|
On June 25 2013 03:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:57 [F_]aths wrote:On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction. The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often. If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose. On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture.
- Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion). Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture?? 1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids? Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine. 1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life. And we have arrived. I am also religious and that book you are referencing is pretty clear on the subject of loving others and not judging. The judging part is taken care of by people above our pay grade after we pass on. Also, that book has some messed up stuff that we just ignore, like that slavery is ok, or that we can't touch a pig's skin. I think we can ignore the part about laying with someone's brother.
Quit putting words in my mouth, Plansix. I don't know what your problem with me is, it seems to have originated in one of the SCII v. BW threads. Read my first post in this thread. Read the PM. Read any post I've written here. Over and over I say that I don't let my view on homosexuality color my interactions with homosexuals. Read my last post before this. I don't vilify or hate homosexuals just because I disagree with the practice.
|
On June 25 2013 03:12 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:09 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:57 [F_]aths wrote:On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction. The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often. If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose. On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture.
- Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion). Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture?? 1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids? Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine. 1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life. Paul also says that heterosexual marriage is nothing more than an indulgence of temptation. Citing that weirdo isn't going to do your case much good. No he does not...He says that if man should marry, it should be according to God's covenant. But yes, he also says that ideally man would live in the image of Jesus. I'm going to avoid making this a religious debate, though.
1 Corinthians 7:1-2
"Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband."
You are basing your archaic and bigoted views on your religion. You made this a religious debate. Either man up and defend your book or gtfo out of the thread.
|
On June 25 2013 03:12 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:09 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:57 [F_]aths wrote:On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction. The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often. If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose. On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture.
- Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion). Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture?? 1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids? Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine. 1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life. Paul also says that heterosexual marriage is nothing more than an indulgence of temptation. Citing that weirdo isn't going to do your case much good. No he does not...He says that if man should marry, it should be according to God's covenant. But yes, he also says that ideally man would live in the image of Jesus. I'm going to avoid making this a religious debate, though.
It always says I can stone my mother to death for sowing with two types of cloth, kill people for working on the Sabbath and sell my sister into slavery. But we ignore those parts.
|
On June 25 2013 03:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:05 ZenithM wrote:
Pretty much a case of "View A is the majority" so "View not(A) can go fuck itself". No science or evidence or logic. Sorry for you that you don't agree with us, Qwyn, because apparently you thus don't have the right to be respected.
I don't quite agree with how you're being responded, it makes the whole message feel less progressive than we think it is, haha. I haven't actually read exactly what he's said, so my apologies if this is slightly off-topic, but this reminds me of the general point that a lot of Christians make: "But but but you're not tolerating my intolerance!" Yea, sorry. Tolerance doesn't mean that we tolerate bigotry. That's an ass-backwards way of thinking that is utterly ridiculous. I'm not going to tolerate a racist or a sexist; I'm going to tell him how much of an idiot he is and boot his ass out of my house. If you can't tell the difference between intolerance (e.g. racism, homophobia, sexism) and not tolerating intolerance (e.g. calling out bigots), then you are just being childish. Sorry, had to get that out there. I fuckin' hate that line of thinking.
So your solution to meanness is to be mean to mean people?
I'm not a big fan of the Gandhi "eye for an eye" quote, but here I think it is apt.
|
I work with 2 gay men, and my mom happens to be a lesbian.
BYEEE FELICIA
|
On June 25 2013 03:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:05 ZenithM wrote:
Pretty much a case of "View A is the majority" so "View not(A) can go fuck itself". No science or evidence or logic. Sorry for you that you don't agree with us, Qwyn, because apparently you thus don't have the right to be respected.
I don't quite agree with how you're being responded, it makes the whole message feel less progressive than we think it is, haha. I haven't actually read exactly what he's said, so my apologies if this is slightly off-topic, but this reminds me of the general point that a lot of Christians make: "But but but you're not tolerating my intolerance!" Yea, sorry. Tolerance doesn't mean that we tolerate bigotry. That's an ass-backwards way of thinking that is utterly ridiculous. I'm not going to tolerate a racist or a sexist; I'm going to tell him how much of an idiot he is and boot his ass out of my house. If you can't tell the difference between intolerance (e.g. racism, homophobia, sexism) and not tolerating intolerance (e.g. calling out bigots), then you are just being childish. Sorry, had to get that out there. I fuckin' hate that line of thinking.
