Homosexuality

[Latiass]

Guys, I'm sorry but please stop posting for a while. By not bombarding them with posts, we get to destroy their get-out-of-jail-free card.

Now.

Er, no? "Guys don't post so we can beat them" is contradictory to itself.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

The idea was not to give them any choice but to reply to what I posted underneath to continue the debate. That way none of them being able to contradict it without religion or disregarding it with the typical "oh u prejidised tool yoor argument sucks lolol" and we'd win by default.

Or something.

 

[voltianqueen]

I don't think Dark Tyranitar's coming back because we're all retards, remember?

 

[ultraviolet]

Or something.

Repeatedly posting 'REPLY TO THIS' is hardly going to receive a response, imo.

 

[Alexi]

The idea was not to give them any choice but to reply to what I posted underneath to continue the debate. That way none of them being able to contradict it without religion or disregarding it with the typical "oh u prejidised tool yoor argument sucks lolol" and we'd win by default.

Or something.

How's that supposed to work now? I mean...even if there was only one other person posting, that other person could still stop posting for similar reasons.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

*shrugs* I thought it was a good idea.

 

[Time Psyduck]

Boo!

Guys, I'm sorry but please stop posting for a while. By not bombarding them with posts, we get to destroy their get-out-of-jail-free card.

By reducing the number of posts supporting one side of an argument, the other side can respond to all the points made.

This is to Erindor, Dark Tyranitar, Sir Lucario, Time Psyduck, anyone who cares to respond.

I will respond, but first a little background is needed:
When I stopped posting here before I did leave for a week without computer access. During this time I rekindled other interests and so, as a result, I did not come back here for two months, during which time the decay of my religious beliefs switched from the 'slow rot' of the previous years to a sudden and rapid crash. I have also finally opened myself up to who I am, and so many of my views have changed, or else I can explain them better

RESPOND TO THIS.

You claim that homosexuality is unnatural.
- If so, explain this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
- Are we to assume therefore that you are opposed to such evil things as the Internet, computers, the Cave of Dragonflies, keyboards, mouses, monitors and *gasp* Lucario?
- Humans are natural. Gays are humans. Therefore gays are natural.

I only ever claimed it unnatural in that it was not part of what my old God planned for humans. Since you don't believe in that god you wouldn't understand this view of 'natural', and so it perhaps woudn't make sense.

 

[Music Dragon]

I only ever claimed it unnatural in that it was not part of what my old God planned for humans.

What makes you think so, though?

 

[Valor]

We pretty much already proved that atheists tend to know more about the Bible than the typical religious folk, beating the "pastor's son". So, yeah, if anything, some of us understand God a bit too much. He's a bit of an asshole with problems about what people think of him, always having to test our faith but not allowing us to test him.

 

[Time Psyduck]

What makes you think so, though?

The God-worshipper's Handbook.

Although it does not say anything on the existence of the feelings, it only opposes acting upon them. This does, however, makes it seem that (taking it as true for a moment as otherwise it's a non-issue) God probably didn't 'naturally' intend for people to be gay, otherwise he wouldn't have banned gay sex.

 

[Philly]

But if God is omniscient then he should be able to make it so that homosexuality is not possible, correct? It makes sense. If he answers prayers, then wouldn't it make sense for people to pray to remove homosexuality from earth and he does it?

 

[CNiall]

But if God is omniscient then he should be able to make it so that homosexuality is not possible, correct? It makes sense. If he answers prayers, then wouldn't it make sense for people to pray to remove homosexuality from earth and he does it?

Sorry, I'm pretty sure you mean omnipotent there.

 

[Butterfree]

Just wanted to respond to one thing: the whole "I'm against homosexuality because it's my religion!" argument.

See, the law should not care what your religion is. You're welcome to think whatever you like in private, but a law that applies to everyone should not be made on the basis of a religion that only part of the population adheres to. If you cannot make a logical argument, independent of your religion, that homosexuals should not have the right to marry the person they love, then your opinion does not belong in the law. Neither does it belong in a debate. Don't post in here unless you have arguments based on fact. And no, unsourced claims of statistics in "The Mormon Times" are not "fact". Find out who made that study and the methods used.

