Is living a gay/lesbian lifestyle a problem with God?

[Big_TJ]

Sorry homosexuality is quite usual and has been usual since the human species existed...if it wasnt natural...it wouldnt happen.

May i ask if you think that there is a difference between being natural and being usual? My thought is that there is a difference; and while I would accept that homosexual is natural (I outlined my hypothesis that it MAY be a result of genes mutation gone bad), it do not think it is usual (very much like left-handed persons or REALLY smart persons).

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Sorry; i went over the top with that one, but you should (I hope) realize that you were wrong in calling me a bigot simply because I expressed a view that is contrary to the one that you hold.

No I wasnt wrong I was inflammatory...

You see your view Is persecutory...because whatever your reasons you are saying me Autodidact and Proud 2 B Gay plus all other non heterosexual human beings are not fit to be parents (oppress by denial) because we have relations with people of the same gender.

per·se·cute (pûr

s

-ky

t

)tr.v. per·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing, per·se·cutes

1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/persecute

 

[Big_TJ]

:clap

Not to mention that people always bring the silliest arguments as to why it isn't natural, like the can't procreate argument.

Anyone who try to use this argument must be a real bigot! if this argument was valid, they could equally argue against hetrosexuals that use condoms.

1) No one ever designated sex as being strictly for procreation. My gods didn't, and that's all I care about.

Agreed

2) Infertile people also can't procreate, so let's call infertility unnatural while we're at it.

agreed.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So Big TJ what argument do you have then against homosexuality?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

May i ask if you think that there is a difference between being natural and being usual?

Certainly and if we are talking about human behaviour then no there is no difference.

 

[Big_TJ]

No I wasnt wrong I was inflammatory...

You see your view Is persecutory...because whatever your reasons you are saying me Autodidact and Proud 2 B Gay plus all other non heterosexual human beings are not fit to be parents...because we have relations with people of the same gender.

per·se·cute (pûr

s

-ky

t

)tr.v. per·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing, per·se·cutes

1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.

persecute - definition of persecute by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

but your use of the word "persecute" does not fit the definition (at least with me). Are you arguing that anyone who does not believe homosexuals should raise children are persecuting the homosexuals??? Do you (or Auto, or Proud2bGay) gets from my postings that i am "harassing with ill-treatment" or "annoying persistently" you?

I would agree with your use of "bigot" if I gave some stupid reasons to substantiate my pre-conceived views, but I am sure I didnt. One question: you know that I am against homosexual being parents, ok, but do you know if I am Against homosexuality (two consenting adults doing whatever in the privacy of thier bedroom) or not?

 

[Big_TJ]

So Big TJ what argument do you have then against homosexuality?

You may be making an assumption, but I would be glad to answer this as soon as Primordial respond to my question. But while we wait, let me ask you this: Do you get from my postings that i am "harassing with ill-treatment" or "annoying persistently" you?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

but your use of the word "persecute" does not fit the definition (at least with me). Are you arguing that anyone who does not believe homosexuals should raise children are persecuting the homosexuals???

I am afraid it does TJ, that is precisely what I am arguing....you are denying homosexuals the right to be parents, that is oppressive and thus persecutory.

I would agree with your use of "bigot" if I gave some stupid reasons to substantiate my pre-conceived views, but I am sure I didnt. One question: you know that I am against homosexual being parents, ok, but do you know if I am Against homosexuality (two consenting adults doing whatever in the privacy of thier bedroom) or not?

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of another group of people.
You are intolerant of homosexual parents.
If you are not against homosexuality in principle then why do argue that it might not be natural or the result of mutated genes gone bad?
Indeed why concern yourself with homosexual parents if homosexuality in itself doesnt bother you?

You are most inconsistent.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Are you arguing that anyone who does not believe homosexuals should raise children are persecuting the homosexuals??? Do you (or Auto, or Proud2bGay) gets from my postings that i am "harassing with ill-treatment" or "annoying persistently" you?

I don't know about annoy, but yes, I agree you are persecuting homosexuals, as you can't demonstrate why a child growing up with a homosexual parent is harmful. Heterosexual arrangements aren't always good, and homosexual ones can be.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I don't know about annoy, but yes, I agree you are persecuting homosexuals, as you can't demonstrate why a child growing up with a homosexual parent is harmful. Heterosexual arrangements aren't always good, and homosexual ones can be.

He argues that being raised by homosexual parents will give the school bullies ammunition...thats about it...as if they needed an excuse...as if that kind of behaviour should be appeased or tolerated.

 

[Big_TJ]

Gosh! I cant believe this is so difficult for you to understand. Where do i begin?

OK, lets start here:

I am afraid it does TJ, that is precisely what I am arguing....you are denying homosexuals the right to be parents, that is oppressive and thus persecutory.

By this, i suspect that you are also a bigot. Since, certainly I do not think you would argue that a known child molester should be allowed to raise a child, would you? You see, the point I am making is that to simply express your view (not being hypocritical) does not mean that you are persecuting anyone. IF I were to go out of my way to try to "make sure" that NO homosexual raise a child, then you may have a point about the persecuting thing.

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of another group of people.
You are intolerant of homosexual parents.

I AM NOT INTOLERANT OF HOMOSEXUAL BEING PARENT; I AM SIMPLY SAYING I DONT BELIEVE IT SHOULD HAPPEN!!! Equally, I am not intolerant of persons who smoke; I just believe that persons should not smoke!

