• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

What Is Your Stance On Homosexuality?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bella Swan

Charmander!
I'm in Australia, and same-sex marriage is not allowed here. The government doesn't even recognise same-sex marriages that have been performed outside of the country.

It is absolute garbage that you're not allowed to marry the one you love because it doesn't suit SOME PERSON you don't even know, and will never meet.
How can a happily married, heterosexual couple vote against gay marriage? What the FACK does it have to do with them. How selfish!
So much for a free country.

I wonder what would happen if the entire nation voted against heterosexual marriage. I bet there would be extreme outrage and riots and threats.
Why can THEY have marriage, yet be so selfish and take it away from people they don't even know.

I say they GTFO of our private lives and mind their own business.
 

Mr.Palkia_7389

Well-Known Member
I don't get why everyone makes such a big deal about homosexuality. People should just get on with their lives and and let them get on with theirs the way they want to. If they like the same gender then who cares, it's not your problem, just leave them alone.
 

UltimateNagash

I am a glow worm...
What I do NOT like are people who form relationships with people of the same gender just for attention. I have some girls in my school who say they are bisexual only because guys think girlxgirl is "hot".
Maybe it's just me but no, it's not. Watching two guys is better. And I'm, what, I guess bout a 70/30 or 75/25 women/male fancy ratio lol :D

Last kiss at had was some guy in the toilets actually :p

Anyway, back to the topic at hand lol ¬_¬

Personally, it's not my choice of what I like and what I don't like. I mean, sure, liking appearance is slightly based on my mentality, I have no issues with being with guys. Would happily be with one. I just prefer women, that's all...
 

Shepard

metaphysician
The reason why same-sex marriage is such a hot button issue with so many people is because people feel threatened by anything that is "other" than those beliefs that they have based their own lives around. To this end, the same-sex marriage issue is less about other people being gay and more about people's own innate insecurities and having the foundation of whatever dogma they've been spoonfed their entire lives crumbling beneath them.

If two people have a loving, nurturing, consenual relationship together and want to spend the rest of their days by each other's side, why does it matter if they're both men or both women? It shouldn't. Are two men in a relationship or two women in a relationship hurting anyone by being together? I really don't think they are, and I think people who feel threatened by such things need to grow the hell up.

I think that over the next 20-30 years we're going to see a redefinition of 'marriage' altogether. To that end, I also foresee that divorce rates are going to go down, but mainly because marriage rates are going to be going down as well. As our definition of family and marriage evolves into something a bit more encompassing, I really think that marriage is going to be viewed less and less as a necessary institution of 'family life', and more as just a formalized celebration of the love between two people. All the same, I feel very strongly that gay people should have the right to marry if they choose to. With the current perception of marriage as a necessary institution, denying gay people that right is essentially a refusal to legitimize same sex couples as truly having relationships, which is nothing short of blind discrimination.
 

superjesus1

Well-Known Member
Interesting article! Except I did not see the 50/50 figure anywhere, I read that in men genetics supposedly influences their orientation 35, while in women it becomes lower at 18% The study indirectly shows that sexual orientation is more of an environmental factor than it is a genetic factor.

I have a few questions however.



Which hormones? If they can pinpoint exactly which hormones, can they measure how much exposure a foetus in the womb needs to said hormone, to become homosexual or heterosexual? Unless it's a quantifiable statement, I don't see it how it holds much water, but fascinating to say the least.

It's also strange. If twins do indeed share identical genes, and identical environment, shouldn't that consistently provide the same results? Its all too real of a possibility that maybe I didn't read the article closely enough, but I didn't pick up on what was specifically genetic about anything.

Sorry i always say 50/50 when something has two factors X3 i really have to stop doing it XD
Anyways some of the stuff in that article was rather hazy in honesty, and some bits made me think 'wait a sec that doesn’t make sense, if what they wrote before is true of course........' Ah well, i came across it while searching for the case of the two Chinese twins who were separated at birth and one turned out to be a lesbian and the other heterosexual even though they were identical twins. Couldn't find any sources online, but i have seen an A level biology video on the topic and that particular case. If anyone finds anything on that particular case please post as I’d like to read into it!
 

christiandeath77

You gotta crush em'.
Let people like what they want.Be who they are.You cant control the world, and anybody anti-gay are just wasting their lives trying to control others.
 
