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.
Very impressive that this thread has in less than 3 weeks generated over 88 pages of replies and 878 posts.
Homosexuality does not have to be explained from the standpoint of validity nor does it have to be defended.
There have been LGBT people - lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender - since the beginning of time. This has existed in all recorded societies, nations, and civilizations in every day and age of history. It simply exists. Homosexual activity as well as non-sexual exclusive same-sex pairing in scores of species of animals in nature. To deny this universality of homosexuality is to be ignorant and uninformed of ethnology, anthropology, primatology, zoology, sociology, and history.
Some religions have prohibitions against it and some do not. There is no unanimous agreement whether it is a good or bad thing.
To answer the original question as to explaining the validity of homosexual behavior I will suggest there is no simple answer. That is like explaining the validity of "artistic" behavior, or "left handed" behavior, or "Jewish" behavior, or "intellectual" behavior, or anything else.
The question itself is nonsensical. It's like explaining the validity of weather behavior.
However - I will say this: Homosexuals and bisexuals exist and are getting on with their lives. In our society we afford all citizens the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All citizens are valid ... deserving equality and respect.
Well said.
And the bolded is what I thought upon first seeing the subject line. But then, as a good journalist, I considered the source....
You mean the same people in the bible that talk about stoning people to death? That talk about beating slaves with a weapon not thicker than ones thumb? That talk about slaying whole cities, raping women and killing their children?
Those people?
Did they tell people to do that, or are they describing what was happening?
Very impressive that this thread has in less than 3 weeks generated over 88 pages of replies and 878 posts.
Homosexuality does not have to be explained from the standpoint of validity nor does it have to be defended.
There have been LGBT people - lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender - since the beginning of time. This has existed in all recorded societies, nations, and civilizations in every day and age of history. It simply exists. Homosexual activity as well as non-sexual exclusive same-sex pairing in scores of species of animals in nature. To deny this universality of homosexuality is to be ignorant and uninformed of ethnology, anthropology, primatology, zoology, sociology, and history.
Some religions have prohibitions against it and some do not. There is no unanimous agreement whether it is a good or bad thing.
To answer the original question as to explaining the validity of homosexual behavior I will suggest there is no simple answer. That is like explaining the validity of "artistic" behavior, or "left handed" behavior, or "Jewish" behavior, or "intellectual" behavior, or anything else.
The question itself is nonsensical. It's like explaining the validity of weather behavior.
However - I will say this: Homosexuals and bisexuals exist and are getting on with their lives. In our society we afford all citizens the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All citizens are valid ... deserving equality and respect.
I apologize for the large following of so-called Christians that can't work out their own salvation and are intent on interfering in your own.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,967,770 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by justtitans
Did they tell people to do that, or are they describing what was happening?
If you seriously don't know, you better read your bible in context.
Or do I need to quote chapter and verse? It was DIRECTION on what to do, not a reporter observing. Nice try at deflection if you did know, and a reason to study your bible if you didn't.
You can't always have an atheist around who knows the bible better than you, you know!
If you seriously don't know, you better read your bible in context.
Or do I need to quote chapter and verse? It was DIRECTION on what to do, not a reporter observing. Nice try at deflection if you did know, and a reason to study your bible if you didn't.
You can't always have an atheist around who knows the bible better than you, you know!
`
The point was to show the context in which what was being said. There are certain things that have reason to be written as they are and were instructions. Understand the context first.
To be honest, you probably know the Bible better than I do, but you clearly don't understand it very well....
I mean people remember the Pythagorean Theorem, it doesn't mean they know how to use it. Could that be you Mr. Bible Scholar?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,967,770 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by justtitans
`
The point was to show the context in which what was being said. There are certain things that have reason to be written as they are and were instructions. Understand the context first.
You did nothing of the sort. You misconstrued what was being conveyed, and now your trying to justify that.
Quote:
To be honest, you probably know the Bible better than I do, but you clearly don't understand it very well....
I mean people remember the Pythagorean Theorem, it doesn't mean they know how to use it. Could that be you Mr. Bible Scholar?
Well, you got the first part right, but not the second. I know the bible well, I understand it from the way it was written, not how someone on a pulpit wants to interpret it for me, and I use the Pythagorean Theorem often. How the heck else would you estimate the height of a tree?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,967,770 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
How are you using the Pythagorean Theorem to estimate tree heights?
Huh?
That is easy. Measure a distance from the trunk of the tree to a point at some distance away, measure angle to top of tree with from that point (or get a close estimate), do the calculations, and bingo bango, you have an estimate of how high the tree is. You know one of the sides, and two of the angles. One is a 90 degree one, the other variable. Yes, a bit of trig is involved, but essentially you are using the principles.
That is easy. Measure a distance from the trunk of the tree to a point at some distance away, measure angle to top of tree with from that point (or get a close estimate), do the calculations, and bingo bango, you have an estimate of how high the tree is. You know one of the sides, and two of the angles. One is a 90 degree one, the other variable. Yes, a bit of trig is involved, but essentially you are using the principles.
That's not the Pythagorean Theorem. That's the tangent function.
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.
