I am not trying to be an ass but listen to my argument. Just because other people's opinions are different than mine, does that make theirs correct? I don't have to sit back and ignorantly take it as correct. I guess you are a relativist: the "to each his own type", whatever is right to the individual or culture is right to them. If so, does that mean that Charles Manson should be freed and reimbursed for time spent in prison because in his mind, mass murder is "right." To each his own, let him be free. Osama should not be hunted down because to him it is right to kill thousands of innocent people. He has his reasons, let him be free to kill whoever he wants because it is right to him. And, check out 40 year virgin, it is funny.
I do not think created homosexuals. He created man and woman. As people evolved, they went away from the way they were created. I do not why people become homosexuals, whether they are naturally born that way or it is a learned behavior. I don't know. I know it is not natural. It was not entended by God. If it were, the Jesus, Muhammad and other Prophets would have made it acceptable.
Do you really not see the moral difference between violent actions that actively harm other people and sexual acts between consenting adults?
So why were all the disciples men? Jesus sure did like hanging around a bunch of guys. And he never got married. And we know what that means...
Please actually read my words and don't twist them to your argument. I was making an analogy about beliefs being right because they are true vs beliefs being right because they are true to that particular individual. Osama & Charles Mason believe murdering people for their cause is true. Does that make it ok for them to murder people? Should society accept it b/c it is true to them? Damm, stop twisting my words. If you can't discuss seriously, don't twist my words.
I do not know, God is far above our comprehension. If I had to guess, it's probably b/c women have historically been oppressed and regarded as inferior. People didn't take Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad and others seriously, you think they would take a women seriously when women were regarded as so inferior in those times?
Men can love men all they want. The actual sexual act is immoral. It may not harm others physically, but morally I believe it harms the individuals involved souls.
And you have every right to believe that. By the same token you must accept that other people think differently and their views are just as valid as yours.
You can't have it both ways (pun most definitely intended). You said, with regards to your sexuality "you either know or you don't". Did you choose to be heterosexual? Why? You can't say "I don't know if they are naturally born that way" and then say, in the very next line, that homosexuality is definitively "not natural". You are not being intellectually honest in any way, shape or form. Regarding your religious basis for your opinion, you need to read Acts 10: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 10&version=31; "Do not call anything (anyone) impure that God has made clean." Good essay on the subject: http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2004/07/the_abominable_.html
I'd rather not discuss something personal as such on a website. I'll just say that it is not right either, and as humans we all have animalistic desires and needs that we all struggle with and have to try to overcome. I believe that's one of the reasons we live (to build up the spiritual qualities within us so that we can get closer to God)
You used a slippery slope argument which is a fallacy. There is an obvious difference between two people of the same sex who love each other and Osama Bin Laden and Charles Manson. It's disingenuous to bring them up in this argument.
You better get your shots in quickly. I have a feeling you won't be able to read this thread for very much longer.
I chose to be heterosexual because that is the natural way. I am attracted to women, not men. That's just how I am. I guess I chose the wrong words there (above). All in all, I do not believe it is morally right I have presented far more arguments supporting it than any of you have to support that it is besides weak insults to my views. Thanks Buck actually putting forth a real argument.
Magnolia is a better film than Crash, but Crash was good just not exceptional, IMO. Heck I'm still ticked that Saving Private Ryan lost to Shakespear in Love. Speilberg makes a living tribute to the greatest generation, and the Academy gets cold feet because it accurately depicts warfare, choosing "love" instead. Have they never heard, "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends."? And I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I am still perplexed as the why Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was not at the very least nominated for Best Picture last year, and Hotel Rwanda for that matter. I would hate to think that it was because it had Jesus in it, well a Jesus that was not sleeping with Mary Magdalene ,but a Jesus depicted as he is in Scripture to a reasonable extent. I mean it could not be the violence, Million Dollar Baby won. It had a main character that was not accepted by his society, the establishment if you will. It was a period piece, always popular at Oscar time. Beatifully photographed with a diverse cast. It was independently financed, popular with the Academy for the past few years it seems. It had all the hallmarks it seems to me, but it's moot now. Anyway as far as this year goes, I personally wanted to see Walk the Line nominated for and win Best Picture. Hoffman looks to be a good Capote, I have not seen it yet for myself, but I wanted to see Joaquin win since I was at first sceptical of him playing Johnny Cash but completely changed my opinion upon seeing the film. He was great. Oh and I have not seen Brokeback Mountain and really have no plans to (guess that makes me a dreaded homophobe), but that was a great musical theme they were playing for it and I see why it won.
