Why does everyone dislike homosexuality so much?

[peadar1987]

That is an extreme opinion. Just because someone is genetically inclined to want to do something does not make whatever they want to do moral or ethical. Some say rapists, murderers, and alcoholics have genetic predispositions to do their thing. Genetically influenced urges may be natural but they are not necessarily healthy or morally acceptable.

The difference between homosexuality and the other things you listed here is that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Does it bother you that people are not Christians, do not attend church (In your case, specifically the Catholic church), do not believe in Jesus or that he did anything special? If so, would you support laws making these things mandatory?

I do not believe in esablishing an "official" religion. (Although, England has the "Church of England" and they have as much freedom of religion as we do.)

However, any nation that sinks into all manner of immorality and perveristity will eventually destroy itself, just as the Roman Empire did.

But leaving religion out of it: We DO legislate morality, whether people admit it or not. Sex with children, murder, bearing false witness (in court specifically), inappropriate behavior with animals.. ..these are all immoral acts, and they are illegal. We also have "Ethics" laws. So ethics and morality are legislated, and this has nothing in particular to do with Christianity.

If people want to have homosexual sex, then they will, just as people do all kinds of immoral stuff. BUT: To change the "definition" of the word "marriage" is something entirely different. This is what is REALLY at issue here. If homosexuals want to live together, as wrong as I think that is, I would not stop them. But the word "Marriage" referes to the union of a man and a woman in Matrimony. When you start fiddling with the definition of words you open up a Pandora's box. Next, cousins will want to marry, polygamists will want to marry.. .some guy may even want to marry his dog. And they will all say that if you expand the definition of Marriage to include other things such as same-sex couples, then you are violating their rights if you do not include them too. Once the Genie is out of the bottle, you cannot force him back in.

All religious issues aside, my biggest beef is with changing the definition of the word marriage.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

The difference between homosexuality and the other things you listed here is that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone.

Neither does polygamy. Neither does marrying your cousin or your sister. Neither does marrying your horse. Shall we legalize those too?

 

[b&wpac4]

I do not believe in esablishing an "official" religion. (Although, England has the "Church of England" and they have as much freedom of religion as we do.)

However, any nation that sinks into all manner of immorality and perveristity will eventually destroy itself, just as the Roman Empire did.

But leaving religion out of it: We DO legislate morality, whether people admit it or not. Sex with children, murder, bearing false witness (in court specifically), inappropriate behavior with animals.. ..these are all immoral acts, and they are illegal. We also have "Ethics" laws. So ethics and morality are legislated, and this has nothing in particular to do with Christianity.

If people want to have homosexual sex, then they will, just as people do all kinds of immoral stuff. BUT: To change the "definition" of the word "marriage" is something entirely different. This is what is REALLY at issue here. If homosexuals want to live together, as wrong as I think that is, I would not stop them. But the word "Marriage" referes to the union of a man and a woman in Matrimony. When you start fiddling with the definition of words you open up, a Pandora's box. Next, cousins will want to marry, polygamists will want to marry.. .some guy may even want to marry his dog. And they will all say that if you expand the definition of Marriage to include other things such as same-sex couples, then you are violating their rights if you do not include them too. Once the Genie is out of the bottle, you cannot force him back in.

All religious issues aside, my biggest beef is with changing the definition of the word marriage.

Where I live, cousins can marry....

How would you feel about granting all the rights that come with marriage without calling it such? Would that change things for you? You do agree that people who commit to each other should have rights to property and hospital visits and the like?

I hate the slippery slope argument, especially when it comes to marrying animals. That's going to such an extreme that it makes the argument just silly. Why not say a man will want to marry his stapler or computer?

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Where I live, cousins can marry....

I'm tempted to ask where you live, but I won't.

...How would you feel about granting all the rights that come with marriage without calling it such? Would that change things for you? You do agree that people who commit to each other should have rights to property and hospital visits and the like?

Interseting you should mention that. The fact is that this is the case in many states already. This is why this whole same-sex marriage debacle is such a farce, because same-sex couple pretty much have those rights already. This is why I believe that their agenda has nothing to do with "rights" and has everything to do with destroying traditional institutions. This is where we get into the culture war.
And from a Christian POV, this is the material manifistation of the never ending spiritual battle between good and evil. Kids shooting kids, female teachers having sex with their students, the rise in promiscuity and violence, wars, oppresion - there is a real war going on. This is my personal belief.

....I hate the slippery slope argument, especially when it comes to marrying animals. That's going to such an extreme that it makes the argument just silly. Why not say a man will want to marry his stapler or computer?

Hey bro: There are things that we do not blink at today that would have seemed unimaginable 40 or 50 years ago. Do not fool yourself. The slippery slope is very slippery indeed.

