Homosexuality "Sick?"

[cristheseeker]

giving it a second thought, maybe i was a little harsh on homosexuality. theres actually some good to it. homosexuality actually does the human species a service. population control.

i dont know about you, but i think 6+ billion is enough. no use in more polluting/competing human parasites milking planet earth for what its worth.

so a toast(no, not french) to those non bisexual homosexuals. who find heterosexuality, or the idea of insamination from the opposite sex gross. because they are not as tempted to "reproduce", and so view adoption as the only way to go. and everyone wins! the population stays down, unwanted children get a home, and maybe, just maybe we are lucky enough to see them raised as homosexuals(if they are not born with it already[which i believe a minority of homosexuals are]), and so our population will decline even further.

a treehugger's wet dream . as far as im concerned, i just dont like being stuck in traffic or waiting in line so long.

i know, i know, yet another simple minded ignorant, politically incorrect post, but hey, youve got to admit, theres some truth to it.

 

[Valjean]

"a treehugger's wet dream. as far as im cocerned,"

Harrumph!.. Sputter, mutter, indignation, protest....
Hey! -- I resemble your accusations...

 

[DallasApple]

People who "don't hate homosexuals" but "just think it's a sin" are ignorant of scientific facts concerning everything about homosexuality, and most likely ignorant of what their religious book is really saying or would be intended to say (read this).

This is by far one of the most impressive "summaries" I have ever read concerning interpretation of the Bible.I only read up to about page 25..(its very long)..then I decided to print it out instead..Its really impressive and I feel very enlightned..

FRUBALS for sharing it.


Love

Dallas

 

[no_spoon]

Just two things (because all the other helpful things I would say have been said).

Anyone anti-gay should be extremely careful of confirmation bias. That really applies to any prejudice against another human being's nature.

Also, although I haven't noticed it mentioned in this thread, there is also the weird view held by some (not me) that current catastrophes and wars are God's punishment on mankind for indulging in such things as homosexuality. It is difficult for me to restrain myself from being extremely insulting toward those who hold that view. Let's just say that an all powerful God that was also "just" could narrow his/her retribution so it did not affect thousands or millions of innocent people. Not to mention that the God I believe in is also a God of love and values all *sincere* expressions of love and caring and intimacy. Not to mention that God made many people different in many ways, and diversity runs through all of God's creation, and is wondrous.

OK, just thought I'd squash those objections in advance. ->)

 

[UnTheist]

forget about religion, and forget about our ever changing morality. homosexuality is simply not natural. you dont see two alfa males of any species taking it in the you know what.

This isn't an argument against homosexuality, though. Try again.

reproduction is only possible with masculine and feminine interaction(in a vast majority of cases in nature)

But again, this isn't and never was an argument against homosexuality. We have enough heteros to reproduce for us

 

[ChristineES]

I am not harsh about homosexuality, as I am reasonably sure that homosexuals are born that way. Also, if someone is not a Christian, then he or she is not bound by Christian laws and rules- even if it is a sin (which I am still not sure of after all this time, sorry about that).

But the arguments can be separated this way:
1. If someone believes that sexual acts are only for procreation, then they are going to see it as something unnatural. But that (being unnatural) would be true for casual sex, having sex with a person who is sterile, etc. as well- the way I see it.
2. If someone believes that sex is a way for 2 people to be close-the ultimate intimacies, then it is easy to see that it is NOT unnatural.

The way we look at things are individual, we are all going to react differently. I certainly don't mind hand holding, a farewell kiss (even passionate), hugging and all that in public. But seeing people getting overly intimate in public is going to make me very uncomfortable.

 

[Smoke]

Maybe the only reason you are somewhat comfortable with straight people kissing is because you have seen it so much in all types of media around you. This conditions you to get used to the idea. I didnt' grow up around a lot of people who were homosexual and kissed.

I think this is an interesting point.I was an adult before I ever saw 2 men or 2 women depicting or displaying "romantic" affection.In contrast I had probably by that point seen thousands of times a man and a woman depicting or displaying affection.Or just in general men and women "coupled"..even things like dancing.