I tolerate it. It is the way the world is moving. I recognize that. Why don't you read what I've said in this thread before you judge me based off of preconceptions? I'm going to keep fighting it out, here.
|
On June 25 2013 03:14 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:09 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:57 [F_]aths wrote:On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction. The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often. If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose. On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture.
- Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion). Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture?? 1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids? Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine. 1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life. And we have arrived. I am also religious and that book you are referencing is pretty clear on the subject of loving others and not judging. The judging part is taken care of by people above our pay grade after we pass on. Also, that book has some messed up stuff that we just ignore, like that slavery is ok, or that we can't touch a pig's skin. I think we can ignore the part about laying with someone's brother. Quit putting words in my mouth, Plansix. I don't know what your problem with me is, it seems to have originated in one of the SCII v. BW threads. Read my first post in this thread. Read the PM. Read any post I've written here. Over and over I say that I don't let my view on homosexuality color my interactions with homosexuals. Read my last post before this. I don't vilify or hate homosexuals just because I disagree with the practice.
Don't use the book to justify your opinions of others. It specifically tells you not to do that like 50 times.
|
On June 25 2013 03:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:12 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:09 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:57 [F_]aths wrote:On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction. The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often. If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose. On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture.
- Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion). Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture?? 1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids? Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine. 1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life. Paul also says that heterosexual marriage is nothing more than an indulgence of temptation. Citing that weirdo isn't going to do your case much good. No he does not...He says that if man should marry, it should be according to God's covenant. But yes, he also says that ideally man would live in the image of Jesus. I'm going to avoid making this a religious debate, though. It always says I can stone my mother to death for sowing with two types of cloth, kill people for working on the Sabbath and sell my sister into slavery. But we ignore those parts.
Quit quoting from the Old Testament of the Israelites to make a point about the New Covenant of Jesus, please.
|
On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 02:57 [F_]aths wrote:On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction. The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often. If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose. On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture.
- Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion). Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture?? 1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids? Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine. 1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life.
I'm also religious. Here's the way I've always looked at it:
1) Morality is a rational endeavor i.e. it is something that human beings can understand by reason.
2) God is a maximally moral entity (according to Christian conceptions, anyway)
3) Therefore sins, which are simply slights against God, must be nothing more and nothing less than immoralities.
4) Therefore, every sin (immorality) must have a rational explanation behind it explaining its immorality.
Homosexuality does not have this. The Bible says that we should "test everything, and hold onto the good." This includes assertions by people like Paul, who, whether divinely inspired or not, were nevertheless writing from a particular societal context with its own biases. The reasons that that a tiny ancient tribe perpetually on the verge of destruction was opposed to homosexuality probably has to do with the perception that homosexuality was a willful act against the propagation of the (endangered) race. You'll note that only *male* homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, because it spills seed i.e. "wastes" it. No mention is made of female homosexuality because nothing is "wasted" when females engage in intercourse with other females.
Again, it basically comes down to the following: there is no reason to think homosexuality is immoral. What two consenting adults do with each other, provided it isn't egregiously destructive or endangering to life or other rights, isn't really something that the law has much say about! For one thing, it's abundantly clear that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, even if it is a combination of environmental and genetic factors rather than one or the other. But even if homosexuality were a choice, that wouldn't actually make it immoral.
tl;dr there are not cogent, rational arguments against permitting homosexuals to marry. There are no coherent arguments that define homosexuality as immoral without appeal to some shaky axiom (e.g. homosexuality is immoral because God says so).
|
On June 25 2013 03:16 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 25 2013 03:05 ZenithM wrote:
Pretty much a case of "View A is the majority" so "View not(A) can go fuck itself". No science or evidence or logic. Sorry for you that you don't agree with us, Qwyn, because apparently you thus don't have the right to be respected.
I don't quite agree with how you're being responded, it makes the whole message feel less progressive than we think it is, haha. I haven't actually read exactly what he's said, so my apologies if this is slightly off-topic, but this reminds me of the general point that a lot of Christians make: "But but but you're not tolerating my intolerance!" Yea, sorry. Tolerance doesn't mean that we tolerate bigotry. That's an ass-backwards way of thinking that is utterly ridiculous. I'm not going to tolerate a racist or a sexist; I'm going to tell him how much of an idiot he is and boot his ass out of my house. If you can't tell the difference between intolerance (e.g. racism, homophobia, sexism) and not tolerating intolerance (e.g. calling out bigots), then you are just being childish. Sorry, had to get that out there. I fuckin' hate that line of thinking. So your solution to meanness is to be mean to mean people? I'm not a big fan of the Gandhi "eye for an eye" quote, but here I think it is apt.
