Your view on gay's

[Shaun]

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.

Do you call an apple with a rotten half and a good half a good apple or a bad apple?

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"

So are you saying Christians don't have to follow the Old Testament? As I understand it this is a point of contention among different Christian groups. Maybe you don't think you should follow the Old Testament but there are some Christians who think they should (e.g. Christian Reconstructionists (I think)).

[BraytonAK]

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

It's okay, Melodic. There will be a Reader's Digest version published next month. However, it will not be later published in a "Like, He Said, Like, She Said, Like, OMG!" version.

[tabath]

Physcology is not a "science"(imho), and I'd love to know what evidence they have for this. Whats the percentage of kids in the whole study were same sex couples they have looked at, were these brought up from birth or later? How old are they now for the "physcologists" to have reached the conclusion they have.What percentage of the pop as a whole was the study group cos this will affect how they have extrapolated the data. Anyway Horza you obviously have made your mind up about this which is your right so fair enough and I've said my piece now.

Your next arguments going to be that gay penguins bring up their kids?

[VaKo]

Your next arguments going to be that gay penguins bring up their kids?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins.

When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly, and a chick, Tango, was born.

For the next 2 1/2 months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Gramzay is full of praise. "They did a great job," he said.

[tabath]

Interesting. hehe , loved the rock thing. Also the infanticide and closig old folks homes down bits.

[Shaun]

Physcology is not a "science", and I'd love to know what evidence they have for this. Whats the percentage of kids in same sex couples they have looked at, were these brought up from birth or later?

Have you actually read the thing I linked to? It has an extensive bibliography of where they drew their evidence from.

How old are they now for the "physcologists" to have reached the conclusion they have. Anyway Horza you obviously have made your mind up about this which is your right so fair enough and I've said my peace now.

The first study on the subject was in 1972. Yes, I have made up my mind - after doing some research on the matter. You appear to have made up your mind based on wild speculation and ignoring evidence I provide that is contrary to you beliefs.

Your next arguments going to be that gay penguins bring up their kids?

No, that's my argument against homosexuality being unnatural.

[Shaun]

Your next arguments going to be that gay penguins bring up their kids?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins.

I think he referred to gay penguins based on the story about gay penguins in Germany I posted a link to earlier in the thread. I'm not exactly sure what point he was trying to make though.

[VaKo]

Probally, I just liked the fact that it took me less than 10 seconds to confrim that there are indeed gay penguins that raise kids. The article also offers a possibly evolutionary reason for homosexuals. IE to help raise children.

One thing we all have to remember, is that when we talk about right/wrong in moral terms, we're just talking about european christian values (america got most of its population/culture intially from europe, so comes under the same umbrella), not some grand unifying concept that govens the species.

[antirem]

way to many people writing a lot of stuff for me to continue writing in this thread but...

Scientisit have prooven the male and female brain are identical... sexual tendenies were my own idea.

Homosexuality is wrong be bible standards... the new testamnt took away somethings but the things changed were not so much the sins but the way they were handled (for the most part)

[Shaun]

way to many people writing a lot of stuff for me to continue writing in this thread but...

Scientisit have prooven the male and female brain are identical... sexual tendenies were my own idea.

Maybe you could respond to my points about that on page 2? I don't think scientists have proven that (in fact the male and female brain and not identical, males have larger brains, but I assume you mean mind rather than brain).

[antirem]

they have. It was in my psych class at college. I was doing pseo so i had to return the books otherwise id go through it.

(pm me if you have further question but im out of this thread)

[Darren Kitchen]

This thread is heavy, which is good, so I think I'll weigh in. Now rather than share my opinion, which is irrelevant, I'll offer this anecdote:

My flight got delayed. I didn't get to Toronto until late that night. Wess and Alli had taken a different flight and were already at the hotel.

Alli: Darren! *hugs all around* your airline sucks!

Me: I need a beer!

Wess: There's this cool bar we found a few blocks down, Micky Finns

Me: They serve Canadian beer? Lets go!

*walking down Young St towards the bar*

Alli: This place is much better than the other bar *grin*

Me: Other bar?

