How Gay are you?

[Steve]

Since I'm pretty sure all the regular posters here are straight, I thought maybe it would be fun for everyone to see how gay they are:

http://www.thespark.com <it's under "gay test"

TWT seemed pretty bent out of shape about his percentage, which I will leave for him to reveal. I guess it was higher than what he had hoped - there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, TWT :D. Me, I was 40% - 1% gayer than the average straight male. Rock 'n roll. Check it out...it's a lot of fun. ;)

[jungerpants]

26% here... that's funny as anything.

[OG-]

21% HOYAH! Guess I don't love the pole as much as Steve or TWT! :D

[Yoda]

Actually the average is now 40%, Steve...at least it was when I took it. Amazingly, you're average (that thought terrifies me, though). I'm not too upset -- I got 32%, which is below the average...so I'm satisfied with it. But damnitt, my dad used to sleep in my bed with me when I was really little, so that was another 2%! Otherwise I would've been at 30. D*MN!

Hey, if anyone out there likes homosexuality, that's your bag, baby -- just not mine. :) Nice one, BTW, Peter.

[Steve]

Is there something wrong with homosexuality TWT? You're coming off as a bit of a homophobe - it's much better to be open about all of these things, that way you don't end up repressing thoughts you may, at some time or another, end up having :). Hmm...I'm not sure as to whether or not I want to ask you why you're "glad" you're below average.

[Yoda]

Oh, come off it. I am not gay, and I will never be gay. I like women a little TOO much sometimes. Why am I glad I scored below average? Well, I'll be blunt: I don't like the idea of homosexuality. I know a few homosexuals, and they're perfectly nice people, but I believe it's an unnatural thing. Aside from that, like any man, I take pride in being masculine (not overly...but you know what I mean).

Homophobe? Man, not YOU too, Steve! :) Please tell me you haven't been duped into using that word...it's such a ridiculous word. Apparently now anyone who doesn't acknowledge that homosexuality is 100% normal is a homophobe, and apparently "afraid" of it...which is pretty ridiculous.

I just think it's a shame, though, that anyone who does not fully support homosexuality is labeled a homophobe, or has their own sexuality questioned. It happens every single time this debate has come up...and, to be perfectly blunt, it's not a very good response. Seems more like something to try to get a rise, or some kind of anger out of the person it's said to.

[spudracer]

23%, and when I took it the average was 39% :D

[sadesdrk]

I'm 20 % and the average was 36 %. Those questions were hilarious." Do you wear birkinstocks?" Another one was," Zip down your pants. What do you see? * panties * boxers *briefs * pubes.":laugh:

[Yoda]

Their quizzes are *always* hilarious. I love 'em! "The Greed Test" is the best of all. The one question that makes me crack up for like 2 minutes straight (literally) almost everytime I take the test:

True or False: those lazy bastards in Indonesia need to work HARDER because Nikes are still too damn expensive.

Or how about these ones (on "The Bastard Test")?

True or False: Pain don't hurt.
True or Flase: you hit her because you love her.

Favorite of all time:

"Does Canada suck or what?
- Yes
- Yeah";

They always rip on Canada...I love that site. Completely hilarious.

[sadesdrk]

It asked me if I shave my face. The choices were " NO." or " I'm Canadian." Ha!:D

[ryanpaige]

I tested 18% gay.

And TWT, you forgot to say "so to speak" after you said "get a rise".

[thmilin]

yeah that hairy canadian face thing was just wrong, WRONG i tell you!

what the hell was up with having me identify a TOOL?

"You are 35% GAY! That's gayer than average for someone of your gender and supposed orientation. The typical straight female is only 32% gay!

Here's how you compare:

people less gay than you (69%)
people just as gay as you (2%)
people gayer than you (27%) "

based on the other submissions.

lol

[Steve]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Oh, come off it. I am not gay, and I will never be gay. I like women a little TOO much sometimes. Why am I glad I scored below average? Well, I'll be blunt: I don't like the idea of homosexuality. I know a few homosexuals, and they're perfectly nice people, but I believe it's an unnatural thing. Aside from that, like any man, I take pride in being masculine (not overly...but you know what I mean).


Well, first off, I wasn't calling you gay or anything like that, I was asking why you seem so adamantly opposed to the idea that you *might* be *averagely* gay. I was just playing. When I say homophobe, I mean anyone who doesn't believe in homosexuality as an "acceptable" or "valid" way of life. Your post just sounded like you were scared of it or something. Why don't you like the idea of it? Expound please, sir. And let me ask you this: If I was gay, and you knew I was gay before I started posting here, would your perception of me be any different?

What do you mean by not natural, exactly? Like, it's something that doesn't exist in nature? Because it does. They had a documentary of it on the Discovery channel, I'll look it up for you if you want. Also, I don't buy the religious angle of it. There were popes who had sex with men and women, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think God discriminates. I guess I just can't accept the idea that just because a person is instinctually attracted to someone of their own gender, they'll suffer eternally or something like that.

[sunfrog]

If a person is instinctually attracted to eating other people's brains I don't think they'll suffer eternally either.

Hey, what animals are gay? Just wondering. I bet you koala bears are gay.

[ryanpaige]

And we know Unicorns are gay.

[sadesdrk]

LOL..I was all ready to post this serious statement...and then...Unicorns are gay...LOL...oh, I laughed a long time on time over that one.:laugh:

[spudracer]

WTF?!?! Unicorns are gay...OMG....how long did it take you to come up with that one???

[Yoda]

That's pretty sick...but ridiculously funny. Took me a few seconds to get it. :D

Well, first off, I wasn't calling you gay or anything like that, I was asking why you seem so adamantly opposed to the idea that you *might* be *averagely* gay. I was just playing.

Alright then. I am adamantly opposed to it because I think it's a bad, un-natural, and usually self-destructive sin.

When I say homophobe, I mean anyone who doesn't believe in homosexuality as an "acceptable" or "valid" way of life. Your post just sounded like you were scared of it or something. Why don't you like the idea of it? Expound please, sir.

Homophobe implies a phobia. It's a very misused word, unfortunately. I'll answer those other points below, since similar questions follow...so I'll save time. :)

And let me ask you this: If I was gay, and you knew I was gay before I started posting here, would your perception of me be any different?

Well, sure. If I said I was a woman, would your perception of ME be any different? :) It's a seroius difference in the basics of life...so yeah, I'd see you in a different light. In some ways, I would probably respect you more, and in other ways, less. Would I make a big deal out of it? No way.

What do you mean by not natural, exactly? Like, it's something that doesn't exist in nature? Because it does. They had a documentary of it on the Discovery channel, I'll look it up for you if you want.

No, I mean that it's obviously un-natural. For one, our physical makeup makes it painfully (no pun intended) obvious that men don't "fit" together with other men. Ditto for women with other women. It's just that simple. The pieces of the puzzle don't line up. :) Other than that, it produces no offspring at all...and it's not really related to any act between the two that CAN produce offspring...so, from an evolutionary standpoint (which I figured would be up your alley, again, no pun intended), it certainly isn't natural.

And no, it doesn't really exist in nature, either. If you want to claim that homosexuality is natural because some male monkeys fondle each other, then we've got to go farther and say that dogs are meant to breed with human legs. :D

Also, I don't buy the religious angle of it. There were popes who had sex with men and women, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think God discriminates. I guess I just can't accept the idea that just because a person is instinctually attracted to someone of their own gender, they'll suffer eternally or something like that.

Man, you're using every tired argument in the book! :D First off, I don't give a crap if some Pope 200 years ago was gay, or bisexual. That's got nothing to do with The Bible, or what is right. I'm not Catholic...The Pope is not infallible.

Other than that, I never said that I though they would suffer eternally. But again, people assume that I think those things...see, that's when the Falwell thing hurts me. :) I think homosexuality is a sin. So is lying. So is me stuffing my face with Totino's Pizza Rols until I can't eat anymore. Is homosexuality worse? I don't know. Seems to me they're sort of in a state of homosexuality all the time...but I can't really say with any confidence that it's a super-sin, or anything like that. I think it's just a sin. I think a homosexual can be Saved by God...but I do think he or she needs to acknowledge it as a flaw/sin, same as any other sinner.

Oh, and I don't believe they are born with it, so to speak (hey Ryan! -- inside joke). I think that it's a sin some people are born with a predisposition to...sort of the same way some people are born with genes that make them susceptible to alcohol addiction more than most of us. However, that does not mean that they were "born that way" and that it's something normal they are supposed to give into.

Hey, gay people are fine by me. Honestly, the only time a gay person bugs me is when:

1) They dance around in that parade in SF...which is disgusting. Straight or gay, a parade like that is HORRIBLE.

2) They change their voice to sound more feminine or sort of make up a lisp. Geez, changing your voice? Use your natural voice. If it's naturally high, well, fine...but it seems kind of over the top to go changing your voice. Feels lik they're trying to flaunt it or something. I don't make my voice lower all the time to try to sound more straight/masculine. :)

[ryanpaige]

Originally posted by spdrcr
WTF?!?! Unicorns are gay...OMG....how long did it take you to come up with that one???

I made no claim that I could make good jokes or comments.

[Steve]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Alright then. I am adamantly opposed to it because I think it's a bad, un-natural, and usually self-destructive sin.

What's bad about it? It's just how people are internally wired. What's self destructive? Do you think that two people of the same gender can have a loving and caring relationship?

Well, sure. If I said I was a woman, would your perception of ME be any different? :) It's a seroius difference in the basics of life...so yeah, I'd see you in a different light. In some ways, I would probably respect you more, and in other ways, less. Would I make a big deal out of it? No way.

Yeah, that's a fair point. What I meant to ask was, would you see my opinion as any less respectable if I was posting in a thread about religion or politics or something along those lines?

No, I mean that it's obviously un-natural. For one, our physical makeup makes it painfully (no pun intended) obvious that men don't "fit" together with other men. Ditto for women with other women. It's just that simple. The pieces of the puzzle don't line up. :) Other than that, it produces no offspring at all...and it's not really related to any act between the two that CAN produce offspring...so, from an evolutionary standpoint (which I figured would be up your alley, again, no pun intended), it certainly isn't natural.

Well this is where I think love comes into play. If two people love each other, do you think it matters what their genders are?

And no, it doesn't really exist in nature, either. If you want to claim that homosexuality is natural because some male monkeys fondle each other, then we've got to go farther and say that dogs are meant to breed with human legs. :D

Female apes are often seen rubbing each others' clitorises (Jesus, is that even a word? Is there a plural of clitoris? :laugh: ), all-male groups of bighorn rams cluster into huge groups and mount each other, penguins have been documented as courting other penguins of their own gender, dogs, cats, and mountain gorillas have all been documented displaying homosexual behavior. I suggest you check out the book "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by ryanpaige
Originally posted by spdrcr
WTF?!?! Unicorns are gay...OMG....how long did it take you to come up with that one???

I made no claim that I could make good jokes or comments. Shoot...I thought it was hilarious.:laugh: I'm staying out of this gay discussion. I am no where near as good at point by point debate as T. I wish I was, I would defend the hell out of you,T; but alas, I'd rather save myself from looking like a jack-@ss. I'm a coward.:(

[Yoda]

What's bad about it? It's just how people are internally wired. What's self destructive? Do you think that two people of the same gender can have a loving and caring relationship?

Well, I believe it's a sin...and sin is self destructive. Can two people like that live happily? Well, it depends on what you mean. Ya know, some people look very happy being greedy, or womanaizing all their lives. Hugh Hefner looks pretty happy, doesn't he? Though I wouldn't say he actually is. The love he receives is not genuine. I think he knows it, too. By the way: my dad and I love each other and care for each other, so it's not about two people of the same gender loving and caring for each other and enjoying each other's company...it's about homosexuality, which is, IMO, an over-the-line extension of that affection.

Yeah, that's a fair point. What I meant to ask was, would you see my opinion as any less respectable if I was posting in a thread about religion or politics or something along those lines?

Tough question. It might depend on the issue. In general, though, is it a possibility? Absolutely. We all know that some Christians will believe whacked out things only so that they don't have to admit this or that about the world, or about God. Obviously, the same applies to other people: a homosexual person may also have a bias to believe this or that to justify their behavior as reasonable. Example: a homosexual arguing against the existence of God because they don't want to admit that their lifestyle is sinful.

Well this is where I think love comes into play. If two people love each other, do you think it matters what their genders are?

Yes, I do think it matters. I do not see love in the same light as some people. I do *NOT* believe there is a soulmate for each and every one of us. I think that in all of the rarest cases, there are other people a person could marry and be perfectly happy.

When a man claims to love another man in a romantic and sexual way, I guess, yes, he can be said to be in love (though we can't measure a thing like that). However, what is it he is in love with? The man, or with homosexuality? Is he love with his sinful act?

I suspect that, even with all that aside, they can be in love...but I don't think it matters. Sort of the same thinking that has me telling myself it doesn't matter if I'm in love with a married woman. Loving another human is not what my life is revolved around. My life is aimed to serve God, and, as a result, make this world better. I have personal goals (some selfish in nature, I'm sorry to say), but God should come before all. I only say this because I expect some of you might be take aback by my treating love as if it's not the most amazing, special thing in the world. IT IS...but the love of two humans cannot compare to the love God feels for us.

Female apes are often seen rubbing each others' clitorises (Jesus, is that even a word? Is there a plural of clitoris? ), all-male groups of bighorn rams cluster into huge groups and mount each other, penguins have been documented as courting other penguins of their own gender, dogs, cats, and mountain gorillas have all been documented displaying homosexual behavior. I suggest you check out the book "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl.

Like I said: if we're gonna judge them by their actions, apparently it's okay for them to have sex with our legs...or other inanimate objects. :) The point of me saying that is this: animals are dumb. They run around trying to mate and don't pay much attention to what it is they're mating with. I don't think it's anything more than that.

[Yoda]

I appreciate that, Sades (you complementing me...not you stopping yourself from look like a jack-a** :D). However, for every person who tells me they admire my argumentative nature, there's always someone on the other end who hates me for arguing too much. It's a shame, because there's very little change I'll ever change! :) Maybe when I'm older (near retirement or something) I'll mellow out.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by TWTCommish


...but I can't really say with any confidence that it's a super-sin, or anything like that. I think it's just a sin. I think a homosexual can be Saved by God...but I do think he or she needs to acknowledge it as a flaw/sin, same as any other sinner.
Here's a point I can talk about. No sin is a SUPER SIN. Sin is sin. It's an area that only God is an expert in because his ways are not our ways. If it were up to me to judge people, we'd be in a heep of trouble because if an serial killer asked me if he could be forgiven, I'd tell him to go to hell. If some shoplifter asked my forgiviness, I'd only be too quick to pardon them. God has the power to forgive anything, and to him, there is no small sin or big sin...it's all the same smell. We, as humans, divide sin into catagories based on our own morals, beliefs, and values. All of us come to the table with our own preset ideas of where the line between right and wrong is drawn. I know lots of gay individuals, I have an uncle who's gay and has had the same partner longer than I've been alive, if it were up to me to decide if he was a sinner or not, the choice would be easy. Him and Aunt Don, are the coolest people I know, and it would be easy for me to shoo them into heaven...but it's between them and God. I'm relieved it's not up to me to judge. I'm glad I get to just live here and tolerate who I want to, and ignore those I don't...based on judgement of character, not lifestyle choices.Whew...getting off my soapbox now.:D

[Yoda]

That's an excellent point. Yes, we do not know how God categorizes sin. However, wouldn't you consider it safe to say that certain sins are obviously worse than others? When you think lustful thoughts, you harm yourself...but when you murder someone, you're harming many people at once.

