Discussion in 'Philosophy & Religion' started by remix, Dec 6, 2005.

  1. Aries

    Aries Well-Known Member

    In reality, we are sinners. Hate the sin, not the sinner.
  2. Taxloss

    Taxloss Stripper Vicar

    Correction, apollon. I was actually referring to most western countries in Europe, without the US in mind as I know they're often lagging behind in some human right issues, often due conservative political powers. And there are still 7 states in which either same sex marriages/ domestic partnerships are legal or at least acknowledged.

    BTW, the Bower vs Hardwick case you are referring to has been directly overruled by the Supreme Court in 2003 in the Lawrence vs. Texas case; it said that such laws are unconstitutional.


    Roman Empire forbid the practice of sodomy? Thought that the Romans still practised homosexuality albeit maybe in a lesser extent as the Greeks did. I mean even Nero and Tiberius were known to have sex with boys/young men. Only in 400 AD and under Constantine who was the first christian Roman ruler, what a coincidence... And funny that you mentioned the Romans...Applying your logic here, Nero was one of the first to prosecute sects that were called christians. Is the world today even worse to approve it? /sarcasm mode

    You don't NEED to correct me. You didn't get my point I made in post #136 anyway.
    But if you want to go that way..

    Christians and muslims have something in common; homosexuality is considered a sin! OOOOHHH Wow! So now you are saying that christians are actually better than the muslims as they are a bit lay back to some extent because they won't go as far as sentencing gays to death but don't mind to condemn them anyway...which doesn't exactly contribute to a more tolerate society. It's also well known that the US has a relative high violent crimes against gay people. Why? Because people use their bible as a good excuse to beat or kill people who are not straight.

    And it's also my right to choose to be defend the groups that are being judged by other groups using religion as an excuse.


    AIDS in Africa is indeed not a result of homosexuality, but through hetero sexual intercourse and transmission of infected blood. The way you puts it suggests that people in Africa have the HIV due the poor living surroundings and environment only but the main reason for getting infected is still the contact of bodily fluids=thru sex. Hetero sex.

    #142 Taxloss, Jul 11, 2007
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2007
  3. BabyRain

    BabyRain Doppelgänger of da E.Twin

    My bad, do a search on wiki and you'll know what is 'common law'.
    Sigh, you just don't get it do you? I cringe to imagine the 'love' you have for your male buddies is the same kind of love a homosexual would feel towards his/her partner. -ann Because if it is indeed the same kind, then you are capable of LOVING more than one person at the same time? -unsure

    These people have the type of 'love' they feel towards each other just as a heterosexual couple would have... ie a man and a woman. So how can you say that homosexual isn't about the concept of 'love'?! When it REVOLVES around love.

    These homosexuals are homosexuals BECAUSE they have this 'love' they want to express through physical bonding, just like what a heterosexual couple would do. So how can you compare THAT, to the type of 'love' you have for your male buddies?! It's entirely DIFFERENT!

    Do you even realize what you are saying? You are saying that, oh, just because I have the love for my male buddies don't mean I need to express it in a sexual way...

    Does that even sound logical to you? I am saying that the homosexual couples feel the type of love they can only feel for each other, not a couple of BUDDIES' love. FRIENDSHIP love or BROTHERLY love is entirely different from a COUPLE'S LOVE. Can you process that?

    Ok, before we proceed further, let me ask a question.

    What do you think of sexual intercourse?
    Why do you think two people engage in it? What's the purpose of sexual intercourse, or making love, or having sex, or fucking, whatever you call it?

    Is the sole purpose of sexual intercourse -> Making babies? To produce offsprings and nothing else?
    If you answer "Yes" then I have nothing further to say to you.

    If you answer, "No", it can also be a means of expression of love towards each other, then I pose this question to you, how do homosexual couples express love towards each other, if not using those physical means such as 'sodomy'? A man can only express his love towards another man through sodomy because the other man doesn't have a vagina. And bear in mind, these two men feel the kind of love that only a man and woman feel for each other, NOT the type of love you feel for your male buddies. <_<

    Are you saying that these men can only express their love by holding hands? Kissing? Hugging? (or is that a sin too?)

    Homosexual acts are just a means of physical bonding for them, is that so wrong?

    How about lesbians? Is it a sin when lesbians indulge in sexual acts?

