Homosexuality discussion thread

[United States of White America]

Happy new year you gay pillocks.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

What if I told you that, unlike the Quran, the Bible didn't fall from the sky and wasn't written by God himself, and instead had tons and tons of books who were written by men who were divinely inspired, which was then codified by the Catholic Church, meaning that the Church took 73 books and put them in a collection known as the Bible? And what if I also told you that some of those books within the Bible, such as Genesis and Revelation, were meant to be read metaphorically and not literally(Which is why the Church isn't creationist)?

"Well, the sacred scripture we uphold as being divinely sanctioned sources of doctrine didn't really come from God, we just made it all up, so it's totally okay that it's terribly written and full of contradictions."

Fucking bullshit; it doesn't matter who wrote the damn thing, if it's full of holes then the book is either a complete fabrication conjured up by con-artists at worst or compromised and untrustworthy at best, and any religion which upholds inconsistent, logically unsound sources full of implausible and unbacked claims as being sacred scripture with divine origins (whether it be divinely given or divinely inspired) is a false religion.

The Bible is full of false claims, it contradicts itself on innumerable occasions, and it completely fails to deliver any kind of cohesive or consistent message. It's utter trash, every bit as worthless as the false god that supposedly inspired it, and the fact that the Church claims it to be holy scripture who's authors were inspired by God himself is proof that the Church is full of charlatans.

"It's not supposed to be taken literally" is not a valid excuse. Not only does the Bible never once clarify itself to be a figurative book, but even if it did that would only mean that the entire book is still completely worthless, as you would never know when it's trying to be serious and when it's trying to tell metaphors because there's no indication.

As for the Church, we all know that the Church supports whatever is convenient for it to support. For example, it has historically conned people out of money by promising them a get-out-of-purgatory-free card if they gave up their hard earned coins to the Church. That's what the Church is; a group of con-artists who just want to dupe gullible people into coughing up money to crooked charlatans who have done nothing to earn it. Not to even mention the many times they've changed their minds about what is and is not the eternal will of god. If the Church actually cared about theology, then the Pope wouldn't live in a luxurious palace, hoarding wealth obtained by scamming the poor, while telling us about the virtues of charity; they're an organization of parasites, and their word is utterly worthless.

[Fartsniffage]

Happy new year you gay pillocks.

Why would you do that? Start a whole new year with a warning?

Be more like your Christ.

[What R Ye Doin in Muh Swaomp]

Happy new year you gay pillocks.

Back at you, you repressed charlatan.

[What R Ye Doin in Muh Swaomp]

I hope this year is a good one.

[Kannap]

Happy new year you gay pillocks.

It's a New Year for all pillocks, gay or straight, man or woman, black or white.

[Ifreann]

Happy new year you gay pillocks.

It's a New Year for all pillocks, gay or straight, man or woman, black or white.

Except for all the people who use different calendars. They're the real perverts.

[Fartsniffage]

It's a New Year for all pillocks, gay or straight, man or woman, black or white.

Except for all the people who use different calendars. They're the real perverts.

Don't annoy the Chinese, they spam this forum enough as it is...

[Old Tyrannia]

Happy new year you gay pillocks.

United States of White America: *** Warned for trolling. ***

Happy new year you gay pillocks.

Back at you, you repressed charlatan.

Not the best way to respond to a troll. Next time a post makes you angry, try stepping back from the computer for a moment before responding with a personal attack, or you might end up getting warned yourself.

EDIT: Actually, upon further investigation, as you appear to be the same person I suggest that you stop arguing with yourself. It does not exactly suggest a healthy mental state.

Thanks, guys. This is exactly how I wanted to start 2018.

[Dylar]

What if I told you that, unlike the Quran, the Bible didn't fall from the sky and wasn't written by God himself, and instead had tons and tons of books who were written by men who were divinely inspired, which was then codified by the Catholic Church, meaning that the Church took 73 books and put them in a collection known as the Bible? And what if I also told you that some of those books within the Bible, such as Genesis and Revelation, were meant to be read metaphorically and not literally(Which is why the Church isn't creationist)?

"Well, the sacred scripture we uphold as being divinely sanctioned sources of doctrine didn't really come from God, we just made it all up, so it's totally okay that it's terribly written and full of contradictions."

Not what I said, but thanks for shoving those words down my throat, I didn't have my dinner yet.