If you are not against homosexuality in principle then why do argue that it might not be natural or the result of mutated genes gone bad?

this is the silliest thing I have ever seen posted. Do I have to be personally affected by something to have an input? I suspect that you are having a proxy conversation; you are arguing against me being against homosexuality (which you are not aware of being true) when the argument is really about homosexuals being parents.

Indeed why concern yourself with homosexual parents if homosexuality in itself doesnt bother you?

What is wrong in having an input or an opinion about something even if you are not affected by it???




You are most inconsistent.[/quote]

 

[Rainbow Mage]

He argues that being raised by homosexual parents will give the school bullies ammunition...thats about it...as if they needed an excuse...as if that kind of behaviour should be appeased or tolerated.

School kids will bully them over something anyway. Everyone gets bullied. That isn't a good reason. Bullying is a huge problem in American schools, and it extends beyond homosexuality.

 

[Big_TJ]

I don't know about annoy, but yes, I agree you are persecuting homosexuals, as you can't demonstrate why a child growing up with a homosexual parent is harmful. Heterosexual arrangements aren't always good, and homosexual ones can be.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you missed my post # 354, so here it is:

Not sure what arguments were presented and distroyed, but my view is simply this: we are living in a largely hetrosexual society where homosexuality is frowned upon (like it or not!). Therefore, kids in this household can suffer devastating pysochologically when being "teased" (let's say at school) for living in this type of household.

This is the reason I gave. Does this view in any way means that I am persecuting homosexuals?

 

[Big_TJ]

School kids will bully them over something anyway. Everyone gets bullied. That isn't a good reason. Bullying is a huge problem in American schools, and it extends beyond homosexuality.

right, but it is still a valid reason if you are a hetrosexual. My response was to Autodiadect, which was essentially that only a homosexual will see no problem with children brought up in a homosexual household. She asked me to give one reason why there would be a problem with that arrangement and I named one. As I said before, it is an extremely valid reason for hetrosexuals or persons who live in a largely hetrosexual society.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Gosh! I cant believe this is so difficult for you to understand. Where do i begin?

Ditto

By this, i suspect that you are also a bigot. Since, certainly I do not think you would argue that a known child molester should be allowed to raise a child, would you? You see, the point I am making is that to simply express your view (not being hypocritical) does not mean that you are persecuting anyone. IF I were to go out of my way to try to "make sure" that NO homosexual raise a child, then you may have a point about the persecuting thing.

By saying you suspect that I am a bigot ALSO suggests you accept that you are a bigot..and yes I am bigoted..towards worse kinds of bigot.

Your view is persecutory even if you do not act upon it.

I AM NOT INTOLERANT OF HOMOSEXUAL BEING PARENT; I AM SIMPLY SAYING I DONT BELIEVE IT SHOULD HAPPEN!!! Equally, I am not intolerant of persons who smoke; I just believe that persons should not smoke!

Your red statement is self contradictory TJ.

But do you seek to ban tobacco sales if so you are intolerant of the use of tobacco this will effect all tobacco users.

this is the silliest thing I have ever seen posted. Do I have to be personally affected by something to have an input? I suspect that you are having a proxy conversation; you are arguing against me being against homosexuality (which you are not aware of being true) when the argument is really about homosexuals being parents.

TJ...I dont think you really understand the fact that by saying homosexuals are not fit to be parents you obviously do have a problem with homosexuality...it is the defining quality of homosexual parents.

What is wrong in having an input or an opinion about something even if you are not affected by it???

But you will affect it TJ.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

School kids will bully them over something anyway. Everyone gets bullied. That isn't a good reason. Bullying is a huge problem in American schools, and it extends beyond homosexuality.

I was never bullied, they wouldnt have dared I was raised with a number of brothers I learnt at a young age to look after myself, I was just ostracised and picked last in team games...I was the weird possibly gay kid...standing on the pitch in the rain with my bretheren fat boy and geek boy...great days.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

As I said before, it is an extremely valid reason for hetrosexuals or persons who live in a largely hetrosexual society.

Err no it isnt valid our society is not based on sexual orientation.

It is based on social contracts..which we update occasionally.

 

[Big_TJ]

But do you seek to ban tobacco sales if so you are intolerant of the use of tobacco this will effect all tobacco users.

ha hah! this is where I think our differences are! I dont go around trying to ban tobacco even though I dont believe in smoking; does that me me a bigot?

LIKEWISE, I dont go around trying to prevent homos from becoming parents even though I dont believe they should; does that makes me a bigot?

I think the real problem is that YOU are the one who is intolerant of hetrosexual views and the bigot label seem a better fit for you.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

ha hah! this is where I think our differences are! I dont go around trying to ban tobacco even though I dont believe in smoking; does that me me a bigot?

Let me ask you a hypothetical question then.

Would you vote YES to a bill to ban homosexuals from raising children or NO?

If yes then you remain intolerant of a group such as homosexuals and thus a bigot if no then you are not intolerant of homosexuals and are not a bigot..but your viewpoint remains persecutory (denial of the right to be a parent because of sexual orientation is an oppressive viewpoint) with the potential to be bigoted.

LIKEWISE, I dont go around trying to prevent homos from becoming parents even though I dont believe they should; does that makes me a bigot?

It makes your viewpoint intolerant of homosexual parents regardless...and your derogatory use of the term Homo to describe homosexual people is bigoted.

I think the real problem is that YOU are the one who is intolerant of hetrosexual views and the bigot label seem a better fit for you.

Technically I am a hermaphrodite...transgender...male expressed xxy mosaic...very rare condition.

So the normal rules are suspended in my fairly unique case.

Sorry had to edit that a lot...its late.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I should have said TJ your viewpoint is bigoted and intolerant with the potential for persecution.