Last semester in school I bought a book it is called “Morality and Moral Controversies” by John Arthur, and the book has many articles in it about ethical dilemma’s. And I revisited the book after ignoring it for about a month, and I read an article on homosexuality. Recently in my classes and in Canada there is that great debate over homosexual marriage, since in a secular society the religious premises of denying people the right to marry because God declares it sinful is pathetic (according to Leviticus so is a man cutting his hair, which is the book most often citied by the religious hypocrites for the anti-gay fray). What I think people don’t understand is that homosexuality is not deviant, it’s not a disease, its not imo even a genetic thing, it’s a human thing. Looking back at western history, the greatness of Greek, and Roman empires was when they tolerated homosexuality, frankly one of the reasons the Greeks were so at fighting wars was because their lovers would be their fellow solider and they would do anything to save their love. Some of the greatest men in history were homosexual or had homosexual leanings, for instance Abraham Lincoln; Alexander the Great, Octavian, Caesar the list goes on. The modern conception of homosexuality being wrong stems from Judeo-Christian ethics, which are known to repress natural human feelings and emotions by the fear of god, and guilt. But since we have to reject the religious premises of homosexuality, we have to focus on true ethical theory. According to an article written by Richard D.Mohr called “Gay Basics: Some questions, Facts, and Values” he lays out convincingly that the hatred of homosexuals is en par with the hatred of races, or of other sexes. First of all, we must understand that homosexuality or leanings are not confined to that 10% of the population that actually admit it. The homosexual is so prevalent in our society the figures are starling.

Alfred Kinsey’s 1948 study of the sex lives of 5,000 white males shocked the nation: 37 percent had at least one homosexual experience to orgasm in their adult lives; an additional 13 percent had homosexual fantasies to orgasm; 4 percent were exclusively homosexual in their practices; another 5 percent had virtually no heterosexual experience; and nearly one-fifth had at least as many homosexual as heterosexual experiences. Two out of five men one passes on the street have had orgasmic sex with men

Altogether we are talking about close to 80 percent of the male population having homosexual experiences to orgasm. The numbers are shocking for one reason, because it is not seen. When people think of homosexuals they usually think of a bunch of effeminate men prancing around, talking about clothes, or interior designers or butch women, who like bikes. The reality is that most are normal men/women, they are probably your friend, your next door neighbour, maybe even yourself. My theory is simple, I take sexuality as politics there are extreme’s there is the homosexual extreme which is the 10% of the population who admit it, and then there is the heterosexual extreme who I surmise would be around 10% as well, these people are exclusively attracted to their sex of preference. That other 80 percent of course are in-between, they aren’t gay but they aren’t straight their but a large morass of bisexuals in the middle.

Gay bisexualStraight

Bisexual is in the middle which is perfectly bisexual, who have feelings towards both sexes, then the areas on either side of that medium is those that lean more towards straight relations, and then those who lean more towards homosexual feelings. Which fits almost perfectly with this statistic: “37 percent had at least one homosexual experience to orgasm in their adult lives”, close to 40 percent of the population live in the region left of the bisexual side of the equation. This is not to say that if one leans to either extreme that person is exclusively that, no they still have feelings for the same sex, or the opposite sex but in varying degree’s. This is why I find the drive against homosexual marriage so interesting, why are so many up in arms when in reality they themselves are probably homosexual themselves, or lean towards it? I believe personally that much of modern society’s homophobia is a reaction against one’s own homosexuality. Men/women who are comfortable enough with their sexual preference have no reason to hate gays. This phenomenon of transfer is important to understand, I liken it to a relationship one has with a bad boss. When a man for instance has a bad boss who belittles him, he doesn’t take out on his boss because he feels he would lose his job he comes home and takes it out on the family, same concept with homosexuality. Many men/women have feelings, and many are “afraid” they may be “tricked” into homosexual sex. One cannot be tricked, one wants it. In order for that person to get rid of that want, they take their self-hatred on homosexuals to get rid of this energy which they don’t understand; essentially they are rejecting their humanity on the basis of mass cultural indoctrination.
Which goes on the question of how supposedly “straight” societies treats those 10%, the author points out a rather logical case for why hating homosexual’s is immoral:

[The fact that] a lot of people in a society sat something is good, even over eons, does not make it so…Slacery would be wrong even if nearly everyone like it. So consistency and fairness require that we abandon the belief that gays are immoral simply because most people dislike or disapprove of gays or gay acts or even because gay sex acts are illegal.

There is no question that the mere belief that x is wrong makes it wrong is not logical, ethical, or intelligent. Yet sadly in our world intelligent is hardly ever in the equation. But there is one argument against homosexuals that merit some attention. The argument that marriage is a union btwn a man and woman based on the fact they are/and can procreate. The argument is sound, another article I read on the immorality of sexual intercourse states that homosexuality like premarital sex is immoral because its hedonistic, which has no fundamental meaning apart from pleasure, then I must say so is eating candy. But back to the procreation argumentation, I am sure that infertile couples will be barred from being married, and couples that have menopausal women in the equation, or an impotent man. But those individuals are not being stopped from allowing to get married. The reason is simple, because hatred of gays is en par with hatred of blacks, or of even women. The only reason why homosexuals aren’t getting married is because of irrational conceptions of love. As the author states:

It is generally conceded that if sexual orientation is something over which and individual- for whatever reason- has virtually no control, then discrimination against gays is especially deplorable, as it is against racial, and ethnic classes, because it holds people accountable without regard for anything they themselves have done. And to hold a person accountable for that which the person has no control is a central form of prejudice

Homosexuality is natural, as evidenced in Germany with homosexual penguins having sex; they cannot rationally choose to have gay sex, or to be gay in the first place. Being a homosexual or leaning is a natural occurrence, some people will “no it’s unnatural” for various reasons and the author offers a retort:

unnatural means “by artifice” or “made by humans” it need only be pointed that virtually everything that is good about life is unnatural in this sense, that the chief feature that distinguishes people from other animals is their ability to make over the world to meet their needs and desire and their wellbeing depends upon these departures from natural. On this understanding of human nature and the natural, homosexuality is perfectly unobjectionable.

And guess what else is unnatural, marriage. Also one has to ask themselves why would a homosexual “choose” to be a homosexual considering that he/she is at increased risk for harm being done to this individual? This is the typical homosexual:

Typically, gays-to-be simply find themselves having homosexual encounters and yet at least initially resisting quite strongly the identification of being homosexual. Such a person even very likely resists having such encounters but ends up having them anyway.

Which happens a lot in the black community, I was watching BET and they were talking about the alarming amount of black college students who were having homosexual sex but did not classify themselves as homosexuals, and still had sex with their girlfriends. Frankly I didn’t find it shocking, it was to be expected, and black culture frowns on homosexuality much more then white for instance. Islamic culture is particularly repressive, in Saudi Arabia if found having gay sex you will be killed. The sad fact is that most of the people in the crowd watching the beheading are homosexual, or leaning themselves, it could very well been them in that situation. This thread is not here to talk about one’s personal sexual preferences, or experiences. This is merely a thread for intellectual complementation about how irrational our society is in relation to homosexuality.

Fags are victims of the homo-gathegory, just like goth's, rockers etc have their own 'clubs', which are all disliked in some levels.
Leather-faggets forcing stereotypes whilst pissing on the more political homo's, are restraining individuality, eventhough they might think just the opposite. As long as love between the same sex is considered to be unlabelled, and does not huddle together the individual and the group, then there is a change of lowering the irrational shock the society gets from the ass-cock encounter.

And which moreoever adds to the contradiction are the liberation attempts from the group that has been looked down upon. This just forces the spite bible-puppets have against homosexuals.
Forget the 'rally of liberation' and leave the truck-lesbo look home. I'm not saying play the masque, but rather advicing people not to turn into a culturally aware Jay-fagget's (the guy from queer eye, fuck he pisses me off).

There are better ways to define ones identity than being a full blown out S/M lesbian.
And before someone says "but they like being what they are! Who are you to talk!", well.. in that case goth's must be a hoot for you.

Undecided,
actually in ancient Greece, apparenetly there wasn't such an all-embracing regard for PASSIVe homosexuality, including effeminacy. After all these were the Indo-Europeans who had taken over the more ancient agrarian peoples who DID accept femininity, aslo in men
But the latter's modus operandi was/is WAR, and they will not stand for homosexuality is it reveals effeminiacy

actually, this attitude is reflected in how you represted it in your post. that people may ALl homosexuals are 'prancing effeminites' etcet, instead of 'NORMAL homosexuals' (emphasis mine)....see?

Even some homosexuals are prejudiced against effeminate men, and try and thus elaborate their sense of masculinity by dressing up in cliched 'manly' clothes, taking on the images, and also getting involved in S&M which is a way of protraying machoness, and of punishing oneself for BEING Queer!

If consenting adults freely choose to do something which does not directly harm anyone else then it is no-one else's concern. Most people use "natural" to mean something they enjoy. Looking at a computer screen and typing messages is unnatural too as our eyes and fingers did not develop for that purpose. However, it is natural because we designed computers for that purpose. We must not confuse our own personal tastes with the word of god or the dictates of human nature.

Perkele


Fags are victims of the homo-gathegory, just like goth's, rockers etc have their own 'clubs', which are all disliked in some levels.
Leather-faggets forcing stereotypes whilst pissing on the more political homo's, are restraining individuality, eventhough they might think just the opposite. As long as love between the same sex is considered to be unlabelled, and does not huddle together the individual and the group, then there is a change of lowering the irrational shock the society gets from the ass-cock encounter.

The other day, someone was yapping at me about "respect" for "beliefs". It's an honest conflict I have: it's difficult to be entirely respectful to a "belief" assertion founded around a lack of facts. However, that point aside, as it's a digression from the present discussion, I happened to write,


See, the thing is that there are legitimate assertions of belief, and then there are illegitimate insofar as our society is constructed. For instance, we all know of "goths", but heaven help us the day being "Goth" is a protected status. The identity politic isn't legitimate in the context of protection.

#767702 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=767702)

See, on the one hand, you're touching (barely) on a fair issue; you're reaching a bit with the melodrama: "Leather-faggets forcing stereotypes whilst pissing on the more political homo's, are restraining individuality, even though they might think just the opposite."

Let's try a comparison: "Stupid women forcing stereotypes while denigrating their more developed sisterhood are restraining individuality, even though we know they think just the opposite."

I'm attempting to approach a similar underlying truth, but the reality becomes this: Stereotypes forced still must demand a fertile audience. Those to whom the appearance of stereotype bears functional value create that value for themselves. See, mincing faggots annoy me in many ways, too. But it's the same way in which "redneck" or "good ol' boy" stereotypes annoy me. And the good ol' boy bone-breaking handshake, half-drunken swagger, booming voice and false enthusiasm are at the heart of that annoyance, much as the limp handshake, fake wiggling of the ass, and that gadawful lisp.

