|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
posted July 25, 2007 02:11 AM |
|
Edited by pandora at 06:38, 25 Jul 2007.
|
Thenk you,that it. The topic can be closed. he has semi answer,for a semi question,thats not what i wanted to hear,but thats what you get,you ware honest,but you tried to evoide the question. Ok i respect ur answer,and i dont care anymore.
I think we can lock this thread.and hope that setite and vf will run for Kongres,as for shady,good luck in ur cult,but not bother to invite us there.
*edit by Pandora- slam on Acu removed. Keep the personal insults out of the forums*
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 09:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Excommunicating someone for being gay is discrimination. PERIOD.
The things that that pastor told her were all based around discrimination.
If this forums bans anyone for not following the CoC, then they are discriminating against them. It's exactly the same principle, yet nobody claims that the mods here are hateful bigots.
You see, there is a very distinct difference here: You choose to break the COC. You don't choose to be gay, that's just something you are. Just like you don't choose the colour of your skin.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 09:35 AM |
|
|
I'm a Christian and I believe that it is discrimination to treat gays differently than any other person out there. Jesus loved all people, no matter how they lived or acted, so it's natural that I tend to think that those Christians out there who call for homosexuals to be excommunicated and whatnot are acting in a bigoted manner by perpetuating a ridiculous hypocrisy. Now, I'm I suggesting that gays need to be rehabilitated, repressed, or any other ridiculous notions purporting that homosexuality is a disease, either. I do still believe it's wrong on a Biblical basis, but that shouldn't be the focus of Christians when dealing with homosexuals. Jesus, perhaps the only man fit to judge, didn't go around pointing fingers at sinners, so I still am unsure why many Christians seem so hellbent on passing sentence on others while we are still unfit to cast any stones of our own.
____________
>_>
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 09:36 AM |
|
|
Fanatics as it seems.Very Harsh.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 10:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Christianity believes that homosexuality is sexually immoral behavior and that in order to become members of the church they must stop practicing that life style.
Why?
What about it is sexually immoral?
Is it because it is not natures way?
Then we should not have phones, live in houses, eat cooked food or take medicine? Clearly that accusation is flawed.
If not that, then what else?
As I stated before, (which seemed to go out the window), you don't find homosexuality 'immoral', for whatever reason. That's sugar coating it. You find it gross. The church finds is run by people like you who find it gross. So you agree with them, and try to put other blames on it in a frantic attempt of justification.
I notice you don't say "I find this behaviour immoral", you say "The church finds this behaviour immoral", which I think is strange, just as Plato before me.
Is something good(/bad) because the church commands it, or does the church command it because it is good?
Maybe something is good because the church(/god) commands it, which is absurd, because if something is only good because they say so, then they could, if they wanted, say that killing babies or torture is good.
Or maybe the church says something is good because it is, in which case good things don't depend on god/the church at all, and so we don't need to go to the church/god to do good...
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Shadey
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 03:03 PM |
|
Edited by Shadey at 15:36, 25 Jul 2007.
|
Quote:
You see, there is a very distinct difference here: You choose to break the COC. You don't choose to be gay, that's just something you are. Just like you don't choose the colour of your skin.
You don't choose to be homosexual? If that's true, then it must also be true for pedophiles, beastiality, rape, orgies, adultry, and any other sexual behavior. Using genetics to explain your sexual orientation doesn't explain the whole story.
Edited to remove vulgar language.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 03:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You see, there is a very distinct difference here: You choose to break the COC. You don't choose to be gay, that's just something you are. Just like you don't choose the colour of your skin.
You don't choose to be homosexual? If that's true, then it must also be true for pedophiles, beastiality, rape, orgies, adultry, and any other sexual behavior. Using genetics to explain where you stick your dick is absurd.
Your sexuality is not a conceous choice, neither is it genetically determined. It seems by now to be fairly well proofed that homosexuality is caused by an abnormal hormonal influence on the child when it is still in its mothers womb. If you want to learn more about that, take a look at some of the videos here which a both charming, funny and educating.
To ask someone to "repent" their sexuality, as I think you put it, is something which in fact doesn't make sense. To understand the case fully, try to turn it all upside down: Imagine you lived in a world where homosexuality was the norm, and you were among the odd 10 % or so born as heterosexuals. Would you be able to change your sexuality to homosexuality just to fit the norms of that society? And would you want to? Of course, you could suppress it, and live in a homosexual relationship to fit into the frames of society. You could even find a husband you could love. But that would not make you any more homosexual than you started out being. And you probably wouldn't end up being very happy either.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Setitetart
Known Hero
Reality check....
