This is Why Homosexuality is Wrong. . .

[Mumei]

Why are you all so keen on changing my opinion? That doesn't make anything correct or wrong. I accept what GOD says in HIS WORD as the standard. I do not make up my own to suit my lifestyle.

Well, the primary reason is that this particular sub-forum was made expressly for the purpose of allowing those people who frequent these forums and have these disagreements to argue about them.

When you post in this forum, and you give a poorly justified, illogical defense of your positions, it is to be expected that people attempt to debate those position.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Why are you all so keen on changing my opinion? That doesn't make anything correct or wrong. I accept what GOD says in HIS WORD as the standard. I do not make up my own to suit my lifestyle.

Hate to break it to you, but you make up your own interpretation of God's Word. You want to be a Biblical literalist? Good for you; that's still your chosen interpretation of the Scriptures.

 

[MrPirate]

Why are you all so keen on changing my opinion? That doesn't make anything correct or wrong. I accept what GOD says in HIS WORD as the standard. I do not make up my own to suit my lifestyle.

My sig line sums this all up

 

[IzzyPop]

Why do some people want to have sex with animals? Why do some people take pleasure in raping others?

The first two situations are about control and power. If I remember my abnormal psych, practitioners of beastiality feel that they are not worthy of having sex with a human and so an animal becomes a bit of a surrogate that they can control. Rape is much more about power over the victim than about sex. You can castrate a serial rapist and most will continue to rape, but this time with foreign objects. And neither example relates in the slightest to homosexuality.

Why must sex be about what you want and not what is best?

Define best. Best for whom? Follow that up with why sex between people that you do not even know must be about what you want and not what is best for them? And I will stop the obvious canard right here and put in the stipulation that the people I mentioned are consenting adults.

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, the primary reason is that this particular sub-forum was made expressly for the purpose of allowing those people who frequent these forums and have these disagreements to argue about them.

When you post in this forum, and you give a poorly justified, illogical defense of your positions, it is to be expected that people attempt to debate those position.

Everything I've stated I have tried to display a Biblical rational for. To call me names, or down grade my thoughts simply because they rub you the wrong way, seems to be a typical response from people who have nothing to say which is constructive. Yet feel they are entitled to act anyway and say anything they please because that is tolerance as they see it.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Everything I've stated I have tried to display a Biblical rational for. To call me names, or down grade my thoughts simply because they rub you the wrong way, seems to be a typical response from people who have nothing to say which is constructive. Yet feel they are entitled to act anyway and say anything they please because that is tolerance as they see it.

Who's calling you names? I only see people challenging your (rather unfounded) assumptions about what the Bible says and about gays.

 

[LittleNipper]

Hate to break it to you, but you make up your own interpretation of God's Word. You want to be a Biblical literalist? Good for you; that's still your chosen interpretation of the Scriptures.

I hate to break it to you, but you failed to present any Biblical support for anything you've ever said. I hear only YOUR OPINION.

 

[IzzyPop]

Everything I've stated I have tried to display a Biblical rational for. To call me names, or down grade my thoughts simply because they rub you the wrong way, seems to be a typical response from people who have nothing to say which is constructive. Yet feel they are entitled to act anyway and say anything they please because that is tolerance as they see it.

Perhaps you could show me the Biblical rationale for they following statement:

That is just it! Homosexuals have confused sex with and for love. They don't have "brains enough," or they could stop if they wanted to. They are hooked on their actions, which means they are confused.

And you accuse others of not knowing what tolerance means? Maybe if you could not disparage an entire group with such a broad and fallacious brush, people would be willing to listen to what you say.

 

[LittleNipper]

The first two situations are about control and power. If I remember my abnormal psych, practitioners of beastiality feel that they are not worthy of having sex with a human and so an animal becomes a bit of a surrogate that they can control. Rape is much more about power over the victim than about sex. You can castrate a serial rapist and most will continue to rape, but this time with foreign objects. And neither example relates in the slightest to homosexuality.

Define best. Best for whom? Follow that up with why sex between people that you do not even know must be about what you want and not what is best for them? And I will stop the obvious canard right here and put in the stipulation that the people I mentioned are consenting adults.

When such "consentual" sex leads to child abuse, "legalized" prostitution, and socialized medicine (because of escalating medical expenses brought about by growing epidemics resulting from "legitimized" free love) I must take issue. I do not abuse the system and I do not expect anyone else to, unless they pay for the end results on their own. This has not been the case and it is getting worse.

