Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
We already are. You just don't call it morality because we happen to agree that killing a person is wrong.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why is Homosexuality EVIL?
- Thread starter jamesmorrow
- Start date
We already are. You just don't call it morality because we happen to agree that killing a person is wrong.
Now you're talking about the act, not caring about the outcome. Big difference.
Back to the original question:
Is homosexuality evil?
To some it is. To me it's not.
Why? There's no impact on me negatively
Is it immoral?
To some it is. To me it's not.
Why? See above
Is it (should it be) illegal?
To some it should. To me it shouldn't be.
Why? See above
Last edited:
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Not sure I follow your question.
Imposing what?
PS. I'm off for the night. I will catch you tomorrow!
Last edited:
Hmm, I don't understand a mentality that defines morality by whether it affects a person personally or not.
I can't imagine myself ever saying, "I don't care if X gets killed as long as I don't know X and their murder doesn't affect me."
It seems to make the most moral sense to me to judge it based on harm. Actions which do not cause harm (and which involve consenting individuals) don't have moral connotations as far as I can see any more than someone deciding to eat canned cheese in ugly boxers while listening to Britney Spears in the privacy of their own home has any "moral connotations," regardless of how disgusting it might seem to me.
I can't imagine myself ever saying, "I don't care if X gets killed as long as I don't know X and their murder doesn't affect me."
It seems to make the most moral sense to me to judge it based on harm. Actions which do not cause harm (and which involve consenting individuals) don't have moral connotations as far as I can see any more than someone deciding to eat canned cheese in ugly boxers while listening to Britney Spears in the privacy of their own home has any "moral connotations," regardless of how disgusting it might seem to me.
waitasec
Veteran Member
that's gross.
We should make a law banning it. The thought that people can legally do this is horrifying to me.
waitasec
Veteran Member
It's clearly unGodly, and also against the natural Order
cheese in a can is definitely not natural :no:
jamesmorrow
Active Member
cheese in a CAN is unCANny
I'll have you know that my whole new(slightly old now) philosophy is to be as gay as possible everyday. I truly believe that every one would benefit by endeavoring to make each and every day a gay one. To be gay is the highest goal one can attain in this life.
I understand you have another meaning in mind but if everyone used gay as I do your meaning would be better received.
dude your apart of my campaign to take the word gay back?I'll have you know that my whole new(slightly old now) philosophy is to be as gay as possible everyday. I truly believe that every one would benefit by endeavoring to make each and every day a gay one. To be gay is the highest goal one can attain in this life.
I understand you have another meaning in mind but if everyone used gay as I do your meaning would be better received.
I'll have you know that my whole new(slightly old now) philosophy is to be as gay as possible everyday. I truly believe that every one would benefit by endeavoring to make each and every day a gay one. To be gay is the highest goal one can attain in this life.
I understand you have another meaning in mind but if everyone used gay as I do your meaning would be better received.
So no, you aren't gay.
:sarcastic
Nothing about that in the Bible either.
There was no Bible back then (no closets either
). That's exactly my point: If we don't hear anything about any homosexuals in Genesis, what are the possible explanations for this? That there weren't any seems like the least likely explanation, and once again: if there weren't any, why did they need to come up with a law against it? And if there were, why don't we hear about them?
See what I'm getting at?
If we agree that the idea that homosexuality was unheard of in Abraham's time (outside of Sodom) is, at best, extremely unlikely, then it would follow that there actually were at least a few gay people involved here and there, some of them must have figured in some of the stories in one way or another, and it seems likely that a few of them would have been members of the Patriarchs clans themselves.
So if we don't hear about them, at least one possible explanation is that nobody cared.
What I mean is, as far as the people of the Patriarchs clans were concerned, homosexuality was neither here nor there. If we don't see any verses saying "And So-and-So was a lover of men", one possible explanation is that it was a non-issue for them.Doe skin makes babies?!?!
What about buck skin?
Where's the proof that anal sex is more likely to spread disease than vaginal sex?
jamesmorrow
Active Member
Doe skin makes babies?!?!
What about buck skin?
Where's the proof that anal sex is more likely to spread disease than vaginal sex?
the proof is in the pudding, or rather, in the santorum. dont know about you, but id rather be exposed to vaginal fluids than santorum.)(