What is your view on homosexual rights and why?

[DaWoad]

They should be given all the same rights as everyone else. There is no logical reason to deny them these rights. Can anyone give a good reason, one that does not invoke the name of a god or holy book or something of the sort?

its disgusting and wrong.

by what standard is homosexual sex disgusting (and in which heterosexual sex is not). Moreover, how can you possibly defend the statement that "it is wrong"

[Farnhamia]

its disgusting and wrong.

by what standard is homosexual sex disgusting (and in which heterosexual sex is not). Moreover, how can you possibly defend the statement that "it is wrong"

I'd like to watch him try, though.

[Ceannairceach]

They should be given all the same rights as everyone else. There is no logical reason to deny them these rights. Can anyone give a good reason, one that does not invoke the name of a god or holy book or something of the sort?

its disgusting and wrong.

Before you attempt to justify, know that I have no problem with it, and I represent the god of three major religions.

[Marcheria]

by what standard is homosexual sex disgusting (and in which heterosexual sex is not). Moreover, how can you possibly defend the statement that "it is wrong"

I'd like to watch him try, though.

^Agreed

[DaWoad]

by what standard is homosexual sex disgusting (and in which heterosexual sex is not). Moreover, how can you possibly defend the statement that "it is wrong"

I'd like to watch him try, though.

oh me too, should be good for a laugh at the very least.

[Marcheria]

They should be given all the same rights as everyone else. There is no logical reason to deny them these rights. Can anyone give a good reason, one that does not invoke the name of a god or holy book or something of the sort?

its disgusting and wrong.

So, sASSinia, why do you think homosexuality is disgusting and wrong?

[Dazchan]

To the second point, it's not about gay people disturbing my peace and quiet, it's about some gay people feeling they need to express themselves through consumerism and, well, parades.

*gasp* Gay people... expressing themselves!

I think people need to get over the whole gay parade thing. They're a bit of harmless fun, done legally, and bring some tourist revenue in. What's the problem?

I know several gay people who are secure enough in their own sexuality to not go march through the streets or wear "flashy-fabulous" clothes.

Participation in gay rights parades or one's choice of clothing doesn't have anything to do with security. It has to do with choice. I wear what I wear because I like that particular style, just like you wear what you wear because you like your particular style. It would be a very boring world if we were all the same.

Anyway, arguing this point is really funny, because you seem to be operating under the assumption that I'm somehow anti-gay (and, for that matter, the assumption I care what you think). The thread asked me my views on homosexual rights; I answered. If you have a problem with my views, then tough shit. I have as much a right to them as you do yours.

If you have a problem with your views being discussed, then perhaps going to discussion forums isn't for you.

[Quandarm]

I am with you we are human beings and we have the right to vote the way we see fit. I dont see allowing gays to marry as improving the world as a matter of fact its an awful idea and it would lower are morals and standards.

So, they can be together, and "bang" (as it were) freely outside of marriage... but allowing them to marry would decrease overall morality?

Let's apply that same logic to hetero couples for just a second. As an apparently Bible-believing Christian, I can see you must advocate promiscuous extra-marital sexual relationships. Or... not?

Forgive my ignorance, but was that some sort of point or were you just airing out your irrelevence?

What exactly were you refering to? The Bible has a rather firm stance on number of marriges and sexual activities.
( and dont quote the old testament because those were the laws for the Jews, and the groundwork for the FINAL law as laid out by Christ)

So if you can give me a point that is not just strange gibberish, we as a community would greatly appreciate it.

[Quandarm]

Paul, who forms much of New Testament theology (as the author/central source for Romans, Corinthians and others), never outwardly condemns homosexuality, and Mathew leaves it off a list of condemnable acts in his Gospel, and, of course, there's the central fucking theme of the New Testament, Tolerance, as evidenced by Mathew 5:43-44 which, for the third time this post, states: "You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

You are indeed correct in the love portion o your post. However this is a big problem with our view of Christianity. Love is very very important to the deal, but it does not mean that anything goes.

Muffin Button had good quotes and while I will concede the old testament objections the other was new testament.

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."

This seems to be rather easy to understand.

Love your neighbor as yourself is the most often heard of Christs teachings. But the first lesson was this:
Matthew 4:17 "...Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Love is important, and God appointed no police officers. But that does not meant that we cannot call what we see as wrong, wrong.
Love the sinner, HATE the sin.

