Your view on gay's

[Shaun]

I dislike homosexuality male or female version of it.

to me it is not natural, baring any biblical references two males can not make a baby on there own neither can two females. reproduction can not happen so to me that does not make sense.

That is true, but of course couldn't you then argue that it doesn't make sense for a sexually infertile person to have a relationship with a person of the opposite gender? By themselves they can't have a baby, so is there no point? To me it seems that if they are two people who will bring up a child in a loving and stable environment it doesn't matter it they have the ability to sexually reproduce together.

You say it's not natural, but we are natural animals, and we do it, therefore it is natural. Not only do we do it, but so do plenty of other animals, for instance penguins. Homosexuality has also been seen in monkeys, bears, various birds, dogs and lots of other animals. I remember a female rabbit my sister had years ago used to try to have sex with another female rabbit all the time. So, what do you mean by it isn't natural?

[VaKo]

I dislike homosexuality male or female version of it.

to me it is not natural, baring any biblical references two males can not make a baby on there own neither can two females. reproduction can not happen so to me that does not make sense.

See I don't agree since a lot of the women i've slept with, there is no way in hell I would ever want kids from them. So by your mark this is unatural because its sex which will not lead children. What you forget is people have sex because they enjoy it, no matter there sexuality.

Since homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, in nature without human involvement, its probally safe to bet that what ever causes it, its been around longer then humans have been. Add to that animals like dolphins who have sex for fun and the whole "its unatural" argument is kinda dead in the water.

We are however, the only species that has a society with a moral code that disagrees with nature.

Having said all that, if theres 2 guys sucking face in front of me, i really don't want to hang around.

[kickarse]

It's only "wrong" acording to the bible and several other religions,

And even then, it's Old testiment, which also says beating your wife is alright, and owning slaves is the 'in' thing.

Your completely wrong.

There is nothing in the Old or New testament that condones beating/slapping/hitting/being abusive to your mate.

Also you would sell yourself into slavery. Slavery had a different terminology than it has today. Slavery happened if you owed someone something and couldn't pay it back, etc. It was only for 7 years. It was also Jewish religious law.

The bible holds to a standard or morality that a lot of mankind holds "dear" though do not follow. Just because a lot of the worlds morality is not built upon the bible doesn't mean that mine can't be. I can hold to a standard that has not changed and will not change, some cannot.

The worlds morality is on a steady decline from the inception of mankind (adam and eve screwup). It continues to worsen. It's just the fact that you were born what 16-18 yrs ago and you've come into the world where certain things are "accepted", that you feel it's okay. Some do not.

For me, I don't have a problem with someone who's sexual orientation is of the same sex. I don't like what they are doing. But I'm not going to go all gung ho as to why they shouldn't or how it's not something they should be doing according to the bible or through other reasoning points. If they are nice people then fine. If they aren't than fine.

While there are those that are of the same sex orientation that do not know of biblical standards and/or choose not to follow them. There are those who profess to be students of the bible and yet are of the same sex orientation. That crosses me. As those who know, the bible strictly forbids it, ie God strictly forbids it.

What does annoy me is when there is a feminine (chick or dude) and a masculine (chick or dude). I mean what's the dilio?

[Shaun]

It may not say a man can beat his wife but it does say:

13If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

So if a man has sex with his wife and hates her he can claim she wasn't a virgin when she married him, then if her father can't prove she was a virgin (with the bloody sheets from when she first had sex with her husband) then she is stoned the death.

Also how does this fit into the Bible's morality?

1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.

2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

So God wants Saul to get revenge on the Amalekites by commiting genocide against them, including killing all infants and babies.

[metatron]

I do have a issue with bisexuals, my main issue is with male bisexuals as it is an excepted fact that gay males have a much higher chance of getting aids and it is also a fact that man whether they are gay or not are promiscuous and being a heterosexual male I know I have been with a number of women that I did not find overly attractive but slept with them simply because the opportunity was there.

Now knowing a number of gay people and a having a few gay friends I know the only real difference between them and me is that they find the men attractive and they have far more opportunities for sex then I do and that and the fact that aids is a issue in the male homosexual world if they sleep with women to, the chance of spreading aids is greatly increased to heterosexual people.

I don’t want to rub anyone up the wrong way but if you are a gay male you have to except that you have a much higher chance of contracting aids even with protection and if you are a lesbian well it really doesn’t matter as research shows you are less likely to contract aids if you are a lesbian then you would if you are straight.

