Homosexuality, what is your view?

[JediBoricua]

In the past years I don't remember us having a discussion about this topic and in the past week I have been closely touched by the subject.

My girlfriend's best friend is a lesbian. She has been having a serious relationship with another girl for over a year now. Well the whole class decided to stage a fake 'wedding' between the two, with champaigne and all, where they sweared love to each other and read vows. It was actually a very touching moment.

The thing is that my g/f and her friends are seniors at a catholic shcool, and the principal found out about the whole ceremony ,which took place on a weekend at a private house, and expelled both students a month before graduation!

We are organizing some protests and we have gotten in touch with the local gay rights movement. We will convoque the press in a week and the whole senior class will protest. The girls are also suing the school.

As you can probably see I don't have a problem with homosexuality. I believe we are no one to judge what others do in their search for happiness and love. The truth is that homosexuals do no harm anyone, nor are they a menace to society. Politicians marching against gays, or fighting them off with legislation are wasting precious energy and time that could be used to fix real social problems like drug use or crime IMO.

So what do you think? For or against and why? Feel free to use reliogious reasons as long as you respect others opinions.


P.S. this thread could get ugly, so Mods you can close it whenever you see it appropiate.

[Figrin D'an]

Oh boy... here's hoping this thread stays civil... :|


This catholic school is private, I take it... that introduces a grey area to any law suit against it...

[Darth007]

yeah man its a catholic school that's private. I'm not sure but doesn't it say in the bible that gay's are forbidden or something? Im catholic/christian but not sure. I mean, it's their belief so they have the choice. Its kinda like a black guy attending a KKK rally, not to be offensive or anything.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Against, buit not for religious reasons AT ALL.

My concerns are health wise and mental. I believe there is enough medical evidence that homosexuality cuases mental problems in th elong run (I will not state why those problems come about, there is variety of reasons - some could well be caused by discrimination). Health wise, should we even be disputing that? While HIV/AIDS is nto a gay only disease, the lifestyle they lead is conducive to disease spread. Other diseases are spread easily too.

Plus, it is totally clear that your body is NOT meant for same sex relations.

Beign that as it may and while I believe gay relations is not a human right and abhorrent, if the girls wish to do as you stated, that's up to them. They have not really harmed anyone else. It's not illegal.

So, I will sum up - I have made a decision that I will have nothign to do with homosexuality, anyone else is free to do that - it's stupid and self harming IMO, but so's tobacco and drugs.

I'd add a very good friend of mine was homosexual. That was noever a probelm, tho the discussion on screwing boys / girls got funny and eye opening for both of us. I personally elarned a lot about why some men do become homosexual from him and I do remember him well, still count him as a friend.

He also died of HIV/AIDS 10 years ago.

Edit : And as for the Catholic schools actions - they had really no choice. Homosexuality for them is a total no go so....... I'm afraid even if the school thought it okay for the girls to stay, according to the morals of a Catholic, it cant be tolerated.

That sucks, cause I'm very sure Jesus would have never said GET OUT OF MY SIGHT! I'm preetty sure He was more interested in showing His love. I wonder what the Church would think if they saw the Pharasees and how they are almost indisginushable. Who were the people Jesus critisised? Rulers and Religious orders mainly. Think about it and what that could mean here.

[Gurney Devries]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If they're not hurting anyone else, leave them alone. I'm a large proponent of personal freedom and this definitely falls into that category. No one else has the right to tell you how to live your life.

[JMK]

I'm with Gurney. Regardless of what religious doctrine may (or may not) say, people can do what they want. As long as they don't try to turn the rest of us to their team, we shouldn't be trying to bring them to ours. To each their own.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by JMK
I'm with Gurney. Regardless of what religious doctrine may (or may not) say, people can do what they want. As long as they don't try to turn the rest of us to their team, we shouldn't be trying to bring them to ours. To each their own.

And what about sexual abuse and pedophilia? You HAVE to draw the line somewhere on personal freedom.

People can not and should not be allowed to do what they want. You might claim all things permissible... but not all things are desireable. A clear line has to be drawn. Homosexuality is somethign that approaches where that line should be drawn.

Two consenting adults exchanging in homosexuality in the privacy of their homes is however IMO okay. For others, it is not. I dotn think it's a religious issue anyway as the church is morally bankrupt and has no authority in these issues any more. And that's coming from someone who's a fundamentalist.

[Ka' el Darcverse]

I believe homosexuality to be wrong and a sin. Does that mean I shun homosexuals, no. Why? Because I believe that Sexual immorality is wrong and I'm guilty of that, I've had premarital relations, my best friend is an STD time bomb just waiting to go off, but I don't judge him nor shun him. We are all guilty of some form of sin or another it is our attempts to rectify and curb our impure urges that is important. So basically I'm saying I'm no better than a homosexual in terms of Sin and I have no right to judge them.

That being said, did the Church have a right to expell them? Yes, these girls knew there was a rule and they deliberately broke it. All those involved should be glad they weren't expelled either. On top of this I believe marriage to be a sacred bond between a man and a woman so this is doubly wrong in my mind. Now shoudl these girls be excommunicated? No, no one should everyone is eligble for redemption up until hte moment of death and no one should ever turn someone away from church no matter how depraved or dark their actions have been.

[Gurney Devries]

And what about sexual abuse and pedophilia? You HAVE to draw the line somewhere on personal freedom. When you're hurting another person, it's not "personal freedom". Simple contradiction of terms. Personal Freedoms are things that affect you and no one else. As I said:
If they're not hurting anyone else, leave them alone.

[Figrin D'an]

Alright... here goes...

Personally, I have no problem with homosexuality. I know people whom are openly gay... they are quite normal and well-adjusted people, just trying to make their way in the world like everyone else. Discriminating against a person for sexual preference is no different that discriminating against a person based upon gender, skin color or religious beliefs. I believe it holds back social progess to do as such in public forums.

That being said... as much as I don't like the idea of two students being expelled from a school for something they did on their own time and off school grounds... being that the school is private, it can be argued that they have a right to exclude anyone they wish from their institution for reasons that they deem "immoral." It's not a very enlightened point of view, and much like Marcus said, I would hope that those that are supposed to follow Christ's teachings would be more open and caring about those that are perceieved to be "sinners"... but there's also that little thing called freedom of association, and the ability of private organizations to micromanage their membership. In that respect, this is not dissimilar to the Augusta National controversy, or recent court decisions involving the Boy Scouts.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am open on the subject I don't care if one is gay or not it is none of my buisness. I think the school is wrong but it is a private school so it is a more difficult matter there. Also this will get dragged out and graduation will have already have passed so the point will probably be mute anyway unless the school reconsiders because of the bad press.

[Captain Coruscant]

I have no problem with it what so ever.


it's stupid and self harming IMO

And I don't understand how it's self harming? I know plenty of gay people and they only way they've been 'harmed' by it is emotionally, through breaking up with someone - which happens in hetrosexual relationships also.

I think that bringing up the AIDs point is also a bit ... :|

That's generalizing a lot of people into saying that they're irresponsible like that. There are STI's transmitted through any type of sex, regardless of who is involved - AIDs included.

[JMK]

And what about sexual abuse and pedophilia? You HAVE to draw the line somewhere on personal freedom.

Sure, lock those people up. But I was talking about people being able to do what they please with regards to their sexual preferences. Abuse and pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, those are crimes. If 2 consenting adults agree to be homesexual, and not harm anyone in the process, go right ahead.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
I believe there is enough medical evidence that homosexuality cuases mental problems in th elong run (I will not state why those problems come about, there is variety of reasons - some could well be caused by discrimination). Health wise, should we even be disputing that?

I agree with you on the mental health thing. A few years ago, when I was seeing a psychiatrist, I thought it odd that I got asked if I was heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual every time I met a new doctor who had to draw up some basic info. You know, the questions where they ask you if you smoke, if you drink, if you're sexually active, do you exercise, etc.

Then I attended a 5-day morning partial hospital program, along with 7 other people in my age bracket, and 2 or 3 of them (girls) were bisexual or lesbians, and had girlfriends. 2.5/7 = .35, and 35% is much higher than the common knowledge "10% of the population is gay" saying.

So, at least when it comes to people who are going through puberty, I believe that alternate sexual orientations lead to an increased chance in the deterioration of at least your emotional health. I've never met a person with AIDS, so I'm not qualified to comment on that.

I don't really care whether a person is a homosexual or not. It's none of my business, and usually unworthy of my precious brain cycles. It seems to be akin to trying to plug a serial mouse into a VGA port, though, which, if you get it to work, will probably end up blowing out your VGA card or your mouse before its time.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

I have a couple of friends who are gay, so overall it doesnt bother me personally.

Religously, Im torn. The Old Testament states unequivically that homosexuality is wrong - no ifs and or buts.

Jesus changed a lot of the rules once he arrived.

He could and would forgive people's sins yet would tell them 'go and sin no more'.

So.......morally, I dont believe its right ....... but some things that I do arent right. Im not going to point a finger.

"Judge not lest ye be judged."

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Captain Coruscant
I have no problem with it what so ever.



And I don't understand how it's self harming? I know plenty of gay people and they only way they've been 'harmed' by it is emotionally, through breaking up with someone - which happens in hetrosexual relationships also.

I think that bringing up the AIDs point is also a bit ... :|

That's generalizing a lot of people into saying that they're irresponsible like that. There are STI's transmitted through any type of sex, regardless of who is involved - AIDs included.

I'll be a bit more explicit - Homosexuality is not a normal state. It causes mental issues like Vis bought up, plus the fact the discrimination that is bought against homosexuals, whether explicit or muted, the alienation does lead to harm. Despite attempts to prove it's genetic or whatever, it is a lifestyle choice and simply put, if you make a lifestyle choice like that, one which the majority of the population sees as wrong or at the least puzzling, your goign to have soem sort of mental damage. I believe it is a fact life expectancy for a gay person is lower than the norm. Ill have to dig out that stat again - as well as the puzzling fact gay people are on average the most intelligent, have the highest percentage of tertiary qualification and have the highest disposable income. You can reseach that last points, I believe they will hold up if you dont believe me. strange, aint it?

As for physical damage - the male rectum is not meant for sexual activities. At ALL. the skin walls are much thinner and damage too easily with friction. The bacterium in the rectum are not benign and if they enter the blood stream, can cause blood poisioning and other problems.

Not to mention homosexuals (this is a perception, I'll add, it may not be fact - however as I said my friend and I did talk about this - things like fisting and felching just never occured to me as being possible or desireable) I understand are more likely to engage in alternative sexual acts liek object insertion and BDSM.

There is a link between the mental health issues and the suicide rates as well. That has been disputed, but there is some evidence to back that one up.

As for STD transmission.... no I am right to brign that up. Here's why.

The average male homosexual has in the order of 1,000 sexual partners. The average male hetrosexual has 9. This is a Aust statistic (please, your invited to double check this as well. at the least, you will find gays have many more sexual partners. I could have exagerated the figures, I'm running off memory). The more sexual partners you have, the greater the risk of STD transmission. also, STD's are more prevalent in the male homosexual community for this reason - the anal walls are no protection against semen borne disease. Blood contact is almost certain. anal sex is one of the best ways to transmit STD's, apart from needle sharing.

It's harsh, but if your going to discuss if homosexuality is wrong or right, health issues must be mentioned. My friend was infected in 1984. He lasted 9 years. Condoms are no failsafe and continual new partners is just asking for infection. Remeber, monogany within homosexual lifestyles is the exception, not the norm.

AIDS was originally called GRIDS - Gay Related Immune deficency Syndrome. It was seen as beign caused by the lifestyle of gay men. It was only when a hemophiliac had GRIDS that it was realised somethign else was going on. AIDS crossed into the hetrosexual community by blood exchange and bi-sexual contacts. It is still the case that the gay lifestyle is still the second most certain way to get AIDS - intravenious drug is the number one. I might add, the gay lifestyle has a greater chance of hard drugs being involved as well.

I think the problems can be drawn down to two factors - mental problems possibly due to alienation/discrimination and the actual lifestyle. It is pertinant to point out that homosexuality is not just the issue of homosexual orientation - its the whole life choices that are taken. Maybe it's different now, but my friend had an entirely differnt lifestyle than I did, which appeared to be typical for gay men. It was normal and acceptible for gay men to go clubbing, get bombed on Amil Nitrate, then get laid. Oh so women might do this too - but that's an exception in the main, not the norm.

Just re-assessing my post, I guess it's the lifestyle that gets me concerned more than anything else. Thence, my choice is a mongamous hetrosexual lifestyle, it appears to be healthier and safer, somethign I think can be backed up with science and fact, not just with half baked religious blatherings.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

I'm very against homosexuality, from physiological, mental, moral, and religious standpoints. However, I am against the legislation of such issues by government. These are not matters of government jurisdiction. They are matters of personal jurisdiction. Though I believe the acts vile and wrong, it is neither my place nor my governments to enforce our views upon these practitioners. If they were to do so, where would they stop? Such issues are for each person to reconcile. I've never slighted any of my friends for being pagan, agnostic, homosexual, or what have you. And yes, I have many friends who fit the mold. I disagree with them. There is a difference. If there is somebody here who I have always categorically agreed with, I hope they are a beautiful, nordic blonde chick, so I can marry my beautiful female clone! But these people don't exist. I'm far too confrontational to agree totally with anybody. I pride myself on that. Call me a modern day Voltaire, I suppose. I may not agree with what you do or say, but I'll back you up on being able to do or say it. If you're seeking confrontation, look no further. If you ask me what I think about your practices, I'll jaw you till the sun goes down. But in the end, when its all said and done, if you still want to do it, then that is your choice. Not mine. Not my government's. My only purpose in the exchange is to hopefully influence your decision, because I do believe in my own perspective, that things like this add up in the penny jar between salvation and damnation. Not only do I have to worry about my own state, but of those I care about.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Well, here goes my two cents.

Having homosexual tendencies is not a sin.

Acting on those tendencies is a sin.

Homosexuality is a perversion of what most call "brotherly" or "sisterly" love.

Fact: People need to be loved.

If a person knows how to express affection, or have affection expressed to them only through homosexual relationship, then the person should not be told to break up with the person they are seeing. Instead, they should gradually be shown more positive ways to express love and let the homosexual person break off the relationship on his or her own.

It boils my blood to see homosexuals shunned from churches.

Jesus told us, "Whatever you have done to the least of these, so have you done to me."

[Dutchy]

Let them come to Holland. It's legal here for homosexuals to get married. :)

That principal should be expelled, by the way.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
The average male homosexual has in the order of 1,000 sexual partners.

Yeah, right. :)

I'm quite baffled by this thread. Opinions in here are a far cry from an openminded and liberal point of view. Homosexuality is just fact, not something to be questioned.

[Nayette Lamonge]

*Sigh*

I do not have anything against homosexuals. I do however have a great deal against their actions. Religously, I feel it is wrong, and I have a problem with it personally. May sound harsh but I think the act of homosexuality is disgusting.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[AmazonBabe]

Ka' el Darcverse and Charley just about summed it up for me, but I would like to add my own words.

Religiously, I do believe it's wrong. In the Catholic faith, homosexual relations (even premarital sex) is considered a sin. Like Marcus said, the way the male and female bodies were made, I'm pretty DARN sure it was not intended for same sex relations. And seeing as how God is the Creator of both bodies, it's hard for me to think he intended such relations (even though, God knowing all, He would have seen it coming.)