However, I didn't grow up around lesbian couples kissing, and that doesn't make me uncomfortable, either.

 

[Diederick]

This is by far one of the most impressive "summaries" I have ever read concerning interpretation of the Bible.I only read up to about page 25..(its very long)..then I decided to print it out instead..Its really impressive and I feel very enlightned..
FRUBALS for sharing it.
Love
Dallas

It has been a very useful document on several occasions, in the real world and here on the Internet. A Letter To Louise is by far the best religious-scripture-based response on homosexuality I've ever seen.
You're welcome, it's worth the read.

 

[Smoke]

If someone believes that sexual acts are only for procreation, then they are going to see it as something unnatural.

I hope all the heterosexuals who really believe sex is only for procreation are true to their beliefs. That is, such couples (if they are honest):

1) Never use contraception.
2) Never have sex when the wife is already pregnant.
3) Abstain from sex completely after the wife passes her reproductive years.

 

[DallasApple]

However, I didn't grow up around lesbian couples kissing, and that doesn't make me uncomfortable, either.

I dont know about that one..for some reason it doesnt make most men uncomfortable that didnt grow up around that.In fact it gives a lot of men an erection. (go figure)..Could it be that all be it no "romantic" affection is involved but women tend to be more touchy feely with each other in general?..Like example..you wouldnt think twice about a girl brushing another girls hair?Or even holding hands..(as children)..Girls and women are "traditionally" more "touchy".They are "encouraged" to be affectionate in many ways.

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

I hope all the heterosexuals who really believe sex is only for procreation are true to their beliefs. That is, such couples (if they are honest):

1) Never use contraception.
2) Never have sex when the wife is already pregnant.
3) Abstain from sex completely after the wife passes her reproductive years.

Well..I think we all know thats about as far from the truth for the majority of heteros as you can get.

Love

Dallas

 

[Father Heathen]

The Bible condemns homosexual acts.—Romans 1:26, 27. The scripture in Romans just cited is not the only place in the Bible where God clearly states his view of such conduct.
Sodom and Gomorrah stand as warning examples of 'ones [that] had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use' by being destroyed by God (Jude 7)
The Bible shows homosexuals can and have changed their thinking and behavior. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) Thereafter, they can have God's approval.
Despite the permissive attitudes toward homosexual acts common today, the true God's position is unmistakable and non-negotiable.

But that's entirely irrelevant to those who don't believe in the authority or authenticity of the bible, now isn't it. The bible also tells us to burn bulls on the altar, not to mix fabrics, not to eat pork or shrimp, how to sell ones own daughter into slavery, that people should be put to death for working on Sunday, etc, etc. Sounds like a pretty trashy read to me. But anyway, do you really condone and practice everything the bible says, or are you a two-faced hypocrite that cherry picks only what you like or what's convenient?

snopes.com: Letter to Dr. Laura
Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon

 

[DallasApple]

But that's entirely irrelevant to those who don't believe in the authority or authenticity of the bible, now isn't it.

Father Heathen..Its not even what many Christians believe the Bible meant.

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

It has been a very useful document on several occasions, in the real world and here on the Internet. A Letter To Louise is by far the best religious-scripture-based response on homosexuality I've ever seen.
You're welcome, it's worth the read.

Its more than worth the read..Not only to try understand what the Bible really means(or in this case doesnt mean) on homosexualtity..But in general the mistakes we make when trying to understand what the "meaning" is when reading ANY of the Bible..

This man is awesome.

Its striking when he says people ask..what was(example) Paul saying to me in this passage...His reply? Nothing ..Paul wasnt talking to you ..you werent there.LOL!!And his take on "revelations"..I love it..I'll frubal you again when I can because I love this so much.On the issue of homesexuality?? Many people should feel shamed as to what he has summarized about it.And that wouldnt be the homosexuals for a change.

Love

Dallas

 

[The Voice of Reason]

forget about religion, and forget about our ever changing morality. homosexuality is simply not natural. you dont see two alfa males of any species taking it in the you know what. sorry for that visual. but you get my point.

