, gives to charity whenever I can even though I can't afford to, work in the health care field so I can help people - am immoral and wrong because I happen to like women. Something I have no control over, but I refuse to live a lie, and am a happy person. *hugs to all, even Diaforetikos*