Fucking bullshit; it doesn't matter who wrote the damn thing,

It kinda does, though

if it's full of holes then the book is either a complete fabrication conjured up by con-artists at worst or compromised and untrustworthy at best, and any religion which upholds inconsistent, logically unsound sources full of implausible and unbacked claims as being sacred scripture with divine origins (whether it be divinely given or divinely inspired) is a false religion.

The Bible is full of false claims, it contradicts itself on innumerable occasions

Which you have yet to provide examples of, despite your constant repetition of that sentence.

and it completely fails to deliver any kind of cohesive or consistent message.

It's a Bible. It's meaning literally means "A collection of books" in Latin. Not one book, many books. So obviously, their's going to be different messages with different books.

It's utter trash, every bit as worthless as the false god that supposedly inspired it, and the fact that the Church claims it to be holy scripture who's authors were inspired by God himself is proof that the Church is full of charlatans.

"It's not supposed to be taken literally" is not a valid excuse.

I'd say it's pretty valid. Not only does the Bible never once clarify itself to be a figurative book, but even if it did that would only mean that the entire book is still completely worthless, as you would never know when it's trying to be serious and when it's trying to tell metaphors because there's no indication.[/quote]
Yea, there's an indication, it's called "context clues" and "research."

For example, it has historically conned people out of money by promising them a get-out-of-purgatory-free card if they gave up their hard earned coins to the Church.

And we've stopped that long ago.

That's what the Church is; a group of con-artists who just want to dupe gullible people into coughing up money to crooked charlatans who have done nothing to earn it. Not to even mention the many times they've changed their minds about what is and is not the eternal will of god. If the Church actually cared about theology, then the Pope wouldn't live in a luxurious palace, hoarding wealth obtained by scamming the poor, while telling us about the virtues of charity; they're an organization of parasites, and their word is utterly worthless.

Uh huh. And yet, Catholic priests are paid at an average of $30k in the U.S.(which isn't a lot of money), and the Church has helped many, many people through charity with non-profit organizations like Food for the Poor, Catholic Medical Mission Board, Catholic Charities USA, etc. Also, where have you seen them scam the poor? Other than the indulgences that we got rid of long ago? Because, if you're talking about tithing(taking 10% of your paycheck and giving it to the Church) then you must know that the Church says that you don't have to pay that tithe if you are having serious financial troubles, like, oh I don't know, being poor.

[Ifreann]

Happy new year you gay pillocks.

United States of White America: *** Warned for trolling. ***

Back at you, you repressed charlatan.

Not the best way to respond to a troll. Next time a post makes you angry, try stepping back from the computer for a moment before responding with a personal attack, or you might end up getting warned yourself.

EDIT: Actually, upon further investigation, as you appear to be the same person I suggest that you stop arguing with yourself. It does not exactly suggest a healthy mental state.

Thanks, guys. This is exactly how I wanted to start 2018.

Start as you mean to go on. Warning people for trolling themselves.

[The New California Republic]

Happy new year you gay pillocks.

United States of White America: *** Warned for trolling. ***

Back at you, you repressed charlatan.

Not the best way to respond to a troll. Next time a post makes you angry, try stepping back from the computer for a moment before responding with a personal attack, or you might end up getting warned yourself.

EDIT: Actually, upon further investigation, as you appear to be the same person I suggest that you stop arguing with yourself. It does not exactly suggest a healthy mental state.

Thanks, guys. This is exactly how I wanted to start 2018.

A troll trolling themselves...huh...well I have seen all sorts, so it doesn't surprise me...

[Kannap]

United States of White America: *** Warned for trolling. ***

Not the best way to respond to a troll. Next time a post makes you angry, try stepping back from the computer for a moment before responding with a personal attack, or you might end up getting warned yourself.

EDIT: Actually, upon further investigation, as you appear to be the same person I suggest that you stop arguing with yourself. It does not exactly suggest a healthy mental state.

Thanks, guys. This is exactly how I wanted to start 2018.

Start as you mean to go on. Warning people for trolling themselves.

This is the meme all mods live for, isn't it?

[Thermodolia]

As someone who was actually abused as a child that is fucking dumb. Homosexuality is not equal to child abuse

Homosexuality is not child abuse, it is a problematic attraction.

It's neither. It's not a problematic attraction, unless you are admitting that god made a mistake in creating gay people.

Homosexual acts are a sin,

Only to you and your religion. And last time I checked your religion didn't make the law, so I don't give a fuck what your religion says. I'm not a follower of it

and encouraging a child to sin is child abuse.

No it's not. Please do not equate commiting sins to child abuse because it's nowhere fucking close

[Ifreann]

Start as you mean to go on. Warning people for trolling themselves.

