Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I deal with homosexuals on a daily basis. I respect that they have a difficult inner life in a primarily heterosexual world. The problem with them is not their person but the fruit of homosexual behavior; especially on a widespread and long term basis. The studies clearly show that homosexuals have a higher rate of pedophilia than heterosexuals. Their promiscuous lifestyle is also a major concern. You need to have an open mind and consider the merits of the reasoning along with the examples provided. You need to open your mind and stop dismissing this truth with an ad hominem attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdrop93
You are very ignorant on homosexuality. I suggest you educate yourself. Perhaps go to a gay organization and actually meet some gay people. They are actually human beings. They are just like everyone else.
And please, please, please - a bunch of us tried to get through to you on another thread - homosexuals are not pedophiles. Homosexuality does not lead to pedophilia. They are two completely different things. There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of ignorance in this day and age. You can be intolerant, you can be judgemental, you can be bigotted - but you cannot continue this ignorance. Homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia.
Last edited by samyn on the green; 09-27-2010 at 12:22 AM..
While people may be born with homosexual inclinations this does not make acting on those inclinations right. Many people may have these homosexual inclinations but few act on them due to society pressure; just like people have the inclination to heroin as a vice but do not take up the vice because of social pressure. It feels really natural to light up a smoke in the morning if you have that vice but that does not mean it is natural or morally right. Removing the pressure and accepting these acts will lead to social anarchy as the population forgoes forming nuclear families to engage in promiscuous sex. Issuing sexual license is the spread of sexual vice. Today is the first time in 2,000 years that children are being schooled that this behavior is the same as heterosexual behavior. There will be unintended consequences that are not being accounted for. The repercussions of homosexuality becoming acceptable may not be readily apparent in the same way that no-fault divorce surprisingly lead to millions of children living in poverty. These breaches of the moral law may take a few generation for the society busting seeds to sow.
NONE of that makes any logical sense at all. First of all, you can't compare shooting up heroin to being homosexual. One is an external, adopted/learned habit, the other is innate. We humans are sexual creatures (except for rare cases of asexuals who have no sexual urges), and the need/urge to engage in sex isn't much different than being hungry for food.
And you're talking like the world is going to go to hell in a handbasket if we "accept" homosexual 'behavior'. ??? Are you for real?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samyn on the green
This is morally wrong not because a man says they are wrong but because of natural moral law. A society of mostly homosexuals will not survive for more than a few generations. There are many empirical reasons to observe; two of which are low birthrates and increased sexual disease transmission. It is society's duty to support heterosexual marriage for its critical role in creating children and passing the values of the civilization to the next generation. This role that marriage fills can not be stressed enough as once this value is marginialized it is very difficult to recreate- see Detroit for an example of a place that has lost this value and see how hard it would be to recreate the value of heterosexual marriage in that city.
That's utter nonsense. The number of homosexuals out there are, and will ALWAYS be in the minority, simply because MOST humans are born heterosexual- simply because that is in fact nature's design in order that we do not die out. And although you seem to refuse any logic on the matter, I will AGAIN point out to you that within any species, there will always be some deviations and not every creature will turn out exactly like the other- though by your standards I'm sure you would love it if we were all robots.
And you saying we'll all "die out"...for pete's sake, that is SILLY! You're talking as if accepting homosexuality will suddenly open some closet out there and gays will be spilling out into the world like the BP oil spill into the atlantic ocean. Get with the program- if you haven't noticed, there is NO shortage of people having sex and making babies- married or not. Marriage is NOT about procreating, procreating is just a facet WITHIN marriage- and not even all of them. What about heterosexual couples that marry, but are barren? Should they not be permitted to marry either?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by samyn on the green
Heterosexual marriage is not a union of convenience or a union to crease pleasurable but fleeting muscles spasms. It is the heart of civilization. It protects women and children. A northern European Anglo-culture like the US may not be able to appreciate this but civilizations that accept/promote homosexuality are vulnerable to takeover by other civilizations that keep the moral law. There is vigor and strength in the heterosexual marriage.