[cooper]

Interesting. I thought the 'more AIDS in the gay crowd' was actually something that was accepted to be false. Too lazy to go looking for actual statistics though.

I always suspected the highest concentration of AIDS was amongst intravenous drug users. I mean, these people who share needles and what have you, and are so eager to get a fix that they pretty much couldn't care less where that needle has been previously.

As for my views on gays, I couldn't care less. Seeing 2 guys kissing makes me cringe (so I look away. It's me who's got the issues here), and being in a gay bar makes me very uncomfortable (again, my bad. Resolved by going to another bar).

Aside from that, who am I to tell you what you can or cannot do with another concenting individual?

[murderousmidget]

It may not say a man can beat his wife but it does say:

Deuteronomy 22 wrote:

13If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

So if a man has sex with his wife and hates her he can claim she wasn't a virgin when she married him, then if her father can't prove she was a virgin (with the bloody sheets from when she first had sex with her husband) then she is stoned the death.

Also how does this fit into the Bible's morality?

1 Samuel 15 wrote:

1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.

2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

So God wants Saul to get revenge on the Amalekites by commiting genocide against them, including killing all infants and babies.

which is why christians are not supposed to follow the old testament anymore but many still hold on to the gay thing as being wrong just because thats what they were taught

[kickarse]

It may not say a man can beat his wife but it does say:

13If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

So if a man has sex with his wife and hates her he can claim she wasn't a virgin when she married him, then if her father can't prove she was a virgin (with the bloody sheets from when she first had sex with her husband) then she is stoned the death.

Also how does this fit into the Bible's morality?

Do you even understand why they pelted her or why they disciplined the man? This is something that the Jewish laws/traditions dictated. It is not any different than wrongfull accusation with a death sentence today. It does go to show that man cannot ultimately judge/rule themselves with any laws they themselves create. But it was the best they had at the time without some CSI going on.

On the wedding night a cloth or garment was used and then kept or given to the wife’s parents so that the marks of the blood of the girl’s virginity would constitute legal protection for her in the event she was later charged with lack of virginity or of having been a prostitute prior to her marriage. Otherwise, she could be stoned to death for having presented herself in marriage as a spotless virgin and for bringing great reproach on her father’s house. This practice of keeping the cloth has continued among some peoples in the Middle East until recent times.

It was a question of sexual morality on both the man and the womans part. If you keep reading in the scriptures it speaks of "god hating a divorcing," etc.

1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.

2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

So God wants Saul to get revenge on the Amalekites by commiting genocide against them, including killing all infants and babies.

Because of their hardened and unreasonable hostility toward God’s people and because they didn't listen to God, the Amalekites came under a permanent ban, like the Philistines and others. Since they worked in opposition to the purposes of the God he called for their extermination. This wasn't a complete genocide at this time, in fact Saul spared their King. Many years later, in 5th century BCE, they were fully killed for trying to kill the Jew Mordecai and his people.

If your going to quote scriptures you might want to get your bearings as to what you are actually quoting. These scriptures do not explain anything as to sexual preferences of humankind and why it's morally wrong by god's standards to have same sex relations. Also, if your a student of the bible, should realize that God's decisions are pure of heart, he does not make mistakes, and he is the only one that know's what is in all our hearts. He knew what was in the Amalekites hearts and made a decision based on that. Same thing with Babylon, etc.

The information in the Old Testament is still valid and is still used. I think your getting it confused with the old Law convenant.

Sure God's followers today are not obligated to the old Law covenant, between God and the Isrealites, but we are under the new Law covenant between God and his followers. God did not have “the law of the Christ†put down in the form of a code, organizing it into various categories, as was done with the old Law covenant. This new law for Christ’s followers does not include an extensive list of dos and dont's. There's much more to be said, but I won't dare go into it on a tech forum.

[tabath]

so what if men were only taught to like women and visa versa...

I never make my sexuality an issue with other people. If my friends or co-workers start talking about their significant others, I will, too. If someone asks me questions, I'll answer honestly.

As far as public displays of affection... I don't like seeing other people doing it, and I don't care to be seen doing it. It just makes me uncomfortable. Go suck face somewhere else.

Couldn't agree more- but I must also add I find it just amazing that some people who are gay think its a "right" that they can have kids. I have some good friends who have told me they had it hard enough growing up dealing with their own sexuality - they would never have kids and put them through anything approaching what they went through.

[Shaun]

Do you even understand why they pelted her or why they disciplined the man? This is something that the Jewish laws/traditions dictated. It is not any different than wrongfull accusation with a death sentence today. It does go to show that man cannot ultimately judge/rule themselves with any laws they themselves create. But it was the best they had at the time without some CSI going on.

