TV makes me sick!

[cow451]

25 to 30 years ago we didn't see stuff like we see now. The pushing
of homosexuality in almost every TV sitcom. I won't watch them
just for this reason.

There is an agenda, don't kid yourself. The big shots up top
want to dumb down and degrade society, and are doing a
heck of a job.

I don't hate and won't judge anyone personally. What people
do in their own homes is their business. I just don't like the
fact they are putting gays on TV where kids will see them.
And that's what they probably want. To confuse them, as
we know the adolescent years are some of the toughest
years of our lives.

Thanks to technology, there's a channel for everything. Don't like it, don't watch. It's all about advertising dollars and those rates are based on viewership. Don't like it? Don't watch it.

 

[Cearbhall]

Yes, homosexuality is a part of the real world now. More widespread
because of the people who promote it, want everyone to believe
that it's ok and normal. Now I'm not saying it's right to hate or
beat gays. I don't.

It's always been a part of the real world, as far as we can tell.

 

[quatona]

25 to 30 years ago we didn't see stuff like we see now. The pushing
of homosexuality in almost every TV sitcom. I won't watch them
just for this reason.

There is an agenda, don't kid yourself. The big shots up top
want to dumb down and degrade society, and are doing a
heck of a job.

I don't hate and won't judge anyone personally. What people
do in their own homes is their business. I just don't like the
fact they are putting gays on TV where kids will see them.
And that's what they probably want. To confuse them, as
we know the adolescent years are some of the toughest
years of our lives.

TV makes me sick, too - albeit for different reasons.
There´s a simple solution to this problem.

 

[Joykins]

Oh No a Christian who has actually read scripture. I'm betting you are even aware of the one backhanded place where Paul includes woman on woman sex. (As a result, not a cause of sin).

Now you're challenging me to answer without looking it up , which I will do.

The passage in Romans 1 is not even "clearly" woman on woman sex--it is clearly some kind of "unnatural" sex engaged in by women, but not explicitly identified as same-sex as it is for men in the same passage. Which means it could arguably mean any kind of sex deemed unnatural, including, for example, acts described in Ezekiel where women copulate with idols.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Would you say the same about incestuous relationships, and polygamy? Or is that somehow "like totally differentz an' stuffz"?

Demeaning grammer aside, it is different.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why are you comparing blacks, who are just people with a different
skin color, with others who choose to have sexual relations with
someone of the same sex?

Yes, homosexuality is a part of the real world now. More widespread
because of the people who promote it, want everyone to believe
that it's ok and normal. Now I'm not saying it's right to hate or
beat gays. I don't. All people will be judged for their iniquities.

Homosexuals don't choose to be attracted to their own sex anymore than you chose to be attracted to the opposite sex. Unless, of course, you'd have us believe you were equally attracted to men and women and simply "chose" to be attracted to women.

Maybe I'm just projecting. I remember at a very young age realizing that I "liked" girls in a way that was different from boys. Any of my gay friends that I've asked about this have related a similar experience. The notion that anyone "chooses" which sex they are attracted to just seems silly to me.

In light of that bit of knowledge, don't your arguments that "being gay isn't normal" seem...baseless now? I'm betting that when you think about it, you didn't really "choose" to be attracted to whichever sex you're attracted to. If you believe god "made" you the way you are, wouldn't you have to believe god "made" gays gay? Isn't it far more likely that whomever wrote the passage of the bible proclaiming gays to be an abomination simply mistaken? Isn't it possible that he was including his personal bias? After all...he included eating shellfish amongst his list of abominations...yet no one seems concerned with Red Lobster commercials.

 

[MrLuther]

Normal? The ethnocentrism never ceases...

A message brought to us from the land of K-Pop.

1: My post was the exact OPPOSITE of ethnocentric.
2: Nice move with the double-standards there! "I'm gonna twist turn whatever you wrote, in order to make a slanderous statement about you, AND I'm also going to make a bigoted remark about Koreans".

