Homosexuality - Is It Right?

[Johnthegalactic]

Contraction implies you already have it. The condom will prevent the transmission of the STD provided they don't break. With a 90% success rate the odds are usually in your favor.


I'm more then positive if a ***** was ripping through your flesh you would notice it and tell them to stop. To be serious if it really starts to hurt guess what? stop that's a sign that skin is tearing.

But again lubricant works condoms help prevent tearing as well those two alone help prevent a lot of damage in the anus.

Its all about the maturity of the parents not their sexual orientation if lacking either influence was detrimental then a large portion of adults should be in trouble but they're not. It's not the end of the world if you lack a father or mother influence if you can have at least one positive influence in most cases you the child should be fine.

Eor: Then why did you bring up the point? it's really a pointless point. We don't exactly need more kids being born anyway with the whole over crowded foster home thing.

When the flesh tears it is already too late.
And, why not have more kids, why even say we do not need more children, they are such great people, then they hit puberty and then they get all, bratty. I want to have kids.

 

[Aesir]

When the flesh tears it is already too late.

Prevents it from tearing more.

And, why not have more kids, why even say we do not need more children, they are such great people, then they hit puberty and then they get all, bratty. I want to have kids.

I'm not saying you can't, but homosexual couples are really a tapped out resources by adoption agencies.

 

[Eor]

Eor: Then why did you bring up the point? it's really a pointless point. We don't exactly need more kids being born anyway with the whole over crowded foster home thing.

I brought it up as a basis of immorality. A choice that stops you from breeding without medical reasons is immoral. And don't say it's not a choice, as Blazedaces shows. I've already said how it happens.

Also, while I don't think it's a likely doomsday scenario, there is the possibility of the media populating the idea of homosexual equality into the minds of kids, leading to widespread immorality. Just a thought.

 

[blazedaces]

blaze: I don't get what you're asking?

I was asking for numbers. Numbers like the volume of the brains or specifically what's similar. Similarity is subjective, but numbers aren't. Also, what are the percentage rates? If half have similar sizes it's not convincing at all.

Well, I can back this up in the case of males, as you know what they do, the anal lining tears easily, allowing foreign substances(diseases) to enter the bloodstream.

This is your reasoning? I assumed you had some kind of evidence to back up your statement. You have absolutely none. Who cares if this is the case? Foreign substances from the anal lining don't even cause STD's. Stop spouting this nonsense. If you don't have evidence that sex between homosexuals has a higher rate of STD spread than stop mentioning it.

1st off the bat, adopting a child is not the same as having a child, another couple has produced the child, thus, the adopters have just taken in the child, they have not risen the species population by one, and saying using sperm/egg banks(how does an eggbank work? Who is the carrier?), the couple is not having a child together, one is using another human outside the couples egg/sperm to create a child, therefore homosexual couples cannot produce a child.

Egg banks firstly provide eggs, but in the case of homosexual males they would need to find a surrogate mother as well, also a practice available for couples who can't procreate.

Do you have any idea how overcrowded the adoption system is these days? More kids being adopted is a godsend. It's fulfilling a role that's highly needed.

Who cares if they increase the population by 1? The population grows at an exponential rate. Even if it won't happen for some time overpopulation may be a threat we will have to face. Less people having children isn't such a bad idea in that case.

You're also still using double standards here. Are you against any couple that for some reason or another doesn't/can't have children or are you just against homosexuals? Why?

Yeah, weird, you are expected to debate, but your stance is invalid for several reasons.
1. There is no such thing as right or wrong.
2. You are a racist looney.
3. You are a Bible thumping jerk.
4. You condradict the mod's opinion, the only one that is right.

Sadly, I am not racist(that would make relations with my aunt from India hard), I believe that there is right and wrong, I do not scream scriptures in peoples faces, and I feel sorry for always contradicting the mods, cause I wish I could make friends here.

C'est la vie

I realize that there are people who disagree with you and amongst them are people who are mean and condescending, but stop grouping us all together. I didn't accuse you of such things and I don't feel that way about you. Please, let's keep this civil and try to ignore the others who would make what should be an enjoyable debate an endless circle of mockery.

