I want one good reason that being gay is ok

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I asked you why you want me to leave. I haven't asked you to leave despite my disagreement with you. Why do you have such animosity toward me?

---

​

I do not have animosity towards you

---

Then why are you trying to get me to leave? If you truly didn't care, then what provokes you to try and goad me into a silly bet where the penalty is my banishment from this forum?

quote:

---

You also call me names,

---

Liar.Show me where I have called you a name.Note, pointing out that you lie is not calling you names. It is stating the truth.This makes at least three times I have demanded that you provide me with exact quotes of mine. You have yet to do so in any instance. If you are going to accuse me, you should have the decency to provide examples of it happening.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I did. You should accept it because it's the right thing to do.

---

​

Because you say so?

---

No, because it's the right thing to do.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I have demanded it of you. I called you a liar when you claimed that I had. What more do you need?

---

​

Will you leave if I do?

---

No.Instead, I will ignore your childish attitude and respond as an adult and apologize.Now get over yourself and put your money where your mouth is. Show me my own words.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

think they are doomed to hell for sin

---

​

Now I will prove that you put words in my mouth. Go back and get the quote where I said that.

---

This I have done multiple times. Are you seriously saying you don't remember our little discussion about the afterlife and your comment about sin and homosexuality? Unfortunately, the search engine isn't helping...it seems you and I have beaten this dead horse so often, the system overflows with the number of posts. But, I persevered and found other statements of yours. It has taught me that I need to keep a record of all your posts so that when you claim you never said something, I can easily respond with the post in which you did what you claimed you never did. Message 212 of "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread: Message 186 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread, in response to comments about gay dolphins: Message 137 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread: Same message: So tell us, riVeRraT, if being gay is a sin, how does that not mean gay people are doomed to hell for sin?

quote:

---

You haven't answered the qestion.

---

Yes, I did. You didn't answer mine:What more do you need? I gave you a couple of examples of what it was you might need, asking you to be specific. I get the feeling that the only thing that would change your mind is if god came down and personally and directly told you that it was OK.Tell us what your standard of acceptance is so that we can try to meet it.What would it take for you to say that gay sex is OK?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Smoking pot, raping, and gay sex, all affect other people, differently.

---

So now being gay is like smoking pot and being a rapist?Is there no decency left in you? Are you incapable of treating gay people as if they were good, honest, morally upstanding people?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

CDC - Page Not Found
Scroll down and read.

---

(*sigh*)Not the "gay = AIDS" stupidity again.For the umpteenth time, AIDS is primarily a heterosexually transmitted disease. Three-quarters of all cases of HIV infection worldwide were transmitted through heterosexual sex. Drug use follows with another 20% or so, leaving only 5% to be men who have sex with men...and that's ignoring mother-to-child transmission.

quote:

---

Before everyone starts jumping down my throat and defending aids, and homosexuality, wouldn't you all agree that you have more a of a chance of being injured from having gay sex than bowling?

---

But wouldn't you have more of a chance of being injured from having straight sex than bowling?So if you're going to whine about gay sex, why aren't you whining about straight sex?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

If I was against gay sex, I would be against the kissing part as well

---

But you are. You said that gay people have sex walking down the street. Well, since that's pretty much physically impossible, the only thing left to conclude is that you were talking about things like kissing and holding hands.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Here's a question, is it possible to have gay sex, and yet not be gay? (gay desires)

---

Yes.In the pornography industry, it's called "gay for pay." You see, straight porn doesn't pay the male actors very much. The audience for straight porn is primarily straight men and they don't really care that much about the men who are in vids. And if you put out a call for actors for a straight porn, you'll have no trouble finding a male person wanting to do it so there is very little incentive to pay male straight porn stars much.Gay male porn, however, is geared toward a male audience and you can become a star and demand high salaries. Many male porn stars, seeing which side of their bread is buttered, do gay porn for the money.Go rent the movie The Fluffer and you'll see what I mean.

quote:

---

But having gay sex is definatly a choice, we agree?

