homosexuality is an abomination

[Nathan David]

No. It harms themselves.

So you claim. Have any evidence of this harm?

And let me add that although I was raised in a Christian household, I didn't become Christian until my mid-teens. I believe homosexuality is wrong not just for religious reasons. It only makes sense...mens and womens bodies were designed in a special way to fit together, kind of like a puzzle. God designed us to fit His perfect will. Men and women literally "go together" and allow us to continue the human race.

When I put puzzles together for the first time they don't bleed or scream in pain.

 

[GREG]

love doesnt hurt a soul but homosexuality does....

 

[GREG]

puzzles and people..... apples and oranges

 

[Mom4Christ]

If you were smart enough to read everything, I said it isn't always physical harm. Don't homosexuals have higher suicude rates and higer rates of depression? Yes, many are ridiculed and many are not. But so are some Black people and Jewish people and bi-racial people, but these groups (and many others) don't have the same rates of depression and suicide.

This isn't even based on religion. Our bodies were created in a way, by whatever force you believe in, to fit together. Why would we be created like this if we weren't meant to be with people of the opposite sex?

 

[Nathan David]

puzzles and people..... apples and oranges

Exactly my point.

 

[Firscherscherling]

I don't get the whole, "we weren't meant" argument. There is such an infinite numner of theings we 'weren't meant to do' either by choice or by nature that do happen and that we do.

My Grandfather had Pageant's Disease. It is a genetic disorder affecting the bones. It is not passed down, it is a genetic roll-of-the-dice thing. His legs slowly and painfully bent over the years. They were not meant to do this. They were clearly meant to be straight (pun intended). How dare him! He, by the way, was the most devout and honest Christian I have ever known.

Do you choose to change your body in any way? Do you shave your legs? Do you paint your nails? Do you use any drugs at all (caffeine included)?

 

[Nathan David]

If you were smart enough to read everything, I said it isn't always physical harm. Don't homosexuals have higher suicude rates and higer rates of depression?

Yes they do. And the rate is even higher among homosexuals who try to pretend they are straight. But lower among homosexuals in committed gay relationships. And it is not correlated to whether or not they engage in homosexual sex. I am asking for evidence of harm, physical or non-physical, resulting from homosexual behavior.

This isn't even based on religion. Our bodies were created in a way, by whatever force you believe in, to fit together. Why would we be created like this if we weren't meant to be with people of the opposite sex?

I don't believe our bodies were created at all. I don't think they are "meant" to fit together, or "meant" to do anything else. If you look at it that way, we are "meant" to grow beards, so why shave them off? Is cutting your hair against the will of whatever force created us? Wearing clothes?

If I did believe we were created, I would probably assumed people with homosexual urges were created that way for a reason. Or maybe not. Either way I don't feel I have the right to condemn someone else's private behavior if they are not hurting anyone else.

 

[Arikay]

Um No Blacks and Jewish and bi-racial are Not ridiculed and harassed as much as Homosexuals because the prejudice against race has slowly disapeared compared to Homosexuality.

I always love the argument, their suicide rate is higher (because of intolerant people like some christians) so the Homosexuals are at fault and should change (instead of the intolerant people).

Their suicide rates are high because they are told its,
Unatural
Sinnful
disgusting
ugly
evil
etc.

Often in this world people just want to fit in. You do realize that regardless of orientation, the same feelings of rejection, hate and worthlessness are what causes a Majority of Teen suicides. Guess what Intolerance to Homosexuals gives them?

Its not being gay or Knowing they are sinning, or whatever that causes the high amount of gay suicides, its the way they are treated. Just like with teens, the majority of teen suicides is because of how they are treated. Stick being gay and being a teen together and you have a HUGE suicide rate.

"Our bodies were created in a way, by whatever force you believe in, to fit together. Why would we be created like this if we weren't meant to be with people of the opposite sex?"

Our bodies were also created in a way so that we could have children at an early age, like 14 or 16. If we were ment to have kids so young why dont we?

Because of Love, because we want to be able to make choices in our life based on what we want to do with it.
Sounds very similiar for gays.

Also, just to point out, there is good evidence that being gay is a natural thing, and that some people were created different than others, doesnt make them wrong.
Also, what about hermaphrodites (spelling?) who sometimes can only be with people of the "opposite sex" after they make a choice themselves.

