What Is Your Stance On Homosexuality?

[pokeaidmissy]

*sigh* I knew that I would put on death row for my opinion, but I didn't know I would be put in front of the firing squad so soon!

News flash: I have a different opinion than than majority of you, as do many others on this planet. Making rude assumptions of me and cursing me only shows your immaturity and inability to face the other side of this issue. Just because I am with the minority in this issue, you seem to group me (as I read it) as 'egotisitcal', stuck-up, close-minded, 'always seem to have a date' sort. Would it interest you to learn that I am a well educated, well read, well studied, and well travelled single lady? How is grouping me like that any better than rudely grouping homosexuals in inappropriate catagories? (for the sake of keeping this as PG rated as humanly possible, I'm going to let you all make your own assumptions about that last statement).

I stress respect for all walks of human life (as I mentioned in my previous post), whether it is agreed with or not. I do apologize if I did not come off that way (I'm re-reading my post now as I speak, and, frankly, I don't see anything that would suggest any different). However, if you were affended by the way I worded something, I do extend my apologies. If you disagree and are affended with my opinion, I can offer nothing but blunt advice: don't leave home, it only gets worse from there. The world is a cruel and uncaring place at some times (I would know, I've been around it a few times).
If the above statements do not concern you (and you would know if it would), please disregard.

Babylon, I do commend you for your maturity in this debate. Though we may disagree in some issues, I do admire you for taking the time to clearly state your argument. I applaud your stand.

Now, back to business, and hopefully we won't have any more time-consuming finger-pointing. I have not come to change your opinion, rather to help you see the other side of it more clearly.

My opinion is a Christian world-view. Many people push away anything from the Bible nowdays, claiming it is 'out-dated' and has 'too many meanings'. Please keep in mind that I have not come to start a debate on whether the Bible of the Christian believers is right, rather present a side of this debate that, in my personal opinion, doesn't normally present itself as clearly as I believe it was intended. I have provided links below that support some of the topics on homosexuality that I have mentioned before.

Please keep in mind that the following links are very blunt and controversial:

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/BroSx/Html/ShrtEvid.htm

(a Biblical source that summarizes homosexuality in the areas of science, behavior, medical, psychology, etc. according to the Scriptures)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Mental_Health

(presents the argument that homosexuality is often times beyond sexual desire-other links about other areas of homosexuality are also on this link)

http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

(goes through some of the many studies on the 'gay gene')

http://www.home60515.com/3.html

(someone mentioned what does abuse have to do with homosexuality...)

Some of these are of a Christian point of view, some aren't, but are simply going through the facts. These are only a few links, there are others, of course.

 

[randomspot555]

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

That isn't a fact.

*sigh* I knew that I would put on death row for my opinion, but I didn't know I would be put in front of the firing squad so soon!

Yeah, you'll have to defend your opinion. There's nothing wrong with that, you're not being persecuted, and you're not the first one here to be even en-masse have the "anti" popular opinion.

Would it interest you to learn that I am a well educated, well read, well studied, and well travelled single lady?

How is your gender related to this? It's common in informal settings to refer to someone as "he" if the actual gender is unknown.

My opinion is a Christian world-view. Many people push away anything from the Bible nowdays, claiming it is 'out-dated' and has 'too many meanings'. Please keep in mind that I have not come to start a debate on whether the Bible of the Christian believers is right, rather present a side of this debate that, in my personal opinion, doesn't normally present itself as clearly as I believe it was intended. I have provided links below that support some of the topics on homosexuality that I have mentioned before.

...Okay. But you'll still have to defend your source. "It's the Bible" doesn't make it immune to criticism.

From your first link:

The parades were hours and hours of sordid pornographic, obscene, and often blasphemous behavior.

Yes, the most extreme part of most anything often look idiotic to anyone not within it. That's nothing new. Just because Republican/Democrat/Ron Paul nuts compared [whoever] to Hitler doesn't mean that's what ALL of them think.

