A Debate on Homosexuality - Page 7

01-10-2002, 01:38 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Aelia Jusa:

Actually there have been studies done and there is no evidence to suggest that children with two same-sex parents are any less well adjusted than children with different-sex parents, or indeed single parents. There certainly isn't any more instance of children of same-sex parents being homosexual themselves, and like in a single parent household, there are other role models of the opposite sex that they can call on, relatives, parents' friends etc.

Im not disagreeing here, but I will say I have seen studies the definatley indicate both conclusions, I don't believe any of them as they were all conducted by biased individuals. Can't trust a study conducted by a publicly homophobic group nor can you trust a study by a group that openly advocates acceptance of homosexuality...

so its a tough call, still think that all else being equal, children are better off with a Mom and a Dad of traditional gender....but that is just the opinon of one parent.

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Madman-Rogovich · 01-10-2002, 02:28 PM

well this is all very nice an mature...........huh huh he said sexual

catzenpewters · 01-10-2002, 03:45 PM

Throwing my two cents worth in as this is a subject I feel very strongly about.

My belief is that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality - either being homosexual or practicing homosexuality.

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry, and receive the rights and benefits that marriage entails? Absolutely! Granted the biblical purpose of marriage seems to be for procreation (and monogamy). So if the church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, that is their call. However, civil marriages were not created for this purpose. There are a huge number marriages that are not for this purpose, or not in confirmity with the usual biblical expectations. Should couples who don't want to or can't have children not be allowed to marry? Don't be ridiculous. Should people who are not religious not be allowed to marry? Absurd! Common-law marriages are definitely frowned on by the church, and have only recently gained legal recognition. In my opinion homosexual marriages should fall under the same category.

I have friends and relatives who are gay - I would be furious with anyone who treated them poorly. I have had many frank discussions with my friend, and I know from speaking to him that love and desire feel just the same to him.

Science has proven that people are born homosexual or not, though a few are sort of middle of the road and could be swung either way (or both). How can we penalize someone for how they are born? As long as no one is getting hurt why should I care about their desires or sexual practices? I don't care about the sexual habits of heterosexual people, why should I care about homosexuals'?

Maybe the Bible labels homosexuality as a sin, and that's fine. But let's face it - not everyone is Christian, or even religious at all. Society cannot be led around by the dictates of one faith. Religions *may* have provided our original moral guidance, but nowadays we are all educated enough to think for ourselves and our decisions on morality have the guidance going in the other direction. I firmly believe that God wants us to think for ourselves.

If you don't agree with me, that's fine. We should all have our own opinions, at least as long as we arrive at them ourselves.

Cerek the Barbaric · 01-10-2002, 06:39 PM

quote:
Originally posted by DJG:
Homosexuality...........
A hard one to dwell on?........
Yeah, I personally have no probelms against homosexuals but I have never met one. But what does it matter?
It's none of my business to judge others.
You think, think. Homeosexuality is unusual, but although in therory (To Roman Catholicism, which is my religion) it is wrong, that doesn't make it wrong. I can't see anywhere in the bible where it says "Don't be homosexual!". Someone tell me if you can.

The best-known example from the Bible is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The residents of these 2 cities indulged any and every sexual desire with reckless abandon, including homosexuality. The Bible always refers to homosexuality as an "abomination" (sorry, don't have good references to provide specific verses). God decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of the people's wickid ways. Lot pleaded for mercy and God agreed that he would spare the cities if Lot could find just 10 people (out of several hundred) that would change their ways. Lot failed and the cities were destroyed.

Now, having said that, I want to support Magik and what she(?) has said in her previous Posts. We are ALL guilty of sin in one form or another. God does consider homosexuality a sin, but if a person sincerely asks God for forgiveness of his/her sins, then God WILL forgive them - whether thier sin is homosexuality or cheating on their tithes. As I said earlier, God does not see BIG sins and LITTLE sins. To Him, ALL sin is the same - and all sins can be forgiven.