Do the stereotypes say anything about the people who live them? Only that they're human. But I find the faggot considerably less intrusive--physically--than the good ol' boy. I can put up with faggots. Good ol' boys crowd closer, speak more loudly and demanding, and tend toward invasive or unpleasant physical contact more than faggots. The crushing handshake, the jolting clap on the shoulder, the deodorant-and-cologne reeking I-love-you-man arm around the shoulder ... it doesn't settle the nerves at all, either, to stand in such generally-consistent personal/political contrast, either. Statistically, I'm ideologically more at home, and thus burdened with less things to argue about, among faggots than rednecks.

So for me the question becomes why rednecks matter. I might say that I feel they've compelled me to pay attention through a series of disagreements that would otherwise not be worth having, except that public policy is involved. I might even be able to paint a solid case in support of that assertion. But still, at the end of the day, 'tis I, and I alone, that chooses to give rednecks enough credit to warrant my concern. I choose to worry about what takes place in "redneck" culture.

Just like I try not to worry about "stupid woman" stereotypes. Over the years, the raw numbers suggest I've spent exponentially more time in the presence of women meeting diverse standards of the "stupid woman" stereotype, but for me to seize on it and regard women as such would be entirely erroneous, in having overlooked my mother, who is certainly not a "stupid woman" in her conduct, priorities, or desires; I would be overlooking that of the two smartest living people in my direct acquaintance, one is a woman who outshines me by vast oceans of knowledge, perspective, method, and comprehension. In fact, the prevalence of certain aspects of "stupid woman" stereotypes in my life says more about me than it does about women. Take soap operas, for instance. I loathe them, but am also familiar with the last fourteen or so years of the abominable Days of Our Lives, and perhaps the last nine of the slightly less offensive, but no more worthy All My Children. Rather than saying anything about women and soap operas, this says something about me. How is it that I keep ending up around women who watch soap operas? Seriously. What the hell is up with that?

If I'm immersed in what I consider "stupid woman" culture, why? How? What is it about the "stupid woman" that makes her so important as to notice and care about the condition of her existence?

The solution, then, is to deal with people as human beings. If I accept fears of a "stupid woman" stereotype, I will come to further exacerbate the problem and therefore sharpen my own fears. If I deal with a human being with all her faults, well, those are unique faults in their own combination and proportions, and inside them is a unique person who needs to be accounted for in addressing the problem. Certainly, it makes things more complex, but it stands a greater statistical chance of success.

If you have a stake in something, do you wish it ill? Generally no. If I invest my fears in a "stupid woman" stereotype, I have a stake in that: I don't want to see my investment squandered. Therefore I will tend to wish for the legitimacy of the "stupid woman" stereotype, which brings about all manner of complication, including the choice to surround myself with even more women meeting my internalized criteria for what equals a "stupid woman", which reinforces my anxieties, which increases my stake, and so the cycle continues.

And which moreoever adds to the contradiction are the liberation attempts from the group that has been looked down upon. This just forces the spite bible-puppets have against homosexuals.
Forget the 'rally of liberation' and leave the truck-lesbo look home. I'm not saying play the masque, but rather advicing people not to turn into a culturally aware Jay-fagget's (the guy from queer eye, fuck he pisses me off).

Such an excellent example of what I'm saying: these are your priorities, as well as the "bible-puppets'".

There are better ways to define ones identity than being a full blown out S/M lesbian

There are better ways to define one's point than such exaggerations.

For instance, one night I wandered up to a bar I'd heard promising things about. A bit rough, a homo-leather haven, all sorts of dirty, scandalous talk of immorality in the bathrooms and getting handcuffed to the bar, &c. It seemed like a great place to test a certain theory I have, but that's only barely relevant. Essentially I have no idea whence come the paranoid fears of homophobes who worry about being hit on by men. Over the years I haven't been particularly drawn to the gay bars because I simply don't get hit on. It was a modest room, not particularly stylish, and could have used some better lighting. It certainly did not live up to its reputation.

Funny story: so one time, we're sitting watching Emmanuel Louis (a jazz quintet, not the actor) play a set at the Rainbow, which coincidentally is not a gay bar, when a guy widely known for his ebullient heterosexuality leans across the table and explains how he thinks I'd look good in a leather miniskirt and some fishnets and heels. Punchline? Never heard anything remotely like it in a gay bar. Most I ever heard was a lesbian friend say, "He thinks you're cute." Who? "The guy you gave a cigarette to." Which one? "The rasta-man." Really?

Apparently the thought of her whispering his secret so embarrassed him that he fled the club.

Seriously. Apparently in the time between him telling her, and her telling me, and me looking around for him, he left. Gone. Not a trace.

Even the notorious lesbian bar is a pretty nice room, and the leather bulls don't show it tremendously. More often than not, we'd be wrong in pinning the whip on the bull.

These are but a couple of the reasons I find your point an exaggeration. Such outspoken bulls do exist, but I come across them rarely by comparison.

And before someone says "but they like being what they are! Who are you to talk!", well.. in that case goth's must be a hoot for you.

We must be careful when mixing such delicately volatile arguments. To the one, the flaming faggot has every right to be a flaming faggot, just like the good ol' boy has the right to be a good ol' boy.

"Stupid women" are stupid people, stupid human beings first and foremost. We should only worry about their womanhood if we truly absolutely must. Stupid rednecks are stupid people first and foremost. That they're rednecks only matters if it absolutely must. Stupid homosexuals are stupid people, first and foremost. And just like the rednecks and good ol' boys, some are just annoying, and some are legitimately stupid and dangerous.

Goths? They've actually got one up on gay men: better music with a deeper sense of romanticism and the romantic.

Aside from that, extending the S&M identity to such a general application, or the flaming queen, is a bit like indicting the whole of popular culture for a Peter Murphy album.

As long as love between the same sex is considered to be unlabelled, and does not huddle together the individual and the group, then there is a change of lowering the irrational shock the society gets from the ass-cock encounter.

Perhaps superstition should not have gone out of its way to label it:

The Roman emperor at Constantinople from the year 527 was Justinian, a devout Christian. He outlawed paganism, including Plato's old academy at Athens, and drove non-Christian philosophers into exile. Fearing that God might bring famine against his sinful subjects he outlawed blasphemy, sacrilege and homosexuality. He persecuted the religious community in Palestine known as the Samaritans, and he put restrictions on the religious and civil freedoms of Jews, including outlawing the Talmud, which he described as puerile fabrications, insulting and blasphemous. (smitha.com (http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h01const.htm))

342 CE: The emperors Constantius and Constans, having inherited much of the empire of their father Constantine, call for "exquisite punishment" for homosexuality. (LeatherArchives (http://www.leatherarchives.org/exhibits/deblase/timeline1.htm))

The second link is especially fun; it's essentially a gay timeline, some of which is less reliable than the rest, but we can see the Christian influence was already running through the empire by the time Rome got around to making an issue out of it.

Suck on my puny, short, wrinkled reply tiassa.

Yeah. Different models inside specific cultures. Elected and shared concepts affecting certain groups at certain times. Of course these models are born, as long as the mental models of the individuals are somewhat consistent. The problem is when there are many branches of mental models, all trying to fit inside a larger cultural model.

Of course you could say we all fit in the human scale. But that somewhat defies the purpose of this- since we know for a fact there are no consensus between us all.

Suck on my puny, short, wrinkled reply tiassa.

Might do you some good; your replies won't be so short, wrinkled, and puny. Or are we waiting for a little blue pill?

All I'm after, Perkele, is that if we focus only on the superficial aspects of identity, that's all we'll see. It's up to each of us. These are the things we choose.

I think people haven't really grasped what my thread was saying...the distinction btwn hetero and homo really doesn’t exist, if it does its tenuous and rare. It seems our world loves the dichotomy of black and white, ur either this and that. But we as humans aren’t that simple, and the stats I showed only showed those who:

 admitted to having homosexual relations to orgasm
 who had homosexual experiences to orgasm

It didn’t factor in those who did not experience those experiences to orgasm, that isn’t to say that those individuals didn’t have feelings for someone of the same sex. This idea that there is them and us is ridiculous, a farce, and is based on belief not fact. What I find interesting about Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethics is that it rejects homosexuality, but if by definition whatever God made is natural, and since homosexuality is natural, didn’t God essentially contradict himself or was that just another mistake he tried to rectify by making it into a sin? If we are made in God’s image…well u get what I am saying. Just wondering what bible thumpers really think (assuming they do).

God did not create us in his own image nor did he make religions to tell us to judge each other(stupid humans). Homosexuality is not wrong, it's just practical. Those who are, so what. Let it be.

What I find interesting about Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethics is that it rejects homosexuality, but if by definition whatever God made is natural, and since homosexuality is natural, didn’t God essentially contradict himself or was that just another mistake he tried to rectify by making it into a sin?

When people say that homosexual behavior is unnatural, they don't mean that people don't do it but that it goes against natural law. Natural law of course is created by God. We're of course talking behavioral not the attraction; homosexual behavioral usually is the individual's choice.


What I think people don’t understand is that homosexuality is not deviant, it’s not a disease, its not imo even a genetic thing, it’s a human thing.

Prove it. If I had a condition that turned my skin green but had no other affect, would it not be a disease? Your perception of what is a disease is based upon your own desire, nothing more, and cannot be used to justify any real argument.


Looking back at western history, the greatness of Greek, and Roman empires was when they tolerated homosexuality, frankly one of the reasons the Greeks were so at fighting wars was because their lovers would be their fellow solider and they would do anything to save their love.

Again, you haven't proven this. Some Spartins did practice homosexual behavioral, but it seems to me more about control and domination. Spartins weren't particularly a favorable group. They let newly born babies starve to death if they were found to have any imperfection.


Some of the greatest men in history were homosexual or had homosexual leanings, for instance Abraham Lincoln

There's no proof whatsoever that Abraham Lincold was homosexual. He was married.


Alexander the Great, Octavian, Caesar the list goes on. The modern conception of homosexuality being wrong stems from Judeo-Christian ethics

Okay, your post answers yourself. Why, if homosexuality was so tolerated, did not these characters come out and say they were gay, proclaiming their new found "freedom" as today's gays do?


he lays out convincingly that the hatred of homosexuals is en par with the hatred of races, or of other sexes. First of all, we must understand that homosexuality or leanings are not confined to that 10% of the population that actually admit it. The homosexual is so prevalent in our society the figures are starling.

Having hatred of homosexuals is different from believing homosexual behavioral is wrong.

When people say that homosexual behavior is unnatural, they don't mean that people don't do it but that it goes against natural law. Natural law of course is created by God. We're of course talking behavioral not the attraction; homosexual behavioral usually is the individual's choice.