I don't claim to be an authority on how sin is broken up...your point is right on. However, I do think it makes sense to analyze the nature of some sins, and perhaps conclude that they may be worse than others. Sin is sin, indeed. By "super-sin," I mean it as a relative term...in comparison to the others. I suppose that this area is a tad murky...I wouldn't hestitate to declare murder 100 times worse than a man gluttonizing at Thanksgiving...but at the same time, I wouldn't declare it was undeniable fact, either.

[sadesdrk]

It's the intentions of the heart. If the serial killer was serial killing because he's delusional, and is suffering from some chemical imbalance, and he honestly believes in his heart of hearts, that the devil or whatever is making him kill; then who's to say that the man at Thanksgiving, who is stuffing his face so that he can maintain his weight at " clinical obesity" so that he can stay on disability, in order to stay home and look at child pornography on the internet all day...is the lesser sin? We just don't know. Only God could know the intention's of someone's heart. I think it's safe to say, no one is in a position to judge.

[Yoda]

I like those extreme examples...they're so intricate. :D Yes, none of us can judge...however, I really don't feel hesitant to declare the sin of murder, all things being equel, to be worse than the sin of gluttony. The problem lies in a situation where you have someone claiming it as fact. But yes, overall, you are right: super-sin was probably the wrong phrase to use. I'm as guilty as anyone who uses the word "homophobe." :)

However, MORE sin is something we can, at least somewhat, measure. If homosexuality is a sinful state that you're in 24 hours a day, well, then it could be worse than some others, that are momentary (an evil thought that drifts through your mind for a moment, for example). However, I don't know if being homosexual puts you in some constant state of sin or not. And yes, we are all sinful by nature, but I wouldn't say we are ALL in a constant state of sin. That is, we are not sinning every second of every day. We are SINFUL every second...and we are unclean...but not actually sinning.

It's times like this I think I ought to learn me some Hebrew and go straight to the original source. :)

[spudracer]

Originally posted by ryanpaige
Originally posted by spdrcr
WTF?!?! Unicorns are gay...OMG....how long did it take you to come up with that one???

I made no claim that I could make good jokes or comments.

I never said it wasn't good. I was rollin...:laugh:

[thmilin]

yeah, didn't we have an argument about translation a long while back?

well ya know what it could come down to, too? the "sinning" issue is relavant to Christian concepts. Not all of us are christian, or practice it in the same was as you, Chris. but yes, your opinion as a Christian was asked for. I'd just like to say that I believe in God and that Christ existed as his son - if that makes me Christian, then yes, I am. But I have a different take on the homosexuality as sin issue.

I agree sades, we cannot judge as God would in these things. Taking a high moral stance is not our place, we're everyday people. We aren't God, we aren't in Heaven, we aren't buddhist monks, etc. That's why I choose not to, in that sense. Or I TRY not to, and when I catch myself doing it (as we all do with our own value systems) I try to think for the other side and let it go. Sometimes it's hard, though. But I try to out of the knowledge that it is exactly such behavior that contributes to OTHER sins of the world. For example, righteous Americans out beating middle eastern looking people are doing it for a reason and they got there in just such a way.

If what you do TRULY hurts yourself - gay, obese, abusive, crack addict - who's to say where/what the sin is? Not us. If we're on the receiving end of a thug's brutality - we know it's wrong. We have been hurt. But it is not our place to judge. We have a criminal system that has assumed that place on earth but for the realm beyond of value systems and ethics, we are not the final assessor.

The sins you mention, T - are cardinal sins created by the Catholic tradition. To wit - if they are listed TOGETHER then they are of equal trespass. Coveting a man's wife - the simple act of WANTING - is as bad as murder or as gluttony. But your personality has you altering that concept because you feel that a murderer is doing something worse.

In God's eyes (presuming here, for example) - it could be seen that ANY disrespect to the human body that he has given a person is a sin as bad as the murder or abuse or whatever to someone else. ie, gluttony is a gross (pun intended) mistreatment of the flesh that we have been privileged with and that's an offense to our creator.

the bible thing is something i take with a grain of salt. the bible's been through too many hands for me to know EXACTLY what God intends or sees or wants. I infer what I believe he wants - as I think, in the end, all believers do, and claiming absolute fact with this book is wishful thinking. but anyway, inferring as I do, I do my best to follow the MEANING within the nature of God and humanity, and hope that I'm doing ok and when MY assessment comes I've pretty much done what was expected. I cannot account for others nor say they aren't following X rules cuz, truthfully, I don't believe we can say EXACTLY what the rules are, let alone EXACTLY what God meant, or wants, from our following them. who knows? we can only live, and hope that our lives end up mostly good and "make up" for whatever things we were wrong about, because we couldn't know, and we can't read god's mind.

so, for homosexuals ... perhaps it's a horrible sin to lie with another man. perhaps it's a sin to WANT to. perhaps it's a sin to condone it. perhaps it's a sin to admire your uncle and aunt don. if it's destructive, to admire such behavior in others is to perpetuate that bad thing. so is it really bad? who does it truly hurt and who is to SAY if that love is false? Who can assume that their view of love is correct over the reality - for these are all assumptions, mine, yours, etc, and not necessarily the truth?

Who's to say what you know now won't change in 20 years when you discover that perhaps love is love and it will come WITH sin no matter what and that the nature of love is both flawed and beautiful and in the end the flaws matter not because the good in love justifies it - just as living our lives unsure of our sins and in search of good does.

i say that if someone is in love and continues to love ... it does not matter if what they are doing is not the "norm" compared to the majority of the populace on earth. if it is a sin, let him have it. if it is wrong, he will have to face the end, not I. I will not judge him, in the meantime, for his love gives him and his partners bliss and if the nature of it hurts anyone (family) it's those who cannot love HIM unconditionally.

[spudracer]

word

[sadesdrk]

I think anything in excess is something to stay away from. It's the rule of thumb I live by. Too much of anything isn't healthy. It goes with anything...caffine, sex, drinking, smoking, whatever your addiction may be...

[Yoda]

I don't agree, Miriam. My philosophy is not based around letting people do whatever, saying absolutely nothing, and letting God decide in the end. I let God decide, but in the meantime, if I find God's Word to make it evident that something is wrong, I will say so when the issue arises, as it has here.

I do not have to claim anykind of Biblical authority or Divine Knowledge to speak out against homosexuality...I just have to claim that I've read a little bit of The Bible, and find that God's command is clear here. No more, no less. I am not promoting drastic action...I just do not accept it as a good, normal thing. I think it is erosive.

The sin of homosexuality is not created by any man...they are created by God. I'm not just following The Catholic Church like a sheep...I don't follow them. I respect The Pope and think he hs a very Holy Man, but he is a man nonetheless. What they have to say on this, as of now, has no effect on my stance.

The Bible is here for a reason. Yes, we have problems with translation...but not so many as to leave us wandering around in the dark. Some things are very evident in The Bible...and not lost in translation. Technically, you could turn away from all of The Bible because of this, but I don't think it's practical...some of the translation is straightforward, obviously. I don't think I am truly "judging someone" when I tell them I don't agree with their sexual choices. I am judging their actions...not them. I think that's a key difference. I am not declaring them to Eternal Damnation...I am renouncing their actions. Hate the sin, love the sinner. :)

Anyway, I'm short on sleep...I don't even wanna play "Count the Typos" with my post at this point. :D

[spudracer]

word..

Both of you make a very good point...:)

[thmilin]

lol, spud ;) alrighty, lessee ..

My philosophy is not based around letting people do whatever, saying absolutely nothing, and letting God decide in the end.

That's not what I said. All people have a right to an opinion. We all have a right and a nature to not only have it, but share it. To some degree I think people have a right to judge (saying for example, slapping me for smiling at you is wrong, and hugging me for hugging you is right). But judging the worth of a person is different from having an opinion on something they do. You seemed to be doing the former and I was cautioning against that.

As for your philosophy, you're certainly entitled to it. If you do choose to judge others as a Christian, or their actions, your right of choice to do that. And I most certainly don't always "say nothing" when I disagree with something ... obviously. ;) So why would I encourage that in anyone?

I let God decide, but in the meantime, if I find God's Word to make it evident that something is wrong, I will say so when the issue arises, as it has here.

yeah, that's totally cool. like I already said, someone asked for your opinion as a Christian, and you gave it. I totally agree.

I do not have to claim anykind of Biblical authority or Divine Knowledge to speak out against homosexuality...I just have to claim that I've read a little bit of The Bible, and find that God's command is clear here. No more, no less.

like i said, you're totally free to speak out against it. my point is ... that doesn't mean you're right. :) and having biblical support doesn't mean you're right either. having the support of 200 people or the whole populace of the earth doesn't either. and we will not know until some muuuch later date. basically a sensitivity to the big picture and flaws in humanity - in judging others - demands, by logic and the very nature of that sensitivity an awareness that any judgement we make has just the same propensity to be flawed. and yeah, that totally means *I* could be wrong!

as for god's command being clear ... like i said. interpretation. i have been to a dozen churches with a dozen pastors and around hundreds of practioners who all interpret it in various ways. add that to the translations and the fact the text is old as all heck and, well ... grain of salt. if you feel the meaning is crystal clear to you, good! it isn't to me.

also, what i'm saying is this is a moral issue of character judgement and only god can see the whole truth of a person's character. you yourself mentioned uncertainty. if god is what we understand him to be (and obviously we all have diff't ideas) - he has no doubts. therefore IF i make judgements I don't presume to be RIGHT or even that it's ok to make judgements of this nature.

a sinner judging sinners is a questionable thing at best, but like i said, with our own value systems, it can't be helped. therefore I just try to think FOR the other side if I ever do so that I am as close as i can to being fair about it.

I am not promoting drastic action...I just do not accept it as a good, normal thing. I think it is erosive.

how so, though, i wonder. sure, one can bring up diseases. but the same thing happens with heterosexual relationships. and then that means you get into comparing, which i say one can't do cuz we're biased and don't know how God handles it.

The sin of homosexuality is not created by any man...they are created by God.

um, this logic makes me raise an eyebrow. sure he created the do/don't theory but once it was DONE. i don't even think sin was created, unless it's the law of trespass, in which case, yes, god seems to have created that. but sin exists within our natures because we are fallible. he created fallible creatures. that's like creating an animal that gets hungry and saying you created hunger. i'm leaning toward ... not really. if two men are going to look at one another and fall in love - they did it and are going to do it just like people are going to see a lot of food and want to eat it. it IS, in a way, nature. human nature is diverse, complex and predictably unpredictable. which is why i don't buy the "nature" theory. it is man's nature to 1) break rules, 2) do what he wants, 3) procreate. yeah we were CREATED to make babies and be het, but it is our NATURE to do almost anything, which is why man is capable of anything and entirely fallible. the greatest failures make room for the greatest successes.

I'm not just following The Catholic Church like a sheep...I don't follow them.

i actually knew this but was calling you on using cardinal sins, which, as I said are developed from the catholic tradition. you aren't catholic so you shouldn't necessarily be using that as an example because in a way they should not carry the meaning to YOU that you used them for. :) or if you do use it, have a disclaimer. ;) plus i was messing with the logic there of gluttony vs. murder and which is worse. i'm not catholic either (as I said) but have family members who are.

The Bible is here for a reason. Yes, we have problems with translation...but not so many as to leave us wandering around in the dark.

there's a difference between stumbling around in the dark and taking things with a grain of salt, buddy. you know which one i said. ;) exaggeration of my points isn't fair when arguing back.

...Technically, you could turn away from all of The Bible because of this, but I don't think it's practical...

this speaks to the exaggeration but uh, no i didn't vouch for turning away from it entirely. i think most religious texts have something entirely useful and most have questionable things somewhere in them. though i'm sure that would offend lots of people and I apologize now for that.

I don't think I am truly "judging someone" when I tell them I don't agree with their sexual choices. I am judging their actions...not them. I think that's a key difference. I am not declaring them to Eternal Damnation...I am renouncing their actions. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

i know what you mean. but i'm wondering if that's really the case HERE. if we are all sinners and bound in sin, then sin is a part of us. to hate the sin, most particularly what is in this case a PART of someone is still to hate that part of them. no, you don't hate them as a whole, normally - like hating smoking and hating whatever it is in a person that makes them stubbornly continue to do it though it kills them and others around them despite the begging of those people around them. but even if you hate it you still sort of embrace them because you realize it's their choice and if they ask you about it or if they get in your face about it you're not afraid to say that no, you don't like it and wish they'd stop cuz you think it's bad.

but what happens when a family member or friend tells you they're gay? i asked my best friend this a year or more ago. i said, what if I came to you and told you i was gay? would you treat me differently? would you not be the same way as a friend? would i be different to you?

she said yes. i'm not gay. but that hurt. and you said, earlier, that it might indeed make you treat someone differently. but i'm not talking if someone suddenly told you online they were really a girl or something. i'm talking how you see the person inside, how you respect their views, how you care and weigh their opinions and how you have them in your life. if i'm an artist and I need to write - and you hate that I write, then, you do not accept ME. if I'm a Christian and you hate Christianity - then you can't accept ME. it's not little stuff. there's a difference between changing some because you grow up and learn things or move to another city or start smoking or get married. i'm talking values, ethics - who a person is. a person is no different if they are gay, blind, poor, rich, fat, beautiful, of another ethnicity or religion or country.

and it totally saddens me that my best friend - supposedly so openminded - is not capable of really following that with me, her best friend of 10 years. but that would be me judging her.

[Edited by thmilin on 11-06-2001]

[sadesdrk]

We all fall short in the area of sin. I know what I should and shouldn't be doing, yet I do things, all the time, I know isn't right. It's ultimately our choice. God gave us free will. Otherwise, we'd be running around, these mindless zombies, no control over our own actions. It's bitter-sweet. On one hand, you have free will. On the other hand, you have the consequences of sin. I guess the best way to learn is through our biggest mistakes. I get so angry at the choices people I love, make. My sisters especially. I just want to grab them by the collar and be like, what are you doing? You're doing the wrong things here! What would that accomplish? Absolutely nothing. If anything, they'd want to do whatever it was, more. It's the same with us and God. He knows what he wants for us...and he could surly direct us down that path, but what would we learn? Nothing. This way, with free will...we learn by trial and error. That's what we have to keep in mind when people anger us...they're learning too, and making mistakes just like us. No one has the right to judge anyone...who's to say they aren't learning some life-lesson, and if you stand there pointing the finger, they aren't gonna get it. Neither will you. I'm still learning how to not judge, it's one thing to do it openly...and just as bad to do it in your head.

[thmilin]

right on, sister! right on! ;D

[sadesdrk]

word.;D

[Yoda]

My apologies Miriam -- I guess I wasn't paying much attention. I realize that I said things in a manner that implied that I was accusing you of saying this or that...that was not my intent. I'll be more careful in the future.