Ziroc spoke of the contradictions in the Bible...and Magik provided a good Response. Any "quote" from the Bible should be considered in the full context of the circumstances the writer was experiencing at that time.

Here is a better example (maybe). I am a Southern Baptist (which means I live in the southern part of the USA, for those who may not know). I firmly beleive that homosexuality is considered a sin by God because the Bible calls it an abomination.

On the other hand, I have worked with (and been friends with) several gay people (mostly female). I disagree with their lifestyle, but I do NOT treat them any differently from anybody else. What they do in their private lives is none of my business. I respect thier choice, even though I don't agree with it. And I can honostly say that it does not affect how I feel towards them in any way.

fable · 01-10-2002, 06:53 PM

quote:
Originally posted by catzenpewters:
Granted the biblical purpose of marriage seems to be for procreation (and monogamy)...

Actually, not monogamy. If you read the old testament and check historical resources, there are enough references to show that the standard social unit was intensely patriarchal, with potentially several wives, concubines and/or slaves kept in part for sexual use. Even the ten commandments (and there are actually many, many more commandments in those last major books of the main OT canon) refer to women as part of the "goods" owned by a neighbor which one shouldn't covet, along with his flock, etc. That's not to say wives weren't considered a matter of significant value among the ancient Jews. But under the law they were property of their husbands, and monogamy wasn't an option when you needed a lot of sturdy, young sons to protect the herd, invade neighboring lands and till the soil.

Vaskez · 01-10-2002, 07:53 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Ziroc:

This is the same Book that says "Turn the Other Cheek" and then "An Eye for an Eye". The Bible is FULL of contradictions.

Just delve a little bit deeper Ziroc and you'll find the answer: The New Testament supercedes and takes precedence over the Old Testament, so if a subject is covered in both then the New Testament is the "valid" one today. The Old Testament governed lives before Jesus and the New is meant for governing them since then till today etc.
In this case "turn the other cheek" is the valid one and people who quote the 2nd quote are simply wrong to use it.

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Vaskez ]

Lord of Alcohol · 01-10-2002, 07:53 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:

Oh I don't condemn homosexuals at all, I work with a few, have been friends with some and in general my philosophy is live and let live, I only get irritated when the subject comes around to special laws and protections, as a libertarian type person I feel we have quite enough..actually way too many laws as it stands, and that we should be getting rid of most of them...I mean for example, Make it against the law to commit murder....there..one law....instead of the several hundred we now have, make it against the law to discriminate one law...not one for each individual type of discrimination

I cannot conceive of treating a person differently because of their life styles...what counts most for me is how the person treats me...treat me with disrespect and thats what you gain in return, respect my beliefs and space and Ill do my darndest to respect yours.

I agree, theres no need for further laws. If someone goes " fag-bashing" I think thats called "assault", which is a crime. One charge should fit all, no need to call it something else. Sentencing, thats what determines the severity, not just another name. I dont particularly approve of men pumping each other up the butt, but hey its a free country. And the laws protect them without adding any more.

Vaskez · 01-10-2002, 08:03 PM

I also don't think homosexuality should receive more "acceptance" because that is just asking for it really...it's almost like promoting it. Of course, I don't hate anyone because of their lifestyle, I don't have any gay friends, but I have met some and I can't help but think a little differently of them.
The bible also says that God created homosexuality as a punishment for previous sins..something like: "....and men shall be infected with lust for one another as punishment for their wicked ways..."
and of course I agree 100% with what Magick says about reading everything in context, otherwise it is easily misinterpreted....in fact the Bible is more often mis-interpreted that interpreted correctly IMO.
Politically, I think we should draw the line at "live and let live" as in not persecute gays, but I don't think they should be allowed to marry because IMO that is blatantly taking the serious piss out of everything marriage stands for and represents. Gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children below a certain age (below, say 15), as IMO it will give a skewed view on life to the child especially at a young age. And I don't care how many people give examples of bad heterosexual parenting, statisticly it is still the only way (realisticly).