Mr. Okinrus,

Do animals which practice homosexual behavior go against God's natural law too? Are they depraved sinners?

Having hatred of homosexuals is different from believing homosexual behavioral is wrong.

Is homosexual behavior then done intentionally? Otherwise you can't really blame them for it.


---

Tiassa, you are one sick f

When people say that homosexual behavior is unnatural, they don't mean that people don't do it but that it goes against natural law.

It obviously doesn’t go against natural law if nature does it. What does go against natural law is marriage, you’d be hard pressed to find animals who are monogamous, most animals in order to spread their gene pool as much as possible have sex with many partners. The fact that marriage bounds a man to only one partner is unnatural, because he cannot spread his seed, and cheating imo is an action taken by partners in a relationship to attempt to spread their seed to more partners.

Natural law of course is created by God.

That’s not true of course, that’s a belief. Firstly we assume that there is such a thing as natural law that exists out of science which imo it really doesn’t because those interpretations are based on subjective beliefs not facts. The facts are that naturally homosexuality is prevalent in the animal kingdom, and the only reason why its not here is because we are indoctrinated from our “religious” authorities that it is wrong. We are not being human by rejecting this part of our sexuality.

Prove it.

It’s proven already in my intial post, at least 80% of the American population has had a homosexual experience, and I doubt they choose that. I don’t choose to have an erection etc. The reason why you believe it is “deviant” is because you’ve been taught that, ignoring the facts is part of the belief game.

If I had a condition that turned my skin green but had no other affect, would it not be a disease?

But not everyone has that condition, I assert everyone is not exclusively gay or straight so its just a natural part of being human, and as a result its not a condition, the condition would be if you were totally gay or straight that would be odd imo.

Your perception of what is a disease is based upon your own desire, nothing more, and cannot be used to justify any real argument.

A disease is usually something that can be identitifed, there hasn’t been any genetic i.d of a “homosexual” or “heterosexual” predisposition. So the onus is on you to show me that it is.

Again, you haven't proven this. Some Spartins did practice homosexual behavioral, but it seems to me more about control and domination. Spartins weren't particularly a favorable group. They let newly born babies starve to death if they were found to have any imperfection.

Look at the time Christianity was enforced in the Roman Empire and its collapse as a result. Rome flourished when homosexual activity was tolerated; it collapsed once it was not. Now imo that is not even close to being the reason why the Empire fell, but it is telling. Ever since the enlightenment period we have been trying to shed the stereotypes, and overtly wrong assertions about life. One of them being that homosexuality is wrong, when it reality its the opposite.

There's no proof whatsoever that Abraham Lincold was homosexual. He was married.

Most homosexuals (as you would term them) are married, or are engaged in heterosexual relations. I think that’s natural because we are all to some degree bisexual but since you believe in a black and white world you’d be shocked….and Lincoln was homosexual leaning and there is proof:

http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/04/30/lincoln/

Okay, your post answers yourself. Why, if homosexuality was so tolerated, did not these characters come out and say they were gay, proclaiming their new found "freedom" as today's gays do?

Because they didn’t have to everyone knew they had homosexual sex, and they weren’t gay because they loved women too. They lived a much more natural life then what you are advocating. Homosexual sex in that time was a thing of beauty, and heterosexual as a necessity. Those people didn’t live in a self-hating society that rejects its own feelings under its feelings of guilt.

Having hatred of homosexuals is different from believing homosexual behavioral is wrong.

No its just as bad, because since they cannot control their emotions its hating them for what they cannot control, and thus is just as bad as racism, and sexism. So I have contempt for your lack of intelligence and insight. Be gone!

although personally i am not a fan of monogamy. i have seen people being married togther for many many years and feel a kind of admiration for such devotion. cause i dont care what generation, it MUST be hard to do....though whther that sacrifice is needed is up to the people willing to take it

also, i am sure some bird species etc also form life long partners

now, i HATE cheating. it's deceitful......i realize it can be exciting too, but it really hurts the other when found out......and the other too with the guilt, oftentimes.
so i woud encourage open relationships more so than devious cheating. agreeing with a stable partner that you need diverse erotic fulfillment....

Undecided, don't tell Okinrus to go away. You come here looking for a fight, and Okinrus has taken up the challenge. What point would there be to coming here if everyone agreed on everything? Debate club with no debates?

What I found offensive to my intelligence was not his argument it was the typical nonsensical argument presented by the majority of the population and I welcome it. What I took offence to was how closet homophobes like him (who essentially hate themselves as I described in my initial post) try to copout of their hatred by saying this nonsense:

Having hatred of homosexuals is different from believing homosexual behavioral is wrong.

That type of ignorance I have no tolerance for.

Do animals which practice homosexual behavior go against God's natural law too? Are they depraved sinners?

Southstar, I see no reason not. Adam's sin affected all creatures. God in the OT says to kill any animal who kills a man. Whether you want to say it's the animal's fault or not is a different matter. Also, some have claimed that so-called homosexuality observed in the animal kingdom is nothing more than male-bonding.


Is homosexual behavior then done intentionally? Otherwise you can't really blame them for it.

Well, I wouldn't say intentionally, but there's some element of choice, you know.




It obviously doesn’t go against natural law if nature does it.

Undecided, you're linking natural law with nature. Nature doesn't necessarily correspond to what God intented, for reasons I said before, and you can't base your morality on what animals do. Animals kill, cheat and steal.


That’s not true of course, that’s a belief.

To say it's not true is a belief also. You were trying to show the Judeo-Christian belief that homosexuality is unnatural. I'm only pointing out that what they mean by unnatural is any activity that goes against God's natural law.


Firstly we assume that there is such a thing as natural law that exists out of science which imo it really doesn’t because those interpretations are based on subjective beliefs not facts.

You're wrong. The natural law isn't a belief, but something that it's instilled in all man's conciousness. You can argue who created it or which laws should be obeyed, but within all humans there's an almost unanimious belief that murder and stealing are wrong.


It’s proven already in my intial post, at least 80% of the American population has had a homosexual experience, and I doubt they choose that. I don’t choose to have an erection etc. The reason why you believe it is “deviant” is because you’ve been taught that, ignoring the facts is part of the belief game.

And likely 100% of them have lied. Doesn't make lying any more right. Bandwagon appeal doesn't work, and leads to mob rule. But I'd really have to question the 80%. What does a homosexual experience mean?


But not everyone has that condition, I assert everyone is not exclusively gay or straight so its just a natural part of being human, and as a result its not a condition, the condition would be if you were totally gay or straight that would be odd imo.

Different shades of green? There's no well-defined definition of a disease, at least how it relates to individuals. Sure, a group of highly qualified doctors determines whether some attribute is a disease or not, but this chioce is completely based upon those doctors judgements. And often, a disease to one person isn't to other. For instance, one man's acne scars might be his way to show toughness, another's acne scars might be his bane in life. But none of this relates to anything. To you, homosexuality isn't a disease. To me, it is. And to others, especially those who don't want to be homosexual, it is. Then, there are those inbetweeners, those who don't want to offend someone. But really if your straight and do not want to be homosexual, then you may as well consent to calling homosexuality a disease. Furthermore, I haven't said what causes homosexual attraction: it could be a genetic disorder, it could be something psychological, it could be the result of abuse, or it could some combination of these. In any case, the attraction alone cannot really be chosenl it's not sin.


Look at the time Christianity was enforced in the Roman Empire and its collapse as a result. Rome flourished when homosexual activity was tolerated;

Rome conquered and enslaved thousands. Meanwhile, they spent money lavishly, and created spectacles of blood-thirst. But, well, if you want to raise them up to the pinnacle of perfect, by stating their society tolerated homosexuality, it's really up to you. But I beg to differ. Their society didn't tolerate homosexuality. They tolerated homosexual prostitution. And by the time Christians really did gain control of Rome they were already in decline, being attacked by vandals and huns.


Most homosexuals (as you would term them) are married, or are engaged in heterosexual relations. I think that’s natural because we are all to some degree bisexual but since you believe in a black and white world you’d be shocked….and Lincoln was homosexual leaning and there is proof:

Unless if someone publically admits to being homosexual or is somehow observed, you know, it's not proof.

Undecided, you're linking natural law with nature. Nature doesn't necessarily correspond to what God intented, for reasons I said before, and you can't base your morality on what animals do. Animals kill, cheat and steal.

That’s Bull shit and you know it, firstly u are assuming incorrectly that natural law is from God I make no such judgements because it’s not based on facts. What I base my judgement is on what nature does, that is what is by definition natural law, the law of the jungle. God is not proven; his opinions are a personal expression and not one that is to be taken into the context of a wider society. So unless you can prove to me there is a God your entire argument falls to pieces. Secondly since we are decedents of those animals it is only natural that we are wired like them in many ways. Science proves, and empirical observation has also proved that homosexual sex is natural and is thus by definition cannot be “wrong”. Now in a Judeo-Christian sense sure, but that again is not a basis for an argument that’s an intellectual copout. About the animals killing,stealing,etc that's what positive law is for.

To say it's not true is a belief also. You were trying to show the Judeo-Christian belief that homosexuality is unnatural. I'm only pointing out that what they mean by unnatural is any activity that goes against God's natural law.

Not really because what I am saying is proven its there, what you are saying is not proven, it purely based on the belief that x is true because some omnipresent being says so. There’s a big difference one (mine) is informed opinion theirs (or your’s) is belief. Again I don’t deny that Judeo-Christians believe that nonsense but if they are truly people of the book they shouldn’t be cutting their hair, or eating pork, or eating shellfish, the list goes on. What the Bible does is restrict what we humans do naturally, yet supposedly the morals in the book are somehow based on natural morality.

You're wrong. The natural law isn't a belief, but something that it's instilled in all man's conciousness.

So by birth we know all the moral tenants? Then using that logic there should never be murders, rapes, etc. If you were to put a child in a cage for his entire development without any human interaction I doubt he would have this “natural law” the only law that exists is that of survival, the rest is add on’s.

You can argue who created it or which laws should be obeyed, but within all humans there's an almost unanimious belief that murder and stealing are wrong.

That’s of course not true, there are those out there who advocate murder, and in India murder is a fixture of the social landscape as evidenced by the millions of dead baby girls, or sacrificial murders of children in pagan religions, etc. I don’t believe in this crap your spewing because it doesn’t exist.

And likely 100% of them have lied. Doesn't make lying any more right. Bandwagon appeal doesn't work, and leads to mob rule. But I'd really have to question the 80%. What does a homosexual experience mean?

I explained in the initial post did you even read it? Or did you read the first paragraph for your idiotic responses? Read my entire post 3 or 4 times and your questions will be answered, and you still didn’t answer my question is 80% of the American public admitted to having homosexual experiences how is it a “choice” when only 10% actually admit they are homosexual?

