Just one more quick question for pure curiosity...

Neph (or others who have stated their disagreement with homosexuality), if it weren't for the Bible and/or your faith, would you still have any objections to it?

Most likely, but I must be off (Homework and whatnot). I promise I shall return with my reasons later.

You'd still have objections, without your faith / Bible?

If religion weren't against it, it would be seen as normal. Just another way of life. I did mention earlier, than in other cultures (before the Christians set it) that Homosexuality was seen as normal. It all depends on your perspective. Religion has been with you (I presume) all your life, and you've grown up with the mindset you have now. Whenever I speak to people who are against things like that, I always keep in mind that that is the case.

Open minded people are able to put themselves in other perspectives, free from biasm. It's no wonder people like Leonardo Da Vinci and Sir Isaac Newton were so ahead of their time, they were very open minded and radical in their thoughts at that point in time. And the Church eventually changed, over and over again, to conform with society.

It'll happen again.

Alcar...

Out of intrigue - are you also against Homosexuals adopting children? Since it says nothing in the Bible about Queers been banned from Adopting?

I shall now presume...as promised.

In truth, there has yet to be any scientific evidence that the aforementioned activity is natural in anyway. Until such evidence should arise, I would most likely see it as strange, and probably would refrain from giving it the benefit of the doubt.

Besides, and this is mostly (if not entirely) opinion, I find it disgusting. I wish to refrain from a leud description, but It may be unavoidable, so I proclaim this warning now: possible leud content. Males and females can only, "do it," together. Projection A fits into socket B, if you will. Obviously, two A's failed to, "accomplish," any sort of, "it," as do two Bs. As such, these individuals search for other orifices, to conduct their activites; the hind quarters, the mouth, and where-ever else the Hades they might decide. I find that extraordinarly disgusting, and un-sanitary. When I last checked the mail (and I shall check again to be most sure) STDs have a by far easier, "journey," when transmitted orally. Also, as I have stated earlier, two men cannot produce offspring of any sort between themselves. Same for women. Finally (for now), if it is, in fact, a natural state of mind/body/whatever, then how come the Gay population eclipsed the Lesbian population in size? One would think there would be some sort of equal assortment.

Yes. I personally feel that it would be most harmful for childrens minds to grow up in such an environment. Besides, scientific studies show that children grow best, when nurtured and raised by a mother and a father, of the respective genders.

On a final note, nature decrees that only those best adapted to survive do so. If Homosexuality was natural, and eventually spread to all humans, we would become extinct. I find it most difficult to imagine that, "mother nature," would alow something so possibly disasterous to occur.

...We humans, however, often bring disaster upon ourselves...

The world is already overcrowded as it is. Just think of it as a minor step in the fight against overpopulation. Or, forget what I just said.

Pardon?

*Busts out the Nueralizer again.*

'the hind quarters, the mouth, and where-ever else the Hades they might decide.'

Yes, because Heterosexual couples only do it one way. Yes. I so totally agree.

Besides, what's their sexual life got to do with you?

'then how come the Gay population eclipsed the Lesbian population in size?'

I heard from some random person, or something that seemed quite true, that when the mother has children who are male, her antibodies fight of the testosterone. And thus, when she has had a 2nd, male, child...that male will have a 30% increase of being Gay. The 3rd would have a 60%, and the 4th a 90%. Dunno if it's true, need to find some decent sources to back it up. But that would explain the Gay male population outweighing the female.

'Besides, scientific studies show that children grow best, when nurtured and raised by a mother and a father, of the respective genders.'

Yes. But that family unit is slowly destabilizing, and Homosexual parental units are becoming more and more stable.

Besides, what if the mother was a Lesbian and the father Gay? I actually know of somebody who has a relationship like that, child and all.

'and eventually spread to all humans'

It doesn't spread. It develops. And besides, i doubt it'd develop in everyone, like you said, that'd destroy the human population. Though saying that, it wouldn't. Since you'd still have people in the closet, and artificial insemniation.

What's your opinion on Gay animals? Do they choose?

I gather you are a viewer of the Daily Show, no?

In truth, I have no earthly inclination as to anything about Homosexuality relating with animals. Sorry.

I introduce you to the Bonobo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

Their sexual activity (including that between members of the same sex) is briefly described around the middle of the page.

That is one of the funniest things I have ever read! Disgusting to picture, but absolutely hilarious to read about. Thank you, Ambi. You have made my day.

Homosexuality "spreading to all of humans"? That sounds more than a little irrational and homophobic. And like Jacob says, homosexuality doesn't spread.

Heh heh, I have one friend who, in addition to being one of the most far-right super gung-ho conservatives I've ever met, has some interesting ideas, phobias, and paranoid rantings. After reading a newspaper article last summer about Japanese scientists creating a generation of strictly female lab rats, he's maintained a belief that some day soon women will all become lesbians and take over the world and enslave men because they will no longer need men to reproduce.