 

[Shiny Grimer]

But if God is omniscient then he should be able to make it so that homosexuality is not possible, correct? It makes sense. If he answers prayers, then wouldn't it make sense for people to pray to remove homosexuality from earth and he does it?

Then why doesn't God remove lustful people, murderers, and false prophets from the Earth? Those seem to contradict the Bible way more than homosexuals.

There are many explanations to this, ranging from God is not omnipotent to God chooses not to interfere. I don't adhere to either school of thought (I'm having enough difficulty comprehending any sort of God), but thought it was worth pointing out.

 

[J.T.]

Just wanted to respond to one thing: the whole "I'm against homosexuality because it's my religion!" argument.

See, the law should not care what your religion is. You're welcome to think whatever you like in private, but a law that applies to everyone should not be made on the basis of a religion that only part of the population adheres to. If you cannot make a logical argument, independent of your religion, that homosexuals should not have the right to marry the person they love, then your opinion does not belong in the law. Neither does it belong in a debate. Don't post in here unless you have arguments based on fact. And no, unsourced claims of statistics in "The Mormon Times" are not "fact". Find out who made that study and the methods used.

oh come on, now you've pretty much banned all their arguments, that's no fun

 

[Time Psyduck]

But if God is omniscient then he should be able to make it so that homosexuality is not possible, correct? It makes sense. If he answers prayers, then wouldn't it make sense for people to pray to remove homosexuality from earth and he does it?

Just because God can do something doesn't mean he will. I prefer the 'does not interfere' principle for the Christian God. (For the record, I'm agnostic about him.)

Just wanted to respond to one thing: the whole "I'm against homosexuality because it's my religion!" argument.

See, the law should not care what your religion is. You're welcome to think whatever you like in private, but a law that applies to everyone should not be made on the basis of a religion that only part of the population adheres to. If you cannot make a logical argument, independent of your religion, that homosexuals should not have the right to marry the person they love, then your opinion does not belong in the law. Neither does it belong in a debate. Don't post in here unless you have arguments based on fact. And no, unsourced claims of statistics in "The Mormon Times" are not "fact". Find out who made that study and the methods used.

I don't actually think that homosexuals should be prevented from marrying. I may or may not think they should marry, as permit=/=condone, but nowhere would I say that someone can't do something because of something they don't follow/believe. Christians, however, should not be involved in homosexual acts (which would include marriage), because that's what the book says, and part of the rules of Christianity say you follow what the book says.

Saying that, I think that perhaps gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because it will put them at risk from crazed fundamentalists. It's not safe, at least not in the conservative areas of the USA, for them to get married (although I doubt that it's very safe for them to even be out). I apologise for my insanity. Normal service will be resumed shortly.

 

[Harlequin]

oh right so it's for our protection that we can't get married, i see. are you going to give us a curfew next? Voluntary housing in concentration camps?

We'd be safer there, you know.

 

[Time Psyduck]

I wouldn't seriously argue that point, although you could just put up with it for like a year or so and then go to the UN and claim your human rights have been violated.
I don't advocate removing rights. Not granting a right that people didn't have before is a slightly different case, since all the people who never had the right managed to cope, but in most cases I am all for granting said rights. I know this doesn't make any sense.

Anyway it's the crazed fundamentalists who get the concentration camps, or rather 'Christian Living Zones,' so they are safe from all you 'sinful gays' trying to 'corrupt their society.'

 

[hopeandjoy]

guys when are you going to learn that the catholics are batshit insane

Okay, I have to step into this old post to say something. I was raised Catholic and I will tell you right now my mom and sister are not, I repeat, not batshit insane. In fact, they support gay marriage. It is not fair to Catholics to make such a glaring generalization. Everything has its crazies, but it's not fair to say they all are.

 

[Harlequin]

maybe individual Catholics are okay but Catholicism is batshit insane like I said. (all religions are really but the Catholics are a bit more vocal about it)