I will agree with you on the first part of your statement; I'm with you that the dissolution of the 'nuclear' family is, and has been an issue and one of the reasons why our society has many problems. A single parent can NOT raise a child as well as two parents. Family is partnership, bonding, and (ideally) love- and the foundation for a well adjusted society and as well, and ideal environment to raise children. HOWEVER- MY idea of a family, or even "nuclear family" is two parents raising children. It doesn't MATTER if they are of the same sex or opposite- children just NEED two loving, caring parents- and even if they're the same sex there are always roles, one is more of a "dad" the other the "mom". But that's another can of worms I don't want to open, I just wanted to state my (slight) portion of agreement of your statement.
The part where you say we're "vulnerable to takeover by other civilizations that keep the moral law"...well, we ARE vulnerable to some cultures/countries who have "their" idea of moral law and try to impose it on us and use terrorism, such as the zealot Muslims of the middle east. Do you agree with their "moral law"? Because you seem to speak as if it is of utmost importance that we too keep said law; but I guess you mean YOUR idea of what said law is. Do you not see that "moral law" is interchangeable depending on societies and as well individuals, and that it is VERY important that we refuse to let ANY such law dictate over us- as a society and individuals? I'm sure you would like everyone to be JUST like you, and believe JUST like you do, but no thank you- keep your own little version of morality to yourself- I would like to keep my civil liberties and enjoy living in a society that appreciates freedom and inherent/natural born rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samyn on the green
Homosexuality when rampant becomes a culture of death. Since the homosexual sex acts do not have a reproductive purpose homosexual acts are purely sexual vice.
Um, did you know that heterosexuals have sex even when they do NOT want to make a baby, but simply because they enjoy it? In case you don't know, sex is FUN and pleasurable- for damn near EVERYONE. So, why is homosexual sex a vice, and heterosexual sex not when neither are doing so in order to procreate? Explain please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samyn on the green
The promotion of this vice -it is being promoted in schools- hinders a peoples ability to reproduce from generation to generation. This is a topic that has to be looked at from the long term view as the effects are most obvious over a few generations. Without the natural reproductive purpose homosexual relationships lack the natural bond that heterosexual bonds have and are often transient in nature.
Nobody is "promoting" homosexuality. If the schools are simply explaining that some people are different, and that not every single person is exactly like the other sexually- well GOOD. Maybe your children won't be so backwards and bigoted and learn to accept people for who they are, not to mention themselves. And if they do- that should actually work in your favor. They probably won't have any weird sexual hang ups and will be able to engage in normal, healthy intimate relationships- something that I've come to notice a lot of overly-anti-gay people do not seem to have...
But seriously- why do you have this delusion and paranoia of the world dying out over time, or that society is going to suddenly being taken over by the gays once people accept them for being who they are? Sounds like you have more to worry about than the dreaded gays. They aren't like zombies, you know, and the gays aren't going to "infect" you or be gay "at" you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by samyn on the green
From a practical viewpoint one can observe many drawbacks for excessive homosexual behavior. The astronomical promiscuity associated with the homosexual community leads to the explosive spread of venereal disease. In fact it was the homosexual community that drove the spread of HIV in the 1970's-1980's which affected all of us. In places without sexual morality venereal disease can bring a society to their knees. It is also documented that homosexuals have a youthful ideal of beauty which leads to documented increase in pedophila. A moral wrong like homosexuality can never be a civil right; the repercussions for rampant homosexuality will destroy a civilization within a few generations. While homosexuals are not bad people the critical thing is to keep homosexual acts in check.
The part in red/bold face- is a BOLD FACED LIE. Homosexuality has NOTHING to do with pedophilia, nor do any "stereotypes" of what you believe gays to hold as ideals would EVER encourage, or give reason for anyone- gay or not- to violate a child. Simply because a pedophile opts to be with a little boy rather than a little girl has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Homosexuals like to have sex with MEN. ADULT MEN! By this line of thinking, then pedophiles who like to molest little girls are connected to, or should also be just called heterosexuals, right? NO! They are PEDOPHILES too. Pedophilia is a separate and completely unrelated issue- and problem. Homosexuality is NOT a problem as nobody is being violated or abused. It is only a problem for people like you who MAKE it a problem by obsessing over it and creating imaginary scenarios that wouldn't, COULDN'T ever happen. I will never understand why some people are SO consumed with thinking about what other people- people they don't even know- do with each other behind closed doors.
