Gays and Homophobia

[PurplePlatypus]

Well I accept it but I?m not really sure that?s even the right word. It?s that people would like the world to be simple, hell people believe the world is that simple but they are wrong. Gender and sex are not a two sided coin, and sexuality doesn?t even fit into the three labels we typically give it. I don?t see it as being a problem either. I mean it has worked out so far, society hasn?t collapsed, humanity hasn?t ended and everybody hasn?t caught the gay. The only problems it causes are due to peoples lack of acceptance/tolerance and basically people making other people feel like shit or even going so far as to bring physical harm to them.

Oh but ?What if everybody was ? well everybody isn?t and even if they where I think there is a chasm between what the reality would be and what you think the reality would be. Besides even if it was bad if everybody was that thing, it doesn?t follow that it is harmful when only some people are it. It might even have its benefits.

 

[loc978]

Yeah, I'm all for equal rights for homo-and-bi-sexuals... and discriminatory behavior against those folks sickens me just as much as any other discriminatory behavior.
That said, I'm sort of on my own special little side in the gay marriage debate: I firmly believe marriage should be an entirely religious and/or personal function, having nothing to do with government, taxes or other financial or legal concerns. If two homosexuals want to say they're married, and they can hold a ceremony of some kind to satisfy their need for acceptance, let 'em. If religious folks want to have traditional ceremonies, let 'em. Just don't give 'em any special rights, legal ties to the other person, or tax breaks. One group's definition of marriage should not affect any other group's ability to define it as they please.

 

[Agayek]

Irrelevent, because this is about the personal view, not social. The age of his source of morals or beliefs or whatever shouldn't make a difference. It would make a difference if we were applying it to a large group, or society at large, but not to an individual.


What if you were to say "I don't steal because the law says not to" without thinking for yourself about why it is wrong to steal? Most would agree that this is a good thing. This person takes the Bible the same way as the Law, providing guidelines to follow. Some people just can't think outside the box for everything that comes there way, especially not such large scale issues they really have no personal hand in.

I'll give you the first point. I can't agree with it, but you make a solid argument.

As for the latter, it's a very bad thing for anyone to do anything without at least a reasonably clear idea on why. The morality of whatever the action is doesn't matter in the least. People who, for whatever reason, cannot make a logical argument for why they do something should be condemned at every possible opportunity. It doesn't even have to be a good argument, just something that displays some kind of thought. Acting without the barest attempt at understanding your own motivations is a grievous insult to every sentient being in the universe.

And that's not how faith works. Faith isn't an abandonment of free will, or at least it shouldn't be. There's nothing wrong with letting someone else decide something for you. Some people just won't (or can't) think about these things on there own. There's really nothing we can do about that.

Blind faith is absolutely an abandonment of free will. You surrender your ability to make your own decisions the instant you decide that you will follow the directions of someone else without question. If you cannot at least supply a reason deeper than "I was told to", you have surrendered your free will.

And you are quite correct, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it, which is incredibly depressing, but I will continue to call people on it when I see it. Hopefully I can convince others to do the same and maybe we can eventually effect real change. Probably not, but I can dream.

I'm following a book which is the Word of God. It was written by men, but it was inspired by God, a being who still exists (and always has and will). A being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

You may not believe this, but understand why I consider the Bible to be infinitely more than just "a book written a long time ago."

Yes - we have freewill. And I am exercising mine by choosing to follow God's Word. I am not being forced.

I had this really long post about this bit, but it got deleted when my browser crashed and it's 12:30 AM, so you're gonna get the TLDR version of it:

The Bible was written by men. Regardless of how inspired by God they were, some guy, who is by nature imperfect, had an idea and was convincing enough that other imperfect men believed he was touched by the divine. Then a whole succession of other men added to, altered and edited that work over the course of millennia.

There are errors in the Bible. Period. This is not debatable. People make mistakes. Regardless of how influential YHWH was at every step of the process, there are mistakes, and they have built on each other over many generations.

Also, see above regarding the whole free will schtick. You gave it up the instant you used "God said so" as your entire argument.

 

[blankedboy]

You forgot Asexual OP.

Don't start that, there's about 30 different sexualities, no-one can be bothered listing them all.

Actually, speaking of religious views, I'm actually a Satanist, which is one of the few religions that doesn't hate on non-hetero sexualities... hellz yeah. Pfff, unintentional puns get the best of me wherever I go. Pisss offfff.
I would post more, but I'll probably go off a tangent and make this a thread about Satanism, and I already have like 5 posts in this thread :/

 

[Kimarous]

-snip-

*rolls eyes* Whatever. Believe whatever improbably low numbers you want. We can argue semantics until the cows come home. This argument has long since veered off the main topic.