    And if you tell me, "oh it's a sin for a penis to enter the anus", so how about when a man undergoes a transsexual operation to have a vagina... basically become a female? Would you then say that, it's still a sin, OR would you say then it's alright for them to have sex?

    Because if you say "No, it's still a sin", then that would go against EVERYTHING you have argued about, isn't it? (Because you said it's not their love that you are against, but the SEXUAL ACTS that you are against ie. the sodomy acts and what not)

    And if you say, "Yes, it's not a sin anymore if a guy undergoes a sex change operation" then, why?!

    Why the technicality?! That man that underwent the sex change operation is STILL the same man, with the same feelings, with the same 'soul', whatever you may call it, he's still the same guy, it's just that he went thru the modern operation to change his physical attributes, and give himself a vagina and remove his penis.

    I doubt my God would want to be so technical about it. After all, we are all his creation. Why would he deem a sexual act as unclean and a sin, when he has given us an anus and a penis to be able to perform that act. For all you know, there might be other sexual acts performed behind closed doors.. all those kamasutra acts ... It's called creativeness. And certainly has got nothing to do with being sinful.

    Are you going to say that a penis is meant to be inserted into the vagina in the missionary pose, and nothing/nowhere else? Oral sex is a sin right? *Nod*

    That gives me a thought to ponder... when the time comes for you if you ever get lucky, would you turn a lady down if she wants to go down on you? Or would you hold true to your Bible beliefs? ;)
    ***No please, don't answer that.. it's just a rhetorical question.

    A person is still a person, irregardless of his acts, he is still judged for those acts, irregardless of his gender.
    LOL, no I am not. It's just your posts that are giving me that impression, and fine, if you say that you didn't think that the love they have for each other is 'unclean' and a sin, then you are basically condemning the sexual acts right? Then it goes back to my argument highlighted above.
    Yup yup what a definition on 'LOVE'...
    I hold you to your words highlight in bold above, so it relates back to my argument of 'technicality'.
    Sexual practice is only one of these expressions? How exactly a man is going to express his love to another man (bearing in mind they feel the same kind of love a man and woman feels toward each other)?!

    Physical bonding.. and how can they achieve that? Physical bonding without a vagina... well they gotta make use of another hole, don't they?

    And yes sexual practice is indeed just ONE of the expressions, so why are you being so judgmental towards that act? Big deal..

    Now now, you are stretching the logic here based on my words. God knows, what kind of things a man can come up with, his own creation... the power of his mind/brains are limitless.

    But sexual organs? We are bornt with those.. Equipped with those. It's natural.
    S&M = sodomy?! How?! In exactly what way?! Do you even know what is S&M?!
    Did you think the S stands for sodomy? -shock

    S&M is torturing either their own or their partners' bodies, inflicting physical wounds on the bodies...
    How exactly is that the same as homosexual sex!?
    OMG. Again, I have the suspicion of what exactly is your knowledge on AIDS... and how it can be transmitted. I am curious, where did YOU learn the above information?

    Oh dear! Let me set you straight on this...

    First off - Wiki (yes that's your best friend)

    Did you notice that apollon? Particularly the words in bold and red? HETEROSEXUAL intercourse is the PRIMARY mode of HIV infection worldwide.

    Now where did you learn that the possibility of getting AIDS through vaginal intercourse is unheard of and rarely possible?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!


    Here, learn more about AIDS, then come back and we can have a discussion.

    I did not relate homosexuals with promiscuous heterosexual couples. That was YOUR logic. Let me put it this way, let's just say that a promiscuous heterosexual person has the same chance of getting AIDS as a promiscuous homosexual person.

    And again, I think you didn't get my point on my mentioning of the common law and laws repealing the sodomy laws. My point is if homosexual acts (sodomy and what not) are proven to be detrimental to a person's health (I am NOT talking about morality here), these sodomy laws would NOT have been repealed.

    To this day, homosexual would STILL be deemed a crime, if science and technology can prove that yes, being a homosexual will shorten your life, is detrimental to your health, etc etc. just like the usage of drugs; why do you think it is made illegal in the first place?

    Really? I have heard the Bible being accused as anti-female, that God is sexist.
    Is it natural for women to be dominated by men? Lol, I beg to differ.