As far as STDs- sure they're a problem. But not a problem that is restricted to homosexuality. AIDS was in fact an issue among the gay community simply because of a particular type of sex that SOME would engage in, but as for the other types, like herpes, warts, etc.- heterosexuals who have said diseases FAR outnumber the gays who have them. And did you know that currently, the biggest percentage of STD carriers among any demographic is currently heterosexual teenage girls? Why don't you worry about real issues instead of inventing them.
Anyway I'm not sure I should have even wasted my time on responding to you, because no doubt you'll stick your head back in the sand and continue to repeat yourself here and any other opportunity this topic comes up. It's just that this is a HUGE issue for me because I am extremely sensitive to people's inability to keep their own moral ideals to themselves; not to mention, it reeeeally sticks my craw that anyone is even wasting time and energy being AGAINST a fellow human being for ANY reason- much less one that isn't even valid or based on any sort of reality or logic. It's really a shame some people just aren't seeing things for their reality, and are connecting things that have nothing to do with anything except the little world they live in within the confines of their small mind.
I was not attacking - I am pointing out your ignorance. Ignorance is not stupidity - ignorance is lack of education. I think you need to seek out research that isn't clearly biased. Your "studies" that you are quoting do not appear to be valid. They have a clear agenda and are severely biased.
Many of my friends and family members are gay. I work in the performing arts. Most of my peers are gay. They are not pedophiles. They are not deviants. They are good, normal people. They deserve to be treated as human beings. Everyone deserves to be treated like human beings.
People who are prejudiced against homosexuals always talk about reproduction. Is there a shortage of people in the world that I just don't know about? I thought we were suffering from OVER population. Am I wrong??? Gay people exist - they always have. So far - it doesn't seem to have created a severe lack of offspring for the human race.
It is kind of you to want to be nice to the people immediately around you but this point of view works for you in your small world. It is a very self centered view. It does not consider the macro-view of accepting homosexuality on a par with heterosexuality and the consequences. You do not know all homosexuals nor do you know the personal lives and inner secrets of everyone you know along with the long term consequences of their behavior. All you know is that it makes you feel like you are on the moral high ground accepting these people and their behavior.
You have not for a second considered the long term consequences or the fate of previous civilizations that have journeyed down the road that western world is stumbling down now. What works to make you feel warm and fuzzy now will have much different consequences for the greater good later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdrop93
I was not attacking - I am pointing out your ignorance. Ignorance is not stupidity - ignorance is lack of education. I think you need to seek out research that isn't clearly biased. Your "studies" that you are quoting do not appear to be valid. They have a clear agenda and are severely biased.
Many of my friends and family members are gay. I work in the performing arts. Most of my peers are gay. They are not pedophiles. They are not deviants. They are good, normal people. They deserve to be treated as human beings. Everyone deserves to be treated like human beings.
It is kind of you to want to be nice to the people immediately around you but this point of view works for you in your small world. It is a very self centered view. It does not consider the macro-view of accepting homosexuality on a par with heterosexuality and the consequences. You do not know all homosexuals nor do you know the personal lives and inner secrets of everyone you know along with the long term consequences of their behavior. All you know is that it makes you feel like you are on the moral high ground accepting these people and their behavior.
You have not for a second considered the long term consequences or the fate of previous civilizations that have journeyed down the road that western world is stumbling down now. What works to make you feel warm and fuzzy now will have much different consequences for the greater good later.
Umm... warm and fuzzy? I don't even know where to begin... Yes, I do try to be nice to the people around me - all the people around me. But I don't arbitrarily pick my friends. I pick my friends based on who they are, how they treat people, if they are kind, if they make me laugh, if they make me love. I do not feel like I am on the moral high ground accepting "these" people and their behavior. I judge people for who they are - not who they are attracted to. No, I do not know the deep dark secrets of all the people around me - gay or straight. But I know my gay friends just as well as I know my straight friends - and so far - nothing crazy going on. And I have known a pedophile. He was not a homosexual. He was a pedophile. They are two different things.