If you were smart enough to read everything, I said it isn't always physical harm. Don't homosexuals have higher suicude rates and higer rates of depression? Yes, many are ridiculed and many are not. But so are some Black people and Jewish people and bi-racial people, but these groups (and many others) don't have the same rates of depression and suicide.

This isn't even based on religion. Our bodies were created in a way, by whatever force you believe in, to fit together. Why would we be created like this if we weren't meant to be with people of the opposite sex?

 

[Firscherscherling]

This isn't even based on religion. Our bodies were created in a way, by whatever force you believe in, to fit together. Why would we be created like this if we weren't meant to be with people of the opposite sex?

I wonder what this Christian mother will do if one day her child comes to her and says, "I am gay."

Will she try to tell them it is a choice and that they must change or go to hell for all eternity? Will she turn away and shun them? Will she try to explain again and again how these unchangeable feeling in them must be changed? Would eny of these possibly lead the child to hate him/herself to the point of suicide? Yep.

If my daughter comes to me and tells me she is gay, I will embrace her and tell her I love her. Not, 'Well, I love you no matter what, even if you are gay." Just, 'I love you'.

 

[Nathan David]

If she follows the Bible, she'll stone the child to death.

 

[Ben johnson]

I don't believe our bodies were created at all. I don't think they are "meant" to fit together, or "meant" to do anything else.

Soooo, we are products of blind, cosmic chemical mistakes in mitotic replication, randomly sequencing of adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine (first achieving non-destructive coding, second beneficial trait, third replicative compatibility with inferior predecessors (or else SIMULTANEOUS and compatible occurance in a SECOND "prototype"), and the problem of "interactive function" (IOW, "irreducible complexity" --- each stage needs to function TOGETHER with OTHER MUTATIVE ADVANCES to benefit the beast) (each step of which is essentially one-chance-in-infinity, the combinative-occurance of events being multiplicative in probability --- that is, infinity raised to the power of infinity, again and again...)... OK once we get past the TERRIBLE FAITH of mutative evolution (which really, because of the "IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY", both molecularly and macroscopically CANNOT avoid the "HOPEFUL MONSTER" theory) --- we are still stuck with NATURAL SELECTION...

What I just said, is that without GOD, you must have EVOLUTION (even if on another planet) --- and evolution functions through NATURAL SELECTION. Hmmm --- homosexuals do not reproduce. The existence of MALE and FEMALE would of course be NATURE'S choice for SPECIES CONTINUATION. But YOU say "our bodies, NOT CREATED, are not MEANT to fit together in ANY WAY"... Can you suggest a model for evolution (or any other "non-creative-biogenesis"), that PERMITS homosexuality?

That homosexuals do not, and CANNOT reproduce, seems to me to remove the supposition that it could be, in any way, natural... (By definition... ) Thus, male-is-meant-for-female, and female-for-male, else you dispute NATURAL SELECTION... (Don't argue "recessive gene", NO genetic propensity has EVER been found, and over the supposed MILLIONS of years would HAVE BEEN "bred-out" --- the sickle-cell-malaria-example still requiring reproductive possibility, same-sex-pairing non-reproductive...

Often in this world people just want to fit in. You do realize that regardless of orientation, the same feelings of rejection, hate and worthlessness are what causes a Majority of Teen suicides. Guess what Intolerance to Homosexuals gives them?

If you are RIGHT, then suicide rates of homosexuals would reflect the demographics of acceptability! IOW, in areas of high-acceptance, such as San Francisco, we would find notably less suicides than in more "hateful-intolerant" areas. Right?

Are the suicide rates of homosexuals (percentage) different for different areas of the country?

Nope.

 

[Philosoft]

I've answered in the previous posts, of how much that degaid person knows. And I can't give you a number, again I see through that trap of yours, if I give you a number, you'd say I have no statistical proof backing my statistics. If I don't give you an answer, you'd say I have no idea and hence the other statistics are true.
In light of that, this is my answer...the truth is out there, but no one is willing to count it properley, rather count the results they only want to hear.

Aha, argument from X-Files. How quaint.

That dosen't fit into any arguments of homosexuality, mainly because it's a chemical or genetic reaction that gives a distinctive characteristic of mental disability, of them to be unable to co-incide with a female.