 

[LittleNipper]

Perhaps you could show me the Biblical rationale for they following statement:



And you accuse others of not knowing what tolerance means? Maybe if you could not disparage an entire group with such a broad and fallacious brush, people would be willing to listen to what you say.

You are good at taking my response out of context. I seem to remember that it was in response to rather insentive remarks.

 

[KomissarSteve]

I hate to break it to you, but you failed to present any Biblical support for anything you've ever said.

Untrue. I've used the Bible to support several positions of mine on CF, not to mention in several real-life situations.

I hear only YOUR OPINION.

And I hear only yours. Whether you like it or not, what you're expressing is your opinion about God's Word - not necessarily the completely unadulterated truth of It.

 

[IzzyPop]

When such "consentual" sex leads to child abuse, "legalized" prostitution, and socialized medicine (because of escalating medical expenses brought about by growing epidemics resulting from "legitimized" free love) I must take issue. I do not abuse the system and I do not expect anyone else to, unless they pay for the end results on their own. This has not been the case and it is getting worse.

And I assume you have statistics to back this claim up?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Oooooh, evil socialized medicine. Nope, we definitely can't do with all people receiving proper medical treatment even if they're not rich. Where would we be if we didn't leave those unworthy sloths to wither and die?

(Response: probably a lot closer to other nations of similar economic wealth. As it is, the US look more like a developing nation in terms of health and child mortality. Which only goes to show that "self-help" and charity really do not work as they should in a society that emphasizes egocentrism above all else.)

 

[TheManeki]

Everything I've stated I have tried to display a Biblical rational for. To call me names, or down grade my thoughts simply because they rub you the wrong way, seems to be a typical response from people who have nothing to say which is constructive. Yet feel they are entitled to act anyway and say anything they please because that is tolerance as they see it.

I will concur that you have displayed a Biblical rationale for your beliefs. But I think a lot of people on the thread will agree that you haven't provided solid real-world evidence to back up this interpretation.

Biblical rationales have been used in the past to justify otherwise-untenable beliefs, slavery and segregation being two examples that spring to mind. The lack of real-world examples backing up these interpretations have, for the most part, killed them off. This will happen to the "homosexual acts are sinful" interpretation as well, unless those that believe it can provide real-world data that corroborates their claims.

 

[GwynApNudd]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TheManeki again.

 

[KomissarSteve]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TheManeki again.

Don't worry, I got him.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

When such "consentual" sex leads to child abuse, "legalized" prostitution, and socialized medicine (because of escalating medical expenses brought about by growing epidemics resulting from "legitimized" free love) I must take issue. I do not abuse the system and I do not expect anyone else to, unless they pay for the end results on their own. This has not been the case and it is getting worse.

In what possible way do you see consentual adult sexual relationships as leading to child abuse???

And as for socialised medicine... what the heck is wrong with that? Only the wealthy deserve healthcare? Or is it only diseases acquired "morally" that you think should be treated with public funds?

 

[LittleNipper]

And I assume you have statistics to back this claim up?

I've talked to healthcare professionals. I also understand that one outcome of legalizing homosexual civil unions, is to place such "significant others," under private healthcare benifit umbrellas. If someone has AIDs or some other sexually transmitted disease, the costs to keep that individual's immune system running are astronomical.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I've talked to healthcare professionals. I also understand that one outcome of legalizing homosexual civil unions, is to place such "significant others," under private healthcare benifit umbrellas. If someone has AIDs or some other sexually transmitted disease, the costs to keep that individual's immune system running are astronomical.

The costs of supporting someone with HIV are astronomical whether the person in question is homo OR heterosexual... now perhaps you would like to do some research and you will find that there are far more heterosexuals with AIDS than there are homosexuals...

So whats your point?

 

[naotmaa]

I've talked to healthcare professionals. I also understand that one outcome of legalizing homosexual civil unions, is to place such "significant others," under private healthcare benifit umbrellas. If someone has AIDs or some other sexually transmitted disease, the costs to keep that individual's immune system running are astronomical.

What is your point exactly?

Its certainly not like every gay person has AIDs. Here is a little piece of info that might make you feel better, if I remember correctly, in Massachusetts, there are more married lesbians than gay men. Lesbians are one of the groups least likely to get the HIV virus and others STDs.

Regardless, I don't think it is much of an issu either way but statistics would still be nice.