Here is a link that you should read.
And as far as long term consequences - gay people have been around for thousands of years. Doesn't seem like they have done too much damage. If anything - many of them are responsible for things like taking great wedding photos, making beautiful clothes, singing pretty songs, dancing amazing dances, cooking wonderful dishes... I could go on and on. Seriously - hatred and prejudice are not qualities that should be nourished. Life is so much better if you have an open and loving heart. Just gives you that "warm and fuzzy feeling" - doesn't it!
most christians don't even know what homosexuality IS> homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle it is NOT a choice because it's not an action. homosexuality is an unchosen sexual orientation. The question is aking to asking if black people can be Christians. For some reasons many Christians perceive homosexuality to be a sinful life choice. If you actually TALK to gay people you will discover that those are untrue lies. Gay people know the MOST in this world on what homosexuality MEANS. When somoene says they are gay they are revealing their sexual orientation. They not telling you that they've even ever had sex. When someone tells me that they're straight there is no 'morality' being inferred. They're also not even inferring that they even have ever had sex, they're revealing their sexual orientation. They're revealing an UNCHOSEN sexual orientation... a part of their born core idenity. if you think a sexual orientation is a sin it's akin to thinking a skin color is a sin. Both were equally NOT chosen. Again, this is coming from the first hand source of a gay person
There are a lot of Christians that are so much into their fantasy faith that they believe in written words of utter nonsense over reality. You did nothing wrong by being gay as it is not a choice (as you stated). God did not make you that way because there is no god in biological science. God exists in ancient scripts of deception. If you let these so-called Christians bother you, then you're only letting yourself down. These people have their own problems with reality. Let them be while you deal with (what I can only imagine as) your struggle through life as a gay person.
Personally, I wouldn't want to be you. And I certainly wouldn't want to be them. Naturally, I am happy with who I am. And you should be too! Them?... Not so much.
It is kind of you to want to be nice to the people immediately around you but this point of view works for you in your small world. It is a very self centered view. It does not consider the macro-view of accepting homosexuality on a par with heterosexuality and the consequences.
Nice...NICE?!? That's insulting and ridiculous- Dewdrop isn't being "nice", she is just acting like a human being should act. Which means accepting people for who they are without judgement. Not that she isn't nice, but with regard to this issue- that's insulting and implies that she believes as she does in order to patronize or out of "kindness". Maybe YOU think this way because you yourself are inclined to do so, but the rest of us- I don't think so. I know plenty of people who are total JERKS and aren't nice in the least, but they don't give a hoot about whether someone is gay or not because even if they aren't kind- they're at least SMART. And I can't speak for Dewdrop but based on what I know of her from her posts- she is simply a thinking, well adjusted person who is logical, yet she has the gift of being able to use her heart as well as her brain. HARDLY self centered- quite the contrary. Seems that it is you who are of the 'small world', seeing as you can't get past your own in order to make any sense of the real one- the one that the rest of us are living in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samyn on the green
You do not know all homosexuals nor do you know the personal lives and inner secrets of everyone you know along with the long term consequences of their behavior. All you know is that it makes you feel like you are on the moral high ground accepting these people and their behavior.
You have not for a second considered the long term consequences or the fate of previous civilizations that have journeyed down the road that western world is stumbling down now. What works to make you feel warm and fuzzy now will have much different consequences for the greater good later.
I've already asked this in my above recent post that responded to yours, but I will ask again because you keep repeating yourself: WHAT the heck are you talking about with regard to these "long term consequences" that you think are inevitable (and of DIRE concern)? That civilization as we know it is DOOMED if we stop persecuting homosexuals? Where on earth are you getting these outlandish and bizarre notions of impending doom?!?
People who are prejudiced against homosexuals always talk about reproduction. Is there a shortage of people in the world that I just don't know about? I thought we were suffering from OVER population. Am I wrong??? Gay people exist - they always have. So far - it doesn't seem to have created a severe lack of offspring for the human race.