Logic! If homosexuals raise children, then they will obviously be raised in a mom-mom or father-father relationship, which automatically makes it a 100% chance that they will not have both figures in their lives.

No

Again, I assumed you had evidence to back up such an accusation. Without it you have no basis for this statement. You're just speculating. You're welcome to do that on your own but don't expect to try and get anywhere with this in a proper debate.

So I just want to make sure you don't have double standards: you're equally against single parents correct? Your problems with them should be the same as your problem with homosexual couples.

That's exactly it, they don't procreate. Procreation is the only way to expand the species and make us continue to live.

Read what I wrote above. If these people weren't going to have children otherwise, does it even make a difference? Do you feel the same way about all heterosexual couples who don't have children or even every single person on the planet who doesn't/can't have children?

What about the children alive right now without parents (kids up for adoption)? It's not all about quantity. It's sometimes about quality too.

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

I brought it up as a basis of immorality. A choice that stops you from breeding without medical reasons is immoral. And don't say it's not a choice, as Blazedaces shows. I've already said how it happens.

Again it's not a choice, it's a condition. in no way do these people wake up and say. "I wanna be gay" There's studies that prove this, many thought it was genetic but that's becoming like you said not the true origin. It may actually come from the womb. The fact that there's a correlation between homosexual brains having similar brain patters when compared to the opposite sex.

Also, while I don't think it's a likely doomsday scenario, there is the possibility of the media populating the idea of homosexual equality into the minds of kids, leading to widespread immorality. Just a thought.

And whats stopping kids from doing it now? Nothing. Kids will do whatever they want as a means to "go against the norm" hence why you see so many high school kids claiming to be bisexual as it's more of a fad then anything else.

besides we all know high school chicks dig the bi-guys right?

 

[blazedaces]

I brought it up as a basis of immorality. A choice that stops you from breeding without medical reasons is immoral. And don't say it's not a choice, as Blazedaces shows. I've already said how it happens.

So I just want to make sure, you're also against men who get a Vasectomy or women who get a Tubal Ligation? What about people who just decide to never have children?

-blazed

 

[Eor]

So I just want to make sure you don't have double standards: you're equally against single parents correct? Your problems with them should be the same as your problem with homosexual couples.

Yes they should be arrested for child endangerment

Read what I wrote above. If these people weren't going to have children otherwise, does it even make a difference? Do you feel the same way about allheterosexual couples who don't have children or even every single person on the planet who doesn't/can't have children?

What about the children alive right now without parents (kids up for adoption)? It's not all about quantity. It's sometimes about quality too.

Not having children is a sin, so yes, I feel the same

Again it's not a choice, it's a condition. in no way do these people wake up and say. "I wanna be gay" There's studies that prove this, many thought it was genetic but that's becoming like you said not the true origin. It may actually come from the womb. The fact that there's a correlation between homosexual brains having similar brain patters when compared to the opposite sex.

One can only assume that a pact with devils will change more then your orientation.

And whats stopping kids from doing it now

GOD

 

[blazedaces]

Yes they should be arrested for child endangerment

What evidence do you honestly have that shows that children raised by single parents or by homosexuals are any more prone to "disorders" or whatever it was you mentioned?

If you have none then there's no reason to even think they're endangering children.

Not having children is a sin, so yes, I feel the same



One can only assume that a pact with devils will change more then your orientation.






GOD

I believe all of this to be based on your religion.

My religion (religion is just a set of beliefs) says otherwise.

If this is all it comes down to then we have nothing more to discuss. Agree to disagree is all we can do, sadly.

-blazed

 

[Johnthegalactic]

You're also still using double standards here. Are you against any couple that for some reason or another doesn't/can't have children or are you just against homosexuals? Why?

Homosexuals cannot have children together and aren't meant to, thats why men lack ovaries, or why women lack sperm, nature does not allow a man and a man to produce a child, the same goes for a woman and a woman.

Although there are often defects that prevent a man and a women from naturally having a child, this is in no way in the same league as homosexuals being unable to have children together.

And hopefully this is simple enough for you to understand.

And whats stopping kids from doing it now?

Thier mental condition stops them, you should know that.

 

[Eor]

What evidence do you honestly have that shows that children raised by single parents or by homosexuals are any more prone to "disorders" or whatever it was you mentioned?

