Your View of Homosexuality?

[Corrance]

Yeah that it what i said science is a better religion.

You take that back!

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Treating science as religion which, IMO, doesn't make any sense. If anything, science is the opposite of religion in every way. One is factual and relies on observation and experimentation, while the other is based on faith. There's nothing factual about faith (or at least that's how I see it).

It's all about which sources you see as authoritative, Nana. Some folks take an either/or approach to the issue. I take a "meh" approach. Science says certain things about homosexuality that Jesus didn't contradict. Therefore, I cannot use my faith as a basis for gender or sexual bigotry. And since Church edicts only apply to Church members... I see no reason to worry myself over the issue. I've met Greek Orthodox homosexuals. They tend to take the same approach I do. The Church won't marry them based on their sexuality. So neither do they. They marry (if they marry at all - I live in Georgia, remember) based on devotion and love. Jesus will sort it out.

But neither can I use science as a basis for my religious bigotry.

I am a religious bigot. I use my faith in that way - perhaps unhealthily. All I can do is confess and work at it.

Ah, but you see Dis, the difference is that you recognize that you are the way you are and are working at it (for what I can gather from your post). Hopefully to change it.

[Imperiatom]

Worship fact and truth.

Then one is guilty of turning both fact and truth into a faith. That is anti-scientific.

I had faith in my experiments at a-level.

[St George]

I would never hang out with a gay (male) person, but besides that, they have all right to do what they like to do...

It's likely you already do.

[Imperiatom]

Yeah that it what i said science is a better religion.

You take that back!

Why?

[Defensor]

Duh, but who gives a fuck?

Not you, obviously. But it's still good to point out.

Me personally, I don't care about it either way. Everyone's going to do what they want in the end, so I'm not gonna piss in anyone's cheerios concerning their sexual preference.

Now, would I make out with 2 men...much less watch? Hell no.

Would I jump in or just stare at 2 drop dead gorgeous babes doing it? Yes. Yes I would.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Treating science as religion which, IMO, doesn't make any sense. If anything, science is the opposite of religion in every way. One is factual and relies on observation and experimentation, while the other is based on faith. There's nothing factual about faith (or at least that's how I see it).

Worship fact and truth.

Worship fact and truth.

Then one is guilty of turning both fact and truth into a faith. That is anti-scientific.

Yes, that.

[Al-Quarra]

I would never hang out with a gay (male) person, but besides that, they have all right to do what they like to do...

It's likely you already do.

I'm pretty sure i'm not;)

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Not you, obviously. But it's still good to point out.

Me personally, I don't care about it either way. Everyone's going to do what they want in the end, so I'm not gonna piss in anyone's cheerios concerning their sexual preference.

Now, would I make out with 2 men...much less watch? Hell no.

Would I jump in or just stare at 2 drop dead gorgeous babes doing it? Yes. Yes I would.

Fair enough.

[St George]

It's likely you already do.

I'm pretty sure i'm not;)

Estimates on the percentage of the population that are gay are generally around 10%. Got 10 male friends? It's statistically probable that one of them is gay.

[Arcturus IV]

As a self-labelled quasi-asexual technophile, I hold little to no interest in this topic... one exception being, everyone has certain rights as a human being.

That being said, I voted Karl Marx because the poll choices are stupid and seem phrased to stir up controversy. Where is the option to choose "support by proxy"? Why so many specific, extreme choices against? A simple "for/against/abstain" choice set would have worked just fine.

Stop fishing for hate. It's highly unflattering and won't win you any friends.

You sound...frustrated

Me? Frustrated? Oh, no, never. What could have possibly given you that idea? >>

[Distruzio]

Then one is guilty of turning both fact and truth into a faith. That is anti-scientific.

I had faith in my experiments at a-level.