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 03:35 PM |
|
Edited by pandora at 15:52, 25 Jul 2007.
|
Why the saltiness? Why do you CARE?
Quote:
Quote:
You see, there is a very distinct difference here: You choose to break the COC. You don't choose to be gay, that's just something you are. Just like you don't choose the colour of your skin.
You don't choose to be homosexual? If that's true, then it must also be true for pedophiles, beastiality, rape, orgies, adultry, and any other sexual behavior. Using genetics to explain your sexual orientation doesn't explain the whole story.
Tsk Tsk.
No, a person doesn't choose to be gay, they just ARE.
There is a good amount of medical studies that would indicate strongly that people ARE born GAY.
Comparing it to pedophiles, beastiality, rape, orgies, adultry, and any other sexual behavior is a bit LEWD IMO.
Let me tell you something without you getting all crazy for 2 seconds.LOL
As you know, I was raised Catholic mostly, and along the way several other religions...
At some point in Junior High, I found myself strangely attracted to women.
Not just in the sense that I thought them physically beautiful, as say a person would view art from a master, but something more...but what at that point I didnt know yet.
It wasnt until I was sexually ACTIVE, and had experienced sex that I started to put together the pieces of those confusing instances that had dogged me for so long.
I was a late bloomer on a lot of levels.
It wasn't until several years later...much later that I actually realized that I was bisexual.
You might ask why I didn't just ignore those feelings...why I instead chose to explore my options and myself and see if I truly was what I thought.
Because had I continued to think it was "gross" or "dirty" or "unnatural"...I wouldn't have been true to myself...you can't ignore things like that.
Funny enough the ones who scream the loudest about it are more often than not the "closet" Ones who can't come out because of the backlash it would have on their lives.
I personally know at least 4 people in that position.
And ALL of those 4 people at some point were practically screaming the "Gay is gross" anthem.
So....*sighs*
Sure while it is more socially acceptableto be hetero, at least in the US, and that is what most people go with...
Not everyone in the world goes with the grain of society.
And that is not necessarily in BAD ways...
I would think it was worse to live a lie, be married to someone who you don't really love. Never really happy and completely miserable because you know that you arent being honest with yourself or anyone else.
All for the sake of "fitting in" or being "normal".
I married a man, and I love him dearly. But years ago, before I met my husband, I WOULD HAVE married a woman because I loved her that much.
You can' help how you are anymore than you can help WHO you love.
And for the record, I have never, and not one upstanding gay person that I know of, would EVER have sex with animals or kids, wouldn't force themselves on anyone, generally don't participate in "orgies", and don't cheat on their partner.
Just saying.
____________
"Do you think we should drive a stake through his heart, just in case?"
~ Peter Lorre to Vincent Price at Bela Lugosi's funeral
|
|
Shadey
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 04:02 PM |
|
Edited by Shadey at 16:04, 25 Jul 2007.
|
Two things I can't argue against are personal experiences, and argue against genetics and hormones.
I can point out that you guys on the other side can't have your cake and eat it too. If homosexuality is based on genetics and hormones, then all those other sexual acts MUST be based on genetics and hormones as well. You believe homosexuality is based on love. You believe that those other sexual acts are based on hurt and pain, therefore they can't be influenced by your genetics and hormones?
It's just way too convienent to blame one thing you like on genetics and hormones, and blame another thing you don't like on poor decision making.
So what is it? Are you guys going to say that homosexuality and all those other sexual acts are based on genetics and hormones? Are you going to say that it all comes down to a concious desicion to engage in whatever sexual activity you want to?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 04:10 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:11, 25 Jul 2007.
|
Quote:
You believe homosexuality is based on love. You believe that [incest, bestiality, etc.] are based on hurt and pain, therefore they can't be influenced by your genetics and hormones?
It's just way too convienent to blame one thing you like on genetics and hormones, and blame another thing you don't like on poor decision making.
Shadey you're missing the big picture. There's a big difference between homosexual behavior and "deviant" (i.e., incest, molestation, rape, etc., etc.) sexual behavior and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is genetic/hormonal/natural or not. It could certainly be argued that rapists have something seriously wrong - biologically - with them. And maybe there's a biological "cause" for homosexuality. So what? The big difference is that in homosexuality there is no victim. In rape, molestation, etc., there is. Presumably in a homosexual relationship, both people want to be here. Not so in rape or molestation. Homosexuality isn't harming anyone. Rape and molestation ARE. To compare them in any way is just disgusting.