If you have none then there's no reason to even think they're endangering children.

They're endangering children because they're gay, and we can't trust them to not abuse kids.

I believe all of this to be based on your religion.

My religion (religion is just a set of beliefs) says otherwise.

If this is all it comes down to then we have nothing more to discuss. Agree to disagree is all we can do, sadly.

-blazed

You know that your religion is false because only the Bible is right, and the bible says that jesus is the only way to salvation. How people don't see that baffles me

 

[doom dragon 105]

i dont think its wrong at all.

and i doubt its a sin the most religious people in the world were gay so do the math

 

[Johnthegalactic]

It is a choice, just if you don't like it, you can change it, listen to his words, it is at 4:35!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9VDUHEMho8&feature=related





Such a wise man Ben is!

 

[blazedaces]

Homosexuals cannot have children together and aren't meant to, thats why men lack ovaries, or why women lack sperm, nature does not allow a man and a man to produce a child, the same goes for a woman and a woman.

With technology rising at the rate it is today it won't be long before anyone who wants to have a child can do so(even cloning isn't a notion out of science fiction books anymore...).

Also, why are we having this discussion? I already mentioned egg/sperm banks and the various ways homosexual couples can produce children. It's not even something in the foreseeable future. Today, they can have children. That's it! This whole notion of "natural" is simply a logical fallacy. Please, let's avoid it.

Although there are often defects that prevent a man and a women from naturally having a child, this is in no way in the same league as homosexuals being unable to have children together.

How? Why? What makes defects or choices by people to not have children any different then a homosexual couple. Again, why are we discussing this? Homosexual couples can have children. None of this even makes a difference.

-blazed

 

[Mini Mic]

I think that to imply it is either "right" or "wrong" is to assume that it's actually up to someone to decide. What I think may differ to what you think but that doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong.

It baffles me how someone could think they have the right to infringe on someone else's love life like this. If you don't like someone else for being gay then just deal with it, you don't have to like them but if you don't then just keep your mouth shut because I have news for you: no one cares what you think.

Personally I don't see what people are so afraid of, I mean doesn't more gay people (men at least) mean less competition for a mate anyway? Attacking someone's rights, in this case freedom of expression is far worse than two people of the same sex loving each other.

 

[blazedaces]

They're endangering children because they're gay, and we can't trust them to not abuse kids.

You know that your religion is false because only the Bible is right, and the bible says that jesus is the only way to salvation. How people don't see that baffles me

It is a choice, just if you don't like it, you can change it, listen to his words, it is at 4:35!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9VDUHEMho8&feature=related





Such a wise man Ben is!

I fail. How can anyone argue with that logic? Seriously?

 

[Johnthegalactic]

With technology rising at the rate it is today it won't be long before anyone who wants to have a child can do so(even cloning isn't a notion out of science fiction books anymore...).

Also, why are we having this discussion? I already mentioned egg/sperm banks and the various ways homosexual couples can produce children. It's not even something in the foreseeable future. Today, they can have children. That's it! This whole notion of "natural" is simply a logical fallacy. Please, let's avoid it.


How? Why? What makes defects or choices by people to not have children any different then a homosexual couple. Again, why are we discussing this? Homosexual couples can have children. None of this even makes a difference.

-blazed

No, you cannot, two men cannot combine their sperm and create a child, two men cannot make a baby, two women cannot make a baby, it takes a man, and a woman.

They cannot have children, they can adopt a child, they did not produce it, one can use an egg or sperm from someone else, but the homosexual couple did not produce that child.

And cloning is not producing a child between two people, thus you fail.

And do not argue with Obi-Wan, he will use his Jedi mind tricks on your feeble mind!

 

[blazedaces]

No, you cannot, two men cannot combine their sperm and create a child, two men cannot make a baby, two women cannot make a baby, it takes a man, and a woman.

Unless chuck norris round housed him where it counts...

They cannot have children, they can adopt a child, they did not produce it, one can use an egg or sperm from someone else, but the homosexual couple did not produce that child.

And cloning is not producing a child between two people, thus you fail.

But it's still... producing... a child... which means population++

And do not argue with Obi-Wan, he will use his Jedi mind tricks on your feeble mind!