I'm a Christian through and through.
However, my views are A LOT more progressive and different than my fellow "Freaks for Jesus."
I'm in favor of Homosexuality, Bisexuality, etc.
If it makes you happy, that's what you're called to.
Some of my best friends are Gay, and they aren't ANY different from how they were before they told me, except I now know they do things a little differently in the sheets.

Homosexuals getting married WILL NOT make the world implode, start a nuclear holocaust, cause the stock market to crash even further, etc.
It just means that two people who are in love want to spend their lives together.
It doesn't effect you, so why should you care?
And that's where I stand on the subject.
 

Fused

Shun the nonbeliever
Fused had brought up the study where it showed that homosexual adults have a smaller hypothalamus gland than that of heterosexuals. Be careful. That doesn't necessarily entail anything biological. Children that physically abused, and likewise alcoholics under PET scan do show different brain structures as opposed to someone that's normal (I"m referring to the default, please do not get upset with me for using the word "normal") Does that mean that said child was born physically abused, or said person was born an alcoholic? I'm afraid to say, the answer to that is no. The findings in regards to the hypothalumus Fused, is not conclusive evidence. In order for it to be conclusive, you would have to trace the change back to when they were infants. It's paramount to understand that the presence of biological differences does not amount to biological beginnings.

Actually, I was talking about the proven behavioral response of the hypothalamus to certain pheromones. I said nothing about the study of their size. That isn't the only sexually dimorphic thing about them (hypothalamuses). Their reactions to certain things are also sexually dimorphic. Whether or not they were actually born with such a hypothalamus or not no longer remains as an issue, as now it is a biological reaction if men have a hypothalamus that reacts to pheromones from other men.

I think there is also a lot of confusion when we speak of the word "choice." When I say choice at least, I do not mean the kind of choice such as turning a light switch on and off. I don't think it's that simple. I think homosexuality can arise from a culmination of different choices, as well as life style decisions. You're body can become accustomed to a lot of different things, hot, cold, as well as thought processes. For example if you take a pure innocent child, and have her exposed to things such as murder or rape over a long period of time, needless to say that child will not be the same. (Merely an example, do not read too far into it.) Her entire train of thought, in essence, will be completely re-worked.

I also don't believe it is that simple to "choose," however what such lifestyle choices would cause someone to become homosexual? And for that matter, what are some lifestyle choices chosen by over 1,500 species of animals that would cause them to be homosexual. At least the pheromone argument I presented ties all of these species together. The choice argument however does not necessarily bring all of these "deviant" species together. It would be hard to isolate such choices as well. Not to mention, their are many thigns that can affect the outcomes of your choices,s uch as your peers, your environment, your mentality, the mood of the environment, etc. To simply choose a few things doesn't necessarily take you down the rainbow road seeign as how all of the aforementioned factors play a part in the consequences of decisions that you make.

Which hormones? If they can pinpoint exactly which hormones, can they measure how much exposure a fetus in the womb needs to said hormone, to become homosexual or heterosexual? Unless it's a qauntifiable statement, I don't see it how it holds much water, but fascinating to say the least.

They aren't actually hormones but instead antibodies. Anitbodies target and neutralize a foreign object. Since the female womb finds male fetuses foreign, it produces antibodies to neutralize, or feminize, it. The more children, specifically males, a mother has, the more antibodies her body will create, which brings into play the birth order theory.

I actually think you have a very valid point. Having a purely sexual attraction to a member of the same sex, doesn't necessarily mean you're even homosexual. I think we need to to distinquish between different types of attraction too. There is a distinct difference between having a sexual attraction to someone just on the surface level, and on the other hand wanting a personal relationship. There are many people that admit while having on the surface a sexual attraction, would not want anything of a relationship. So there's two different needs to be met.

This logic could also mean that having a sexual attraction to the opposite sex doesn't make you exclusively heterosexual, correct? Hooray for double standards. Again, the rest of that isn't only appliable to homosexuals, remember.