But, also, like it was stated, Jesus would never turn sinners away, and neither would I (heck, I'm a sinner as much as the next man/woman in line, so I certainly wouldn't want to be shunned because of that). I don't hate homosexuals... I just feel they are mislead and confused.
(I also feel uncomfortable around them. Not when they're by themselves, as I have a few friends who are homosexuals. But when they're with their partners, I just feel... well... uncomfortable. It's not that I don't want to treat them differently, but feeling uncomfortable tends to make one shy away from the situation that is making them uncomfortable. I guess the reason it makes me feel uncomfortable is because it's just not natural to me, IMO.)

I also feel that homosexuality is a growing medical and health concern. I have yet to see such problems arrise in heterosexual relationships (granted said heterosexual couple hasn't been sleeping with every next available partner in the world).

I can understand the school expelling them, even if it is a month before graduation. The girls knew the rules of the school, and they decided not to heed them. Therefore they will suffer the consiquences of their actions. If, say, the school were to make an exception in their case, then they'd have to keep on making exceptions for others to come. Also, this was a PRIVATE school, meaning they don't have to follow rules outside of the school's (save for some state laws and such). So, what they say goes, basically.
(I went to a Catholic private school when I was younger, so I know quite well the rules of these schools and how strict they can be.)

[Admiral Lebron]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
The average male homosexual has in the order of 1,000 sexual partners.


Don't know where you get your statistics but that is wrong. I know a few homo-sexuals who are still virgins in all senses. They are normal people who just like something else. If you look down on someone for acting that way, then you are a godless communist bastard.

[CMJ]

That was a BIT harsh Lebron. :p

[Admiral Lebron]

I mean it too. I have some good friends who are homo sexuals.

[Sanis Prent]

As do I, doesn't mean I like what they do.

[Figrin D'an]

We'd like to keep this thread civil, Lebron. Please refrain from personal attacks or slights. There are plenty of ways to make clear your point of view without resorting to such tactics.

[Yuri Harper]

Simply put.

Homosexualitly is a life choice, if someone wants to do that then they can, but if they are harming people by doing it, then they should not be allowed to.

The school (being Catholic and private) had the right the expel those girls, I may not agree, but that's their rules.

I don't care if someone is gay or not, it's their additude that matters to me.

[Darth Viscera]

You people keep saying that homosexuality is a life choice, a lifestyle decision, etc. Well, maybe so, in that in perhaps 50 years you'll likely be able to undergo major brain surgery to remove the piece of grey matter that says cornhole=1. Maybe you should put that little theory into effect. Go gay for a year. Surely, since it's all malleable and simply a matter of choice, you can just switch back and forth between little things like that. I'm sorry, but for a year you are not allowed to become sexually stimulated when you see a pic of an attractive person of the opposite sex. Better stock up on duct tape and brain glue! Sound ridiculous? Well, it should.

You can control whether you're born gay or bi or straight about as much as you can control whether you're born with lukemia or not. There is no gay toggle switch. How can any of you even deign to believe that you can just stop being attracted to women, or to men?

A lifestyle choice! Well maybe that part of the population should just hold it in! :rolleyes

[Admiral Lebron]

I asked a homo sexual friend why he was gay once. He said its because he liked the way men kissed over females and because he liked their physique. Its not all that different from hetros. Some guys like 'em like twigs, other like 'em like elephants... Its all about what you are looking for and who can best fufill those wants.

[CMJ]

Great post Viscera.

[Hayes Muirso]

Yes, very well said Visc. I agree totally with you.

[Sanis Prent]

Some people have erotic stimulation from mutilation, too. Yes, you can be stimulated by many different things. But to validate them just because you can be stimulated by them is no reason whatsoever. In that light, let the Dahmers of the world "express themselves without consequence"?

Your argument is no argument, in that regard.

Unlike my aforementioned example, its not a criminal or malicious act. Therefore, I see no need for legal intervention. Still, I consider it wrong.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Hayes Muirso
Yes, very well said Visc. I agree totally with you.

Me too, for a change. :)

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Still, I consider it wrong.

Even considering both parties agree on the act?

[Sanis Prent]

Yes.

[Dutchy]

Because?

[Sorreessa Tarrineezi]

I have nothing against the people themselves, it's just when they act on it that's gross, makes me uncomfortable.....:\

[Sanis Prent]

It is immoral, unhealthy, and sinful.

[Dutchy]

What about killing innocent people? Immoral? Sinful?

[Sanis Prent]

Willfully and deliberately? Yes. If not, tragic, but no.

[Hayes Muirso]

It's only sinful if you follow Christianity (or whatever other religions that have deemed it illegal, that I'm not aware of).

So I'm in the clear there :)

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Hayes Muirso
It's only sinful if you follow Christianity (or whatever other religions that have deemed it illegal, that I'm not aware of).

So I'm in the clear there :)

Which I do. Thus the context to perceive such an act as wrong.

[Admiral Lebron]

So do you condone what people have done to the gay community in the name of religion?

[Sanis Prent]

That is a broad question. You'll have to narrow the scope.

[Admiral Lebron]

Basically since it is 'sinful' do you agree with the persecution that has followed them like it has the Jews? I.E Nazi Germany, Spanish Inquisition, Holy Roman Empire...

[Sanis Prent]

I'm sorry, are you trying to lump Christianity into the same bin as agnostic, secular regimes like the Nazi party? Don't, unless you want me to turn this right around to the Palestine situation.

Notice that the linguistic roots of the word "Zealot" are Hebrew in origin. I am sympathetic of the Jewish plight during such times as the Dreyfus affair and Holocaust, but you don't have a monopoly on "the unwashed parriah".

How easy it must be, to see those who kill abortion doctors, Branch Davidians, and those who march with signs that say "God hates Fags", and say..."Christians...well that figures!"

How easy it must be, to see people like Osama bin Laden kill thousands of innocent people, or to see Ali Hassan al Majeed butcher entire villages and say..."Muslims...well that figures too!"

And how easy it must be for people in Syria and Jordan to see Ariel Sharon's tanks pump shells and machine gun rounds into Palestinian villagers and say "Jews...that figures as well!"

What's hard is to see the true followers of their beliefs, the ones who aren't blinded by their hatred and racism, and aren't trying to scapegoat it onto their creed. Its hard to find the Christians that are witnessing to those who are willing to listen. The Christians who welcome all sinners ("Come as you are") into their flock.

Where is the kind-hearted Christian? The kind-hearted Muslim? The kind-hearted Jew? Open your eyes and see past the sensationalism on page one, and you just might find out.

[ReaperFett]

Just to go to Vis' comment, I feel it is a lifestyle choice only by how you use it. The majority would hardly live a hugely different life.



My personal opinion is that I don't mind it one bit, as it is their life.

[Morgan Evanar]

I think condeming homosexuality as wrong is very narrow minded. I personally can't find anything logical against them. Some simply wired differently, but have near-equal potential to live productive lives.

I do agree that the ones who are pushed into it psychologically are unhealthy and unstable. But there are some homosexuals who are that way simply because its what their brain says.

As for disease, the fastest growing segment of people with STDs in America is heterosexual latin men.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Actualy Homosexuality has little to to do with the high rate of AIDS now look at Africa that is not the reason there. About how the Christianity has treated Gays well some groups are horrible namely the ones that basically spit on Matthew Sheppard's grave that was horrible those people should be ashamed for themselves I hope they go to hell before Sheppard.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

So what is the reason AIDS is in Africa? I'll have to look at studies to be sure.

In no way does Christianity condone violence towards people that follow "alternative lifestyles." The homosexual and the heterosexual are both called to repent of sins and turn to God again.

People who do violence towards homosexuals, and those who condone it, are committing atrocities, and even more so when they attempt to stamp "in Jesus's name" onto their murderous and horrific actions. Do I agree with abortion? No! Do I agree with killing abortion doctors? NO!

Do I agree with homosexuality? No. Do I agree with killing homosexuals? EMPHATICALLY NO. Replace killing with "discriminating against" or "hating" and the answer is still no.

How has Christianity treated homosexuals? "Christianity" as is defined in the Bible loves homosexuals. The "church" as seen in the world and as Mark said is flawed. It is human. Humans make mistakes, humans claim to be Christian and just use it as an excuse to be bigoted and judgemental. Read Romans 2, and see how wrong they are.

Now, a related question: Do you think same sex couples should be allowed to adopt?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well the Africa epidemic is related to hetrosexauls as far as I know some drug use could be involved as well.

[Sameer Aryan]

...And stupid rumors: some people think that raping a virgin girl can make AIDS go away -_- so some uncles have raped their own nieces, etc.

As for gay people, I don't see anything wrong at all. I admit that I'd feel weird knowing one of my friends is homosexual and feel strange when he/she is around, but I don't see what's so wrong about it. No one can control their heart, and some studies say it may be because of the way their brain is; so it's not like if it's their fault.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

AIDS is linked to rampant sexual activity. This can be found among hetero and homosexuals. I believe (can be wrong, I often am) that in the early days of the AIDS epidemic it was probably more common for homosexuals to be more sexually prolific than heterosexuals. Although I don't know dates or timelines...but in the beginning it certainly could have been linked to the homosexual community, as opposed to the more likely to be monogamous heterosexual community.

However, that simply isn't true anymore. People are having sex with everyone now a days. And no, I don't think that is right either.


No one can control their heart, and some studies say it may be because of the way their brain is; so it's not like if it's their fault. For the sake of arguement, some people say there is something in your brain that makes you a pedophile, and so is that not their fault either?

[ReaperFett]

Africa would have AIDS due to dirty needles, IMO. Hospitals are apparently a big problem.



And same sex couple? It depends. As of now, I say no, as the kid could be bullied. But if people were more open minded, why not? They can love the child more than another couple, cant they? Providing they are open minded also, I dont see a problem.

[imported_Gerbo Lang]

I'm torn myself on the subject, because religiously I'm against it. I grew up and learned such acts to be wrong. I used to even make fun of and put down gay people. I thought all gays would be condemned to hell for eternity. The thought of homosexuality disgusted me and truthfully I had hope for all that where from the community would die.

You would say that’s pretty pathetic on my part and it was. The reason I'm torn is because me and my cousin went to my uncles house one day to find an old metal detector he had. In the process we came across some of his private things. I and my cousin are the only two individuals who know my uncle is gay and not truly out of the closet.

Since then I have looked at the issue with a torn view. I still love my uncle but then there’s the religious side of me that tells me what he does is wrong.

Thanks for listening carry on with your conversation.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I'm against same sex couples adopting, for the reason that it could well and truly screw up the kids... If they want kids why can't they just go and make their own babies? Oh wait, that's right, they can't. In a perfect world...well in a perfect world we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Kids need mothers and fathers, and if you have two fathers or two mothers... Honestly I really don't know. Again I'm not smart enough, I'd have to do research or find someone else who has done research on it. Although there probably isn't a lot of data out there on kids of same-sex couples. Maybe there is.

[Gurney Devries]

I know some homosexual couples that would make much better parents than a lot of heterosexual ones.
So what is the reason AIDS is in Africa? I'll have to look at studies to be sure.Mostly, it's because they're uneducated about AIDS. The belief that you can cure AIDS by having sex with a virgin is still widely perpetuated in many parts of Africa (I read a news story only a few months ago about a man who raped a 3 month old child - killing it - because of this belief).

And a little food for thought: Just because you personally believe something is morally wrong does not make it so. My main gripe with any religion is that everyone always believes that they are absolutely right and that there cannot possibly be any other answer.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Concerning people killing homosexuals in the name of Christianity.

Do they seem hypocritical? Yes. But Christianity is not about never sinning once you have been saved. It is about trying not to sin, and when you screw up, you confess that you have done wrong and you ask for forgiveness.

Here is a question to ask yourself if you are a Christian. This is taken from C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters

"If I, being what I am, can consider that I am in some sense a Christian, why shoule the different vices of those people in the next pew prove that their religion is mere hypocrisy and convention?"

If any Christian has been called a hypocrite, then they have been mislabeled. Why? Because the Bible says that we are humans, and that's ok. Being humans, we are fallible and God accepts that. Why do you think He's forgiving us for all our screw ups every day fo the week. All that we have to do is believe that Jesus is the Lord of all things, and that trough his death we are saved from Hell.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Wei, that's what jerks me off about Christians. Just because they are Christian DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT OR EXCUSE TO SCREW UP. Forgiveness is not some sort of get out of jail card! Oh sure we screw up, but the fact is, there is some sort of notion about Oh well, we can be forgiven so who cares.......

... and so we might well ask. Dont you think that the secular world sees that attitude as hypocritcal and rightly so?

I'm fundamentalist, but I also dont have my head up my backside, blinding myself to the problems around me. The church is filled with problems and using excuses is not going to solve them. It's high time we got our stuff together, straighened the Church out inoo something Jesus wiuld recognise and be pleased with and got about telling the truth and proving it. I'll point this out...


And a little food for thought: Just because you personally believe something is morally wrong does not make it so. My main gripe with any religion is that everyone always believes that they are absolutely right and that there cannot possibly be any other answer.

Is true. There is only one truth, but until you can prove it, it's hypothesis. It's not up to us to force truth onto others, but to show it and then prove it with rational, resonable argument. It's then up to them to accept it and if they dont... well that's not our problem, is it? You can only show what is true. You cant force others to accept your view or your morals. Only if they accept what you say as true, will that occur.

I'll think I'll get back on topc again. Sort of.


Mostly, it's because they're uneducated about AIDS. The belief that you can cure AIDS by having sex with a virgin is still widely perpetuated in many parts of Africa (I read a news story only a few months ago about a man who raped a 3 month old child - killing it - because of this belief).


Unfortunantly, therein lies a reason - education about AIDS is sorely lacking and the pandemic has become too widespread to be stopped. It's gotten into the hetrosexual population and gone rampant. again, lifestyles, poor education.. hell there are leaders in africa who refuse to believe HIV leads to AIDS and other poor notions!

AIDS is about to wipe out entire generations in Africa. Not totaslly by itself, but by run on effects - farms cant be worked on, so that leads to starvation, facilities arent worked on so that leads to disease. It's not unusual to see no one in a family younger than 60 and older than 15. and entire population group wiped out. It's quite true gay sufferrs indroduced HIV/AIDS into Africa, but the spread from there was done by other methids, like dirty needles. AIDS is more or less still a lifestyle issue in western countires and pretty much contained. Africa tho? I fear that it's goign to get a lot worse :(

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
I'm against same sex couples adopting, for the reason that it could well and truly screw up the kids... If they want kids why can't they just go and make their own babies? Oh wait, that's right, they can't. In a perfect world...well in a perfect world we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Kids need mothers and fathers, and if you have two fathers or two mothers... Honestly I really don't know. Again I'm not smart enough, I'd have to do research or find someone else who has done research on it. Although there probably isn't a lot of data out there on kids of same-sex couples. Maybe there is.

Kids can be "screwed up" by heterosexual parents in many ways as well. If you are refering to a gay couple potentially influencing the kid's sexuality, well... there isn't much corellation in the case of heterosexual parents... children of a straight couple can may be straight themselves, or gay.