To you, homosexuality isn't a disease. To me, it is.

I showed how it isn’t you have to show how it is, a disease is not natural in the sense there must be a observable difference, physically, genetically, and biologically. If you cannot show this, then your argument is as good as shit. Like I said in my initial post homosexuality and heterosexuality don’t really exist, they are just extremes and most if not all of us are in the middle. I don’t believe in homosexuality because I don’t believe that we as a race are predisposed to only one sex.

But really if your straight and do not want to be homosexual, then you may as well consent to calling homosexuality a disease.

But that’s the most stupid thing you’ve said so far, if you’re a “heterosexual” and you don’t want to be a homosexual something is already wrong. One doesn’t “want” one is, if that supposed heterosexual is choosing here, then he is by definition both hetero and homo, and is repressing his homosexual side by saying “it’s a disease”.

Furthermore, I haven't said what causes homosexual attraction: it could be a genetic disorder, it could be something psychological, it could be the result of abuse, or it could some combination of these. In any case, the attraction alone cannot really be chosenl it's not sin.

Unless you can show it is a “disorder” what you are saying means nothing, meanwhile the facts seem to show that at least 80% of the people you know are “sick”.

Rome conquered and enslaved thousands.

Rome was tame compared to the Christian empires of Spain which killed 10’s of millions, or Catholic Hitler and his “benevolent” concentration camps, remember Hitler used God as an excuse for his eugenic fantasy. If I had to choose btwn being conquered by Rome or Spain, or Hitler’s Germany there is no QUESTION in my mind what I would choose.

But I beg to differ. Their society didn't tolerate homosexuality. They tolerated homosexual prostitution. And by the time Christians really did gain control of Rome they were already in decline, being attacked by vandals and huns.

Roman society was a very homosexual society, and I think it was more for the upper classes because it was considered so beautiful. But Christian ethics was surely one of the reasons why the Empire fell.

Unless if someone publically admits to being homosexual or is somehow observed, you know, it's not proof.

Stop being so idiotic, Lincoln was gay there’s the proof you don’t need pictures, or admissions. That’s like saying “if you don’t have pictures or have the murderer admit to the murder it didn’t happen”, please get a brain.

Southstar, I see no reason not. Adam's sin affected all creatures. God in the OT says to kill any animal who kills a man. Whether you want to say it's the animal's fault or not is a different matter. Also, some have claimed that so-called homosexuality observed in the animal kingdom is nothing more than male-bonding.

It's not a different matter actually. If it's not the animals fault then it indicates quite clearly that it needn't be treated as something done deliberately - and as a corollary, cannot be a sin. Unless people get punished for things they don't do?

Well, I wouldn't say intentionally, but there's some element of choice, you know.

And what would that be? Or is that just crass generalization? Qualify please.

So unless you can prove to me there is a God your entire argument falls to pieces.

Okay, I'll clarify. My argument wasn't to prove my position right but to prove yours wrong. You stated before that Christians believed homosexuality unnatural and then attempted to prove it by animal evidence. I stated what most people really believe when they say homosexuality is unnatural, which, if true, means you began your argument on the wrong track. But, again, there is at least one difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals, in that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Whether this is a disorder or not, and how severe, depends on an individual's own beliefs. After all, a similar case arises with pedophila. A grown man or women is sexually attracted to children. The general public calls this attraction a disease because the attraction seems to us dangerous and harmful. Homosexuality of course is not nearly as dangerous as pedophila, but the general form should apply.


Secondly since we are decedents of those animals it is only natural that we are wired like them in many ways.

I don't see this going any where. Animals are different from us in many ways. They don't speak, they don't wear cloths, they don't have any code of conduct. Why muts what is natural to them be natural for us?



Rome was tame compared to the Christian empires of Spain which killed 10’s of millions

Spain didn't kill 10's of millions in the Inquisition. http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article4.html


Catholic Hitler and his “benevolent” concentration camps

Hitler was originally raised a Catholic, but in his later years he was not a practicing catholic; in fact his regime persecuted the Christian church.


remember Hitler used God as an excuse for his eugenic fantasy.

So what? Read his interview in table talk. It was all a sham. He remained quite silent of his anti-christian beliefs , but it was only to wait for a politically opportune time.

I don’t believe in homosexuality because I don’t believe that we as a race are predisposed to only one sex.

Just as a reminder, you didn't qualify your belief either. Not so quick to judge.

Okay, I'll clarify. My argument wasn't to prove my position right but to prove yours wrong.

And if anything you’ve strengthen my position, thank you.

You stated before that Christians believed homosexuality unnatural and then attempted to prove it by animal evidence. I stated what most people really believe when they say homosexuality is unnatural, which, if true, means you began your argument on the wrong track.

That argument doesn’t make any sense towards the end; I’m not even sure what you are trying to say. Christians believe that homosexuality is unnatural, because God says it is, not because it really is. That definition is without merit without proof of God’s existence. There are so many problems with the theory of God its hard to believe in him sometimes (I do), but I believe that since Jesus never spoke about homosexuality in the NT and since so many Christians ignore many of the value judgements in the old testament, homosexuality is about as valid as not cutting your hair.

But, again, there is at least one difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals, in that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex.

You assume these people exist in the first place, which imo they don’t. There isn’t a homosexual or heterosexual out there, they choose which one they act on, or alternatively there are varying degrees of heteo/homo feelings.

Whether this is a disorder or not, and how severe, depends on an individual's own beliefs.

That’s absurd, one’s beliefs doesn’t change objective fact. Do you even know what nonsense is coming out of your mouth? If it’s a disorder, it’s a disorder no matter what the hell you believe. This is the KEY reason why hard core Christians and homophobes cannot be taken seriously, they are ignoring facts for what they choose to believe is true.

After all, a similar case arises with pedophila. A grown man or women is sexually attracted to children. The general public calls this attraction a disease because the attraction seems to us dangerous and harmful. Homosexuality of course is not nearly as dangerous as pedophila, but the general form should apply.

Pedophilia unlike homosexuality, or heterosexuality harms the children it goes against the harm principle, and even if the child consents to the sex the child does not understand what it really entails. Now here you are assuming that homosexuality is en par with pedophilia and not heterosexual sex, I make no such distinction because they are one in the same. All the nonsense you are saying is merely showing how indoctrinated you are by society, and its “moral” tenants.

I don't see this going any where. Animals are different from us in many ways. They don't speak, they don't wear cloths, they don't have any code of conduct. Why muts what is natural to them be natural for us?

Cloths? Whatever that may mean, I assume you mean clothes? That is also unnatural, there is a reason we have body hair, secondly code of conduct of course they do, although its not written its there, that is the instinct of survival, if that wasn’t there all animals would die. What is natural for them is natural for us because we are animals too, we are merely more advanced animals and we have animal instincts as well and repressing those leads to unnatural results, like homophobia. Also there is debate as to whether Whales, and Dolphins have a language…so let’s not be so egocentric to believe we are so different.

Spain didn't kill 10's of millions in the Inquisition.

I wasn’t talking about the Inquisition, and the Inquisition also shows how sick “Christian” morality can be.

Hitler was originally raised a Catholic, but in his later years he was not a practicing catholic; in fact his regime persecuted the Christian church.

He used our Christian God on numerous occasions to excuse his actions.

So what? Read his interview in table talk. It was all a sham. He remained quite silent of his anti-christian beliefs , but it was only to wait for a politically opportune time.

Sham or not, it shows how people use God when it fits them, like religious conservatives in the US, they are against Gay marriage, but for tax cuts that make people poor. Think about it…it’s all Bull Shit.

Just as a reminder, you didn't qualify your belief either. Not so quick to judge.

By evidence is the prevalence of homosexual sex/actions by the majority of the population who claim to be "heterosexual". Since 70% of the population is doing both…without admitting it alas “not choosing it” imo there is no real distinction.

Undecided, good post.

Perkele,

**** are victims of the homo-gathegory, just like goth's, rockers etc have their own 'clubs', which are all disliked in some levels.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Leather-******* forcing stereotypes whilst pissing on the more political homo's, are restraining individuality, eventhough they might think just the opposite.

For example . . . ?

As long as love between the same sex is considered to be unlabelled, and does not huddle together the individual and the group, then there is a change of lowering the irrational shock the society gets from the ***-**** encounter.

. . . What?!

Say that again in English, and without ignorant comments.

And which moreoever adds to the contradiction are the liberation attempts from the group that has been looked down upon. This just forces the spite bible-puppets have against homosexuals.
Forget the 'rally of liberation' and leave the truck-***** look home. I'm not saying play the masque, but rather advicing people not to turn into a culturally aware Jay-******'s (the guy from queer eye, fuck he pisses me off).

You really don't know what ye'r talking about. Don't assign stereotypes to all members of the group.

There are better ways to define ones identity than being a full blown out S/M lesbian.

And there are better ways to comunicate yer opinion than making ignorant comments.

And before someone says "but they like being what they are! Who are you to talk!", well.. in that case goth's must be a hoot for you.

Goths have just as much a right to be who they want to be as homosexuals do.

They like being who they are! Who are you to talk?

Thersites,

If consenting adults freely choose to do something which does not directly harm anyone else then it is no-one else's concern. Most people use "natural" to mean something they enjoy. Looking at a computer screen and typing messages is unnatural too as our eyes and fingers did not develop for that purpose. However, it is natural because we designed computers for that purpose. We must not confuse our own personal tastes with the word of god or the dictates of human nature.

Good. I'm in total agreement.

okinrus,

Prove it. If I had a condition that turned my skin green but had no other affect, would it not be a disease? Your perception of what is a disease is based upon your own desire, nothing more, and cannot be used to justify any real argument.

"Homosexuality is a disease" is somewhere in the Cesspool. How 'bout ya talk about this "disease" there?

By the way, I'd like to see some argument that doesn't talk about this God of yers. Telling us that some god doesn't like it convinces us of nothing.

I believe that homosexuality is no worse or different than S/M tendencies or Japanese schoolgirl fetishes. Some fetishes have victims and that makes them intrinsically bad. If no one but consenting adults are harmed it is no worse than smoking. A person cannot choose what excites them. They can choose what desires they act on.

That argument doesn’t make any sense towards the end; I’m not even sure what you are trying to say. Christians believe that homosexuality is unnatural, because God says it is, not because it really is.
[/quote
Well, Christians might believe so for different reasons. Some even believe it's natural. But if God did so, then it is. E

[quote]
That definition is without merit without proof of God’s existence. There are so many problems with the theory of God its hard to believe in him sometimes (I do), but I believe that since Jesus never spoke about homosexuality in the NT and since so many Christians ignore many of the value judgements in the old testament, homosexuality is about as valid as not cutting your hair.