[Farnhamia]

Paul, who forms much of New Testament theology (as the author/central source for Romans, Corinthians and others), never outwardly condemns homosexuality, and Mathew leaves it off a list of condemnable acts in his Gospel, and, of course, there's the central fucking theme of the New Testament, Tolerance, as evidenced by Mathew 5:43-44 which, for the third time this post, states: "You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

You are indeed correct in the love portion o your post. However this is a big problem with our view of Christianity. Love is very very important to the deal, but it does not mean that anything goes.

Muffin Button had good quotes and while I will concede the old testament objections the other was new testament.

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."

This seems to be rather easy to understand.

Love your neighbor as yourself is the most often heard of Christs teachings. But the first lesson was this:
Matthew 4:17 "...Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Love is important, and God appointed no police officers. But that does not meant that we cannot call what we see as wrong, wrong.
Love the sinner, HATE the sin.

It's fun to take a line here and a line there, isn't it? Let's have a look at Romans:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

If one reads these words correctly, God himself gave over those people to those "sins," and he did it because they ignored him. So really, it's just another example of Yahweh punishing people who do not give him the full measure of devotion that he expects, indeed, that he demands.

But then again, why should the morals of a being whose existence is dubious at best matter a fig to me, save only that his followers use him as an excuse for bad behavior?

[Luciratus]

You are indeed correct in the love portion o your post. However this is a big problem with our view of Christianity. Love is very very important to the deal, but it does not mean that anything goes.

Muffin Button had good quotes and while I will concede the old testament objections the other was new testament.

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."

This seems to be rather easy to understand.

Love your neighbor as yourself is the most often heard of Christs teachings. But the first lesson was this:
Matthew 4:17 "...Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Love is important, and God appointed no police officers. But that does not meant that we cannot call what we see as wrong, wrong.
Love the sinner, HATE the sin.

It's fun to take a line here and a line there, isn't it? Let's have a look at Romans:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

If one reads these words correctly, God himself gave over those people to those "sins," and he did it because they ignored him. So really, it's just another example of Yahweh punishing people who do not give him the full measure of devotion that he expects, indeed, that he demands.

But then again, why should the morals of a being whose existence is dubious at best matter a fig to me, save only that his followers use him as an excuse for bad behavior?

Morality is quite personal and relative, though. Or are you turning into a social conservative?

[Farnhamia]

It's fun to take a line here and a line there, isn't it? Let's have a look at Romans:



If one reads these words correctly, God himself gave over those people to those "sins," and he did it because they ignored him. So really, it's just another example of Yahweh punishing people who do not give him the full measure of devotion that he expects, indeed, that he demands.

But then again, why should the morals of a being whose existence is dubious at best matter a fig to me, save only that his followers use him as an excuse for bad behavior?

Morality is quite personal and relative, though. Or are you turning into a social conservative?

It is personal, and relative. Christians would disagree, I think. My experience with them is that they think morality has been handed down for centuries, unchanged, and a good thing, too. I merely cited the broader context of Paul's letter to the Romans to point out that the only "sin" those condemned people had committed was not paying Yahweh as much attention as he likes.

[Norstal]

Morality is quite personal and relative, though. Or are you turning into a social conservative?

It is personal, and relative. Christians would disagree, I think. My experience with them is that they think morality has been handed down for centuries, unchanged, and a good thing, too. I merely cited the broader context of Paul's letter to the Romans to point out that the only "sin" those condemned people had committed was not paying Yahweh as much attention as he likes.

Most religions do require absolute morality, I think. It'd make more sense.

[Unhealthy2]

Most religions do require absolute morality, I think. It'd make more sense.

Ironic, in that morality handed down from god is not objective at all. God's opinion is still an opinion.

[Unhealthy2]

It is personal, and relative. Christians would disagree, I think. My experience with them is that they think morality has been handed down for centuries, unchanged, and a good thing, too. I merely cited the broader context of Paul's letter to the Romans to point out that the only "sin" those condemned people had committed was not paying Yahweh as much attention as he likes.

The problem with both them and many atheists is that you all think morality has to "come from" somewhere. You think morality is like a substance or quantity. It's not. You're confused. Morality is propositional. Ergo, it doesn't "come from" anyone or anything. Rather, it "follows from" things. That may seem a minor semantic point, but it actually changes the nature of the debate quite a bit.