Honestly, the most compelling factor should be if the potential adopting couple cares for the child and wants to provide a loving home for him/her. If a couple can provide that kind of home life for a child, be they heterosexual or homosexual, then let them adopt. We need people willing to give kids good homes and a chance a good life.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree Figrin that is my belief too. About Africa it is a huge problem like you guys said and it won't go away, it might be like the Black Death when we get down to it (in that the Black Death wiped out somewhere between 2/3-3/4 of the European population) that could happen in Africa because of Aids. And Marcus you couldn't have said it any better about Christian forgiveness, I don't like that crap either where you can get into heaven if you keep messing up all you have to is asking for forgiveness. I think God would see right through that.

[Doc Milo]

I haven't read every word of every post in this thread, so forgive me if any of this has already been said:

I believe homosexuality is sinful -- it is an affront to God's creation. In the old Testament, God laid down the law homosexuality is a perversion (in the book of Leviticus, I believe.) God also destroyed Soddom and Gamorah for the majority of the people (indeed Lot could not find one worthy of salvation which would have saved the cities) engaging in sexually impure acts (chief among them homosexual practices.)

That being said, I do not believe that it is the governments or any individual's "job" to judge any kind of punishment. As an individual, I have a right to be discriminating in with whom I chose to associate, and what factors lead to that decision -- all individuals do. Personally I don't place "homosexuality" very high on the negative list. There are many other factors that I consider. I would much rather hang out with a homosexual (even if I consider his lifestyle wrong and sinful) than a complete and uttter @$$hole.

God will mete out the punishment (if there is to be any, and God will decide that as well) for someone who engages in homosexuality. That is not my call (thankfully, I wouldn't want that responsibility!)

I do believe that homosexuality is not genetic. I believe it is a psychopathology. In fact, before the era of Political Correctness, homosexuality was in the PDR as a psychological psychosis. It has since been removed from having such a classification because of the PC movement.

But . . . even if it is genetic, that still does not make it normal or natural. Downs Syndrome is genetic, but no one would argue that someone with Downs Syndrome is normal. In fact, someone with Downs Syndrome (my sister has Downs) is suffering from a mental disability. Yes, it's genetic -- but it's a genetic defect that affects a percentage portion of the population. If (and it's a big if) homosexulaity is genetic (and that has not been proven by any scientific evidence) that still has no bearing on the normalcy of homosexulity. If genetic, then, obviously, it is a genetic defect. Does that mean homosexuals should be discriminated against? No. Does that mean homosexuals deserve special rights others don't enjoy? No. (I don't believe any group deserve such special rights -- our rights are given to us by God, not by Government. If someone was denied rights in the past, that is wrong, and if someone is being denied rights now, that is wrong, and should be rectified by removing the obstacle denying someone their rights, but to "make up for" such denials by having the government grant special rights (a power it doesn't and ought not have) is just as bad as the original denial of rights. But that's off this topic....) Does it mean that private individuals and private groups or schools have a right to associate with people that adhere to their standard of morality? Yes.

Yes, Christ would have forgiven the homosexual his or her sin, but He would also have charged the homosexual (just as he charged Mary Magdalene, the prostitute) to change their sinful ways. And He would expect us to do the same. Grant forgiveness. But granting that forgiveness does not mean accepting the sin as normal or overlooking the sin. Forgiveness acknowleges a sin has been committed, acknowledges that the committer of the sin seeks to be forgiven, and charges that the sin not be repeated... else forgiveness need be sought again. It is taken on faith that the sinner will make every attempt to steer clear of the sin, and do pennance should he or she waver.

[Morgan Evanar]

Yes, Christ would have forgiven the homosexual his or her sin, but He would also have charged the homosexual (just as he charged Mary Magdalene, the prostitute) to change their sinful ways. And He would expect us to do the same. When will you people get it through your thick skulls that some people are simply wired to be gay? Sometimes its not a lifestyle choice. Just like I can't see getting down with another guy, some men/women only fancy their own sex, because thats what their brain says.

As for Africa: lack of sex education coupled with a cultural aversion to condoms and really twisted beliefs/rumors. Its going to get much worse there.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Morgan can you link me to medical studies which have proven this fact that must be beaten into our "thick skulls"? Never mind I'll look for them myself.

ANd Gurney and Figrin and everyone else: Yes you are correct heterosexual people would probably mess up as many kids as homosexual parents would. My point is not should we allow them to have children, because you can't really stop someone from getting pregnant (unless its a guy!) but should they adopt?

Kids who need to get adopted should go to loving, stable, and nurturing homes. Can they get all that in either household? Perhaps they can. Regardless, to adopt you have to jump through so many hoops....but! Should a baby go to a homosexual couple, or to the heterosexual couple who has been trying and trying to have a baby of their own, but cannot because of infertility?

There we have the case of two people who have 'chosen' not to have kids the "normal way" by being a same sex couple. And then we have the heterosexual couple who cannot even though they want to.

[Morgan Evanar]

Fact: Women were fed all kinds of weird hormones in the 50s and 60s.
Fact: The gay population in the baby boomer generation disproportionally soared.
Fact: hormone balance in many of these homosexuals is deviant from the acceptable norm as compared to heterosexuals.

Also Fact: I read almost everything that comes across my eyes, and I certainly cannot cite specific things from years of reading random stuff.
Furthermore, I do not say this sort of thing unless I'm almost positive about the ground I stand on.

[Gurney Devries]

Should a baby go to a homosexual couple, or to the heterosexual couple who has been trying and trying to have a baby of their own, but cannot because of infertility?There's no shortage of children that need good homes. It's not like there's only one little orphan and not enough kids to go around.

And, quite frankly, if the heterosexual parents-to-be are like what my biological mother was like when I was little, then I'd say the kid should go to the homosexual couple in a heartbeat.
Morgan can you link me to medical studies which have proven this fact that must be beaten into our "thick skulls"? Never mind I'll look for them myself.Read Viscera's last post. It makes a lot of sense. It's not like you can suddenly just decide one day that you're going to be gay. I don't see any reason at all to doubt that it's just something that's hard-wired into their brains.

And as such, I can't see it as a "sin". A sin is something you choose to do that is wrong. I don't see being homosexual as a choice, so I don't see how it can be a sin.

You can quote all the passages in the Bible to contradict that statement that you wish: I prefer to go by the message of the Bible, not the word of it. In all of its breadth and length, the only real message the Bible ever tries to get across is "Be kind and accepting of your fellow man. Do unto others as you would have done unto you."

[Sanis Prent]

Psychologists say serial killers are "wired to kill" too.

The sin is to act upon the temptation. Not the temptation itself.

[Morgan Evanar]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Psychologists say serial killers are "wired to kill" too.

The sin is to act upon the temptation. Not the temptation itself. Well, I'm finished here. I can't discuss something with someone who simply refuses to look at stuff from a purely rational view.

Good luck.

[Gurney Devries]

But anybody can suddenly have the urge to enact violence unto another person (ie, kill them). Not anyone can suddenly decide to be attracted to the same sex. Thus, your analogy fails.

Even your own statement proves it false: To act upon temptation. Anyone can be tempted to violence. Not anyone can be attempted to be homosexual.

To be blunt about it: Most people cannot simply choose what they find sexually arousing. Did you choose to be straight? Then what makes you think that they chose to be gay?

[Lilaena De'Ville]

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/gui/show/NCT00001294?order=45 They are starting a clinical study on genetic homosexuality.

http://www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewall/issue_bank/sexuality/

A link about sexual theories.


Several studies have found there to be a genetic influence on the determining of one’s sexuality — whether it be the levels of one’s hormones or the size of certain parts of the brain (i.e., the corpus callosum or medulla oblongata). However, there is no conclusive proof that homosexuality is completely determined by genetic factors. -From the above link.

http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

And looks like someone made homosexual fruit flies. Congratulations?


No matter how people feel about the issue, it is increasingly hard to argue that genes play no role in homosexuality. The evidence began to pile up in 1991, when studies showed that identical twins were more likely to have the same sexual orientation than other pairs of siblings. That same year, a California scientist reported slight brain differences between gay and straight men, although the conclusion is disputed. And in 1993, an NIH researcher found a stretch of DNA on the X chromosome that seemed to harbor one or more genes affecting sexual orientation. But no one has proved that a particular gene promotes gayness or has offered any convincing theory of how genes could influence a person's choice of sleeping partners.
As intriguing as it sounds, the serotonin theory is still full of holes. Even if shortages of the chemical increase sexual activity, why would it often be homosexual rather than heterosexual? And if sexual orientation is genetically determined, then why do some identical twins differ in sexual preferences?From the above link.

[Marcus Telcontar]

I'm leery on saying you get wired gay and that's all thereis to it. I'm aware quite a few of those studies were either paid for by gay activist groups or done by people gay or very sympathetic. I'm not really aware of a truly unbias scientific survey that definantly says it's genetic. It's possible, but most studies seem to find it's enviroment that sets it up. No, I dont really understand how a gay kid can come out of a hetro household, I dont think anyone really does.

i do know that in animal breeding, bulls will only go gay if they have nothing female to root. That pattern is replicated across most mammal breeds - once the animal goes homosexual, it's then very difficult to make it to want to bonk females again. I'm not kidding, this is for real! Cows will also mount each other if one of them is in heat. It's in fact a sign for a farmer that it's time to AI a cow. However, the cow will stand for bulls, an in heat cow will let anythign mount it. well, almost. I think you get the idea tho. Tehy are basically looking to get bull laid, it's not a lesbian cow thing in truth. Other cows mount cause they get turned on and they want some bull love too.

Studies on animals just dont show homosexual genetics. It's all due to enviorment. Once the enviorment sets homosexuality off, it's nigh impossible to go back hetro.

So, putting religious creation aside and using pure science, what then makes humans so unique they have a recessive gay gene? It's highly doubtful - so far the real evidence points to enviroment. There could be something genetic, it's not identified yet however.

[Jedi Master Carr]

But with animals they will only have sex to mate for the most part it is different in the human world.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Hence our problems with AIDS :) Recreational sex, IF CUT OUT, would demolish STDs. Or at least put a huge dent in them.

http://democracy-africa.org/hivaids.htm

AIDS epidemic in Africa. So many children in Africa dying of AIDS...It makes me cry.


· In Botswana, Namibia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe, 1 out of 5 people between ages of 14 to 49 is living with HIV or AIDS.

· In some African countries, about 25% of the pregnant women are infected with HIV.

· Without preventive therapy, up to one third of the babies will become infected, and most of these children will die by the age of 8.

· In Zambia, more than 25,0000 CHILDREN are infected by HIV every year and this figure is expected to increase. [Source: Panafrican News Agency, April 17, 1999]

· In Zambia, 30-40% of infants born to HIV infected mothers will be infected and eventually develop AIDS and will die within 2 years. [Source: Panafrican News Agency, April 17, 1999]

· In Zimbabwe surveillance programs, about half of all pregnant women are found to be infected with HIV. At least one third of these women are likely to pass the infection on to their babies either via peri-natal transmission or via breast-feeding. -from the above link

[Lilaena De'Ville]

http://democracy-africa.org/hivaids.htm#socialhiv

Social impacts of AIDS in Africa


In Africa, HIV/AIDS account for more than 50% of all adult admissions to hospitals, in addition to a significant number of pediatric admissions. The overall effect of HIV/AIDS on the social infrastructure in sub-Sahara Africa is staggering. The prevalence rates in several African countries have been very high. The high-risk groups such as commercial sex workers (prostitutes), migrant workers, and truck drivers, are regarded as the HIV reservoir or agents of HIV transmission responsible for spreading the virus from the urban areas to the rural areas. The social infrastructure needed to support the victims of this disease is fast collapsing due to a very high demand on the social services available. This has prolonged the AIDS mystery among sub-Sahara Africans.

Africa is seriously handicapped to deal with this disease. Most of the African government policies and programs are not adequately addressing the peoples’ need to combat this disease. Presently, the disease has overwhelmed the public health system in Africa. The social environment in Africa offers very little support for individuals infected with HIV/AIDS. Africa is seriously disadvantaged when it comes to establishing adequate programs that will address the needs of pregnant mothers/women infected with HIV, children born with HIV, and orphans who live in Africa.

Slowly, the impact of HIV/AIDS continues to disintegrate and destabilize the traditional African extended family system that has served as the bedrock for family foundations responsible for its history and the long genealogy line. - from the above link

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
But with animals they will only have sex to mate for the most part it is different in the human world.

And? so we get the choice if we want the sword fest, why does that make a difference if we go homosexual?


Fact: Women were fed all kinds of weird hormones in the 50s and 60s.
Fact: The gay population in the baby boomer generation disproportionally soared.
Fact: hormone balance in many of these homosexuals is deviant from the acceptable norm as compared to heterosexuals.


or was it the case homosexuality also got more socially acceptible and more gays and lesbians became willing to admit to it? I dont doubt hormone imbalance may be there, but the sudden increase of homosexuals was more to do with society allowing them to be more open and admit it, I believe

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Hence the "coming out of the closet" terminology. There have been gays since Roman times. It isn't a new thing, but that doesn't prove anything. And yeah, Sodom and Gomorrah, hence the term "sodomy."

http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm

Modern history of AIDS, beginning in 1981 within the homosexual community of LA. It was originally thought not to be contagious outside of the homosexual communuty, as long as people did not date within the homosexual community, or were women. Then they found out it was transferable through dirty needles.

[quote[Because there was so little known about the transmission of what seemed to be a new disease, there was concern about contagion, and whether the disease could by passed on by people who had no apparent signs or symptoms.10 Knowledge about the disease was changing so quickly that certain assumptions made at this time were shown to be unfounded just a few months later. For example, in July 1981 Dr Curran of the CDC was reported as follows:

"Dr. Curran said there was no apparent danger to non homosexuals from contagion. 'The best evidence against contagion', he said, 'is that no cases have been reported to date outside the homosexual community or in women'"11
- The New York Times-

Just five months later, in December 1981, it was clear that the disease affected other population groups, when the first cases of PCP were reported in injecting drug users.12 At the same time the first case of AIDS was documented in the UK. 13[/quote] -from the above link

[Sanis Prent]

If somebody can have sex with a pie for kicks, you don't think they could change teams for a gimmick? Thats presumptuous.

[Gurney Devries]

And you're presuming that anyone who is attracted to the same sex does so as a gimmick? That's ridiculous.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
ANd Gurney and Figrin and everyone else: Yes you are correct heterosexual people would probably mess up as many kids as homosexual parents would. My point is not should we allow them to have children, because you can't really stop someone from getting pregnant (unless its a guy!) but should they adopt?

I thought I addressed that very issue. I made my point pretty clear.




Kids who need to get adopted should go to loving, stable, and nurturing homes. Can they get all that in either household? Perhaps they can. Regardless, to adopt you have to jump through so many hoops....but! Should a baby go to a homosexual couple, or to the heterosexual couple who has been trying and trying to have a baby of their own, but cannot because of infertility?

There we have the case of two people who have 'chosen' not to have kids the "normal way" by being a same sex couple. And then we have the heterosexual couple who cannot even though they want to.

Gurney said it... there isn't a shortage of children on adoption lists. Like I said before... it should come down to being able to provide a safe and loving environment for the child to live and grow. If a couple can offer that, regardless of sexual orientation, that's great.