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Vaskez ]

*\Conan/* · 01-10-2002, 08:27 PM

Ok..one thing is for sure Avatar ..I dont think our forum debate specailist is around to much anymore..dont know , but mybe FB is a lurker and we dont know it. He could give you a few pointers on how to start a heated debate like this thats for sure [img]smile.gif[/img] My say is no special treatment... thats it. Now get back to your studies [img]smile.gif[/img]

Chewbacca · 01-11-2002, 12:02 AM

To uphold any sort of prejudice, be it institutionally or individually, is a real sin. A division bell for our species. In order to be tolerant, understanding, and compassionate one must accept what is different about other people, no matter how foriegn, different, or unknown that may be. Let all our bias, and prejudice fall to the way side. In a true spirit of humanity and individuality one may reject the interpretations that label homosexuality as deviant or sinful. Equal rights for all. If two people are in love, and wish a ceremonial union with all rights granted by the state, than they should have it, and the world will just have to be ready for it, regardless of sexual preference. If a person, or couple can provide a stable, nurturing home for a child, then they should have the same chance as any other qualified candidate(s) when it comes to adoption, regardless of sexual preference. The science is in, and children raised by same sex couples suffer no gross abnormalities compared to any other adoptee.

Just my two cents worth.

01-10-2002, 01:38 PM	#61
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	quote: Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: Actually there have been studies done and there is no evidence to suggest that children with two same-sex parents are any less well adjusted than children with different-sex parents, or indeed single parents. There certainly isn't any more instance of children of same-sex parents being homosexual themselves, and like in a single parent household, there are other role models of the opposite sex that they can call on, relatives, parents' friends etc. Im not disagreeing here, but I will say I have seen studies the definatley indicate both conclusions, I don't believe any of them as they were all conducted by biased individuals. Can't trust a study conducted by a publicly homophobic group nor can you trust a study by a group that openly advocates acceptance of homosexuality... so its a tough call, still think that all else being equal, children are better off with a Mom and a Dad of traditional gender....but that is just the opinon of one parent. [ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: MagiK ]

01-10-2002, 02:28 PM	#62
Madman-Rogovich Lord Soth Join Date: October 23, 2001 Location: Edinburgh Age: 38 Posts: 1,918	well this is all very nice an mature...........huh huh he said sexual __________________ One room, one axe, one outcome.

01-10-2002, 06:39 PM	#64
Cerek the Barbaric Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice Join Date: October 29, 2001 Location: North Carolina Age: 61 Posts: 3,257	quote: Originally posted by DJG: Homosexuality........... A hard one to dwell on?........ Yeah, I personally have no probelms against homosexuals but I have never met one. But what does it matter? It's none of my business to judge others. You think, think. Homeosexuality is unusual, but although in therory (To Roman Catholicism, which is my religion) it is wrong, that doesn't make it wrong. I can't see anywhere in the bible where it says "Don't be homosexual!". Someone tell me if you can. The best-known example from the Bible is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The residents of these 2 cities indulged any and every sexual desire with reckless abandon, including homosexuality. The Bible always refers to homosexuality as an "abomination" (sorry, don't have good references to provide specific verses). God decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of the people's wickid ways. Lot pleaded for mercy and God agreed that he would spare the cities if Lot could find just 10 people (out of several hundred) that would change their ways. Lot failed and the cities were destroyed. Now, having said that, I want to support Magik and what she(?) has said in her previous Posts. We are ALL guilty of sin in one form or another. God does consider homosexuality a sin, but if a person sincerely asks God for forgiveness of his/her sins, then God WILL forgive them - whether thier sin is homosexuality or cheating on their tithes. As I said earlier, God does not see BIG sins and LITTLE sins. To Him, ALL sin is the same - and all sins can be forgiven. Ziroc spoke of the contradictions in the Bible...and Magik provided a good Response. Any "quote" from the Bible should be considered in the full context of the circumstances the writer was experiencing at that time. Here is a better example (maybe). I am a Southern Baptist (which means I live in the southern part of the USA, for those who may not know). I firmly beleive that homosexuality is considered a sin by God because the Bible calls it an abomination. On the other hand, I have worked with (and been friends with) several gay people (mostly female). I disagree with their lifestyle, but I do NOT treat them any differently from anybody else. What they do in their private lives is none of my business. I respect thier choice, even though I don't agree with it. And I can honostly say that it does not affect how I feel towards them in any way. __________________ [img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth

01-10-2002, 06:53 PM	#65
fable Quintesson Join Date: March 17, 2001 Location: Where I am. Posts: 1,089	quote: Originally posted by catzenpewters: Granted the biblical purpose of marriage seems to be for procreation (and monogamy)... Actually, not monogamy. If you read the old testament and check historical resources, there are enough references to show that the standard social unit was intensely patriarchal, with potentially several wives, concubines and/or slaves kept in part for sexual use. Even the ten commandments (and there are actually many, many more commandments in those last major books of the main OT canon) refer to women as part of the "goods" owned by a neighbor which one shouldn't covet, along with his flock, etc. That's not to say wives weren't considered a matter of significant value among the ancient Jews. But under the law they were property of their husbands, and monogamy wasn't an option when you needed a lot of sturdy, young sons to protect the herd, invade neighboring lands and till the soil.

01-10-2002, 07:53 PM	#66
Vaskez Takhisis Follower Join Date: April 30, 2001 Location: szép Magyarország (well not right now) Posts: 5,089	quote: Originally posted by Ziroc: This is the same Book that says "Turn the Other Cheek" and then "An Eye for an Eye". The Bible is FULL of contradictions. Just delve a little bit deeper Ziroc and you'll find the answer: The New Testament supercedes and takes precedence over the Old Testament, so if a subject is covered in both then the New Testament is the "valid" one today. The Old Testament governed lives before Jesus and the New is meant for governing them since then till today etc. In this case "turn the other cheek" is the valid one and people who quote the 2nd quote are simply wrong to use it. [ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Vaskez ] __________________ Too set in his ways to ever relate If he could set that aside, there'd be heaven to pay But weathered and aged, time swept him to grave Love conquers all? Damn, I'd say that area's gray

01-10-2002, 03:45 PM	#63
catzenpewters Manshoon Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: Victoria, BC, Canada Age: 52 Posts: 204	Throwing my two cents worth in as this is a subject I feel very strongly about. My belief is that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality - either being homosexual or practicing homosexuality. Should homosexuals be allowed to marry, and receive the rights and benefits that marriage entails? Absolutely! Granted the biblical purpose of marriage seems to be for procreation (and monogamy). So if the church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, that is their call. However, civil marriages were not created for this purpose. There are a huge number marriages that are not for this purpose, or not in confirmity with the usual biblical expectations. Should couples who don't want to or can't have children not be allowed to marry? Don't be ridiculous. Should people who are not religious not be allowed to marry? Absurd! Common-law marriages are definitely frowned on by the church, and have only recently gained legal recognition. In my opinion homosexual marriages should fall under the same category. I have friends and relatives who are gay - I would be furious with anyone who treated them poorly. I have had many frank discussions with my friend, and I know from speaking to him that love and desire feel just the same to him. Science has proven that people are born homosexual or not, though a few are sort of middle of the road and could be swung either way (or both). How can we penalize someone for how they are born? As long as no one is getting hurt why should I care about their desires or sexual practices? I don't care about the sexual habits of heterosexual people, why should I care about homosexuals'? Maybe the Bible labels homosexuality as a sin, and that's fine. But let's face it - not everyone is Christian, or even religious at all. Society cannot be led around by the dictates of one faith. Religions may have provided our original moral guidance, but nowadays we are all educated enough to think for ourselves and our decisions on morality have the guidance going in the other direction. I firmly believe that God wants us to think for ourselves. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. We should all have our own opinions, at least as long as we arrive at them ourselves.