Ill break this down for you: what you suggest is that a monopolizing uniform approach to knowledge is the only way to learn anything about humanity (something that both science and religion actually do). This is ludicrous. It is ludicrous because you would bow before the popular approach (your approach), and not the better approach. You are not dismissing religion because it disagrees with facts. You are dismissing religion because it disagrees with your beliefs. The "unscientific" parts of our approach are your measures of validity for us.

How dogmatic.

You are saying that, until non religious evidence is presented validating religion, religion has nothing to offer. The evidence for religion, you demand must disagree with science, to warrant any consideration of religioun.

Only "facts" can be considered. Alternative approaches to expanding human knowledge can not.

You, in short, present evidences as independent, as autonomous, from science. They are not. You are forgetting that part in parcel of the empirical method is the invention of alternative theories to the view at the center of discussion. Ironically, what you demand not only violates the scientific practices you hold so dear, but empiricism as well. You are, in effect, ignoring the complex nature of science and knowledge and are, at the same time (quite amusingly) promoting a dogma. A faith.

Unanimity of opinion may be fitting for a rigid church, for the victimized, weak, or willing followers of some tyrant - but a variety of opinion is necessary for objective knowledge.

When one believes science should supplant religion, one is professing religion.

[Defensor]

I'm pretty sure i'm not;)

Estimates on the percentage of the population that are gay are generally around 10%. Got 10 male friends? It's statistically probable that one of them is gay.

Not if you're in the midwest...then it's 50% of the population could be related to you. No gays there

[Al-Quarra]

I'm pretty sure i'm not;)

Estimates on the percentage of the population that are gay are generally around 10%. Got 10 male friends? It's statistically probable that one of them is gay.

Still i'm pretty sure their not, and besides that... those estimates are highly overrated, i've got a famely of more then 60 people and none of them is gay... and i don't think 6 of them are gonna tell their gay.

But if one of my friends would tell he's gay i would break the contact between me and him. Simple as that.

[Imperiatom]

I had faith in my experiments at a-level.

Ill break this down for you: what you suggest is that a monopolizing uniform approach to knowledge is the only way to learn anything about humanity (something that both science and religion actually do). This is ludicrous. It is ludicrous because you would bow before the popular approach (your approach), and not the better approach. You are not dismissing religion because it disagrees with facts. You are dismissing religion because it disagrees with your beliefs. The "unscientific" parts of our approach are your measures of validity for us.

How dogmatic.

You are saying that, until non religious evidence is presented validating religion, religion has nothing to offer. The evidence for religion, you demand must disagree with science, to warrant any consideration of religioun.

Only "facts" can be considered. Alternative approaches to expanding human knowledge can not.

You, in short, present evidences as independent, as autonomous, from science. They are not. You are forgetting that part in parcel of the empirical method is the invention of alternative theories to the view at the center of discussion. Ironically, what you demand not only violates the scientific practices you hold so dear, but empiricism as well. You are, in effect, ignoring the complex nature of science and knowledge and are, at the same time (quite amusingly) promoting a dogma. A faith.

Unanimity of opinion may be fitting for a rigid church, for the victimized, weak, or willing followers of some tyrant - but a variety of opinion is necessary for objective knowledge.

When one believes science should supplant religion, one is professing religion.

I can worship science and have faith in its theory's. I think it therefor i can.

[Thesan]

I'm a bisexual social-libertarian and I live in one of the most homophobic countries in western world ruled by a church of greedy and corrupt people, guess what's my opinion.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Estimates on the percentage of the population that are gay are generally around 10%. Got 10 male friends? It's statistically probable that one of them is gay.

Still i'm pretty sure their not, and besides that... those estimates are highly overrated, i've got a famely of more then 60 people and none of them is gay... and i don't think 6 of them are gonna tell their gay.

But if one of my friends would tell he's gay i would break the contact between me and him. Simple as that.

With views like the bold text, it would be a wonder if anyone in your family who is gay (and chances are there may be one or two that are) would ever come out to you.