Dude, I totally got an A in "how to avoid jedi mind tricks", so he can take his WIN somewhere else!

-blazed

 

[Johnthegalactic]

Obi-Wan's mind tricks can be avoided, but if he decides to use them on someone, they WILL work, unless you are Chuck Norris.

 

[mzink*]

Mind tricks only work on the weak minded.

 

[EC_Joey]

Jedi mind tricks have what to do with homosexuality?

Johnthegalactic, do you feel that a man and a woman who despise each other have any more of a right to have a child and raise it than two men or two women who love each other? Just because nature doesn't allow them to have a child together doesn't mean that they don't have maternal or paternal instincts or desires. Nature says nothing about what is right or what is wrong, it simply says that two people of the same sex cannot produce a child.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

Jedi mind tricks have what to do with homosexuality?

Johnthegalactic, do you feel that a man and a woman who despise each other have any more of a right to have a child and raise it than two men or two women who love each other? Just because nature doesn't allow them to have a child together doesn't mean that they don't have maternal or paternal instincts or desires. Nature says nothing about what is right or what is wrong, it simply says that two people of the same sex cannot produce a child.

What kind of love is it? I love peanut butter and jelly!

 

[blazedaces]

What kind of love is it? I love peanut butter and jelly!

Peanut butter and jelly lover! I knew you had a sick mind all along! It's just ... unnatural! Take your peanut butter and jelly loving lifestyle somewhere else... and take the few of the rest of your kind with you!

-blazed

 

[RDK]

What kind of love is it? I love peanut butter and jelly!

You're truly a terrible person if you degrade the love between ANY two people as being comparable to someone's preference to peanut butter and jelly.

Johnthegalactic, you're such a moron that it's not even funny. I hope Alt or Crimson realizes how little you actually contribute to this debate and boot you from the Hall. The only thing you do is throw around faulty logic and dumb Youtube videos without even considereing or acknowledging arguments that don't line up with your insular and intolerant Christian views.

Homosexuals cannot have children together and aren't meant to, thats why men lack ovaries, or why women lack sperm, nature does not allow a man and a man to produce a child, the same goes for a woman and a woman.

They weren't MEANT to have children? Well I guess humans shouldn't take airplanes as a mode of transportation because we weren't MEANT to fly. We don't have wings.

I guess we shouldn't swim in the ocean for recreation because we weren't MEANT to be able to swim underwater. We don't have gills or fins.

Your arguments are ridiculous and borderline Nazi-ish.

 

[Amide]

@ RDK

You forgot that we weren't born with the shoes or clothes, so we shouldn't wear them!

There is absolutely no way to prove that things weren't meant to be. If we weren't supposed to change anything, society wouldn't be anywhere.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

You're truly a terrible person if you degrade the love between ANY two people as being comparable to someone's preference to peanut butter and jelly.


Your arguments are ridiculous and borderline Nazi-ish.

First, I wanted specification of what kind of love you talk about, as my example of loving PB&J shows the english word love covers a very broad subject.

Am I Nazish, no, not even borderline, why, my great grandpa was shot three times by the Nazi's, why would I want to be alongside those that shot my great grandpa?

Here is what I was eluding to in the PB&J remark.
Obviously, the english word love is much broader than the narrower Greek words.

Agape - agapē is charitable, selfless, altruistic, and unconditional. It is parental love seen as creating goodness in the world.
Phileo - Phileo is a human response to something that is found to be delightful. Also known as "brotherly love".
Two other words for love in the Greek language -- Eros (sexual love) and storge (needy child-to-parent love).

 

[pockyD]

Here is what I was eluding to in the PB&J remark.

Pretty ironic typo, seeing how no one understood what you meant

 

[Aesir]

Here is what I was eluding to in the PB&J remark.
Obviously, the english word love is much broader than the narrower Greek words.

You know what we meant, saying anything else is really just a way to cover your tracks. we're talking about two individuals what way would we be speaking of love then?

 

[Johnthegalactic]

You know what we meant, saying anything else is really just a way to cover your tracks. we're talking about two individuals what way would we be speaking of love then?