Demeaning grammer aside, it is different.

LOL, sure it is
Again: It's only perceived to be different, because polygamists and people in incestuous relationships, unlike homophiles, do not have funny sit-com characters as their PR-representatives...

 

[MrLuther]

Homosexuals don't choose to be attracted to their own sex anymore than you chose to be attracted to the opposite sex.

True, we do not choose who we are attracted to. We do, however, choose what actions we take.

The notion that anyone "chooses" which sex they are attracted to just seems silly to me.

I don't think very many think that the actual attraction is where the "choice"-part comes in.

In light of that bit of knowledge, don't your arguments that "being gay isn't normal" seem...baseless now?

That's a massive non-sequitur!
"They didn't choose this, so it's normal".
Well, people in incestuous or polyamorous relationships don't choose being attracted to a close family member, or several people at the same time. Does that make these kinds of relationships normal?

If you believe god "made" you the way you are, wouldn't you have to believe god "made" gays gay?

1: The jury is still out on the matter of whether ort not homophilia is entirely genetic, or a question of nature AND nurture.

2: If you want to use the "I have this attraction, therefore God wants me to have it", then you have just said that God also wants people to be pedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, etc, because they have those attractions. It's a non-starter.

3: Even IF it was entirely genetic, it would still be abnormal, because it would be "not normal", meaning that a majority (a VAST majority, actually) wasn't born like that.

Isn't it far more likely that whomever wrote the passage of the bible proclaiming gays to be an abomination simply mistaken?

It is entirely possible that he was unaware of our modern political correctness, yes. But that's a strength, not a liability.

Isn't it possible that he was including his personal bias? After all...he included eating shellfish amongst his list of abominations...yet no one seems concerned with Red Lobster commercials.

And if the matter of homophilia was only a matter of one single verse that could be pulled out of context and twisted to your heart's desire, you would have a point.
But it isn't.
So you don't.

 

[Ana the Ist]

(deletion mine, as that example was irrelevant)
You ARE aware that I was talking about consenting adults, right? As I've said before: Pedophilia has NOTHING to do with anything of this. It is rape, and violation, and nothing more.



That would be the case.....if such relations were described in a positive light: "And God blessed X who married his sister Y", for instance.
Nothing of the kind exists.

In fact, where polygamy and incest is described, it is associated with problems. Solomon's many wives, for instance.

Regardless of whether or not you're referring to incest between to consenting adults, it can still have some very damaging psychological ramifications. I can't really conceive of a situation where the parental authority role isn't going to be a tremendous factor. Much like in the way that a therapist should never become intimately involved with a patient, a parent should be under the same obligation. However, it might be considered a matter of ethics over morality.

 

[yasic]

Regardless of whether or not you're referring to incest between to consenting adults, it can still have some very damaging psychological ramifications. I can't really conceive of a situation where the parental authority role isn't going to be a tremendous factor. Much like in the way that a therapist should never become intimately involved with a patient, a parent should be under the same obligation. However, it might be considered a matter of ethics over morality.

To be fair, the same argument can be made with homosexuality.

 

[Ana the Ist]

True, we do not choose who we are attracted to. We do, however, choose what actions we take.



I don't think very many think that the actual attraction is where the "choice"-part comes in.



That's a massive non-sequitur!
"They didn't choose this, so it's normal".
Well, people in incestuous or polyamorous relationships don't choose being attracted to a close family member, or several people at the same time. Does that make these kinds of relationships normal?



1: The jury is still out on the matter of whether ort not homophilia is entirely genetic, or a question of nature AND nurture.

2: If you want to use the "I have this attraction, therefore God wants me to have it", then you have just said that God also wants people to be pedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, etc, because they have those attractions. It's a non-starter.

3: Even IF it was entirely genetic, it would still be abnormal, because it would be "not normal", meaning that a majority (a VAST majority, actually) wasn't born like that.



