-
Nothing is wrong with homosexualityOhk so Im bi, if you havea problem with it get over it. My parents are extremely against homosexuality. They don't know I am bi and I cant tell them because they wont accept me for who I am. Love is universal. People should be able to love who they want regardless or race or sex. If i want to be with a girl than get over it. If the world would stop being so judgemental it woul be a better place to live.46% Voted for by InhisImage, Kazrith, bob2314, Weydon, thecornerofacircle. (6 total)
-
Anyone else feel this way?While on a personal level I am against homosexual marriage, there is something that people must understand.30% Voted for by Xelgaroth, TeChNoWC, innocentxsin, raseyusmy.
Nine point nine times out of ten, I find myself defending homosexuals. They are some of the most downtrodden and hated social subgroup in the world. In some countries they are murdered for simply existing. I find this sick and wrong. In the United States I find myself virtually all the time defending homosexuals from the Hordes of Bigots, the Cruel-for-Christ ignorant morons. I never, EVER use the term "gay" to describe something I find stupid or disgusting. I think it is deplorable and wrong to pick on a group of people and use their name as a word for something stupid. It would be like if someone thought you were an idiot and said, "dude ur so christian" in the same context as the word "gay."
People must understand that there is a difference between being personally against homosexual marriage and being a bigoted, ignorant homophobe. I have several bi/homosexual friends, they know where I stand and they don't have a problem with it. Like I said, I am very against the so-called "christians" who go on hate-fest crusades against homosexuals. I love homosexuals as I love anyone else.
On the flip side, I don't see why I should join in a Gay Pride parade just to prove this. I shouldn't have to dance in Boystown to prove I'm not a homophobe. I'm not out there protesting gay marriage, and I'm not out with signs saying "down with the faggots" (faggot is another word I hate to use or hear people using-- to me, it's the same thing as the word nigger to describe a black person). It's totally ridiculous how much hatred people spew out against homosexuals, particularly on the internet. It's disgusting.
People must understand that there are folks out there who, while being personally against homosexual marriage, will nonetheless defend homosexuals dignity and humanity to the death.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-VoltairePlease login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
Curious, what reason do you have against gay marriage? I admire your ability to be on two sides of the fence, and share your outrage at the bigotry placed upon gays (though I do make more than 20 people's share of gay jokes a day :\). But part of this outrage for me comes into the fact that they aren't allowed to marry the people they love.
So far, these are the closest things resembling "logical" complaints about gay marriage:
1. "But marriage has been about men and women for so long."
Okay? It was also about bigamy for so long. And bartering wives for goods and money. Politics and lust, no choice for the women. Even as things improved into more of a mutual choice, it still was terrible circumstances for women with them having no personal freedom or even many legal rights up until the last 50-100 years. The evolution of marriage into other things, like love and respect and mutual devotion and compromise, has been improvements in my eyes. Why shut the doors on all possible improvements? Why not weight the pros and cons to proposed changes to the themes of marriage? "One penis, one vagina" doesn't seem to be a reasonable sentiment on the only way 2 people can publicly present their love and share certain legal rights.
2. "Marriage is about God. My religion is against this, and you should respect this."
Again...okay? So they won't marry in your (prejudice) Church. Secular state marriages--the issue at hand--are still called marriages. Your unrelated religions shouldn't be affecting 2 people that are devoted to each other enjoying the same symbolic sentiments the rest of the country can, as well as receive the same important state benefits--specifically, in my eyes, the visitation rights in hospitals.
All other arguments I've heard aren't worth mentioning. -
-
Neither arguments are the ones I hold, and all the same, I'm not going to militantly oppose a person's right to gay marriage. While from a theological perspective I am against it, I don't think that's any business of the government. The government shouldn't keep someone else from something just so they can bend over backwards for my religion. That's not the government's job. It should not respect ANY establishment of religion, and that includes my own.
I think that the way most Christians treat homosexuals is despicable, and hardly the way Christ would have treated them. Do I think he would have necessarily condoned gay marriage? I don't know. I'm still mulling it over. I remember how God gradually let His message evolve as time went on. In Acts, the apostles originally were charged to only preach to the Jews, and then God then informed Peter that the message was to be expanded to the Gentiles as well. In the same way, as time went on, women were shown to be just as capable of preaching as men, and so the message further. Now, perhaps, just perhaps, the next will be this. I don't know. I'm still thinking about it.