It should also be noted that there is no concrete time for sexual attraction(homosexual attraction) to appear. This is an enigma to me. Homosexuals report "discovering" their sexuality from anywhere between ages 10, to after college. However when its concerning heterosexuality, you even see signs of that in the smallest of children. I have heard no reports of homosexual behavior whatsoever in children, only on the rare case that said child was a hermaphrodite, in which case that's unrelated.

Actually, sexual attraction begins at puberty, when your hypothalamus releases neurohormones which in turn create and release hormones that begin the stage of puberty. Puberty is when our bodies develop in order to engage in sexual intercourse.

The poster above me also brought up the point that sometimes it's our natural tendency to conform to society's stereotypes. Some men are for feminine than others, as well as women more masculine than others. Unfortunatley with enough pressure, especially in a highschool enviroment, that easily creates sexual confusion. There are just too many different factors to say definitively that homosexuality is not a choice. The range for sexual discovery is far too wide, it seems heavily dependent on an individuals self esteem level, along with intense societal pressure about what a man and woman should act like. People that report they are of one sexual orientation, often change their mind a year, or ten years later. Or "rediscover" themselves if you will.

You realize that in this day and age, kids actually ignore stereotypes. In fact most gay guys I know turned to those stereotypes in order to define themselves to others that they were gay. However, I'm not a feminine male, and I'm gay, so stereotypes can actually only affect idiots who don't realize that they are stereotypes. Not to mention, high school is always filled with sexual confusion, no matter what.

You should also understand the difference between attraction in your head, and how you actually(will) feel. You can become sexually attracted to a gender, engage in a sexual act with that gender, and then be completely unnattracted after intercourse.

And what about in thousands of cases where that isn't true? Ultimately, it's your hypothalamus (that term will get old) that controls emotions along with sexual desires. So unless you are actually confused about what you want, it's your hypothalamus that controls both sexual attraction and your emotions, which will in turn affect what type of relationship you seek.

Oh, and I almost forgot about this interestign study which strongly supports that sexual orientation is greatly determined during fetal development.
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html

The interesting thing is that finger ratios also show signs of other attributes in adulthood, from heart disease to depression to soccer abilities to even musical talents and the masculinity of handwriting.
 
Last edited:

Kirsche

Lovey dovey
i'm gay.... and very happy...
i live in mexico city, so sometimes it's very difficult to open up.... but that doesn't bring me down.... i hope someday i can get married and built a family with my significant other...
 

PartyPokemon

L or Kira?
Meh. I don't care. You can go ahead and be homosexual if you like. It really doesn't matter to me. Nobody cares. I don't care. My cat doesn't care. Serebii Joe doesn't care. Barack Obama doesn't care. Jesus doesn't really care. There, that's pretty much the most important people. And none of them care. So you're free to love whomever you like! Gender shouldn't matter.

And in this world, to be honest, we need more peace and love. If we don't let homosexuals love each other... then that's just a little less love right there... and we need all the love we can get, so...

And it is definitely NOT a choice! In today's world, homosexuals are still discriminated against. Now, no one would choose to be discriminated against like that. If it were a choice, no one at all would be a homosexual. But some people are still homosexual. So it must not be a choice. Simple.
 
Last edited:

snare

DEATH STARE.
Concerning this link...

I am not an expert on the biochemical intricacies that are taking place in my very own brain... But I can certainly say with certainty that I have never been abused. Although this is purely anecdotal and probably means nothing to you seeing as I don't have thorough documentations regarding my life and habits in some archive somewhere, but my orientation is not product of abuse, nor is it caused by some sour experiences with women...

I wasn't really close with my father if that helps any, some people say the gay is caused by lack of affection from your pa (I personally doubt this).

Also I've learnt it's important to ask questions when the source of your material comes from an organization known as "Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment". Seems a tad biased, hm?
 

Crypted Wolf

Well-Known Member
To be honest, I kinda don't care. Sure, I may be a little because Christianity is against it, but that is only marriage I believe.
 