Wess: Nothing.

*pause*

Alli: Wess wen't to a gay bar!

Me: *blink* *blink*

Wess: I didn't know!

Me: That gay bar? *points*

Wess: Yeah. Walked in got a weird vibe. Sat down, looked around, figured it out.

Me: And the huge black and white poster out front with the shirtless ripped dude with the bulge in his crotch didn't give it away before you entered?

Wess: No

Me: The name of the bar is Zippers!

Alli: Hehe, Zippers!

Then we made it to Micky Finns and drank every Canadian beer on tap with some german exchange student chicks.

[anyedie]

i dont really agree with it, but it doesnt bother me. i dont have a problem with gay ppl.

[kainchick]

Musta been fun darren, and im really happy with the discussion on this thread, though i have a question. Our health teacher at our school is the only person standing in our way of getting our little oasis into a real club because she said "teens arent ready to be labeled gay" Yet today she comes into our meeting looks at us and says to our adviser in a bitchy tone "tell your lesbians to stop writing on the walls of the 700 hall" Me and a friend got really bitchy and started to fight with her until the president guy told us to calm down. I think she's homophobic in a way. She's just like edgy and mean to the gay students, and we realyl cant complain at her cause the administration likes her.

But yea guys, keep the discussion going its interesting. :D

[Darren Kitchen]

Just to play devils advocate here, but if she had valid reasons to yell at you for writing on the walls. wait. wtf. writing on the walls? i though you were in high school not preschool.

sorry i had to call you out like that but, uh, care to elaborate just a bit there?

[BraytonAK]

Just to play devils advocate here, but if she had valid reasons to yell at you for writing on the walls. wait. wtf. writing on the walls? i though you were in high school not preschool.

sorry i had to call you out like that but, uh, care to elaborate just a bit there?

:o DOH!

[tabath]

Physcology is not a "science", and I'd love to know what evidence they have for this. Whats the percentage of kids in same sex couples they have looked at, were these brought up from birth or later?

Have you actually read the thing I linked to? It has an extensive bibliography of where they drew their evidence from.

How old are they now for the "physcologists" to have reached the conclusion they have. Anyway Horza you obviously have made your mind up about this which is your right so fair enough and I've said my peace now.

The first study on the subject was in 1972. Yes, I have made up my mind - after doing some research on the matter. You appear to have made up your mind based on wild speculation and ignoring evidence I provide that is contrary to you beliefs.

Your next arguments going to be that gay penguins bring up their kids?

No, that's my argument against homosexuality being unnatural.

"You appear to have made up your mind based on wild speculation and ignoring evidence I provide that is contrary to you beliefs."

Just because I have not stated sources or argued points does not mean I have made up my mind based on "wild speculation"- also from my point of view ignoring "evidence!" you have provided links to is completely logical since IMO and many others pyschology is NOT a science.

Why don't you follow your own suggestion and follow some of these links?

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/index.html

http://allfreeessays.com/student/Psychology_A_Science.html

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/psych.htm

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&am...gy+a+science%22

This one is particularly interesting since its form a pyschologist:Kamala V Mukunda

received her Ph.D. in

Educational Psychology

from Syracuse

University, USA

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&am...gy+a+science%22

[Shaun]

OK, well A) I never said psychology is a science B) You still haven't provided any reasoning for your beliefs.

Now I did start writing a long post, but instead let me ask you this: If you don't think psychological studies are useful as empirical evidence, what do you base your beliefs on? In one of your earlier posts you seemed to by relying on anecdotal evidence (your friends being "chewed up and spit out by the gay scene"), now that's not very scientific is it? In fact I'd say that's far less scientific than psychological studies. Surely you have some empirical evidence to back you your beliefs, or you wouldn't be attacking my evidence as unscientific, would you?