How does this support your assertion that it is entirely a choice?

Gibberish Gibberish Gibberish, if you copied that from a website, give us the full report, not just part of it. Have no idea what you talking about there, I can see some relations to the arguments presented, but again have no idea unless I see the full picture.

So you don't know what I'm talking about but you know it's wrong?

And hence the homosexual genes and chemical influences is a genetic trait of self-destruction, and hence we should leave them as they are until all the gay genes of the gene pull are eventually wiped out?

As I've mentioned now twice, homosexuality is obviously not monogenetic. Thus, any selection pressure is going to be a very complex amalgam of factors. It's unlikely strict Darwinian selection would occur.

Which is something I personally won't comment on, but I'd rather see humans procreating rather than destroying.

Destroying whom?

Exactly, hence if people used genetics to prove homosexuality, then it's seriously BS. It's not just genes but also chemical reactions...but more importantly, no one is born gay.

I'm not going to go through this again if you're not going to pay attention.

Well, no because my conclusions are my opinions. And my opinion is that homosexuality is a choice.

That's fine, but the thrust of this debate is the evidence that makes your opinion reasonable or not. You'll need to set aside your conclusion for the moment, whilst we hash out how you reached that conclusion.

My justification is explained in these posts, and so far the challenges I've had in the previous arguments, where people argue whether it was right to change, whilst I was arguing that homosexuality is a choice. I've seen it happen and thats what I'm basing it on.
Unless the whole forum places this gay person, lower than the other gay people of this society, in his right to talk of his experience, then I think this argument is flawed and swayed into biasing.

If this is all about testimony, I surmise there are thousands more gays who would affirm the reality of homosexuality as an orientation rather than merely a behavior. We can try to go there if you want, but you'll lose, and you'll lose badly.

Christianity cannot accept homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, because it's plain sinful.

Okay, at least we know what the problem is. If you're trying to use facts to affirm the Christian doctrinal opinion that homosexuality is a mere behavior choice, you'll fail. As we are seeing.

This forum from what I can see, isn't about changing people. There is no doubt that everyone else is trying very hard to change my opinion, but it's not working because it's just not credible.

Well, it's telling you that your interpretation of Christian doctrine is wrong in at least one case. Credibility has really nothing to do with it.

Bending the rules of understanding of what's unknown. Not definitions...

"Understanding of what's unknown"? What could that possibly mean?

geez, I'm finding it harder every year to convey my correct message out to people without themselves manifesting some crazy interpertation.

I know what your interpretation is. You can attempt to support your opinion with, "Christianity says X" until your hair falls out, it won't change the fact that you're wrong because (your interpretation of)Christian doctrine is wrong.

I should laugh at them from now on, does give me a bit of relief.

Whatever works.

 

[Firscherscherling]

Soooo, we are products of blind, cosmic chemical mistakes in mitotic replication, randomly sequencing of adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine (first achieving non-destructive coding, second beneficial trait, third replicative compatibility with inferior predecessors (or else SIMULTANEOUS and compatible occurance in a SECOND "prototype"), and the problem of "interactive function" (IOW, "irreducible complexity" --- each stage needs to function TOGETHER with OTHER MUTATIVE ADVANCES to benefit the beast) (each step of which is essentially one-chance-in-infinity, the combinative-occurance of events being multiplicative in probability --- that is, infinity raised to the power of infinity, again and again...)... OK once we get past the TERRIBLE FAITH of mutative evolution (which really, because of the "IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY", both molecularly and macroscopically CANNOT avoid the "HOPEFUL MONSTER" theory) --- we are still stuck with NATURAL SELECTION...

What I just said, is that without GOD, you must have EVOLUTION (even if on another planet) --- and evolution functions through NATURAL SELECTION. Hmmm --- homosexuals do not reproduce. The existence of MALE and FEMALE would of course be NATURE'S choice for SPECIES CONTINUATION. But YOU say "our bodies, NOT CREATED, are not MEANT to fit together in ANY WAY"... Can you suggest a model for evolution (or any other "non-creative-biogenesis"), that PERMITS homosexuality?