The OT doesn't even talk about homosexuality, only the behavioral aspects.


That’s absurd, one’s beliefs doesn’t change objective fact. Do you even know what nonsense is coming out of your mouth? If it’s a disorder, it’s a disorder no matter what the hell you believe.

Well, no. I'm viewing disorder as viewed by the individual. Like I said, if I was green and was happy about it, it wouldn't be a disorder to me, it would be to everyone else. Does everyone else beleiving it is a disorder make it a disorder? No. But if you care to view it by God's standard, or by some official standard, you might be make a farther reaching claim.


Pedophilia unlike homosexuality, or heterosexuality harms the children it goes against the harm principle

No, the harm occurs when a pedophile acts on his impulse. The condition of pedophile, so stated, doesn't really harm anyone else but the pedophile.


and even if the child consents to the sex the child does not understand what it really entails. Now here you are assuming that homosexuality is en par with pedophilia and not heterosexual sex, I make no such distinction because they are one in the same.

No, I didn't say it was on par with. What I meant was that the attraction is the same: one man's attracted to a man, one's attracted to a child, and one's attracted to a women. We label the man who's attracted to a child as one having a disorder. We do so because we feel this attraction has the potential harms both the pedophile--he cannot enjoy a normal relationship--and the children around the pedophile. With homosexuality, however, some believe it harms and some don't. This judgement isn't based upon facts, but upon someone's values and view of the world around them. A fundamentalist Christian, who views homosexuality as a sin, likely believes the homosexual lifestyle harms the homosexual's life. A more liberal Christian might not. In any case, because this judgement is based upon values--not facts--your going to have a tough time making your case.


Sham or not, it shows how people use God when it fits them, like religious conservatives in the US, they are against Gay marriage, but for tax cuts that make people poor. Think about it…it’s all Bull Shit.

This is like Stalin killing millions and then saying he did so because he didn't believe in God. These Tyrants do anything to remain in power, and sometimes they will even portray a false image. Hitler rejects most of the Bible, rejects Paul and all of the Jewish authors. I doubt rejecting the tax cuts would help the poor, though. The excess money given to the government would undoubtly go to fund more goverment programs, and most of this money will land in the pockets of the powerful backers of these programs.

Tiassa, you are one sick f

Do I really want to know why?

The OT doesn't even talk about homosexuality, only the behavioral aspects.

Homosexuality wouldn’t exist without behaviour, so it’s a pointless point.

Well, no. I'm viewing disorder as viewed by the individual. Like I said, if I was green and was happy about it, it wouldn't be a disorder to me, it would be to everyone else. Does everyone else beleiving it is a disorder make it a disorder? No.

Then if objectively the fact that homosexuality is natural, and is not a disorder, or a disease, or anything but being a human then the problem is not with those who admit or accept their homosexual side, but those who believe bull shit nonsense and its completely illiberal if they restrict the rights of those who lean towards the more homosexual side of the spectrum simply because they believe in idiocy. The problem then is with society, and what you’ve been doing is saying the problem is with the sexually liberated.

But if you care to view it by God's standard, or by some official standard, you might be make a farther reaching claim.

I cannot waste my time doing that, I live in a secular liberal society which is ruled by rights for all individuals as long as they don’t harm someone else, it is immoral in our society if we deny people their rights for something they cannot control, and doesn’t effect anyone else’s rights.

No, the harm occurs when a pedophile acts on his impulse. The condition of pedophile, so stated, doesn't really harm anyone else but the pedophile.

It harms the child quite obviously, psychologically the child is not prepared for it, and it can’t understand what is happening to them. Also the child cannot legally consent to having sex, now from a Christian perspective (since procreation is the be all end all) pedophilia is acceptable as long as the female can give birth, and thus so is marriage. Anti-Gay activists never speak of the consequences of their ideals.

We label the man who's attracted to a child as one having a disorder. We do so because we feel this attraction has the potential harms both the pedophile--he cannot enjoy a normal relationship--and the children around the pedophile.

I don’t necessarily believe it’s a disorder until it is proven as such, until there is physical evidence of something seriously wrong with a pedophile’s mind, genetic code, etc. Also I would imagine pedophilia is much more widespread then we assume, which of course is a shame. The reason why pedophilia is wrong is because it harms the child, I don’t see how it harms the pedophile he is getting what he wants

This judgement isn't based upon facts, but upon someone's values and view of the world around them.

But again I must point to fundamental differences here on opinion one is based on fact and science, and the other on a book that was written by some men back 5000 years ago, and borrowed some stories from the Assyrians (if I am not mistaken Adam and Eve is really a Mesopotamian fable), so one is to be listen too and the other ignored. You as an individual can believe whatever the hell you want, the problem stems when you try to impose your subjective nonsense on all of society. With a liberal perspective what is being imposed is not some belief but factual.

In any case, because this judgement is based upon values--not facts--your going to have a tough time making your case.

I am making my case to people are rational, if you can’t honestly attack my position in a coherent secular manner then your beliefs no matter how deep are quite unfounded.

These Tyrants do anything to remain in power, and sometimes they will even portray a false image.

Bush does it all the time to stay in power; using God is perfect to manipulate the ignorant masses. God is on America’s side for instance is a great propaganda tool for nationalism, God and Politics go together because they both use each other so very well.

I doubt rejecting the tax cuts would help the poor, though. The excess money given to the government would undoubtly go to fund more goverment programs, and most of this money will land in the pockets of the powerful backers of these programs.

Who do you think got the biggest tax cut, it wasn’t the poor let me tell you that. And since the Gov’t is going to cut spending on education, and healthcare, and reform Social Security (so it better suits the rich) the New Deal and the traditional Social contract is going to the garbage, and the poor will suffer most.

Homosexuality wouldn’t exist without behaviour, so it’s a pointless point.

Homosexuality can just mean same-sex attraction. There's no need to imply behavioral, just like not every heterosexual is sexually active.


Then if objectively the fact that homosexuality is natural, and is not a disorder, or a disease, or anything but being a human then the problem is not with those who admit or accept their homosexual side, but those who believe bull shit nonsense and its completely illiberal if they restrict the rights of those who lean towards the more homosexual side of the spectrum simply because they believe in idiocy. The problem then is with society, and what you’ve been doing is saying the problem is with the sexually liberated.

Well, the lack of gay marriage isn't restricting homosexual rights; it's retricting homosexual marriage too all US citizens.


I cannot waste my time doing that, I live in a secular liberal society which is ruled by rights for all individuals as long as they don’t harm someone else

You live the US? If so, you live in a free society but not necessarily a secular one, depending of course on what you mean by secular. Each citizen and politician should have a right to practice his or her religion, or no religion, and make informed decisions--which do not break any laws--on basic of their religion or unbelief.


it is immoral in our society if we deny people their rights for something they cannot control, and doesn’t effect anyone else’s rights.

No, it's not immoral. There are numerous of people-to-people relationships that we do not call marriage. Somehow or other they don't meet our definition of the word marriage. You believe gay marriage is marriage because of your values, I think. Likewise, someone else might believe gay marriage isn't marriage.


It harms the child quite obviously, psychologically the child is not prepared for it, and it can’t understand what is happening to them. Also the child cannot legally consent to having sex, now from a Christian perspective (since procreation is the be all end all) pedophilia is acceptable as long as the female can give birth, and thus so is marriage. Anti-Gay activists never speak of the consequences of their ideals.

A pedophile doesn't necessarily act on their impulse, and while you say it harms the child there are groups out there that believe otherwise. There's no single Christian perspective you've speak of. But traditionally churches such as the catholic church have an age, I think perhaps 16 or 18, before which you can't get married.


I don’t necessarily believe it’s a disorder until it is proven as such, until there is physical evidence of something seriously wrong with a pedophile’s mind, genetic code, etc.

You can say physical evidence; but really, you judge this evidence based upon your own values. You know pedophilia is a disorder because a pedophile desires to do wrong, and you, I might think, know his desire is wrong because of your values.


Also I would imagine pedophilia is much more widespread then we assume, which of course is a shame. The reason why pedophilia is wrong is because it harms the child, I don’t see how it harms the pedophile he is getting what he wants

Most pedofiles, I'm sure, don't like being attracted to young kids, but are forced to, some how or other by their minds.


But again I must point to fundamental differences here on opinion one is based on fact and science, and the other on a book that was written by some men back 5000 years ago, and borrowed some stories from the Assyrians (if I am not mistaken Adam and Eve is really a Mesopotamian fable),

Adam and Eve resembles Gilgamesh a little, but not really. The flood story has Babylonian overtones, but most ancient cultures have flood stories, the native Americans do, and so I wouldn't be suprised if the two flood stories are unrelated.


Bush does it all the time to stay in power; using God is perfect to manipulate the ignorant masses.

So did Kerry. Only Bush could do a better job of it: his social values were in the right ballpark.


God is on America’s side for instance is a great propaganda tool for nationalism, God and Politics go together because they both use each other so very well.

Well, as an issue, religious freedom is important, and I'd expect a president who cares more about his religion to care more about religious freedom. Of course, the opposite could occur.


Who do you think got the biggest tax cut, it wasn’t the poor let me tell you that.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure the tax cut was proportional or a bit more progressive in nature. Not as progressive as Kerry's, but Kerry, you know, only kept the lower to middle class tax cut to appeal to middle-class vote.


And since the Gov’t is going to cut spending on education, and healthcare, and reform Social Security (so it better suits the rich) the New Deal and the traditional Social contract is going to the garbage, and the poor will suffer most.

There're going to have cut someone's social security benefits, eventually, but there'll probably cut the benefits to the rich if they have too. Education is an entirely different issue. I don't know whether education cuts are going to matter. For teachers(at least those who care for their students and teach) whether they have money or not doesn't matter too much. New books don't make better students. Better teaching does.

Homosexuality can just mean same-sex attraction. There's no need to imply behavioral, just like not every heterosexual is sexually active.

I disagree to an extent, by definition one is nothing until one acts upon that impluse. Now sure you be attracted to one sex, or whatever but until you act upon that you aren't either, now acting upon it means everything from masterbation, to actual sexual intercourse, or suggestively looking at another. Merely having an attraction is not enough to make you what you think you are. Of course again I must stress most people are not clear cut homo/hetero-sexual.

Well, the lack of gay marriage isn't restricting homosexual rights; it's retricting homosexual marriage too all US citizens.

Its a restriction of basic human rights by a ignorant majority, and it must stop. Of course the lack of gay marriage is restricting the rights of those who have homosexual realtions, by definition, so your destinction makes no sense at all. Which is becoming a common occurance.

You live the US? If so, you live in a free society but not necessarily a secular one, depending of course on what you mean by secular.