 

[Aanorith]

I don't care. I'm all for it as long as they are all happy. If you perfer it with a lass or bloke is no concern of mine. Unless you want me to join in. I'm a try-sexual, ill try anything once

 

[Cartman2nd]

Eh, it's a topic I love to argue around. I'm feeling unsatisfied right now, someone find me a homophobe to castrate, decimate and incinerate. Otherwise known as the CD-I method (see what I did there? :3)

See, now your no better than the homophobes that want to castrate, decimate and incinerate you.

 

[Sacman]

Rom 1:26-27 states, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Jude 1:7 states, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Does it actually explicitly state in these teachings which acts they performed? I mean, shameful acts with other men's a pretty broad term. (...) Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to take it as you wish but you know, it doesn't really state what these acts are. It could be threesomes with animals, corpses, scat, y'know it's a pretty broad spectrum.

1) If they were "inflamed with lust for one another," why would they be doing anything else? If you're horny for somebody, is your first impulse to rape a goat or a corpse?

2) Let's see what Genesis 19:4-5 tells us about Sodom and Gomorrah...

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

I think that's pretty darn specific.

That's one sexual act in a whole city. You take a crossection of your city alot of shit will go on. It doesn't mean it was purely homosexuality that Sodom & Gomorrah were said to have been destroyed for.

Genesis also tells us the world's only about 3000 or so years old. Just saying.

Right, because the entire male populate of a city wanting to gangbang a pair of visitors totally counts as ONE sexual act. >_>

Your other "point" is irrelevant to this conversation.

The "entire" population. We're talking about a story that was originally passed down by word of mouth. It could've been as little as 10 people. You know how hyperbole works surely. It's used often to make a point. It's like saying "the entire school watched the fight when really only about 10 people did. It happens. Chinese whispers. Yes, my other point is irrelevant but it was intended to be more of a flippant remark on my personal view of genesis. Just because the common consensus is that all those people were damned to fire for their sexuality doesn't mean it's exactly what the book says. The ark. Most people believe the animals were taken in twos, while it was two of every unclean beast and seven of every clean. Clean, I assume, refers to kosher law but I cannot confirm this.

Well unclean animals include Shellfish, pig, camel, rock badger, rabbit, eagle, vulture, buzzard, falcon, raven, crow, ostrich, owl, seagull, hawk, pelican, stork, heron, bat, winged insects that walk on four legs unless they have joints to jump with like grasshoppers?, bear, mole, mouse, lizard, gecko, crocodile, chameleon and snail.

And I like how it mentions "winged insects that walk on four legs" but to be properly classified as an insect it needs 6 legs...

 

[AgDr_ODST]

Right out of the gate I'm gonna say I'm a hetero Christian..but that doesn't mean I'm gonna hit you with a bible and say your going to Hell if your words(or actions) reveal your preference. And As for the whole for or against thing....I used to be adamantly against but nowadays I tend to alternate between being all for it and not caring.

 

[Leg End]

Straight.
In full support for LGBT rights.

And I am a Pedophile, so I know a little bit about sexual discrimination and hatred.

So... yeah.

Guys, seriously, don't bash Pedophiles. Pedos are people too. Nothing wrong with our love.

(Has not had any sexual contact with a minor.)

 

[The Lunatic]

I'm gay, pink rainbows and all that.

UK is pretty accepting of homosexuality, there's not really much in the way of people being against it.

So, sure, I guess there's a few things which could be tweaked slightly.

Nothing is really going to change the opinion of douche bags, but, eh. I'm happy as things are.

 

[quhouv vhqwiufv qwiu]

I don't prefer them to keep it hidden, I just don't want to know. Say I'm going hunting with this guy, and I know he's gay. I'm going to fear sleeping in the same tent as him, it's not logical, but there it is. If I don't know if he's gay, I won't care because we're two guys out hunting in the woods, I won't see him as any different than me. Religion has bred us to see gay and straight as two complete opposite things, and America has helped it along.

Newsflash: Just because you're a guy doesn't mean every gay guy wants to have sex with you. I hate it when straight guys immediately assume that because a person is gay, they want to have sex with every single man. For myself, and a lot of my gay friends, straight guys are a turn off.

 

[Andrew Bohan]

-snip-

*rolls eyes* Whatever. Believe whatever improbably low numbers you want. We can argue semantics until the cows come home. This argument has long since veered off the main topic.

You want to play that game? Fine. I'll play ball. A whole city is a vastly more improbable number than a group of 5 or 6. To believe the entire city was populated by pansexuals seems absurd. Even Greece had heterosexuals. Honestly, I'm not belittling your right to interpret it that way I'm just stating that it's possible there are other interpretations of it which could still be correct by that wording.

 

[NotAPie]

Eh, I'm Bi curious but at the school I go too a lot of guys just hate gay/bi guys so I try to keep it to myself.