    AND IMO, the author of the article which you claimed to be biased FOR homosexuals, should be applaused for his honesty of these words:

    One can choose to interpret the Bible in any way he/she wishes, who's to say that you are right or wrong? If I were a Christian, I would indeed have my own interpretation of the Bible verses, and in the same way you claim my interpretation(s) are wrong, I can laugh in your face and say the same about yours.

    Look at some of the verses in the Bible :-

    - Exodus 22:19
    “Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.”

    "Beast?" Is that all animals in general or what?
    So someone who commits beastiality should be put to death?
    I would like to see the Christians try to support the movement for beastiality offenders to be put to death :D

    - Leviticus 19:27
    “Ye shall not round off the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.”

    ->there goes pretty much every grown man in the country...
    Oh wait, Jesus was a bearded man too, wasn't he?

    Oh wait, how is that hypocrisy? Do you even know the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy'?

    It is true, that I deem S&M an immoral act, but did I put it like this, "Buddhism does not condone S&M. For Buddhists, it's a sin"?

    As far as I am aware of, NO I DID NOT. I merely said it was immoral, according to MY OWN MORAL STANDARDS.

    And isn't that exactly what I said in the last line?!
    I suspect either you skimmed my words, or you don't understand English well (No, it's not an insult, honestly).

    I said I find it wrongful, if you think homosexuality is immoral, according to your own moral standards and interpretations, then you claim it to be from a religious set of 'rules' (ie Christianity).

    How is that hypocrisy? And in which line, did I say, "APOLLON shut the hell up, you cannot express your opinion against homosexuality?!"

    If anything, I think I have put my words clear and precise to everyone else, let me digest it further for your convenience. Let's take an English lesson together.

    "I JUST FIND IT WRONGFUL" -> ME, MYSELF AND I. IN MY OPINION. (Is it wrongful to express MY OPINION?)

    "FOR PEOPLE TO BE JUDGMENTAL AND CONDEMNING OTHERS" -> Now I said, it is wrongful, but did I say you are NOT permitted to? Because you seem to suggest that according to your words,
    Where on earth did I 'DEMAND' you to be quiet and shut up? I said "I FIND IT WRONGFUL", meaning, IMO, I find it wrongful... (omg why do I always have this sense of 'deja vu' when replying to you and a particular someone else ... the need to repeat and repeat myself like a broken record).

    In other words, YOU can still do it. You can still condemn or judge, whatever you like. You have the right to make any post you wish to.

    How and when on earth did I tell you that, Apollo, you are not permitted/allowed to post in this forum to condemn homosexuals?! In any case, if I were indeed so foolish to do so, you can easily laugh me in the face, and continue your posting on the subject be it to condemn or otherwise, because I am not an admin or whatever, I can't ban you. So why are you so upset about me saying "I find it wrongful"? LOL.

    Just because you are eager to label me as a 'hypocrite' doesn't mean you can easily do that.You have to justify yourself based on MY posts and so far, I think you have failed terribly in your quest to do so... without trying to twist the logic of my words. -whistle

    And to conclude, I feel that this is indeed a futile 'discussion', argument, debate, whatever you may call it, this is a futile exchange of words we have. You and I are never going to be able to see eye-to-eye, you have your own set of principles and beliefs and I have mine.

    So, let's call it a day. And be rest assured that you are STILL 'allowed' to condemn or judge or express your opinions or whatever, so do not fret over it.

    Wow, when you put it like that, theoretically, it sounds so philosophically enlightening. But in practice, let's look deeper into your sentence.

    "Hate the sin, not the sinner".

    Let's look at a few examples.

    Your wife commits adultery with another man.
    So, in theory, you hate the sin of adultery that your wife and that man committed, but you shouldn't hate your wife and the adulteror right?

    But in practice, are you able to look the man in the face, shake his hand, give him a pat on his shoulder and say,"Hey man, it's all good. I don't hate you. I just hate the sin that you committed"?

    I doubt so. In reality you would have wanted to punch him in the face or trust me, you would have much more sinful thoughts running in your head when you are confronting the man.

    Let's look at another example.

    This man murdered your son. So technically, in theory, you hate the act of murder (sin) and not the murderer (sinner).
    Can you tell him that, "It's alright, I don't hate you. I just hate that you murdered my son."
    Hahaha, even typing it makes no sense to me, how about you saying that to the man who murdered your son? No?

    Let's get back on topic.