On the wedding night a cloth or garment was used and then kept or given to the wife’s parents so that the marks of the blood of the girl’s virginity would constitute legal protection for her in the event she was later charged with lack of virginity or of having been a prostitute prior to her marriage. Otherwise, she could be stoned to death for having presented herself in marriage as a spotless virgin and for bringing great reproach on her father’s house. This practice of keeping the cloth has continued among some peoples in the Middle East until recent times.

So your defence of this part of the Bible is "it was the done thing at the time"? I'm not exactly sure how that is a defence. Are you saying because it was acceptable then that it's OK to have you your holy book? Would you saying this part of the Bible still applies to modern day life? If not how do you decide which parts of the Old Testament do still apply?

Because of their hardened and unreasonable hostility toward God’s people and because they didn't listen to God, the Amalekites came under a permanent ban, like the Philistines and others. Since they worked in opposition to the purposes of the God he called for their extermination. This wasn't a complete genocide at this time, in fact Saul spared their King. Many years later, in 5th century BCE, they were fully killed for trying to kill the Jew Mordecai and his people.

Saul spared him, but then Samuel chopped him up. The adults may not have listened to God, but what about the babies? They didn't even have a chance to listen to God and they were still slaughtered. Even if it was understandable that they killed all the adults why couldn't they have taken the babies back with them and risen them as Israelites?

If your going to quote scriptures you might want to get your bearings as to what you are actually quoting. These scriptures do not explain anything as to sexual preferences of humankind and why it's morally wrong by god's standards to have same sex relations. Also, if your a student of the bible, should realize that God's decisions are pure of heart, he does not make mistakes, and he is the only one that know's what is in all our hearts. He knew what was in the Amalekites hearts and made a decision based on that. Same thing with Babylon, etc.

I realise they don't say anything about sexual preference, I'm just trying to point out that they don't seem to provide a very good moral code to follow.

Edit: You editted your post after I had hit quote (I went and did some other things while writing my post). Is this supposed to be addressed to me? Because I never said that the Old Testament doesn't apply.

The information in the Old Testament is still valid and is still used. I think your getting it confused with the old Law convenant.

Sure God's followers today are not obligated to the old Law covenant, between God and the Isrealites, but we are under the new Law covenant between God and his followers. God did not have “the law of the Christ†put down in the form of a code, organizing it into various categories, as was done with the old Law covenant. This new law for Christ’s followers does not include an extensive list of dos and dont's. There's much more to be said, but I won't dare go into it on a tech forum.

[Shaun]

Couldn't agree more- but I must also add I find it just amazing that some people who are gay think its a "right" that they can have kids. I have some good friends who have told me they had it hard enough growing up dealing with their own sexuality - they would never have kids and put them through anything approaching what they went through.

Why don't you think gay people should be able to have children? Solely because you think they'll find it hard to accept their parents' sexuality? I'm not certain what you mean by struggle, do you mean they found it hard to accept that they were gay? If that's the case I think the reason those people probably struggled with their sexuality is they grew up thinking there was something wrong with being gay, it seems less likely someone who grows up with gay parents would think that.

[VaKo]

...Also, if your a student of the bible, should realize that God's decisions are pure of heart, he does not make mistakes, and he is the only one that know's what is in all our hearts...

Have you seen your scrotum? And having seen it, can you still say god does not make mistakes? Thats a clear case of "oh shit, its due tommrow?!"

Another big mistake from god's point of view, putting that fracking evil serpent and the tree of knowledge slap bang in the middle of the garden of eden. Unless he wanted us to eat its fruit...

And why did god put all his violently monotheastic religions in exactly the same area in the middle east?

And why oh why, when designing the human body, did the dick decided to run sewage lines threw a major recreactional area?

You can cite a 2000yr old collection of chinese wispers, but it won't put you any closer to the truth.

[tabath]

Solely because you think they'll find it hard to accept their parents' sexuality? I'm not certain what you mean by struggle, do you mean they found it hard to accept that they were gay? If that's the case I think the reason those people probably struggled with their sexuality is they grew up thinking there was something wrong with being gay, it seems less likely someone who grows up with gay parents would think that.

Basically , in a perfect world I think a kid should have a mum and a dad, this is a generalisation I know and I accept there are some gay couples who would make great parents however this doesn't mean they have a "right" to have kids. On the other hand there are lots of hetero couples who should never be allowed kids and should be sterilised to prevent them breeding :shock:

As far as my friends go it was more than them struggling with their sexuality- basically the gay scene took them in, chewed them up and spit them out. Have they turned straight because of this? Of course not - they can't can they? What some of them do wish however is that they could.