Anyway, on with it! :)

a sinner judging sinners is a questionable thing at best, but like i said, with our own value systems, it can't be helped. therefore I just try to think FOR the other side if I ever do so that I am as close as i can to being fair about it.

I agree. Obviously judgements need to be made. We need to respond to certain crimes and actions that are so obvoiusly hazardous to us. We also have to have opinions on things (although some are apathetic...but not us privelaged few! :D)...so the least we can do is try to be objective and fair when we do make those judgements.

how so, though, i wonder. sure, one can bring up diseases. but the same thing happens with heterosexual relationships. and then that means you get into comparing, which i say one can't do cuz we're biased and don't know how God handles it.

Well, The Bible makes it pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin...and obviously, The Bible tells us that sin is a bad thing that, despite perhaps immediate gratification, is bad in virtually all ways in the long term. Aside from that, the statistics I've seen on homosexuals imply a greater average number of partners and diseases. I don't claim it as fact, but it does fit with my opinion of it, which is that it's not a normal relationship. Again, I want to stress even further that I'm not trying to make homosexuals seem sub-human, or anything of the sort. A very good friend of mine (one I wish I could see more...he lives in another state), I believe, used to be involved in homosexuality. I'm not sure, but I believe him to have been involved in it at some point, and I really like spending time with him. He's a very funny guy, and I can think of few people I'd rather spend the day with.

This is not about homosexuals being good or more people. It's a sensitive subject, but when I really think about it, I could just as easily be talking about someone who has a tendency to lie to get out of tough situations, or a guy who sleeps around too much. I'm not trying to single this sin out. Just want to make that clear...just in case. :)

um, this logic makes me raise an eyebrow. sure he created the do/don't theory but once it was DONE. i don't even think sin was created, unless it's the law of trespass, in which case, yes, god seems to have created that. but sin exists within our natures because we are fallible. he created fallible creatures. that's like creating an animal that gets hungry and saying you created hunger. i'm leaning toward ... not really. if two men are going to look at one another and fall in love - they did it and are going to do it just like people are going to see a lot of food and want to eat it. it IS, in a way, nature. human nature is diverse, complex and predictably unpredictable. which is why i don't buy the "nature" theory. it is man's nature to 1) break rules, 2) do what he wants, 3) procreate. yeah we were CREATED to make babies and be het, but it is our NATURE to do almost anything, which is why man is capable of anything and entirely fallible. the greatest failures make room for the greatest successes.

I did a sickingly poor job of expressing myself there. Please forgive me!

What I mean is that we have not defined homosexuality as a sin. The Bible has. It's not men just deciding that homosexuality is a sin...it is written in The Good Book. :) When I say "nature" -- I mean what is best and optimal for us. Example: sin can said to be natural, but it's not our ideal state. Maybe "ideal" is a better word...but it doesn't completely encompass the thought I'm trying to put into words. Lying is a sub-action of talking. Talking is natural...but lying is not what we are meant to do, ideally. Homosexuality, IMO, isn't really a sub-action of sex. It is a replacement for sex...an un-natural one. I would say that someone have sex out of wedlock with a partner of the opposite sex is sinning in basically the same way (again, I can't accurately say if one is worse than theo ther)...but the act of sex with that person is a natural act that our body was designed for. Subtle difference...and probably not an important one, really. :) I guess I'm just picky.

i know what you mean. but i'm wondering if that's really the case HERE. if we are all sinners and bound in sin, then sin is a part of us. to hate the sin, most particularly what is in this case a PART of someone is still to hate that part of them. no, you don't hate them as a whole, normally - like hating smoking and hating whatever it is in a person that makes them stubbornly continue to do it though it kills them and others around them despite the begging of those people around them. but even if you hate it you still sort of embrace them because you realize it's their choice and if they ask you about it or if they get in your face about it you're not afraid to say that no, you don't like it and wish they'd stop cuz you think it's bad.

Oh, I dunno. I don't think there's a problem with disliking a person's action or addiction, etc, and still loving them. If I had a son who was drunk and killed someone in a car crash as a result, I seriously doubt I would stop loving him, but I would obviously be furious with his irresponsibility and his actions, which amount to, basically, murder.

I think the reason I would not define our sin as part of us is that it is only part of us for now. In the end, if we want to, we can be cleansed of it. Aside from that, as hard as it may be for me to stop eating pizza, or for someone else to stop smoking, or having sex out of wedlock (homosexual or heterosexual), it IS possible. I don't believe that it is a disease...I believe it is a hurdle...one that can be jumped over, even if it is difficult. I don't think anyone has genes so strong that they are truly incapable of resisting such things.

Now, there is something else to be considered: repentence. Example: I know someone who is homosexual, and a very nice guy...he doesn't like homosexuality much, it seems. He wishes it were not a problem for him. I respect him for that...a lot. He's admitting that he has a problem...which, as we all know, is usually hailed as the first step. It's the same way with God: we sin all the live long day, but in the end, it's the admittance of that and the wanting to stop (even if you don't, or can't, realistically) that makes the difference.

but what happens when a family member or friend tells you they're gay? i asked my best friend this a year or more ago. i said, what if I came to you and told you i was gay? would you treat me differently? would you not be the same way as a friend? would i be different to you?

she said yes. i'm not gay. but that hurt. and you said, earlier, that it might indeed make you treat someone differently. but i'm not talking if someone suddenly told you online they were really a girl or something. i'm talking how you see the person inside, how you respect their views, how you care and weigh their opinions and how you have them in your life. if i'm an artist and I need to write - and you hate that I write, then, you do not accept ME. if I'm a Christian and you hate Christianity - then you can't accept ME.

Well, it depends. If the person/friend is willing to talk to you and have fun and such anyway, then they are still accepting you. They just don't accept one of the things you do. My best friend, and probably one of the very true good friends I've ever had, seems to be Pro-Choice these days. He's mostly apathetic (when I try to talk about it, he doesn't seem interested), so it's not some huge deal, but it does make me sad. I still love spending time with him, though. I really do. It brings me joy...especially now that I've gotten a bit older. I am *really* bothered by his view on abortion (assuming it's the same as it was when he mentioned it some time back)...but I still accept him.

Is it really a problem to say that you would not act the same? If someone said they supported Bin Laden as opposed to the U.S., you wouldn't treat them the same. If someone holds a view fundamentally contradictory to yours, on an important issue, then I think it'd be worse to ignore it and act as if it didn't matter...because it does. The only problem I can think of is taking it too far...by perhaps rejecting you altogether, or trying to shame/shun you, etc.

a person is no different if they are gay, blind, poor, rich, fat, beautiful, of another ethnicity or religion or country.

How so? Seems to me that it's those things that make you different from others. We are all the same in fundamental ways, but beyond that, we are all very different. I assume, however, that you mean that if you talk with someone and have fun, finding out that their gay shouldn't matter, because you liked them BEFORE you found out. However, I can see both sides here: if you're going to become truly good friends with someone, for a long period of time, issues like that will come up. Come to think of it, that's a test of sorts for the friendship. If I were to find out something like that about a friend of mine, I'd probably think "Oh no...it's gonna come up again and again as time goes on, and we're probably going to clash." A person you clash with all the time is a hard person to keep as a friend. Maybe your friend did the right thing by not only being honest (as tough as it might have been), but also by letting you know how they feel. If it's going to start argument after argument, maybe it's not to be. Just because it hasn't been a problem YET doesn't mean it won't be.

Sades: I partially agree. I think The Bible says to openly talk to these people about their sin, and to try to show them The Way. However, if someone is clearly not interested, I think The Bible also tells us not to spend long amounts of time on someone who will not heed our advice. So, I guess it's a matter of drawing the line. I don't think it's wrong, or fruitless, though, to speak out against things like this if you think they are a problem.

Everyone learns by trial and error...but it's a lot easier to learn from someone else's trial and error. :) I hope someday someone gives me a good kick in the a** to prevent me from making a mistake. It's the easier way, in some ways, to learn.

[spudracer]

Wow, you guys are really getting deep with this....LOL

[sadesdrk]

deep is a good thing spud. Not ALL conversations have to be light. I think it's good to debate some serious issues once in a while. Although...I'm clearly out of the loop on this one. Guess it's between T and thmmie now.:p

[spudracer]

Yeah, I can't see myself debating against the "master baters" LOL.....:laugh: :laugh:

[sadesdrk]

I just don't feel I have thmmie's or T's knack for debate. Aint got that MoFo MoJo goin' on. Perhaps if I knew how to do all that fancy qouting...but alas, I'm just not in their league...they're in A League of Their Own.<<< heh-heh...just thought I'd throw that in for fun.;)

[The Silver Bullet]

Oh, and you're not in a league of your own, Sades?
I beg to differ.

[Yoda]

MoFo MoJo -- :laugh: That's great stuff. I'm totally stealing that line. :) Where were we? Oh yeah, something about homosexuality...uh...um...I hear Kevin Spacey is gay. :) (that's all I can think of right now.)

[spudracer]

Hmmm, are we just making conversation now T?

[Yoda]

It depends on what you mean...I did actually hear that, and I'd say I do believe it, for the most part.

[The Silver Bullet]

You believe it 'cos you heard it?
Elaborate.

:D

[Yoda]

No, I believe it because it fits, IMO. He has a feminine nature about him...but it's nothing overbearing. I was a little surprised to hear about it, but I can believe it. I heard it from Miriam, I believe, on this site some time ago. Apparently he did mention it publicly, but has made an effort to keep it from being reported all over the place. That's what I heard, at least. Sounds plausible enough.

[spudracer]

Hmmm, Well it would fit his persona.

[thmilin]

this thing told me it was too long (horrible!) so i had to break it into two parts.

hey hey hey, don't put all the blame on me now! i don't know if that's true or not. unless i read it at spacey.com which he supports. it's been so long i can't remember.

sades hon we are not professionals! it's rambling nerdy people arguing is all, which is why it gets all point for point and crap. but fun! :) sorry it took a while, i read this but couldn't reply, had work projects needing doing.

now, where were we ... ahh ...

PART I

My apologies Miriam -- ...that was not my intent...

no prob man, just some miscommunication. not offended. :)

...so the least we can do is try to be objective and fair when we do make those judgements.

yep!

Well, The Bible makes it pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin...

well see. when we disagree on the base points we really can't go further. i explained how i feel about SAYING that the bible SAYS anything. So ... I can't necessarily agree that it's a sin. I dunno. I lean toward the fact that it is but then again ... I really have the sensation - sorry devout christians - that God, omnipotent and all that, saw that man would want to fornicate with the same sex but did not necessarily realize/understand the depth of feeling that would develop between them. that it would/could be the same as between those of the opposite sex which was his intended form of procreation. there are all sorts of judgements about what is wrong to DO - to fornicate outside of marriage, to fornicate with the opposite sex, to lust for another's wife, to have multiple wives, etc etc ... but the act of LOVE - to FEEL it ... is that wrong? lust is not love so if love is celebrated between god and christ, mother/father, father/son, husband/wife, disciples, etc, then ... is it wrong to FEEL love? I don't think so. and when feeling is demonstrated by physical action ... sometimes I fret at the line drawn where it is SIN.

Like you said about wanting a married man's wife. How that alone is a sin ... well, I disagree. I just do. Man has urges. You must change WHAT you are and your nature - which, in some way, is impossible. Like sades said- Free will. If you created us as zombies who followed these rules inherently, we would not know their meaning. I think we understand their meaning by EXPERIENCING. We cannot know it's a sin until - a man covets another man's wife. Man will not learn unless through that sort of lesson. ANd there's no point to the rules without learning. Now, I'm not saying go commit the sins, but truthfully, that's mainly the only way you learn. and THEN you repent.

You will want you want by how you were raised, where you've been, by experience. I say the test is ACTING on it. When a man covets and TAKES another man's wife is an issue for me. But hey, I'm not God and well, it's his world. I'd say if a man covets and DOESN'T take another man's wife - no he didn't sin, but he THOUGHT of sinning. and made the right choice.

...diseases. whew. umm ... yes let's look at statistics. realize that they are a product of science. god is not a realm of science. rather, it exists (and I may be wrong) but I highly doubt that statistics or probabilities regarding who does what is of any relevance to him. he is a being that created a burning bush and visions etc etc. immaculate conception, all that. so. science is not necessarily anything that matters to him. he weighs each individual and each persons sins. therefore, how many homosexuals have diseases matters just the same, i'd imagine, as how man heterosexuals do - they do or they don't and since both sides get them from the SAME act (sex) in a sinful relation (NOT just by sexuality but excess, sin, not practicing wisdom about their partners), etc ... that is not a way to determine which is more normal.

as for subhuman or not ... no I don't think you think they're subhuman. i think, though, that you judge what they do/their existence as those who simply love as well as engage in sex with the opposite sex as a moral crime (that's what sin is anyway). a moral crime tends to color how you perceive a person's overall moral worth. like a liar or a thief or a wifebeater. it's not, like a said, a small matter of disliking what someone does. this is more than that.

When I say "nature" -- I mean what is best and optimal for us.

well i mean ... man is not at his ideal. he won't be until evolution has LOTS of time to complete. judging by ideal states is relative because, well ... the bible doesn't describe every single way to be. what to do about x in y case. which is why I say the point is living, learning, and doing your best and hoping you got it right.

we are not in a utopia, that's obvious. we won't be for thousands of years. and what YOU think is ideal is not necessarily what GOD thinks is ideal, ya know? cuz even with that bible and all ... I still say we can't know 100%.

Maybe "ideal" is a better word...but it doesn't completely encompass the thought I'm trying to put into words. Lying is a sub-action of talking. Talking is natural...but lying is not what we are meant to do, ideally.

well ... people lie all the time. lying is not RIGHT. but I do believe it is a natural habit of man to do. because man naturally likes to evade and color the truth when responsible for something bad.

Homosexuality, IMO, isn't really a sub-action of sex. It is a replacement for sex...an un-natural one.

well see now ... now if we talk about sex I don't want to push, seeing as how your sympathies lie but i am very sure you would say most things Madonna has done in a bedroom are sinful. But much of the world populace would not and would in fact call such actions entirely natural and commit them. Whether they're morally wrong or not is one thing. Whether they're natural is another. They may be entirely natural but entirely sinful. Or entirely natural and entirely unsinful. Who's to say?

would say that someone have sex out of wedlock with a partner of the opposite sex is sinning in basically the same way (again, I can't accurately say if one is worse than theo ther)...

it's weird, you keep saying this. it's like you dont' want to say so because you don't have proof but if you did (which you wish you did) you would. is that the case? do you FEEL it's worse but don't have the evidence to support it?

but the act of sex with that person is a natural act that our body was designed for. Subtle difference...and probably not an important one, really. I guess I'm just picky.

well i say sex period is natural. we are animals on the physical level. therefore all physical acts are "natural." Killing is natural. Crying and snoring and moving in groups and pairing up with someone you like is natural. Eating is natural. Murdering a child is NOT natural but killing IS. It's the rules in which an act are applied that make it morally/ethically wrong or not and those ethical rules are created by MAN - the intellectual side that is beyond the animal within us. and whatever guide books we choose to take with us (ie, the bible).