My example was a little exaggerated, but the point still stands; I'm not just going to be "ok" with someone I regularly interact with or no being a bigot. I won't hit them and be horrible to them, but I will deny them service or things beyond the most basic courtesies that I show any stranger. I'm not going to be friends with a bigot.
Oh, and I read Qwyn's opinion; yea dude, you're kind of a dick. You can't say, "I don't disagree with your existence, just the practice of homosexuality." That displays a complete failure to understand sexuality. A person's sexuality is a deeply rooted, fundamental part of their personhood. To say that their sexuality is wrong is to reject and decry a key part of who they are.
|
On June 25 2013 03:18 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:15 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 03:12 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:09 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:57 [F_]aths wrote:On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction. The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often. If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose. On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture.
- Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion). Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture?? 1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids? Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine. 1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life. Paul also says that heterosexual marriage is nothing more than an indulgence of temptation. Citing that weirdo isn't going to do your case much good. No he does not...He says that if man should marry, it should be according to God's covenant. But yes, he also says that ideally man would live in the image of Jesus. I'm going to avoid making this a religious debate, though. It always says I can stone my mother to death for sowing with two types of cloth, kill people for working on the Sabbath and sell my sister into slavery. But we ignore those parts. Quit quoting from the Old Testament of the Israelites to make a point about the New Covenant of Jesus, please.
Sure, just ignore the direct quote I took from Paul where he specifically says that heterosexual sex is immoral and marriage is just so we can regulate it.
|
1) Morality is a rational endeavor i.e. it is something that human beings can understand by reason.
You went wrong from your very first point.
|
On June 25 2013 03:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:05 ZenithM wrote:
Pretty much a case of "View A is the majority" so "View not(A) can go fuck itself". No science or evidence or logic. Sorry for you that you don't agree with us, Qwyn, because apparently you thus don't have the right to be respected.
I don't quite agree with how you're being responded, it makes the whole message feel less progressive than we think it is, haha. I haven't actually read exactly what he's said, so my apologies if this is slightly off-topic, but this reminds me of the general point that a lot of Christians make: "But but but you're not tolerating my intolerance!" Yea, sorry. Tolerance doesn't mean that we tolerate bigotry. That's an ass-backwards way of thinking that is utterly ridiculous. I'm not going to tolerate a racist or a sexist; I'm going to tell him how much of an idiot he is and boot his ass out of my house. If you can't tell the difference between intolerance (e.g. racism, homophobia, sexism) and not tolerating intolerance (e.g. calling out bigots), then you are just being childish. Sorry, had to get that out there. I fuckin' hate that line of thinking.
Lol, wtf.
So every fucking goddamn guy who is wrong about anything you're going to insult him and hit him? Now that's mature.
All people actually deserve respect. That's the basis of this whole thread. Am I going to stop respecting the 40% of my countrymen who are against gay marriage? That's a shitload of people to disrespect.
You don't even realize that I think the same as you and I don't condone intolerance, I just think we can stay civil, at least.
|
On June 25 2013 03:10 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:05 ZenithM wrote:
Pretty much a case of "View A is the majority" so "View not(A) can go fuck itself". No science or evidence or logic. Sorry for you that you don't agree with us, Qwyn, because apparently you thus don't have the right to be respected.
I don't quite agree with how you're being responded, it makes the whole message feel less progressive than we think it is, haha. It's fine. Thank you for showing respect, but I knew what I'd get coming in here and saying what I have. I'm Christian, and that's simply an explanation of Paul's doctrine from a Christian who's moderate, a realist, and understands the direction that the world's headed. I decided to come back after I said "the end" because I felt upset, even though my brain told me to leave.
What direction is the world headed, how do you know, and what does homosexuality contribute to it? Just curious
|
On June 25 2013 03:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:16 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 25 2013 03:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 25 2013 03:05 ZenithM wrote:
Pretty much a case of "View A is the majority" so "View not(A) can go fuck itself". No science or evidence or logic. Sorry for you that you don't agree with us, Qwyn, because apparently you thus don't have the right to be respected.