[Farnhamia]

It is personal, and relative. Christians would disagree, I think. My experience with them is that they think morality has been handed down for centuries, unchanged, and a good thing, too. I merely cited the broader context of Paul's letter to the Romans to point out that the only "sin" those condemned people had committed was not paying Yahweh as much attention as he likes.

Most religions do require absolute morality, I think. It'd make more sense.

I didn't, nor did An and Enki, Inanna and Ningal. There were things of which we disapproved but we never, that I can recall, carved rules in stone tablets. I certainly didn't. The Black-Headed People were pretty sensible, though, they didn't need much guidance. It was a much more equal relationship than that between Yahweh and his chosen. All we asked was respect - which I think we earned - the occasional gift, perhaps a song now and then, and we were more than happy to help out with things like the pick-axe and barley and recipes for beer. Yahweh ... well, when you live on a mountain in the desert ... As Prince Feisal said to Lawrence in that delightful film, "There is nothing in the desert. And no man needs nothing." The greatest accomplishment Yahweh has is convincing people that they need nothing.

[Farnhamia]

It is personal, and relative. Christians would disagree, I think. My experience with them is that they think morality has been handed down for centuries, unchanged, and a good thing, too. I merely cited the broader context of Paul's letter to the Romans to point out that the only "sin" those condemned people had committed was not paying Yahweh as much attention as he likes.

The problem with both them and many atheists is that you all think morality has to "come from" somewhere. You think morality is like a substance or quantity. It's not. You're confused. Morality is propositional. Ergo, it doesn't "come from" anyone or anything. Rather, it "follows from" things. That may seem a minor semantic point, but it actually changes the nature of the debate quite a bit.

I'm not confused at all. I may have expressed myself badly but I'm not confused on this score.

[-St George]

Paul, who forms much of New Testament theology (as the author/central source for Romans, Corinthians and others), never outwardly condemns homosexuality, and Mathew leaves it off a list of condemnable acts in his Gospel, and, of course, there's the central fucking theme of the New Testament, Tolerance, as evidenced by Mathew 5:43-44 which, for the third time this post, states: "You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

You are indeed correct in the love portion o your post. However this is a big problem with our view of Christianity. Love is very very important to the deal, but it does not mean that anything goes.

Muffin Button had good quotes and while I will concede the old testament objections the other was new testament.

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."

This seems to be rather easy to understand.

Love your neighbor as yourself is the most often heard of Christs teachings. But the first lesson was this:
Matthew 4:17 "...Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Love is important, and God appointed no police officers. But that does not meant that we cannot call what we see as wrong, wrong.
Love the sinner, HATE the sin.

Romans 1 refers to a group of Christians who left the early Christ, converted to a pagan fertility religion and engaged first in heterosexual and then homosexuality orgies, the latter being unnatural to them, as heterosexuals.

Romans condemns their 'unnatural acts', acts that were purely unnatural to them. It doesn't condemn homosexuality as a whole.

[Sassinia]

its disgusting and wrong.

So, sASSinia, why do you think homosexuality is disgusting and wrong?

would you like it if two men were making out in the parking lot?

[Ceannairceach]

So, sASSinia, why do you think homosexuality is disgusting and wrong?

would you like it if two men were making out in the parking lot?

If I'm one of them, I'd probably like it. If it wasn't me, then I certainly wouldn't mind any more than if it was two women or a man and a woman.

Nice gravedig, by the way, Sir Necro.

[Buffett and Colbert]

So, sASSinia, why do you think homosexuality is disgusting and wrong?

would you like it if two men were making out in the parking lot?

Yes. Immensely.

[Coffee Cakes]

So, sASSinia, why do you think homosexuality is disgusting and wrong?

would you like it if two men were making out in the parking lot?

I don't care. It doesn't affect me, so why should it bother me?

[Marcheria]

So, sASSinia, why do you think homosexuality is disgusting and wrong?

would you like it if two men were making out in the parking lot?

No. In fact, I'd cheer 'em on.

[Farnhamia]

So, sASSinia, why do you think homosexuality is disgusting and wrong?

would you like it if two men were making out in the parking lot?

This question didn't work out all that well, did it?

[Samuraikoku]

So, sASSinia, why do you think homosexuality is disgusting and wrong?

would you like it if two men were making out in the parking lot?

I wouldn't care. Would you?