---

Only in the most simplistic way of "a choice." And given that the sex drive is a biological urge, it isn't really accurate to call it a "choice." Most human beings will have sex.In short, I question why you are so insistent on focusing on "gay" sex as if the desire to have straight sex is somehow different.So since I suspect that you are trying to play a game that would hinge upon you equivocating on the answer, I am going to say no, having "gay sex" is not a choice. Instead, having "sex" is a choice. Those who are gay will seek out those who are of the same sex. Those who are straight will seek out those who are of the opposite sex. Those who are bi will seek out the type that would please them at that time that they are looking.

quote:

---

When I say the words gay lifestyle, I mean nothing more than the way a gay person chooses to live, by choosing to have gay sex, and choosing to "marry" another gay person.

---

But not all gay people want to get married just as not all straight people want to get married.Marriage is a lifestyle. Being gay is not. There is no such thing as the "gay lifestyle."A person can be gay and never have sex just as someone can be straight and never have sex.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Yes they knew it was wrong.

---

How can you know something is wrong if you don't know what "wrong" is?If someone were to come up to you and warn you against beetaratagang and another were to warn you against clerendipity, which one would you listen to? You're an adult. You're not stupid. So tell us which one you should avoid: Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

Thats how the serpent tricked them. The serpent was wrong

---

Incorrect. The serpent tricked nobody and was absolutely right.All the serpent said was that god was lying. God said that if you were to eat of the tree of knowledge, you would die a physical death before the next sunset. The serpent said that was a load of bollocks. Instead, your eyes will open and you will become as gods, knowing good and evil.Well, Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge and did not die. Instead, they became as gods, knowing good and evil.Note, the serpent did not tell Eve to actually eat from the tree. He simply pointed out that god was lying to them regarding the consequences of eating from the tree.

quote:

---

so she took the word of the serpent over God's and ruined it.

---

No, she did nothing wrong. How could she when she was innocent? God didn't seem to mind the two of them running around naked. Remember, the very first thing Adam and Eve panic over after becoming gods and knowing good and evil is the fact that they are naked. It isn't that they disobeyed god...it's that they aren't wearing any clothes.So if Adam and Eve can be forgiven for not wearing clothes due to their innocence, why can't they be forgiven for doing what god knew they would eventually do?If you have a priceless Mhing vase you do not wish broken, do you leave it on a low, rickety pedestal with a toddler in the room? Even if you tell the toddler, "Don't touch"? Are you really going to be surprised to hear a crash coming from the room and the vase broken? Do you really blame the toddler or do you kick yourself for putting a delicate item where an innocent baby who doesn't know any better can get at it?If god really didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge, he shouldn't have put it where they could get to it. Since god was seemingly capable of putting a guard at the gates of Eden to prevent Adam and Eve and the rest of humanity from returning, surely he could have put a guard around the tree.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

pink sasquatch writes:

quote:

---

Find any secular definition of marriage that describes it as a "license to practice sex".

---

Actually, that's precisely what marriage is. It's a legal blessing upon two people to have sex.Take a look at the law regarding the dissolution of marriage: If you've had sex, you have to get a divorce. If you haven't had sex, you can get an annulment.The difference is that a divorce is a breaking of the marriage contract. An annulment is a declaration that the marriage never existed in the first place. In a divorce, all the divorce laws (community property, prenuptial agreements, etc.) come into play. In an annulment, you go back to the way things were beforehand and those laws don't apply. F'rinstance, you might owe me alimony if we get divorced but if we get annulled, then there can be no claim because there was no marriage.There's a reason why a marriage must be "consummated" and that the way to do that is through having sex.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Kind of hard to change the channel for your kids if you happen to not be there.

---

If you're that worried, why aren't you there?If you're that worried, why do you have a TV set?Why have you abdicated your responsibility to raise your children as you see fit onto others?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to crashfrog:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But he wouldn't like it. Which would mean he wasn't gay. (Unless he was gay, in which case, he might like it.)