That homosexuals do not, and CANNOT reproduce, seems to me to remove the supposition that it could be, in any way, natural... (By definition... ) Thus, male-is-meant-for-female, and female-for-male, else you dispute NATURAL SELECTION... (Don't argue "recessive gene", NO genetic propensity has EVER been found, and over the supposed MILLIONS of years would HAVE BEEN "bred-out" --- the sickle-cell-malaria-example still requiring reproductive possibility, same-sex-pairing non-reproductive...
If you are RIGHT, then suicide rates of homosexuals would reflect the demographics of acceptability! IOW, in areas of high-acceptance, such as San Francisco, we would find notably less suicides than in more "hateful-intolerant" areas. Right?

Are the suicide rates of homosexuals (percentage) different for different areas of the country?

Nope.

Oh, man. Not the IR thing again... why don't you start a thread somewhere else on that one? The idea that a trait must be beneficial to be passed on is silly. I used the example of Pageant's Disease earlier. It isn't passed on, but it is genetic. My grandfather had it, but I had no greater probability of having it that the general population. I guess God just put it in him to torture him. Amazingly, even after millions of years (meaning 10,000 if you are Christian) it still hasn't been bred out. Amazing!

And, by the way, you seem to be leaving bisexuality out of the equation.

 

[Arikay]

"Soooo, we are products of blind, cosmic chemical mistakes"

Sure. Whether you can except this or not, should have no bearing on this thread.
Just to point out though, that God Could have created some of these mutations, and we probably would never know.

"irreducible complexity"

Im not quite sure what IC has to do with this. IC is pretty much dead though as its possible for Evolution to have designed something IC. Matter of fact, just recently a computer simulation of evolution designed some technically IC organisms.
It would interesting for you to point out a structure that is IC and could only become IC through ID (which is normally the only time IC is used.)

"homosexuals do not reproduce"

Not true. In the wild they have find animals that exhibited homosexual tendancies and still have children.
Only Homosexuals that only act homosexual will not reproduce, and that can change with modern technology.

If one way homosexuality came about was a set of genes, possibly recesive, then it would be very hard to breed them out, as non homosexuals would still pass on the genes. From those who only have light homosexual tendancies, to more heavy tendencies but who still have heterosexual contact would continue to breed the gene into the population. Especially today with egg or sperm donors, one side of the birth proccess could be very homosexual.
An irony here is that if we could breed out homosexuality, then the christian groups that are trying to convert gays are actually helping them stay around.

"Don't argue "recessive gene" "

Yeah your right, if it was one recessive gene, then it probably either would have been bred out, or would be much more prevaliant in society, like blondes.

However studies have suggested that it is genetic. studies showing that without any proding one way or another, a good number of kids that turn out to be homosexual, choose certain toys over others.

"in areas of high-acceptance, such as San Francisco, we would find notably less suicides than in more "hateful-intolerant" areas. Right?"

First, can I see the stats you have based on.
second, After searching for a bit, I found it rather hard to find Homosexual suicide rates, however one interesting thing that I found was that in California, suicide was lower on the leading cause of death list than in the US.

third, before comeing to a conclusion you need to try and figure out what could have changed the stats. I can think of a couple.

-In more intolerant area, there is a possibility less people would announce they are gay, shifting the number of gays and suicide rate lower. (a similiar problem is why some think the pagan population is being underestimated by almost 50%)
-Even though San Fran is a more tolerant place for gays, in a connected society, could intolerance not care about boarders and still affect those in San fran.

cut to shorten post.

 

[Kyubi-no-Youko]

Keep wishing on your theories!
good luck

Just so I don't say something I'll regret...was that mean to be insulting, funny, serious, or...what?

 

[Kyubi-no-Youko]

Animals engage in a lot of behavior that we as humans do not accept. Of course we don't eat our children as animals do, save for a few sick cannibals out there. Murder is the rule in the animals, not the exception. We detest murderers as humans. So just because animals practice something-such as homosexuality-doesn't mean that we should as well. Also, our genes are not so close to an animal that we can perform scientific studies on them, and then say that the results apply also to humans.

You obviously missed the point of my comparison.

You say 'murder is the rule in animals, not the exception' (unless they are stricted vegeterians...unless you count that as mudering plants ) We detest murderers as humans.

That's true. HOWEVER, if we did not detest murderers who would have no problem with people being murdered. The nature is...well...natural, but the morality is learned.

Let me use children as another example.