[Distruzio]

Ill break this down for you: what you suggest is that a monopolizing uniform approach to knowledge is the only way to learn anything about humanity (something that both science and religion actually do). This is ludicrous. It is ludicrous because you would bow before the popular approach (your approach), and not the better approach. You are not dismissing religion because it disagrees with facts. You are dismissing religion because it disagrees with your beliefs. The "unscientific" parts of our approach are your measures of validity for us.

How dogmatic.

You are saying that, until non religious evidence is presented validating religion, religion has nothing to offer. The evidence for religion, you demand must disagree with science, to warrant any consideration of religioun.

Only "facts" can be considered. Alternative approaches to expanding human knowledge can not.

You, in short, present evidences as independent, as autonomous, from science. They are not. You are forgetting that part in parcel of the empirical method is the invention of alternative theories to the view at the center of discussion. Ironically, what you demand not only violates the scientific practices you hold so dear, but empiricism as well. You are, in effect, ignoring the complex nature of science and knowledge and are, at the same time (quite amusingly) promoting a dogma. A faith.

Unanimity of opinion may be fitting for a rigid church, for the victimized, weak, or willing followers of some tyrant - but a variety of opinion is necessary for objective knowledge.

When one believes science should supplant religion, one is professing religion.

I can worship science and have faith in its theory's. I think it therefor i can.

Then you are, quite clearly, being delusional and ideologically contradictory. Science cannot be worshiped. Doing so is anti-science.

[Defensor]

I can worship science and have faith in its theory's. I think it therefor i can.

Then you are, quite clearly, being delusional and ideologically contradictory. Science cannot be worshiped. Doing so is anti-science.

I would agree. To argue that would be to have a fundamentally flawed definition of science. BAM!

[Imperiatom]

I can worship science and have faith in its theory's. I think it therefor i can.

Then you are, quite clearly, being delusional and ideologically contradictory. Science cannot be worshiped. Doing so is anti-science.

Do i die when i do it? Does some unknown force i cannot see prevent me?


No, I can worship as the true truth in the universe. If i decide to do it i can. You can say what you like but i am still doing it.

[Zokoria]

My view on homosexuality is that it is perfectly acceptable in a modern society, but it is up to the person itself.

Nevertheless, LGBT people are born that way though.

[The Planet of Orran]

I'm bisexual and I've done it with a guy.

You probably know my opinion.

[Al-Quarra]

Still i'm pretty sure their not, and besides that... those estimates are highly overrated, i've got a famely of more then 60 people and none of them is gay... and i don't think 6 of them are gonna tell their gay.

But if one of my friends would tell he's gay i would break the contact between me and him. Simple as that.

With views like the bold text, it would be a wonder if anyone in your family who is gay (and chances are there may be one or two that are) would ever come out to you.

They don't have to (if they would be gay i would know it either way if they told anyone so...), they know i don't like gay males... I don't have anything against them but simply don't like them.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

With views like the bold text, it would be a wonder if anyone in your family who is gay (and chances are there may be one or two that are) would ever come out to you.

They don't have to (if they would be gay i would know it either way if they told anyone so...), they know i don't like gay males... I don't have anything against them but simply don't like them.

If that were true, that you don't have anything against homosexual men, you wouldn't break up a friendship with one just on account of their sexual preference. But I suppose you can live with your bigotry, right?

[Defensor]

Then you are, quite clearly, being delusional and ideologically contradictory. Science cannot be worshiped. Doing so is anti-science.

Do i die when i do it? Does some unknown force i cannot see prevent me?


No, I can worship as the true truth in the universe. If i decide to do it i can. You can say what you like but i am still doing it.

What are you 5? Science isn't a fact or a "thing", it's a method of deduction to come to conclusions. To worship science would be like worshiping the investigations and detective career fields. Da faq? Makes no sense. Then again, neither does your capitalization or your grammar skills, so I don't even know why I'm typing this out to you.