---

​

You don't know the answer to that, and don't pretend that you do.
If you were raised by wolves, you would act like one.

---

The very existence of gay people proves you wrong.Gay people were raised by straight people. If "being raised by wolves" makes you "act like one," then there shouldn't be any gay people at all since they would all act like straight people.And now you're comparing gay people to animals.Have you no decency? At long last have you no decency?Are you physically incapable of referring to gay people as good, upstanding, moral people?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

No its not, Jesus said I don't have to do those things anymore.

---

Incorrect.In fact, he said the exact opposite. He directly said you MUST do those things.Matthew 5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.What do you think "not one jot or one tittle" means? Jesus was quite adamant about it: Mosaic law shall never be dissolved.It was Paul that said Christians don't have to follow Mosaic law, not Jesus. Who do you worship: Jesus or Paul?And how hypocritical of you to say that Leviticus doesn't apply because Jesus said so...except for this one thing.Strange how Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. If he dissolved Mosaic law but still wanted homosexuality to be considered a sin, don't you think he would have mentioned it?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mr Jack writes:

quote:

---

Ah, a typical RR answer

---

Um, as someone who has a name that begins with "Rr," might I ask that you not use this as the contraction for riVeRraT? Perhaps "RRat?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

So we should condemn not only gay people but also people born sterile as well as those who choose to sterilize themselves (sterilization is the most common form of birth control) as well as those who are sterilized for other reasons (hysterectomy, orchiectomy) as well as women who have gone through menopause.

---

​

Because having gay sex is a choice, being sterile is not.

---

Having a vasectomy in order to ensure sterility and thus have perfect birth control isn't a choice? Having one's tubes tied in order to achieve sterility and thus have perfect birth control isn't a choice? Sterlization is the most common form of birth control in the US.And let's not forget that the most common form of sex is oral sex...precisely because it cannot lead to pregnancy.So you're saying that we should condemn the most common form of birth control and the most common form of sex because it is chosen specifically not to lead to pregnancy?So if it isn't a sin to choose to have oral sex, why is it a sin to choose to have sex with someone of the same sex?

quote:

---

quote:

---

What on earth does this have to do with anything? You act as if gay people don't also want to have children. What is the difference between an infertile straight couple and a gay couple when it comes to reproduction?

---

​

I need to explain the difference to you?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Except people like you then come in and complain that they're unfit to be parents for the simple reason that they're gay.

---

​

With good reason.

---

Name one. Name one specific reason why gay people don't make good parents.

quote:

---

California, just declared a woman the father of a child who came from the other woman, and they had a "divorce"
We need stuff like this?

---

Semantics? You're "good reason" is a semantical one? Because the legal is system is stuck on the nonsensical idea that the parents of a child must necessarily be "mother" and "father" as opposed to "mother" and "mother," that's the "good reason" children shouldn't be raised in a loving home by gay parents? Because you are incapable of understanding "marriage" as "the union of two people" and thus the dissolution of that civil contract being called a "divorce," children should be raised in orphanages rather than being adopted by loving gay parents?That's your "good reason"? You don't like the words?

quote:

---

Or do we need a separation to clarify things.

---

"Separate but equal" is unconstitutional and functionally impossible.It's very simple: The people who raise a children are called "parents." If the "parent" happens to be a woman, then that parent is a "mother." If the "parent" happens to be a man, then that parent is a "father." The idea that two parents of the same child must necessarily be "mother" and "father" is not inherent. This is necessarily true when we allowed people who were not the biological progenitors of the child to be considered "parents." If A and B can be the "parents" produced by X and Y, what difference does it make what sex A and B are?

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is very difficult to walk down the street while engaging in oral sex.

​

You seem to have confused "holding hands" with sex.

---

​

Listen, I really don't need you to explain to me what I saw with my own eyes.