Oh, I dunno. I don't think there's a problem with disliking a person's action or addiction, etc, and still loving them.

well like i said, there's a difference between disliking and the moral judgement of a person.

If I had a son who was drunk and killed someone in a car crash as a result, I seriously doubt I would stop loving him, but I would obviously be furious with his irresponsibility and his actions, which amount to, basically, murder.

there is a moral judgement in this example. he drove a car drunk knowing he could kill someone and did NOT care. that lack of care for himself or others would be something you judged, as would others. and you would therefore treat him differently from then on until he repented. and even then you would still remember for a loooong looooong time. which would affect your actions. ie, not trusting him with car keys, etc.

I think the reason I would not define our sin as part of us is that it is only part of us for now.

which is why i said we can't judge on utopian terms when we are not in utopia. we must act in utopian WAYS as much as we can and judge knowing we are NOT in a utopia and are in trying times. which is why when a crime is committed we realize it's consequences as well as HOW IT STARTED. and we try to fix that. this world is full of mistakes and it's like a boat with holes in it sinking ... we're trying to patch it. i'm not saying forgive sins or disregard it. i'm saying take things with a grain of salt for you cannot EXPECT or hold to an impossible standard one who is BOUND to fail. mankind if entirely fallible, like i said. but, he does need to STRIVE for utopia. i don't disagree with that. so, I say - hold to a HIGHER standard than what we're at but not an IMPOSSIBLE one. because WE are not god, perfect, infallible.
...

[thmilin]

Part II

[sin ...] I don't believe that it is a disease...I believe it is a hurdle...one that can be jumped over, even if it is difficult. I don't think anyone has genes so strong that they are truly incapable of resisting such things.

exactly. which ties to my point above. it's a hurdle. we can conquer many but not all and not COMPLETELY. the only way to do so would be to come to the finish line, repent all, THEN step over. the problem is, when's that line come? when we're dead? we're not gonna be able to predict that. we're not going to be allowed to repent just before we go up to be judged. so, if we say "I'm sorry I'll never lie again" and we've got 5 more years to live it's highly - 99.9% - unlikely that promise is going to get kept. sure, i say, try. but don't kid yourself. cuz it doesnt' fool HIM. you can only promise to try and then it remains to be seen if you DO.

... I know someone who is homosexual, and a very nice guy...admitting that he has a problem...which, as we all know, is usually hailed as the first step.

this doesn't work with me friend cuz that assumes the boy is like an alcohol or drug addict. i don't believe a homosexual has a problem in that vein. see what i mean about moral crime? i still don't see him as hurting himself or hurting others. the only way i can see him hurting himself is IF god sees it as a terrible terrible thing and he keeps doing it and earning god's great disappointment and disgust. which would never happen cuz god doesn't get disgusted, he's forgiving. the only one it really disgusts, you see, is those judging him here on earth.

a It's the same way with God: we sin all the live long day, but in the end, it's the admittance of that and the wanting to stop (even if you don't, or can't, realistically) that makes the difference.

well yeah i agreed with that in the paragraph above the above. :)

Well, it depends. If the person/friend is willing to talk to you and have fun and such anyway, then they are still accepting you.

you know what i mean. there's a difference. if my best friend and i always shared the dirt in our lives and once she learns I'm gay (for example), she begins to restrict what she tells me - though still hanging out with me - then that friendship is not the same.

They just don't accept one of the things you do.

back to: disliking/accepting vs. moral judgement (change of behavior toward them/not accepting)

I am *really* bothered by his view on abortion (assuming it's the same as it was when he mentioned it some time back)...but I still accept him.

if you treat him the SAME way you always did and nothing's changed ... fine. but if he has a girlfriend who gets pregnant and she chooses abortion and he supports her? then what? are you bothered but "accepting" so long as nothing comes of it? but when the ACTION that results from the moral difference you two have comes, then what?

Is it really a problem to say that you would not act the same?

well it's one thing to be up front. i hate all X. say it up front. when you encounter all X they realize you have views that result in you hating them and they won't agree and will avoid you and spare you their presence and themselves YOUR presence. in theory, no, there's nothing wrong with that. it's the practice of not acting the same. it doesn't matter much when it's a minor change of how you speak to someone ... then it stays at the microcosmic level - between two kids in a high school in a city in a state in a country. but multiply that practice by the world and ... hence the trouble I see today. i'm not saying you're a bad person chris, i just worry that the judgement factor is what gets mankind into trouble. i say people are free to have opinions and are always going to judge, i just wish that they would all ... what? like i said, be fair and openminded about it.

i don't think mankind as a whole has learned yet how to hold a different view without hurting others who don't share it, in some way.

If someone said they supported Bin Laden as opposed to the U.S., you wouldn't treat them the same.

i know i posted somewhere on foreign policy.

if a man came up to me, entirely peaceful and respectful of my beliefs, and told me he supported Bin Laden ... good for him. I'd treat him no differently. If he asked to come over for dinner I'd welcome him. I'd feed him at my table and i'd respect whatever his culinary wishes were. If he invited me to his house, i'd go.

If he slapped me and called me an infidel - treated me differently - I would slap him back if treated badly enough.

The Taliban is a GROUP. Those within it are complex and numerous. Men are men. each man in the world, each person, is different. no, i won't be unwise and jump up and volunteer if that man said, come back with me to Afghanistan. no, i won't say, sure i'll enter your house alone. but that depends on how he treats me. it's a certain amount of trust yes, but i think that's important - to keep what we know of civilization, dignity, respect - humanity - in the face of things like terrorism and genocide and racial difference.

I respect that he has different views, even if I do not agree. But if his ACTIONS because of those different views end upwith him treating me badly as opposed to how lovingly he treats other muslims or those of his faction ... yeah i'd treat him differently. like i say in the end its how you practice it. what you believe is what you believe but how you enforce or practice what you believe is how the world's future will be determined.

If someone holds a view fundamentally contradictory to yours, on an important issue, then I think it'd be worse to ignore it and act as if it didn't matter...

well once again, hon, I never said to ignore it. i never said to shut up either. i support speaking out on what you believe, and that's why you and I are discussing this. :)

How so? Seems to me that it's those things that make you different from others. We are all the same in fundamental ways, but beyond that, we are all very different.

you work backwards from me. :) the differences and similarities are EQUALLY important. However, similarities are the key to communicatind and understanding those who are different. Without recognizing those similarities, you will never understand.

Come to think of it, that's a test of sorts for the friendship.

yup. and if it was true, honest, pure friendship - differences do not matter and are celebrated. if they are not agreed upon they are respected (if not celebrated). but they do not negate the trust or understanding upon which the friendship was built.

if the friendship ends - having changed because of these revelations - then it was not a true friendship to begin with. like marriage, in fact. i believe it is only those who cannot reconcile their differences and truly understand and respect them and resolve them who must divorce. i understand why it happens and do not think any less of those who couldn't make it work. maybe it was timing. maybe one spouse refused to work it out. but the microcosmic relationship between people - friends, siblings, husband/wife - will affect the grand scale of things for how humanity works together in the global scale.

Everyone learns by trial and error...but it's a lot easier to learn from someone else's trial and error.

that's true, i agree. then again i think you don't really learn until you've gone through that trial and error yourself. which is why parents have no end of frustration when their kids do exactly what they warned them not to do.

whew!

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Oh, and you're not in a league of your own, Sades?
I beg to differ. Thanks...I think.:idea:


thmmie- goodness woman, do you corner people in the super market too? You're gonna be one of those old ladies that is always telling people her life story...:D

[spudracer]

How come nobody will mention my "master bater" line??? GOOD STUFF RIGHT THERE!!! :laugh:

[sadesdrk]

hey did you all catch that master debater line posted by spud? Ha...that was great stuff right there...pff.:nope:

[Yoda]

Sorry, I've been busy guys...I'll get to this in a day or two (I hope). Just wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring it or anything. :)

[sadesdrk]

S'okay...T. We forgive you...:rolleyes:

[Jared's Uncle]

Jesus Christ! TWT you make me sick. I just finished reading all of the stuff that has been posted on this thread before now, and im completely sickened that there are people like you out there. If two people are in love they should be allowed to love eachother no-matter what their sex is. Then naturally after some time they will feel the need to express this love in a physical way. This is what men and women do all around the world with eachother, so what's the problem with same sex screwing? And about the pieces not fitting together, your mistaken. With men it is obvious how they can "fit together" and this women the tounge just replaces the male member. Well that or the hand. Besides that why would God descirminate against homosexuality? They aren't harming anybody. I don't think it's a sin to love somebody.
That's all I have to say for now, but let me just say again that im just... oh God.

The only reason I would do this is because I find women to be the most beautiful creatures on Earth. God they are lovely. And I'm more attracted to any woman than to any man.

[Yoda]

Jared, no offense, but you're acting very foolish right now. If you want to talk about things, the way to go about it is not to act completely offended, and then proceed to use crude language and slang.

Jesus Christ! TWT you make me sick. I just finished reading all of the stuff that has been posted on this thread before now, and im completely sickened that there are people like you out there.

Thanks. Welcome to MovieForums. You won't last long in these debates if you can't eek out some respect for others.

If two people are in love they should be allowed to love eachother no-matter what their sex is. Then naturally after some time they will feel the need to express this love in a physical way. This is what men and women do all around the world with eachother, so what's the problem with same sex screwing?

Nope, incorrect. Sin is sin. "Do what you want" is not a good philoshopy to have. Men and women were created by God to procreate. This much is made evident by the fact that men and women CAN procreate. No other pairing can. That's a fact.

And about the pieces not fitting together, your mistaken. With men it is obvious how they can "fit together" and this women the tounge just replaces the male member. Well that or the hand.

:rolleyes: You've got to be smarter than that. I am not at all mistaken: those are crude forms of sex. Maybe you haven't read my posts very well (in fact, you can't have, if you're making that argument), but It's a ridiculously obvious fact that, as a species, men and women are meant to go together. If men only had sex with men, and the same happened with women, we'd all die out. From a purely technical standpoint, it doesn't fit.

Besides that why would God descirminate against homosexuality? They aren't harming anybody. I don't think it's a sin to love somebody.

Descriminate? Uh, why would God discriminate against murderers? Why would he discriminate against lazy people? Being lazy doesn't necessarily harm others, but I'd still call it a sin. It hurts YOU. It's not a good thing to do. I believe The Bible, and The Bible is clear on this issue, so I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make in that respect.

They are harming someone: themselves. Sin to love somebody? Depends. Is it a sin to love someone else's wife? I'd say so, seeing as how it's adultery of the heart.

See, you seem to be under the impression that if it's an impulse of ours, it must be a good thing...which is wrong. When someone makes me angry, one of my first impulses is to either attack them, or yell at them. It is only a focused mind and a strong will that "convinces" me to settle things more peacefully when possible. Impluses are not, by law, good things to follow. Love is no exception: love can be good, or it can be bad.

Aside from that, let's not forget that you can't adequately define "love." Some people define it as nothing more than a sexual desire. I disagree with that (I think it's more about mutual admiration, trust, and respect), but we all have our own definitions. In short: sure it can be a sin to love somebody. Just because someone feels like doing something, doesn't mean it's okay.

Now, please refrain from posting lists of people you would "bang." I don't allow that for men posting about women, or vice versa, either. That's just ugly. I'm editing your post accordingly. For a person all hot and bothered about what you perceive as a lack of tolerance, you sure don't seem to considerate about what crudeness you use in front of others, now do you?

[Yoda]

Oh, FYI: you also must've misread my posts if you're ranting about being "allowed to love each other." Good luck finding even one instance in which I advocated outlawing homosexuality. You won't find it, because I don't advocate that. This is not a LEGAL issue...this is a MORAL issue. I'm saying I think it's wrong, and unnatural. I think it's erosive, and hurts people overall. I think it's a FLAW. We all have flaws...I think that's one of the flaws humans, collectively, have to try and deal with.

[Steve]

Originally posted by TWTCommish

Nope, incorrect. Sin is sin. "Do what you want" is not a good philoshopy to have. Men and women were created by God to procreate. This much is made evident by the fact that men and women CAN procreate. No other pairing can. That's a fact.


I'm sorry, but homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice. Do you honestly believe that a person would say something that would immediately get them labeled, discriminated against, possibly ostracized, and possibly even hated?



:rolleyes: You've [b]got to be smarter than that. I am not at all mistaken: those are crude forms of sex. Maybe you haven't read my posts very well (in fact, you can't have, if you're making that argument), but It's a ridiculously obvious fact that, as a species, men and women are meant to go together. If men only had sex with men, and the same happened with women, we'd all die out. From a purely technical standpoint, it doesn't fit.


I don't have a technical argument for this, and I don't think anyone does. It's one of nature's mysteries. Because, it does exist in nature. I don't think it's very sensitive to call a form of sexual expression "crude". Don't knock any of it til you've tried it, they're entirely healthy ways of expressing one's feelings.

They are harming someone: themselves. Sin to love somebody? Depends. Is it a sin to love someone else's wife? I'd say so, seeing as how it's adultery of the heart.


How does it harm themselves? Is the only reason you say that becuase the bible says that? From a technical standpoint, (something you seem to be fond of using) that doesn't make much sense, because no one is hurt physically or mentally any more than in a heterosexual relationship.

[Yoda]

I'm sorry, but homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice. Do you honestly believe that a person would say something that would immediately get them labeled, discriminated against, possibly ostracized, and possibly even hated?

Are you joking? People have done that all throughout history. People have been burned at the stake, or tortured to death, for admitting that they believed something that the others around them reacted negatively towards. Go tell them you don't believe they would. Homosexuality is a choice, albeit with (for some), a predisposition, but it is not the way we are naturally built. It is a choice we all make, loosely speaking.

I don't have a technical argument for this, and I don't think anyone does. It's one of nature's mysteries. Because, it does exist in nature. I don't think it's very sensitive to call a form of sexual expression "crude". Don't knock any of it til you've tried it, they're entirely healthy ways of expressing one's feelings.

"Don't knock it 'til you've tried it" is a very flawed slogan. I don't even think I need to tell you why.

As for "nature:" I think I already replied to that opint several times over in another thread (I don't think you ever replied to it, but it could have been someone else I'm thinking of). If you want to believe that two male monkeys messing around with each other here or there makes homosexuality natural, then what's the difference between a dog trying to have sex with my leg? Animals are stupid. They try to have sex with inanimate objects. Thats one FAR cry from it existing in nature.

How does it harm themselves? Is the only reason you say that becuase the bible says that? From a technical standpoint, (something you seem to be fond of using) that doesn't make much sense, because no one is hurt physically or mentally any more than in a heterosexual relationship.

It harms them because it is sinful...it is again what is ideal for us. Sin is harmful. Fond of using? Uh, no, it's one point I make among several...it just seems like I'm fond of it because a lot of people here insist on failing to either read it, or understand it, and thus I end up repeating myself. That's certainly not my problem.

Well, first of all, the studies I've seen show that the average homosexual has more partners than the average heterosexual. Every report I see has homosexuals leading a more promiscuious lifestyle on average...which I think is quite harmful. And yes, The Bible say on the matter is one of the reasons I think it's harmful. And yeah, I'm sure that will cause a sneer, or snicker, or something of the like out of some of you, but I honestly don't care.

