My personal feeling is that if you're going to reproduce, you should at least be intimate on some level with the male or female who's doing the other half of the work. I don't see how this isn't a good rule to follow.
It might be an ok rule for some, but why is it better than parents who were infertile and had to have donors be responsible for the embryos.
They have to find a third party (doesn't matter in which forms) in order to reproduce, right? How is that "normal"?
I like how this thread strays away from Tim Hardaway saying I hate Gay People, and goes into D&D mode.
What ever happened to: Judge not, lest you be judged yourself or Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone Where is the tolerance for people that are born gay? Should they be shunned by God? DD
So it's OK to ridicule someone for their religion, but it's not OK to ridicule someone for their sexual orientation? Or you think you're justified to ridicule someone else because they don't agree with what you believe? It's funny how people try to preach tolerance and in the same breath demonstrate the very same intolerance they claim to abhor. Hotballa, I couldn't have said it any better. Despite being quite a bit of a bible scholar myself, I generally try *not* to bring up scriptural references in discussions like this because they won't lead to fruitful discussion, since the non-believer does not believe in the authority of the scriptures. It is at that point that your actions have to speak louder than your words ... eloquence and wisdom of speech are not going to yield something fruitful.
Pretty soon they may have TV stations with disporportionate African America actors, maybe TV in other language, or heavid forbid one with women's issues at the forefront. Like getting used to women TV news anchors, as well as Latino or African American actors, you probably ought to get used to portrayles of gay persons. Because in real life, there are gay persons. And if 50 years ago you said interracial marriage will never be acceptable and you will never agree with them, we should say, "that is OK--your view is shared by many people". We are accountable for our positions, particularly if we make them public and exchange publically about them. We don't let people say "yeah I know I am racist, I accept it because we all sin, and that is the end of it, I don't want to hear or think any more about it". If someone is over the top discussing about their sexual behaviors (whether same sex or opposite sex or infidelity or whatever) at work that may offend lots of people based on their faith or other things. You have a reasonable right to demand that reasonable steps be taken so you don't have to hear about it if you don't want to. But if it is on a TV show or something, you always have a remote control. Who cares what is "normal" in terms of %. Most people marry within their race. Most people weigh more than they should. Most poeple don't live a healthy lifetyle. Most people eat meat. Most people are heterosexual. Doesn't make those who have interracial marriages, live a healthy weight, live a healthy lifestyle, are vegetarians, or are gay (whether they choose to have sex or not)--should be any less accepted. What matters in the public sphere is what is humane and ethical.
That's a tough question for me to personally address since I haven't been in that kind of sterile situation and God willing, will never be. The only thing I can say to this is that IF you have the capability to reproduce without assistance, then you should TRY to do it in a situation where 1) the pregnancy is wanted 2) both natural father and mother are committed to each other in some sort of intimate relationship and hopefully married. Not to take anything away from adoptive parents, but I just think that is always best for the child to be born into this kind of environment barring any other factors such as abuse. A more direct response to your question would be something that my Huamn Development professor told us while we were discussing gay adoption. He was strongly pro adoption, but did cite a study or research showing that it was more healthy for the child to have a male and female because it affects the way they interact with the opposite sex. His position on gay adoption was it was fine as long as the gay parents (if male for exampe) made sure to have a STRONG female presence in the child's life. I think he might have been a closet Taoist or Buddhist since he started talking about balance in a person and all I could think of when he said it was Ying and Yang.
You can ridicule religious beliefs if they are responsible for hate etc. If certain "Christians" want to hate gays (or deny the existence of gay people) because of their "beliefs" then get ready for them to be ridiculed.
Point taken there. What I don't like, for instance, is the response to thsballa's initial post. Why does he deserve to be ridiculed?
I submit that said religious beliefs do not promote hatred of people, or at least shouldn't if studied properly rather than listening to the words of a few radicals. I do not agree with the lifestyle, but I do not hate any homosexual. I do not agree with my sister and brother-in-law who is the biggest Asian Republican I know, but I do not hate them. This is as far as it should go. The Bible says that those who are homosexuals should be stoned, but that only he who is without sin should be able to cast that first stone. This is a good enough philosophy for me for all sinners (which is everyone). I know how hard it can be to try to stay on this philosophy, I know I've fallen off it many times and said or done stupid things. Just a general note, there is just too much focus on homosexuality. A sin is a sin is a sin, a buggery is as bad as not paying your train fare or simply telling a white lie.
I didn't read the response but from from my point of view saying you disprove of gay people's actions is the same as saying you disprove of black people's actions. The idea is ridiculous. And if this idea is based in a religion well people might attack the religion or believing on those ideas. They kind of bring it on themselves with their own absurdity imo.
As a non-Christian I would agree and I don't expect other people to change their opinion of homosexuality based on any religious belief I have. With all due respect to the Christians your use of Bible references strikes me as self-righteouse and sanctimonious. I can't disagree with that your belief that homosexuality is from the Bible and it would be self-righteous and sanctimonious of me to tell you not to believe in it but why should I has a non-Christian just accept a Biblical justification anymore than I should a Vedic justification? I agree it is wrong to mock someone's religious beliefs and my own belief that depending on what I do in this life I stand the risk of coming back as a chicken is no more rational than any other belief. As I said in the Haggard thread there is no way to debate this matter if we're going to be religious beliefs so we might as well be tolerant and respectful. That said, and trying to say this as respectful as possible, I don't understand hthe POV that says, "I believe homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says it is so." If God's first commandment is love why would a loving God care about who consenting adults show their emotional and physical love too? In regard to Christianity in particular my understanding is that the injunction against homosexuality is in the Old Testament yet I've frequently heard Christians say that many things in the Old Testament, like what you can and can't eat in Deuteronomy, have been overruled in the New Testament. Why isn't homosexuality among those?