I personally don't live in the United States, and my country is liberal enough to realize that restricting the rights of others when what they are doing harms no one (no matter what religious folk think, there is no evidence, empirically that it harms anyone) is illiberal and must be rectrified. The United States is a secular nation, meaning that the seperation of church and state is there, and as a result the influence of church laws cannot have any bearing on the laws of the state because that leads to prejudice as we are seeing here now.

Each citizen and politician should have a right to practice his or her religion, or no religion, and make informed decisions--which do not break any laws--on basic of their religion or unbelief.

You are again not making sense in the context of your argument, no one here denied the right of the individual to believe, what he believes personally. The problem is when those beliefs (not informed opinion) are made into public policy. They can follow the tenents of their belief, no one is denying that, if they think homosexual acts are immoral so be it. But one must draw the line when they try to impose that on society.

No, it's not immoral.

Yes it is according the most basic prefecture of liberalism, which of course is JS Mill's harm principle I will quote from Mill:

"The only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

If it does not abide by this liberal principle then it is indeed liberally immoral to prevent people from their rights. The United States is a liberal state, if it were a Christian nation then the laws of the bible imo would be permissable to be enforced. But the United States is not a religious nation, it is by its own definitions a liberal society, and should then live by it.

There are numerous of people-to-people relationships that we do not call marriage.

Like?

Somehow or other they don't meet our definition of the word marriage.

Your definition not mine, this is exactly the problem you believe that everyone thinks in black and white I don't. My definition of the word marriage is pretty basic:

"The Union btwn consenting, of age individuals, whose union does not infringe on the rights of those involved in the union, or on society"

Homosexual marriage does not, heterosexual marriage does not, pedophila does because it harms the child, and it leads to a breakdown of society by the child in later years not being able to trust society. Polygamy is imo ok, I don't object if your stupid enough to do it, and your an adult I have no right not to tell you not to do it. Now according to my definitions it is possible that a abusive relationship could be considered null and void because it infringes of the rights of those involved in the union.

You believe gay marriage is marriage because of your values, I think. Likewise, someone else might believe gay marriage isn't marriage.

But you must understand my values matter in a liberal society, if I were living in Iran then no my values are indeed useless. But according to liberal values, a liberal nation should allow people to marry if they do not harm anyone. My opinion in valid, a religious person's is only valid to themselves.

A pedophile doesn't necessarily act on their impulse, and while you say it harms the child there are groups out there that believe otherwise.

Empirically evidence suggests that children are mistrustful of others, have deep psychological scars, and even lets assume it is good for the child, the child legally cannot consent to the action. So again it is detrimental to the health of society.

There's no single Christian perspective you've speak of.

Tell me one that doesn't promote procreation?

But traditionally churches such as the catholic church have an age, I think perhaps 16 or 18, before which you can't get married.

If you could prove that it would be nice.

You can say physical evidence; but really, you judge this evidence based upon your own values.

No I don't, why do you think the world is run on values? What because I believe in liberal values I see green and you see red? No stop with this idiotic line of argumentation. What I am saying is if science tells me that yes x is a disorder, its a disorder there is nothing I can do about it. What do you think I am a Baptist? My values don't impede my ability to look at this as objectively as possible.

You know pedophilia is a disorder because a pedophile desires to do wrong, and you, I might think, know his desire is wrong because of your values.

Again firstly where's the proof for this? Are you just saying this because you believe this? According to Socrates a human being is incapable of doing wrong on purpose, a human being always does something good for either himself or someone else, if the consequences are bad that has little bearing on the fact the person did something because he thought what he was doing was good, selfish or otherwise. His desire is wrong because it harms the child, but I cannot believe that he is purposely being evil.

Most pedofiles, I'm sure, don't like being attracted to young kids, but are forced to, some how or other by their minds.

If that can be proven then we have a conversation over and done with, but until that is proven it is a mystery as to why the pedophile is doing what he is doing.

Well, as an issue, religious freedom is important, and I'd expect a president who cares more about his religion to care more about religious freedom. Of course, the opposite could occur.

Of course I disagree on this regard, a very religious president will try to push his religious perspective on others, so by definition religious freedom is trashed upon, it must be understood the atheism is also a faith.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure the tax cut was proportional or a bit more progressive in nature. Not as progressive as Kerry's, but Kerry, you know, only kept the lower to middle class tax cut to appeal to middle-class vote.

The tax cuts went disporportionately to the rich :

http://www.bushtax.com/

There're going to have cut someone's social security benefits, eventually, but there'll probably cut the benefits to the rich if they have too.

But the difference is with private accounts the rich will actually GET RICHER, while people with small earnings are putting their cash into risky markets and could lose it all becaue they such little money to put in it would be hard for them to diversify like the rich can. Markets crash, and fall and look at the Enron people. Also if Bush's tax cuts didn't happen the US would be in a MUCH better fiscal position and if Clinton levels of surplus were kept Social Security would be paid for.

Education is an entirely different issue. I don't know whether education cuts are going to matter. For teachers(at least those who care for their students and teach) whether they have money or not doesn't matter too much. New books don't make better students. Better teaching does

Unless of course the text books says "Martin Luther King is an up and coming figures in the civil rights movement". Money to education does not only go to teachers, it goes into books, technology, better teacher training so better education for children, better schools, safer schools, smaller class sizes, more comprehensive education, etc. It is acknowledged by virtually everyone that the best asset a nation has is its education system, and cutting that back would further seal the fate of an already failing US economy.

Its a restriction of basic human rights by a ignorant majority, and it must stop. Of course the lack of gay marriage is restricting the rights of those who have homosexual realtions, by definition, so your destinction makes no sense at all. Which is becoming a common occurance.

Well, look deeper. The current situation doesn't restrict anyone's rights. Any given person one can marry. Only the situation with respect to two people do you have problems. But not any two groups of people can marry. No, problem, however, because our rights are framed towards the individual, not two given people. And what about those wishing to marry as a business relationships? There must be a point to which to draw the line, I think. Not any five, six group can marry either. The case for gay marriage, if there's going to be one, will be made as a pragmatic fashion: does extending marriage to gays improve society?


No I don't, why do you think the world is run on values? What because I believe in liberal values I see green and you see red? No stop with this idiotic line of argumentation. What I am saying is if science tells me that yes x is a disorder, its a disorder there is nothing I can do about it. What do you think I am a Baptist? My values don't impede my ability to look at this as objectively as possible.

Psychologists have stated homosexuality was a disorder; it's no longer consider a disorder. See, the scale they use to determine whether something is a disorder or not is not absolute. They change whether something is a disorder or not, if they change their scale. But this works for all fields of science. Just because some scientist states homosexuality occurs in nature, doesn't make homosexuality is right. We can make that conclusion only if everything that occurs in nature is right.



I personally don't live in the United States, and my country is liberal enough to realize that restricting the rights of others when what they are doing harms no one (no matter what religious folk think, there is no evidence, empirically that it harms anyone) is illiberal and must be rectrified. The United States is a secular nation, meaning that the seperation of church and state is there, and as a result the influence of church laws cannot have any bearing on the laws of the state because that leads to prejudice as we are seeing here now.

The separation of church and state is not a complete separation, in that everyone must either avoid religion or that everyone must make laws uninformed by relgion; rather, no one must make laws infringing on someone else's religion. Any given citizen may inform is conscious by whatever religious or non-religious fashion he or she pleases.


Tell me one that doesn't promote procreation?

Well, procreation outside of marriage isn't endorsed. Neither is excessive procreation within marriage. Rather, couples in most of these religions are supposed to show restraint, by that I do not necessarily mean contraception. A consequence view of morality doesn't work for Christians. All things that happen are allowed by God, and so for any thing wrong I do and am allowed to do, there must be good consequences in proportion to the wrong. Practically anything wrong could be allowed if moral judgments were made completely by consequences.


Again firstly where's the proof for this? Are you just saying this because you believe this? According to Socrates a human being is incapable of doing wrong on purpose, a human being always does something good for either himself or someone else, if the consequences are bad that has little bearing on the fact the person did something because he thought what he was doing was good, selfish or otherwise. His desire is wrong because it harms the child, but I cannot believe that he is purposely being evil.

A distorted view of what is good. Whenever a human makes a rational decision, there's always a motive or force behind the decision. But I wouldn't say this motive is always good.


Of course I disagree on this regard, a very religious president will try to push his religious perspective on others, so by definition religious freedom is trashed upon, it must be understood the atheism is also a faith.

Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, was the first to set out the principle of separation of church and state. He was quite a religious guy, I think, so the conclusion you've made doesn't really follow. If someone's religion tells them that all other religions shouldn't coexist, then it follows.


But the difference is with private accounts the rich will actually GET RICHER, while people with small earnings are putting their cash into risky markets and could lose it all becaue they such little money to put in it would be hard for them to diversify like the rich can. Markets crash, and fall and look at the Enron people. Also if Bush's tax cuts didn't happen the US would be in a MUCH better fiscal position and if Clinton levels of surplus were kept Social Security would be paid for.

I'm sure people will only be able to invest a small portion of their Social Security savings, and there'll likely be unable to choose what particular stocks. Right now, millions of people put their money in banks, and these banks make money investing their money. Bush's Social Security, I'm sure, will be a more direct form of this, where the individual will be able to keep most of the profit. The cost to start up partial privatization of Social Security might not be worth it, though.

Well, look deeper. The current situation doesn't restrict anyone's rights. Any given person one can marry.

No they can’t the only marriages that occur now are btwn man and women, and at that singularly btwn the two. No one would recognize the other person’s marriage, so essentially it’s as good as nothing. The state cannot discriminate against individuals in their society if they are within the harm principle. So I don’t know what nonsense you are talking about because it isn’t making ANY sense.

And what about those wishing to marry as a business relationships?

This doesn’t happen? Green card marriages? Marriages to the boss’ daughter? I don’t care if that happens we have no right to tell those people not to marry, if they freely choose their relationships, whatever happened to responsibility in this society, remember God gave us free will to make our decisions, let people be free to do what they want. I know you have no right to tell them not to marry so I don’t see the argument.

There must be a point to which to draw the line, I think.

Of course when that marriage is detrimental to the individual, not done out of free will, or is detrimental society at large, otherwise hands off. Again homosexual marriage does not do any of these.

The case for gay marriage, if there's going to be one, will be made as a pragmatic fashion: does extending marriage to gays improve society?

That’s not a relevant judgment, the real judgement call is “restricting marriage to homosexuals, how depraved is our society?” Homosexual’s getting married is good for those two individuals, its good for the economy, and its going to be good for society, because tolerance would extend to all individuals. Let me ask you, all these arguments you are proposing to me were arguments against inter-racial marriage, has that destroyed society?

Psychologists have stated homosexuality was a disorder; it's no longer consider a disorder.