[wetelectric]

gays? ewwwwww..... <dances on tip-toes while waving arms in the air>

[tabath]

Are you intentionally confusing lines of argument here? I have no beef myself with peoples personal sexual orientation, my friends who have"been chewed up and spit out by the gay scene" expressed this opinion themselves, it wasn't my conclusion, they haven't suddenly decided to lead a hetero life either. They are only saying that the "scene" they experienced here in the UK is not the way to go for young people. they would rather have never have got into but just relied on leading a normal life interacting with other people in their local area and developed relationships gradually and naturally rather than being drawn into the "scene" and basically exploited and pressurised into living and acting a certain way because of their sexuality.

Anyway you throwing that comment into the mix again misses the last line that we were discussing which was the "rights" of gay couples to have children. Again your going on about me presenting no empirical evidence, you are missing the point here. It is you who need to be presenting a solid and scientific argument in favour of your position as the phenomenon of gay couples bringing up children is a recent one, and therefore less is known of the consequences for the child and society as a whole. Looking at it from a personal experience I have children, would I allow any of my gay friends to look after them? Yes I would be happy for some of them to the same way I would be happy for some of my hetero friends . Would I be happy for my wifes gay brother and his partner to look after them, yes I would. Would I agree that they would do a good job bringing up children from birth ? They would probably care and love for them as much as we do but that doesn't mean that the kids would develop and learn in the same way they would with a mixed couple. Basically your argument is if a couple of either mixed or single sex is involved sexually they should have a right to children. Why does being sexually involved give them this right? If this isn't your argument then what about if two friends or relatives(2 sisters for instance) who have the intention of living together long term want to have a child by whatever means and raise it? Do they have the "right"? If not why? Is it just because they aren't having sex? If you think they should have the right do you think a child will develop as well in such an environment as they would in what is regard as a normal mixed sex environment?

"Surely you have some empirical evidence to back you your beliefs, or you wouldn't be attacking my evidence as unscientific, would you?"

Again I don't have to have empirical evidence, and its "your evidence " is it?

An example of your reasoning would be:

Let children have sex with adults as soon as they are 14 - why not? Well show me the evidence this would be detrimental to the children?

My response to this would be(which is what I'm argiung in this case):

I don't have to show you any evidence that this would be detrimental because it shouldn't be allowed in the first place because you would be basically running an unethical experiment with children as the subjects. Is it ethical to say to gay couples - go ahead have kids - your rights are paramount and the rights of the children you have are of secondary importance. The fact we're running an unethical social experiment here doesn't matter?

I suggest that allowing same sex couples as a general principle to be able to have children when they want is tantamount to using the children as lab rats in a social experiment and as such cannot be condoned. That is not to say that ther can't be exceptions which could be looked at on an individual basis with the good of the child being paramount.

Btw:have you read any of the links I provided discussing whether psychology is a science?

[kickarse]

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.

Since when has "dick" become a medical term? Just because you know the history doesn't mean you understand it. I can say I know of something too... Let's see hair can be red. But why? You do also know that the holy book of the muslim faith was based off the hebrew scriptures right? It was M's own interpretation of the scriptures.

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.

The bible gives a very good definition of who is and what he is about. If people really took the time to read it they would see he is a loving creator who wants humans to succeed and do good. NOT what most are doing today. Why would god have to create an evolving system when he could come up with what he wanted to begin with? You don't make any sense.

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.

Your right we should take charge of our decisions. God does not make us stumble or do wrong. He does not tempt us. My reasoning is that it just goes to show that throughout history man has never and will never be able to rule themselves. That the only way we can be truly peacable if by being ruled by God. I still don't think you understand the import of my statement. You say

Thats just an excuse, it allows us to fail because after all its our nature.

and

Unless we strive to become more than we are, we risk being a footnote in history.

. There's only one way to be better than we are, most of the world hasn't found it or chooses not to follow it or him.

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

You aren't still a child of your parents? Simple fact is your still a child or your parents. You were born from your mother. You might have grown up in thought and physically, but, your still a child to your parents. Your question has no weight.

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.

I am sure you've studied the bible completely and meditated fully on everything right? NO? wow... amazing...

I am not surprised that you've come to the conclusions you have. Especially growing up with a religion such as the one you've been with at one point. Many people have the same thoughts on God and how the rest of the world feels about them. You say that the people that believe in the bible are wrong, these fundamentalists. Yet you say that you yourself is wrong as well? So don't you wonder where the truth is?