This is getting a bit heavy for this board methinks.

[VaKo]

Basically , in a perfect world I think a kid should have a mum and a dad, this is a generalisation I know and I accept there are some gay couples who would make great parents however this doesn't mean they have a "right" to have kids. On the other hand there are lots of hetero couples who should never be allowed kids and should be sterilised to prevent them breeding :shock:

Don't think they have a right to have children, but if they can provide a loving home and a good enviroment for a kid, then why stop them?

This is getting a bit heavy for this board methinks.

Nah, this is good, far better than endless "look at me! i also have a slightly different pandora ripping app!" or "Micro$haft suxors" threads, its something to get your brain into instead of 800 "lol" posts.

[Shaun]

Basically , in a perfect world I think a kid should have a mum and a dad, this is a generalisation I know and I accept there are some gay couples who would make great parents however this doesn't mean they have a "right" to have kids. On the other hand there are lots of hetero couples who should never be allowed kids and should be sterilised to prevent them breeding :shock:

So what is your argument? All you have done is restated your stance on gay people having children i.e. they don't have the right to have them, without really adding anything to it. You haven't provided any reasoning behind your "I think a kid should have a mum and a dad". The last statement is just stupid and I take your winky to mean it's a joke.

As far as my friends go it was more than them struggling with their sexuality- basically the gay scene took them in, chewed them up and spit them out. Have they turned straight because of this? Of course not - they can't can they? What some of them do wish however is that they could.

I have no idea what being chewed up and spit out by a scene constitues, so I'm not really sure how to argue this. To be honest I barely understand what people mean by the gay scene, I don't think there really is this all-encompassing scene that gay people are a part of. There are various sub-cultures which some gay people belong to yes, but a "gay scene"? I'm not so sure.

[Emilml]

I realy dont care let them be what they what to be.

[tabath]

The "gay scene" is what you find generally in the bigger cities. I don't know about the states but in NW england Manchester has a big scene - this is where a lot of young people go - this isn't my label/description .

As for a reason - I think kids are generally better off with one parent of each sex - I don't think a child can get as rounded a life and caring experience otherwise. Both sexes bring something different to the mix.

The wink was for the sterilisation crack btw.

[kickarse]

Do you even understand why they pelted her or why they disciplined the man? This is something that the Jewish laws/traditions dictated. It is not any different than wrongfull accusation with a death sentence today. It does go to show that man cannot ultimately judge/rule themselves with any laws they themselves create. But it was the best they had at the time without some CSI going on.

On the wedding night a cloth or garment was used and then kept or given to the wife’s parents so that the marks of the blood of the girl’s virginity would constitute legal protection for her in the event she was later charged with lack of virginity or of having been a prostitute prior to her marriage. Otherwise, she could be stoned to death for having presented herself in marriage as a spotless virgin and for bringing great reproach on her father’s house. This practice of keeping the cloth has continued among some peoples in the Middle East until recent times.

So your defence of this part of the Bible is "it was the done thing at the time"? I'm not exactly sure how that is a defence. Are you saying because it was acceptable then that it's OK to have you your holy book? Would you saying this part of the Bible still applies to modern day life? If not how do you decide which parts of the Old Testament do still apply?

Your saying that it wasn't moral to do this while I'm explaining that to these people it was to them. Your the one who brought up the scripture. I am saying that this was Jewish religious law of which Christians aren't obligated to follow like the Jew's of that time did. I still don't understand how you can misapply a scripture and then ask me[/] how it apply's to modern life? It's like saying "why was Jesus hung, wasn't that immoral?" Yes it was, it was still in the bible for a reason. It wasn't there saying that Jewish religious leaders should hang all prophets. Like I said to the other kid I think you have the old Law covenant confused with the old Testament.

Because of their hardened and unreasonable hostility toward God’s people and because they didn't listen to God, the Amalekites came under a permanent ban, like the Philistines and others. Since they worked in opposition to the purposes of the God he called for their extermination. This wasn't a complete genocide at this time, in fact Saul spared their King. Many years later, in 5th century BCE, they were fully killed for trying to kill the Jew Mordecai and his people.

Saul spared him, but then Samuel chopped him up. The adults may not have listened to God, but what about the babies? They didn't even have a chance to listen to God and they were still slaughtered. Even if it was understandable that they killed all the adults why couldn't they have taken the babies back with them and risen them as Israelites?