It is entirely possible that he was unaware of our modern political correctness, yes. But that's a strength, not a liability.



And if the matter of homophilia was only a matter of one single verse that could be pulled out of context and twisted to your heart's desire, you would have a point.
But it isn't.
So you don't.

" True, we do not choose who we are attracted to. We do, however, choose what actions we take."
Does this mean you think gays shouldn't have sex...because you think its a sin? Was that your point?

" I don't think very many think that the actual attraction is where the "choice"-part comes in. "
See above response...

" That's a massive non-sequitur! "They didn't choose this, so it's normal".
Well, I suppose an argument can be made here depending on what you mean by "normal". I took it to mean "natural".

" 1: The jury is still out on the matter of whether ort not homophilia is entirely genetic, or a question of nature AND nurture.
Ok. Since no one has identified a way to raise a child to be gay, or found any environmental influences to create that effect...I don't see your point here either. We can really only address it from a genetic perspective.

" 2: If you want to use the "I have this attraction, therefore God wants me to have it", then you have just said that God also wants people to be pedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, etc, because they have those attractions. It's a non-starter."
Actually, I don't. You see, those are all illegal...with one occasional exception. It's an entirely different topic.

" 3: Even IF it was entirely genetic, it would still be abnormal, because it would be "not normal", meaning that a majority (a VAST majority, actually) wasn't born like that."
Again, depends on your usage of the word "normal". Do you see people who are left-handed as not normal? How about blondes? I think in terms of genetics, at least for this topic, we should use the word natural so you don't get confused.

" It is entirely possible that he was unaware of our modern political correctness, yes. But that's a strength, not a liability."
So you're one of those who looks at adaptation as a weakness...clinging to archaic tradition a strength?

" And if the matter of homophilia was only a matter of one single verse that could be pulled out of context and twisted to your heart's desire, you would have a point. But it isn't. So you don't."
Fair enough. I'll be the first to admit its been a long time since I've read the bible. Would you mind listing the passages that are relevant? No need for the entire things...just their numbers will work. You know, so I know that you're not just blowing smoke...

 

[Ana the Ist]

To be fair, the same argument can be made with homosexuality.

Lol huh? Please explain...

 

[Verv]

A message brought to us from the land of K-Pop.

Indeed.

K-Pop's growing and intesifying popularity is perhaps due to the fact that it counteracts the immoral trash falling out of the United States.

Not only is K-Pop gaining popularity, but Korean dramas and comedies are increasingly popular throughout all of Asia because they do not portray ridiculous sexual relationships and try to have a moralizing effect.

Yes. It's all the same, psychologically.

Race is a biological condition.

Religion is a choice and it is often associated with ethnicities.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation.

Fascism is a political affiliation.

Now, if you go around smashing people who you think are Fascists, you have a political motivation towards hatred. You hate people that you believe are wrong because of a political stance.

If you go around hating people who are black, it is a racially motivatd hatred.

If you go around hating people who are of a different religion, you are hating them for their choice in religion and perhaps also hateful towards a certain ethnicity that underlines said religion.

Obviously, hatred towards homosexual is based off of that person's sexua orientation that is viewed as immoral or bizarre...

But what if, say, you believed that homosexuals shouldn't marry; this is not really hatred but it is a belief about what a marriage should be comprized of... This is not discrmination or prejudice.

What if, say, you did not vote for fascists and didn't want them in your government... Similarly, this is not discrimination or prejudice.

What if you thought Shi'a Islam was not true Islam. Well, then you are not a Shi'a and might be in for a theological debate. But you are not prejudiced or discriminatory...

Do you see what i am getting at?

All of these are very different things... And the general stance many people have is not one of hatred, but one of disagreement.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Indeed.

K-Pop's growing and intesifying popularity is perhaps due to the fact that it counteracts the immoral trash falling out of the United States.

