Oh come on. I'm not going to say everything in the bible is rubbish because it isn't, but come on? Adam and Eve? Bullshit. And that thing about sacrificing doves because of the menstrual cycle and the stoning of homosexuals? Word for word bible following in my eyes = Bollocks.

Cheers.

(10 characters)

Amen to that my friend :P.

As I've said previously, I've known religious gay people who don't see any conflict, mainly because when you look into it (especially from the original hebrew text) the bible isn't as black and white as most people imply.

God help us all. You really are a fool if you believe any of that. Religion does not reject any of those things. Just look at what was said elsewhere about different perspectives on creation and six days, where the days may not have been literal 24-hour periods but rather six 'ages' of the world. Science has never proven that there is no life after death, simply because there is no way of disproving the metaphysical. And, what's more, religion never said that homosexuality is not genetic. All it says (depending on your interpretation) is that if you shouldn't have same-sex sex, whether you are gay or not.

As for the whole gay=bad thing; I agree with you completely that that is a terrible thing. But you can't blame religion for that. For every complaint you have you should only blame people. They're the ones who find it convenient to degrade minorities and take religion as a weapon to prove whatever they want.

I have nothing against open-minded religious folks, a lot of my best friends are religious. But from what I've observed, at least in most christians and catholics, they are not open-minded and they perceive other religions and ideals as a threat to what they believe, and of course they do whatever they can to eliminate or shrink that threat. Homosexuality is a big, fat one. All though I've noticed several people aren't as touchy (or at least not as openly downsizing) about it now that an assload of America's teens (religious included) are coming out of the closet. But I don't doubt - in fact I strongly believe - that it only took ONE radical religious mop to start the gay=bad trend, and it's easily widespread because the majority of whites in America harbor a christian faith or a very similar one. Simply put, the trend being devised an average athiest joe is as likely as Pamela Anderson never having laser vaginal rejuvenation surgery.

Ummm.. that analogy wasn't quite so simple. Care to explain it?

I have nothing against religious people, as long as they are open minded and have their own opinion on stuff instead of living their life with a book in their hands. If I ask a christian guy who goes to church and all that, what he thinks about gay people, and he says; I don't have anything against them.
Then I'm going to buy this guy a drink because he is awsome!

I have nothing against religion either, it's the close minded people that I want to kill. If you want to follow a book to live your life thats fine... but if that book becomes the only source of opinion for you, then you do not deserve to live because then obviously you are to STUPID to have your own opinion.

Far as I'm concerned, the bigger problem is non-religious people condemning homosexuality just becasue it's 'wrong/sick/weird/stupid/gammy/etc'. At least the religious may have a personal reason for their predjudice, even if it may or may not be judged as valid.
Speaking as a self-confessed lairy dyke, for me as long as the person actually has a sensible reason their predjudice is tolerable (within limits, of course). After all, we all have different opinions.
Much love.

Well even non religious people get their opinions from religion, wether they realize it or not. Human morals are set by religion, mostly by the bible. If the bible would have never been around, a lot of the perfectly normal morals we have today wouldn't excist probably. For instance, it's illigal to kill someone. Why? Because you can not tamper with another persons live. Why not? Because the bible says so. A lot of stuff can be tracked back to religion.

Society got most, if not all of its ethics from religion. Which is all well and good if they're telling you not to kill people but sucks when they're telling you that homosexuality is a sin worthy of hate and punishment.

I'm not usually one to play for the religion team, but killing someone would still be seen as immoral if the bible did not exist.

I can see morals escaping society in the future. Homosexuality and pedophilia are becoming less immoral as time goes on. I mean, damn, Baby Bratz dolls? ****!

Three cheers for Havoc! :cheer:

Now I can see that we are finally on the same page.

Exactly. Everybody who have/ got cancer as well. How degrading to say that "they're sick". Damn doctors, stopping the progession of society. Psychiatrists asserted, till they got reduced to silence, that gay people were sick.


True!



If Larry, who's dressed for his wedding, gets some bird poo on his back, then I suggest it could be a tender thing to tell him about that.

Or;

A doctor walks on a beach. There he sees Lars, who takes a walk with his five-year old son. The doctor sees that lars has a little birthmark, which's affected by cancer. It's hard to notice, but the welltrained doctor sees it clearly. if the doctor "loves his neighbor as much as he loves himself" then I suggest he should explain that to him. The son would of course see the doc as stupid or selfish, 'cause he has made his father sad. Kids can't see that far. The kid will hopefully grow up.

I'd add that I don't care if Larry wants to bath in bird poo from morning to evening, but I suggest it would be stupid not to inform him 'bout the bird influenza.

Or if Lars wants to raise cancer tumours so large that he has to pull them around on a wheel barrow then I'm not going to stop him. But if he says that it's normal to have "such spots", then many people, who have the same problem, maybe die because they listened to him.

Many homosexualls aren't happy and commit suicide, others make themselves to accept it as unchangeable.

The therapist, by the name of Pearls cured a homosexuall man, by trying to make him understand that it didn't was the sexuall act that was the point, but the only method to orgasm, which Pearls meant was the case.



You n' Mr Bean, maybe.:)


I agree with you, but nobody's got the rights to treat any sick humans badly. One of these terrifying deeds is to attack their sickness condition. If I'd say that every homosexuall were watching CNN or eating green apples, then nobody would say that I'd need my "ass kicking"



Your wrath exposes your own prejudices against sick people. If you have to kick prejudiced ones - then kick yerself in "yer ass".

There's a Swedish proverb that says: It's better to be quiet and let people think yer stupid than open yer mouth a prove that you are.