[Sullivan]

WHEWHH.

Holy Moly that was a lot of reading.

That gay test is funneh. Just the idea that they had a percentage at the end, when the entire test was rampantly un-scientific, was great. It was funneh, but cool because it incited this lovely debate. Both sides are presenting good arguments, but I just want to marginally stick my oar in and say:

There are three main types of love as classified by modern psychologists:

1) Eros. Romatic / sexual love. America is obsessed with this sort of love, to the exclusion of the other two...

2) Phillia. "Brotherly" love (should also be "Sisterly"). A close and intimate affection that can be shared between two people of any gender, cross-gender, whatever, WITHOUT a sexual or romantic component of any type. This love is based on the principles of mutual caring and a dedication to the maintenance and growth of the relationship. This is the love that occurs bewteen really good friends, of any gender.

3) Agape. Love for all. This is the diffuse, warm love and acceptance of all members of the human race regardless of who or what they are-- e.g. the recognition and acceptance of all facets of human behaviour as being innately part of each individual, and how those facets are represented to a greater or lesser extent in the people around us. If you truly love and accept yourself, you cannot help but truly love and accept other people, because all of them have some aspect of you (and vice versa). Aso does not include any sexual component.

I think what's screwing up the discussion is people are saying "well when two people love each other" without defining what LOVE means. Any relationship between two people that has a strong sexual component can be said to have an equally strong undercurrent of eros.

I strongly believe that two men or two women can have a relationship based on Phillia. This may lead them to believe that their relationship should be consummated with erotic love. I say "BAH" to that: eros, while it may apparently be the NATURAL conclusion to phillial relationships, has not only become outmoded as a means of expressing intense affection and intimacy, but is essentially pointless in a same-sex relationship.

I'll shut up now.

*dons asbestos*

[Yoda]

You're right, that's a significant mistake I've made...we're just talking past each other at some points. Very insightful post, Sullivan. :)

[thmilin]

I'd agree that a mutual exchange of physical love given between two people who care about one another and express their feelings in that manner - no matter how depraved, sinful, dirty, unnatural. etc, someone with different social, religious, ethical values might think it is - is NOT 1) unnatural, 2) harmful, or 3) crude.

the sex act in terms of procreation is indeed meant to result in pregnancy. offspring. etc. yet, if we were PURE ANIMAL we would not have our faculties and would spend our days rutting like rabbits, Chris. and i know you know we're beyond that because you yourself mentioned self control and reason.

if we were pure animal - if we were purely "technical" - we would not have the nuance of perception that has us arguing here.

hence, it is the variety to human experience, the depth of human complexity, the very difference among us - be it sexual preference or moral strictness - that makes human beings TRULY natural. my point before, and which Sullivan himself touches on in describing the different forms of love (which were themselves defined by men hundreds of years ago and are open to debate), is that love is not finite. it is as fluid as the people who feel it. to set in stone something mutable that is experienced by mutable creatures is one thing. that's fine to believe love is what you think it is, we all do. but to know it as one thing for yourself - as a heterosexual - which fits with YOUR moral upbringing and self, and to then apply it to ANOTHER form of love you do not know or accept ... of COURSE that form of love is negated for you. it cannot exist. you do not believe in it.

which is why no amount of argument will convince you otherwise and I respect that. life may or may not show you other things to shift that view. regardless, i respect your faithful views on love regarding respect, sincerity, trust, loyalty, genuine friendship. but I disagree that that can only exist between a heterosexual pair. yes a heterosexual pair are meant to procreate - and that is eros. true, in animal nature, a hetersexual pair is the norm. but beyond eros is a love that encompasses all that is NOT on SUllivan's list.

i believe in all 3 forms of the love he mentioned. i don't think all pairs who have true platonic/philial love move to eros. some do, that's simple immaturity and lack of growth, i believe. a person of true wisdom and understanding would never mistake such a relationship as one that must be destined for romance. then again, SOME romantic loves can and do develop from such friendships and that's because - as I agree with chris - true love must have that component or it does not last.

there were some other definitions love, i can vaguely remember my greek philosophy readings. there were three components - passion, friendship, and something else. you must have all 3 to have true love that will last - so long as you do not change from what you were when you began loving.

an irony is that the ultimate relationship - period - was seen to be philial. and between men. and it was COMPLETELY accepted and natural that men in such philial relationships would know one another physically - as friends. they had wives they loved, women they fell for but they ALSO engaged in erotic relations with younger men. this was to be both a mentor - to relay strength of character, their wisdom about the world, to be a friend and guide -to a younger man.

so, we must take these definitions of love with a grain of salt ... everyone will see love differently. i just believe that the act itself is not sin. at the very least, not crude. that's like saying a guffaw is cruder than a giggle. laughter is laughter. and i think laughter's good. but yes, there is the rule of hurting others. if you love another man's wife how are you to stop yourself from feeling that feeling? there is no way. if you continue to feel it, 20 years later, regardless of the fact she has grown old, wrinkled, had 3 kids, etc ... is that simply eros or is it truly love? and if it still has not been acted on, if she has no clue - is that a crime? has he hurt her? has he truly hurt himself?

what happens when he accepts that he cannot have her, should not have her, will not harm her or anyone else by telling, and is at peace? he still loves her, but I do not think, then, that he is committing a sin, and might not ever have.

and with that example comes yet another rule - rules just don't apply. yes we can strive to stick to them, like i've said, rules in many ways make the world a better place, make us truer, stronger of character, better. then again, we cannot undo the way god made us. he MADE sinful creatures, chris. he loves us because of what we are and what we are is how he made us - sinners. the very nature within flaws is like i said, what makes humans beautiful. free will, like sades mentioned. if we did not have that will, if we did not have sin - we would not be human.

we are. we must simply make the best of that. i'm not condoning sin. i'm just saying ... if you feel something that is normal for you, that hurts no one ... if you know what you are and what you are feels as legitimate, when you get technical with yourself, as the love you see between your parents, or an aunt an uncle, etc etc ... then you are. and so is anything you feel - i guess that's what it comes down to. the crime here is not just acting on a "lifestyle choice" - it is feeling. that's why i wonder about your gay friend - even if he doesn't act, even if he accepts that your church says it's wrong, even if he never pairs with another man again - if he knows what he is and that he loves men, is that alone still sin? is who and what he is negated, is he some technical aberration?

that's my problem, because he's not. he's as legitimate as a child who can't walk, as a man without limbs, as a wife and mother, as anyone else. you cannot separate what a homosexual is from what he does. when you say simply "sin" - sin is something that can be stopped. repented for. cease committing it. but you cannot stop a desire for the same sex. you cannot stop BEING what you are, even if you can stop the outward appearance of it for others.

[Yoda]

This is not about acceptance. I do not reject homosexuals as humans. I do not fail to "accept" them for what they are. I just ask they they accept themselves as well, as sinners. I expect people to accept me, because, although I'm a sinner, they are as well, and there's not much we can do about it. We can only try to minimize it. My argument is that it's important to admit to it. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

We're talking about people who apparently cannot help the way they feel...but if some of these people also refuse to acknowledge that it's a problem in the first place, how do we really know? If they don't even take that first step, I don't know that they can't help things.

Yes, we are not just technical creatures...I'm trying to make two different arguments here. If you believe in The Bible, this issue is a no-brainer. If you believe in God, but not necessarily The Bible on issues like this, then you have to believe in intent, and how God made us to behave, and you're quite likely to come to the conclusion that men were simply not BUILT to have sex with other men.

However, if you don't believe in any real God, then apart from being saddened by it, I present a purely technical argument: the way we've evolved (if you believe in evolution) has us built for hetereosexual relationships. From a scientific standpoint, that's completely undebateable. I only bring it up at all because not everyone's going to subscribe to my other arguments, especailly if they don't believe in God.

Is it possible for a homosexual to feel REAL love with another man, the way a man can with a woman? I don't know. Do I think it's possible? I'm hestitant to say yes. I lean towards saying that it's a combination of a simply flawed nature (as all humans are cursed with), and a brotherly/friendly affection, misconstrued as romanticism. Now, before someone cries bloody murder, this is a very tough issue, and I can't take any stance on it with any REAL confidence. I don't think any of us can.

I needed to say, however, that I don't think we can just assume that they can indeed fall in love romantically (genuinely, that is). Although, if you don't believe in God, the word "love" doesn't have as much of a specific meaning. If you don't believe in any Deity like that, there's no concrete reason to believe such a thing as love necessarily exists.

Now, as Miriam has said, love is pretty dang subjective. I agree completely...and as such, I think we ought to not even bother talking about love in that respect. It's pretty pointless to say "But TWT, if two people love each other, what's wrong with them expressing it through sex?" It's really a waste of all our time -- yours, and mine, simply because we don't agree on what love is, for one.

However, even assuming that they are in love, and that we agree on what love is, it doesn't necessarily make the argument a valid one. As I've said before, being in love with a married woman is not always something that you should follow through on. I'm sure exceptions exist, but the norm has it as a forbidden love, and rightfully so. And yes, Miriam: you cannot stop the love of another man's wife...but that's irrelevant. You still feel it, and the man would have every right in the world for being upset by it...even angered. It's a SIN. It's a flaw.

You seem to (correct me if I'm wrong, it's just an observation I've made) think that if you can't help it at all (well, you can help anything, but you know what I mean), it must not be a sin...which I don't agree with at all. I think it's a sin regardless of whether or not we're so flawed as to find it inevitable. Lying is wrong...even though you'll never find anyone who's gone their whole life without having lied at some point. Just because it's something that people can't resist, or can't stop themselves from doing, it doesn't mean it's okay.

Has he truly hurt himself? We can't measure that. I think he has...for one, he's spent an awful lot of time pining after someone involved with someone else, when he could have, potentially, found someone else. I hate to say it, but I think many people end up with someone who is not the best person in the world for them, in terms of compatibility, and overall joy produced in the marriage. We just have to do the best we can to try to find peace, happiness, and someone to share it all with.

So yeah, I think it's pretty obvious that he has hurt himself. I hurt myself EVERY day...many times a day, I'd imagine. I'm sure you all do as well. It's not a very nice thought, but it's the truth. We're flawed creatures, no matter what kind of theological views you hold.

And yes, God made us sinful, in a way. He cannot create creatures as perfect as he is...however, we were going pretty good there for awhile. :) It's all been dowhill since the "Applegate" incidient, as "The Simpsons" so hilariously dubbed it. :) I don't agree that our sin is somehow beautiful and appealing. I think our asking forgiveness for our sin is what is beautiful and appealing.

The sin gives us a chance to repent, and choose the right path out of our own free well, despite the temptations of sin. The beauty comes from rejecting that sin as best we can, and wanting to strive for more...not from giving into it as inevitable, and failing to recognize it for what it is.

No, my friend is not negated...he's just another sinner. Is it a crime to feel that love and not act on it? Well, that's hard to say...for one, it depends on what consitutes acting on it in some way. If he thinks about men in a fantasizing/homosexual way, well, as far as I'm concerned, that's lust...a sin. If he looks at another man in the same manner, it's the same deal. It's not really possible for him to avoid homosexual relationships, repent, accept it as a sin, and never, ever truly DESIRE it, or go without thinking about it. So in that sense, he's not really just sitting around feeling love and not acting on it.

Is the act of WANTING to sin actually sin? That's an impossible question to answer...we have very little to go on. I think it depends. We know that wanting to have sex with a woman other than your wife is a sin...so that specific act of WANTING to sin is a sin. Now, seeing as how The Bible makes it clear that men were not made for such relationships together, I'd say that wanting to do that anyway would also be a sin. It's not a supersin, most likely (we really have no idea), but it is a sin, nonetheless, IMO.

Sin is something that can be stopped? I dunno. In the same post, you talk about it's inevitiability. Technically, it can be...but realistically, it cannot. I would not liken a sinful person (in this discussion, a man who does not act on homosexual emotions, but does desires men) to someone born with some kind of handicap, necessarily. With a physical disability such as that, it happens before you're even capable of any real, clear though, or any decision making. If the person is homosexual because of some kind of abuse as a young child, though, then the two become more akin, for obvious reasons (beyond the control of the child, who's likely too young to understand what's going on).

And yes, you cannot stop being what you are: which is a sinner. Naturally, I revert to my paragraph earlier, stating that sin is sin, regardless of whether or not we can do anything about it, or are born with that weakness to sin.

[thmilin]

PT 1 - heehee, the debate goes on! here we go ...

This is not about acceptance. I do not reject homosexuals as humans. I do not fail to "accept" them for what they are.

I thought you might take my discussion on humanity in this vein. I am not accusing you of not accepting these people as human, because you established in past posts you do. My problem though is your logic is iffy there. I think that to some degree you discount the existence of human nature in someone that commits a sin that is natural to who and what they are. Which alone is not cool with me but like i said, where it most matters is not the concept (in general, gays would get along fine if people didn't like what they did but didn't act on that dislike) but how that translates to real life. your friend - and the hypothetical idea of whether you'd treat someone differently.

so when i talk about legitimacy ... i guess another thing would be, if it is human to love, and humans are flawed and love is mutable, and love, like humans and their flaws, comes in many forms, is it unnatural to love? no matter how rare, uncommon, or undesirable by religious or moral standards, feeling cannot be prevented. so there is no point in morally judging it.

ACTION can be prevented. but that's what i meant about acting on something. you cannot prevent a feeling. if the feeling is a sin, but that type of sin - feeling - cannot be prevented then it sort of defeats the purpose. you have broken a rule without MEANING to. the point of sin is to repent because you did something bad and KNEW it was bad - a law of morals. and if you didn't know it was bad, you'd know you weren't supposed to DO it again. but you can't make that change when your crime was a feeling!

but for me to say this would question God's effort and established rules for us to live by, as interpreted through the bible over the years, which is my personal beef and which I don't expect you to defend him or the bible for cuz we both agree to disagree there.

my argument raises the question of whether to FEEL something can really be construed as sin when you are whoever you are and have experienced whatever you experienced and the result, at a certain point in time and place - is to look at someone of the same sex or someone else's marriage, and feel love.

My argument is that it's important to admit to it. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

right. the crux of your argument is that this is a sin. the proof for that is in the bible. the proof if you don't believe in god or the bible is physical technicality.

now, to that - my argument argues it isn't a sin, i guess, or basically, i don't know for sure but don't think so. it's like legal system. it was built from a spirit that IS correct, that IS valid. however, it's practices, it's rules, how it is read, enacted on, and followed, ISN'T always. now, take this idea: god created flawed creatures. he wanted them to learn to become perfect and HAVE no flaws. he created humans but wanted them to become more. so he gave them rules to teach them how and get them there. he wasn't thorough. he used a format that wasn't exactly perfect. word of mouth, other people with opinions, and one set of 10 rules in stone. and this to be applied to the whole concept of human life.

some may see this as blasphemy. but i agree in god's power and wisdom. i simply say that while the system he created was well intentioned, that HIS knowledge is entirely correct and all good and well that he has NOT conveyed unequivocally and without any way to doubt what his exact rules are. you can point to the bible all you want but i'm saying that those 10 commandments and that book are not enough. they never were. not for me, anyway. we are too flawed and too confused. so, from that book, from its translations, mankind - quite flawed - went about interpreting it how HE thought it was meant.

not being god, how could various men know how it was supposed to read or teach? the only one who could was Jesus. only an UNFLAWED person could know and understand and convey these things properly.

while i recognize why god could say that homosexuality was sin ... i can't be entirely sure for various reasons. and my resulting feeling is that you cannot help EMOTION. so perhaps it's a sin to lie down with another man ... but to love him romantically? perhaps not. dunno.