 

[Gigaguy64]

or the part where Adam's first wife is turned into a demon for wanting to be on top during sex...<.<

Just taking this for a sec.
You do realize that Lilith does not Exist right?
She is just a Jewish Legend.

Yeah... but you can say the same thing about the entire Old Testament...
besides she was included in several different variations and was used by the Church to explain crib deaths up until the about the 1600's...<.<

True.
But Lilith isnt even in the OT, the passage most often pointed to as evidence for Lilith is Isaiah 34:14, which in the NRSV reads, "there too Lilith shall repose." This is a poor translation.
Every other major translation of the Bible reads something to the effect of "night creature" or "screech owl".
Even if "demon monster named Lilith" was the proper translation of the Hebrew word, Adam is nowhere even hinted at in this passage or its context.
Whatever the Lilith was, it is not given any connection whatsoever to Adam or Creation.

Actually her existence is pointed at in the story of Gilgamesh popular in several religions before the old testament, which the Old Testament rips off with all of the shame and decency of the Move ripping off the wii... and since there roll in the story was basically the same it sort of just got ported over and given Lilith her name later... and for some reason it was generally accepted...

I just had to brush up it's been a while since I've read either stories...<.<

And the same could be said about many religions around the world.
Even religions from cultures that had no Contact with the place where Gilgamesh originated.
For Gilgamesh, im assuming you mean the part about the Flood, it could also be retellings of the same story.
And even many similar stories like Sargon and Moses.

But anyway, id rather not get into a Religious debate, its too late for that...

 

[Sacman]

or the part where Adam's first wife is turned into a demon for wanting to be on top during sex...<.<

Just taking this for a sec.
You do realize that Lilith does not Exist right?
She is just a Jewish Legend.

Yeah... but you can say the same thing about the entire Old Testament...
besides she was included in several different variations and was used by the Church to explain crib deaths up until the about the 1600's...<.<

True.
But Lilith isnt even in the OT, the passage most often pointed to as evidence for Lilith is Isaiah 34:14, which in the NRSV reads, "there too Lilith shall repose." This is a poor translation.
Every other major translation of the Bible reads something to the effect of "night creature" or "screech owl".
Even if "demon monster named Lilith" was the proper translation of the Hebrew word, Adam is nowhere even hinted at in this passage or its context.
Whatever the Lilith was, it is not given any connection whatsoever to Adam or Creation.

Actually her existence is pointed at in the story of Gilgamesh popular in several religions before the old testament, which the Old Testament rips off with all of the shame and decency of the Move ripping off the wii... and since there roll in the story was basically the same it sort of just got ported over and given Lilith her name later... and for some reason it was generally accepted...

I just had to brush up it's been a while since I've read either stories...<.<

And the same could be said about many religions around the world.
Even religions from cultures that had no Contact with the place where Gilgamesh originated.
For Gilgamesh, im assuming you mean the part about the Flood, it could also be retellings of the same story.
And even many similar stories like Sargon and Moses.

But anyway, id rather not get into a Religious debate, its too late for that...

No I meant the part concerning the fountain of youth and several other parts including the flood... though I take the flood as a historical event since it has been given evidence...

Yeah let's not do this, I'm already on probation...<.<

 

[lizabeth19]

...why do I have a feeling that this thread can only end in a smoldering, blackened wreck of Hitler comparisons and yo momma insults?

That said, human sexuality is somethimes too multifaceted and complicated to try and label. So, to seriously answer your question, I don't know. I'm attracted to who I'm attracted to and if they happen to be a man, woman or other*, then I'm attracted to that man, woman or other.


* Other meaning people who do not consider themselves to be either a man or a woman.

 

[badgersprite]

Very lesbian here, and loving it. ^ ^

Haven't really had any encounters with homophobia. I mean, sure, I had some issues in early high school with girls being all like, "Oh, you're a lesbian, THEREFORE YOU MUST BE ATTRACTED TO ME!" but that was just immaturity, no worse than what happened to anyone else there.

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

Homosexuality is not manly. You might be the man in the relationship, but you've become so at the expense of your partner's dignity and masculinity. It's also pointless and embarrassing for your family, no matter how pleasurable it may be for you. A bit like blowing yourself.

Why do you think this is so? Have you been in a gay relationship or witnessed one up close? Why would one lose their masculinity and dignity from being with another man? And do you believe it is the same for Lesbian couples, that they lose their feminity and dignity?

 

[Sacman]

...why do I have a feeling that this thread can only end in a smoldering, blackened wreck of Hitler comparisons and yo momma insults?

That said, human sexuality is somethimes too multifaceted and complicated to try and label. So, to seriously answer your question, I don't know. I'm attracted to who I'm attracted to and if they happen to be a man, woman or other*, then I'm attracted to that man, woman or other.


* Other meaning people who do not consider themselves to be either a man or a woman.

Yes, Hitler is bound to come up according to Godwin's Law...<.<