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 04:18 PM |
|
|
I would have to agree Corr. That is what I said in my last response about doing missions in prisons. We were not there to judge them; we were there to tell them that they have victims within their acts. So you try to get them to understand that while allowing them to soak in the Ten Commandments. But with homosexuality I think that a church member may think it is the integrity of the Bible that is victimized.
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Setitetart
Known Hero
Reality check....
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 04:22 PM |
|
|
oh good lord.....LOL
Quote:
Two things I can't argue against are personal experiences, and argue against genetics and hormones.
Good to hear. LOL Thanks for not tromping all over my experiences.
Quote:
I can point out that you guys on the other side can't have your cake and eat it too. If homosexuality is based on genetics and hormones, then all those other sexual acts MUST be based on genetics and hormones as well.
There is evidence to support that yes...that people that do heinous acts against society and themselves are hardwired differently in the head.
You know what a sociopath is?
Quote:
You believe homosexuality is based on love. You believe that those other sexual acts are based on hurt and pain, therefore they can't be influenced by your genetics and hormones?
It's just way too convienent to blame one thing you like on genetics and hormones, and blame another thing you don't like on poor decision making.
Whoa whoa whoa there Tex, back up. LOL
You aren't getting me here at all I think.
Firstly those other sexual acts ARE based on pain and hurting another. Plain and simple.
Let me illustrate for you:
Beastiality: forcing yourself on an ANIMAL. THAT'S GROSS.
Rape: forcing yourself on another person. THAT'S WRONG.
Pedophilia: Having SEX with CHILDREN?!? Come ON now Shadey.
Orgies: About the ONLY thing on your "list" that involved consentual sex between MANY individuals. (I could say they are fun too, but I'd hate to get your panties all knotted up. besides that I have never been to an orgy but I was invited )
How about Necrophelia: that's having sex with DEAD things and that is just...nasty.
But being GAY? How is that hurting anyone?
Quote:
It's just way too convienent to blame one thing you like on genetics and hormones, and blame another thing you don't like on poor decision making.
HAHAHAHA. *ahem* HAHAHA. Okay.
Quote:
So what is it? Are you guys going to say that homosexuality and all those other sexual acts
No. YOU are the one that brought up all those other acts...
Quote:
are based on genetics and hormones? Are you going to say that it all comes down to a concious desicion to engage in whatever sexual activity you want to?
Yes and no. What do you think of that? LOL
Let me ask you something....
Does a murderer have the choice whether or not he should kill?
____________
"Do you think we should drive a stake through his heart, just in case?"
~ Peter Lorre to Vincent Price at Bela Lugosi's funeral
|
|
Shadey
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 04:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You believe homosexuality is based on love. You believe that [incest, bestiality, etc.] are based on hurt and pain, therefore they can't be influenced by your genetics and hormones?
It's just way too convienent to blame one thing you like on genetics and hormones, and blame another thing you don't like on poor decision making.
Shadey you're missing the big picture. There's a big difference between homosexual behavior and "deviant" (i.e., incest, molestation, rape, etc., etc.) sexual behavior and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is genetic/hormonal/natural or not. It could certainly be argued that rapists have something seriously wrong - biologically - with them. And maybe there's a biological "cause" for homosexuality. So what? The big difference is that in homosexuality there is no victim. In rape, molestation, etc., there is. Presumably in a homosexual relationship, both people want to be here. Not so in rape or molestation. Homosexuality isn't harming anyone. Rape and molestation ARE. To compare them in any way is just disgusting.
It doesn't matter if there is a victim or not. The bottom line is that you're condemning people for actions that they cannot control. How can you say your about equality, compassion, and love and in the same breath condemn people for things that are out of their hands.
Why are those other acts "deviant"? Are they deviant because YOU think they are deviant? Are they deviant because you believe a victim is involved? What gives you the right to define what you think is sexual deviance, but I somehow don't deserve that same right? If a society glorifies rape and molestation is that society wrong for what it believes? What if this countries practice was for the father to take their first born son as a concubine? Would that be immoral?
I think that many of you are just as black and white about this issue as you feel that I am.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 04:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Two things I can't argue against are personal experiences, and argue against genetics and hormones.