Is it possible for a homosexual to feel REAL love with another man, the way a man can with a woman? I don't know. Do I think it's possible? I'm hestitant to say yes.... and I can't take any stance on it with any REAL confidence. I don't think any of us can.

why not? we are human and know exactly how both pure and errant human emotion can be. anything is possible, because it's out there. humans have been known to do and FEEL anything. from the most beautiful to the most awful. therefore i think it's perfectly plausible, being human, to recognize that people of the same sex can love each other just as legitimately as those of the opposite. that people of different races can, that people of vastly different ages can. one might argue a 9 yr old can't know what romantic love is but 9 yr olds have been married off and loved their spouse in ages gone. etc.

and if you want to ponder a comparison - there are full blown homosexual relationships that have spanned longer and truer and been just as if not more full of love and care and respect and all those things you mentioned as being necessary to love - between two men or women and they were certainly purer and sweeter and truer than what may happen between any random heterosexual romance you may pick.

...and you're quite likely to come to the conclusion that men were simply not BUILT to have sex with other men.

you might want to rephrase this. not built to procrate - make babies. having sex is something else and can be tied to both lust and love. if a gay man lusts and that's a sin, fine. i'm sure he can agree with that. if a gay man loves and he loves another man ... like i said, don't think that feeling is a sin. and in the bible the words are "covet another man's wife." covet = want. you can term it loosely as "desire." you can jump to "lust." that does not necessarily mean love.

Although, if you don't believe in God, the word "love" doesn't have as much of a specific meaning. ... If you don't believe in any Deity like that, there's no concrete reason to believe such a thing as love necessarily exists.

wow. umm, why not? muslims, hindis, catholics believe in entirely different gods and i do believe would be quite offended if it was assumed that not believing in the christian god meant they didn't know what "love" was or that it's meaning wasn't entirely the same as yours. in fact someone of both another country and religion could have the EXACT same perception (minus religion) of what love is, as you do. i'm sure several hundred thousand people out there do. so you might not depend on religion for such definitions. religion is added to your human condition and for me at least, does not define it until you make that the case. before we worship, before we even know what worship is, we are human. you may have been born into this realm of god but for others that' snot the same. that does not mean, however, that their human experience of the same things you experience isn't relatable.

being human, you feel. and you will feel love - romantic or not - no matter what deity you believe in. though this does not mean there aren't some who have never felt it, are incapable, or have ceased to believe. but i'd argue the majority of the world does indeed practice this universal emotion.

You seem to (correct me if I'm wrong, it's just an observation I've made) think that if you can't help it at all (well, you can help anything, but you know what I mean), it must not be a sin...which I don't agree with at all. I think it's a sin regardless of whether or not we're so flawed as to find it inevitable. Lying is wrong...even though you'll never find anyone who's gone their whole life without having lied at some point. Just because it's something that people can't resist, or can't stop themselves from doing, it doesn't mean it's okay.

i think this is what you want to see of my logic because you don't understand/agree. i have repeatedly said i believe sin exists, i believe in god's rules, etc etc. that the rules are there for a reason. so obviously, i know it's wrong to kill somebody and the desire to kill someone may arrive but i don't say - that feeling is just inevitable, being human, so go ahead, do it!

i also did not say to ACT on any feeling, or that that action is ok. my logic did not say, oh if you feel it and can't stop it it must be ok! that's silly and i tried to say something else entirely.

my point is that 1) a feeling cannot be helped 2) you can stop the action, but not the feeling. you can try, but it won't really get you anywhere. 3) and yes, you can also know it's wrong. great if it's wrong and you know it!

where you and i disagree is that #3 would apply to homosexuality and I am leaning toward it NOT being wrong so for me it's ok to say you've committed no crime and for you it's not and I must be trying to forgive something that shouldn't be forgiven.

perhaps life lessons will teach a person NOT have that feeling but i do believe that's unlikely. that's why truly rehabilitated criminals are rare....

[thmilin]

PT 2

Has he truly hurt himself? We can't measure that. I think he has...for one, he's spent an awful lot of time pining after someone involved with someone else, when he could have, potentially, found someone else.

pining is not a sin. :) but regardless, thats true of anyone who wants someone they cannot have. i meant - what if he goes on living his life but knows he loves that woman? that doesn't mean he can't go on, meet someone else, get married, and have kids and deeply love his family and new partner. and he can still love both women till he day he dies and be content with the life he built though wish that he might have had something with the forbidden woman. i don't see any real hurt there. unless of course he mistreats his new wife or neglects he and his family because he always regrets and remains bitter about the first woman, etc etc.

I hate to say it, but I think many people end up with someone who is not the best person in the world for them, in terms of compatibility, and overall joy produced in the marriage. We just have to do the best we can to try to find peace, happiness, and someone to share it all with.

totally agree. a lot of people do that, and there's nothing wrong with that. love, like you have said, can grow over time. i also believe that we can find someone who is pretty close or IS the best person in the world for them. it's rare, but possible. :)

And yes, God made us sinful, in a way. He cannot create creatures as perfect as he is...

this totally cracked me up and made me wonder if you read back over what you wrote. if god's omnipotent he could most definitely have done this, esp according to your own beliefs. :D

...The beauty comes from rejecting that sin as best we can, and wanting to strive for more...not from giving into it as inevitable, and failing to recognize it for what it is.

i addressed this above. that's not at all what i'm saying (inevitable=ok)

It's not really possible for him to avoid homosexual relationships, repent, accept it as a sin, and never, ever truly DESIRE it, or go without thinking about it. So in that sense, he's not really just sitting around feeling love and not acting on it.

hmm, questioning your logic here. if he never touches another man in that manner again, he is not ACTING on a homosexual relationship. it takes TWO to have one. if he desires but the other is not aware of his desire - he is not acting. if he lusts in his mind - yes, lust, to your definition, is a sin. if he loves ... and the other is unaware, and he never acts on this love - if he never declares it or expresses it - it is not a homosexual relationship. the basic rule of a relationship is both must be aware and consenting. therefore, to my logic, i'd argue there's no sin. of course, if simply loving another man is a sin, well, then, for you it is.

your logic implies to DESIRE is to act. and once again - you cannot STOP feeling. feeling is not an action.what you do because of your feeligns IS.

Sin is something that can be stopped? I dunno. In the same post, you talk about it's inevitiability.

and i didn't contradict myself. you and i both know sin is inevitable. but i have also agreed with you that the point to there being rules and our following them is to ATTEMPT to cease sinning - however impossible that is or inevitable it is that we'll continue to commit them. i think the only change here in life we can gain is LESS sin. but not complete annihilation of it. so, we CAN stop using curse words and we CAN respect our elders and we can stop lying on sundays or stop lying to our best friend or stop stealing candy from the corner store. which is what i meant by "stopping." i meant in the sense of an individual sin we choose to stop committing.

Is the act of WANTING to sin actually sin? That's an impossible question to answer...we have very little to go on.
Is it a crime to feel that love and not act on it? Well, that's hard to say...
Has he truly hurt himself? We can't measure that.
Is it possible for a homosexual to feel REAL love with another man, the way a man can with a woman? I don't know.

It is interesting that with all these "unknowns" and "impossibles" and "unsure" and "hard to says" - which appear in all your other posts as well, how your arguments work so hard to support the answer you've already come to.

your post - well, our arguments, since that's what we're doing - we're going through a matter of formulas, logic, deduction, reaching ... i forgot the mathematical terms but you know how you have to prove 3 things before you can reach the correct conclusion? theories, laws, etc.

it seems you have the conclusion - Homosexuality is sin - and that you are trying to go backward and find your proofs in order to support that conclusion. yes, because we have challenged you on it, and i'm glad to hear your answers and see how you get there.

But the whole point of a conclusion is to have begun with nothing - not with the answer - but with your own tests, experience, knowledge, and to come to your own proofs. This procedure VALIDATES the conclusion. The conclusion has no meaning without that process. It simply is, but that does not mean it is right. In fact, one might say it is only an assumption, that it's correct.

I knew the answer my own parents have taught me, that people insist the bible has made clear. But I will not believe that conclusion because someone else or a book told me so. There is no point to believing anything in that vein. It is not belief, for belief is a result of understanding from learned truths. I do not believe in God because I was raised to do so. I believe in him because I began from scratch and came to that conclusion, which is why i have a different vision of him than you do.

Perhaps I'm incorrect and you believe in him because you found your own proofs and recognized that is why he exists, not because others said so and that's how you were raised. I don't mean to offend you, my question, also. :)

Regardless, I have come to my conclusions regarding the nature of sin in homosexuality not from the answer others insist upon but from the proofs I have encountered. Drawing from that evidence and what I've seen ... despite what (i say) is a questionable conclusion presented by a book centuries old influenced by interpretations ... my conclusion is that the nature of homosexuality - to love another man - is not a sin.

however, my proof (for i've discounted for the most part the 100% faultlessness of the bible) cannot tell me for certain. my personal conclusion would be that it isn't - cause i'd ilke to believe that. however, there's no proof to say it's ok, and a book that leans toward it not being ok, so yeah, it's pretty likely it is a sin to have sex with another man, and I accept that. i wish it weren't so. but having very little proof to satisfy me either way, that conclusion is up in the air and i hope for the sakes of all those who don't believe their same sex relations aren't sinful don't have too much suffering in store and wish them the best. for those who do believe it's sinful but do it anyway ... i also wish them the best.

either way, i wish it weren't a sin because I don't think that same sex LOVE is a sin. to love and not be able to act on it is horrible. it's mighty tough, sin or not , to be homosexual in this world as it is.

[OG-]

Well Damn!:eek:

[Yoda]

I think that to some degree you discount the existence of human nature in someone that commits a sin that is natural to who and what they are.

Who and what they are is a sinner. Yep, they cannot help their sin...but that doesn't excuse it...it only means that we should be understanding of the sin. It doesn't lessen the actual sin, however. I can't help but sing like crap...but I admit it, and I know I can't, and I won't claim otherwise.

no matter how rare, uncommon, or undesirable by religious or moral standards, feeling cannot be prevented. so there is no point in morally judging it.

Sure there is: I judge it as sin. I don't go out into the screams making a fuss of it, but when it comes up, and someone says it's perfectly okay, I tell them that it's not. Defining sin, and defending it AS sin, is perfectly reasonable, even if the sin is something the person can't do much about.

you have broken a rule without MEANING to. the point of sin is to repent because you did something bad and KNEW it was bad - a law of morals. and if you didn't know it was bad, you'd know you weren't supposed to DO it again. but you can't make that change when your crime was a feeling!

Breaking a rule without meaning to is a mistake. When you make a mistake, you apologize, and acknowledge it as a mistake. Yes, we are crippled by sin...we cannot hide from it...but it doesn't matter. Technically, we can avoid it...but we're so remarkably dirty with sin that there's just no plausible way for us to get past it on our own. That doesn't make the sin less sinful.

my argument raises the question of whether to FEEL something can really be construed as sin when you are whoever you are and have experienced whatever you experienced and the result, at a certain point in time and place - is to look at someone of the same sex or someone else's marriage, and feel love.

You could say "Is it wrong to look at someone being unjustly killed when you are whoever you are and have experienced whatever you experienced and, as a result, feel happiness?" I'd say, yeah, taking happiness in some form of unfair killing is probably a sin...it's cruel, in a way. I think the problem here may be that when people hear the world "love," all of a sudden normal rules don't apply...it's this incredibly magical thing that cannot be "messed" with in any way. Love can do no wrong, basically, is the attitude I run into so often.

he used a format that wasn't exactly perfect.

Hmmm, I'd say that perhaps it's we that are not perfect here. The way Christianty is taught seems pretty consistent with things to me...assuming we don't have "followers" ramming it down people's throats, it's usually taught quite well.

while i recognize why god could say that homosexuality was sin ... i can't be entirely sure for various reasons. and my resulting feeling is that you cannot help EMOTION. so perhaps it's a sin to lie down with another man ... but to love him romantically? perhaps not. dunno.

Well, if we're all reasonable about this, The Bible is quite clear on homosexual sex. Like, really clear. We're talkin' one step down from being a commandment. :)

therefore i think it's perfectly plausible, being human, to recognize that people of the same sex can love each other just as legitimately as those of the opposite. that people of different races can, that people of vastly different ages can. one might argue a 9 yr old can't know what romantic love is but 9 yr olds have been married off and loved their spouse in ages gone. etc.

An interracial love is quite different. God created us to go together a certain way...and being of a different race does not conflict with that. And yeah, perhaps some 9 year olds can feel love. It's hard to say. I'd imagine that their love is a completely different kind, however. If you want to get really technical, isn't it possible for a human to romantically love an animal, genuinely? Can't a 98 year old man fall in love with a 6 year old girl romantically? It's probably happened before.

It's all about the definition of love. If love is defined only by the person who claims they are feeling it, than those relationships that cross age/species/gender barriers can be seen as about real love, but I'd be skeptical to say so. Like I said, we just don't know, and as such, I don't think we're gonna get anywhere with it.

there are full blown homosexual relationships that have spanned longer and truer and been just as if not more full of love and care and respect and all those things you mentioned as being necessary to love - between two men or women and they were certainly purer and sweeter and truer than what may happen between any random heterosexual romance you may pick.

These are all things you cannot measure. Homosexual love, for all we know, could be a perverted form (and no, perverted does not mean I'm calling them perverts in the way most people use the word...the word has a broader meaning than that) of brotherly/friendly affection. That would not surprise me in the least.

wow. umm, why not? muslims, hindis, catholics believe in entirely different gods and i do believe would be quite offended if it was assumed that not believing in the christian god meant they didn't know what "love" was or that it's meaning wasn't entirely the same as yours.

Ummm, I said "God," not "Jesus" or "the Christian God." Just "God," meaning any Higher Power that created this universe with purpose, basically.

my point is that 1) a feeling cannot be helped 2) you can stop the action, but not the feeling. you can try, but it won't really get you anywhere. 3) and yes, you can also know it's wrong. great if it's wrong and you know it!

where you and i disagree is that #3 would apply to homosexuality and I am leaning toward it NOT being wrong so for me it's ok to say you've committed no crime and for you it's not and I must be trying to forgive something that shouldn't be forgiven.

1) Sinning cannot be helped either...still sin. A feeling can be a sin regardless of whether or not it can be reasonably helped (technically, I imagine it can all be helped).

2) Ditto.