[Sanis Prent]

No. I'm saying that it is just as possible as being "wired into it". RCP wiseguy.

[Jedi Master Carr]

And that was a movie I doubt he really did that to the pie well at least he did it for money :p About AIDS in Africa it is very sad and it doesn't look good for it.

[Sanis Prent]

Lets not get technical...could be furniture, socks, palms, or anything with the right amount of friction.

[Gurney Devries]

What? That "any port in a storm" concept? No, it's not just as possible because it doesn't explain why a gay male wouldn't be at all attracted to a female.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

These quotes are still from the last link I posted. I'm weeding out most interesting parts, for those who care but are too lazy to weed them out themselves. ;)


[in 1983] Meanwhile in Europe two rather separate AIDS epidemics were occurring, one linked to Africa, the other linked to gay men who had visited the USA. In France and in Belgium AIDS was occurring mainly in people from Central Africa or those with links to the area, whilst in the UK, West Germany and Denmark the majority of people with AIDS were homosexual.


[also in 1983]During the course of 1983 a number of investigations took place to determine more about the occurrence of AIDS in Central Africa. These investigations resulted in 26 patients with AIDS being identified in Kigali, Rwanda, and 38 patients identified in Kinshasa, Zaire where there was said to be a "strong indication of heterosexual transmission"52 53. Shortly afterwards, the Zairian Department of Health created a national AIDS research programme.54.

By the end of the year the number of AIDS cases in the USA had risen to 3,064 and of these 1292 had died.


[in 1984] n the US, it was feared that drinking communion wine from a common cup could transmit AIDS, and Ryan White, a 13-year old haemophiliac with AIDS was barred from school.85 86

"In 1985, at 13, Ryan White became a symbol of the intolerance that is inflicted on AIDS victims. Once it became known that White, a haemophiliac, had contracted the disease from a tainted blood transfusion, school officials banned him from classes."87
Time Magazine

The actor Rock Hudson died of AIDS on October 3rd 1985. He was the first major public figure known to have died of AIDS.


1987 History

At the beginning of January the UK Secretary of State for Social Services, Norman Fowler, visited San Francisco, and in a widely publicised visit shook hands with an AIDS patient. It was suggested that Princess Diana should follow his example, which she did later in the year


The other side of the world, in Australia, the Grim Reaper education campaign was launched, with television images of death mowing down a range of victims in a bowling alley. Although widely criticised at the time, the advertisements did succeed in ensuring widespread discussion of AIDS. 16

"A Bowling alley of death, haunted by decomposing grim reaper bowling over men, pregnant women, babies and crying children was featured on national television last night as the part of a $3 million AIDS education campaign, The 60-second commercial featuring the grim reaper, a macabre and dramatic rotten corpse with scythe in one hand and bowling ball in the other, is spearheading efforts by the National Advisory Committee on AIDS to Educate Australians about the incurable disease."


In Africa, President Kauanda of Zambia announced that his son had died of AIDS, and appealed to the international community to treat AIDS as a worldwide problem. In Uganda, 16 volunteers who had been personally affected by HIV/AIDS, came together to found the community organisation TASO. 39

In October, AIDS became the first disease ever debated on the floor of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. The General Assembly resolved to mobilize the entire UN system in the worldwide struggle against AIDS, under the leadership of WHO Finally something on Africa.


[in 1993]In March, the House of Representatives in the USA voted overwhelmingly to retain the ban on the entry into the country of HIV positive people.11

In South Africa, the National Health Department reported that the number of recorded HIV infections had increased 60% in the previous two years and the number was expected to double in 1993. A survey of women attending health clinics indicated that nationally some 322,000 people were infected.12

In the UK in March, there were a large number of rather hysterical stories in the British press about the fact that a number of doctors in England had continued to practise medicine, whilst knowing they were infected with HIV.13 The UK government responded by issuing new guidelines which meant that health care workers who believed that they had been exposed to HIV had to seek medical advice and testing.


At the end of 1993 the estimated number of AIDS cases worldwide was 2.5 million


[in 1995] In March the VII International Conference for People Living with HIV and AIDS was held in Cape Town, South Africa, the first time that the annual conference was held in Africa.61 The conference was opened by the deputy President, Thabo Mbeki, who spoke about how:

"the impact has begun to cut deep. Those affected are from the young and able-bodied work-force as well as young intellectuals." 62

The South African Ministry of Health announced that some 850,000 people, 2.1 per cent of the 40 million population were believed to be HIV positive, but in some groups such as pregnant women the figure had reached 8 per cent and is rising


[in 1996]At the start of the 11th International Conference on AIDS in Vancouver in July:

"the air was electric with excitement and anticipation about the findings on combination therapies to be reported during the meeting."88

some scientists even declared that:

"aggressive treatment with multiple drugs can convert deadly AIDS into a chronic, manageable disorder like diabetes."89

One doctor suggested that giving combination therapy to patients in the first few weeks of infection, might mean that the virus could be completely eliminated in two or three years Very sad....


[in 1997]In Latin America and the Caribbean the disease was already having a major impact.114 Earlier in the year a doctor in San Pedro Sula, Honduras has said:

"We will go from a city that is predominantly young to a city of old people and children. We are in over our heads with AIDS cases. It is devastating us. And all we can do here is watch people die, nothing more."115

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) reported that it believed that 40 million children in developing nations would lose one or both parents to AIDS by the year 2010


[in 1998]In South Africa, Gugu Diamini, an AIDS activist, was beaten to death by her neighbours after revealing her HIV positive status on Zulu television. This happened just a month after Deputy President Thabo Mbeki had called for people to "break the silence about AIDS" in order to defeat the epidemic.

UNAIDS estimated that during the year a further 5.8 million people became infected with HIV, half of them being under 25. It was also estimated that 70% of all new infections and 80% of all deaths were occurring in sub-Saharan Africa.


1999 History

In the UK the number of HIV positive prisoners reached an all time high.

In the United States a doctor who injected his former lover with AIDS infected blood, was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

....By the end of 1999, UNAIDS estimated that 33 million people around the world were living with HIV/AIDS.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Some gay males are attracted to females. Hence bi-sexuals. Silly Gurney. ;)

[Gurney Devries]

That's why they're bi, not gay. His argument would work for bisexual men (doesn't even really work for bisexual females so well). It doesn't work at all for homosexual people.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

oops I just saw that the Avert website has a copyright.

ARGH do I have to take out all my quotes now??

[Sanis Prent]

How about putting on a front? Denial? Intoxication? A thousand other reasons. Regardless of whatever drive that may exist behind, it takes a concious decision to engage in it.

Christianity and homosexuality, like any unrepentant sin are two non-intersecting paradigms. Why be apologetic for it? It is how it is. I doubt somebody who is entertaining homosexual urges is actively seeking a relationship with Christ, and vice versa. The laws that govern a Christian's actions do not govern the actions of an unrepentant sinner. Thus, our non-intersecting paradigm allows me to percieve their actions as wrong, but at the same time, absolves them of any mundane punishment. I, nor any judge or government, are not fit to decide this. Only God is.

Thus, there are two options. Either I'm right, or the homosexual person is. Either we die and nothing happens, or we die and are brought forth for judgment. We won't know till we die. I'm not holding my breath to find out. In the here and now, do what you've got to do. The only real change comes voluntarily, from within, and from an inner willingness. So I'm not getting my panties in a bunch.

[Morgan Evanar]

I never said it had anything to do with genetics. I said it had to do with the odd hormonal drugs fed to women in the 50s and 60s. As far as I know, its not genetic, rather very likely hormonal.

Other side effects were common too, like malformed reproductive systems and higher per capitia instances of learning disabilities.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
I doubt somebody who is entertaining homosexual urges is actively seeking a relationship with Christ, and vice versa.

Hm. Hmmm.

Is this meant to say there are no gay Christians? Because I would have to question that blanket statement. The likelihood, IMO, is that there are more gay Christians than we know, but they don't go around flaunting the fact to avoid persecutory or judgemental labels.

A single religion, after all, can encourage multiple points of view on the same subject, and it is quite probable there are gay Christians who do not believe homosexuality is a sin, whether it is generally accepted among the Christian community or not.

That is a bit of a tangental offshoot though.

It occurs to me that I have yet to present any views on the subject.

I can't say I see homosexuality as a sin or a negative.

I personally am attracted to women (very attracted! :)) I agree the human body was designed for intercourse with opposite sexes. Furthermore, I hope my children will one day share this view, partly to procreate and continue my bloodline. Logically and emotionally, that just seems to make sense.

However, if someone finds themselves attracted to members of the same sex, be it because of hormones, genetics, or choice, and that attraction is returned, I find no particular fault in it. What is good for me may not be good for someone else, ergo, I project no standards onto others.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Wei, that's what jerks me off about Christians. Just because they are Christian DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT OR EXCUSE TO SCREW UP.

Yeah, I agree. But that's not what I was trying to say. We are humans, and therefore we mess up. It's a given. Paul says in Romans 7:21-25

I find it a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

When we resist temptations, there will be times when we fall. That is a fact. But God gives us a second chance through Jesus. That's what I meant to say.

How does this apply to homosexuality? Homosexuals are people who have fallen to a very bad temptation. And instead of shunning them, we should help them up when they fall, just like Jesus helped us up when he saved us from the punishment of sin.

[Saccharine Jones]

Is this meant to say there are no gay Christians?

No, there is a difference between calling yourself a Christian and "actively seeking a relationship with Christ" as Charley put it. (And please correct me if I am wrong here) :)

Seeking a relationship means that you do screw up, and you do sin, and you are just as human and frail as the next person... but you understand that God forgives.

And you can be a Christian and have gay urges... just like any other sin. You can have straight urges to go have an affair, or to go steal something, or to kill someone even. All sin is the same. You don't have to act on your urges.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Seeking a relationship means that you do screw up, and you do sin, and you are just as human and frail as the next person... but you understand that God forgives.

Agreed. But thing is, (And this goes back to Marcus's comment about being a Christian not giving you the right to screw up), seeking a relationship with Christ is not about turning away from sin. It is about turning towards God.

turning away from sin means a focus on sin. And when you are focusing on sin, then you're less likely to forgive yourself for your mistakes, and a whole lot less likely to forgive other people for their mistakes. And that is not what walking with Christ is about.

The main idea in Christianity, or rather one of several main ideas, is that a good Christian focuses his or her attention outward that is, away from themselves and onto Christ and those around them.

"He who seeks to save his life will lose it, but he who forsakes his life shall save it."

Paul says in one of his letters that he has "lived a life of death, so that you may have enternal life." In short, forget about yourselves, and concern yourself only with improving the lives of others. When you do that, then it gets to be pretty difficult not to help people in need. People like homosexuals.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

No, there is a difference between calling yourself a Christian and "actively seeking a relationship with Christ" as Charley put it. (And please correct me if I am wrong here) :)

That is absolutely correct. Anyone can call themself a Christian. Many many people do, and really have no understanding of what that really means. That's why the term "nominal' Christian was coined. "In name only." There are millions of nominal Catholics as well, esp. in Latin America. There being Catholic is a way of life...and many times (not all, of course) the people are just going through the motions, with no real understanding.

The same is true with nearly every religion. There are those inside it who profess to be one thing...but in reality are 'wolves in sheeps clothing,' just wearing a Christian mask.

[Brian]

This is getting off the subject. Homosexuality, remember people?


Anyone can call themself a Christian.

That statement finally being put forth, I now respond. How do you know your views are, for certain, the one and only correct ones? That the interpretation you or any other Christian presents on homosexuality as sin is, in fact, the truth God intended? You could, quite frankly, all be misreading things and no one would be the wiser until Gabriel phones you up and tells you otherwise.

In my view, it is as important to be open-minded about the subjects you believe in as it is hold to your beliefs. Ergo, what I chose for myself I do not project onto others, even if I believe myself right.

That is why (getting back to homosexuality!!!!) even though I do not practice it or think about it, I do not stigmatize others for doing so.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

One last response and then you can talk about homosexuality all you want.

How do I know that when I say I'm a Christian I'm not just pretending? Christian beliefs are based on something we like to call The Bible. When it says in black and white something is wrong, that is what we believe. There are a lot of theological issues here, inerrancy of the Scriptures, divine revelation, and etc, but as you said, these really don't have much to do with homosexuality.

I never said being a Christian doesnt' take faith. It does. And if I were misreading something about the Bible and the Christian's stance on homosexuality, then I would be worried, but I'm not. If you want chapter and verse you'll have to wait...because I'm late going somewhere, and I have to run.

[Gurney Devries]

Homosexuals are people who have fallen to a very bad temptation.
All sin is the same. You don't have to act on your urges.And all of you are still presuming that it is actively a choice for homosexual people to be the way they are. That they are "tempted" to have sex with members of the same gender and that it's a sin for them to act upon this.

But that does not take into account the very simple fact that they are physically attracted to members of the same gender and not physically attracted to members of the opposite gender.

What you're saying is that they should ignore the fact that they're physically attracted to people of the same gender and instead have sex with people they feel no attraction at all towards.

Ever consider that maybe there's a religion which feels that it's wrong of you to have sex with members of the opposite gender? That our sexual urges are just some form of temptation; That we should ignore this temptation and instead go out and have sex with members of the same gender because we don't feel any attraction to them?

Do you see how impossible that would be? I can't touch women because some book says it's sinful and harmful, even though everything else in my body is telling me to go for it?
How do I know that when I say I'm a Christian I'm not just pretending? Christian beliefs are based on something we like to call The Bible.You mean the book that is thousands of years old, been re-written hundreds of times, transcribed by monks who put their own spin on things, translated from its original language... sure, ok.

Saying "Well, it's in the Bible" is the weakest excuse for pretty much anything. I think you should be able to justify to yourself why something is right or wrong without having to consult the Bible.

As I said, I follow the message of the Bible, not the word of the Bible. Because there simply are parts of it that I don't agree with. Quoting the Bible does absolutely nothing in a debate of this nature: We're all aware of what it says. What I'm telling you is to think for yourself a little.

Have you ever considered that the Bible may not be 100% accurate? It was NOT written by God himself. Therefore, it has all the capacity to be as fallible as man himself is.

How can homosexuality be a sin if most homosexual people don't actively have a choice in the matter? You have to choose to sin. You don't choose what you find sexually arousing.

How can it be a sin if it does not actively harm anyone else? Sins, as we know them, are things which we inherintly know are wrong and harmful. Do no kill, do not steal, do not let your vices control you, etc. They are things which would directly harm other people. Two consenting adults responsibly sleeping together harms no one.

So, instead of blindly going "Well, I know it's wrong because it says so in the Bible!", try thinking about it for yourself for a little while.

[imported_J'ktal Anajii]

Gourney, if the Bible has been re-written hundreds of times, then why can we take the modern translation and have it be almost parallel to the original greek, with the exception of a few minor, and I do mean minor, mistranslations? Like, Red instead of Reed.

On the subject of homosexuality, I do not agree with it. Why? I don't personally believe it to be right, and it does not serve to perpetuate the human race, which is the primary purpose we hare here for.

