Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,904 Year: 4,161/9,624 Month: 1,032/974 Week: 359/286 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I want one good reason that being gay is ok
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 445 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 31 of 510 (121389)
07-02-2004 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
07-02-2004 1:08 PM


It wrong for some, so that fact does not make it ok for all.
This is not a clear cut reason to accept that being gay is ok.
God is aginst it, its not prejudice. There are many things that we like to do that are aginst God. It only keeps you away from God, and has nothing to do with it being ok or not really. For your own good in that sense it might not be ok for you in the after life, but that is to all be judged by God. What do I know, gays may in fact go to heaven. I'll leave that up to God.
You can choose any of the three sexual choices. You may not like it, but you can make that choice.
If you were starving in the desert and didn't like chocolate cake, you bet you would eat it at that moment.
Men go to prison and come out having gay experiences due to lack of sex.
Priests who swear to God celibacy wind up molesting young children. Do you think that there wasn't a choice involved?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2004 1:08 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Rrhain, posted 07-03-2004 12:20 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 135 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2004 6:05 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 445 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 32 of 510 (121391)
07-03-2004 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dan Carroll
07-02-2004 1:09 PM


Animal kingdom, animals in the wild are gay, so its ok for us to be gay.
Strawman. The argument is used against people who say "homosexuality is unnatural". Well, it happens in nature all the time. So down goes the unnatural argument.
You missed the boat on that one, go back and read.
I have never seen a completely happy gay couple, or a child from gay parents who wasn't screwd up by it.
I have yet to see any kid that wasn't screwed up by their parents in some way. What's your point?
Screwd up is a broad term, but I am not talking about minor stuff, like my daddy doesn't let me listen to rock and roll kind of thing.
I also know of many children who are fine with their parents, and they are usually Christians.
More on this later.
There's no need. There's no compelling reason to think homosexuality has anything to do with morality one way or the other. You want to establish that morality has some sort of relevance here, the onus is on you to say why.
After all what has been said in this forum to me about gay's. It is ok for me to ask this question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-02-2004 1:09 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by arachnophilia, posted 07-03-2004 12:19 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 212 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-06-2004 10:50 AM riVeRraT has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 33 of 510 (121392)
07-03-2004 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
07-02-2004 10:06 PM


(*sigh*)
No, buzsaw, it is your responsibility to provide proof. You're the one making the claim. Therefore it is your burden.
Contrary to your first claim, straight males are much more likely to molest male children than straights.
You seem to be confused that if the adult and the child share the same sex, that means the adult is "gay." This simply isn't true. Children tend to be viewed as feminine in the eyes of pedophiles. Boys do not have the secondary sexual characteristics that distinguish adult males such as body hair, lowered voice, or developed genitalia. They look a lot like little girls.
I fail to see how "equal treatment under the law" is "special treatment."
Those who have no neurosis over sexuality do not find gay people "repulsive." After all, having an unjustified fear reaction to something that is not a threat is a phobia.
Since gay people are physically capable of having sex, it is true by mere observation that the organs of the body were made for same-sex relationships. If they weren't, gay people wouldn't be able to have sex.
There is nothing inherently dangerous about same-sex sex. How does a woman engaging in cunnilingus cause any more damage than a male engaging in it? In fact, lesbian sex is the least risky form of intercourse around. It is the least likely to transmit disease.
There has never been a disruption of a nation due to gay people. On the contrary, the subjugation of gay people has led to animosity, unrest, and social problems.
There have been many societies in which same-sex sexual activity was not only accepted but actively encouraged. Arguably the greatest military society the world has ever seen required homosexuality among its men: Sparta.
Rome was quite tolerant of homosexuality and it lasted for centuries. Contrary to popular opinion, Rome fell not because of homosexuality but because it grew too large to sustain itself. Please read Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon...still considered the definitive text on the history of Rome. You won't find homosexuality mentioned as a cause for the decline of Rome.
The state of the nation has become much better since gay people started coming out of the closet.
And I doubt you have ever had a gay friend. Oh, you may have known gay people and even hung out with them on a regular basis, but "friends" don't blame "friends" for the downfall of society.
Now, why are you so upset about this, buzsaw? It affects you in absolutely no way, so why are you so adamant about proving to the world that you don't like gay people?
You know what they say about those who need to make a point of their disgust....