I don't quite agree with how you're being responded, it makes the whole message feel less progressive than we think it is, haha. I haven't actually read exactly what he's said, so my apologies if this is slightly off-topic, but this reminds me of the general point that a lot of Christians make: "But but but you're not tolerating my intolerance!" Yea, sorry. Tolerance doesn't mean that we tolerate bigotry. That's an ass-backwards way of thinking that is utterly ridiculous. I'm not going to tolerate a racist or a sexist; I'm going to tell him how much of an idiot he is and boot his ass out of my house. If you can't tell the difference between intolerance (e.g. racism, homophobia, sexism) and not tolerating intolerance (e.g. calling out bigots), then you are just being childish. Sorry, had to get that out there. I fuckin' hate that line of thinking. So your solution to meanness is to be mean to mean people? I'm not a big fan of the Gandhi "eye for an eye" quote, but here I think it is apt. My example was a little exaggerated, but the point still stands; I'm not just going to be "ok" with someone I regularly interact with or no being a bigot. I won't hit them and be horrible to them, but I will deny them service or things beyond the most basic courtesies that I show any stranger. I'm not going to be friends with a bigot. Oh, and I read Qwyn's opinion; yea dude, you're kind of a dick. You can't say, "I don't disagree with your existence, just the practice of homosexuality." That displays a complete failure to understand sexuality. A person's sexuality is a deeply rooted, fundamental part of their personhood. To say that their sexuality is wrong is to reject and decry a key part of who they are.
Wow, you really sound like an intolerant asshole
User was warned for this post
|
On June 25 2013 03:18 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:15 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 03:12 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:09 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:57 [F_]aths wrote:On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction. The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often. If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose. On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture.
- Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion). Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture?? 1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids? Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine. 1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life. Paul also says that heterosexual marriage is nothing more than an indulgence of temptation. Citing that weirdo isn't going to do your case much good. No he does not...He says that if man should marry, it should be according to God's covenant. But yes, he also says that ideally man would live in the image of Jesus. I'm going to avoid making this a religious debate, though. It always says I can stone my mother to death for sowing with two types of cloth, kill people for working on the Sabbath and sell my sister into slavery. But we ignore those parts. Quit quoting from the Old Testament of the Israelites to make a point about the New Covenant of Jesus, please.
We can pick and choose which parts of the book follow. If you choose to ignore those teachings, why can't you just ignore the part where is says being gay is a sin?
|
Ugh, could you guys please bring the religious discussion into PMs.
Most of us dont care about useless debates.
This thread is about the banner, not about religious views on homosexuals.
Thanks.
|
On June 25 2013 03:15 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:12 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:09 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:57 [F_]aths wrote:On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction. The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often. If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose. On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture.
- Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion). Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture?? 1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids? Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine. 1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life. Paul also says that heterosexual marriage is nothing more than an indulgence of temptation. Citing that weirdo isn't going to do your case much good. No he does not...He says that if man should marry, it should be according to God's covenant. But yes, he also says that ideally man would live in the image of Jesus. I'm going to avoid making this a religious debate, though. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 "Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband." You are basing your archaic and bigoted views on your religion. You made this a religious debate. Either man up and defend your book or gtfo out of the thread.
You just quoted what I just said, lol.
|
On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 02:57 [F_]aths wrote:On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction. The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often. If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose. On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture.
- Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion). Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture?? 1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids? Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine.
I would be especially weary of discriminating against minorities if I were Christian.
After all, it's your pathetic religious bigotry and your ridiculous notions that you can impose your absurd beliefs upon others that makes the Catholic church more irrelevant with every passing day in the western world.
|
On June 25 2013 03:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:18 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:15 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 03:12 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:09 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:57 [F_]aths wrote:On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction. The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often. If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose. On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture.
- Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion). Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture?? 1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids? Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine. 1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life. Paul also says that heterosexual marriage is nothing more than an indulgence of temptation. Citing that weirdo isn't going to do your case much good. No he does not...He says that if man should marry, it should be according to God's covenant. But yes, he also says that ideally man would live in the image of Jesus. I'm going to avoid making this a religious debate, though. It always says I can stone my mother to death for sowing with two types of cloth, kill people for working on the Sabbath and sell my sister into slavery. But we ignore those parts. Quit quoting from the Old Testament of the Israelites to make a point about the New Covenant of Jesus, please. We can pick and choose which parts of the book follow. If you choose to ignore those teachings, why can't you just ignore the part where is says being gay is a sin?
Because the Covenant of the New Testament specifically invalidates the Old Testament. If you read the Gospel, you would know this. I PM'd you. I'm done derailing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