Not only is K-Pop gaining popularity, but Korean dramas and comedies are increasingly popular throughout all of Asia because they do not portray ridiculous sexual relationships and try to have a moralizing effect.



Race is a biological condition.

Religion is a choice and it is often associated with ethnicities.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation.

Fascism is a political affiliation.

Now, if you go around smashing people who you think are Fascists, you have a political motivation towards hatred. You hate people that you believe are wrong because of a political stance.

If you go around hating people who are black, it is a racially motivatd hatred.

If you go around hating people who are of a different religion, you are hating them for their choice in religion and perhaps also hateful towards a certain ethnicity that underlines said religion.

Obviously, hatred towards homosexual is based off of that person's sexua orientation that is viewed as immoral or bizarre...

But what if, say, you believed that homosexuals shouldn't marry; this is not really hatred but it is a belief about what a marriage should be comprized of... This is not discrmination or prejudice.

What if, say, you did not vote for fascists and didn't want them in your government... Similarly, this is not discrimination or prejudice.

What if you thought Shi'a Islam was not true Islam. Well, then you are not a Shi'a and might be in for a theological debate. But you are not prejudiced or discriminatory...

Do you see what i am getting at?

All of these are very different things... And the general stance many people have is not one of hatred, but one of disagreement.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter what the motivations. In your example, I don't think its really discrimination until you've denied them something...or treated them differently. For example, denying homosexuals marital rights because of their sexual orientation would be discrimination. Simply holding the opinion that they should not marry would be bigotry. Just out of curiosity, what about holding the opinion that gays shouldn't marry makes it less hateful than thinking interracial couples shouldn't marry?

Furthermore, what makes it immoral? I understand that some people think that god finds it immoral...but is that all? When you kill someone, you've taken their life. Steal from someone, and you've taken their property. When two gay people marry, no one is hurt, quite the opposite. What makes it immoral?

 

[MrLuther]

Regardless of whether or not you're referring to incest between to consenting adults, it can still have some very damaging psychological ramifications. I can't really conceive of a situation where the parental authority role isn't going to be a tremendous factor. Much like in the way that a therapist should never become intimately involved with a patient, a parent should be under the same obligation. However, it might be considered a matter of ethics over morality.

*advocatus diaboli-mode on*
So, your own personal ethics/morality should stand in the way of people's right to be with the one they love?
Also, parent-child isn't the only combo....

To be fair, the same argument can be made with homosexuality.

My point exactly

Does this mean you think gays shouldn't have sex...because you think its a sin? Was that your point?

Just as I think that people who are attracted to a close family member shouldn't...

Well, I suppose an argument can be made here depending on what you mean by "normal". I took it to mean "natural".

"Natural" doesn't follow either. Unless, of course, you're going to use the "homophilia also exists among animals, therefore it's natural, and therefore it's ok"-argument, in which case you cannot have a problem with murder, cannibalism, etc......

Ok. Since no one has identified a way to raise a child to be gay, or found any environmental influences to create that effect...I don't see your point here either. We can really only address it from a genetic perspective.

No one has found a way to raise someone to be a pedophile, a zoophile, a necrophile, etc, either. Doesn't make those disorders genetic.

Actually, I don't. You see, those are all illegal...with one occasional exception. It's an entirely different topic.

Homophilia used to be illegal.
And what does that have to do with anything, btw? Are you trying to make God a rubber-stamp for whatever current political correctness might demand?

Again, depends on your usage of the word "normal". Do you see people who are left-handed as not normal? How about blondes?

I'm not really sure if there really IS a "majority hair color", and if there is, it differs massively from country to country. So I don't know how applicable that is.
Being left-handed, though, isn't normal.

I think in terms of genetics, at least for this topic, we should use the word natural so you don't get confused.

No, we shouldn't use "natural", because it's not a neutral word. It's positively charged, and therefore the neutral "normal" (in accordance with the norm) is preferable.