01-10-2002, 07:53 PM	#67
Lord of Alcohol Xanathar Thieves Guild Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Charlotte,NC Age: 60 Posts: 4,570	quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Oh I don't condemn homosexuals at all, I work with a few, have been friends with some and in general my philosophy is live and let live, I only get irritated when the subject comes around to special laws and protections, as a libertarian type person I feel we have quite enough..actually way too many laws as it stands, and that we should be getting rid of most of them...I mean for example, Make it against the law to commit murder....there..one law....instead of the several hundred we now have, make it against the law to discriminate one law...not one for each individual type of discrimination I cannot conceive of treating a person differently because of their life styles...what counts most for me is how the person treats me...treat me with disrespect and thats what you gain in return, respect my beliefs and space and Ill do my darndest to respect yours. I agree, theres no need for further laws. If someone goes " fag-bashing" I think thats called "assault", which is a crime. One charge should fit all, no need to call it something else. Sentencing, thats what determines the severity, not just another name. I dont particularly approve of men pumping each other up the butt, but hey its a free country. And the laws protect them without adding any more. __________________ No

01-10-2002, 08:03 PM	#68
Vaskez Takhisis Follower Join Date: April 30, 2001 Location: szép Magyarország (well not right now) Posts: 5,089	I also don't think homosexuality should receive more "acceptance" because that is just asking for it really...it's almost like promoting it. Of course, I don't hate anyone because of their lifestyle, I don't have any gay friends, but I have met some and I can't help but think a little differently of them. The bible also says that God created homosexuality as a punishment for previous sins..something like: "....and men shall be infected with lust for one another as punishment for their wicked ways..." and of course I agree 100% with what Magick says about reading everything in context, otherwise it is easily misinterpreted....in fact the Bible is more often mis-interpreted that interpreted correctly IMO. Politically, I think we should draw the line at "live and let live" as in not persecute gays, but I don't think they should be allowed to marry because IMO that is blatantly taking the serious piss out of everything marriage stands for and represents. Gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children below a certain age (below, say 15), as IMO it will give a skewed view on life to the child especially at a young age. And I don't care how many people give examples of bad heterosexual parenting, statisticly it is still the only way (realisticly). [ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Vaskez ] __________________ Too set in his ways to ever relate If he could set that aside, there'd be heaven to pay But weathered and aged, time swept him to grave Love conquers all? Damn, I'd say that area's gray

01-10-2002, 08:27 PM	#69
\Conan/ Red Dragon Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Virginia, USA Age: 62 Posts: 1,512	Ok..one thing is for sure Avatar ..I dont think our forum debate specailist is around to much anymore..dont know , but mybe FB is a lurker and we dont know it. He could give you a few pointers on how to start a heated debate like this thats for sure [img]smile.gif[/img] My say is no special treatment... thats it. Now get back to your studies [img]smile.gif[/img] __________________ \\Conan/
$\Conan/ is offline$

01-11-2002, 12:02 AM	#70
Chewbacca Zartan Join Date: July 18, 2001 Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth Age: 50 Posts: 5,373	To uphold any sort of prejudice, be it institutionally or individually, is a real sin. A division bell for our species. In order to be tolerant, understanding, and compassionate one must accept what is different about other people, no matter how foriegn, different, or unknown that may be. Let all our bias, and prejudice fall to the way side. In a true spirit of humanity and individuality one may reject the interpretations that label homosexuality as deviant or sinful. Equal rights for all. If two people are in love, and wish a ceremonial union with all rights granted by the state, than they should have it, and the world will just have to be ready for it, regardless of sexual preference. If a person, or couple can provide a stable, nurturing home for a child, then they should have the same chance as any other qualified candidate(s) when it comes to adoption, regardless of sexual preference. The science is in, and children raised by same sex couples suffer no gross abnormalities compared to any other adoptee. Just my two cents worth. __________________ Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Killzone 2 debate	Sythe	Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not)	4	07-01-2005 08:58 PM
How homosexuality is 'inherited'	shamrock_uk	General Discussion	1	04-15-2005 05:24 PM
And Now The Motherboard Debate...	Bahamut	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	11	08-03-2004 11:38 PM
The Copyright Debate...	Leonis	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	3	01-22-2003 08:55 PM
Help for next debate	Nanobyte	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	5	12-02-2002 11:03 PM