It's not a matter of shortage. As I learned it part of the reason biologists believe a "pair bond", romance, exists at all is because our infants are weaker than that of many species. So they need the aid of a couple. Love, Romance, or whatever you choose to call it serves to form those couples. I think generally speaking couples without kids are less stable and more likely to break up.
In Christianity part of the point of marriage is traditionally procreation. In early Christianity the ideal was often more to live a life of celibate service, but those who could not manage that could aid the community through reproduction and family I suppose. Marriage without procreation is not really adding much to the community. It can be tolerated with heterosexuals because the Bible clearly shows sterile heterosexuals can/should be allowed to marry. It gives no support for same-sex marriage. (Although certain parts of the Old Testament imply Platonic same-sex friendships might have been in some sense been allowed to be "bonded" in a "blood brother" type arrangement.)
It's not a matter of shortage. As I learned it part of the reason biologists believe a "pair bond", romance, exists at all is because our infants are weaker than that of many species. So they need the aid of a couple. Love, Romance, or whatever you choose to call it serves to form those couples. I think generally speaking couples without kids are less stable and more likely to break up.
While I agree that children are often an incentive for couples to stay together; specifically, couples who would otherwise break up/divorce on another. However, it's certainly not for the reason that it seems you are alluding to, which is that making a baby someone somehow furthers any love or closeness to them. Al having a child does is exacerbates, and intensifies whatever is already going on between the couple; if they're truly in love and have a strong and healthy relationship, then it'll be more so.
In Christianity part of the point of marriage is traditionally procreation. In early Christianity the ideal was often more to live a life of celibate service, but those who could not manage that could aid the community through reproduction and family I suppose. Marriage without procreation is not really adding much to the community. It can be tolerated with heterosexuals because the Bible clearly shows sterile heterosexuals can/should be allowed to marry. It gives no support for same-sex marriage. (Although certain parts of the Old Testament imply Platonic same-sex friendships might have been in some sense been allowed to be "bonded" in a "blood brother" type arrangement.)
You're making up things. First of all- the POINT of marriage, within christianity and otherwise, way back when and even in the not-so-far removed past (and even currently, in many cultures) was NOT about procreation, it was about forming a successful partnership- almost a "business" decision sort of thing. The procreation part was simply a facet of said pairing, something that would no doubt be included and the offspring a means to further the original intent- which is to create a union that would be beneficial financially, and socially.
And just in case you do not know this; back in these days, if a married couple is physically incapable of reproducing, there were "ways" around this. If it was the man who couldn't get the wife pregnant- she very often would sleep with another man simply in order to have a baby. And of course back then the husband probably had no idea the baby wasn't his; there was no way medically for him to determine if he was infertile or not. Of course sometimes rendezvous were even arranged BY the husband...now if it was the woman who was barren- very often some "arrangements" were made, and surrogate mothers were hired and kept in seclusion, along with the "supposedly" pregnant wife until the baby was born, and then VOILA. So don't be under any illusion that the "sanctity of marriage" is something long gone, or even worth 'saving'- it never existed to begin with. But today- it SHOULD be worth something- LOVE.
Nowadays there is NO reason for anyone to get married to anyone except for LOVE. So why deny that right to anyone, who cares who marries who?! Marriage is a bond and promise between two people. And that is a GOOD thing, always. It sends a message of commitment and loyalty, and it's the same message whether the two people are a man and woman, or two men or two women.
As for marriage without procreation "not adding much to the community"- how so? If you're conservative and believe in love and commitment- and thus probably believe adultery and/or unmarried sex to be a sin, how can you say this? As stated above, marriage actually DOES add a lot to the community. It shows loyalty and devotion. And that goes for heterosexual unions AND homosexual ones. Whether or not babies are made as a result of these unions is totally irrelevent, and I don't understand why everyone keeps connecting the two. Sex is sex, marriage is marriage. There is a WHOLE lot of sex going on with complete disregard to marriage- as well as a heck of a lot of marriages out there with a complete disregard for sex...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
warm and fuzzy