This is the meme all mods live for, isn't it?

In the darkest corner of the mod heart, they long to warn themselves for trolling themselves.

[Kannap]

This is the meme all mods live for, isn't it?

In the darkest corner of the mod heart, they long to warn themselves for trolling themselves.

Kinky

[Oil exporting People]

Now many people here support homosexual activity, and some people dissent against it.

To put it extremely mildly in my case.

What is your view on homosexuality?

Whatever my personal opinions on it and society's current opinions overall, it's long term future is fucked.

[Fartsniffage]

Whatever my personal opinions on it and society's current opinions overall, it's long term future is fucked.

You think gay people are going to disappear?

[Oil exporting People]

You think gay people are going to disappear?

Yes, for the most part.

[Fartsniffage]

You think gay people are going to disappear?

Yes, for the most part.

Indeed, much like they've disappeared over the last two thousand years. I mean, there are just no gay people now, not like there were in all the previous periods of recorded history.

Seriously, have you listened to yourself? You sound like an insane person.

[Oil exporting People]

Indeed, much like they've disappeared over the last two thousand years. I mean, there are just no gay people now, not like there were in all the previous periods of recorded history.

By all means, do explain to me about Roman or Caliphate gene engineering and research, or their advanced psychology programs. Truly thy are the intellectual master, good sir.

Seriously, have you listened to yourself? You sound like an insane person.

Ad Hominem out of the gates, nice.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

It kinda does, though

No, it doesn't. A false claim is a false claim regardless of who the author is.

Which you have yet to provide examples of, despite your constant repetition of that sentence.

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. To quote the Book of Genesis.

For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. To quote the Book of Luke.

Here's the first contradiction (out of many). The Torah claims that its false god created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, stating that the God of Israel creates both good and evil, yet the supposed son of this god later goes on to say that a good tree cannot bear corrupt fruit. Since the God of Israel creates evil fruit, he cannot be a good god according to Jesus, which demolishes the entire narrative of Christianity.

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. To quote the Book of Exodus.

But I say unto you which hear, love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. To quote the Book of Luke again.

Here's the second contradiction. The Torah tells people to use a retribution-based justice system where crimes are inflicted back upon perpetrators, then Jesus (supposedly a representative of the same deity) tells people not to retaliate against people.

And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. To quote Second Kings.

And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. To quote Luke again.

Here's the third contradiction. In the Torah, God is portrayed as being destructive and murderous, having no qualms about killing people with fire. Then, in the Gospel, God is portrayed as coming to save lives, not destroy them. The change in attitude is pretty clear.

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. To quote Second Kings again.

And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. To quote the Book of Mark.

Here's contradiction number four. First, God is portrayed as a child-killer who remorselessly commits mass-murder against children. Then, God is portrayed as being compassionate and caring towards children. Two totally opposite behaviors coming from the one eternal, perfect god.

And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. To quote the Book of Leviticus.

And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any, came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched. To quote the Book of Luke again.

Here's the fifth contradiction. In the Torah, God commands that women with an "issue of blood" be ostracized and considered unclean. In the Gospel, God is portrayed as simply healing and getting rid of such issues. If the Torah were the perfect word of God, and its prescriptions and laws were truly flawless and eternal creations of an all-knowing and all-powerful deity, then God would have stuck to his original prescription for "issues of blood" and the woman in Luke would have been put apart and considered unclean. Instead, because there's no consistency in the Christian scriptures, God simply heals the woman, ignoring his own laws found in the Torah.

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. To quote the Book of Deuteronomy.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. To quote the Book of Matthew.

Contradiction number six. First, God says divorce and remarriage is perfectly acceptable, then he changes his mind and says divorce and remarriage is unlawful.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. To quote the Book of Isaiah.

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. To quote the Book of First John.

Seventh contradiction. God creates darkness; God is also light and in him is no darkness at all. Which is it? Does God create darkness or does he have no darkness within him? There's also a second contradiction from this same verse.

God is love, to quote First John again. Love thinketh no evil, to quote First Corinthians. The Bible first claims that God creates evil, then later says that God thinketh no evil. He can't both create evil and not think of evil. Contradiction number eight.

Therefore shalt thou make them turn their back, when thou shalt make ready thine arrows upon thy strings against the face of them, and Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out lightnings, and discomfited them. To quote the Book of Psalms.

Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. To quote the Book of Ephesians.

Contradiction number nine. The Bible expresses opposite attitudes on the same subject; the Tanakh depicts righteous people as shooting arrows, while the New Testament depicts righteous people as deflecting arrows. The change in attitude is pretty blatant.