I sense change coming, coming ever faster, to the Church. I see a change almost if not as big as the Reformation in the 1300's. I don't know what's coming, exactly, but I sense it coming. Things are going to change. "liberal" and "conservative", "Baptist" and "Methodist", these dividing lines in the Church will dissolve, into once again one, unified body in Christ, I think. But I don't know.
As I was saying, I think that in a secular government the government ought to immediately grant homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, even if personally I am against it. Once again, I quote Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
and besides, I don't really see why Christians would be frothing at the mouth if homosexuals gain marriage. Do I think that marriage, from a moral standpoint, is, and ought to be, between a man and a woman? Yes. But do I think that just because people are legally allowed to do it means that I am condoning it? Of course not!
"To have the right to do something does not necessarily mean to do something is right."
-G.K. Chesterton, one of my favorite Christian thinkers
I'll address both arguments and I can poke holes in both without compromising my beliefs:
But marriage has been about men and women for so long.
True, but our heritage was Jews for thousands of years, we were Jews "for so long" and all of a sudden some pacifist rabbi starts a new religion? Heresy!
Marriage is about God. My religion is against this, and you should respect this.
Who should respect it? The government? Absolutely NOT! "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, or prohibitting the free exercise thereof." If the government bases its legal decisions based on the Christian religion, then it is outright DEFYING the authority of the Constitution. Therefore it is illegal for the government to say something is illegal just because of what the Church thinks.
-
-
I agree
I totally agree with you buddy. If people don't like gay people, don't marry one. If your against gay marriage, then don't marry a gay. If you don't like homosexuals, then avoid them. Why spend precious time on earth they may NEVER get back, on a cult or hate group? -
marriage WAS about god, now it is about love.
-
-
Kaz, I am a Christian I believe God is love.
-
-
then why is love inhibited by god? what is this "love till death" belief?
people are right for each other, but not aways for eternity. -
-
Im not sure all denominations use this line Kaz. Love is not prohibited, sexual relations could quite possibly be(and i believe they are).
people are right for each other in this life then when the time comes we will all be right for each other hehe.
-
-
-
-
Xel--fair enough, I suppose. I don't really agree with any positions anyone has against gay marriage, but your willingness to consider it--especially in terms of secular marriage--are really all I can ask for. Thank you for having an open mind, ear, and heart to the matter.
Apple--Perhaps. But then are you proposing the abolition of state marriages? -
-
Not at all. Not everyone is Christian unfortunately. State marriages, I believe are not willed by or blessed by God but for those who do not believe why would they care.
-
-
Then why ban gay marriages?
-
-
Please show me where I said they should be i seem to be missing some memory...
Do I tihnk Jesus would condone gay marriage I have a hunch no.
-
-
So you support gay marriage then?
-
-
Weydon, while I do not SUPPORT gay marriage, I do not think the State has the right to ban it, at least not on the basis of some religion. I do not morally support gay marriage. But it's not the state's obligation to dictate it.
-
-
-
Why?Well they can't help having a problem with it! Geesh give them a break! It's how they were born!Voted for by TeChNoWC.Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
Being "born with" hatred and prejudice brings brings cruelty and pain into the world. Boo-hoo for "them". They have to get their irrational disorder that hurts others under control.
-
Yes, yes they do - because you told them so.
-
Out of all ways to avoid rational arguments proving you wrong, that was by far the most mature.
-
Oh no, I wasn't avoiding anything - just yet again re-iterating that thinking is not absolute or concrete. Sure, I may or may not agree with you - but that doesn't mean we are entirely right and they are entirely wrong. Why are they not allowed to have a disposition towards homosexuals?
-
Nobody is disallowed to have dispositions. But there are, rightfully, many laws in place that protect people from being affected by cruel dispositions. If you want to sit around and argue whether or not anyone can say if cruelly treating others unfairly is right or wrong, let me just roll my eyes now let you hide in your paranoid box of ridiculous semantics that are unaffected by "but my Bible says this!".