" It is entirely possible that he was unaware of our modern political correctness, yes. But that's a strength, not a liability."
So you're one of those who looks at adaptation as a weakness...clinging to archaic tradition a strength?

I'm one of those who believe that the "Bekennende Kirche", with Niemöller and Bonhoeffer, was correct in not "adapting" to the political sensitivities of the majority, but instead "clung to archaic tradition"

Fair enough. I'll be the first to admit its been a long time since I've read the bible. Would you mind listing the passages that are relevant? No need for the entire things...just their numbers will work. You know, so I know that you're not just blowing smoke...

Romans 1,26-27
1 Corinthians 1,9-11
1 Timothy 1,8-11

And these are just the NT-passages that unmistakably and unequivocally deal with the matter.

 

[selfinflikted]

LOL, sure it is
Again: It's only perceived to be different, because polygamists and people in incestuous relationships, unlike homophiles, do not have funny sit-com characters as their PR-representatives...

We prefer the terms homosexual, gay, queer. You can leave "homophile" at the door.

Also, if you don't like watching TV, don't watch it. "Duh."

 

[yasic]

Lol huh? Please explain...

There are a lot of psychological downsides from homosexuality, ranging from the belief that one is destined for hellfire due to his/her cultures religion, to feeling of isolation from ones family. Additionally there are feelings less caused by society such as the feeling that one is unable to have natural children with the person one loves, and the knowledge that ones sexuality is vastly different from the general populaces and the higher difficulty of finding a partner is of note.

I personally feel the argument 'There are psychological difficulties with sexuality X, so X is bad' is a horrible one, but if you must use it, you can't only selectively chose to use it against sexuality you personally disapprove of while ignoring it on those you don't.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Actually no, it isn't. I also don't like the violence. I remember when
UFC was on PPV, where only adults could view it. Now it's on
where kids can view this barbaric, disgusting garbage. Boxing
was bad enough. This takes psychopathy to a whole new level
on television.

Your television has an "off" switch, does it not?

 

[Marius27]

Romans 1,26-27
1 Corinthians 1,9-11
1 Timothy 1,8-11

And these are just the NT-passages that unmistakably and unequivocally deal with the matter.

Absolutely False. Romans 1 was specifically stated by Saint Augustine as referring to heterosexuals, and it's directly in the context of pagan worship. By your logic, if it refers to gays, Romans 2 says you're gay.

1 Corinthians 6:9 did not refer to homosexuals until the 1940s. It's a corruption of two obscure greek words.

Same issue with Timothy.

 

[Marius27]

True, we do not choose who we are attracted to. We do, however, choose what actions we take.

And the solution for those who are attracted to the same-sex?

Before you offer the canned permanent celibacy response, I will point out that option is rejected by Paul.

I don't think very many think that the actual attraction is where the "choice"-part comes in.

Many homophobes do in fact believe merely being gay is a choice.

That's a massive non-sequitur!
"They didn't choose this, so it's normal".
Well, people in incestuous or polyamorous relationships don't choose being attracted to a close family member, or several people at the same time. Does that make these kinds of relationships normal?

Technically yes. They are historically quite common, and marrying your cousin is legal in 18 states. They were also the standard in the Bible, so not sure why you have an issue with them.

1: The jury is still out on the matter of whether ort not homophilia is entirely genetic, or a question of nature AND nurture.

Nurture has been ruled out since gays are found in every type of family, environment, and culture with no similarities among how they are raised. The gay brain is physically wired differently and that occurs in fetal development.

3: Even IF it was entirely genetic, it would still be abnormal, because it would be "not normal", meaning that a majority (a VAST majority, actually) wasn't born like that.

The vast majority of humans also aren't born with blue eyes or a genius IQ. Doesn't make them bad or undesirable.

And if the matter of homophilia was only a matter of one single verse that could be pulled out of context and twisted to your heart's desire, you would have a point.
But it isn't.
So you don't.

It's a matter of 4 verses pulled of out context and original language actually.