He sent darkness, and made it dark, and He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them. To quote the Book of Psalms again.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. To quote the Book of Ephesians again.

Contradiction number ten! The Tanakh describes God as sending darkness and evil angels, and being full of wrath, anger, and other wicked attributes. Then the New Testament describes the rulers of darkness and spiritual wickedness in high places as being things Christians must fight against. In other words, the NT literally describes God, as described in the Tanakh, as being the enemy of Christianity. This could not be a more blatantly massive contradiction. This verse also contradicts the verse from First John that says God has no darkness within him, reinforcing other contradictions in the scripture.

I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, and For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. To quote the Book of Exodus.

Love knows no envy, to quote the Book of First Corinthians.

Contradiction number eleven, and boy is it a big one. God is a jealous, envious God; so envious, in fact, that his name is Jealous. And God also knows no envy. Two totally opposite gods are described here; the contradiction is obvious and massive.

And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. To quote the Book of Joshua.

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. To quote the Book of Matthew.

Contradiction number twelve. The Tanakh says that God is completely unforgiving, and, later, Jesus goes around preaching forgiveness. An unforgiving God preaching forgiveness is a pretty blatant contradiction.

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. To quote the Book of Exodus.

Love is never rude, never irritated, never resentful. To quote the Book of First Corinthians.

Contradiction number thirteen. First, God is described as being vengeful and resentful to the point of punishing the great-grandchildren of people he doesn't like for the supposed crimes of their distant ancestors. Then, God is described as being never resentful.

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. To quote the Book of Isaiah.

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. To quote the Book of John.

Contradiction number fourteen. God will never give his glory to another, according to the Tanakh, and yet he shares his glory with his supposed son according to the Gospel. Blatant contradiction. The first verse also completely condemns the Catholic Church for its wanton idolatry, because God clearly says in the Torah that he condemns graven images and yet the corrupt Church freely engages in the creation and worship of graven images.

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel. To quote the Book of Joshua.

Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath. To quote the Book of Ephesians.

Contradiction number fifteen. First, the Bible describes God delivering his wrath upon his enemies as the sun goes down, and then it tells people not to let the sun go down upon their wrath. The Bible really has a way of condemning its own God, which shows just how flimsy Christian theology really is.

Thou hast ascended on high, Thou hast led captivity captive: Thou hast received tribute from men. To quote the Book of Psalms.

Wherefore He saith, "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." To quote the Book of Ephesians again.

Contradiction number sixteen. One book describes God as taking tribute from men, and the other describes God as giving tribute to men. Two opposite behaviors displayed by the one, eternal, perfect God.

There's many more errors in the Bible, but I think I've sufficiently demonstrated its worthlessness. I have provided decisive evidence that the Bible is false, and so is Christianity by extension.

Yea, there's an indication, it's called "context clues" and "research."

Subjective indications are completely inexcusable for a book which is supposed to contain a set of objective laws that everybody is obligated to follow.

And we've stopped that long ago.

And yet the Church still sits on its mountain of gold taken from its victims, completely unapologetic for its crimes. And you know what? It only stopped when forced at gunpoint to do so; it stopped because of revolutions by Christian reformists who opposed its corrupt practices. Its existence was being violently threatened, and that is the only reason why it stopped its criminal extortion of people.

The history of the Church shows that religious institutions will never cease their immoral practices until forced at gunpoint to do so, which is just one more reason to support government crackdowns on religion.

Uh huh. And yet, Catholic priests are paid at an average of $30k in the U.S.(which isn't a lot of money), and the Church has helped many, many people through charity with non-profit organizations like Food for the Poor, Catholic Medical Mission Board, Catholic Charities USA, etc. Also, where have you seen them scam the poor? Other than the indulgences that we got rid of long ago? Because, if you're talking about tithing(taking 10% of your paycheck and giving it to the Church) then you must know that the Church says that you don't have to pay that tithe if you are having serious financial troubles, like, oh I don't know, being poor.

Oh, no, those poor, innocent little priests, only getting paid tens of thousands of dollars for the hard job of having to stand on a pulpit and tell lies to an audience of gullible people for an hour a week; oh the horror. They shouldn't be making a single penny from that kind of work, let alone a livable salary; everyone else has to actually work for a living, but the clergy are more than happy to live on money they've done nothing to earn that they duped gullible people into donating to them. And the Pope, such a hardworking demagogue, having the tiresome and backbreaking job of having to tell Europeans that they need to destroy their societies by allowing endless streams of Islamic immigration to wreck Europe; he's so underpaid for such hard labor, only getting the luxury of living in a lavish palace and having hundreds of millions of dollars at his disposal to do with as he pleases. Oh, those poor, impoverished, underpaid clergymen.