I can point out that you guys on the other side can't have your cake and eat it too. If homosexuality is based on genetics and hormones, then all those other sexual acts MUST be based on genetics and hormones as well. You believe homosexuality is based on love. You believe that those other sexual acts are based on hurt and pain, therefore they can't be influenced by your genetics and hormones?
It's just way too convienent to blame one thing you like on genetics and hormones, and blame another thing you don't like on poor decision making.
So what is it? Are you guys going to say that homosexuality and all those other sexual acts are based on genetics and hormones? Are you going to say that it all comes down to a concious desicion to engage in whatever sexual activity you want to?
You are messing together a lot of things here that are completely unrelated. Let me try to give you my view on some of the things you mention here:
Firstly, homosexuality vs. heterosexuality: This is clearly a matter of whether you are sexually drawn towards your own or the opposite gender. Like I said before, there are much evidence for homosexuality being a completely natural condition triggered by hormonal influence. Thus, scientists have been able to create homosexual rats, cf. the video clips linked to above.
Rape is something entirely different and completely unrelated to this. Rape is an action which is performed independantly of your sexual orientation. Thus, there are heterosexual rapists and there are homosexual rapists. There are probably many reasons for why people commit rape. Some people might have had a twisted upbringing which leads the to not understand or care for the implications of their action. Others might lack the ability to understand it. Some might be drunk or otherwise under influence of drugs. Rape is an unforgivable action because when someone is raped, they are victimized, i.e. they are involved in the sexual act against their will. That is neither the case during (normal) hetero- and homosexual acts.
I don't know the current concensus on why some people are Pedophelic or into bestial sex. It might be triggered by events during the persons upbringing, or it might be there from birth - I don't know, and it does not affect the validity of any of what I wrote above. If pedophelia is something you are born with, it might be the saddest sexual condition of all there exists, because you will never be able to engage in a healthy and mutual sexual relationship.
When you throw all these different terms and concepts together, remember to distinguish between those that are sexualities, and those that are just mere sexual acts. People are heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, bisexual, etc. which means they have a certain sexual character from their puberty and onwards, and they have this identity no matter which actions they take. People are not "rapists", that's something they become after doing a rape; and this is something distinctly different.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Setitetart
Known Hero
Reality check....
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 04:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You believe homosexuality is based on love. You believe that [incest, bestiality, etc.] are based on hurt and pain, therefore they can't be influenced by your genetics and hormones?
It's just way too convienent to blame one thing you like on genetics and hormones, and blame another thing you don't like on poor decision making.
Shadey you're missing the big picture. There's a big difference between homosexual behavior and "deviant" (i.e., incest, molestation, rape, etc., etc.) sexual behavior and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is genetic/hormonal/natural or not. It could certainly be argued that rapists have something seriously wrong - biologically - with them. And maybe there's a biological "cause" for homosexuality. So what? The big difference is that in homosexuality there is no victim. In rape, molestation, etc., there is. Presumably in a homosexual relationship, both people want to be here. Not so in rape or molestation. Homosexuality isn't harming anyone. Rape and molestation ARE. To compare them in any way is just disgusting.
It doesn't matter if there is a victim or not. The bottom line is that you're condemning people for actions that they cannot control. How can you say your about equality, compassion, and love and in the same breath condemn people for things that are out of their hands.
Why are those other acts "deviant"? Are they deviant because YOU think they are deviant? Are they deviant because you believe a victim is involved? What gives you the right to define what you think is sexual deviance, but I somehow don't deserve that same right? If a society glorifies rape and molestation is that society wrong for what it believes? What if this countries practice was for the father to take their first born son as a concubine? Would that be immoral?
I think that many of you are just as black and white about this issue as you feel that I am.
maybe you should read up....
ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY, SOCIOPATHY, AND PSYCHOPATHY
Chew on that one for awhile. LOL
Oh...and this one just because I thought it was so close to this discussion.
Tammy Faye for Gays
____________
"Do you think we should drive a stake through his heart, just in case?"
~ Peter Lorre to Vincent Price at Bela Lugosi's funeral
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 04:40 PM |
|
|
Deviant, wrong, and not to mention against the law. In all my attorney day I have yet to see a rapist stand trial in the same court room as homosexual based upon a sexual act.
Deviant being s branch off of nonstandard, if I'm having a beer with someone and they tell me they are gay I don't search for the nearest exit out of fear. However, if a rapist was having a beer with me and was telling me how he fantasized about following me home and forcing himself on me, um, WHERE THE HELL IS THE EXIT?