Also, the whole thing about hormoes in the 50's and 60's I consider bunk. Why? It isn't genetics that has caused the boom in "out" homosexuals, it's society. When society becomes more tolerable, a minority is allowed to grow at a great rate. Around that time, Civil Rights was in full swing, and African Americans weren't the only ones campaigning for them. No, a lot of other groups were as well, including the gay community. When a lot of social barriers were broken down, society became more accepting, but that isn't to say that there was any kind of genetic change. The media also had a lot to do with this shift as well, especially in the realm of pornographic movies. Now, nearly anyone could get ahold of a camera, and many things that were considered to be private became public, and spurred what was called the "Sexual Revolution" in the late 60's and early 70's.

Another thing that goes to disprove the genetic thing is something back in ancient times. The Spartans were known for homosexuality. Not for real love between men, but at least for acts in bed. After all, once you turned seven, you got to move into the barracks with all the other guys. And, when you got married, you would come to your wife that first night in bed and she would be wearing a man's sweaty tunic and a man's sandals. Preferrably those of a friend of yours from your barrack days. Do I really need to get more pictureesque than that?

Many Greeks and Romans were also not only homosexual, but paedophilic as well. In fact, both Greece and Rome had great numbers of laws about how the prostitution of young boys was to take place.

Homosexuality is not genetic as far as I can tell, but is a result of society's more recent attempts to become tolerant of anything, lest the lawsuits fly.

I don't agree with homosexuality for both personal and religious reasons, and that's as much as I should have to say on that topic.

[Vega Van-Derveld]

I’m probably wrong in saying this, but doesn’t the Bible say that God is all forgiving?

We talked about this in English quite a bit. If you’re going on the basis that you have someone who has sinned throughout their life, can they ‘repent’ at the end of their life and still be forgiven – “Between the stirrup and the ground he mercy sought and mercy found” – therefore annulling the whole idea that you have to live your life sin free, simply because you can make up for it at the end.

I’m not saying that’s my opinion, just a opinion.

[Kitty McQuade]

It's taken me awhile to build up the courage to post here, and this is how I feel.

No one has the right to decriminate or persecute anyone else for who they fall in love with, or choose to make love to. It's between the two people involved in the relationship, and how dare anyone brand their personal values on anyone else. Or judge those people as being sinful/mentally sick, etc.

I wasn't going to get in to this, not at all, but after reading, I couldn't just walk away from it either.

I'm done now.

[Sanis Prent]

Vega, only half correct. God forgives, but Man must ask for forgiveness.

Kitty, read what I have written. In no way am I persecuting homosexuals. All people recognize mundane laws. Christians, in addition, recognize God's law, which is a law that is not prosecuted here on Earth. While homosexuality is wrong, it does not justify ill treatment or persecution. In the end, sin will be judged by God. This is a personal faith, and a personal choice. You cannot impose such faith on people. That creates nominal Christians, and false security. This kind of spiritualism must be a willing acceptance, otherwise, it is simply going through the motions. The only proper influence is influence by example. A Christian attracts others to God by their Christian acts. As I write this, please don't infer that I consider my slate clean, because I struggle at this so very hard.

Step back and see that it is possible to give equitable treatment to all people, even if their actions are seen as wrong by one's creed. It is not acceptance. It is tolerance.

[Gurney Devries]

if the Bible has been re-written hundreds of times, then why can we take the modern translation and have it be almost parallel to the original greek, with the exception of a few minor, and I do mean minor, mistranslations? Like, Red instead of ReedThe Old Testament was in Hebrew and Aramaic (a dead language). The New Testament was in Greek.

There are literally dozens of different versions of the Bible which exist today, some of which are drastically different than the rest.

I'm not saying "The Bible is wrong". What I'm saying is that quoting scripture is not going to convince me that something which someone very well may have no control over is sinful.

I found this quote which I thought was quite appropriate:
Unique characteristics such as idioms and colloquialisms make it impossible for an accurate translation of the meaning of the original language. Therefore, the translations should be used for the spiritual guidance of the believers, but not for the formulation of dogmatical teaching of the Church. And I completely agree with that. The message, not the word.

I'm saying that I think you should be able to justify to yourself why something is wrong, not rely on an ancient rulebook to tell you that it is.

No one needs to tell you what is and isn't sinful: This is something you should know for yourself.
Homosexuality is not genetic as far as I can tell, but is a result of society's more recent attempts to become tolerant of anything, lest the lawsuits fly.So you're basically saying that more people are becoming homosexual simply because they can? Because it's more acceptable? That makes no sense. I don't know about you but I can't suddenly decide to stop being attracted to women simply because it's socially acceptable for me to do so.

If you mean that more people have come out of the closet because it's more acceptable, then you're probably right. But I don't see how that refutes anything at all.

[Sanis Prent]

I'd rather trust an ancient rulebook than a modern shrink's pamphlet of psychobabble, thx.

And if men can differentiate between sinful and unsinful behavior, then you'd expect that a civilization of benevolent anarchy would have come about.

[Gurney Devries]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
I'd rather trust an ancient rulebook than a modern shrink's pamphlet of psychobabble, thx.Where did I say it was some shrink's pamphlet of psychobabble? Is it so difficult to accept the possibility that, for whatever reasons (psychological, genetic, hormonal) they simply aren't attracted to members of the opposite gender?

I'm not citing tests, purported evidence or anything else. I'm just saying that not everyone likes the same thing.

And if men can differentiate between sinful and unsinful behavior, then you'd expect that a civilization of benevolent anarchy would have come about. We can differentiate. When someone steals, they know that they are doing something wrong. They don't need to be a believer in the Bible to know that. When someone kills, they know that they are doing something wrong. That's exactly my point. There is nothing inherently evil or sinful about homosexuality because no one is being hurt, so you have no big neon sign going off in your head saying "THIS IS A SIN!! THIS IS DOING HARM TO MY FELLOW MAN!"

Basically, I agree with your stance, Charley: You're not doing anything to discriminate against homosexuals. However, I don't agree with why you've taken that stance. You cite "tolerance" when I don't think that there's anything to be tolerant of. You cite "forgiveness" when I don't think that there's anything to forgive. And you see homosexuality as some kind of flaw that must be overlooked because, well, they're generally good people. Am I right about that last one?

Really, I'll just drop it. This isn't going anywhere and I wind up having to simply rephrase and re-state what I'm saying.

[Morgan Evanar]

Also, the whole thing about hormoes in the 50's and 60's I consider bunk. Why? It isn't genetics that has caused the boom in "out" homosexuals, it's society. Then why is it that mice react simlilarly to the mouse version of the same hormone treatment?

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Gurney Devries
Where did I say it was some shrink's pamphlet of psychobabble? Is it so difficult to accept the possibility that, for whatever reasons (psychological, genetic, hormonal) they simply aren't attracted to members of the opposite gender?

Well, these theories of yours are coming from somewhere, aren't they? I accept the possibility of aforementioned things, but the point stands nevertheless that if one makes the voluntary choice to follow Christ, they can also make the voluntary choice to suppress sinful temptation. If they choose not to follow Christ, then what does it matter, as all would be for nothing anyway?


We can differentiate. When someone steals, they know that they are doing something wrong. They don't need to be a believer in the Bible to know that. When someone kills, they know that they are doing something wrong. That's exactly my point. There is nothing inherently evil or sinful about homosexuality because no one is being hurt.

No no no. Now you must also accept that its possible that for psychological, genetic, and hormonal reasons, that people can lose perceptions of right and wrong. Furthermore, social pressures can skew the perceptions of right and wrong horribly. See Lord of the Flies, Hamburg Polizei Einsatzgruppen in Jozefow, and other such incidents of such breakdown in morality.

You could also argue that nothing is inherently evil or sinful about lying, jealousy and other such things, as nobody is outwardly hurt. Sometimes damage can be a subtle thing.

EDIT: You must've edited as I was typing this up. I agree to drop it. This isn't going anywhere, unless we're content to repeat our positions ad nauseum. I'd rather watch paint dry...or worse, Bowling for Columbine.

[Gurney Devries]

I just wanted to point this out, since you actually responded to my point about it not causing harm, finally. Last post, promise. :)

Lying can be used to misdirect and cause harm. Lying has also saved lives in the past. Police lie in hostage situations if they think it will save lives. That is not sinful.

Jealousy in and of itself is not really sinful. It's when you let it control you that it becomes a sin, like all other mortal sins.

Greed, Anger, Jealousy... these are all very normal human emotions that, in and of themselves, are not harmful but that can lead to harm.

Yes, you can argue that lying, jealousy, etc, are not directly harmful. Because it's true: They're not. Thus, you can also argue that they're not inherently sinful. Only when done maliciously - with intent to harm - are they sinful.

In both cases, someone can be hurt by those things. You cannot argue in any way that (to be vulgar) a man putting his penis inside of another man is the equivilant to intentionally causing harm.

[Doc Milo]

That statement finally being put forth, I now respond. How do you know your views are, for certain, the one and only correct ones? That the interpretation you or any other Christian presents on homosexuality as sin is, in fact, the truth God intended? You could, quite frankly, all be misreading things and no one would be the wiser until Gabriel phones you up and tells you otherwise.

If you view the Bible as the inspired Word of God, then it says so in very clear, indisputable language. One of the passages I remember is in the book of Leviticus: "Man shall not lie with man the way he lies with woman .... Any man who lies with man the way he lies with woman shall be put to death. In this way, this perversion shall be cleansed ..."

I also believe there is a passage by Paul in one of the letters that deals with the sinful nature of homosexuality...

[Doc Milo]

But that does not take into account the very simple fact that they are physically attracted to members of the same gender and not physically attracted to members of the opposite gender.

What you're saying is that they should ignore the fact that they're physically attracted to people of the same gender and instead have sex with people they feel no attraction at all towards.


Actually, that's not what's being said.

I have been driving in the car, and have gotten road rage. I have felt the temptation to drive my car through the car in front of me. Or to chase down that car that cut me off, etc.... but I have never fallen to that temptation. I haven't given into that temptation.

If a gay person -- regardless of the why part of his or her attraction -- acts upon that attraction, that is what is sinful, not the attraction in and of itself. Is anyone saying that the gay person has to have sex with a member of the opposite sex even if he or she is not attracted to the opposite sex? No.

There is another choice.

Abstinence.


How can homosexuality be a sin if most homosexual people don't actively have a choice in the matter? You have to choose to sin. You don't choose what you find sexually arousing.

Pre-marital and extra-marital sex (even of same sex relationships) is a sin as well. It's not the urge, but the act.

The primary purpose of sexual relations is procreation of the species. Same-sex relationships have absolutely no chance of procreating the species. Therefore, same-sex relations violate the primary purpose of sexuality. Therefore same-sex relationships is a perversion of sexuality.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
if one makes the voluntary choice to follow Christ, they can also make the voluntary choice to suppress sinful temptation.

Nope, not possible. There is no healthy human being on earth (and I say "healthy" because there are middle easterners who are so inbred that their sexual urges and their sexual physical features are gone, I've met one), celibate or not, who can completely suppress their God-given sexual urges. We wouldn't be much of a species if we could do that, would we?

You can't alter sexual orientation to conform to the expectations of the public through sheer will power. That's like saying that you can become Japanese if you clench your fists and try really hard! You have a better chance of putting toothpaste in the microwave and getting Gold out after 30 seconds on High. How easy do you suppose it would be for you to force yourself to become completely un-attracted to women and attracted to men if Christianity suddenly dictated that heterosexuality was a sinful temptation and homosexuality was the right path? Sure, you might try really hard, but flaccidity doesn't lie.

It's not a single random psychiatrist's pamphlet of psychobabble. It's common sense (apparently) backed up by ever-increasing scientific research, which for some reason involves homoerotic fruit-fly orgies. I regard the idea that alternate sexual orientations are linked to serotonin deficiencies as a profound breakthrough, and the fact that you can't de-gayify a person with serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (in fact it inhibits all sexual functions in sufficient quantities, and does nothing to affect sexuality in any way in lesser quantities) as further proof that sexual orientation, or at least sexual tendencies, are more or less hard-wired. Why else would SO MANY people of alternate sexuality report serotonin deficiencies and come in for treatment with selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors?

Homosexuality is caused not only by complex environmental factors, but by complex biological factors as well.

[Brian]

I never said being a Christian doesnt' take faith. It does. And if I were misreading something about the Bible and the Christian's stance on homosexuality, then I would be worried, but I'm not. If you want chapter and verse you'll have to wait...because I'm late going somewhere, and I have to run.

I never wanted chapter and verse, I wanted something other than straight reiteration of the Divine Command theory of morality. Not a whole lot of people in the thread who think homosexuality is a sin went the extra mile and gave non-religious reasons for it, too. When you think about it, it is just as important to understand what rational and non-religious grounds you have for believing something to be right or wrong as it is to hold to your faith.

However, the point is academic, and moot. I've stated my beliefs and others have stated theirs, and now we must go back to tending our proverbial gardens.

[Sanis Prent]

HAY, RCP, FFS! What part of "I'm out of this debate" did you not read?

[James Prent]

Brian I did not feel the need to re-iterate the non religious reasons about homosexuality, as they had already been stated eloquently enough. I could/should have put "Ditto to what Mark said" I guess.

fin.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
The primary purpose of sexual relations is procreation of the species. Same-sex relationships have absolutely no chance of procreating the species. Therefore, same-sex relations violate the primary purpose of sexuality. Therefore same-sex relationships is a perversion of sexuality.


The primary purpose of eating is to provide nutrients necessary for the body to function. The primary purpose of consuming a candy bar is for the enjoyable taste. Therefore, eating a candy bar violates the primary purpose of food consumption. By your logic, eating a candy bar is a perversion of the food consumption process, and is therefore "evil."

There are other purposes to sex beyond procreation. Primary purpose, sure. But just because there are other purposes, it doesn't make them a perversion.

[Marcus Telcontar]

When you think about it, it is just as important to understand what rational and non-religious grounds you have for believing something to be right or wrong as it is to hold to your faith.

As I have said before, blind faith is useless, uninformed and usually, wrong. The bible itself states (paraphrased ) Seek the truth and test it

truth is not just for science and fact is not just for the secular. i prefer to search for Truth and find evidence so if I am tested on my belief, I can support it. I dont like blind faith. What chance that I can see if I am blind? we are told to open our eyes and open our ears.

"Moral" grounds for opposing Homosexuality is shakey at best, for morals are not the same for everyone. Paul stated "everything is permissible - but not all things are desireable". He was speakign to Gentiles. That's true, BUT..

(let me switch to a faith discussion for a sec)

..... out of love we will do what God finds desireable. We will change our ways out of that love He extended. WE are the ones who will want to change. That's the key I think to Christian teaching. The emphasis on other things is too great and it escapes the issue and the justifycation we will voluntarily change to what God wants. It's out of love we act. We can not force our views onto others and nor should we. We should only show and live that Love we have - it should be attractive and make people see it's good and also want to fall into the same relationship. I think there are saved gay christians. WOW, now that's goign to earn me some ire! But hang on, ALL sin is equal. We live in it all the time. Far as I am concerned a gay sinner is the same as me, a liar, a fallen person who struggles to live up to the love exteneded to me.

I dont pretend in the bible Homosexuality is stated to be wrong. But you have to realise, those who reject our gay brothers are guilty of something far worse. Read the sheep and the goats in Matthew. The sheep are allowed into heaven, the goats are not. Think abotu the goats and think about gays who need God's love too.