-
Oh, and the laws shall be upheld indeed. The question asked was, "why the hell do so may people have issues with homosexuality"? and I simply applied your logic to come up with a, morals aside, biological surmise. Such as it is.
-
crude tech, very very crude
-
yeah uh.
Think about your questions before posting. -
You used whose logic?? Certainly not mine, nor the poster of this question. The words "Because a gay person is born that way, it's therefore okay" have never come out of my, or the poster's, fingers. I have said, quite possibly tens of thousands of times on this site--half of which TO YOU--that I do NOT see a natural affinity to being gay as a reason that being gay is okay. I do think it is plainly obvious that some people are born gay. But I don't think that matters. So, for the five-thousand-and-first time Tech, what matters is the deeds that happen. Choice are not, being gay is not inherently harmful or wrong. It is very similarly to heterosexuality, only without the possibility of conceiving children if they want (though it does increase the possibility of adopting needy kids--another plus). Choice or not, being prejudice and cruel IS harmful. And this is extremely obvious.
As Kaz said: Very crude. -
Ok ok settle down guys. You're right, a joke unecessary, I do apologize. Maybe I was simply trying to establish this ideation with the poster, which was not you Weydon, in a Tech kinda way.
It still does not take away from the fact that the plausibility of inherent homosexuality breeds the plausibility of inherent distaste and therefore, not taking anything away from a possible need to change, but it re-inforces the impossibility or hardness, therefore giving the poster an adequate answer to their question, from one point of view that may or may not be mine. -
dont get lost it your wordy sentences
ideas can be inherited but not inbred. -
Arguably immediate distaste is not an idea, and is feeling based, value based, entirely psychologically based, much like purported sexual attraction.
-
is it?
sexuality cannot be changed, ideas can -
so, do you suddenly think that the words you are using are making you sound smart?
-
I think he's been studying with Gary.
-
Kaz, no need to get personal mate. And Weydon, let me remind you that personally degrading a member of our site, whether direct or indirect, is not acceptable. Keep your opinions of other members to yourself.
-
I would disagree with you Kaz, sexual attraction can change - it happened to a friend of mine relatively recently.
Just as one would expect a sexual attraction to be based on instant or relatively quick interest/rapport, an aversion to something could also be equally instinctual. -
I agree, pete. I think sexuality can be gained in many instances. Not just with gender preference, but even with certain sexual styles, practices, or fetishes.
Tech, I didn't say anything degrading. I've often told Gary that I find his rather excessive (and often inaccurate) lexicon to be tedious. So have other members. Before you use your mod powers to deal with me, I would request you go through every post Gary or any other wordy person (including myself) that was followed up with "...That was way too long to read" or "That was just a really lengthy version of what was already stated" etc and perform whatever planned actions you have against me for the identical "degradation". Thanks for your time and consideration in this matter as a fair and unbias mod. -
i'm not getting personal tech, merely pointing out that using big words only annoys people who dont know them and thus, weakening your point.
-
oh? do explain pete
-
Well I often find myself becoming sexually driven towards a rather varying human model. I am not sure I would go so far as to say a 'flavour of a week' but it is in a rather constant state of flux.
My friend has recently found himself attracted to males as well as females. Being unashamed and exceedingly liberal he simply told me and I have no reason to believe he was being dishonest in this.
-
oh dear you boys are at it again *rolleyes*.
Jesus says " Hate the sin love the sinner"
Being Christian, like my fellow mod and compadre the Tech, I believe that God created man and woman with the correct parts for all things necessary. Yes we have discussed this many times over and so it is clear that no one seems to be getting very far with this discussion because it always seems to be based on personal opinion and bias.
Where are the philosophers!!!!!!
Oh hang on I think I see discussion...
"It still does not take away from the fact that the plausibility of inherent homosexuality breeds the plausibility of inherent distaste and therefore, not taking anything away from a possible need to change, but it re-inforces the impossibility or hardness, therefore giving the poster an adequate answer to their question, from one point of view that may or may not be mine."