Because I doubt they had any scientific basis for that call, and once it was shown that no it’s not a disorder it isn’t. I am sure that white men who liked black women were considered sick, the reason why the designation changed was because that judgement had much more to do with a society that was ignorant about homosexuality, and like most people who are ignorant they are afraid of it, and discount its validity by saying “it’s a disease”.

See, the scale they use to determine whether something is a disorder or not is not absolute. They change whether something is a disorder or not, if they change their scale.

Or alternatives maybe they were just wrong before? Think of that?

Just because some scientist states homosexuality occurs in nature, doesn't make homosexuality is right. We can make that conclusion only if everything that occurs in nature is right.

What is right? How does society define what is right? By a liberal standard of rights, not morality like you believe it is. If what in nature is done harms another it is not right, if it does not harm then it is ok. Also when most members if not all members of society are to some extent homosexual, I would think twice about calling it “right or wrong” because your best friend could very well be a practicing homosexual be careful.

The separation of church and state is not a complete separation, in that everyone must either avoid religion or that everyone must make laws uninformed by relgion; rather, no one must make laws infringing on someone else's religion.

Firstly the separation btwn church and state is absolute it has to be, the state cannot be interesting in the beliefs of a religious group because that’s all they are, beliefs. The state has to protect the rights of religious citizens right to practice their religion without interference, but that’s it. The imposition of anti-gay laws is by no means a liberal law, it’s a religious law and it infringes on the rights of society. Secondly it must be understood that here in Canada churches are not obliged to marry homosexuals but the government cannot discriminate in civil marriages.

Any given citizen may inform is conscious by whatever religious or non-religious fashion he or she pleases.
Who said differently, you are having a different conversation here. I don’t think your getting it either.

Well, procreation outside of marriage isn't endorsed.

I didn’t endorse it outside of marriage, what I said sex from a Christian perspective has one prerequisite; The ability to have children Since the child of the age of 10 let’s say can have a child, it is well within the Christian doctrine to marry that child and have sex with that child. In order to have sex with that child you must be married, so these are the consequences of a Christian definition of marriage that goes unnoticed, or unquestioned.

A distorted view of what is good. Whenever a human makes a rational decision, there's always a motive or force behind the decision. But I wouldn't say this motive is always good.

It cannot be evil; a human being never does anything if he/she doesn’t feel that someone thing good will come out of it. Hitler killed 12 million people for a better life for the “Aryan race” sure the actions were evil, but were the motives, all Hitler wanted was the best. It isn’t distorted, the only reason you think so is because you think the world is white and black, and I am not that ignorant.

Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, was the first to set out the principle of separation of church and state.

He was not the first in the world, please…Voltaire was much more eloquent and most likely predated him.

He was quite a religious guy, I think, so the conclusion you've made doesn't really follow. If someone's religion tells them that all other religions shouldn't coexist, then it follows.

Well Bush show’s me right…

Bush's Social Security, I'm sure, will be a more direct form of this, where the individual will be able to keep most of the profit. The cost to start up partial privatization of Social Security might not be worth it, though.

Millions of people’s life savings are going to shit, if this goes through because the US economy is going into recession eventually its only when…

Undecided, in general, cannot know for certain whether something harms someone. That is to say, where does society draw the line between progressive taxes and stealing from the rich? Who decides whether an unborn fetus is harmed? What about harm that only comes into being in the future? It's too difficult to be the sole principle in forming ethics, I think.



He was not the first in the world, please…Voltaire was much more eloquent and most likely predated him.

I'm speaking of the direct phrase "separation of church of state." It was latter used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter. The phrase might have been used by some other figure before him, but I don't think so. Voltair was born in 1694. Roger Williams died 1683/1684.


Or alternatives maybe they were just wrong before? Think of that?

Possibly, but there's nothing that really could go wrong in their judgments. A disorder is really anything contrary to order or orderly. If they called homosexuality abnormal back in the 50s, it was because they throught it abnormal. Nowdays, it's not so they changed their position. But it's all really much based on their view of the world and the number of activists who tell them it's not a disorder.


I didn’t endorse it outside of marriage, what I said sex from a Christian perspective has one prerequisite; The ability to have children Since the child of the age of 10 let’s say can have a child, it is well within the Christian doctrine to marry that child and have sex with that child. In order to have sex with that child you must be married, so these are the consequences of a Christian definition of marriage that goes unnoticed, or unquestioned.

No, that depends on which Christian denomination/church you go to. Most have age requirements.


What is right? How does society define what is right? By a liberal standard of rights, not morality like you believe it is. If what in nature is done harms another it is not right, if it does not harm then it is ok.

Does the victim or the perpetrator decide what harms?


Also when most members if not all members of society are to some extent homosexual, I would think twice about calling it “right or wrong” because your best friend could very well be a practicing homosexual be careful.

Possibly, but I doubt he'd care if I said was wrong.


It cannot be evil; a human being never does anything if he/she doesn’t feel that someone thing good will come out of it.

Well, you have not defined good. Even harder, you'd have to categorically view a human being always doing something with the belief good will come out of it as good. Clearly this isn't the case. When Hitler decided to kill all those Jews, he should have doubted the process that arrived him there. He didn't, and I'd wager he did so out of pride. How could he admit that his logic was wrong? Many humans make decisions out of greed or pride.


Millions of people’s life savings are going to shit, if this goes through because the US economy is going into recession eventually its only when…

Our social security system will eventually go bankrupt anyway.

Undecided, in general, cannot know for certain whether something harms someone.

Yes we can, according to the harm principle it is when there actual harm being done to someone else due to your actions, or their rights are being restricted by your actions. That is what is meant by harm, now can you show me this harm that homosexual’s obviously do?

I'm speaking of the direct phrase "separation of church of state." It was latter used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter. The phrase might have been used by some other figure before him, but I don't think so. Voltair was born in 1694. Roger Williams died 1683/1684.

Ok thanks for the useless info but what does this have to do with the argument really?

Possibly, but there's nothing that really could go wrong in their judgments.

Obviously something did if the community decided that it was not a disorder.

If they called homosexuality abnormal back in the 50s, it was because they throught it abnormal. Nowdays, it's not so they changed their position. But it's all really much based on their view of the world and the number of activists who tell them it's not a disorder.

No I think it was the other way around, the studies of the period showed that the amount of people having homosexual sex, or homosexual actions was so prevalent that the whole population would then have been insane, the only reason it was considered a disorder was because it was not thought of being so prevalent so to their minds those that are caught doing it are eccentric and of course something must be wrong. But nothing was, and there’s no evidence to suggest it is. Much of psychology I would imagine is based on preconceptions of what society thinks is normal, who is to say that heterosexual sex isn’t the disorder? I don’t believe it is, but that question is never asked because our society never thinks of that possibility, its always the other isn’t it?

No, that depends on which Christian denomination/church you go to. Most have age requirements.

Ok then source them to me, but there must be those without and even if there is the question must be posed is it a sin?

Does the victim or the perpetrator decide what harms?

Neither, an objective non-partisan judge does.

Possibly, but I doubt he'd care if I said was wrong.

I think he would, because how can you as a friend treat him like…well shit? I mean how can you treat him as a friend, as an equal, if what you think he is, is wrong? Would you associate with a murderer? Why associate with him if he is sinning as well? This is why you, and so many like you are hypocrites and the sexual equal vent of racists.

Well, you have not defined good.

Imo Good- if your motive is good it is good.

When Hitler decided to kill all those Jews, he should have doubted the process that arrived him there. He didn't

How do you know where you in his mountain house? Let’s not make wild assumptions here.

and I'd wager he did so out of pride.

Let most bets, you’ll end up losing don’t try it.

Our social security system will eventually go bankrupt anyway.

Not if you raise taxes, selectively give the benefits to those who need it not billionaires, and get the budget back in surplus.

Yes we can, according to the harm principle it is when there actual harm being done to someone else due to your actions, or their rights are being restricted by your actions. That is what is meant by harm, now can you show me this harm that homosexual’s obviously do?

Homosexuals harm themselves, but I never agreed to this harm principle. Sounds wiccan to me.


Ok thanks for the useless info but what does this have to do with the argument really?

Roger Williams was a Christian preacher, and so the principle here was first phased by a Christian.




No I think it was the other way around, the studies of the period showed that the amount of people having homosexual sex, or homosexual actions was so prevalent that the whole population would then have been insane, the only reason it was considered a disorder was because it was not thought of being so prevalent so to their minds those that are caught doing it are eccentric and of course something must be wrong.

Only something like 2% of the population is homosexual: more prevalent than some mental illness, but not so prevalent as depression.


Much of psychology I would imagine is based on preconceptions of what society thinks is normal, who is to say that heterosexual sex isn’t the disorder? I don’t believe it is, but that question is never asked because our society never thinks of that possibility, its always the other isn’t it?

Yes, heterosexuality could be a considered a disorder.


Ok then source them to me, but there must be those without and even if there is the question must be posed is it a sin?

The Catholic church has age restrictions given by canon law. If a priest tried to perform an underage marriage there's a good chance the couple could have the marriage annulled. Whether it's sinful or not, I don't know. If the couple for some reasons didn't know the age restriction, their intentions would make this a mistake but not a sin, I think. If they did know, they have committed sins such as scandal or sacriledge.


I think he would, because how can you as a friend treat him like…well shit? I mean how can you treat him as a friend, as an equal, if what you think he is, is wrong?

How is stating something is wrong treating a friend badly?


Would you associate with a murderer? Why associate with him if he is sinning as well?

People sin. I sin. Frankly, I'd want a friend to tell me not to do something bad.


How do you know where you in his mountain house? Let’s not make wild assumptions here.

Hitler outlines his reasoning in some of writings he's done. But it shouldn't matter. If logic told me to kill millions of people, I wouldn't trust either the logic or the premises I'd used.


Not if you raise taxes, selectively give the benefits to those who need it not billionaires, and get the budget back in surplus.

Okay, at what point is the government "stealing" from the rich. If the government taxed the rich 100% of their income, wouldn't that be stealing? Bush reduced the taxes in order to provide economic growth. If Busraised taxes, he might stagnate the economy. If the economy stagnates the taxes will be higher but the money going back into the government will be less. Better for businesses to make more money and then pay more taxes to the government than for private citizens to pay more taxes. Greenspan spoke today. He thinks the US economy is doing okay, I think.

Homosexuals harm themselves, but I never agreed to this harm principle. Sounds wiccan to me.

Oh I don't care if you don't agree with it or not, it has no bearing on its legitimacy in a liberal society. So I think I've proved my point, secondly homosexual sex is safe if you know how to do it, and for a man by design his anus is designed for in and for out, I would have to argue that anal sex with women is the greatest danger, and homosexuals can't do that, straight couples do. So really the highest risk sex is btwn a man and a woman up the ass, not two men.