So as far as I can see and work out, a gay Christian is just as acceptible as me, a lying, deciectful, thief. I'm not going to tell you why I put that or what it's about but the fact is, that's what I was when I came across the love of God. That's why I say if we Christians reject our gay fellow men and women,...... we have a problem. God's love is NOT exclusive. It's for everyone and frankly, we straight ones are no better than the gays. We are all equal in sin.

Every. Single. One. Of. Us.


Okay, enough of that.

That's why I do not use moral reasoning to say homosexuality is wrong. That is why I also have no issue if that is what they choose to do. i have more issue if you decise to smoke near me. If you want to go home and go blurter bowling and the act is legal, hey go for it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Figrin that is interesting at one time that was a huge sin, Gluttony was considered worse than Lust I think Dante had it lower in his version of Hell. Of course now the Church greatly ignores that.

[JediBoricua]

Wow, a lot of things to comment on! BTW guys great discussion going on here, with respect and all. I was afraid of posting this, but now I'm glad I did.

First off. The reason I am very comfortable with homosexuality is that my aunt, who I love with all my heart and is like a second mother to me, is homosexual and has had the same partner for over 20 years now, I also call her aunt. So I must first say that homosexuality does not cause mental illness in the long run, both are succesful women who make a lot of money, live in a great house and have a very good life. They are happy and live a steady relationship. I believe that is the answer. Homosexual or Heterosexual relationships need a lot of effort by both parties and must have a balance between a lot of things like time, interests, love, sex, sacrifice, etc. A homo couple that cheats on each other or beats one another would have the same problems as an hetero couple who did the same.

Second, about the wild homosexual lifestyle that consisted on casual sex and multiple partners. Well it was true. In the 70's and early 80's across the world 'bathouses' proliferated, there is still one here in Old San Juan, where orgies were common and anonymous sex was the norm. All this I know from a couple of articles I've read this semester at sociology class and from a conversation I had with a good friend of mine who happens to be gay and HIV+. He actually lived through that era and has first hand knowledge from it. Of course because of AIDS this lifestyle has changed and more and more gay couples are following the traditional role of monogamous relationships. And I'm against this madness. Orgies, unprotected-anonymous sex, doing drugs such as ectassy, LSD and other to enhance sexual experience, etc. are harmful to health and harmful not only others, but to yourself. But how different are this activities from frat houses parties where everyone wakes up with a different girl or from Spring Break/Mardi Gras crazyness. Both are wrong because they do cause serious psycological damage and are a major health hazard.

About gay couple adopting, I say yes. As long as they can sustain a child in a household that comply with the adopting guidelines I don't see a problem. I also know first hand a lesbian couple who adopted a boy. The boy is now 18, a senior in high school, that has had a very normal childhood without any major psychological problems. He has a girlfriend and plans going on to college. Both his mothers are also succesful women, who have raised him properly. He is no psycho, antisocial or troubled teenager.

Finally there is not a single gay person I have talked too that has not tell me: "when puberty hit I was never attracted to the other sex, on the contrary something in me made me attracted to men/women", or some version of it. It's kinda weird, but ask any homosexual and chances are most of them gave 'straight' relationships a go. Some of them were engaged, some even married. But they were never truly happy until they challenged themselves and 'came out'. That for me it's all the reason I need, if they are happy and are making another person happy without hurting anyone else (except the ocassional relative) then let 'em be.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Figrin that is interesting at one time that was a huge sin, Gluttony was considered worse than Lust I think Dante had it lower in his version of Hell. Of course now the Church greatly ignores that.

That's part of the reason I brought it up... the changes made to "Church Law" over the centuries have an irony all their own.



As an aside... Marcus, in my not-so-humble opinion, you have a very positive and enlightened point of view on your faith. I wish more people had that kind of perspective on their own beliefs and how they handle that belief system in regards to the world around them. I know far too many people that believe what they believe because it has been drilled into them from childhood, and they fear to think for themselves when the subject matter is approached. It's always nice to see someone that is that actualized about their place in their faith. Very good post, BTW.

Totally unrelated to the topic really, but I just wanted to say that... carry on.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I know I have always found Church law ironic take the whole thing about eating fish on Fridays that was done to increase the sale of fish.

[JediBoricua]

Me being a kid raised on the catholic church will take every shot at it I can.

Yeah like eating a shrimp cocktail on fridays is a sacrifice for me...pfft...

Carry on.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I know I have always found Church law ironic take the whole thing about eating fish on Fridays that was done to increase the sale of fish.

One of the best stories I have heard of was the college that banned beards as Un-Christian - when the founder of the college 100 years before had a full and impressive one himself in the paitning in the dining hall.

Look, laws and rules from the Church are variable and usually mean not a zip towards what Christianity is about. Read Philip Yancy's Soul Survivor for some other things on this and a great survival guide. Rememebr the Southern Baptists in the 60's refused to accept Blacks in their congregations - which is patiently ridiculous.

And ummm Figrin.... wow, thank you for that. I'm not sure what to say in reply. All I can say is that the bible challenges us on faith and I for one, being one whom came late into Christianity, sees things differently. My faith is useless and I am nothing more than a claniging gong if Jesus did not rise from the grave. As even Jesus said to Thomas "Feel my hands and see the holes" to prove his resurrection, Paul says blind faith is useless, God Himself challenged ones liek David and Soloman to see proof for themselves.

We say today for God to prove He exists. Well, if he has, the evidence is there. Lets go find it. There seems to be evidence there, so........ why not go and find it? why not ask for God? Why should we just accept someone else's word for it?

This is my challenge - whether you believe or not, or whatever you believe, go look for God and call out for Him to reveal Himself. I' sure He will if your serious enough. And, it's my thought he DOES want to be found.

"Seek ye the Kingdom of God". I believe it's out there somewhere. I believe it can be proved. What you find... well, It could well be different to what i have found. It's not a cure all nor a guarenttee of happiness.

Agh, here I go again. I'll quieten up now and get back on topic somehow :D

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree with you Marcus, it is funny about laws that is why they really should matter most of them didn't even come from the bible to begin with.

[Kelt Simoson]

n/m, not getting into it.

[Neurotic Zell]

Ok, you'll have to forgive the fact that I haven't followed every reply on this thing word for word, and I apologise if I simply repeat what others have already said.

As a young gay male myself, it is a source of constant anger and disappointment at the intolerance and sheer ignorance of people in an alleged 'modern, civilised culture'.

This thread has become an arena for its combatants to voice their objections in less-than-reasonable terms. A forum where those who hold one of the oldest prejudices in history are permitted to tout, quite frankly, some quite offensive points of view.

I think that a lot of people's perceptions of the gay and lesbian culture are severely skewed. I do agree that, in some cases, it can appear to be a meat market of debauchery and seediness; but this is simply not true of the whole picture. I know of many like myself who wish to lead a normal life, knowing that their working, home and social life need not be affected by their choice of partner at all.

"One must be scientific, above all things." says Virginia Woolf, a woman plagued by feelings of attraction to other women. Well, yes, one must be scientific. Has it not occured to the likes of Marcus Elassar that a possible reason for the fact that 'gay men suffer more frequently from depression and other mental disorders than others' is the fact we are constantly degraded and ridiculed for our choice of lifestyle? I ask you to try and put up with abuse of friends, family and complete strangers based on the choices you have made. As a religious man, I know that you must have to take a lot of stick for being a 'religious old fuddy-duddy', but can this really compare to the stress of having to make choices over one's sexuality and then start journeying down the long road to acceptance?

A road which, let us be honest, is a one that currently has no clear end. I am (above all else) riled over the fact that, on this journey, we will come into contact with "1,000 sexual partners". My, my: I wish I was as virile and good-looking as this Mr. Average Gay Male blokey.

This can equate to (depending on how long you consider a man to be sexually active) 1 or 2 people every month. This disregards long-term, monogamous relationships (which are, in my opinion and experience, the norm for homosexual couples).

The matter of children, I agree, is a one that should come under closer scrutiny, for in the process of having a baby together, a same-sex couple bring not only themselves into the matter but an innocent child. I happen to know a boy who was brought up by lesbian parents, and though he is one of the the most intelligent people I know, I can also say that his perception of society and everyday matters is somewhat damaged. Whether this is through any fault of his parents is, of course, debatable.

I am of the opinion that same-sex couples should not be allowed to have children, for in doing so they not only bring themselves into the argument but also a child.

I take this view not through a desire to discriminate, nor mock, but through a compassion for the welfare of the child.

That same compassion which, I feel, is sorely lacking in this thread.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Maybe if you took the time to actually read the thread, you would have seen I DID mention the alienation problem.


It causes mental issues like Vis bought up, plus the fact the discrimination that is bought against homosexuals, whether explicit or muted, the alienation does lead to harm

Your welcome to express your views, but dont you dare try to quote my name on something I have not said or twist what I have said so far out of proportion, it resembles nothing what I said.

[Neurotic Zell]

Is that the best defence you can muster? Simply pointing out that I neglected to read every one of your comments?

Please let's not be petty and pick faults. I really don't want to. I know you are an intelligent guy, so I don't want to ridicule you/be ridiculed by you.

[Marcus Telcontar]

The average male homosexual has in the order of 1,000 sexual partners. The average male hetrosexual has 9. This is a Aust statistic (please, your invited to double check this as well. at the least, you will find gays have many more sexual partners. I could have exagerated the figures, I'm running off memory). The more sexual partners you have, the greater the risk of STD transmission. also, STD's are more prevalent in the male homosexual community for this reason - the anal walls are no protection against semen borne disease. Blood contact is almost certain. anal sex is one of the best ways to transmit STD's, apart from needle sharing.

I threw this comment out based off memory, Now while I;ve seen some WTF? That's nto right scomments, I have not seen a challenge actually thrown out to it. I think I will challenge my own comment and find out if it's supported.

One thing I should have said was the partner number is over a life time. A place to start was this quote I found...



Recent studies indicate that male homosexuals average between 20 and 106 partners every year. The average homosexual has 300 to 500 partners in his lifetime. Thirty-seven percent, it is reported, engage in sadomasochism and at least 20 percent have sexual relations wih more than 1000 men. Compared to heterosexuals, male homosexuals are more than 8 times likely to have had hepatitis, 14 times more likely to have had syphilis and 5000 times more likely to have contracted AIDS.

--Allan C. Brownfeld, The Washinton Inquirer, 23 Apr 1993;

Ithink the basic study came from Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38. I wonder if it's been updated?

The biggest problem in getting cold statistics the way they are used and collected. There seems to me to not be a lot of unbias studies. Most studies quouting the 1000 number are on obviousl y bias sites.

Tho, here's food for thought. Australian Social Trends 1995 ABS Canberra. ABS = Autralian Beauru (sp) of Statistics. The life expectancy claim I hinted at in an earlier post. Expected average life span ..... 45 years (of the homosexual community) ..... 70 years (of the general community)

The ABS is about as non-bias as you can get. And, if this is wrong and I have quoted wrongly, I can be easily disproven by reference to the quoted source.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ for further info and exploring what is quite a statistics resource. Pity I dont have as good as access to it as I used to :\

Your all welcome to help prove / disprove BTW. If I can be proven wrong, so be it. Next time around, I;ll have more facts to use, that's how I look on it.

[Doc Milo]

The primary purpose of eating is to provide nutrients necessary for the body to function. The primary purpose of consuming a candy bar is for the enjoyable taste. Therefore, eating a candy bar violates the primary purpose of food consumption. By your logic, eating a candy bar is a perversion of the food consumption process, and is therefore "evil."

The primary purpose of food consumption is to provide nutrients that provide energy to the body. While the sugar provided by candy is not the best of nutrients to provide energy said sugar does provide energy, so while you may eat the candy bar for the taste the candy bar itself does not violate the primary purpose of food consumption.

Similarly, if you engage in sexual relationships for the pleasure of the sex, yet the sex itself does not violate the primary purpose (procreation is possible ... even if timing etc make it unlikely) then that sex is not a perversion of sexuality. Same-sex relations has absolutely no way of conforming to the primary purpose; the primary purpose is impossible with same-sex relations. That is very different. In the candy bar analogy, a sexual engagement that is unlikely to procreate the species, but still is possible, is like eating that candy bar, it doesn't provide many nutrients for energy, but it does provide one of the worst kinds of nutrients and does provide energy. Where as the same-sex engagement would be akin to consuming poison -- has no value, does not provide energy, and is harmful to the body.

[Doc Milo]

I think there are saved gay christians. WOW, now that's goign to earn me some ire! But hang on, ALL sin is equal. We live in it all the time. Far as I am concerned a gay sinner is the same as me, a liar, a fallen person who struggles to live up to the love exteneded to me.

I agree. I would take exception to someone saying homosexuality is not a sin; I would never claim that homosexuality is worse than any other sin, nor would I excommunicate someone for being homosexual. My own sins are no better or worse. But I acknowledge them as sins....

[Jedieb]

When I was a teenager I had a dog named Dave. I named him Dave because I was a big Letterman fan. Plus, you never see too many dogs named Dave. I almost named him Phil, but I never really liked Donahue.

Anyway, Dave was bisexual. Basically, the dog would hump anything in sight. Whenever he'd mount a male dog I'd start throwing rocks or hose down the two beasts. Anything to stop the act of animal depravity. I'd try to talk to some into Dave, but he just didn't care. He'd give me a glazed over look. Kind of like Reagan towards the end of his second term.

My point is, if homosexuality is unnatural then why has it been observed in hundreds of other species? If Dave can't control himself, then can we really expect any different from Keanu Reeves?

Let homosexuals get married, have kids, and even adopt them. In other words, LET THEM SUFFER LIKE THE REST OF US! If people who disliked or disapproved of homosexuals really wanted to get back at them they'd stop giving them a 'Get Out of Jail Free Card.'
"Gee honey, I'd love to let you wrap me in the marital chains of bondage, but it's against the LAW!"

Lucky gay bastards.:smokin

[Dasquian Belargic]

LOL :D Great post.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
Where as the same-sex engagement would be akin to consuming poison -- has no value, does not provide energy, and is harmful to the body.


That is very, very disputable. You're attempting to put all homosexual behavior into one category. Yes, there is such behavior that can be dangerous. Multiple partners, anonymous unprotected intercourse, etc. These are things that can be akin to heterosexual behavior as well.

In a monogimous, informed and protected relationship, where does the harm come from? If you are talking about potential physical damage from anal sex, such things are not an absolute and can be avoided. If you are talking about psychological damage... from the relationship itself, how? If the persons are comfortable in their sexuality and are consenting, then where is the problem?


lol @ Jedieb... you're such a jackass, but mostly in a good way.... ;)

[Saccharine Jones]

Anyway, Dave was bisexual. Basically, the dog would hump anything in sight.

My sister has lesbian dogs. I had lesbian ducks. I hate to split hairs but let's not bring the animal kingdom into this discussion. Animals use those mounting behaviors to assert a dominant position in a social order, not for sexual gratification. :)

[Marcus Telcontar]

LOL @ Jedieb! Oh dear, great pos to read first thing in the morning

[Wei Wu Wei]

Jedieb, you make a very good point. One that I won't be arguing against. Plus, that was downright funny.