Fused

Shun the nonbeliever

What the ****? Especially to this:

One last note: Homosexuals do not want you to know that many of them were sexually abused when young, because many people who were so abused go on to molest others. And homosexuals do not want you to know that they are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals are.

And they have the nerve to call the liberals biased and ignorant.

I've never been abused, sexually or emotionally or just plain physically, so you can just write off that "information." Not to mention, all it did really was talk about kids that are sexually abused. And it said young boys abused by older boys would self-identify as gay. Why would a boy like boys after being brutally attacked by one? it doesn't make much sense really. Oh well.

To be honest, I kinda don't care. Sure, I may be a little because Christianity is against it, but that is only marriage I believe.

Well Crypted Wolf, i'm glad that you brought up the topic of religion, as that is most certainly one of the touchiest subjects out there regarding homosexuality.

Is God or Jesus really against homosexuals? Or is that just the modern teachings of Christianity regarding sexuality?

Well, to start off, Sodom was not destroyed because of the Sodomites being gay. If it was, then why were the owmen and children all killed as well? Were they all homosexual? No. In fact puberty doesn't even begin until you are about 10.

Second of all, Ezekiel 16:49 lists the sins of Sodom. Homosexuality/sodomy is not among that list.

Now, we come to Lot and two visitors he protected. these two visitors were angels. the Bible states that angels are irresistable. It does not limit what sex they are irresistable to, interestignly enough.

Next are the two Leviticus passages, 18:22 and 20:13. these two passages are found after the first 16 chapters, which create the priestly codes, and the following ten collectively create the Holiness Codes. At the very beginning of Leviticus, god states that these rules are for the workings of God's covenant with Israel. God even says that the rules found in Leviticus DO NOT apply to fellow Christians. Now, the four of five versions (I can't rmember which one) of the Bible I read, only one called homosexuality abominable. All the others called it detestable.

Detestable has a very different meaning from sin. Detestable means to cause feelings of disgust. Sins are acts that break laws. Very different thigns, if you ask me.

Now, 20:13 is much more hostile, as it says that homosexuals should be put to death. Why don't we put homosexuals to death nowadays? If the Bible is right, we must do what it says.

Anyways, 20:13 contradicts what God told Asa to do, which was to expell, or move, the homosexuals from the land. So first God says to kill homosexuals and then to move (and alienate) them. Which one is right?

Genesis only talk about a man and a woman that have the option to procreate. it says nothing about any other kind of couple.

Now, Revelation 14:1-4 are vague. In 14:1, it says “And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.” 14:3 says that these men were redeemed from earth and 14:4 then goes on to say that these 144,000 men were not defiled by women, and leaves it as that. It is unclear whether these men are virgins or homosexual men seeing as how neither are defiled by women.

Finally there is this: http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html which, using proper translations and research shows that Jesus actually saved a homosexual couple from death.
 
Last edited:

snare

DEATH STARE.
Yeah, that link is something else, it was posted on the first page. I was just skimming the topic really, so if that link was posted as a serious source, I'm not too sure. But I don't care how many fancy footnotes that article has, it's erroneous and dangerous to believe that homosexuality is nothing but a product of abuse. (Not that this is being contested in this thread or anything).
 

Fused

Shun the nonbeliever
Yeah, that link is something else, it was posted on the first page. I was just skimming the topic really, so if that link was posted as a serious source, I'm not too sure. But I don't care how many fancy footnotes that article has, it's erroneous and dangerous to believe that homosexuality is nothing but a product of abuse. (Not that this is being contested in this thread or anything).

Wow. Not to mention other links on the homepage call homosexuality unnatural even though homosexuality has been declared a sexual orientation which is the natural preference of one's desires. So, unnatural depends on who you are. The same page calls it immoral, even though morals establish right and wrong, and every person has some morals that are not identical.

It also only talks about homosexuals with diseases and not heterosexuals, and other things that modern science and simple defining and thinking skills can easily disprove.