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 07-02-2004 10:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 510 (121396)
07-03-2004 12:05 AM


The numerous apologists here for gay lifestyle are the odd people out so far as the historical world population has gone. You are the odd minority of humans of all times who think two males or two females can mate up naturally and expect their peers to think it's fine and dandy. We who you think are intollerant and narrow are the normal ones, so far as human history goes. Your generation is near the "end times" of the wrath of Gods and it is you people who are getting God's wrath up in your attitude towards him, decency and what is natural. This subject is just one in which you all are on the looser end and taking your world down to destruction, suffering and judgement. It is you who poopoo the fulfilled Biblical prophecies and who fail to observe and heed the fair warnings your creator has supplied in his mercy before lowering the boom. Wise up folks, is my advice, and live.

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 07-03-2004 12:13 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 47 by Rrhain, posted 07-03-2004 12:24 AM Buzsaw has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 445 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 35 of 510 (121400)
07-03-2004 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by pink sasquatch
07-02-2004 1:20 PM


Also, you seem to be walking a fine-line - I've seen others do the same: "I accept them the way they are. I just do not agree with the act of being gay." If you don't agree with how they live their lives, you are not accepting them the way they are.
Don't do that, I will not accept that crap. I stated how I feel, I am not a liar. I Love people who choose to have same-sex relations just the same as everyone else.
If my mother was an alcoholic, would I Love her any less because she was doing something wrong?
So don't go there and lump me into a group again.
Most gay couples I know do not have children, but some do.
I do not see their relationships as being good, or healthy at all.
You even admit it yourself to a degree.
Maybe gay relationships are not "better" than straight ones,
I also don't believe in statistics, because they lie just like the media. If there was a bunch of gay people running the statistics bureau, then it would be possible that stats could be tainted. This happens in all facets of statistics. I would even venture to say that statistics are wrong a good percentage of the time all on their own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-02-2004 1:20 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Rrhain, posted 07-03-2004 12:30 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 130 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-03-2004 2:39 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 293 by nator, posted 07-07-2004 11:07 AM riVeRraT has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 36 of 510 (121401)
07-03-2004 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
07-02-2004 11:08 PM


buzsaw writes:
quote:
On the contrary, fundamentalist Christians are generally honest, hard working, responsible good citizens who get along in society above the average.
Incorrect. Actually, it's the other way around. Atheists are more honest, hard-working, responsible citizens who get along with society above the average. The fundamentalists actually tend to have more conflict with society...and no wonder, since they have such an extremist view of the world and so little toleration for the other members of the society.
F'rinstance, fundamentalists are more likely to get divorced than any other religious group. Atheists are the least likely.
quote:
This's nuts and you know it. If you can't say something sensible, why not just pass or admit it's a scientific and obvious fact.
But it is a scientific and obvious fact that the human organs are fit for same-sex sexual activity. Gay people have absolutely no trouble engaging in sexual activity. Since gay people can and do have sex, it necessarily is the case that the human body is made for gay sex.
Can you think of anything that gay people can do that straight people can't? So since straight people do the exact same thing, how can it be "unnatural" when gay people do it? A woman's mouth on a clitoris is somehow different from a man's mouth on the same clitoris?
quote:
So why, for 200 years have they been fewer and the few were secret?
(*chuckle*)
They weren't secret. You simply refused to see them.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 07-02-2004 11:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 07-03-2004 12:21 AM Rrhain has replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5043 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 37 of 510 (121405)
07-03-2004 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
07-02-2004 11:08 PM