Give me a fucking break; those vermin haven't worked a day in their life, and yet rake in huge sums of money, every penny of which is taken from someone else. They don't work for a living, they don't earn their money, they take money from anyone who can be duped into "donating" money to the Church; money which gets used for clergymen to live an easy life. Parasitic scum, as I said.

[Aillyria]

Yes, in the capacity of witness, indeed Allah (swt) has decreed our (female) testimony as have a man's. However, in no other instance has our Lord (swt) stated a woman's opinion is less or her interpretation of Scripture as less. The hadith are questionable at best and they are not to be trusted, tbch.

Well, seeing as how most of the inhabitants of Hell are women ("O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you," implying very clearly that women are inherently evil and more inclined towards immorality than men), Mohammad says that women are deficient in intelligence ("I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you" as seen in Sahih Bukhari, one of Islam's most trusted sources), Aisha (an important figure to most non-Shia Muslims) says that Islam likens women to dogs and donkeys, and how Allah demands that women submit themselves as essentially slaves to their husbands (implying clearly that they are incapable or unworthy of making their own decisions) and allows men to violently abuse disobedient wives, among many other sexist statements and doctrines, I would say that, yes, Islam does indeed devalue female opinions.

As for the validity of Hadiths, Islamic authorities have upheld authentic Hadiths as being not only a valid source of doctrine but a very important source of doctrine for centuries. The Five Pillars of Islam come from Hadiths, along with numerous other doctrines. Sahih-graded Hadiths are, by long Islamic tradition, a completely valid source, second only to the Quran. Even Shi'ite Muslims utilize Hadiths to some extent. Disregarding them completely would go against centuries of Islamic theology and tradition, especially in Sunni Islam.

Homosexual orientation may be a physical disease, a mental illness or a choice. Regardless, homosexual acts are grave sins. Homosexual "marriage" is an oxymoron. Parents who encourage and support their children's homosexuality are child abusers.

Oh noooo, you guys don't get turned on by boobs; you must be diseased and mentally ill! We clearly can't have you people getting married; after all, a couple where neither partner has a set of tits is an oxymoron. And, to think, there are parents who might have the audacity to accept their son not getting turned on by big titties?! Outrageous! Not forcing your son to lust after women is child abuse!

What a load of fucking nonsense. Sexual preferences are not indicative of a mental disorder. Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality, however, is actually a symptom of a real mental disorder, unlike homosexuality. Since you are presumably someone who believes in Christianity or some other bullshit false-religion, it's kinda absurd for you to accuse anyone of being mentally ill.

You don't know what you're talking about. Islam does not make women slaves to men, nor does it allow them to "abuse" us. Much of the actual meaning is diluted in traslation between English and Arabic, and misunderstanding even occurs in translation between Classical/Quranic and Modern Arabic. Arabic makes many nuances were English doesn't. Also, the point on Sunnis and the hadith means nothing to me.....I'm a Sufi. I follow no hadith, only the Quran.

[The Alma Mater]

I've gone beyond the hope of changing sexual preference being a choice because - no matter how much I prayed to be straight - it didn't happen, I couldn't change it. Tell me again that it's a choice.

It's a choice.

That was just because you told me to. Again, I'm saying there isn't agreement. Some people may be ingrained some not. I'm just waiting for something beyond anecdotes

Being able to choose who you are attracted to - be that be males, females, blacks, redheads, bitches, bad boys, fat girls, slender men, brilliant minds, wealth etc. etc - would be a talent many people would pay good money for to learn. VERY good money - I daresay one would be the surest billionaire in history.

[Isilanka]

Wait, wait, wait.

Even if homosexuality is a choice (personnaly I tend to think it's partially a choice as we are all influenced both by nature and culture but whatever, it's irrelevant here) then what does it change ? Wether a woman or a man chooses to love someone or the same sex or is "naturally" inclined to love someone of the same sex, what's the difference ? Are their hurting somebody ? Are they doing something dangerous or awful ? Would homosexuality be inherently bad if it was a choice ?

I mean, I'm sorry, I don't see why wether homosexuality is a choice or not seems to be an argument against or in favor of homosexuality here. I find it completely irrelevant. Wether homosexuality is a choice or not doesn't change anything to the fact that you should be free to love people of both genders.