How insightful, oh Master of Misinformation!!

Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore, it is - by definition - natural.

Dolphins engage in homosexual sex. Chew on that for a while, and then get back to us.

reproduction is only possible with masculine and feminine interaction(in a vast majority of cases in nature)

Nice disclaimer - which completely invalidates the entire point that you are (wrongly) trying to make. You didn't even mention asexual reproduction, and what THAT means to your uninformed views on human sexuality.

so if youre non religious, forget about god, just go with mother nature.

I just did. It works for those that have religious leanings too! That is, assuming that you look at all of nature and not just the part that reinforces your biases.

 

[Diederick]

Its more than worth the read..Not only to try understand what the Bible really means(or in this case doesnt mean) on homosexualtity..But in general the mistakes we make when trying to understand what the "meaning" is when reading ANY of the Bible..
This man is awesome.
Its striking when he says people ask..what was(example) Paul saying to me in this passage...His reply? Nothing ..Paul wasnt talking to you ..you werent there.LOL!!And his take on "revelations"..I love it..I'll frubal you again when I can because I love this so much.On the issue of homesexuality?? Many people should feel shamed as to what he has summarized about it.And that wouldnt be the homosexuals for a change.
Love
Dallas

Thanks a bunch for the frubals. This must be a revelation to you, I think, considering the common Christian opinion that gets thrown around (the: "I'm okay with it, but it is a sin" hypocrisy). It sure was a revelation to me as well, my view of religious people has gone through big change after reading A Letter To Louise, so it's not just to comfort gay Christians, it is also a great source of inspiration and perhaps education for straight Christians or gay non-Christians. It's a pity Christianity doesn't acknowledge saints, mr. Lowe would certainly be one.

By the way, this whole topic is preposterous, in the actual sense of the word. There is nothing sick about homosexuality - and if there was, there's nothing anyone can do about it. I'm a fool to even bother myself with debating this stuff (or am I just addicted to this place?).

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, that's quite a bit different from lumping it in with murder and rape.

Indeed it is. (and on that note, I disagree with it )

 

[DallasApple]

Thanks a bunch for the frubals. This must be a revelation to you, I think, considering the common Christian opinion that gets thrown around (the: "I'm okay with it, but it is a sin" hypocrisy). It sure was a revelation to me as well, my view of religious people has gone through big change after reading A Letter To Louise, so it's not just to comfort gay Christians, it is also a great source of inspiration and perhaps education for straight Christians or gay non-Christians. It's a pity Christianity doesn't acknowledge saints, mr. Lowe would certainly be one.

By the way, this whole topic is preposterous, in the actual sense of the word. There is nothing sick about homosexuality - and if there was, there's nothing anyone can do about it. I'm a fool to even bother myself with debating this stuff (or am I just addicted to this place?).

Its not a "revelation" to me..I just could not find a way to reconcile it with the "words" (or lack there of)in the Bible.Im not that talented..So Im "accused" of not beign a Christian.But in my heart..I "knew" or "know" a homosexual is not "evil".And they are NOT supposed to live a life without love.(including sexual) Anymore than I am as a heterosexual....I had an "instinct" I could not back up in the Christian religion.As well as A Letter to Louise to me is a lot more than just about homosexuality..

I dont care if you are "addicted " to this place..unless its hurting you.I actually thought ..one of the reasons Im supposed to be here is to get that link you provided.I call it a "God thing"..but thats me..

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

By the way, this whole topic is preposterous, in the actual sense of the word. There is nothing sick about homosexuality - and if there was, there's nothing anyone can do about it. I'm a fool to even bother myself with debating this stuff (or am I just addicted to this place?).

No..It has to be discussed..To let the truth "out of the closet"

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Actually I could back it up..All I could say Biblically is...

1 Corinthians
Chapter 131 1 If I speak in human and angelic tongues 2 but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing. 4 3 Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, 5 it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, 6 it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 4 Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing. 9 For we know partially and we prophesy partially, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. 12 At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known. 13 5 So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Love

Dallas