-
I don't particularly appreciate you and Tech being touted as the Christian's of the site that have some sort of righteous viewpoint that we'll never understand. Particularly when that viewpoint is "that God created man and woman with the correct parts for all things necessary" I'm well aware of where the penis and vagina go, but maybe that's because I'm ALSO Christian. Perhaps I should preface all of my opinions with this fact so my faith doesn't get such a bad wrap as being entirely elitist and cruel to harmless groups of people.
-
I never attoned to Applehead's 'penis vagina' argument, so unfortunately I cannot be thrown into the same boat. I apologise sincerely if this thread has offended you Weydon, in future I will attempt to be less forthright with my opinions. If you had not already realized however, I am predominantly neutral when it comes to the topic of homosexuality - I leave it in God's hands. It is not up to me to judge, but yes, I do like to stir up thought. That was my only intention.
Bless you brother, and once again, I apologize to you and anyone else who took offence to this thread. -
"Being Christian, like my fellow mod and compadre the Tech, I believe that God created man and woman with the correct parts for all things necessary."
When I wrote this it was not my intention for it to be read as though my beliefs are those of TeChNoWCs I am pointing out that we are both Christian in a Bible believing sense. I then explained that "I" believe that man and woman were created blah blah.. had to make this clear as it so obviously wasnt before. Apologies for my lack of skill when writing
As you know I am also posting on the above choice and kinda dragged it down here, purely due to lack of sleep on my part so for this I also apologise.
Because christianity has been brought into this choice, by me, you have taken it personally, again I apologise.
You are however almost attacking Techs posts, not only you but Kaz as well in a manner which is akin to bullying. Might I say almost bitchy.. so I merely pointed out that your name calling and opinion is not actually a discussion it is a stance of opinion which when not agreed with becomes less of a philosophical discussion and more of a cat fight. To be so judgemental just because the arguement is not going your way.... I thought better of you.
"I" as a Bible believing Christian and since before i became such do not condone homosexuality, yet I am asked to always love and respect others including homosexuals and do so while still making clear my beliefs. Yet my beliefs, which to me are extremely important can be undermined continuously on this site and then be supported by you Weydon who is a Christian and self appointed Allphil vigilante. Why is that?
-
"You are however almost attacking Techs posts, not only you but Kaz as well in a manner which is akin to bullying. Might I say almost bitchy.. "
I would like to see where I did that. I responded to all points in our debate with each other, but agreed that his wording lately has become rather tedious. I'd explain further, but as Tech is not pressing the matter right now, it'd be rude to talk about him like that. It was never a huge deal to me, I wrote one line that was a tongue in cheek reference to a person well known around here to go above and beyond in his syllable usage. I write endlessly lengthy posts too. Personally, I like to believe the style is much more simple and easily understood, but have laughed off many complaints and one-liners in response to some of my rambles.
"that your name calling and opinion is not actually a discussion it is a stance of opinion which when not agreed with becomes less of a philosophical discussion and more of a cat fight."
This is also a matter of opinion.
I do actually believe that complicated wordplay is a hamper on discussion, and that there often is merit when some might think that someone's using such wordplay thinks their opinion is automatically of more authority (I know I do). I don't care if you write in perfect grammar, in endlessly long words not found in an abridged dictionary, or in txt sp33k, you can have a good point to say or you can have garbage to say. Not only that, it could easily come off as a condescending understanding of an important part of Kaz's lifestyle. Perhaps it wasn't the most Zen response he could've given, but it wasn't some hormonal 14 year old girl getting mad that her brother finished her favorite cereal.
"Yet my beliefs, which to me are extremely important can be undermined continuously on this site and then be supported by you Weydon who is a Christian and self appointed Allphil vigilante. Why is that?"
Because I don't preface my posts with "Because I'm a Christian, I believe this." To use a bit of a hyperbole, how would you feel if a KKK representative came in and said "Well, I'm a Christian, and therefore I think black people aren't the same as humans." You don't believe what you believe because of your Christianity, you are a Christian and you believe these things about your faith. Christianity itself does not, and cannot, require you to believe anything so specific because it encompasses so many sects and "non-practicing" members.
Your "Love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality is not a breath of relief to persecuted gays. You're still calling them sinners for their basic way of life. Saying that THEY'RE a sin. A person's being gay is every bit as much as them as my being straight. It IS me.