The point was that they whole nation was bad in the eyes of god. If he wants to he can bring them back. It was his decision to destroy them. As the bible says "Who can check the hand of god?"

If your going to quote scriptures you might want to get your bearings as to what you are actually quoting. These scriptures do not explain anything as to sexual preferences of humankind and why it's morally wrong by god's standards to have same sex relations. Also, if your a student of the bible, should realize that God's decisions are pure of heart, he does not make mistakes, and he is the only one that know's what is in all our hearts. He knew what was in the Amalekites hearts and made a decision based on that. Same thing with Babylon, etc.

I realise they don't say anything about sexual preference, I'm just trying to point out that they don't seem to provide a very good moral code to follow.

I understand you point of reasoing. I would conclude the same thing I hadn't studied the scriptures, and continue to, thoroughly. Some characters or people of the bible obviously don't follow the correct moral code they should've. The bible show's what happened to those ones. To help us not make the same mistakes. You make a couple of references and conclude that the bible doesn't have a good moral code. What about the hundreds of other references we could find, along with the context and understanding of the scriptures you quoted, that show's it does have a good moral code.

But it's like trying to explain to a child why he shouldn't cross the road, because he could be hit by a car. He doesn't know or understand, he has no concept of death, yet. As he gains appreciation for life and living and the impact a hit from a car can do he learns what he should and should not do. Thus making an educated decision based on knowledge. Similarly if we choose to learn and understand we can come to realize a similar things about the bible that we did not know beforehand. But all this takes time and a yearning in the heart to do so.

Edit: You editted your post after I had hit quote (I went and did some other things while writing my post). Is this supposed to be addressed to me? Because I never said that the Old Testament doesn't apply.

The information in the Old Testament is still valid and is still used. I think your getting it confused with the old Law convenant.

Sure God's followers today are not obligated to the old Law covenant, between God and the Isrealites, but we are under the new Law covenant between God and his followers. God did not have “the law of the Christ†put down in the form of a code, organizing it into various categories, as was done with the old Law covenant. This new law for Christ’s followers does not include an extensive list of dos and dont's. There's much more to be said, but I won't dare go into it on a tech forum.

No it was addressed to the other kid who said the "Old testament wasn't supposed to be followed... and they still are... yadda yadda yadda"

[kickarse]

...Also, if your a student of the bible, should realize that God's decisions are pure of heart, he does not make mistakes, and he is the only one that know's what is in all our hearts...

Have you seen your scrotum? And having seen it, can you still say god does not make mistakes? Thats a clear case of "oh shit, its due tommrow?!"

Another big mistake from god's point of view, putting that fracking evil serpent and the tree of knowledge slap bang in the middle of the garden of eden. Unless he wanted us to eat its fruit...

And why did god put all his violently monotheastic religions in exactly the same area in the middle east?

And why oh why, when designing the human body, did the dick decided to run sewage lines threw a major recreactional area?

You can cite a 2000yr old collection of chinese wispers, but it won't put you any closer to the truth.

Your right a 2000yr old Chinese collection won't do anyone any good.

I am happy to see your using big words like "scrotum" and "dick".

I am also happy to see that you think you know what your talking about but have no clue. Good job!

[phiberoptik]

I dislike homosexuality male or female version of it.

to me it is not natural, baring any biblical references two males can not make a baby on there own neither can two females. reproduction can not happen so to me that does not make sense.

See I don't agree since a lot of the women i've slept with, there is no way in hell I would ever want kids from them. So by your mark this is unatural because its sex which will not lead children. What you forget is people have sex because they enjoy it, no matter there sexuality.

Since homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, in nature without human involvement, its probally safe to bet that what ever causes it, its been around longer then humans have been. Add to that animals like dolphins who have sex for fun and the whole "its unatural" argument is kinda dead in the water.

We are however, the only species that has a society with a moral code that disagrees with nature.

Having said all that, if theres 2 guys sucking face in front of me, i really don't want to hang around.

not here to argue, i am here to share my view isnt that what this thread is about?

[VaKo]

Your right a 2000yr old Chinese collection won't do anyone any good.

I am happy to see your using big words like "scrotum" and "dick".

I am also happy to see that you think you know what your talking about but have no clue. Good job!

See, why the personal attacks? And since when has scrotum been at all offensive? Are medical terms off limits to you? And yes, i know the history of the abrahmic religions, its why I made the point. You have 3 groups of people who *know* they are right, and all of them have book which says kill the unbelivers, and they all come from the same misguided roots.