It seems to be though that those that don't believe in the bible conclude that everyone that does is a pig stuck in the mud. Someone that doesn't take "real" truth seriously and believes everything that everyone says without proof or actions to prove it wrong or right. I don't do that. I am not that type of person to take lightly my life or my future. I prove to myself what I read and reason, even with science, what I believe.

There are many scientists who are Christian. Who can justify both means and not be hypocritical. Science is a nice tool/study/practice but isn't the end-all for mankind. Science cannot end wars, cannot stop greed in turn every other bad act that mankinds permits and does.

My intention here wasnt to start a fight. I wasn't even going to quote scriptures. I realize this is a forum. I was just explaining how I feel towards those who are of the same sex orientation. That's all. Not to get in a shouting match between the forumites of morality.

................

I have to say though very good points and thoughts by Korza and Tabath on the children and phsyc.

[kickarse]

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.

Do you call an apple with a rotten half and a good half a good apple or a bad apple?

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"

So are you saying Christians don't have to follow the Old Testament? As I understand it this is a point of contention among different Christian groups. Maybe you don't think you should follow the Old Testament but there are some Christians who think they should (e.g. Christian Reconstructionists (I think)).

I stated the the Old Testament is still valid. That the Old Law Covenant is not. That there is a new Law Covenant. There is a difference between the Old Testament (a book) and the Old Law Covenant (set of laws and regulations for Isreal from God).

[wetelectric]

*yawn* someone lock this thread now. thats enough kids. time to go home..etc...

[blackdaemon]

Ditto. To sum up quickly:

"F*ck whoever you want." I could care less about what you're doing, cuz I'm too busy following my own advice. Just to keep my karma straight ( no pun intended), I'm queer as f*ck, and it's none of your business anyway.

As for people who have a problem with it, I don't care. It's their problem, unless they try to tell me I can't screw whoever I want, in which case I'll kick their asses. (Okay, that's bravado. I can't kick their asses. They get to think what they want, and I have to just deal. Goes both ways.)

I've got better things to do, like figure out how the hell to fix the NIC driver on my OpenSuSE system, or how to build a media server in Slackware, or how to set up the Cantenna in my house to boost my wifi signal, or how to help get the flight computer in my team's rocket rebuilt, or how to achieve World Domination Through Open Source Software . Plus, I have to schedule in that handy cable hack. HA!

Who cares about this crap anyway? Don't y'all have shit to do?

[VaKo]

I am sure you've studied the bible completely and meditated fully on everything right? NO? wow... amazing...

I am not surprised that you've come to the conclusions you have. Especially growing up with a religion such as the one you've been with at one point. Many people have the same thoughts on God and how the rest of the world feels about them. You say that the people that believe in the bible are wrong, these fundamentalists. Yet you say that you yourself is wrong as well? So don't you wonder where the truth is?

It seems to be though that those that don't believe in the bible conclude that everyone that does is a pig stuck in the mud. Someone that doesn't take "real" truth seriously and believes everything that everyone says without proof or actions to prove it wrong or right. I don't do that. I am not that type of person to take lightly my life or my future. I prove to myself what I read and reason, even with science, what I believe.

There are many scientists who are Christian. Who can justify both means and not be hypocritical. Science is a nice tool/study/practice but isn't the end-all for mankind. Science cannot end wars, cannot stop greed in turn every other bad act that mankinds permits and does.

My intention here wasnt to start a fight. I wasn't even going to quote scriptures. I realize this is a forum. I was just explaining how I feel towards those who are of the same sex orientation. That's all. Not to get in a shouting match between the forumites of morality.

My point is, that what ever the truth is, i doubt very much that it appears in any religious book. I am curious, but "god did it" is a very empty answer, there is more to it than that.

As for debating you, I can't debate you, because having faith by its very nature trumps everything else. I can't prove you wrong, and you can't make me belive what you belive. So as long as you stick to matters of faith, your on safe ground, and we both know it.