I guess you've never seen 4 chicks polish off a bottle of coconut rum... I think it is a choice for some. The Kinsey scale is probably one of the more accurate ones we got. The minorities who falls into either extremes likely don't have a choice. Even during the Greco-Roman periods of pederasty the more ultra-feminine males were largely ostracized and castigated to the lower rungs of society. It wasn't about being gay or committing homosexual acts, but more about not maintaining your gender assigned roles. I don't really give a rats ass to what falls in between the continuum. I doubt it really matters to butt into other people's businesses other than pure spite or boredom. Seriously though, if one thinks that this ambiguity widens the gap (intended) for all the wannabe gays out there, they'll most likely repent and continue to live lives society or their religion expects of them. If one gets drunk, do they become a drunkard for life? Maybe it is their duty to prevent others from making the same mistake. But how strongly are they heard in light of all of this? See, what I think about this whole "religious" debate is that the act of debating for either side removes inward pressure to improve/question oneself, whether through repentance, introspection, or works out of pure compassion or forgiveness. It's easier to talk out of your ass or foist up a sign to defend something without truly embodying what that something is. Face it, some people just like attention. Leaving the final judgement up to God attracts no attention to you or your banner, and it takes faith in Everything to hope that things out of your control end up right... even without you giving yourself the illusion of control. Just remember, slowly eating at Chick-fil-a in front of protestors means jack ****...other than the act of enjoying a sandwich... Maybe Jesus gave Christians the gift of forgiveness so that they could remove the self-centeredness of the Sisyphean weight of their sins and focus on improving things outward, which is yet another hard, sometimes thankless, and impossible task in itself. Seems like the stories over Jesus, the Pharisees and their legalism is flying over the heads of many people in this day and age.
This again... Horus' birthday was on the 5th day of the So called 'Epagomenal Days', which takes place in late August or in late July. Jesus born on December 25th is not Biblical or historical, most people know that it was purposely put on a popular Roman pagan holiday, in order to convert more Romans. Also how can you connect "Son" and "Sun", when they are not linguistically similar in either Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Latin or Greek, and in English they just sound similar, but are not related. There is no reference to a cave or manger in the birth story of Horus at all. Horus was born in a swamp. His birth was not heralded by an angel. There was also no star to announce his birth. Horus's mother, Isis (not Meri), had a husband named Osiris (not Seb), who was the father of Horus and there is no evidence to show that the marraige was not consummated. Mythological text tells us that there was a sexual encounter to produce Horus. There is no textual evidence in the Myth ever stating that Horus was a teacher at 12 years old. There is nowhere in the myth where three kings or three anything else are led by a star to the birth of Horus. Would you like me to go on and continue to dispell the myths of 'gods' being plagiarised to create Jesus? Do some research before jumping on the Athiest bandwagon, or listening to the rubbish spewed out by movies such as zeitgeist. Horus was a myth, the Historical and archeological accuracy of the Bible cannot be denied.
This is one of those liberal "give me your argument while I point out logical flaws" where the guy who gave the argument has all the burden of proof baits similar to what Jon Stewart does. It's the slimiest accepted way of debating since one side doesn't really put anything to the table - just dissects their opponents' arguments. Still, here's my reason for my stance against homosexuality: I'm not a Christian, I'm an agnostic. My reason is nature. According to Darwin, as living things our highest priority is to reproduce. We're a species that reproduces sexually. Sex is supposed to be between opposite sexes. Now, before you say animals practice homosexuality too, I think they're sick too. They die and end their genetic line. The best analogy for gays are viruses since viruses can't really reproduce without having to use a living cell. Now, as social creatures, homosexuality is a social concern so, yes, I have a say about controlling it.