"self appointed Allphil vigilante"
I thought we weren't personally going after a member's posting style?
Well, if you must know, I didn't appoint myself as the vigilante. I am a Christian, and as a Christian I must defend those who deserve compassion but receive none. -
Apple, just so you understand why i reacted the way i did in this post:
what tech is arguing is that us gay people must accept the hate that is directed towards us because they (homophobics) "inherited" this hate through their genes (which is scientifically impossible). essentually, this says we deserve what we get because that is the way people are and we should shut up and suck it up cause that is life.
this may not have been tech's intent(heck he could be playing devils advocate), but that is the way it comes off to me.
for his use of overly complicated words: tech's style of agrument is that of the language you would hear in a normal conversation. when you increase your vocabulary to that of which (probably via thesarus) is hard to understand, it not only becomes annoying,but the reader takes less time reading his post and skips it, thereby giving the allusion of him winning an agrument. -
"Because I don't preface my posts with "Because I'm a Christian, I believe this." To use a bit of a hyperbole, how would you feel if a KKK representative came in and said "Well, I'm a Christian, and therefore I think black people aren't the same as humans." You don't believe what you believe because of your Christianity, you are a Christian and you believe these things about your faith. Christianity itself does not, and cannot, require you to believe anything so specific because it encompasses so many sects and "non-practicing" members."
True, but it doesn't mean that you can't say it is due to one's Christianity. It can simply mean to dictate that one's idea of Christianity and how Christianity should be (which we like to refer to as "true Christians") denotes the ideal held. This may still be different for various groups ("I am a true Christian", "No, I am!") yet it is still a valid precursor.
"what tech is arguing is that us gay people must accept the hate that is directed towards us because they (homophobics) "inherited" this hate through their genes (which is scientifically impossible). essentually, this says we deserve what we get because that is the way people are and we should shut up and suck it up cause that is life.
this may not have been tech's intent(heck he could be playing devils advocate), but that is the way it comes off to me."
Well, you picked the first and missed the latter. You know I am a devil's advocate (not literally, phrase wise) and that's exactly what I was doing; as I do everytime.
"for his use of overly complicated words: tech's style of agrument is that of the language you would hear in a normal conversation. when you increase your vocabulary to that of which (probably via thesarus) is hard to understand, it not only becomes annoying,but the reader takes less time reading his post and skips it, thereby giving the allusion of him winning an agrument."
No I don't use a thesaurus surprisingly; I've always just had a knack for english. Having said that I am not usually anywhere near this fluent and grammatical verbally, but while writing (even though I probably type almost as quick as I can speak) it just seems to be my preferred option. And yes, it does have the effect of 'victory by percieved intelligence'; and I don't mind playing that persona. I feel that saying things straight up doesn't always work, particularly with issues that are complex (and in my world, everything is complex), so that is simply how I choose to write, that and a variety of issues. It's also something I picked up from very experienced atheist debaters; a tactic that always sees them winning even in the most absurd circumstances (like they could prove your mother is your father type crap). So in doing so I simply like to show that it can be done by anyone.
"Well, if you must know, I didn't appoint myself as the vigilante. I am a Christian, and as a Christian I must defend those who deserve compassion but receive none."
True. It's hard to be an avid debater and devil's advocate while also being compassionate. Fortunately God still does use me even on this site. Debate can often be like bashing your head against a brick wall. I feel more easily led by the Lord to exhibit compassion in the real world usually (even as hard as that can be) not necessarily because its easier, but because their are more avenues; and when it comes to people's opinions, up front and all debate wise, it becomes more of a tussle. But when its about lending someone money, or being pleasant, or giving them a helping hand when they need it while still making sure you don't disrupt their independence - their is no philosophy, no questioning involved in that. It's just do it.
I love Jesus
"Your "Love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality is not a breath of relief to persecuted gays. You're still calling them sinners for their basic way of life. Saying that THEY'RE a sin. A person's being gay is every bit as much as them as my being straight. It IS me."