Furtheremore, almost all of their sources (and they don't bother to cite passages from the books or anything, just the book themselves) are from Ex-gay. That doesn't automatically discredit it, but it makes it seem a lot more valid IF it's backed up by a source that isn't pushing the same agenda.

And much of it looks like "omgzers sex", and casts anything than "traditional" sex in a bad light. But none of what I saw there is exclusive to homosexuals.

Also, from the same source:

AIDS has become America's first legally protected disease in which standard epidemic controls are legally forbidden, such as tracking the sources of a disease.

At least in New York, according to the department of health, those with AIDS must inform their partners source

http://www.home60515.com/3.html

As I said before, there's nothing about the site that looks legit. Searching for the organization's name turns up nothing outside of their site, their literature doesn't mention any type of registered tax stats (not-for-profit, etc...), and their contact e-mail is @yahoo.com, and the website looks like it's straight out of geocities.

 

[ResidentEcruteak]

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.

Where in the bible it says "angels are irresistable"? Those same angels visited Abraham before God sent them to destroy Sodom; Abraham or any of his servants didn't seem went that crazy about them. And while it's true that Sodom wasn't destroyed because everyone there was homosexual, the bible does mention that all the men of the town did try to rape those two angels which might have something to do with the destruction of the town.

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?

I can't find a verse where God tells Asa to "expell, or move, the homosexuals from the land". However, it does say that Asa did moved the sodomites away form the land, but in the Books of Chronicles, 2. Chronicles chapter 15 verse 13 to be exact, it also says that whoever didn't seek for God was put to death; so those sodomites might have been put to death afterall...

I think it is also worth to mention that the kings of Israel and Judah during the Old Testament didn't necessarily knew exactly what the law of Moses said, for in 2. Kings chapters 22 and 23 bible tells that one of the last kings of Judah, Josiah, who lived many generations after Asa, found the law and then verses 21 and 22 of chapter 23 says:
21 And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto the LORD your God, as it is written in the book of this covenant.
22 Surely there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah;

All that may explain why the doings of Asa seem to contradict Leviticus 20:13.

Now, many laws of the Old Testament, like giving death sentences to all who doesn't obey the law of Moses, indeed aren't for the christians because Jesus fulfilled the law for us and also takes care of any necessary judgments. However, if God says in the Old Testament that something is holy/holyness and something abomination/detestable/sin, there is still no reason to think that definition holyness or sin have somehow changed. So, what is holy or sin in the Old Testament are that also in the New Testament.

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.or...ay_couple.html which, using proper translations and research shows that Jesus actually saved a homosexual couple from death.

Why did you quoted the first verse then tell partially what the fourth says and then state that it is "unclear" whether those 144,000 were virgins or homosexual when the verse actually has something to say about this uncertainty!? The fourth verse says:
4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Also, if the centurion in the gospels did had a homosexual partner and Jesus healed this partner it simply shows that Jesus lived what He teached for He said in Matthew chapter 5:
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

So, even if the centurion was having homosexual relationship with his servant, it didn't prevent Jesus from blessing them, because Jesus didn't came to judge the people but to die for them whatever sin people have. And why did He died for people? To purge them from their sin so they could become holy. And what is holy? Surely it is consist of many different things and as I said before; there is no reason to completely disregard the holiness codes of the priest described in Leviticus.

Conclusion, is God or Jesus really against homosexuals or is that just the modern teachings of christianity regarding sexuality? Seeing, that Jesus died for the sins of all people which also includes certain kinds of sexual intercourses, God does seem to have something against homosexuality. If it is still unclear whether bible thinks homosexuality as positive, negative or neutral you can read Paul's epistle to romans verses 20-28 from the first chapter and make your own conclusions.

 

[Dr. Ste]

About time. What is my stance on homosexuality? It is that... young chinldren shouldn't be exposed to it (or to other sexual-related issues). Not so much to the existence of homosexuality, but to the knowledge and the different stances on it.