Whilst animals perform sex acts on the same gender, calling it a homosexual activity, I believe, is an insult to the homosexual. Many of the animals perform these acts not out of love for one another, but out of a primal urge to have sex. Many pack animals or those in the class of Social species, are not the alpha of their group and are in a position where they 'mate' with the same sex, or have to go without satisfying their sexual desire. There are some animals that have a monogamous homosexual bond for life, but this is usually due to a genetic deficiency or environmental factors. But the scientific research is still inconclusive. But therefore link the still little understood motivating factors of animal same sex Behaviour, with the consenting adult partnership of the same sex couple is in my opinion, doing more of a disservice to the gay agenda, by equating it with the sex life animals, than it is in helping its cause. According to geneticist Simon Levay in 1996, "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity. One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries). "About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams." Also by saying that one thing to justify a position in an argument, in this instance 'homosexual behaviour' is exhibited in nature, therefore it is a natural act, one has to also accept the other things that happen in nature as a natural act... Do we accept that it is then natural for humans to have homosexual relations because it happens in nature, but then use our moral compass to judge the other natural acts such as infanticide, murder, cannibalism and rape as not fit for human consumption? Why not? It happens in nature? The 'there is a victim' card is also a bad argument as you would have to determine that all the homosexual acts carried out in nature didn't have a victim, but was practised by two consenting creatures, also that it was not performed to degrade, punish, ostracise the submissive creature or just for social dominance, similar to the dominance traits shown in prison sexuality. Monkeys masterbate in public, fling poo and walk around naked, this is a natural act and there is no victim ( unless you get hit with poop ). Why can't we as humans do the same, if we are just a 'higher class of animal'.
I agree with most of what you said but as with every opinion there is a pre fabricated rebuttal. Plus only approx 3-5% of the population is of homosexual persuasion, hardly enough to endanger the world population. It does seem like more due to the media saturation and political storms created by the liberals and the P.C. brigade, but as always...the squeaky wheel gets the lube.
I'm a Christian and I'm OK with homosexuality. I can have this tolerant view because the Bible is full of contradictions.
This reply makes absolutely no sense, and it's a damn stupid thought shrouded in scientific authority. Have you read Origin of Species? Try it before you quote him. The "natural world" is a diverse and varied world that continues to surprise scientists of all fields. Social species do not die off with a "sickness" like homosexuality. Usually they confer altruistic qualities such as child rearing and community foraging. They defend the group from predators by virtue of strength in numbers. Hive-like animals mostly die off offspring-less and will exhibit self-sacrificing traits like a soldier jumping on a bomb to save his comrades. While they don't pass off their own traits, they raise competitive survival to the line compared to solitary or individual groups fighting for the same resources and females. And the reason why this line of thinking is utterly r****ded is because that mode of pseudo-science usually some nut-job's rationale for eugenics. Homosexuality is a natural trait. It's a blend of phenotypes like the color of one's skin. There is no one determining gene. Some might caught sexual orientation to flip in a person's brain at birth. Other traits are hormonal. Some trigger through the environment such as endocrine disruptors or a traumatic childhood that alters brain plasticity or impairs puberty. And sometimes the benefits of these traits are symptoms and not the cause. Which makes it even more inherent and harder to pin down.
I didn't mean that all homosexual acts were necessarily victimless. Yes, you can find instances where, even between "consenting" adults, there is a victim of the sort you describe. But this is not exclusive to homosexuality. One could just as easily find examples of this for sex between a male and female -- often the female is the one who is being degraded, punished, ostracised, etc. So this doesn't advance your case against homosexuality, in particular, at all. Key word there: "in public". People are free to masturbate, walk around naked, and fling poo in private, but not in public. Similarly, people are free to have sex with others of the opposite sex in private, but not in public. This does not mean that any of those activities are morally wrong in themselves, so I don't know where you are going with this.