It also lists groups that "convert' homosexuals into heterosexuals. Several of those groups have used "information" to prove their point. however a large number of scientists have criticized these groups for manipulating their information. http://respectmyresearch.org/

Also, a sexual orientation is the natural preference of one's desires. Orientation is a natural direction, in summary. As we all know, homosexuality entails certain behaviors. We all know that we can adjust behaviors. But we can’t adjust nature. Therefore, ex-gay ministries can only change behaviors, but it is impossible for them to change orientation, as it is naturally defined. If your a liar, it is your orientation to think of lies. It comes naturally to you. not to tell the lies would be behavior, which we all know you can control whether or not you actually speak your lies.

Furthermore, the American Psychiatric Association has criticized conversion therapy, saying that it can cause more damage on its patients than help, saying that such therapy can put patients into deep confusion or send them on a self-destructive path. They have stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and cannot be changed.
 
Last edited:

snare

DEATH STARE.
I know all about those ex-gay programs, well, by know, I mean I've read the horror stories. And I believe it was John Paulk, who was a spokesperson for an ex-gay group, who claimed he "overcame" his homosexuality but was later found at a gay bar some time later. Oh well, he has a wife now, so it must've worked in the long run. 9_9

But as I mentioned earlier...How do you feel about those who say "lack of a caring fatherly figure causes homosexuality?" They believe a child will begin developing erotic feelings for men as compensation.
 

Fused

Shun the nonbeliever
I know all about those ex-gay programs, well, by know, I mean I've read the horror stories. And I believe it was John Paulk, who was a spokesperson for an ex-gay group, who claimed he "overcame" his homosexuality but was later found at a gay bar some time later. Oh well, he has a wife now, so it must've worked in the long run. 9_9

That's what he gets for being a ***** liar.

But as I mentioned earlier...How do you feel about those who say "lack of a caring fatherly figure causes homosexuality?" They believe a child will begin developing erotic feelings for men as compensation.

Yes, they apparently believe that. I for one don't buy it. I mean to develop close bonds with males for compensation seems rational but to develop erotic feelings and sexual reactions for males as compensation seems a little stupid in my eyes.
 

Crypted Wolf

Well-Known Member
Well Crypted Wolf, i'm glad that you brought up the topic of religion, as that is most certainly one of the touchiest subjects out there regarding homosexuality.

Is God or Jesus really against homosexuals? Or is that just the modern teachings of Christianity regarding sexuality?

Well, to start off, Sodom was not destroyed because of the Sodomites being gay. If it was, then why were the owmen and children all killed as well? Were they all homosexual? No. In fact puberty doesn't even begin until you are about 10.

Second of all, Ezekiel 16:49 lists the sins of Sodom. Homosexuality/sodomy is not among that list.

Now, we come to Lot and two visitors he protected. these two visitors were angels. the Bible states that angels are irresistable. It does not limit what sex they are irresistable to, interestignly enough.

Next are the two Leviticus passages, 18:22 and 20:13. these two passages are found after the first 16 chapters, which create the priestly codes, and the following ten collectively create the Holiness Codes. At the very beginning of Leviticus, god states that these rules are for the workings of God's covenant with Israel. God even says that the rules found in Leviticus DO NOT apply to fellow Christians. Now, the four of five versions (I can't rmember which one) of the Bible I read, only one called homosexuality abominable. All the others called it detestable.

Detestable has a very different meaning from sin. Detestable means to cause feelings of disgust. Sins are acts that break laws. Very different thigns, if you ask me.

Now, 20:13 is much more hostile, as it says that homosexuals should be put to death. Why don't we put homosexuals to death nowadays? If the Bible is right, we must do what it says.

Anyways, 20:13 contradicts what God told Asa to do, which was to expell, or move, the homosexuals from the land. So first God says to kill homosexuals and then to move (and alienate) them. Which one is right?

Genesis only talk about a man and a woman that have the option to procreate. it says nothing about any other kind of couple.

Now, Revelation 14:1-4 are vague. In 14:1, it says “And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.” 14:3 says that these men were redeemed from earth and 14:4 then goes on to say that these 144,000 men were not defiled by women, and leaves it as that. It is unclear whether these men are virgins or homosexual men seeing as how neither are defiled by women.

Finally there is this: http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html which, using proper translations and research shows that Jesus actually saved a homosexual couple from death.
To be honest, I didn't even know any of this. I guess I was just brain washed by the media which implicates that Religion is against Christianity.
 