3) Indeed.

pining is not a sin. :) but regardless, thats true of anyone who wants someone they cannot have. i meant - what if he goes on living his life but knows he loves that woman? that doesn't mean he can't go on, meet someone else, get married, and have kids and deeply love his family and new partner. and he can still love both women till he day he dies and be content with the life he built though wish that he might have had something with the forbidden woman. i don't see any real hurt there. unless of course he mistreats his new wife or neglects he and his family because he always regrets and remains bitter about the first woman, etc etc.

I don't think it's reasonably possible to love another woman away from your wife without sinning. That's LOVE going to another woman other than your wife...that hurts her, without a doubt. There's just no way around that...she's hurt by it, even if she doesn't know about it (and if she doesn't, that's pretty dishonest). If she does know about it...well, good luck finding a woman that doesn't mind being married to a man who loves someone else.

And no, pining is not a sin, but seeing as how it can easily lead to idleness and a lack of dilligence, it can be. People have indeed wasted away significant parts of their lives on such things. Wanting to be with someone by itself is not a bad thing...but it can lead to other bad things as quick as a whip.

this totally cracked me up and made me wonder if you read back over what you wrote. if god's omnipotent he could most definitely have done this, esp according to your own beliefs. :D

Uh, no. :) God cannot do absolutely anything. He cannot do evil things, for one. It's like that whole "can he make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" question. He cannot do absolutely anything. One thing He cannot do is create other beings as perfect as He is. If he could create perfect beings, they'd be God as well, basically.

Anyway, even aside from that, creating us as imperfect was the only logical way to go anyway. We have to be sinful to achieve our true beauty, and see God's love and mercy. If you're born into a perfect place, like Eden, you're essentially a spoiled brat...the child of some rich parents, who, despite having so much, knows no gratitude.

if he never touches another man in that manner again, he is not ACTING on a homosexual relationship. it takes TWO to have one.

I don't think action is at all limited to physical movement. Love isn't all about buying flowers, either. You can act with your mind.

and the other is unaware, and he never acts on this love - if he never declares it or expresses it - it is not a homosexual relationship.

Agreed, it is not a relationship...it's a desire.

your logic implies to DESIRE is to act. and once again - you cannot STOP feeling. feeling is not an action.what you do because of your feeligns IS.

You cannot stop sinning. I cannot stop myself from, perhaps, laughing when someone falls down and hurts themselves, even if they become offended by it.

but i have also agreed with you that the point to there being rules and our following them is to ATTEMPT to cease sinning - however impossible that is or inevitable it is that we'll continue to commit them.

Hmmm, perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but are you saying that it's not sin because we can't help it, and we can't correct it? We have to be able to fix it for it to be sin?

It is interesting that with all these "unknowns" and "impossibles" and "unsure" and "hard to says" - which appear in all your other posts as well, how your arguments work so hard to support the answer you've already come to.

That's not quite far...you've had your shares of "I guess"s and "dunno"s.

Perhaps I'm incorrect and you believe in him because you found your own proofs and recognized that is why he exists, not because others said so and that's how you were raised. I don't mean to offend you, my question, also.

I was raised as a Christian. For awhile, I was interested in it. After my parents got divorced, I didn't think about God at all, at least not that I can remember. I went through a very bad period. I was "reminded" of Him at a youth retreat, and had a renewed faith in Him. From that point forward, I took more interest in my religion. I read Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian," and over the last couple of years, I've spent dozens of hours on discussions like this. I do not shy away from challenges to my ideals, and I am not hesitant to read things I don't agree with.

I believe in God. I have no doubt of it. I have some doubts about the SPECIFIC God I believe in sometimes, but apart from finding the existence of some God to be completely inevitable (I cannot find any way around it), I also find this God, the Christian God, to be the one that, far and away, makes the most sense to me.

my conclusion is that the nature of homosexuality - to love another man - is not a sin.

Granted, our conversation is a valid one: is just feeling the urge to act actually sin? However, we are ignoring the fact that it's almost never that simple...there's almost always lust, and fairly often, action, involved with this feeling. So, technically, we're arguing the bare basics of it all...but realistically, feeling those feelings leads to sin quite directly anyway.

either way, i wish it weren't a sin because I don't think that same sex LOVE is a sin. to love and not be able to act on it is horrible. it's mighty tough, sin or not , to be homosexual in this world as it is.

What if I get angry all the time? What if I just can't help it? Sure, I don't go on a rampage and actually become physically violent because of it, but I still get angry. Wouldn't you call that a problem of mine? A flaw? A flaw that people should have some sympathy for, granted, but still a flaw.

And yes, it is tough. Homosexuality has been far too singled out (at times, by myself as well...which I regret) as somehow a sin that deserves special attention. This is likely because it is a perversion (again, I mean the word in a technical sense here...not the typical sense) of something that is built so rawly into us: sex. Sex is something we all take seriously. It's sacred, really. It's the ultimate expression of Love between us...and Love is what God is all about. I think that has something to do with it...I think it's also one of the reasons people are more sensitive about sex on TV and such, than they are about violence.

Intwesting, intwesting, intwesting. :) I'm glad we're having this conversation. As you may have noticed (or not), I've learned a few things here, and feel that I've corrected a few flaws here or there in my thinking. For that, I'm glad.

[Sullivan]

Sticking my oar in again.

but to know it as one thing for yourself - as a heterosexual - which fits with YOUR moral upbringing and self, and to then apply it to ANOTHER form of love you do not know or accept ... of COURSE that form of love is negated for you. it cannot exist. you do not believe in it.

This is really going to the essence of my argument: I'm not heterosexual. I don't know a certain moral perspective (e.g. "heterosexual = good, homosexual = bad") because I do not percieve or make decisions from the solid base of either of those sexualities.

which is why no amount of argument will convince you otherwise and I respect that.

I don't know if this was directed at me.....but in any case, if it was, it's a statement that is based on your previous point, the idea that I'm acting from a heterosexual standpoint. Also, I'm not so totally set in my ways that no amount of argument would convince me otherwise. I'm thinking, too. Always thinking :)

I appreciate your willingness to show respect for the narrow-mindedness I might have come across as portraying, though.

an irony is that the ultimate relationship - period - was seen to be philial. and between men. and it was COMPLETELY accepted and natural that men in such philial relationships would know one another physically - as friends. they had wives they loved, women they fell for but they ALSO engaged in erotic relations with younger men. this was to be both a mentor - to relay strength of character, their wisdom about the world, to be a friend and guide -to a younger man.

This is a key point. From a modern perspective, the homosexual relationships the ancient Greeks engaged in seem quite strange. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around this idea, full as I am of the concept that sex is a sacred gift that is the physical expression of the blessed union of souls. Times have changed quite a bit from the age of Socrates and Plato.

In an aside, I'll say that the three types of love I mentioned are not those strictly handed down from Greek thinkers. Quite the opposite, they are the three main types of love I have heard taught in college Developmental Psychology class, which in turn would seem to have borrowed the concept of 'agape' from Orthodox Christian thinking (Commish, can you speak to this?) while grabbing "eros" and "philia" from Greek culture and modifying them somewhat to remove the sexual subtext from phillia-- if it was indeed there in the first place. But I digress.

if he knows what he is and that he loves men, is that alone still sin? is who and what he is negated, is he some technical aberration? that's my problem, because he's not. he's as legitimate as a child who can't walk, as a man without limbs, as a wife and mother, as anyone else.

This I disagree with. Limbs are needed to walk and manipulate the environment. Wives and mothers are needed to continue the species (well, not any more, but that's an entirely different subject). A child who can't walk just needs to learn to walk.

But nobody needs to engage in a sexual relationship. It is not an essential part of a healthy lifestyle. True, it can be a very positive and worthwhile growth experience for some-- and the pontetial for long term intimacy, enjoyment, and even scientifically proven health benefits seem to have convinced most people that it will be a major components of their lives. This does not mean it will be a positive and worthwhile growth experience for everyone; nor does it mean that it is mandatory for everyone.

What I'm driving at is just this: if I can be convinced that the desire and drive for sexual activity in a majority of people is motivated by something other than pleasure, I will concede the point that homosexuals have just as much natural "right" to their relationships as do the rest of us. However, as long as I remain convinced that the modern-day understanding of sexual activity by the vast majority of the population is simply "getting some"-- e.g., recieving pleasure, I will advocate sexual abstinence in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships that do not feature as their central component an authentic and honest union of souls, an understanding and acceptance of fidelity in emotionality, and an everlasting and multifaceted (not just sexual) commitment to the improvement of both parties.

there are full blown homosexual relationships that have spanned longer and truer and been just as if not more full of love and care and respect and all those things you mentioned as being necessary to love - between two men or women and they were certainly purer and sweeter and truer than what may happen between any random heterosexual romance you may pick.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but, how do you know this for a fact? If the answer is word of mouth, then we really are at an impasse, because (begin hypothetical situation) then I've heard through word of mouth that all homosexual relationships are based entirely on pleasure and have absolutely no emotional component or measure of fidelity. Impasse, as both our "word of mouth" experiences are equally valid (or invalid). It's subjective: we can't be sure whether homosexual or heterosexual relationships, on the whole, are more loving / caring / pure / true. Is the potential there? Yes, hypothetically, on both sides.

my point is that 1) a feeling cannot be helped 2) you can stop the action, but not the feeling. you can try, but it won't really get you anywhere. 3) and yes, you can also know it's wrong. great if it's wrong and you know it!

I've surprised myself by being mainly agreed with you on all this. If feelings of homosexuality are a sin equal to but no less than the actual act of engaging in a homosexual relationship, then the very act of lust (in either homosexual or heterosexual individuals) is essentially the same as committing the act itself. I believe there's a passage in the Bible that says essentially this, maybe in Proverbs? T would know better than I....

So, assuming for a moment the above paragraph is true, then there really IS nothing we can do about a feeling. We are what we are, and if the sin is equal to the act, most people will decide to go ahead with the act because the entire karmic balance will not be further tipped by this further "infraction".

Or, if we take what I believe to be thmillins definition: that the desire or lust is not a sin(because we can't control it), but the act is, then people should definitely refrain from the act itself, as they will 'get in less trouble', so to speak.

if god's omnipotent he could most definitely have [created creatures as perfect as he was], esp according to your own beliefs

Ooh, we're into cosmology now. Quick question: can a human produce a being as complex as a human? Or, let's take it down a level. Can a simple machine-- say, a Furby --produce another Furby? Okay, now let's take it back up: if God could create another being that was his equal, this raises two questions: A) Who created him? B) Why didn't he (create other beings as perfect as him)?

when people hear the world "love," all of a sudden normal rules don't apply...it's this incredibly magical thing that cannot be "messed" with in any way. Love can do no wrong, basically, is the attitude I run into so often.

Oh yes. Spot on. Here here, and other comments: I'm 100% behind this statement. When you look at the scientific research done into the actual physiological changes that take place in two people who are madly in love, you start seeing some highly deterministic things that can be established as the causes of a lot of the 'mysterious' and 'powerful' behaviour that love engenders.

I'm not saying "Science proves that love is all about hormones". But by even bringing up the term 'science', I'm bringing into the debate one of the most timeless quandaries in modern thought: the problem of Rationality vs Emotionality. Let's not expect to solve that one in this thread. ;) In my personal experience (the only place I can speak from), I have to say I've seen things that would lead me to believe Love can be explained by science, and also seen things that would lead me to believe Love, as a higher concept, has a few secrets from us yet.

You know what I love about these forums, TWT? The fact that I can basically argue with you on one thread, and against you on another. :cool:

[Timing]

TWT, how do you know homosexuality is a lifestyle choice? Do you really believe that when you're born you "learn" to be attracted to men or women? If you don't believe that then how could you suggest that only homosexuals "learn" or "choose" to like the same sex? If homosexuals learn or choose their sexuality then certainly you learn or choose your heterosexuality. Nature doesn't pick and choose what people learn and are born with, so either all sex is learned or it isn't.

Seeing that you're a religious person and have been taught that homosexuality is wrong, you are not looking at the subject from a rational viewpoint but rather one based on faith. If science proves that homosexuality is gene oriented, how will you reconcile your faith based beliefs with hard cold science?

[Yoda]

I'll repond to Timing first. :)

TWT, how do you know homosexuality is a lifestyle choice? Do you really believe that when you're born you "learn" to be attracted to men or women? If you don't believe that then how could you suggest that only homosexuals "learn" or "choose" to like the same sex? If homosexuals learn or choose their sexuality then certainly you learn or choose your heterosexuality. Nature doesn't pick and choose what people learn and are born with, so either all sex is learned or it isn't.

Not true. We are intended to be heterosexual. Our very build makes that amazingly obvious. We are, by default, IMO, heterosexual. How do I know? I don't KNOW. I do not have incontravertible evidence...nor do I claim to. You don't KNOW either.

Seeing that you're a religious person and have been taught that homosexuality is wrong, you are not looking at the subject from a rational viewpoint but rather one based on faith.

Well, first off, regardless of whether or not you are religious, you have to take things on Faith...every single day. I'd argue that it requires that you take more things on Faith to NOT believe in God than it does to believe in Him. I feel the same way about homosexuality: you have to make more little jumps in logic to assume that homosexuality is perfectly normal.

If you don't believe in God, then there is no right and wrong answer. Heck, if you don't believe in God, there is no right and wrong, period. If you don't believe in God, talking about this is all a waste of our time, because every word we use is subjective...there are no absolutes.

If science proves that homosexuality is gene oriented, how will you reconcile your faith based beliefs with hard cold science?

Well, for one, it would not conflict. Some people have a genetic tendency towards obesity (gluttony), or towards alcohol (drunkenness). For people like that, they're going to have a harder time resisting those sins...homosexuality is no different in that respect.

Aside from that, despite the research that's taken place, no "gay gene" has ever been found...yet people still drone on and on about being "born that way," when they really have nothing solid to base it on at this point.

Now, on to Sullivan. :)

Commish, can you speak to this?

No, I'm afraid not..."agape" is foreign to me.

But nobody needs to engage in a sexual relationship. It is not an essential part of a healthy lifestyle.

Hmmm, well, while I agree with your basic point (a limb is needed to walk, but sex is not needed to live), I do think that a sexual relationship, for almost everyone on the planet, is part of a full, healthy lifestyle. I really do. There are exceptions, of course. But, it's really not terribly relevant or worth going over.

I believe there's a passage in the Bible that says essentially this, maybe in Proverbs? T would know better than I....

I think it's something along the lines of "If a man looks at a woman with lust in his mind (might have been eyes), he has already committed adultery with her in his heart." That's rough, but it gives you the basic idea. If I had to choose one, I'd pick lust as a lesser sin as acting on it, but both are wrong...the latter simply has the potential to hurt people more directly and bluntly, though.

We are what we are, and if the sin is equal to the act, most people will decide to go ahead with the act because the entire karmic balance will not be further tipped by this further "infraction".

Yeah, that's an interesting point, but if God is how I believe He is, he knows full well our thoughts. Someone who loves God, or at least tries their best too, won't try the extra sin just because they can get away with it. I don't think that the sin is necessarily equal to the act (though I do not know for sure)...I just think that sin is sin, and we don't KNOW for sure what order it goes in.

Or, if we take what I believe to be thmillins definition: that the desire or lust is not a sin(because we can't control it), but the act is, then people should definitely refrain from the act itself, as they will 'get in less trouble', so to speak.