[Neurotic Zell]

Originally posted by Jedieb If Dave can't control himself, then can we really expect any different from Keanu Reeves?

Is Keanu Reeves gay? :huh

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Neurotic Zell
Is Keanu Reeves gay? :huh


That's a good question. I know there was some talk a few years ago that he might be, but I'm not sure if anything was actually determined. A lot of it might have been because he tends to be very shy about the media, doesn't give a lot of interviews, and keeps his private life just that... private.

I honestly don't have a clue. Maybe someone else does.

[Darth Viscera]

$10 says that Keanu is straight.

Who knows why he likes to have a private life? Maybe he enjoys boiling guinea pigs and lighting bathrooms on fire. More power to him.

[Jedieb]

Jackass?! Damnit, I get enough of that at home, I WON'T STAND FOR IT HERE!!!! :shootin


My sister has lesbian dogs. I had lesbian ducks. I hate to split hairs but let's not bring the animal kingdom into this discussion. Animals use those mounting behaviors to assert a dominant position in a social order, not for sexual gratification.
Tell that to Dave. He always looked pretty gratified to me. Actually, now that you mention it, he was always a giver, never a receiver. I think the call sign was always making sure your dog tag hung in front. If you flipped it onto the back of your neck then that meant... well, you guys can do the math.

Since we've dragged animal depravity into this thread, can someone please tell zoo chimps to stop masturbating in front of children? I tried to tell my son that Bonzo was just cleaning his 'little wee wee,' but I don't think he bought it.
:smokin

[JMK]

:lol Cleaning his little wee wee?

[Neurotic Zell]

Ha ha!

Chimp masturbation.... I bet some people would put that on Pay per View :\

[Kariss]

Originally posted by Jedieb

Let homosexuals get married, have kids, and even adopt them. In other words, LET THEM SUFFER LIKE THE REST OF US! If people who disliked or disapproved of homosexuals really wanted to get back at them they'd stop giving them a 'Get Out of Jail Free Card.'
"Gee honey, I'd love to let you wrap me in the marital chains of bondage, but it's against the LAW!"

Lucky gay bastards.:smokin

'Nuf said! :lol

Seriously, I have NO problem with bisexuality, homosexuality...to each their own and good luck with them! We all need it, straight or gay.

[Charley]

To paraphrase, and tone down:


I am hard, but I am fair. There is no bigotry in my forum. I do not discriminate between whites, blacks, jews, christians, muslims, straights, gays, or bisexuals. You are all equally worthless.

Carry on.

[Jedieb]

I am hard, but I am fair.
Is that a bisexual motto?

Give it a chance.... think about it...... there ya go!

[Charley]

Judges?

:thumbdown

[Marcus Telcontar]

Keanu is straight. He had a pregnant g/f who died in an auto wreck a few years ago.

Of course he could switch hit.

[Charley]

There's always that strapping young Bill S. Preston, Esquire ;)

[Darth Viscera]

"Bill & Ted's Queer Adventure"

:x

[Lilaena De'Ville]

The matter of children, I agree, is a one that should come under closer scrutiny, for in the process of having a baby together, a same-sex couple bring not only themselves into the matter but an innocent child. I happen to know a boy who was brought up by lesbian parents, and though he is one of the the most intelligent people I know, I can also say that his perception of society and everyday matters is somewhat damaged. Whether this is through any fault of his parents is, of course, debatable.

I am of the opinion that same-sex couples should not be allowed to have children, for in doing so they not only bring themselves into the argument but also a child.

I take this view not through a desire to discriminate, nor mock, but through a compassion for the welfare of the child. Exactly my opinion, but in your words.

[Jedieb]

Wait, someone's perception is "damaged" because it's different from yours? Wow, I can say that anyone on this board who has a different perception of society and everyday matters than I do is "damaged!" Jon's gone in form, but not spirit! ;)

My lesbian cousin and her partner would make better parents than many of the straight couples I know. Certainly better than the majority of parents I have to deal with here at work. I see evidence of that day in and day out. Everyone should be allowed to warp and torment kids. Straight people shouldn't get to have all the fun.

[Jedieb]

Quick question, is anyone willing to start breaking down some doors and taking kids away from lesbians? Because that's about the only way you're going to stop them. You can legislate against gay men adopting children and even gay women. But you're not going to be able to stop lesbian women if one of them is willing to carry the child. So this genie is already out of the bottle. There are probably thousands of lesbians raising kids in this country. Are we going to start rounding up their kids?

I'm not volunteering for THAT job. Not so much because I think it's wrong so much as that I'm fairly certain many of those butch ladies are quite capable of kicking my butt up and down the block. That's not something I want on my resume.

That one was for you Figrin! :)

[Charley]

If they can legislate against adoptions, they can also legislate against the frozen pop.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Wait, someone's perception is "damaged" because it's different from yours? Wow, I can say that anyone on this board who has a different perception of society and everyday matters than I do is "damaged!" Jon's gone in form, but not spirit! ;)

I wasn't the one who originally made the comment about the boy in question, but I do know him and he has a very messed up out look on life as a whole (and I don't just mean a little skewed, I mean really).


You can legislate against gay men adopting children and even gay women. But you're not going to be able to stop lesbian women

Sorry... but whats the difference between a gay woman and a lesbian woman? :lol

[Jedi Master Carr]

LL, that would be wrong, IMO if they want to do that let them, the govt. has no right to go into people's homes and take away Children from good parents regardless of their sexual orientation.

[Charley]

I'd be inclined to agree with you. I'm saying, however, that it is entirely possible to legislate such a thing.

[Jedieb]

Sorry... but whats the difference between a gay woman and a lesbian woman?
We're so picky!

Who said they need frozen sperm? They can get a friend to help them out for a night. And how exactly would you legislate the purchase of sperm? Will women wanting sperm have to prove their heterosexuality before the purchase? How are they going to prove it? Do they need to bring a volunteer and perform a heterosexual sex act on the counter in the reception area? Or do they have to use the sperm bank's resident lesbian detector to make sure everything is on the up and up? It'd make a great part time job or video, but I can't see how THAT could be legislated or enforced.

[imported_QuiGonJ]

Can't say I read the whole thing, but here's my take.

As I work in the entertainment industry, it's not a stretch to say I have several friends/co-workers who are gay. Some have been nice people, some have not. But, as I tend to accept people or not on things like if they are honest with me and not insulting me in front of me or behind my back, their lifestyle choices are irrelevant to me in that regard.

So long as they aren't trying to tell me who they sleep with or what they do, or trying to hit on me, I honestly don't care what they do. It really is none of my business. Even on a religious level, it's up to God to tell em right from wrong on His terms, not mine.

However, it is exactly that. None of my business. I think it is wrong to have laws against the activities, as the founding fathers of all people wouldn't have regulated the bedroom.

But I see what they do as a decision. ::raises hand:: I'm trying to say the opposite of Marcus, that people have more control over what they do, not that they are slaves to madness or genetic markers. I don't agree with making another "minority" for a decision they made. Violence is different. Hate crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

In my eyes, marriage is a primarliy religious ceremony. To extend it beyond the religion is a debasement of religion. and I have no qualms with the Church's decision. The Church has a right to free association, which means they can decide not to associate those who flaut their laws and did so unapologetically.

Those girls should've waited a month and then did whatever they wanted, and even if it wasn't a gay thing, marriage before graduating high school is a poor choice for pretty much anyone.

[Charley]

Who said they need frozen sperm? They can get a friend to help them out for a night.

This defies the notion of those who have said "OH NOS!!!1 They can't just have sex with anyone, they have to be attracted to them!" So...its impossible for a guy with gay tendencies to have hetero sex, but entirely feasable for a woman with lesbian tendencies to do the same, eh?

Gotta love that one.

As for the latter part of your system, I suppose you'd have to take them for their word, as horrible as that thought might be. But if mommy and her ladyfriend get caught kissing, that would be contrary to if they had stated otherwise on the honor system. Kinda the same way that we don't have video evidence of Monica puffing Bill's cigar, but he can still perjure himself.

[Jedieb]

In a related story....

Rocker Melissa Etheridge, Partner to Wed

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Rocker Melissa Etheridge plans to tie the knot at the end of this year with her companion of two years, actress Tammy Lynn Michaels.

``This is the first wedding for both of them,'' Etheridge's publicist, Marcel Pariseau, said Tuesday. He declined to reveal plans for the ceremony except to say it would take place in Los Angeles.

Etheridge, 41, has been dating Michaels, 28, for about two years, Pariseau said.

The musician shares custody of a daughter and a son with former partner Julie Cypher. The two made news in 2000 when they revealed that musician David Crosby was the sperm donor for their children, who were delivered by Cypher.



I'm trying to envision what law or law enforcement agency could have prevented David Crosby from jerking off in a plastic cup for his good ol' buddy Melissa Ethridge. If they decided to get drunk and do it the old fashioned way who would have stopped David from taking his fat, sweaty carcass off of Ethridge or her partner? Eewwwwww, I just described a David Crosby sex act. I think I'm gonna hurl...........o_O

[Jedieb]

This defies the notion of those who have said "OH NOS!!!1 They can't just have sex with anyone, they have to be attracted to them!" So...its impossible for a guy with gay tendencies to have hetero sex, but entirely feasable for a woman with lesbian tendencies to do the same, eh?

Gotta love that one.
Are you saying there's no such things as bisexuals? Or are they just the lucky group that gets to avoid your sex police? :rolleyes

[Charley]

Now you further convolute everything by saying that a gay/lesbian can't choose to be straight, but can choose to be bisexual? I guess the peace pipe was toked out before it got passed to me, because I have no damn clue how you can connect the dots on that double standard.

[Jedieb]

Now you further convolute everything by saying that a gay/lesbian can't choose to be straight, but can choose to be bisexual? I guess the peace pipe was toked out before it got passed to me, because I have no damn clue how you can connect the dots on that double standard.


It's funny, but I don't recall ever saying that people CAN'T choose what orafice they enjoy. Others might have made that argument. I happen to agree with it to an extent. I think some people are genetically predisposed to be hetero, bi, or straight. Throw in a person's environment and you've got lots of different people with lots of different sexual preferences. You ALWAYS have and you ALWAYS will. No government or religion is EVER going to be able to change that.

And how did a peace pipe get thrown into this? What does that have to do with ANYTHING? Is it that hard for you to wrap your brain around the idea that people don't want to have sex the way you do? Just how are they threatening you that you want their sex lives and parental rights regualted and policed? They don't don't effect my hetero life style or marriage, but apparently they're coming to get ya! You're the one that suggested it was possible to police or legislate a "convoluted" issue like sexual preference. I'm just waiting to see how your laws are going to handle all the different variables involved. That's going to be one hell of statute.:rolleyes

[Charley]

RCP, genius. I said it was possible to legislate. I never said I supported such legislation.

[Marcus Telcontar]

I'm trying to say the opposite of Marcus, that people have more control over what they do, not that they are slaves to madness or genetic markers

Huh? That NOT what I have been saying. I've been highly insistant it's a personal choice and that choice has consequences that are not pretty at times.

Sheesh, quote me correctly please!

[imported_QuiGonJ]

I did say I hadn't read the whole thread, but you were saying it was a cause or side effect of mental illness. ::shrug:: I'll bow out now.

[Neurotic Zell]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Huh? That NOT what I have been saying. I've been highly insistant it's a personal choice and that choice has consequences that are not pretty at times.

Sheesh, quote me correctly please!

Oh, don't be so tetchy! Of course all choice has consequences. But does that mean we should be regulated in taking them? I myself, as much as I would like a child at some point, would never be so selfish as to have one.

Anyways, ignore this post. I'm not thinking clearly this morning O_o

[Doc Milo]

Of course all choice has consequences. But does that mean we should be regulated in taking them?

I know this wasn't aimed at me, but I would like to answer this...

I, for one, while I believe homosexuality is a sin, is a perversion of sexuality, and is dangerous to the mind and body, while I believe it is a choice (in that it is not genetic) and is a psychosis brought about by various elements including but not limited to environment and possible hormonal/chemical imbalances (read, homosexuality is a disorder) I would never want my government to legislate law against being homosexual.

Do I believe that homosexuals should have the right to marry? Personally, I don't believe that marriage should have anything to do with the state. It is a religious ceremony. While it has legal concerns, I don't believe that homosexual relationships fall into the category described by the religious ceremony of marriage ... whereby two people of the opposite sex become one in the eyes of God. That said, I don't believe any civil ceremony (hetero or homosexual) should be considered marriage. While I do believe that if the state regards marriage in a certain legal way that civil ceremonies should be viewed BY THE STATE in the same way, I do not believe in calling them marriages or equating them to marriages on a personal or religious level.

I have observed that many homosexuals who take offense to things I have said have an abnormal need to be accepted by those who don't view their lifestyle in the same manner as they view it. Why such acceptance is so important is for psychologists to answer, not me. As long as equal protection under the law is not violated, I have no problem with people believing what they will about anything.

Have I said anything that would make one believe I want to outlaw homosexuality? No. I can believe something is wrong and a sin without wanted my government to legislate against it. I can also acknowledge (as I have, and as many others have) that their sin is no different than my own sins, and in the end, it is all between themselves and God.

I have supported the right of a private group or institution to associate with whomever they wish to associate -- just as I would never want to pass a law that makes a private institution force association on anyone (I would not, for example, support a law that forces the Ancient Order of Hyberbians to allow homosexuals to march under their own banner in the St. Patrick's Day Parade, any more than I would support a law that allows "homophobes" to march in the gay pride parade under their own banner, or the KKK to march in an African Amercian parade.) Why such "acceptance" is important to people, I have no idea. Why would anyone want to march in a parade (to keep to the example) of someone who doesn't support their beliefs -- except to cause trouble...?

Someone doesn't believe the same way you do? So what. Let them be. As long as they don't try to bring the weight of the law down upon you, they have a right to believe what they want just as you have a right to believe as you want.

[imported_Eve]

People I have known say gay is wrong. I didn't really have an opinion on it until college. There, I realized to have an opinion on something like that is like having an opinion on human existence. Gayness just is. It's not something you can have an opinion on. Having an opinion on it is a waste of time, as it isn't a matter of opinion.

Heteros: Ask yourself if you could be paid any amount of money to be with someone of the same sex? I admit some people are dense, but sexual preference is instinctive; it is not taught to us.

I can't believe if you actually knew someone who was gay (given all decent human characteristics are equal, i.e. this person isn't a murderer), that you could stand there and have a stance on their being. It's just presumptuous.

The arguments:
(1) It's a sin.
God says it's wrong? God also says it's wrong for you to judge people (or a race of beings). We can't even pin religion to more than faith so how can you rely on it as evidence to call something wrong? If your god is omnipitent, then who are you to properly relay his/her word and deem something - so big - as wrong? You really believe in a god? Then you can't preach. To presume a stance here defies your god.

(2) It's wrong because it doesn't result in procreation.
Neither does oral sex, but many of you like it and practice it regularly, don't you? And dare I mention the lessening taboo of anal sex in heterosexual relationships? Most of the time we all have sex, we're not doing it for procreation, as we use contraceptives, and practice it as a ritual in human initimacy. It's mostly for pleasure, as it is used. How is gay sex any different? They can't have children naturally. That's their loss only.