Invisible fan pointed out why your comment was stupid - sorry, not trying to be rude, but your response was just not factually correct. that said, I don't even understand the below: Firstly, the OP didn't ask for a debate about whether homosexuality is right or wrong. He asked, specifically: And further framed the question in Christianity. The responses in this thread have attempted to answer that question, though as is often the case with these types of questions framed in Christianity/the Bible, it has deviated a bit to somewhat in depth discussions of biblical verse and translation. The OP's question was framed in religion, but the basic question didn't even mention it at all. Still, given the OP led the thread in the bible verse direction, it's clear he just wanted to create a thread to specifically talk about his knowledge and interpretation/translation of biblical text. That's fine, he started the thread. Though I'd argue a thread titled "The Bible and Homosexuality" would be more appropriate. What's more though, it seems like you are attacking part of the basis of debate. If someone posits a statement, as the OP has in his subsequent posts about the bible, someone else has every right to point out the logical flaws in said statement. I can't for the life of me figure out why that's bad. We need more debate of this nature. Logic based, fact based. Not "well what's your theory smarty pants" debates. Cause I don't have to have a theory or position to prove someone else's wrong. You may say, well that's not really a "debate" as classically defined. Yes and no. It may leave out the subtle art of persuasion through the presentation of context and opposing position, but is that necessary for debate? If it is, again we are way way way too focused on "debate" and not focused enough on presentation of facts. Which, for example, Invisible Fan attempted to do in response to your made up theory on homosexuality as a part of natural selection.
lololololol? and this... this is something that comes out of the mouth of a "scientist"? a scientist that believes logic is slime? even for an agnostic i'd expect for you to have a little faith in your god of reason. what was left of your credibility is out the window. lol at the use of the word "reason" (irony at it's finest) after your "logic" fail and your "stance" working in a profession for the majority of your life that you apparently know nothing of. i'm supposed to read your stance after your logic gem? ok. fine. of course logic is slime when you post nothing, but false analogies, false dilemmas, begging the questions... so forth and so on. any child or homeless person with access to a local library can argue basic logic elements (see bigtexxx's reader's digest word of the month "non sequitur"). your post's equivalent would be me calling you a stupid, effing idiot that should find another profession, but there would be no logic behind it (well maybe a little bit). however, i do have to say that it immediately came to mind when reading your post. every single one of your posts from now forward should read null. ok. now we see your power.
Amen. One of my earliest influences in Christian thinking was a man who advised us to "think of The Bible as a book of description not prescription."
Dei has a rather long history in this forum of explicitly displaying his apparent conflicts with homosexuality. Why are there no smart homosexuals? ...and the worst: Need help with mustache ...should anyone care to, it's also not difficult to find plenty of questionable posts in his history.
this is what you come to expect from an agnostic, god of science fearing scientist that hates logic, but somehow or another wants to reason with you. what a confused fellow. lol. oh... and must spread, btw. i've posted his garbage a few times before, but figured doing it again would be overkill.
Keeping people such as yourself from being uncomfortable in social situations isn't a constitutional right, has nothing to do with the safety of our society, so there is no reason why you should be given a say about controlling it, especially when when you put your desire to not be made uncomfortable above equal access and protection under the law.
I arrived too late to the party to want to read everything. I just wanted to say I think this is a complete rhetorical dead-end. You want to go to anti-gay-marriage Christian and argue they don't understand their Bible and their religion well enough to know that homosexuality is actually a-okay with God, and expect they'll want to flip their position and subscribe to your newsletter? This whole line of argument is a disaster from the beginning, even if you were right about what the Bible was saying.
Why? Being hit on is different than being harassed. CoolStoryBro: a friend & i were at the Houston airport waiting to take a flight to NYC & while waiting for the flight we were approached by a cool dude who was interested in the language we were speaking. He was a typical preppie jock type who worked in the financial markets...looked like an athlete but had a manner of speaking that identified him as gay. Right before we were to board, he proposed to blow us in a bathroom stall. We finally told him "ok, you go there & we'll come in one by one". As he's waiting in there, we boarded our flight never saw him. The return leg of our trip was a mini ski trip in Vail. Returning to Houston, we board the plane in Eagle & as we're looking for our seats, we see the same dude yelling for our attention "Yoohoo, yoohoo Greece!!" Thank goodness we were sunburned already.
You know, I might respect your POV if you just said "gay people are icky" instead. The way people beat around the bush is ridiculous. I'll disagree with you, but at least I'll respect you for not trying to BS your way around it.