I think that is more what I would have a problem with, not necessarily the homosexual bit. Seeing 'straightness' AS ME is the focus on what I deserve for me as my identity. Yeah, I am attracted to women and I am straight. But it's not ME. I am living for the Lord, not ME. Like when you marry a woman and are required to not identify your sexuality with wanting other women (even though at times you still may), it's not really about you, it's about God. That's where there is a big tussle between homosexuality and Christianity (except for simply homo hating weirdos like Fred Phelps). It's the idea that it must be attributed to your identity, like somehow you deserve it. Christians just aren't supposed to think like that. That 'we are entitled to it, we aren't doing anyone any harm!' No. Jesus gave up His life for a cause, for the kingdom, for many things but for one reason to show that it's not all about YOU. When we learn to give things for the sake of God we are learning how to be selfless. And I guess the two attitudes just do not click. For one thing I think the very attitude we abhor has been created by us by backing the homosexual community into a corner. They need to be like that to defend themselves from oppression. But looking at it from the perspective of if I was a homosexual who was also a Christian (because I don't want to denote the Christian community's wrongdoing in this situation): If I am to be selfess, I don't need to take on the oppression, because I don't need to identify myself with anything. I live for Jesus not myself. If I was to live for myself sure I couldn't change a thing that's who I am and I would need to stick up for it if I am to get ahead and be able to do what I want. But as I am not about doing what I want, it's of no (God) concern. Sure I will still feel attracted to men. But that's my walk with God; He will teach me and guide me as I go on my way. He will not condemn me but show me how He wants me to live because He is my Father, like any father knows what is best for their child. I can have a trust and a re-assurance in His guidance, as Christians do. And for many Christians they believe it is God's mandate that to live a life of obedience marriage has rules and the family unit has rules, for multiple different reasons. I could give some if you wish; ask and I will ask the Lord to show me. I am not sure whether or not God does want homosexuality, but I know this; that the attitude that is brooding among many homosexuals and worldly people alike is a place of bondage - and I think for homosexuals it is usually more binding simply as we push them further and further away, which I repent of, and if I could repent on behalf of the church, gladly would. I really do want to see this work out for the best of everyone. But I do not believe that the selfish ideals the world emanates through its values and what I call 'moral wall' (morals dictate everything ie, if its moral then there can be no other reason as to why not - say that to a dying fat person who is morally allowed to indulge to the point of death) is of benefit to themself, and to those around them and the kingdom of God.
-
Even if homosexuality is a choice, gay people shouldn't be targeted and should have the freedoms of everyone else. End of story.
-
oh please tech. its nice that you have deluded yourself to think that everything you do is for jesus god or whomever you think it is but lets face it. your not going to run into a burning building because jesus would, you would run in there cause you couldnt live with yourself if you didnt.
there is no such thing as true altruism. -
tech, i have also never seen you argue in favour of white male domination. perhaps you should argue that one too.
-
Actually, I do argue that the man is the head of the household as the Bible preaches.
Kaz I don't think this discussion is doing you any good right now. Just go and take a breather mate, come back when you are feeling refreshed, and we'll see how we go from there. -
-
If it doesn't actually say this then it was probably a morphed verse in the bible. this seems to happen alot...
-
-
tech, out of all the crap against homosexuality that is on this site, what you have said here truly is the most insulting
-
"This may still be different for various groups ("I am a true Christian", "No, I am!") yet it is still a valid precursor."
Eh. In a way I guess I see what you're saying, but if you read it again don't you see it as horribly pointless to mention? I myself may mention Jesus as a source of inspiration to me here and there, but that's about it. Christianity has led me to be who I am--it is not the force behind my actions. It is not I have no choice to be this if I wasn't a Christian. Buddhism and Hinduism have also inspired me to be a better person. Restricting yourself to rigid rules of the religion your preachers say are right is a depressing concept. I would just feel more comfortable if these types of redundant things were phrased as "My religious beliefs say". Saying "Being a Christian means I have believe gays are sinners" means that's what I think. It's not.
"I've always just had a knack for english. Having said that I am not usually anywhere near this fluent and grammatical verbally, but while writing (even though I probably type almost as quick as I can speak) it just seems to be my preferred option."
I can relate to you, but I must say that in most previous debates--and right now--your vernacular is much more clear and seems less forced than it has in your more recent posts.