    So you say you don't hate homosexuals (the sinners) but you hate their homosexual acts (sin).

    Are you seriously, able to befriend them (another issue is, would THEY even accept your 'friendship') and say, "Hey I hate what you are doing my friend, but I don't hate you."

    It just sounds so absurd in practice, because how can you accept someone for truly who and what they are, if you personally think that what they are doing disgust you? That what they are doing is wrongful?

    Likewise, the term 'hypocrite' would be applicable here, if you mask your dislike for these people based on what they are doing and pretend that you are best of friends with them, but condemn what they are doing behind their backs.

    So in practice, it is never possible to draw a distinct line between the two. If you condemn the acts of homosexuality, you are, in reality, condemning the people committing it as well.
    #143 BabyRain, Jul 11, 2007
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2007
  4. Jamien

    Jamien Well-Known Member

    ^Not suprisingly, I agree with everything BabyRain said.

    And I think bestiality is NOT a form of love. Couples express love by making love with each other right? Human beings are one of the very few species on earth that actually have sex without considering it only as the means of reproduction ( as in we don't make love just to get kids). Beastiality is when you torture some poor animal by violating it. There is NO couple love involved. So bestiality should not be put on the same level as homosexuality. To me, homosexuality is on par with heterosexuality. Beastiality is in a totally different level.
  5. BabyRain

    BabyRain Doppelgänger of da E.Twin

    Opps! Can't believe I actually MISSED that part out... -blush

    Yes yes -clapclap thank you Jamien for bringing that up as well!

    And to add to that, BEASTIALITY IS NOT the same as HOMOSEXUALITY because BEASTIALITY is committed between a human and an animal (NO TWO CONSENTING PARTIES involved). It's just similar to RAPE... the human raping the animal! -angry

    How can you even rate beastiality the same as homosexuality! What an insult to all the homosexuals!
  6. ks.ayo

    ks.ayo Well-Known Member

    lol i'm cool with homo's.

    as long as they don't try anything funky on me. -lol

    if they do it's game over for them -bash-shoot
  7. wheezo

    wheezo Well-Known Member

    nothing wrong with homosexuality. and it is not genetic, their kids if they ever have any probably won't be homo, no one really knows what causes homosexuality. even tho i say nothing is wrong with it, a guy kissing or holding hands with another guy is still disturbing for me.
  8. wind2000

    wind2000 Self Schemata

    Homo cant have kids unless adopted or artificially inseminated (women only) from a "borrowed" sperm. -whistle
  9. fearless_fx

    fearless_fx Eugooglizer

    homosexuality is gay
  10. Knoctur_nal

    Knoctur_nal |Force 10 from Navarone|

    how long did it take you to come up with that.
  11. fearless_fx

    fearless_fx Eugooglizer

    it was spontaneous, like the big bang, dude.
  12. Knoctur_nal

    Knoctur_nal |Force 10 from Navarone|

    like the big bang...guess you got notin else coming eh..
  13. fearless_fx

    fearless_fx Eugooglizer

    my wit will just keep expanding until it reaches infinite mass and implodes
  14. Knoctur_nal

    Knoctur_nal |Force 10 from Navarone|

    have fun imploding on urself now.
  15. natnat528

    natnat528 Active Member

    I definitely don't think it's wrong! People should be able to express their sexual identities, no matter what their sexual orientation is.
  16. yumdedumjenn

    yumdedumjenn Well-Known Member

    i personally do not object to homosexuality because i believe that everyone is entitled to have their own love regardless of gender. No law or state shall abridge one's harmony and love is my perspective.
  17. mwai007

    mwai007 Well-Known Member

    wow.. hahahaha great thread guys!
  18. Espresso Bunny

    Espresso Bunny Well-Known Member

    I think it is a genetic disorder. Much like the things that make us special and what not.

    Some people are extremely obese, worryful, etc. Some turn gay.

    I mean, why would a guy w/ testosterone talk like a fag and like "whatevers".
  19. desiree

    desiree Member

    first things first, i don't believe in god but i don't despise any religion after all it is what people believe in and if thats what they believe in then its fine by me. what i don't understand is why it is wrong in the eyes of christians. they believe that god made everything, so if he did, he obviously created homosexuals, why is that wrong?
  20. wind2000

    wind2000 Self Schemata

    ^ God didnt create homosexuality. Men chose to follow their own desires.