I'm not saying this for the genetically heterosexual kids that much. They are the favoured, and the dominant ones. Even if exposure to homosexuality would drive them to such behaviour, social selection, parents, current stance of society etc will block that road.

I'm saying this for the genetically homosexual kids. Showing how some genes are flawed (with yet incomplete studies) and cause homosexuality, and what nature (natural selection) thinks of homosexuality and how contributing homosexuality is, will lead many kids to self-categorizing. "Oh, I must have those genes, and I am of this type, boo hoo."
Self-categorizing is something blatantly wrong in small ages. Nothing is defined then. Everyone was curious at some point.

Imagine saying to a kid that didn't do well enough on a test: "You are silly. You can't do well enough." Or even worse "You are an idiot, you don't do as good as the rest of your classmates." Equals complex of inferiority. Equals failure. Even when this is entirely not the case. Anti-pedagogical.

So, as science advances, I suggest we discuss this somewhere "safer" (like, in the depths of a club or a social group or PMs maybe?).

Oh, and if all you homosexuals would not choose for it if you could, you don't want to propagate it, right?

And Homosexual behaviour is undoubtedly the result of a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Pure genetics apply to rare cases.

 

[BynineB]

Being a homosexual is an unfortunate defect of sorts, but that does not mean that you cannot marry the person that you love.
That would be more wrong than anything else, don't you think?

 

[GhostAnime]

You know, it being a choice or not doesn't really correlate with it being in genes or not. Ask any homosexual if they chose to be the way they are, and they'll give you the honest answer.

Babylon, do you SERIOUSLY think millions of people choose to be attracted to the same sex, kicked out of their home, bullied and physically attacked by people in school (and thus usually dropout), use illegal substances to lower depression, and DON'T want marriage rights?

I guess maybe they're just.. stupid? Well that's even more ridiculous than saying it's not a choice even in anti-gay eyes.

 

[Fused]

Well let me start off by saying that there is no gay gene. Several scientists have accepted that, and are now looking into other biological factors; some of them are genetics and some of them are not. There is not a single gay gene.

And while it's true that Sodom wasn't destroyed because everyone there was homosexual, the bible does mention that all the men of the town did try to rape those two angels which might have something to do with the destruction of the town.

Lot offered his two married daughters to be raped by the town, and God had deemed Lot as righteous. However, several passages within the Bible contradict each other on the stance of rape, however (if I recall correctly, I'll have to find the source) there are more verses which condemn rape.

I can't find a verse where God tells Asa to "expell, or move, the homosexuals from the land". However, it does say that Asa did moved the sodomites away form the land, but in the Books of Chronicles, 2. Chronicles chapter 15 verse 13 to be exact, it also says that whoever didn't seek for God was put to death; so those sodomites might have been put to death afterall...

1 Kings 15:12, I do believe. By then, Sodomite had become synonymous with homosexual.

Now, many laws of the Old Testament, like giving death sentences to all who doesn't obey the law of Moses, indeed aren't for the christians because Jesus fulfilled the law for us and also takes care of any necessary judgments. However, if God says in the Old Testament that something is holy/holyness and something abomination/detestable/sin, there is still no reason to think that definition holyness or sin have somehow changed. So, what is holy or sin in the Old Testament are that also in the New Testament.

Our idea of sin/abomination, when it comes to sexual practices, hasn't changed? Then, would you care to explain these?

• DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.

• DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.

• MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.

• LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.

• MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.

• DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

Why did you quoted the first verse then tell partially what the fourth says and then state that it is "unclear" whether those 144,000 were virgins or homosexual when the verse actually has something to say about this uncertainty!? The fourth verse says:
4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Mine (and the few others that I read) didn't classify that these men were virgins. So great, now the reliability of the Bible is in question (like it always has been)

Also, if the centurion in the gospels did had a homosexual partner and Jesus healed this partner it simply shows that Jesus lived what He teached for He said in Matthew chapter 5:
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

So, even if the centurion was having homosexual relationship with his servant, it didn't prevent Jesus from blessing them, because Jesus didn't came to judge the people but to die for them whatever sin people have. And why did He died for people? To purge them from their sin so they could become holy. And what is holy? Surely it is consist of many different things and as I said before; there is no reason to completely disregard the holiness codes of the priest described in Leviticus.