Gay clergymen, that is.
Do you have testimony from these clergymen or are you basing this on your false statement that gays molest more children?
.....Like same sex marriage with benefits and priviledges, contrary to the natural laws of governments and individuals for eons past? Like causing children to grow up with same sex parents, also un-naturally?
Maybe I'm just dense but I don't see how the fact that the government has been discriminating against gays for 200 years in any way means it should continue to do so. Children already grow up with same sex parents, they just aren't married.
On the contrary, fundamentalist Christians are generally honest, hard working, responsible good citizens who get along in society above the average.
I don't think you can back this up with any hard data. Christians are represented in the prison population in the same proportion as they are represented in the general population. As a side note: I wouldn't hire someone from Bob Jones University.
quote:
4. It is not natural to be gay. Whether one is evo or creo, the organs of the body were made for a male/female relationship.
It has to be natural, there is no other explanation for it.
This's nuts and you know it.
Not so nuts as you might think. Since it happens in nature it is clearly natural. You can't procreate with same gender sex but there is nothing unnatural about it. If it were unnatural you couldn't do it.
quote:
5. Gay is dangerous to health as is adultery sex with multiple couples.
Eating burgers is dangerous to health.
So you're agreeing, I assume. Both are dangerous to health.
I do agree with that. And I would also agree that neither is wrong.
quote:
7. Since the beginning of history, homosexuality has been considered an un-natural and dispicable lifestyle by the public in general.
Only on your planet. The great Greek philosophers all had young boys that bathed them and relieved them.
Nuts again to say all did this. Only the indecent and perverted ones would do such a terrible thing and we all know it.
Just because you don't want to believe that it was normal for them doesn't mean it wasn't.
All of these points aside it still doesn't change the fact that you have no more right to tell me what soap to use in the bathroom than who consents to share my bed. If you are worried about what your god might think just keep in mind that when you stand before him at your death he will _NOT_ ask you "What was Bob doing?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 07-02-2004 11:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by arachnophilia, posted 07-03-2004 12:23 AM bob_gray has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 38 of 510 (121406)
07-03-2004 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
07-03-2004 12:05 AM


Buz
When Jesus returns he will welcome many an Atheist and Homeosexual before he even acknowledges the existance of most Christians.
I will gladly stand before the throne and say that I supported Homosexual Marriage. Then I'll offer to buy him a beer and a slab of ribs. Lobster on the side.
Wise up folks, is my advice, and live.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 07-03-2004 12:05 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by arachnophilia, posted 07-03-2004 12:24 AM jar has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 39 of 510 (121409)
07-03-2004 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by riVeRraT
07-02-2004 11:41 PM


Re: What is the question?
riVeRraT responds to jar:
quote:
Why should I have to accept it?
I mean I do, but why should I?
Because to obsess about something that is of no consequence is not healthy.
To hold animosity in your heart, even the tiniest bit, against someone who has done you no harm is not healthy.
To constantly be on edge, to worry about the consequences of something that has no effect upon you, leads to mental illness.
Yes, I am being serious. The people who think the government is out to get them? That the road signs are marked with secret icons for when the black helicopters from the UN finally invade? They all started somewhere.
Paranoia isn't pretty.
Why are you so worried about something that doesn't concern you? Since the cause of the social friction is actually your bristling reaction rather than their action, don't you think life would go a lot better for all concerned if you just go over it and started accepting it?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by riVeRraT, posted 07-02-2004 11:41 PM riVeRraT has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 510 (121411)
07-03-2004 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by bob_gray
07-02-2004 1:53 PM


Re: One good reason (and this goes beyond being gay)
Reading down to see if anyone had given this argument.
Well said, and ultimately to the point on any matter of discrimination and bias (even when presented in a passive aggressive style like the original topic was).
This is, after all, the reason why the supreme court threw out the discriminatory law in texas.
thanks.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by bob_gray, posted 07-02-2004 1:53 PM bob_gray has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by bob_gray, posted 07-03-2004 12:33 AM RAZD has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 41 of 510 (121412)
07-03-2004 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by riVeRraT
07-03-2004 12:01 AM