-
"I think that is more what I would have a problem with, not necessarily the homosexual bit. Seeing 'straightness' AS ME is the focus on what I deserve for me as my identity. Yeah, I am attracted to women and I am straight. But it's not ME."
I meant straightness is me just as much as being a movie lover and a drinker and runner and a Christian is me. These are either not exactly choices or not choices AT ALL. They are all what define me and what I am. -
"Eh. In a way I guess I see what you're saying, but if you read it again don't you see it as horribly pointless to mention? "
like I said I had been posting on the above choice. In which we were talking about Christianity I apologised already for my confuzzledness in dragging the same stuff here but it was an unintentional mistake done with a lack of sleep etc. So in light of this it s not pointless just a genuine blunder, what a wally.
"Christianity has led me to be who I am--it is not the force behind my actions. It is not I have no choice to be this if I wasn't a Christian. Buddhism and Hinduism have also inspired me to be a better person."
My family are not Christian infact none of my friends or family are. I was brought up with very mild Christian influence in school and have since recognised that Christianity, Buddhism and Gandhi are influences I wanted to learn more about. All of which i have discussed on this site with you. After delving into all these things a little deeper I have found that the fundamental me is a Christian always has been always will be end of story. So is Christianity the force behind my actions?? yes, because I believe that Jesus is Lord and His ways are just. Have those Christian influences led me to be who I am?? No at least not in any major way. He has blessed me all my life, through good and bad. My "quest" is only to become the Christian, that being Christ-like, as desired by our saviour for our sakes.
"Being a Christian means I have believe gays are sinners"
This statement is true. Not only gays but we are all sinners. -
Kaz
I thought I apologized, and I am deeply sorry if I offended you. But I simply do not believe that is true. My one comment does not stand against the abuse that is littered throughout this site. I think that maybe you have been offended by more than simply my comment, but it was enough to hurt you, and for my role in that, I am truly sorry. -
"Eh. In a way I guess I see what you're saying, but if you read it again don't you see it as horribly pointless to mention? I myself may mention Jesus as a source of inspiration to me here and there, but that's about it. Christianity has led me to be who I am--it is not the force behind my actions. It is not I have no choice to be this if I wasn't a Christian. Buddhism and Hinduism have also inspired me to be a better person. Restricting yourself to rigid rules of the religion your preachers say are right is a depressing concept. I would just feel more comfortable if these types of redundant things were phrased as "My religious beliefs say". Saying "Being a Christian means I have believe gays are sinners" means that's what I think. It's not."
Maybe it would be better to clarify what TYPE of Christian one is, but Applehead is entitled to portray the truth as she sees it. But I do see your point, yes.
"I can relate to you, but I must say that in most previous debates--and right now--your vernacular is much more clear and seems less forced than it has in your more recent posts."
Clarity is not always necessarily what I aim for.
"I meant straightness is me just as much as being a movie lover and a drinker and runner and a Christian is me. These are either not exactly choices or not choices AT ALL. They are all what define me and what I am."
I guess I see your point of view - that is how I would rather refer to it as.
-
80% of christians between the ages of 19-29 believe that the christian religion is too rigid against homosexuality.
-
a large majority of people smoke..doesnt make it a good idea though.
-
actually this is a poor example because its possible your going to say homosexuality isnt bad for your health..this example is merely tring to state that just because a majority decide something is right doesnt make it universally right morally speaking such as the nazis for example.
I do agree that there is a condemnation amongst certain Christians which others hopefuly do not agree with, i certainly dont and will not be condemning anyone. This attitude however is not only a Christian one. -
"80% of christians between the ages of 19-29 believe that the christian religion is too rigid against homosexuality."
And I for one agree, it is too rigid against homosexuality. I am not against homosexuality, if you wish to read my post. -
Kaz your conduct relating to this topic has been appalling.
-
Oh, I don't know about that pete. A little agitated perhaps, but I think it's a little unfair to expect someone to have COMPLETE composure when they're under the impression someone is explaining to them the obvious reasons it's okay and even right to hate him as a person and ostracize him and give him a difficult life.