Roger Williams was a Christian preacher, and so the principle here was first phased by a Christian.

....and?

Only something like 2% of the population is homosexual: more prevalent than some mental illness, but not so prevalent as depression.

Sorry but I provided stats showing that 80% of the population has have homosexual experiences, secondly your position doesn't make anysense when 10% of the population admits they are "gay". So please don't lie...it doesn't bode well for you.

Yes, heterosexuality could be a considered a disorder.

Exactly my point, neither are because both are natural sexual tendencies within the population. You do honestly believe that people are exclusively homo/hetero? Please, that's nonsense, its like saying one is exclusively good and bad, its not happening.

Whether it's sinful or not, I don't know.

No its not, that's the funny thing because no where in the bible to my knowledge does it speak of age restrictions, but it does about procreation so according to logic a child can have sex, and be married once she is able to have a child.

How is stating something is wrong treating a friend badly?

Because it would be en par with you telling a black "friend" that he is stupid for instance, just because he is black. Again homosexuality (which I don't agree exists) but u do is natural then you telling him that what is doing is wrong would be the same as a KKK members telling a black person that their existence is wrong. I don't see the distinction, you are the equalivent of a racist b/c u are judging people for something they cannot control, and as a result you are the lowest form of human life.

People sin. I sin. Frankly, I'd want a friend to tell me not to do something bad.

Who says that what is doing is bad? I was debating with muslims yesterday about this very subject, now you tell me about "bad"

The discussion revolved around the Islamic concept of punishing homosexuals for their actions. Punishing here means death, I asked people here in Canada who were muslim if they supported that, some didn't want to comment, and other's did. I said to those who refused to answer "well how valid is God's commandments even if you seem to agree it is immoral, this goes to the problem of whether what God commands is because its moral or is it moral because god demands it." Read the Euthyfro:

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

If it is moral because God demands it, then anything could be moral. Like killing homosexuals...is that moral my friend?

If logic told me to kill millions of people, I wouldn't trust either the logic or the premises I'd used.

Hitler didn't want to kill the Jews, he wanted to kick them out of Europe, and since no one wanted them he had to (in his opinion) accept the conclusions from the Wansee conference to kill them.

Okay, at what point is the government "stealing" from the rich. If the government taxed the rich 100% of their income, wouldn't that be stealing?

No one is advocating stealing from anyone, what we advocate is sound fiscal policy. The US in a war, ask yourself who is stealing from whom? Aren't you stealing an economic future from your children because of your tax cuts, Greenspan says so:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/03/news/gspan.html


Bush reduced the taxes in order to provide economic growth. If Busraised taxes, he might stagnate the economy.

Bush tax cuts have provided short term growth at the expense of long term growth. I'd rather have a recession then a long term stagnation of the economy as Greenspan is saying.

He thinks the US economy is doing okay, I think.

Much like your 2% stat, you don't know what you are talking about.

Sorry but I provided stats showing that 80% of the population has have homosexual experiences, secondly your position doesn't make anysense when 10% of the population admits they are "gay". So please don't lie...it doesn't bode well for you.

It's well known that the percentage of gays is estimated between 1% to 10%. The 80% figure seems distorted, and you have never explained the meaning behind "gay experience". http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html


Exactly my point, neither are because both are natural sexual tendencies within the population. You do honestly believe that people are exclusively homo/hetero? Please, that's nonsense, its like saying one is exclusively good and bad, its not happening.

Yes, heterosexual aren't sexually attracted to other men. No inclination whatsoever.


No its not, that's the funny thing because no where in the bible to my knowledge does it speak of age restrictions, but it does about procreation so according to logic a child can have sex, and be married once she is able to have a child.

Whether something is in the Bible or not doesn't automatically make or unmake whether something is a sin. But notice also that I didn't say the marriage was a sin. The disrespect to the sacrament, combined with the age restrictions the Church has placed on it, would likely make it sacriledge, if the participants knew of course.


Because it would be en par with you telling a black "friend" that he is stupid for instance, just because he is black. Again homosexuality (which I don't agree exists) but u do is natural then you telling him that what is doing is wrong would be the same as a KKK members telling a black person that their existence is wrong. I don't see the distinction, you are the equalivent of a racist b/c u are judging people for something they cannot control, and as a result you are the lowest form of human life.

You're treating this more than it really is. Ciggarettes are bad, candy is bad. Here, physical harm takes place. In the same way, somethings we do are spiritually bad. Calling an action bad does not judge the person but the action. I can't just judge a person, or know the true reasons and mitigating circumstances why they'd do something.


Who says that what is doing is bad? I was debating with muslims yesterday about this very subject, now you tell me about "bad"

Like I said, the same problem arises when you attempt to determine what harms someone. Only by the natural law instilled within all hearts do we have clear view of what's "bad", and even then it can get blurry sometimes.


I said to those who refused to answer "well how valid is God's commandments even if you seem to agree it is immoral, this goes to the problem of whether what God commands is because its moral or is it moral because god demands it."

Well, muslims will counter by either saying this the commandment doesn't occurr in the Qur'an but in the Sunni writings or in the Hadith, or by saying the context for which Muhammed said has changed. In practice however the law requires four or so witnesess. To actually be caught is quite unlikely.


Bush tax cuts have provided short term growth at the expense of long term growth. I'd rather have a recession then a long term stagnation of the economy as Greenspan is saying.

Bush's rationale, outlined on the whitehouse webage, shows that reduced taxes have historically been better over the long term. What I meant before was that Greenspan doesn't see the current economy in a crisis. The foreign debt to other countries was ok, he said.

By evidence is the prevalence of homosexual sex/actions by the majority of the population who claim to be "heterosexual". Since 70% of the population is doing both…without admitting it alas “not choosing it” imo there is no real distinction.

Where are you getting that number from?

Cite specific sources please.

But traditionally churches such as the catholic church have an age, I think perhaps 16 or 18, before which you can't get married.

If you could prove that it would be nice.

(quote from up there somewhere) :-)

there was this guy that wrote a whole bunch of plays ages ago-william somebody or other-some pommie from ages ago 1564-1616

and he wrote some plays about his times

`The church-sanctioned age for marriage was at a minimum 14 years for men and 12 years for women' from a website about this guy

imagine that!!

the church marrying 12 year old girls off

hmm food for thought-do all these religious types really want to turn back the clock

and why???

sick puppies (tic-sorta)

boppa, they updated canon law, somewhere around 1900s. Before, the age restrictions were fairly young; but remember, back then the life expectancy was about 30 years and children, loosely speaking, grew up faster.

It's well known that the percentage of gays is estimated between 1% to 10%. The 80% figure seems distorted, and you have never explained the meaning behind "gay experience". http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html

Read my initial post I gave everything, even a breakdown of the figures, secondly that cite you posted only showed those who admit they are homosexual, of course those figures are deflated, it is not possible that only 10% of the population has feelings for the same sex, I gave you the stats, read my post again and don’t bother asking me this stupid question again.

Yes, heterosexual aren't sexually attracted to other men. No inclination whatsoever.

Exactly, that’s what the definition is but that’s just a word not a reality. The reality seems to suggest that most men are bisexual. What I wrote in the intial post again explains this, and you obviously didn’t understand or read it correctly.

Whether something is in the Bible or not doesn't automatically make or unmake whether something is a sin.

So then homosexuality isn’t a sin then?

The disrespect to the sacrament, combined with the age restrictions the Church has placed on it, would likely make it sacriledge, if the participants knew of course.

There is disrespect to the sacrament if the sacrament imposes no age limits, the only limit the bible places is that of procreation, if that can be achieved you can get married, and have sex.

You're treating this more than it really is. Ciggarettes are bad, candy is bad. Here, physical harm takes place. In the same way, somethings we do are spiritually bad. Calling an action bad does not judge the person but the action. I can't just judge a person, or know the true reasons and mitigating circumstances why they'd do something.

Smoking cigarettes is a choice, eating candy is a choice, homosexual sex is not a choice so much as it is a natural inclination. By definition homosexual sex cannot be wrong if our bodies are designed for homosexual sex, the anus for instance serves two purposes, one for feces, and the other for pleasure. If God intended us not to have homosexual sex then why by design would our bodies be made for it? If the anus was only to serve one purpose it would not need to feel pleasure, thus it is not possible for homosexuality to be wrong if we are designed for it, that’s why you are acting like a racist because you are reject someone based on something they cannot control. You can hate a smoker because he willingly chooses his choice but a person who has homosexual sex is naturally inclined to it and thus cannot be wrong.

Like I said, the same problem arises when you attempt to determine what harms someone. Only by the natural law instilled within all hearts do we have clear view of what's "bad", and even then it can get blurry sometimes.

Like I said natural law doesn’t exist, it is a individual interpretation and thus means nothing. The only laws that matter are those which are universalistic in nature, and really only liberal philosophy accomplishes that to any great degree.

Well, muslims will counter by either saying this the commandment doesn't occurr in the Qur'an but in the Sunni writings or in the Hadith, or by saying the context for which Muhammed said has changed. In practice however the law requires four or so witnesess. To actually be caught is quite unlikely.

Regardless, ppl are being killed for something humans do by nature, which also goes to show that sometimes God is more immoral then we are, which goes back to Socrates point which I am sure you’ve read.

Bush's rationale, outlined on the whitehouse webage, shows that reduced taxes have historically been better over the long term. What I meant before was that Greenspan doesn't see the current economy in a crisis. The foreign debt to other countries was ok, he said.

Well actually the biggest boom in US history occurred when Clinton raised taxes, and got the budget into surplus, and in the long run the biggest threat to the US economy according to the economist is the tax cuts.

Read my initial post I gave everything, even a breakdown of the figures, secondly that cite you posted only showed those who admit they are homosexual, of course those figures are deflated, it is not possible that only 10% of the population has feelings for the same sex, I gave you the stats, read my post again and don’t bother asking me this stupid question again.

First of all, the 10% figure is a bit on the high range--my site actually disputes this, saying it should "be about 1%--but 80% is just off the wall. Kinsey's 1948 didn't show 80% but 10%. "2. Fortune, 1991, p. 42: 'Kinsey’s classic 1948 studies suggest that about 10% of American adults are homosexual, a figure that more recent surveys support.'" Second of all, I don't see any reason for someon to lie during these surveys. If they don't want to mention their sexual orientation, they either will not answer the question or will not take the survey. Sure, this would skew the survey somewhat, but not as drastically as you might think.


So then homosexuality isn’t a sin then?

No, it's just an abnormal attraction.


There is disrespect to the sacrament if the sacrament imposes no age limits, the only limit the bible places is that of procreation, if that can be achieved you can get married, and have sex.

The Church imposes restrictions for sacraments. For instance, to receive communion in