(3) It spreads or starts lethal STDs.
Gay people didn't start the existence of STDs, and aren't the majority of people who spread them.

I could go on. I don't really think there is any argument you could make to prove gayness isn't just a variation in human gender, or normal. And watch the word "normal" when you use it.

You know, people once said black people were lesser than whites. I see a trend, don't you? Humans never learn from their historic mistakes. Gays are the new black. Next we will discriminate based on genetic prowess, using genes as a means to judge and hate.

This thread over views is quite entertaining to you all, because you all would like to have your say about it, but gayness isn't a matter for you to make decisions and judgements over. All you're doing is promoting the continual discrimination of yet another sect of the human race.

Don't think so? Then how else would you define judging and treating a human being differently for their characteristics?

[Doc Milo]

I can't believe if you actually knew someone who was gay (given all decent human characteristics are equal, i.e. this person isn't a murderer), that you could stand there and have a stance on their being. It's just presumptuous.

My cousin is a lesbian. Yes. I do know people who are gay. I love my cousin no less for being gay. I still think her homosexual behavior is wrong, a sin, and a disorder.

My sister suffers from Downs Syndrome. That is a genetic disorder. I don't love my sister any less for having that disorder. Why presume that because someone believes something is wrong or a disorder that that person is "hating" the other?


(1) It's a sin.
God says it's wrong? God also says it's wrong for you to judge people (or a race of beings).

Yes. God says it's a sin. Many times, throughout the Bible. And acknowledging something is a sin and is wrong is not the same as "judging" people for acting in that sin or wrongfulness. Because we are not to judge means we are not to acknowledge something is wrong or a sin? Does that mean that everything goes, regardless, because we're not to judge what is and isn't right and wrong?

Secondly, homosexuals are not a separate "race of beings." They are human beings who act in a certain way. There is no proof whatsoever to show that homosexuality is caused by a genetic alteration that cause them to be a different race. There is no "gay gene." Can there be biological reasons for homosexuality? Sure. But just because there are biological reasons does not mean that it isn't a disorder. Downs Syndrome is a genetic disorder. People with Downs are not a different race of being.

That argument is merely to give homosexuals a "minority" status so that they will be afforded special protections under the law. Something that I do not support for anybody. The USA is supposed to believe in EQUAL PROTECTION of the law. Not special protection if your of this or that race, gender, or sexual orientation and different protection if you're not of those protected classes... THAT IS NOT EQUAL PROTECTION. THAT IS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

That people were not afforded equal protection is wrong (am I allowed to judge that as wrong -- or wait, judge not lest ye be judged... can't judge anything as wrong, can I -- can't even judge discrimination as wrong, right?) That wrong is not made right by affording those who were not given equal protection with special protection and special rights. That is just as wrong as the initial discriminatory practices that robbed them of equal protection. And to keep on doing so will not bring about equality -- it will bring about class warfare.


I could go on. I don't really think there is any argument you could make to prove gayness isn't just a variation in human gender, or normal.

Gender? So a gay man is not male? A gay woman is not female? There are two genders. Male and Female. Sure, there are those born with both genders (it's late and I can't think of the word) but that, too, is a genetic defect, not a normal variation. Gayness is not a gender.

[JediBoricua]

As I have stated before, I have no problem with gay behavior nor do I believe it to be an 'inmoral' lifestyle. That being said, I don't want society to treat them as another minority. Just because they feel attracted to the same gender does not mean they stop being humans, or black or whites or male or female.

They do not need special protection, or special laws, nor should they be given benefits for being gay (although I do have to make the exception for hate crimes). But legally they must be treated equal as heterosexuals. I believe they should be protected under domestic violence laws, they should have the same benefits and duties that married couples have when paying taxes, buying a home, adopting, etc.

That is why I believe that homosexuals should be allowed civil marriage. Organized religions do not have to accept them, but the State has no right to negate them the privilege (or the curse) of marriage.

[imported_Eve]

Milo, you should read your post, and see how hateful it is.

And you can't compare gayness to down syndrome. Down syndrome is a genetic disorder. Gayness is a genetic trait. One makes one less intelligent and less able to do everyday things. The other does not. Please provide a better argument for comparing the two in this way. How does being gay incompacitate a person in any way?

I didn't say gay people were another race. I said you can't judge a race, as in human beings. When did minorities mean preferential treatment (as historically they have received the opposite)? I didn't even say anything about that, so where you're getting that is beyond me. You went off on a rant.

Sex (as in male or female) is different than gender. Many intellectual societies deem several genders, including gay and transexual genders.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't see it as hateful myself, he just believes its a sin, sure I might disagree with him, but I don't see him say things like he despises gays and such as some of these religious right people (the ones that say God hates fags) do.

[Neurotic Zell]

Of course his response is hateful.

"I have observed that many homosexuals who take offense to things I have said have an abnormal need to be accepted by those who don't view their lifestyle in the same manner as they view it."

For one, the way you write that makes you sound like some supreme judge of people; and is also a direct stereotypical attack on the typical effemenised male homosexual. You needn't bother dressing it up with the 'many' part either, for it's quite apparant you take the view that all homosexual people, male or female, are in the same boat.

"That argument is merely to give homosexuals a "minority" status so that they will be afforded special protections under the law. Something that I do not support for anybody. The USA is supposed to believe in EQUAL PROTECTION of the law. Not special protection if your of this or that race, gender, or sexual orientation and different protection if you're not of those protected classes... THAT IS NOT EQUAL PROTECTION. THAT IS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION."

Why the use of capital letters if you aren't being hateful and angry? And I'm afraid that we already do have a horrible little 'minority' status afforded unto the gay society; but it's not a one we want.

Personally, it would take a lot for me to ever find same-sex marriage or children a viable possibility in the society we live in. Because the point of democracy is freedom: of information, of movement, freedom to be allowed to dress how you want, to listen to what you want. Isn't that the doctrine we've just been fighting in Iraq for? To see democracy betrayed by the people within its own borders sickens me.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Eve
Gayness just is. It's not something you can have an opinion on. Having an opinion on it is a waste of time, as it isn't a matter of opinion.

My words exactly. Well said, that whole post.

Question:

Does anyone here think that homosexuals are not actually sexually attracted to their own gender, but only choose to be a homosexual?

[Neurotic Zell]

Seeing as I'm the only guy here 'qualified' to respond that, I might as well.

Do you actually believe any other answer to that ridiculous question other than the one I am going to give you?

All my life, I had very little interest in girls. Sure I would 'go out' with them, or have silly crushes, but it was just 8 year old playground messing-around stuff.

I have always been attracted to members of the same sex; there was no choice in the matter. It was difficult to understand, but I did not make any conscious decision to 'be gay'. To be quite honest, I would give anything to be 'normal'.

But, it isn't to be. I have been like this all my life; I did not magically turn around when I hit 14 and say 'Hey, I wanna be different by liking guys.' It just does not work like that.

It's like breathing and sleeping- it happens whether we like it or not.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Neurotic Zell
Do you actually believe any other answer to that ridiculous question other than the one I am going to give you?

It was addressed at Doc Milo, basically.

I asked that "ridiculous" question, coz it was the idea I got from this topic. That some people actually think that. But since I couldn't quite figure it out from the posts, I thought I'd explicitely ask it.

So don't blame me. I'm not the one with those believes.

[Jedieb]

It's like breathing and sleeping- it happens whether we like it or not.
Wait a minute, the one person around here that only plays with their own equipment says they never had a choice in the matter?! But haven't you been listening to all those who said it was really a choice? If only you could see the "light." :rolleyes

No wonder you're neurotic Zell, you'll have to spend the rest of your life putting up with nonsense like this. Good luck. MTFBWY.

BTW, no funny ideas, I'm as straight as they come. (Sorry, I just couldnt' help making yet another joke.) :evil

[Charley]

Yes. God says it's a sin. Many times, throughout the Bible. And acknowledging something is a sin and is wrong is not the same as "judging" people for acting in that sin or wrongfulness. Because we are not to judge means we are not to acknowledge something is wrong or a sin? Does that mean that everything goes, regardless, because we're not to judge what is and isn't right and wrong?

Quoted for posterity.

Zell, my only argument is that the things you do, under God, are wrong. Do you believe in God? If you don't, then what does it matter? You have to deal with those things yourself. It is the only contention I have with homosexuality. In mundane terms of law and behavior, it makes no difference to me. In that light, gay people are no different than people who dance to polka. A little different, and not in my paradigm, but no more or no less equal to anyone else. Same as anybody else. So, seeing as the only point of contention is within my own spiritual beliefs, I fail to see what the problem is?

[Doc Milo]

"I have observed that many homosexuals who take offense to things I have said have an abnormal need to be accepted by those who don't view their lifestyle in the same manner as they view it."

For one, the way you write that makes you sound like some supreme judge of people; and is also a direct stereotypical attack on the typical effemenised male homosexual. You needn't bother dressing it up with the 'many' part either, for it's quite apparant you take the view that all homosexual people, male or female, are in the same boat.

I said that because that is what I have observed. Why else would, for example, the homosexual community (or, more accurately, those that claim to "represent them" publically, I don't pretend to believe they speak for all -- or even a majority of -- homosexuals, although they are the most vocal) fight every year to be included in the St. Patrick's Day parade under a gay banner (gays can march under other banners in the parade) when no other group is allowed to march in the parade under a banner announcing their sexual orientation? Why would they seek this "acceptance" from members of a community that believe that homosexuality is wrong (a sin) (it is a Catholic Parade, after all.) And notice, no group in tha parade marches under a banner proclaiming their sexuality -- because that has no place in the parade. If a gay police officer wants to march in the parade under a police banner, they are more than welcome to. So why seek this, if not for an abnormal need for acceptance by those who don't believe the gay lifestlye is a moral one?

The USA is supposed to believe in EQUAL PROTECTION of the law. Not special protection if your of this or that race, gender, or sexual orientation and different protection if you're not of those protected classes... THAT IS NOT EQUAL PROTECTION. THAT IS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION."

Why the use of capital letters if you aren't being hateful and angry?

Because I grew lazy as I was typing and wanted to stress those words. Normally I would use bold or italics, but, as I said, I was being lazy. Capitalization is usually used for yelling, I know, but, as I said, I was being lazy.


Does anyone here think that homosexuals are not actually sexually attracted to their own gender, but only choose to be a homosexual?

It was addressed at Doc Milo, basically.

I don't believe that it is a concious choice, no.

I do believe, however, that there are many reasons, not just one, for homosexuality. I do not believe it is a normal variance on human sexuality. I believe it is a disorder. One that can be brought about in different ways -- a response to a traumatic relationship; a response to a childhood trauma; a chemical or hormonal imbalance among other factors.

There is absolutely no evidence showing that it is a "genetic trait" as Eve said it was. If it was a genetic trait, it could be found in studies of genetics. But no "gay gene" has been found.

Meanwhile, she said that homosexuality cannot be compared to Downs Syndrome because one is a disorder and the other one isn't. Well .... Downs Syndrome can be linked to an extra chromosome. They have found the genetic cause of Downs Syndrome. It is a genetic defect. A disorder. There has been nothing of the sort found for homosexuality. It can't be argued, successfully, that it is either a genetic disorder or a genetic trait. It hasn't been linked to anything genetically. The sole reason for my initial comparison was to show that there are genetic disorders, that just because something is in the genes doesn't make it not a disorder. So, to argue that homosexuality is in the genes makes little difference, because, if it is in the genes, it is a disorder -- an abnormalacy.

Why would I say that? Because of the primary purpose of sex. Forget the moral points. Biologically, every bodily function is meant for a purpose. Digestion is to help nourish the body, excretion is to get rid of poisonous waste, perspiration is to cool down the body, breathing is to supply the body with necessary oxygen, etc.... Forget what people do with their bodies as choices they make (that people eat things that have very little nutrional value, for example, does not negate the fact that ingestion and digestion is meant for nourshment of the body.) So, the purpose, the biological purpose, of sex is to procreate the species. That is the purpose. That people engage in sexual acts that cannot possibly procreate the species, and that people engage in sexual acts purely for pleasure without wanting to procreate the species does not negate the biological fact that the purpose of sex is to procreate the species.

Why would there be a natural variance that violates the biological fact of sex? That would be like there being a natural variance that creates a human that can only breathe methane. Or -- to be more realistic -- a natural variance of a human that can't digest the foods it needs in order to get the proper nourishment. While I have never heard of the former being true, I have heard of the latter being true. People have been born without being able to produce certain enzymes that help in the digestion of foods that contain necessary nutrients to the body (and thus have to take supplements.)

But the point is, these are not natural variances -- just because they exist does not make it a natural variance. They are disorders.

And to repeat -- just because I believe that homosexuality is a disorder, does not mean that I hate homosexuals. It does not mean that I believe they should be ostracized. It does not mean that I think they deserve to be treated badly by individuals or government. I believe in equality. Just because I believe someone suffers from a disorder does not mean that I believe they are somehow less of a person than I am. And -- on a religious level -- just because I believe certain behaviors are sins does not mean that I hate the people who engage in those behaviors. I am a sinner. I don't view any other sin as lesser or greater than my own sins. But that doesn't mean I can't identify something as a sin, either.

[Pierce Tondry]

Aaaaaaaaaaaggggggggghhhhhhhhhh! I'm drunk right now, but even I know this thread is going sour fast.

Whether you believe anything is a sin or not is your personal bias in play. Millions can believe the same thing to be right and still be wrong. That is all there is to that.

And while I'm back on the subject, I gotta ask ya Milo: which is the disorder? Black hair? Or brown?

[Marcus Telcontar]

Homosexuality is NOT A DISORDER. It is a clear, concious choice. It is not insanitiy, it is not genetics, it's not even hormone inbalance. There is no vaild proof I know of that says otherwise. Put it down here, now if you can prove me wrong.

Otherwise, I'm done with this thread.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Intro to Philosophy taught me something great:

Just because you believe something doesn't mean its TRUE.

And just because you don't believe something doesn't mean it isn't TRUE.

[Neurotic Zell]

Everyone, stop picking on me! LOL.

:p

And that's all I got to say :cool

[Doc Milo]

And while I'm back on the subject, I gotta ask ya Milo: which is the disorder? Black hair? Or brown?

Hair color is determined by the genes -- there are genetic traits and there are genetic disorders. Hair color is a genetic trait, not a genetic disorder. A genetic disorder is something that is abnormal that occurs in the genes -- a defect. A genetic trait is a normal variance.

There is no proof that homosexuality is determined by the genes.

Personally, I lean more toward believing it is a psychological disorder rather than a biological one, but I argued that even if caused by biological factors, that doesn't preclude it being a disorder.

[imported_Eve]

I am wondering if this thread has run it' course. People are talking circles, and getting heated.

What do the forum mods think?

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Dimples are flaws in the structure of muscle. And green eyes are birth defects.

Just thought I'd throw that out there for fun. :) And Eve, I agree.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I personally don't think its going anywhere, people have their personal opinions on the matter and I think arguing about it is really pointless. So far the debate is just getting a little heated, it could get into a shouting match though so it might be best to close it, I don't think anything else can be gained by leaving it opened.

[JMK]

I agree, this thread no longer serves any purpose. It stopped being constructive a long time ago.