So deviant being a decedent of nonstandard, it is no longer unusual for someone to be gay, never has been, it is just verbalized more. However, a rapist will never be standard nor legal or accepted.
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 04:52 PM |
bonus applied. |
Edited by Corribus at 16:53, 25 Jul 2007.
|
Quote:
It doesn't matter if there is a victim or not. The bottom line is that you're condemning people for actions that they cannot control. How can you say your about equality, compassion, and love and in the same breath condemn people for things that are out of their hands.
Of course it matters if there is a victim or not!
(A) If there's no victim, no problem.
(B) If there is a victim - whether the action was involuntary or not - then something needs to be done. We are all disposed to biological setbacks. Some of us are predisposed to cancer. Some of us have handicaps. Some of us are not intelligent. Some of us are mentally ill. The hand we are dealt does not determine our worth to society, but how we live with the hand we are dealt determines our worth to society. A person who lusts after children may, if you believe it is a genetic or involuntary condition, have no say in the matter of whether he lusts after children. You can't condemn a person for that. But once he ACTS on that lust, THEN he can be condemned, because that action harms somebody else. Just as easily I could say that I was born with a propensity to steal, or a weakness for alcohol, or whatever - and you cannot cannot condemn a person for such predelections. But you CAN condemn a person for their choices. Whether that condemnation results in jail or to a hospital is up to the courts, but when there is a victim, when someone gets hurt, actions must be taken to at the very least prevent that from occuring again.
Homosexuals may or may not choose their homosexuality, but really it is a null point. It doesn't matter. Because there is no victim, really who cares? Rapists and pedophiles may not choose their predisposition to rape women or lust after children, and frankly if they kept their penises in their pants then it probably wouldn't really matter. But most of them don't, and because someone gets HURT from rape or pedophilia, they are crimes that must be punished, or, at the least, they need to be sequestered from society. You do not have the right to hurt other people, whether it's caused by factors which are out of your hands or not.
Quote:
Why are those other acts "deviant"? Are they deviant because YOU think they are deviant? Are they deviant because you believe a victim is involved? What gives you the right to define what you think is sexual deviance, but I somehow don't deserve that same right? If a society glorifies rape and molestation is that society wrong for what it believes? What if this countries practice was for the father to take their first born son as a concubine? Would that be immoral?
They are deviant because there is a victim who doesn't have a choice. Nobody has the right to hurt someone else. This isn't as gray an issue as you are trying to paint it to be. You are trying to make me look like a tyrant who is telling other people what is right and what is wrong. Morals may be subjective to some extent, but if you believe in civil liberties, then you must believe that what is moral is what does not adversely affect other people or interfere with THEIR rights as individuals. Pedophilia, rape, etc., are immoral because they harm other people who do not have a say in the matter. The fact that you would defend them as possibly moral, even for the sake of making some obscure point about the subjectivity or morality, is just reprehensible.
Quote:
I think that many of you are just as black and white about this issue as you feel that I am.
Actually, I'm not black and white at all. I'm quite tolerant of other peoples' right to do whatever the heck they want to, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. You might be surprised to know that I'm also a political conservative. But I at least recognize that what I believe in does not have to apply to everyone else, and that if someone else feels that something is right, when I feel it is wrong, I'm ok with that as long as what they feel is right doesn't cause harm to someone else. Live and let live. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Turn the other cheek. The meek shall inherit the earth. Didn't Jesus teach you any of that?
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 05:07 PM |
|
|
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted July 25, 2007 06:35 PM |
|
|
If there is no victim in an orgy....I suppose we should simply let them all marry each other under the law. They should not be discriminated against. We've done seperate but equal before and it didn't work.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Setitetart
Known Hero
Reality check....
|
|
posted July 25, 2007 07:03 PM |
|
|
And this has something to do with....what? LOL
Quote:
If there is no victim in an orgy....I suppose we should simply let them all marry each other under the law. They should not be discriminated against. We've done seperate but equal before and it didn't work.
Nope there isnt any victim in an orgy dollface. LOL
Thats why you are INVITED to them.
Oh and half the people at them are married anyway, not to mention swingers usually.
Apples and oranges...You forget I worked in the porn business.LOL
____________
"Do you think we should drive a stake through his heart, just in case?"
~ Peter Lorre to Vincent Price at Bela Lugosi's funeral
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