---

But seeing as you have refused to explain it, we are forced to explain it for ourselves. Why don't you tell us what you saw? Be explicit.Then explain how that is any different from what the straights do.

quote:

---

I grew up in NYC, I have seen a lot.

---

Honey-lamb, I am sure I've seen more than you.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You seem to have a different standard regarding heterosexual displays of sexual activity in public from homosexual ones. If a man grinds his crotch into the ass of his girlfriend while wrapping his arms around her and not-so-subtly caressing her breasts while standing in line for the movies, he's just being youthful and playful and maybe just a little too eager but nothing to be that upset over.

---

​

No, I don't agree with that either.

---

But I don't see you declaring all heterosexual activity to be offensive in the eyes of god.I don't see you declaring all heterosexuals to be imminent dangers to children and should be prevented from raising them out of fear for the child's safety and well-being.I don't see you fighting for laws to prevent the legal recognition of mixed-sex marriage.Why is it that the only time you seem to get upset is when gay people do it?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Pay attention to the thread

---

I did...and you didn't. That's why I asked you to explain to me the explicit ways in which being gay harms somebody else in a way that being straight does not.So far, you have avoided it at all costs.But I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you feel you have given me an explicit list, then indulge me by repeating it. It won't take you any time.Why do you hesitate? What's holding you back? Speak up! Out with it, already!

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Please take my words at face value.

---

I do. That's the problem. You seem to think that when you say something, we shouldn't actually take it to mean what it means. When you say that gay people are engaging in sin, you didn't really mean sin such as the thing that will cause the one committing the sin to go to hell. When you say you "love" gay people, we're supposed to ignore your direct statement that you would vote against legislation that would legally confirm that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, will be treated equally under the law.

quote:

---

I don't like to judge people

---

And yet, you do. You've done nothing but judge people from the moment you got here: Message 188 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread: Message 137 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread: Message 217 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread: Message 28 of the "Take the Atheist Challenge!!!" thread: Message 29 of the "Take the Atheist Challenge!!!" thread: Message 40 of the "Take the Atheist Challenge!!!" thread: Message 88 of the "Take the Atheist Challenge!!!" thread: Message 149 of the "Take the Atheist Challenge!!!" thread: Message 152 of the "Take the Atheist Challenge!!!" thread (and I love this one because this is your entire post): Message 157 of the "Religion in Government" thread: Enough of that thread. Message 157 of the "Religion in Government" thread: I think that's enough.Oh, what the hell. One last one: Message 166 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread: Telling somebody he's going to go to hell isn't exactly a non-judgemental act. Message 142 of the "Religion in Government" thread: How are we supposed to take you seriously when you say you don't like to judge when pretty much everything that has come out of your mouth has been nothing but invective and scorn?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Tell us what your standard of acceptance is so that we can try to meet it.
What would it take for you to say that gay sex is OK?

---

​

Even if God came down and said it, I would still not think it was ok.

---

Then what on earth are you doing trolling as if you could accept it if someone just gave you a good reason? If you won't accept god's authority that it isn't sin, what else is there to convince you?

quote:

---

What would it take for me to think it was ok, I don't know, thats why I am asking.

---

But you're completely missing the point: You know that there isn't anything that could convince you. If you won't accept god's opinion on the subject, the final arbiter on what is good and what is evil, what else could possibly suit you?

quote:

---

I don't want to hurt other peoples feelings,

---

Everything you have done here shows that statement to be a lie.

quote:

---

I want to find out if I am doing something wrong or inhumane by feeling this way.

---

And the overwhelming response to you has been yes, you are doing something wrong and inhumane by feeling that way.But if you won't take our word for it and you won't take god's word for it, what else is left?

quote:

---

I am looking to better myself.

---

So get off your duff and do it. Make yourself a better person by rendering unto Caesar that which is due Caesar. Support equal treatment under the law for everyone, including those who you find to be abomination in the eye's of your god.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!