So now Christianity is going to go against what jesus Christ stood for? What kind of religion has it turned into, honestly? And as I said before, we have disregarded several things from the Bible, especially from leviticus. Modern Christians today believe that the only passages in Leviticus that are still valid are- you guessed it! - the two about homosexuals.

Conclusion, is God or Jesus really against homosexuals or is that just the modern teachings of christianity regarding sexuality? Seeing, that Jesus died for the sins of all people which also includes certain kinds of sexual intercourses, God does seem to have something against homosexuality. If it is still unclear whether bible thinks homosexuality as positive, negative or neutral you can read Paul's epistle to romans verses 20-28 from the first chapter and make your own conclusions.

I think God does too. He called homosexuals names - such as dogs, sodomites, etc. - throughout the Bible. In fact, he almost appears homophobic. And about Romans 1:26-27, Paul is writing a letter condemning the acts he sees, whicha re for the most part homosexual acts, but previous to this, he had just seen temples worshiping gods and goddesses of sex and pleasure rather then God. So was he condemning homosexual practices or was he condemning the fact that they were doing these thigns for other gods instead of God? Also, Paul does also say that to pass judgement is the same as to condemn yourself.

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.

Then why isn't homosexuality/sexual deviation listed in Ezekiel 16:49 along with the other sins of Sodom?

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.

Then why isn't homosexuality/sexual deviation listed as a sin along with the other sins of Sodom in Ezekiel 16:49?

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.)

The Bible is flawed, even thoguh many deny this. Why it is all bundled togetehr I don't understand. I mean there are probably a hundred passages that contradict each other on the legality of slavery.

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

And what is the natural order? For a man to procreate with a woman? That also means that older people having sex, condoms, birth control, barren people and those who choose not to have childrena re all also against the natural order, but why isn't anyone against them?

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/BroSx/Html/ShrtEvid.htm

(a Biblical source that summarizes homosexuality in the areas of science, behavior, medical, psychology, etc. according to the Scriptures)

Oh great. The Bible and science don't mix togetehr, if you haven't heard. The Earth isn't flat like the Bible suggests.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Mental_Health

(presents the argument that homosexuality is often times beyond sexual desire-other links about other areas of homosexuality are also on this link)

i've been to Conservapedia hudnreds of times before this, and I can just say that it is what it is - conservative. It only uses sources that support their standpoint, adn those sources are often proven wrong by other scientific and social observations.

http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

(goes through some of the many studies on the 'gay gene')

Like I said, there is no gay gene, however homosexuality is biological, through both genetics and natural, undisturbed development.

http://www.home60515.com/3.html

(someone mentioned what does abuse have to do with homosexuality...)

it actually has nothing to do with it. We've already been over this link and website before.

 

[Porygandrew]

There are documented cases of homosexual activity in the animal kingdom. Not to mention monogamous behavior. On top of that, successful adoption has taken place, as well.

So with that said, I personally believe that homosexuality serves a function in the natural world and I can't see how a multitude of species can exhibit homosexual behavior if it was so detrimental to the species.

 

[Witchan]

What's my stance on homosexuality? Well, I don't have any problems of seeing the same-sex date each other and not making bad remarks against homosexual people. The only people that hates homosexuality and criticizing their flaws of doing fun activities is stereotypical straight people (most homophobic people in the South or anywhere in the United States that admires evil upon and/or anyone that likes to act cool, mature, gentle, and makes an obsession of getting laid towards the opposite sex).

I'm not trying to say all homophobic people are evil (depending on their personality), but they shouldn't make any anti-gay comments just because of their opposite sex love (see above) and making a tryant to themselves.