 

[b&wpac4]

Interseting you should mention that. The fact is that this is the case in many states already. This is why this whole same-sex marriage debacle is such a farce, because same-sex couple pretty much have those rights already. This is why I believe that their agenda has nothing to do with "rights" and has everything to do with destroying traditional institutions. This is where we get into the culture war.
And from a Christian POV, this is the material manifistation of the never ending spiritual battle between good and evil. Kids shooting kids, female teachers having sex with their students, the rise in promiscuity and violence, wars, oppresion - there is a real war going on. This is my personal belief.

Can they get these rights as easily as a heterosexual couple can? If the answer is no, then that needs to be addressed. It shouldn't be harder one way or another.

 

[Nooj]

Interseting you should mention that. The fact is that this is the case in many states already.

But not all states. Would you support gay people seeking the rights they are entitled to in those areas?

 

[BigBadWlf]

I just want to hear peoples reasons behind their disapproval of gay people.

Those who choose to hate gays and lesbians do so for for exactly the same reasons some people choose to hate blacks and some people choose to hate Jews and some people choose to hate women and some people choose to hate the handicapped and some people choose to hate Hispanics and some people choose to hate Muslims and some people choose to hate Atheists.

You get to see a lot of justification for hatred, lots of talk about what is “natural” and lots of talk about God’s plan and how these people represent “sin” or are horribly sinful and lots of talk about how animal like any or all of these groups are, there will be those who compare these minorities to murders or rapists or drug users, and lots of talk about needing to protect children of women or families or society from them. (oh and you also get a lot of claims that they don’t REALLY hate anyone just how THOSE people choose to act)

What is really interesting is looking at the justifications people give for what ever minority they are going after and start comparing them. What you find is the reasons, justifications, excuses are always the same no matter what minority is being targeted.

 

[Washington]

The difference between homosexuality and the other things you listed here is that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone.
​

Neither does polygamy.

And I have yet to see a convincing argument why polygamy should be against the law.

Neither does marrying your cousin

And in many states it's quite legal to marry a first cousin.

or your sister.

Well matings between such people has a high risk of stillborns and defective offspring.

Neither does marrying your horse.

Hey, I'm surprised you didn't include one's Craftsman circular saw.

Shall we legalize those too?

More than one person, yes; cousins, yes; siblings, horses and circular saws, no.

 

[R0D]

I just want to hear peoples reasons behind their disapproval of gay people.

There are just too many threads and posts by members who have an agenda against anything Christian or against Christians themselves. So, I usually don't waste time reading the same old stuff over and over. But the phrasing in the thread's title caught my eye with the use of "everyone". Then when I go to see if there is anything else of curiosity, an Atheist's first and only post is on homosexuality in the E&M area. Interesting, but I'll get to the reason I stop for a reply... and I apologize if this has already been brought to your attention somewhere in the thread.

Just for future reference or FYI~

"Why does everyone dislike homosexuality so much?"

"I just want to hear peoples reasons behind their disapproval of gay people."

---
Whether the shift between the title and opening remark was intentional or not, I believe homosexuality might be considered by many as a "thing" and gay people would not be a "thing".

Just a little offered help for future reference. I hope your homosexuality thread helps you in a way that is needed.

 

[Ectezus]

Neither does polygamy. Neither does marrying your cousin or your sister. Neither does marrying your horse. Shall we legalize those too?

Nice, a tripple wrong for the price of one quote.

1) Marrying your cousin or sister is wrong because breeding between the two has a much higher chance of producing babies with defects and illnesses.

2) Polygamy would mean the attention of the man (or women) has to be devided amongst the wives which would be unfair for them. Not too hard to see how this could be harmful right?

3) Marrying a horse is wrong because the horse can not say "Yes I do" and therefore give consent to marrying you.

ALL the examples you stated are wrong and don't adress the issue at all.
Now the statement by Peadar still remains:
"The difference between homosexuality and the other things [like rape and murder] you listed here is that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone"


- Ectezus

 

[BigBadWlf]

However, any nation that sinks into all manner of immorality and perveristity will eventually destroy itself, just as the Roman Empire did.

You are of course aware that Rome only went into decline and fell after it embraced Christianity …right?

But leaving religion out of it: We DO legislate morality, whether people admit it or not. Sex with children, murder, bearing false witness (in court specifically), inappropriate behavior with animals.. ..these are all immoral acts, and they are illegal. We also have "Ethics" laws. So ethics and morality are legislated, and this has nothing in particular to do with Christianity.

How is equal rights for a minority immoral?

If people want to have homosexual sex, then they will, just as people do all kinds of immoral stuff. BUT: To change the "definition" of the word "marriage" is something entirely different.

We changed it in 1967, before that marriage was between two people of the same race.

This is what is REALLY at issue here. If homosexuals want to live together, as wrong as I think that is, I would not stop them. But the word "Marriage" referes to the union of a man and a woman in Matrimony. When you start fiddling with the definition of words you open up a Pandora's box. Next, cousins will want to marry, polygamists will want to marry.. .some guy may even want to marry his dog. And they will all say that if you expand the definition of Marriage to include other things such as same-sex couples, then you are violating their rights if you do not include them too. Once the Genie is out of the bottle, you cannot force him back in.