Philia is a brotherly love, that in friendship,(Philadelphia gets it's name from this word).
Storge is a family love, or a friendship love that turns into a sexual relationship, and want their other to be their best friend. Also, storgic lovers place importance in commitment, they are faithful to preserve their trust, they show their bond through children and marriage, and sexual relations are not of as much importance as in some other types of love.

Agape is a non-sexual love that is self sacrificing.
Eros, is a love centered on sensual desires, often lustful, but can be a deep appreciation for the beauty.

Well, then I would say it falls into the category of eros or storge, anyone else got anything?

 

[pockyD]

Given the topic, I have no idea how you're failing to comprehend the "type of love" being referenced

 

[Aesir]

Why not just use the I dunno actual meaning rather then arguing technicalities?

A deep affection for another, love between two men and two women doesn't have to be solely sensual or lustful. It can just be a deep affection toward another which often times doesn't have to be sexual.

 

[Eor]

Not if it's homosexual, in which case it's only created by carnal knowledge and satan

 

[EC_Joey]

Not if it's homosexual, in which case it's only created by carnal knowledge and satan

I always knew Satan was one.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

Anyone who uses the Bible as reference to say that homosexuality is wrong also must believe that it's okay to murder your children if they strike you, keep slaves, kill witches or anyone who doesn't follow God, and on top of that, kill homosexuals. Anyone who opposes homosexuality but doesn't do any of those things has set a double standard. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[EC_Joey]

If I had a cake, I'd eat it. What's the point of having a cake and not eating it?

 

[Aesir]

Not if it's homosexual, in which case it's only created by carnal knowledge and satan

Man I never realized this till now, but horns? Clearly for more then just show. Clearly.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Anyone who uses the Bible as reference to say that homosexuality is wrong also must believe that it's okay to murder your children if they strike you, keep slaves, kill witches or anyone who doesn't follow God, and on top of that, kill homosexuals. Anyone who opposes homosexuality but doesn't do any of those things has set a double standard. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The last time Christians did any of those things was when it was commanded by God and recorded by Moses back *then*. The inquisition of the middle ages, which one might say upholds those Old Testament recordings, was not commanded by God and was very sinful.

No present-day Christians do those things, and no present-day Christians want to kill homosexuals. Present-day Christians should be showing the homosexual his/her sin, and then lovingly remind them that Jesus has died for it.

If I'm going to blunt, unrepentant sinners (including active homosexuals) will go to hell.

 

[Eor]

The last time Christians did any of those things was when it was commanded by God and recorded by Moses back *then*. The inquisition of the middle ages, which one might say upholds those Old Testament recordings, was not commanded by God and was very sinful.

No present-day Christians do those things, and no present-day Christians want to kill homosexuals. Present-day Christians should be showing the homosexual his/her sin, and then lovingly remind them that Jesus has died for it.

If I'm going to blunt, unrepentant sinners (including active homosexuals) will go to hell.

Those who do not do as God says will go to hell, there is no past and present God, there is one God, and we must do as he says. And he says kill

 

[pockyD]

The last time Christians did any of those things was when it was commanded by God and recorded by Moses back *then*.

Christians didn't exist in the time of Moses

The inquisition of the middle ages, which one might say upholds those Old Testament recordings, was not commanded by God and was very sinful.

How do you know whether it was commanded by God?

No present-day Christians do those things, and no present-day Christians want to kill homosexuals.

Plenty of 'present-day' Christians would be into that kind of thing (see: Hitler). The problem is that the label "Christian" is far too broad to make any convincing argument about what a "Christian" would do

 

[EC_Joey]

You know who else should go to hell? Those masturbation addicts. Also, anyone who uses a condom. Unnatural abominations!

 

[Johnthegalactic]

Plenty of 'present-day' Christians would be into that kind of thing (see: Hitler). The problem is that the label "Christian" is far too broad to make any convincing argument about what a "Christian" would do

Hitler regarded Christianity as a religion for the weak, and based plenty of his beliefs on things such as survival of the fittest.
Aryans were considered the fittest, and he wanted to exterminate the undesirables, Hitler was a psycho crazy man.

You know who else should go to hell? Those masturbation addicts. Also, anyone who uses a condom. Unnatural abominations!

Why, don't be picken' on de amish folk for refusing the unnatural things!