If some of you homophobics can't deal with homosexuality, then ignore it and get back to your own personnel lives instead of getting into other people's business.

 

[SnorlaxInSlacks]

My stance is simple.
It's perfectly OK.
It's not a choice.
It should be legal.
Etc.

 

[ResidentEcruteak]

Lot offered his two married daughters to be raped by the town, and God had deemed Lot as righteous. However, several passages within the Bible contradict each other on the stance of rape, however (if I recall correctly, I'll have to find the source) there are more verses which condemn rape.

Lot's daughters weren't married at first, for he said: "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man" after that it says: "And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters". It seems that Lot wasn't offering them to be raped but to be married.

1 Kings 15:12, I do believe. By then, Sodomite had become synonymous with homosexual.

1 Kings 15:12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

God doesn't seem to be saying anything here to Asa...

Our idea of sin/abomination, when it comes to sexual practices, hasn't changed? Then, would you care to explain these?

I didn't said it's our ideas that haven't changed. Besides, most of the verses you gave were about punishments, but didn't Jesus took our sins and punishments allready? Therefore we don't have to enforce those punishments on other people, right?

Mine (and the few others that I read) didn't classify that these men were virgins. So great, now the reliability of the Bible is in question (like it always has been)

Until you tell what kind of bible/translation you were using it's your reliability that's in question. I checked few translation and they all say that those men are virgins.

So now Christianity is going to go against what jesus Christ stood for? What kind of religion has it turned into, honestly? And as I said before, we have disregarded several things from the Bible, especially from leviticus. Modern Christians today believe that the only passages in Leviticus that are still valid are- you guessed it! - the two about homosexuals.

So are you conceding about the centurion's case or what? You just seem to whine about how some people who are being called christians aren't doing what Jesus taught, so what is your point?

I think God does too. He called homosexuals names - such as dogs, sodomites, etc. - throughout the Bible. In fact, he almost appears homophobic.

And this is relevant because... ? And if you think that way, why did you questioned whether "is God or Jesus really against homosexuals?", as you said?

And about Romans 1:26-27, Paul is writing a letter condemning the acts he sees, whicha re for the most part homosexual acts, but previous to this, he had just seen temples worshiping gods and goddesses of sex and pleasure rather then God. So was he condemning homosexual practices or was he condemning the fact that they were doing these thigns for other gods instead of God? Also, Paul does also say that to pass judgement is the same as to condemn yourself.

Even if his emphasis was on idolatry, he said that these sexual intercourses and the lust surrounding them are "not convenient", "against nature" etc. that doesn't sound too positive...

The Bible is flawed, even thoguh many deny this. Why it is all bundled togetehr I don't understand. I mean there are probably a hundred passages that contradict each other on the legality of slavery.

Hundred? Care to elaborate atleast few of those before making such a statements?

Oh great. The Bible and science don't mix togetehr, if you haven't heard. The Earth isn't flat like the Bible suggests.

And where is the Bible suggesting that Earth is flat?

 

[Muyotwo]

And what is the natural order? For a man to procreate with a woman? That also means that older people having sex, condoms, birth control, barren people and those who choose not to have childrena re all also against the natural order, but why isn't anyone against them?

Just pointing out that many Catholics still believe this. Which is why the pope tells AIDS-ridden Africans that condoms are bad.

 

[DarkestWish7706]

Eh... I personally don't really like gays, but I do believe they should be able to do whatever they want, whether it be marriage or public affection, or anything.
I think it's stupid for people to detest gays. I mean, technically, it's against my religion. But I still think people should be able to do what they want.

Heh, and truthfully, I don't really care who they love as long as they don't try anything on me. xP

 

[Nukada]

Just my stance here, not debating, just stating. If it comes across as anti-homosexual, it is.

I honestly believe that being homosexual is either a mental disorder or a choice on the part of the individual, and in any case is reversible.