The only "personal attack" I saw was him being annoyed with Tech's (sudden?) overwhelming lexicon. Tech does seem to be genuine in his "okayness" with gays and maybe was playing devil's advocate to a concept he never understood--i.e. "Just because you're born a certain way, it's completely okay for you to do it??" This is a mindset I have also never followed. It's both silly and dangerous. Though to be fair, Kaz had a point--Tech doesn't go around playing devil's advocate in all topics, mostly his ability to go out of reach of his own viewpoint only seems to pertain to gay topics. As Kaz said, there is never an instance of being the devil's advocate for racists.
And speaking of personal attacks, I really cannot reiterate enough that all posts against gays as inhumans, or as "people I don't persecute. At all. Ever. But, that's wrong in the eyes of God, I wish you'd save yourself, and no you CANNOT marry the ones you love and please keep that hand holding and kissing out of public view even though I can do it all I want" must feel like a personal attack to Kaz and EVERY gay person. The fact that they don't always lash out in a far worse reply than Kaz demonstrated here is a testament to their composure.
Tech and Apple--I do see your points. I don't agree with all of them, obviously, but I see where you're coming from. Basically we're all on the same page, except for where it boils down to the level of acceptance we should have for these harmless people. And, ironically, Christianity is probably a strong reason why we have these differing stances. -
"Tech doesn't go around playing devil's advocate in all topics, mostly his ability to go out of reach of his own viewpoint only seems to pertain to gay topics."
Oh I dunno we once had a brief discussion in which he tried to (note the tried) pursuade me that having sex with animals isnt necessarily immoral lmao I am hoping he does not actually agree with this
-
Latest •
Categories •
Groups •
Forums
| |
| |
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
petethemeat
January 14
January 28
Edit | Reply
stealing...
What's wrong with stealing when hungry?What's wrong with pre-marital sex?
What's wrong with cheating on your spouse, or for that matter, whats wrong with swapping spouses with the neighbor?
I can think of many other worse things that will in time become OK.
The question is:
- Is SEX perhaps your God?
Does your needs drive/compel you, or does God's Will compel you. If you don't believe in a God, then I see no reason why your needs should not drive you, but as previously mentioned and cannot speak from that point of view.
Gods rationale seems simple to me:
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul".
If you can do that and remain homosexual, then we are simply not having the same God in mind (or you are giving in to temptation and you are justifying this sub-consciously (Eve is the first example of this;-). On the other hand all people have their weaknesses. I (and I believe God) can forgive these weaknesses (and bear with it), but nevertheless I cannot admit it to be right. I can accept and love homosexuals, but I cannot condone homosexuality.
Simultaneously I cannot accept that people hate homosexuals. I can also not underestimate the ability of God/Christ to forgive.
We are therefore at this stalemate.
All said, I too have my issues. Nevertheless I cannot admit these to be right too.
Kazrith
January 14
Edit | Reply
one should not have to give up one love for another.
well i am gay and have found out that sometimes you can change the mind of your parents or people you know that are against homosexuality.social psychologists would tell you that, if you can show someone that (whether it be homosexuality, colour of skin or male/female) they are wrong with their pre-conceived notions towards said group, they will have to let go of those beliefs or create a sub-group in which they must catagorize you in (ie. you are not like all the others).
i hope you and your parents can come to terms with things.
thejollyroger
January 15
Edit | Reply
no one
no one is straight whether anyone thinks so or not. Everyone is capable of being attracted to the same sex. We are all humans. Why would anyone waste their time hating something that doesn't exist? We are all mythological creaturesTeChNoWC
January 15
Kazrith
January 16
Edit | Reply
to make your sentance make sense, remove construction, you dont have to say your constructing an idea twice.
TeChNoWC
January 16
Edit | Reply
Kazrith
January 16
Edit | Reply
Xelgaroth
January 16
Edit | Reply
Kazrith
January 16
Edit | Reply
excuse my bluntness
so what? he's a bisexual.Kazrith
January 16
Edit | Reply
excuse my bluntness
so what? he's a bisexual and just realized itKazrith
January 16
Edit | Reply
thecornerofacircle
January 18
Edit | Reply
Celtess
January 21
Edit | Reply
Celtess
January 21
Edit | Reply
true
Heh, strange I didn't think of it that way lolPlease register or login to comment! It's totally free