What is so wrong with homosexuals? I mean really?
- Thread starter FoxDemonSoavi
- Start date
Addtionally, if the bible was the source of this(which it isnt) people would have a MUCH bigger problem with adultury which is implicity mentioned over 250 times in the bible, as opposed to the very vague easily misinterpreted Sodom and Gamorrah line. It was more about promescuity anyhow, "free love" and all that jazz. You know, the stuff you see EVERYWHERE that so few people seem to have a problem with.
Roman Candle
Member
The idea of genetic defect implies that there is a genetic ideal, which is really a self contradiction. If all traits are a measure of quantity of reproduction, the chasticy is even more 'abnormal'. What about art? Or music? They have no real value in 'darwinian' terms. They are needless expenditure of time and energy. Their imortance in society demonstrates that we are removed from that system of life. What can be more natural than sex? In terms of how it affects us, whether or not a child is produced does not influence our animal bodies. Animals do not have sex in order to produce children, but animals which don't have sex do not propagate. Therefore the drive is sex, and that is what is natural. Childbirth is what makes the system work, but the goal on an individual level is sex.
I'm sorry I see that you want the bible Idea out of this thread, but you wonder why peopl ethink that homosexualy is wrong, if you think about it, mostly it is peopl ewhom are religious think that it is wrong, but if you point out to them the fact that thier bible (chiristians as only an example) states that their bible is law, well, guess what, the bible has been altered soooo much that it's been proven that it is a 90% possibiblty that the facts are wrong. I'd go indetail but everyone would deny it anyway because "BIBLE IS LAW"..
I was once a christian, but I found that if my moral standards are not good enough for "god", then that god is no god to be worship by me.
I'm too am pro-choice, and pro-marriage, I don't think it's right at all to judge other people, for those that are bible followers it does state "THOU SHALL NOT JUDGE!"
Everyone has their rights to be whom they are, whom they want to be, and should live their life to the fullest and happiest, and none of us has any right to take that away.
again sorry for bringing that up but, it is about 70-80% reasons why people believe what they do.
I was once a christian, but I found that if my moral standards are not good enough for "god", then that god is no god to be worship by me.
I'm too am pro-choice, and pro-marriage, I don't think it's right at all to judge other people, for those that are bible followers it does state "THOU SHALL NOT JUDGE!"
Everyone has their rights to be whom they are, whom they want to be, and should live their life to the fullest and happiest, and none of us has any right to take that away.
again sorry for bringing that up but, it is about 70-80% reasons why people believe what they do.
leogoth20 said:
Thats an exagration, 90%? thats too high, but you are athiest so w/e, same goes for jews. Muslims just say Jesus is not god so for them only around 50% is altered.
And since christians believe that the bible is the truth, they can't believe it is altered. it would go against their beliefs, therefor it would be blasphemy.
Also, the bible doesn't state that Gay people are evil. No holy book states that. It just says they are sinners. Its the Churches or the extrimists that say it, and then the other people start to think the same
.It would be off topic and any non-ignorrant, non-christian could go in detail but like i said, it would be blasphemy to them.
PS. I'm not saying christians are ignorarnt. I'm saying there are non-christians that are ignorrant and say stuipid things.
Mr.Mo said:
I'm not athiest for those that are don't believe in a god, I believe in a higher supreme being yes, but if I can't find a religion that suits to my moral values, then those religions are not for me, I still search for the right religion that I WANT TO FOLLOW... don't ever call me something I'm not, that would be putting words in my mouth.
Hmm...here's my perspective on this Biblical aspect of this.
The issue of homophobia seems broader to me than whether the Bible condemns homosexuality or not. The problem is not that some Christians believe it to be evil, the problem is that the most extreme of those Christians want their beliefs to be the written law of the land.
America, for instance, is about 80% Christian, though not nearly all of those people agree with the anti-homosexuality position. But what about that last 20%? Why should people who don't put any stock into what one religion says have to abide by its rules?
The issue of homophobia seems broader to me than whether the Bible condemns homosexuality or not. The problem is not that some Christians believe it to be evil, the problem is that the most extreme of those Christians want their beliefs to be the written law of the land.
America, for instance, is about 80% Christian, though not nearly all of those people agree with the anti-homosexuality position. But what about that last 20%? Why should people who don't put any stock into what one religion says have to abide by its rules?
leogoth20 said:
..sorry, it sounded like you were. Didn't mean to offend you.
Edit:
Volrath":1iqcu0oe said:
You answered that question your self. The majority always wins but thats not the point in this matter. Democracy is by the people for the people. Not only that, USA is suppose to be a country where it has high tolarance.
btw 80% Christian? .. Don't you mean 80% believe in a god?
Roman Candle
Member
Are you saying that everyone should have to follow the religious views of the masses?
No, because that wouldnt solve anything. The same people who hate gays hate black people, and anyone different from them. If they had some gospel they could misinterpret to back that hatred up, they would, but they only have one for gays. They hated the gays FIRST, and would regaurdless of religion.
Mr.Mo said:
No, 80% of people in America consider themselves Christians. As I said, though, that runs the full gamut of denominations/philosophies within Christianity. The United Church of Christ, for example. They are Christians but are for gay marriage, pro-choice, and support various other left-wing positions. It also includes the extreme religious right as well.
It seems that my previous posts implied that all 80% of those people are for laws against gay marriage. This is not so and was not the intention of my statement. The pressure to make this kind of laws comes from a small but very vocal group of leaders in the religous right who have formed an unholy alliance with Bush.
My point is this: Religious texts like the Bible should not be the basis for any federal law. I think Ryan is onto something when he says that the prejudice exists independently and the Bible can be used to back it up. These lobbyists pushing for the anti-gay legislation try to justify it through religion, because without that, the only justification left is their own prejudice. However, we are supposed to have church and state separated in America, and no religious text should have any explicit influence on what laws are made here.
And let me just pre-empt any response that might go something like this.
"One of the commandments is Thou Shalt Not Kill. You saying we shouldn't have laws against murder?!"
You don't need the Bible to tell you that murder or stealing or rape or other violent crimes are bad. These are outlawed because they make people suffer. People try to suppress gays because they are uncomfortable with their lifestyle...but nobody has ever been able to prove to me that homosexuality does any real harm.
Killing is objective morality, the "sanctity of marriage" is subjective morality. We can all agree killing is wrong in a general sense. We CANNOT agree that anymore than 3 of the ten commandments are objective morality, because most people dont know anymore than three and because the rest are too skewed toward subjectivity and archaic ritual.
Roman Candle
Member
There are no objective morals, they are all founded on the basic principle of "Thou shalt not hurt other people unless it significantly impacts on your own life,"
Muder - punishable by death.
Being obnoxious - aparently not.
Murder when aproved by the state - go ahead.
Muder - punishable by death.
Being obnoxious - aparently not.
Murder when aproved by the state - go ahead.
wtf, no. I didn't even imply it.Roman Candle said:
I was saying that the majority wins. In democracy things get chosen by votes.
I was also saying USA is a hypocript because its suppose to be a country with high tolarance against diversities(if thats the right sentence). I know I was stereotyping, didn't mean to.