I strongly disapprove of a person having a romantic relationship with another of the same sex, and I firmly believe (and stick to by my own actions) that no person should participate in sexual relations unless married and fully ready to deal with the potential effects of intercourse.

I am Lutheran, and a die-hard conservative. I do use the word 'gay' in phrases such as 'that's gay', implying that gay is wrong and unnatural. I wish that the word 'gay' hadn't been stripped of its original meaning, but what's done is done.

 

[Placebo]

My stance:

Homosexuality, whether normal or not, happens. Whether science says it's environmental or genetic is completely irrelevant to me. The point is that homosexuality has been practiced even before man walked upright. No one tells animals to be homosexual, and yet some are. That may point to deeper biological factors.

Before I start rambling, I feel homosexuality is just like heterosexuality. It happens, people become attracted to people. You usually cannot control what you are attracted to. I say that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, and may even be natural.

 

[melon_jaywalk]

Just my stance here, not debating, just stating. If it comes across as anti-homosexual, it is.

I honestly believe that being homosexual is either a mental disorder or a choice on the part of the individual, and in any case is reversible.

Your statement(s) are in correct. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Nor is it a choice. I could state the proof of which, but why bother when I and others are the proof? We never chose to be this way, nor is there anything mentally wrong with us. You're on the outside looking in, as well as holding an ignorant point of view, and thus invalidated.

I strongly disapprove of a person having a romantic relationship with another of the same sex..

Without stating a reason why? Why do you not approve of love between two people?

and I firmly believe (and stick to by my own actions) that no person should participate in sexual relations unless married and fully ready to deal with the potential effects of intercourse.

Not everybody has to abide by your standards, of course.

I am Lutheran, and a die-hard conservative. I do use the word 'gay' in phrases such as 'that's gay', implying that gay is wrong and unnatural.

Not everybody is Lutheran, and, good luck in your future life continuing the cycle of pain and hatred via your derogatory comments when one of your close ones - cousin, friends, one of your future children, maybe? - turns out to be gay. Society won't reward you for putting down a minority.

I wish that the word 'gay' hadn't been stripped of its original meaning, but what's done is done.

Compared to you leading by an example of bigotry, that's hardly a crime. :3

 

[Carlisle]

Just my stance here, not debating, just stating. If it comes across as anti-homosexual, it is.

I honestly believe that being homosexual is either a mental disorder or a choice on the part of the individual, and in any case is reversible.

I strongly disapprove of a person having a romantic relationship with another of the same sex, and I firmly believe (and stick to by my own actions) that no person should participate in sexual relations unless married and fully ready to deal with the potential effects of intercourse.

I am Lutheran, and a die-hard conservative. I do use the word 'gay' in phrases such as 'that's gay', implying that gay is wrong and unnatural. I wish that the word 'gay' hadn't been stripped of its original meaning, but what's done is done.

Well, before I tell you you're the biggest idiot I've seen in this thread, and that you are a complete and utter moron - oh wait, I just did. Oops.

I'm sure you have some fascinating and outstanding proof to these claims, that don't involve the almighty religion, right?

Please, tell me why you think it is a mental disorder or choice, I'm in the mood for a good laugh.

And before you say anything else: I'm gay, I didn't choose to be gay, I'm not insane, and it is not reversible. However, YOU chose to be straight, and I think that should be changed.

 

[randomspot555]

Just my stance here, not debating, just stating. If it comes across as anti-homosexual, it is.

Serebii.Net Forums > Serebii.net Forums > Miscellaneous Discussion > Debate Forum

I honestly believe that being homosexual is either a mental disorder or a choice on the part of the individual, and in any case is reversible.

A mental disorder can be backed up by neurological evidence*. You can't "believe" in a mental disorder.

*That doesn't mean disorders are clear black-white yes-no. There can certainly be debate, but you need some evidence to present it as such. Otherwise, your post is fairly meaningless.

 

[Placebo]

If it were a disorder, it would still be an integral part of a human being.