My point was, blind faith has never gotten anyone anywhere. I'm not saying there is no god, i just think that we have no idea about what it truely is. Religions have very narrow views, especially in regard to the creation. I find it hard to understand the fundimentalist view that god just snapped everything into existance. Is it so hard to think that if there is a god, it wasn't smart enough to create an evolving system that built itself.

You made a point about the laws of man:

It does go to show that man cannot ultimately judge/rule themselves with any laws they themselves create.

Thats just an excuse, it allows us to fail because after all its our nature. Reliying on a very narrow interpretation of god for judgement removes all the effort, just do as your told and all will be good. But I belive we should take charge of our own decisions, and in effect rule ourselves. Unless we strive to become more than we are, we risk being a footnote in history. Humans are amazing creatures, but we're far from perfect. The sooner we realise its up to us to change ourselves, the better.

If we are the children of god, shouldn't we grow up at some point?

As for myself, I was raised in a christian house, i've even been confirmed in the CoE. But I couldn't reconcile what I could see and work out threw science with the bible. I spent my teens as an athetiest. But as i got older i began to think harder about the whole idea of "what are we?". To me god is more akin to tao than a personfied deity handing down edicts. But at the core of my belife: we're all very wrong about god. So don't say I don't know anything, or the language I use, attack my arguments.

not here to argue, i am here to share my view isnt that what this thread is about?

no beef, just a riposte.

[melodic]

/me cant be arsed to read anyones posts on this cos there MEGA long :P

[BraytonAK]

so what if men were only taught to like women and visa versa...

I never make my sexuality an issue with other people. If my friends or co-workers start talking about their significant others, I will, too. If someone asks me questions, I'll answer honestly.

As far as public displays of affection... I don't like seeing other people doing it, and I don't care to be seen doing it. It just makes me uncomfortable. Go suck face somewhere else.

Couldn't agree more- but I must also add I find it just amazing that some people who are gay think its a "right" that they can have kids. I have some good friends who have told me they had it hard enough growing up dealing with their own sexuality - they would never have kids and put them through anything approaching what they went through.

That's odd... I never had a difficult time growing up that had anything to do with being gay. It was just something that I didn't tell my family until I was 19.

Personally, I don't want kids. Never have wanted them, and I can only take them in doses. I don't think anyone has a Right to have children. There are many parents who should not be allowed to have kids. But you do have to commend someone who cannot have children for wanting to raise them. We all know there are too many kids waiting to be adopted or shifted from foster home to foster home.

[BraytonAK]

Solely because you think they'll find it hard to accept their parents' sexuality? I'm not certain what you mean by struggle, do you mean they found it hard to accept that they were gay? If that's the case I think the reason those people probably struggled with their sexuality is they grew up thinking there was something wrong with being gay, it seems less likely someone who grows up with gay parents would think that.

As far as my friends go it was more than them struggling with their sexuality- basically the gay scene took them in, chewed them up and spit them out. Have they turned straight because of this? Of course not - they can't can they? What some of them do wish however is that they could.

This is getting a bit heavy for this board methinks.

The gay 'scene' is laughable, in my opinion. Is there a straight scene? The only thing about a gay scene is that it's the most visible collection of gay people. They have their common attitudes, a lot of them look identical, etc. It's nothing more than a post-high school clique. I, personally, never even stepped through the door into the gay 'scene' because it just wasn't me. The people who are a part of it are into things that I am not, and the only thing we have in common is our sexuality. That's not enough for me to call it cozy.

There is nothing wrong with being an individual. You do NOT have to be a part of a scene to be happy. Maybe your friend(s) didn't like to party a lot, maybe they didn't like having a group of 50 closest friends, maybe they didn't like being expected to dress or act a certain way. I'm nearly 32 years old and have been inside a bar a total of four times. Being gay doesn't predispose you to a certain way of living.

[Shaun]

The "gay scene" is what you find generally in the bigger cities. I don't know about the states but in NW england Manchester has a big scene - this is where a lot of young people go - this isn't my label/description .

I know there are sub-cultures people label as "the gay scene", but I'm saying I don't think that really is necessarily "the gay scene". It may be A "gay scene", but I don't know homosexuality or homosexuals can be defined by it.

As for a reason - I think kids are generally better off with one parent of each sex - I don't think a child can get as rounded a life and caring experience otherwise. Both sexes bring something different to the mix.

Do you have any evidence of that? Do you disagree with the findings of the American Psychological Association then?

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.