On a side note, how about that sparkling apple cider? I love it. Mmm.

Wrong, actually. As long as you have no cuts or ulcers in your mouth it is extremely unlikely to catch AIDS. I beleive this counts for other STDS as well but don't quote me. The reason for this is that saliva and stomach fluids kill the AIDS virus.

Just because something is 'natural' (as I beleive homosexuality is) doesn't mean it is absolutely and always genetic. There are many factors involved, from genetics, upbringing and many other factors. To lead on from what Jacob said, when women are stressed they produce less testostorone. Less testostorone in the womb can cause the child to be gay. Studies have shown that more homosexuals were born in times of stress (eg WWII) than at other times.

Homosexuality can never spread to all humans. It is a random factor that affects 10% of the population. Mother Nature has intended it this way so that normal human reproduction (and animal) can continue in a sustainable method. Your theory, if I may put it so bluntly, is devoid of fact, not to mention bordering on paranoia. Do you actually think heterosexuals will be overtaken? I do hope that this is your own opinion, and not that of a Priest (or whatever you call them in your particular denomination), for the latter is infinitely worse.

And there is plenty of proof that homosexual animals exist. You can't deny it.

I bet you feel pretty good being a heteosexual. I mean, you'll never have to endure what you put homosexuals through. Because you're just infinitely better, correct? It is ironic that homophobia is what keeps homosexuals so adamant on achieving equality. Nothing like a bit of persecution to bind and strengthen people - just like the early Christians. Ah, such ironic bliss.

Alcar...

Alcar, you are a god.

aha! Blasphemy! You shall be stoned*!

*Not with intoxicating substances...

Has anyone ever read a short story called The Lottery? It makes an excellent point about human nature. The mention of stoning brought it to mind.

Basically it's about this village where every year they have this lottery, and for most of the story you have no idea what it's about. All you know is that the entire town participates and no one really remembers how it got started or anything, and they've forgotten all the traditions and ceremonial things that went along with it but they still do it just out of habit. Anyway, at the very end it turns out the person selected is then stoned to death by the rest of the village.

Cool story. It kind of relates to the topic of religion. Like, originally the whole "don't eat pork!" thing was actually just a health precaution (obviously food preparation and preservation wasn't perfect five thousand years ago), but people did it for so long that it basically became part of the Jewish religion. It no longer makes much sense, but it's practiced anyway.

Yes, I do believe I have (though my memory is fuzzy on that particular short piece of writing). A most strange story...

Currently, I am under much pressure and stress, and shall (Most likely) be unable to return until Friday. However, when I do, in fact, return, I have some very interesting, "things," to bring to the table, to be sure.

See you fine individuals then.

I don't think you can really apply teachings from a 2000 year old "Book of Metaphors" to modern life.
I personally believe that if Jesus walked the Earth again he would campaign for homosexual marriage to be legal.

Neph, you made no comments on the bonobo! :( Acknowledge the sexy bonobos! Heh, not only do they practice homosexual activities, but they also practice prostitution.
Whee, monkey-hookers!

Funny...
but wrong.

Jesus recited the Old Testament, in which clearly states against Homosexuality.
But that doesn't mean I don't like Homos, it's the saying, "love" the sinner hate the sin

I see what you mean but in the modern world an open-minded Jesus would probably BE Gay/Bisexual!

Rich you have no right at all to state what Jesus' thoughts and wishes were. I'd question whether even a priest has that right but at least he would have plenty of ecumenical education to back up his claims.

Jesus dictated the New Testament, silly.

No, the disciples wrote the New Testament. Jesus, being a Jewish rabbi, was teaching his own spin on the Old Testament.

Actually, most things Jesus says about the Old Testament involves correcting things, such as doing away with all the stoning in it.

Those are the things he was quoted as saying. His followers probably didn't feel the need to quote him in the cases that he was agreeing with the Old Testament; they would have just taken them as a given.

Two questions: who was Nebuchadnezer, and what was the importance of the cities Sodom and Gomorrah?

Hey, I got my information from a respected encyclopedia. Where'd you get yours?

That is, of course, you meant wrong as incorrect... and not as in immoral.

I was a little harsh perhaps but I wasn't "stating" as such. I was just saying I always imagined Jesus as the gay and animal rights campaigning type of guy (Although in Jesus' time he would have been stoned for such beliefs).

Also my morals and beliefs are not based upon the bible. I have no problems with Gay marriage and adoption, to think less of them or deny them their rights because of their sexuality seems ridiculous to me, wether our beliefs are based on a fictional Character or not. However I can see the problems it would create in society:

Stupid macho kids: Ha ha, he has two dads, lets batter 'im!

I don't like being in love...it's really quite crappy.