For example, someone with depression can never have it completely cured unless their neurological system repairs itself, which certainly isn't "choice", nor can you "fix" it by traditional means.

 

[ccangelopearl1362]

Homosexuality, or homosexual marriage? I will cite my observation about Carrie Prejean's support for one-man-one-woman marriage as a starting point.:

Miss California: I wasn’t politically correct, I was Biblically correct
Video: Perez Hilton at the Miss USA contest?

So much for political neutrality at this Miss USA beauty pageant. I would opine that it's a good thing for Carrie Prejean to defend her conclusion about marriage as a one-man-one-woman union as sincerely as she knows, and I will give the audience credit for cheering and applauding her when she finished giving her answer. RedState's comment sections have been abuzz about Miss California's position, and even now, I find myself willing to expand on my statement of affirmation for Pope Benedict XVI's position about marriage.:

Hooray for Miss California.
Rally Around Miss California’s Crown

I certainly wouldn't consider Ms. Prejean homophobic, judging from her response. She gave an explanation leading up to her opining statement, and she seemed sincere about it. By contrast, Perez Hilton's hateful response has left this political junkie rather flabbergasted, threatening to take Prejean's crown by force had she won. I will stand by Prejean against Hilton and anyone else who'd rather see her shut down permanently in order to impose their collective point of view on the rest of the United States of America.

The uproar surrounding Ms. Prejean's statements has only gotten more interesting since then, especially now that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has offered her support to Prejean, or so says William Prejean, Miss California's father.:

Palin "Supports" Prejean, Dad Claims

I didn't consider Carrie Prejean to be homophobic then, and I don't consider her to be homophobic now. In fact, the only real hate I saw during that incident came from Perez Hilton... which would be consistent with the hatred of those who opposed California's Proposition 8, as Dennis Prager, Jonah Goldberg, and Michelle Malkin separately pointed out.:

Jonah Goldberg: An Ugly Attack on Mormons
Michelle Malkin: The Insane Rage of the Same-Sex Marriage Mob
Dennis Prager: Is Gay the New Black?
Dennis Prager: Opposition to California Proposition 8: Hate in the Name of Love

Mormons and blacks supported that proposition defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman union, despite the claims of same-sex marriage activists. California Attorney General Jerry Brown attempted to manipulated the proposition's language on California's ballots in order to force people with a simple preference for preserving an institution that has endured for thousands of years to believe that their opinions were morally indecent, but when Proposition 8 prevailed, its opponents demanded to burn Mormon, Catholic, and evangelical churches to the ground, sent envelopes containing white powder to Mormon temples in California and Utah, successfully pushed for the resignation of California Musical Theatre artistic director Scott Eckern over his donation to the pro-Proposition 8 campaign, and even bashed religion in front of Rick Warren's Saddleback Church. Fortunately, despite this rage on the part of same-sex marriage supporters, Rhode Island's Catholics are standing strong, and just as I supported Pope Benedict XVI's argument in defense of marriage in observing Carrie Prejean's comments about it, I will now support those Catholics making that argument.:

Gay Marriage Momentum in New England Stalls in Rhode Island
Fox News Channel: Pope Benedict XVI on the Issues

In retrospect, however, the issue of marriage may be my primary -- perhaps even my only -- concern directly associated with homosexuality. I will note the prominence of, say, Rosie O'Donnell, Andrew Sullivan, and even Representative Barney Frank, and in fact, even now, there is speculation that President Barack Obama will nominate an open lesbian to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.:

Groups push for first gay Supreme Court justice
Top Religious Right Group: We Won’t Oppose Gay SCOTUS Pick

These observations will reinforce my overall point about homosexuality: I support defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, but I do not believe that homosexuality by itself should automatically disqualify anyone from holding public office or entering public life in general. I am extremely skeptical of those activists who called for violence against one-man-one-woman marriage proponents, but I don't doubt the presence of millions of other Americans who're willing to make sincere arguments for or against same-sex marriage... including Carrie Prejean.