Ajiryn

Eevee-lutionist
Well Crypted Wolf, i'm glad that you brought up the topic of religion, as that is most certainly one of the touchiest subjects out there regarding homosexuality.

Is God or Jesus really against homosexuals? Or is that just the modern teachings of Christianity regarding sexuality?

Well, to start off, Sodom was not destroyed because of the Sodomites being gay. If it was, then why were the owmen and children all killed as well? Were they all homosexual? No. In fact puberty doesn't even begin until you are about 10.

Second of all, Ezekiel 16:49 lists the sins of Sodom. Homosexuality/sodomy is not among that list.

Now, we come to Lot and two visitors he protected. these two visitors were angels. the Bible states that angels are irresistable. It does not limit what sex they are irresistable to, interestignly enough.

Next are the two Leviticus passages, 18:22 and 20:13. these two passages are found after the first 16 chapters, which create the priestly codes, and the following ten collectively create the Holiness Codes. At the very beginning of Leviticus, god states that these rules are for the workings of God's covenant with Israel. God even says that the rules found in Leviticus DO NOT apply to fellow Christians. Now, the four of five versions (I can't rmember which one) of the Bible I read, only one called homosexuality abominable. All the others called it detestable.

Detestable has a very different meaning from sin. Detestable means to cause feelings of disgust. Sins are acts that break laws. Very different thigns, if you ask me.

Now, 20:13 is much more hostile, as it says that homosexuals should be put to death. Why don't we put homosexuals to death nowadays? If the Bible is right, we must do what it says.

Anyways, 20:13 contradicts what God told Asa to do, which was to expell, or move, the homosexuals from the land. So first God says to kill homosexuals and then to move (and alienate) them. Which one is right?

Genesis only talk about a man and a woman that have the option to procreate. it says nothing about any other kind of couple.

Now, Revelation 14:1-4 are vague. In 14:1, it says “And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.” 14:3 says that these men were redeemed from earth and 14:4 then goes on to say that these 144,000 men were not defiled by women, and leaves it as that. It is unclear whether these men are virgins or homosexual men seeing as how neither are defiled by women.

Finally there is this: http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html which, using proper translations and research shows that Jesus actually saved a homosexual couple from death.

1. Church positions vary radically on this. It's hard to really know what it's stance is because of.... well... how spread out we are.

2. God would be considered against it. Jesus, however, being the ever loving person he was, accepted everyone as the humans they were.

3. Sodom was destroyed indeed, homosexuality being one of the reasons. Children and women were also caught in the act, women mostly being prostitutes and the children being stuck in the middle. However, that was the old testament God. Comparatively, the old testament God was easily ****** and often exacted demise to his enemies and lost people. (Even his own people.) However, we see a slight curve on the nice scale as one progresses through the Bible.

4. Angels are heavenly beings, who are probably Level 100. I'd probably find one irresistible, but perhaps party wise.

5. Detestable and sin are very different, but are also in a way alike to each other. My paraphasing may be off, but one can find a few passages stating that the least of sin is no different from the greatest. (So stealing that 28" TV might still land you in the same arena as that 20/20 serial killer you saw last week on that very tv.) This is where most debate occurs, one side stating that homosexuality is on par with the other sins while the opposing side protests the extremist view on it. This is an argument likely to never reach an end.

6. The Bible is not always right. If a passage is quoted from the old testament, there is likely a new testament verse that is an update, if not ursuption of the previous passage. While one may say to kill homosexuals, and soon after that merely wants them relocated, the meaning of it is still the same. Like I said before, early-bible God was easily ****** off, and some of his people learned to 'not-go-there' on some issues. Chances are, the 'kill' verse was either in extreme terror of what might happen if one were to accept the targeted. However, someone a bit more peace-minded would see it fit to only move the targeted rather than killing. God is the server admin of life- Very little can ever truly be certain of God, as he has script commands for everything. ^_^ It's been proven that even God has sometimes change his mind (second guess to a degree) about some of what he does. (EX: Flooding the entire world. His deal with Noah was to ensure he'd never do such a thing to the world again.)