OHHHH….next thing you know black people will start thinking they can use the “white only” drinking fountains. Oh won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?!?!?!?

All religious issues aside, my biggest beef is with changing the definition of the word marriage.

Marriage is marriage. It doesn’t matter if that marriage is between two Christians, or two Buddhists, or a black man and a white woman, or two men or, two Jews.

 

[Miles]

Obviously not everybody dislikes homosexually. If that was the case, there wouldn't be any homosexuals.

As for my own views on this topic, I can only speak for myself. I suppose I dislike homosexuality because innocuous things like show-tunes have been turned into supposed symbols of a person's sexual orientation. They've taken hold of rainbows, among other aesthetic elements, turning them into sexual symbols. That bothers me. As a highly intelligent child, I was often accused of being a homosexual for using big words, for showing sensitivity toward others, for being musical and artistic etc. How annoying! It's not that I have anything against homosexual individuals. They are what they are, and what they do is between them and God (or whatever name you give reality). It just pains me that so many non-sexual things have been homosexualized by our culture. I wonder how much creativity has been suppressed because children didn't want to be mislabeled or bullied by their peers?

 

[Washington]

Just as a matter of note on cousin marriages.



All states allow the marriage of second cousins.


Alabama: First cousins, yes.

Alaska: First cousins, yes.

Arizona: First cousins, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children. Half cousins, yes.

Arkansas: No

California: First cousins, yes.

Colorado: First cousins, yes.

Connecticut: First cousins, yes.

Delaware: No

District of Columbia: First cousins, yes.

Florida: First cousins, yes.

Georgia: First cousins, yes.

Hawaii: First cousins, yes.

Idaho: No

Illinois: First cousins, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children.

Indiana: First cousins once removed, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children.

Iowa: No

Kansas: Half cousins, yes.

Kentucky: No

Louisiana: Marriage between first cousins is not allowed.

Maine: First cousins, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children, or if they get genetic counseling.

Maryland: First cousins, yes.

Massachusetts: First cousins, yes.

Michigan: No

Minnesota: No, unless aboriginal culture of the couple permits cousin marriages.

Mississippi: Adopted cousins, yes.

Missouri: No

Montana: Half cousins, yes.

Nebraska: Half cousins, yes.

Nevada: Half cousins, yes.

New Hampshire: No

New Jersey: First cousins, yes.

New Mexico: First cousins, yes.

New York: First cousins, yes.

North Carolina: First cousins, yes. Double first cousins are not allowed to get married.

North Dakota: No

Ohio: No

Oklahoma: Half cousins, yes.

Oregon: Adopted cousins, yes.

Pennsylvania: No

Rhode Island: First cousins, yes.

South Carolina: First cousins, yes.

South Dakota: No

Tennessee: First cousins, yes.

Texas: No.

Utah: First cousins, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children.

Vermont: First cousins, yes.

Virginia: First cousins, yes.

Washington: No

West Virginia: Adopted cousins, yes.

Wisconsin: First cousins once removed, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children.

Wyoming: No


source

 

[LightHorseman]

Some people just are hateful.

Indeed. And they use words like "repugnant" to describe perfectly natural activities they don't themselves understand, or fear.

 

[Everlasting33]

I personally perceive homosexuality as disgusting, weird and unnatural. I agree with Robert Firestone's view on homosexuality: "a confused sexual identity rooted in family dynamics that have injured the self-esteem of these individuals."

 

[Nooj]

I personally perceive homosexuality as disgusting, weird and unnatural. I agree with Robert Firestone's view on homosexuality: "a confused sexual identity rooted in family dynamics that have injured the self-esteem of these individuals."

Why would you think that?

 

[LightHorseman]

I personally perceive homosexuality as disgusting, weird and unnatural. I agree with Robert Firestone's view on homosexuality: "a confused sexual identity rooted in family dynamics that have injured the self-esteem of these individuals."

I wonder what people who don't have the a priori view that it is "disgusting, wierd and unnatural" have to say about where it comes from?

Honestly, did you think it was disgusting, wierd and unnatural before you researched it? Or did you come to that conclusion AFTER researching it?

 

[Everlasting33]

I wonder what people who don't have the a priori view that it is "disgusting, wierd and unnatural" have to say about where it comes from?

Honestly, did you think it was disgusting, wierd and unnatural before you researched it? Or did you come to that conclusion AFTER researching it?

Nope, always thought so.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I personally perceive homosexuality as disgusting, weird and unnatural. I agree with Robert Firestone's view on homosexuality: "a confused sexual identity rooted in family dynamics that have injured the self-esteem of these individuals."

Firestone is more famous for his support of Polygamy and his support of that polygamist cult in Texas that made the news so much last year. He claims that polygamy benefits women.

I have to wonder if Firestone he thinks as highly of other minorities