I also know of many children who are fine with their parents, and they are usually Christians.
actually, i find a strong correlation between fundamental christian parents and screwed up kids. i know quite a few that have done a number on their children, personally.
i know that your argument is complete bs, from personal experience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by riVeRraT, posted 07-03-2004 12:01 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 42 of 510 (121413)
07-03-2004 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by riVeRraT
07-02-2004 11:55 PM


riVeRraT writes:
quote:
Men go to prison and come out having gay experiences due to lack of sex.
That doesn't make them gay.
How interesting that in trying to come up with an analogy for your opinion regarding gay people, you chose prison rape.
Is there no idiotic comparison you won't use? Murderers, thieves, pedophiles, and now rapists. You claim not to have anything against gay people, and yet everything you say shows a deep underlying negativity.
quote:
Priests who swear to God celibacy wind up molesting young children.
They're not gay, either.
Again, the choice of pedophilia as an appropriate analogy to gay people.
Is there some reason why you cannot come up with a loving, mutually respectful relationship to compare gay people to?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by riVeRraT, posted 07-02-2004 11:55 PM riVeRraT has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 43 of 510 (121414)
07-03-2004 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
07-02-2004 10:06 PM


test
replace the word gay in your list with the word christian and it has equal validity.
one could then conclude that christians are more likely to be gay ... with the logic that was applied to develop this list.
enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 07-02-2004 10:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 44 of 510 (121415)
07-03-2004 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Rrhain
07-03-2004 12:10 AM


But it is a scientific and obvious fact that the human organs are fit for same-sex sexual activity. Gay people have absolutely no trouble engaging in sexual activity. Since gay people can and do have sex, it necessarily is the case that the human body is made for gay sex.
is that something that can be naturally selected for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Rrhain, posted 07-03-2004 12:10 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Rrhain, posted 07-03-2004 12:34 AM arachnophilia has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 445 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 45 of 510 (121416)
07-03-2004 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by coffee_addict
07-02-2004 1:26 PM


Re: Finally, I've been waiting for this to get approved.
If this is truly the case, then you would stay the hell out of our way for us to get our rights.
Not if it is just as wrong as robbing an old lady I won't get out of your way. I won't stop you from what your doing or hate you, but I have to stand up for what I believe is righteous.
You haven't answered the question either, give me a reason I should accept it as being ok.
The point is fundies started the unnatural argument, not us. We only pointed out the fact that there are animal gays just to get fundies to realize their mistake, that's all. I have been in this debate for at least 3 years and I haven't heard a single pro gay rights advocate to make the argument. They only use some facts to counter the fundies side.
I guess it is a wrong approach to the arguement. I haven't really learned about any gay animals that mate for life. I have only seen dolphins on the discovery channel having what appears to be "same-sex".
This what the annoucer claimed. I saw it more as a bunch of guys trying to get horny to screw some chicks. Almost the same thing as if a hot girl walks into a bar and all the guys start drooling over her, and talking about what they would like to do to her. Its all barbaric, and not a good thing to compare us too. So we agree on that one then?
I am not sending out some gay ray that will turn you gay.
Yes you are. lol.
Everything that goes on in this country of ours has to do with each other. If I was making bombs in my basement, you wouldn't like it would you, even if I never planned to use them.
so I started distancing myself from him. I started to join the anti-gay crowd until my gay friend got beaten by some of the people I knew.
I in now way approve of this. I have in fact gone out a had fights with gay bashers for bashing my gay friends.
This is still not a good reason to be gay.
It seems to me that when you hate something or someone for what they do, you seem to go the other way. You do it with God too.
Why outlawing something that has absolutely nothing to do with you?
It has everything to do with me, and our country.
So, using the bible was only an excuse for your prejudice.
I make no exuses for the way I feel.
Aside from using one of the fallacies of logic, you are again using lame excuses. I have 2 friends who have lesbian parents and they are perfectly normal. They love their parents and they are 100% straight. However, I have never used this fact to argue for homosexuality. Why? Using 1 example is not enough to justify anything.
Thats part of my point, that is why I am asking you for a clear cut reason, which you haven't given me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 07-02-2004 1:26 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 07-03-2004 12:29 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 59 by Rrhain, posted 07-03-2004 12:35 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 61 by Rrhain, posted 07-03-2004 12:37 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 67 by Rrhain, posted 07-03-2004 12:43 AM riVeRraT has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024