7. There being only two humans, the script probably didn't see a need to address man on man or woman on woman since it would theoretically be impossible at the time.

8. Jesus, in a blunt view, saved just about everyone he loved. The thought of him saving a homosexual couple is not sound but considering his kind nature, is entirely workable.

Supreme discrimination against homosexuals is quite a minefield. I was raised Catholic, but tend to act more accepting than others (especially since some are pretty extreme Catholics.). While I still cannot truthfully support something that I was taught against, I like to see the goodness in people and both sides of the argument. Admittedly, Catholics can sometimes be a very hypocritical group. We're not the saints that most of our own church think we are- Like nearly every other group, we've had our highs, and sadly, our lows- The times I shudder to think that my religion was responsible for. (Looking back on history, how many times can you think of a horrible act being committed in the name of the church?)

No one has a sparkling flawless record- At least, I can't fathom such a group. (Maybe monks. They seem agreeable enough. >_>)

On the other hand, homosexuality is still against natural order, Catholic reputation or not.

This is where the debate never ends.

I feel sad for a few friends I have that are gay, lesbian, etc. Not because of what they are, but because of this entire ordeal. Sure- sometimes I sorely wish they were actually straight. But further thought strikes me- Even though they have this flaw, what are they like as a human? This is where I become confused and sad. This is where I realize that my friends who have this 'flaw' are sometimes, if not always, higher than people in my church when it comes to a set virtuous standards and moral conduct. That's why I'm sad- My church does not truly accept these people- But what happens to the few that are more of a better person than people who are supposed to be instilled with Christianly love?

It's quite the standstill. My only real answer for this?

Everyone has their flaws. My church specifically does not support this one. But there are cases where the one is somehow better than the many. As an individual, I still can't go against something that seems like a staple in my beliefs. As a human, however, I believe that we were all created, giving will, yadda-yadda and so on. Homosexuals may be going against my church teachings- But then again, Jesus taught us to love. The only way I can think of how to describe it at the moment is an 'indifferent but grudging acceptance'.

Enough with the religious debate for now- You can see that as a Catholic who generally just likes fellow people, I can't really go anywhere with this. Let's talk social values-

One reason this is a huge debate as it is nowadays is because homosexuality is often linked to something that is unrelated. I had watched a debate between two girls not too long ago, where one said that the sexual revolution had helped females becomes more in today's world. Now, assuming that she had the right thought of what the revolution was (freely enjoying sex, freely enjoying lesbianism / bi-oriented lifestyles) I had a hard time making sense of her argument, because at the end of it, I reasonably deducted from her presentation that she genuinely believe females had come farther in this world by shackin' it up more often with a wider market, so to speak.

That's the point I had to dismiss the argument as a whole. (I'm still open to it, sure, but hopefully next time the message will be clearer.)

Recently, a 'Day of Silence' was observed at my school, where many of the people in question and the supporters of said people took it upon themselves to remain silent. This was to represent homosexuals not having a voice in some things.

That. Is the LAZIEST. IDEA. Of a protest- EVER.

Aside from most of these silence-fanatics not truly being 'silent' with the introduction of texting (no kiddies, it doesn't count if you text), I had an extremely difficult time seeing the point of this. If this group was truly fearing their society discriminating against them, why would they think a day of silence would help? Silence does not get your point across. Martin Luther King wasn't silent- He spoke for what he believed. Susan B. Anthony spoke for womens' suffrage. Samuel Adams spoke for independence. Thurgood Marshall fought for civil rights. Some crazy lady threw herself to her death in front of an ongoing horse-track race to further her voice in womens' inability to talk against unfair voting treatment.

These people didn't take a day off with dead-silence. They spoke for their cause. They fought for it.
 

Xiphos

Fire trainer of kaos
let them have their marriage, because they are way too happy and fun.

they need to be as miserable as the rest of us, it's not fair to everyone who wasn't born with a sexual preference that's apparently a "sin"

(cute fact: religion is for those who want some sort of crutch to their pretty much empty life)

they should get married, but i can guarantee you they are going to be regretting the decision for a long time

-The Kreigphilosoph X
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top