Say you had a child. Whenever this child wanted something he/she would whine and throw a tantrum until you have him/her what he/she wanted. That child would learn that it was Ok to act bad to get what they wanted and would continue to do that.

However, if the opposite occured and the child learned that wasn't the way to get what the wanted and was reprimanded/told to ask nicely, etc.., then that's what they would do.


Hatred towards homosexuality is a learned thing. That includes self hatred. Homosexual itself is natural. Just as murder (even among humans) is natural.

Again, I think you are equating natural with some form of moral standards. The fact that homosexuality exists and is constant in nature is proof that it is natural.

As for not comparing other animals to humans....I'm sure someone who knows science could have a better arguement for this. Meaning the only thing I can give is my opinion.

You also say homosexuality is wrong because the 'puzzle pieces' not fit. Well, being homosexual isn't just about having sex with someone of the same sex. The main part is the attraction, which is biological and cannot to choosen.

You cannot decide to be sexual/romantically attracted to something. It's impossible. You can't look at a paper bag and say 'ok, I'm going to be sexually attracted to this bag' and *poof* you will be.

Back to animals though...humans aren't homosexual because other animals do it. Are you saying animals don't have a choice but humans do?

I agree that it is both innate and a choice. I have sexual feelings towards other women, but I don't have to have relations with them. Even if it was widely accepted and even encouraged I wouldn't have to.

 

[Kyubi-no-Youko]

Just so I don't say something I'll regret...was that mean to be insulting, funny, serious, or...what?

Sorry...mean=meant

 

[Kyubi-no-Youko]

Icystwolf: You know...I keep wanting to call you just 'Icywolf' ^^;

I'm a bit confused by your opinion. You say gays choose to be gay, but that they can change...it won't be easy, but they can change.

If being gay is a choice, as you say, why would it be so hard to change?

Are you saying it is initially a choice? Like smoking...you get addicted and it's hard to quit.

Or are you suggesting it is something that developes that can be 'cured'?

Just curious

*huggles* We should all be buddies...even if we do disagree.

 

[Rae]

in California, suicide was lower on the leading cause of death list than in the US.
--I always KNEW California wasn't part of the U.S.!

 

[Ben johnson]

Im not quite sure what IC has to do with this. IC is pretty much dead though as its possible for Evolution to have designed something IC. Matter of fact, just recently a computer simulation of evolution designed some technically IC organisms.
It would interesting for you to point out a structure that is IC and could only become IC through ID (which is normally the only time IC is used.)

IC is pretty much dead??? I don't believe that at all. Take the "biogenesis-experiement" --- flask of "soup" subjected to arcs & UV, creates LIFE! Actually, creates simple amino acids, in equal quantities of left and right-handed-molecules. (The amino acid trap, absence of oxygen, and several other non-natural items voiding the experiement); but the jump from PRIMITIVE AMINO ACIDS to REPLICATIVE LIFE is PROFOUND. And "profound" itself is infinitely understated! DNA cannot assemble outside of cellular walls --- which cannot exist outside of cellular mechanics (controlled by DNA). Do you know that the "scientists" are now suggesting that "life began in GAS-POCKETS of porous volcanic rock surrounding oceanic vents ("black smokers")?

Not true. In the wild they have find animals that exhibited homosexual tendancies and still have children.
Only Homosexuals that only act homosexual will not reproduce, and that can change with modern technology.

Do animals associate the same meaning with sex that we do? No. I doubt that most animals correlate "babies" with the act at all. And animals usually have no interest in sex unless the female is in heat.[/i]

However studies have suggested that it is genetic.

I hope I don't offend you --- but reality is these studies are sponsored by homosexual groups --- and have presented no documentable evidence...

RE STATS: It's very difficult to FIND stats on homosexual groups in the first place; call the CDC and ask them the HIV infection rates among heterosexual women --- they will tell you "1 in 800 to 1 in 600". Ask them infection rates in white, black, hispanic --- they have those figures; ask them the infection rate among homosexuals, and they will tell you: "We don't have that information." (Why not?) "We choose not to compile that." It's called, POLITICS!

And yet, I have heard statistics quoting HIV infection rates among homosexuals to be as high as 1 in 5. I can't imagine a national health bureau with such a useless attitude.

-In more intolerant area, there is a possibility less people would announce they are gay,

Random and annonymous surveying provides no incentive to lie about their stats.