If it was that simple to loose yer respect, the it wasn't worth much. In my world, you think, as long as possible, great things 'bout yer friend and true respect has to mean that you've to invest time to really understand what the friend means, before you judge him/ her. Of course i don't believe that homosexuallity is a sickness that infects, like a cold does.

I believe thata there are two types of homosexuallity.

1.Those who are hetrosexuall, but in their picture of themselves and their own pleasure as a case in life, become homosexuall. We can read it in Romans 1:24-27 about the men in sodom. These people doesn't need healing, but deliverance.

2. Those who have had problems in their growth. These need healing, because of their menatly wounds.


Otherwise it's the americans who have made themselves famous to "butt in and put an end to things" around the world.

I agree with you completely.



In your dreams pal.:evil:


That´s the old covenant. We live in the new one.





Can ya gimme one example, please?



Romans 1:24-27.




I'm the "minority" in tis group. I believe that there is a God and I believe in his opinion. I'm not saying that those who have other opinions than me ought to be maltreated, degraded or despised. You've got your opinion/s, but say that those who can't share it, are stupid and intolerant and ought to become maltreated. Which one of us is intolerant?



~DS~

I could start quoting all your points and writing a reaction to it all... but you're realy not worth my time on that anymore.

Let me ask you this, can you actualy prove being gay is a sickness? Oh wait, no ofcourse you can't, you can't prove anything related to your religion. Science says being gay is a natural thing which you can't control. They have done research into it and came to the conclusion that it's not a sickness. Then you come around and tell them they are wrong without anything to support it? Lol that's just amusing. But you obviously don't see how stupid that is.

I said it once, and I'l say it again: If all your opinions are there just because a book says so, then you are nothing more then an infant who can't think for itself. Having to have everything done for it, having to be told what is wrong and right instead of judging itself.

It's to bad, I thought you we're a cool person but you're obviously not.

What he said. :p

I concur. :catslug:

Well, if you'd bothered to read the website that Mojoman220 had linked to on page 3 you'd know what I'm talking about. It seems to have disappeared so I'll give you this one as a replacement: http://www.libchrist.com/other/homos...leviticus.html.

In any case, I will ask what is mean by "a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman" - the sheer physics of it are impossible. I can tell you the gay sex is absolutely nothing like straight sex, so that verse is vague in the least.

I fail to see how any of this has to do with homosexuality being genetic. If anything, I see it as further proof that homosexuality is God-given and uncontrollable.

Seriously, DS, you really need to look at who I'm posting to and notice that in none of these posts was I actually criticising you. In fact, I was directing those comments to those plebes who insist that religion is evil and corrupt without knowing the first thing about it.

So, next time you want to write a post in this or any other forum: do these simple things:

1. READ EVERY POST IN THE THREAD
2. Try to understand them (this is an important one)
3. Read everything else you can on the topic
4. Consider your audience when you're writing your post - none of the things you've written here would convince a thoughtful Christian, let alone an atheist.
5. And most importantly of all: get off your high horse

Quite frankly, I'm sick of having to defend religion on this forum when people like you go and reinforce all the stereotypes of small-mindedness and intolerance that people like Havoc, Sekto Springs and other have.

Ohmigod, I'm sick? With an incurable disease !?!? whatever shall I do? *runs around in circles* Wait, I know, I'll....live with it. Whee. Lesbian.
But seriously, I have a question for you, Dancing Steef. You seem to be mourning the loss of the claim that psychology can cure homosexuality. So if, say, that claim was never surpressed and people had resorted to performing, say, lobotomies on homosexuals, which would cause the greater human suffering? Lobotomies, or the existence of homosexuals?
And nate_dog_wolf, much love :D.

I think homesexauls shoudnt adopt children unless there of diferent gender caus they may be gay with there child wen they are young then the chil will grow up being gay

Moxco, please don't bring back a thread after 9 months, didn't you read the message below the post box?
I know you're new, but please read the rules in future! ;)

Also, please stop being so stupid.

Die please?

Seconded! :p

O.o

Holy Jesus

*ducks*

I dunno, I hate to play devil's advocate, but homosexuality may sometimes come in the form of missing love for a father figure being replaced by the love for other men. Or in the case missing mothers for lesbians. This is just a theory and if you have any better argument against this please present it to me.

Used is correct, and MoxCo Executive is not.

Of course a child who is adopted by a gay couple is more likely to be gay (or openmindness to homosexuality), or more likely to be completely straight and hate gays.

Now let's all adopt children merely to molest them! We should set up a bittorent so we can share the love.

I don't get it. How can you 'be gay' with someone of different gender?

Used, that's the minority in the extreme. And I fail to see how that would make a difference anyway. If anything, it would make the parent want to develop a proper, loving relationship with the child.

Emotionally, I mean.

He means to adopt children of a different gender so they dont 'be gay' with their child.

Aaah, too many negatives screwed with my head. It's still stupid. You might as well say that no girl should live in a house with her father because he may want to screw her. The incidence of paedophilia is higher among straight men than gay.

Amen to that, Nate.

Used does have a point though, but not even one tenth of the gay population is gay because of that reason but it does happen. Same goes for lesbians and any other sexual orientation, furries and zoophilia being the biggest examples.

Some people prolly go WOW to that statement given that it would reffer to myself but I am not overly proud to deny that a f*cked up childhood indirectly made me like what I like today. That doesn't however mean that I'm now ashamed of who I am and I think the same goes for gay people. It doesn't really matter HOW you got to be the way you are, as long as you are happy with it.

Tiger