Yeah, that's the basic definition that seems to be used...though I think, quite surely, that Miriam will disagree with that. :) It feel sort of like a compromise is being offered to God: I'm not going to act, so don't blame me for wanting to!

I have to say I've seen things that would lead me to believe Love can be explained by science, and also seen things that would lead me to believe Love, as a higher concept, has a few secrets from us yet.

Yeah, it's a tough one. I think it's a merger of both, just as I think our bodies are partly physical, and partly spiritual, in a way. Then again, maybe the truth is that love is either mostly or all physical/chemical, and we won't experience it in it's true, unfiltered form until after we die. We shall see. :)

You know what I love about these forums, TWT? The fact that I can basically argue with you on one thread, and against you on another. :cool:

I agree completely...it's almost funny in a way. That happens (well, happened) to me a lot on SitePointForums.com -- I'd get into heated debates on religion, politics, or some other social issue like that, in one forum, and then, in another forum, I'd have the pleasure of helping that same person solve some error in their code, or something like that. I just think it's funny that people still call me TWT. :D

[thmilin]

PT 1 - my god, this is huge!! i bet that they could publish these debates and when centuries have gone by we 3 will be philosophers taught in college. :) ok ok, umm, dang. chris first, then sully, then chris. here we go!!
_____

CHRIS

Who and what they are is a sinner. Yep, they cannot help their sin...but that doesn't excuse it...it only means that we should be understanding of the sin. It doesn't lessen the actual sin, however...

I guess you think I don't think sin is wrong or that it exists or that we are sinners, despite my openly saying so in my post. I AGREE. :) sin is sin, and we sin. i am questioning your claim on where the sin is drawn in the question of homosexuality - that doesn't mean I don't have the same or similar concept of it in general. which is why i broke down the 1,2,3 about it further on.

Sure there is: I judge it as sin. I don't go out into the screams making a fuss of it, but when it comes up, and someone says it's perfectly okay, I tell them that it's not. Defining sin, and defending it AS sin, is perfectly reasonable, even if the sin is something the person can't do much about.

When I say there's no point in morally judging something, I'm talking IN THIS CASE. and in general, FEELING. i'm not talking about all sin, now. I didn't say that. that's not where my argument touches, because like I said i agree with sin existing. so yes, to define something as sin - if you know for sure it is and that's predetermined by, in your case, the bible, fine. but for ME, i am singling out THIS form of "sin" and debating whether it really is that and whether it can be morally judged because it is a feeling, not an action.

Breaking a rule without meaning to is a mistake. When you make a mistake, you apologize, and acknowledge it as a mistake. Yes, we are crippled by sin...we cannot hide from it...That doesn't make the sin less sinful.

aaaaand once again, I agree with that. Hence ... my 1,2,3.

I'd say, yeah, taking happiness in some form of unfair killing is probably a sin...Love can do no wrong, basically, is the attitude I run into so often.

Sully agrees with you and guess what - so do I. love does have magical powers over our faculties (hormones, predisposition to get foolish with emotion, etc) but love is like any other emotion- entirely fallible. i do personally believe, however, that it is one of the emotions that gets us closer to god and perfection. however, being flawed, when we feel love that doesn't mean it's beyond exception. yes others act that way and I admit to being idealistic and romantic but I am not blind. love CAN do wrong. Hence a man who kills for love. But imagine this. An eye for an eye ... You (a hypoethetical man) kill a man who attacked you (and who had a right to be angry at you) in self defense. The man you killed was the husband of the woman you covet. You shouldn't have been coveting the wife but darn well had a right to kill the husband. The husband darn well had a right to be angry but it was sinful to attack you. And killing, and coveting, are both sins.

Hmmm, I'd say that perhaps it's we that are not perfect here. The way Christianty is taught seems pretty consistent with things to me...assuming we don't have "followers" ramming it down people's throats, it's usually taught quite well.

sigh. once again ... all teaching is subjective. you and I will always disagree on this point. this goes to why I don't think it's always so well taught or that interpretation may have affected what we can take for "fact." think of it this way. you will have kids and raise them one day. you will not teach them EXACTLY as you were taught. similarly perhaps. you may in fact feed your children oatmeal and train them to eat healthy food in the exact same way your parents may have taught you. but you won't necessarily teach them that TV after 9 pm is bad or that you must floss once a day and cover your mouth when you belch. each teacher takes the subject taught and ALTERS it. the spirit may be there but children are sensitive to nuance and one thing different will make a child turn out differently, and imagine SEVERAL - behavior, beliefs, and what THEY teach THEIR children. hence my father telling me that homosexuals were disgusting when I was nine years old. at the time i absorbed what he said but didn't like it. when I turned 12 i chose to scratch all he'd taught me in the moral ethics department and build my own knowledge base.

Well, if we're all reasonable about this, The Bible is quite clear on homosexual sex. Like, really clear. We're talkin' one step down from being a commandment.

back up. perhaps this is a pet peeve of mine but the ONE THING i never say to people and hate to be told to me is that I am not "being reasonable." i have my reason and you have yours. i disagree with your reason but will never for a moment believe that you don't have any foundation to come to the conclusion that you have. as for how clear the bible is ... once again ... even if you showed me the book you have in your hand that makes it really clear, my argument regarding the bible's reliability centuries later after translation will not make me accept it as so very crystal clear. and in the past I have said, if it does for you - good for YOU and YOUR logic. not good for mine. and it is not unreasonable of me to not accept this point (because you assume that if I did i'd agree with you and come to your conclusion anyway, which isn't even a guarantee, though possible).

...If you want to get really technical, isn't it possible for a human to romantically love an animal, genuinely? Can't a 98 year old man fall in love with a 6 year old girl romantically? It's probably happened before.

Exactly. Anything and everything is possible. Hence serial killers, pedophiles, saints, and geniuses.

It's all about the definition of love. If love is defined only by the person who claims they are feeling it, than those relationships that cross age/species/gender barriers can be seen as about real love, but I'd be skeptical to say so. Like I said, we just don't know, and as such, I don't think we're gonna get anywhere with it.

as subjective as love is and whatever it means to anyone, I do believe there is a universal constant and most people can agree on at least SOME of the facets. ie, happiness. what's happiness? yes we could all define it a certain way but that's how we choose to interpret our feeling. but the feeling is pretty much universal, regardless of how subjective the definition, you, I, a gay man, a child, or a interracial couple might define it.

These are all things you cannot measure. Homosexual love, for all we know, could be a perverted form

and, for all we know, could be UNperverted. I do not remove this possibility, though you have, and are free to.

Ummm, I said "God," not "Jesus" or "the Christian God." Just "God," meaning any Higher Power that created this universe with purpose, basically.

well you didn't define that and you are speaking from a Christian standpoint, so I don't think I jumped to a wrong conclusion there. Miscommunication. But, regardless, hindus believe in multiple gods and atheists feel love and know no God, despite your law of "God is Love."

1) Sinning cannot be helped either...still sin. A feeling can be a sin regardless of whether or not it can be reasonably helped (technically, I imagine it can all be helped).

I disagree that a feeling's a sin. But I don't disagree that a sin is still sin. I do say it can be helped because you can cease to do certain things, which was one point you didn't touch on. Cursing, overeating, etc.

I don't think it's reasonably possible to love another woman away from your wife without sinning. That's LOVE going to another woman other than your wife...that hurts her, without a doubt. There's just no way around that...she's hurt by it, even if she doesn't know about it (and if she doesn't, that's pretty dishonest). If she does know about it...well, good luck finding a woman that doesn't mind being married to a man who loves someone else.

umm. I disagree: Loving one sibling does not take the love you feel from another sibling. The love for one parent does not take away the love you feel from the other parent. The love you have for your ex-partners need not at all detract from any following partners and it is highly likely you will not be able to properly love or develop a relationship later in life if you have not loved and known others prior to that relationship. And I argue that once you love someone - truly love them - you don't just "stop" loving them. Which is why i say the feeling can't be helped. If such a feeling evaporates and quickly, it wasn't love - it was lust, etc. It is of course best that others are aware of your past loves and recognize that you still love these other people but that love need not detract from who you are with. If it DOES - then yes, you are committing a wrong against the following person and you should not have gotten involved with them if you weren't ready to. That's YOUR mistake - but it can be avoided/prevented.

And no, pining is not a sin, but seeing as how it can easily lead to idleness and a lack of dilligence, it can be.

You keep equating things to one another. By saying x leads to y, that does not make x a sin. Pining can LEAD to sin. So pining is NOT a sin. Yes we should avoid pining but the reason is not that IT'S a sin. It can lead to it and it alone does no good for anyone, least of all one's self.

Uh, no. God cannot do absolutely anything. He cannot do evil things, for one. It's like that whole "can he make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" question. He cannot do absolutely anything. One thing He cannot do is create other beings as perfect as He is. If he could create perfect beings, they'd be God as well, basically.

Once again, I disagree. :) Who said god can't do evil things? Did he? Or you? Some might argue some of the things he did were entirely evil and unnecessary. Others might say they were just (turning Lot's wife into salt.) The point is there is no good/evil judgement UPON God, cuz he made the rules and that's his business. I believe he could make perfect beings if he wanted but chose not to. Perfect does not mean God. God IS perfect but that doesn't conclude that all perfect beings ARE God(s). He could have made us perfect humans without his powers, or 10 feet taller or without the need for food or procreation or the ability to live forever. Whatever he felt like - or not. If you want to get down to it, "perfect" (like love) is subjective. And even knowing god is "perfect" - who's to say what that is, considering the mysterious entity that he is?

Anyway, even aside from that, creating us as imperfect was the only logical way to go anyway. We have to be sinful to achieve our true beauty, and see God's love and mercy. If you're born into a perfect place, like Eden, you're essentially a spoiled brat...the child of some rich parents, who, despite having so much, knows no gratitude.

Well he DID make us imperfect. As for logic, we have no clue what that logic is because we don't know his thoughts or intentions completely, if at all. He made two beings like him and they got it on in a garden. He might have hoped that was the way it was gonna be for all time to come. Let them be spoiled, they're his kids and he loves them, so long as they behave all's cool. So obviously he was disappointed in Eve when she broke the rules so the question remains - if he knew she was going to break them, why bother? He made her with that capability and at the same time his actions suggest he HOPED that she would not and advised her not to. So you're right, the point is to learn what we were given and appreciate what we have and make up for the crime committed with our existence and earn our way back to perfection. But that was AFTER the crime. And we'll never know if he put them in Eden setting them up to break the rules so they could go learn the lesson or if he put them in there hoping they wouldn't and was disappointed and had to do some damage control.

I don't think action is at all limited to physical movement. Love isn't all about buying flowers, either. You can act with your mind.

well what about my points regarding love/lust? LUST for someone is a sin, i agree with that. but is LOVE for someone a sin? because some love need not require physical desire. so what if it often DOES that doesn't mean it always does and doesn' t make IT sinful just because it can lead to sinful behavior.

i guess another argument would be that once love exists there IS no lust and therefore, no sin, which may be why most people find love infallible even if it can lead to sinful acts (for some, divorce is sin, but if you fall in love and stay in love with someone other than your husband and leave him - adultery, divorce, yet you LOVE the other person...) So yes, you can feel big grand things - if it's lust, it's a sin. But if it's LOVE, and you aren't lusting, only loving, I say you can act with your mind all you want, that doesn't mean you're sinning. If you lust or, jump on a married woman cuz you love her - there's the sin.

[sadesdrk]

thmmie, where's your imput in other threads? miss ya.:(

[thmilin]

hey kid - i'm here, don't worry, i'll post elsewhere soon, time is just limited and if I don't get THESE responses out i never will!

i want to apologize right now for all i've written ... :D but i couldn't help it, it was 3 big posts by you two!! i had to respond to all the new info ...

PT 2 -

Hmmm, perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but are you saying that it's not sin because we can't help it, and we can't correct it? We have to be able to fix it for it to be sin?

No. I'm saying homosexual LOVE (not all things) is not a sin because it cannot be helped, on it's own does not hold lust, and on it's own is not an act of harm to anyone else. That because it is a feeling, not an action, in that sense, homosexual love cannot be fixed, cannot be a trespass. A sin is something you commit knowingly, and even with the "mistake" bit - it has to be a rule you actually BREAK. Something must be committed. The rule does not say "You cannot feel love." It says you can't lie with another man. You can refrain from lying with another man but you cannot refrain from loving him. You can't refrain from lusting for him either but that's still a sin, I agree, and only because lust is delineated as a sin.

That's not quite far...you've had your shares of "I guess"s and "dunno"s.

Maybe not. I threw out "unknowns" for possible discussion, but don't use them for my conclusions. I just type aloud and it may be fodder to help you for all I know or fodder to help me, or an interesting digression. But it seems that you keep saying there's no evidence to support things but regardless you know for sure what the answer is. Which is confusing. So I just go with you being certain and ignore the "I'm not so sure" cuz the "I'm not so sure" really just seems to mean, "No, this is not the case and so I go with THIS answer."

Granted, our conversation is a valid one: is just feeling the urge to act actually sin? However, we are ignoring the fact that it's almost never that simple...there's almost always lust, and fairly often, action, involved with this feeling. So, technically, we're arguing the bare basics of it all...but realistically, feeling those feelings leads to sin quite directly anyway.

Well yes I argue the bare basics but mainly because yes, I think Love is something complicated and beyond and that it alone is not sin. To see it lumped with lust and automatically make someone a sinner does not compute because the nature of love ISN'T sin, most especially if GOD is love. Or so I believe. If he created feeling and sinning creatures in the hope that they would reach perfection and one of the major facets of humanity required to cross that bridge is emotion, among them love - we cannot CROSS that bridge if LOVE in and of itself is labelled in any way sinful within it's own nature - regardless of if it's felt between homosexuals or heterosexuals. Because to attain perfection we must LOSE SIN.

What if I get angry all the time? What if I just can't help it? Sure, I don't go on a rampage and actually become physically violent because of it, but I still get angry. Wouldn't you call that a problem of mine? A flaw? A flaw that people should have some sympathy for, granted, but still a flaw.

remember, divide the sin from the person. Wrath is a vengeful, righteous anger, reserved for God. It's rather rare in general for such a powerful emotion to manifest but when it does - can it be helped? there's an argument there but let's say - because you're using this to my argument - no, you feel something, you cannot help it. So, you feel terrible, righteous anger. However, wrath was deliberately stated to be a sin. One might argue that it's not really "wrath" until you do something about it. But if it's feeling, if it's just the sensation of wrath then yes, it's a flaw. If you get angry, yeah, that's a problem of yours. In the end, however - it matters only on that level - if you don't act on it or mistreat people because of it - it's just between God and the Sinner. Private conversation. IF love between two men was alone stated to be a "sin" in and of itself and the simple feeling of love were the sin - i suppose I couldn't argue with you but in the end, like i said before, i'd tell homosexuals to love all they wanted and just be aware of the consequences and just hope god forgives them because it was love - if it really were. and if it was all about lust for some - then, they're fault, and they'll get just due, like all the rest of us.

Intwesting, intwesting, intwesting. I'm glad we're having this conversation. As you may have noticed (or not), I've learned a few things here, and feel that I've corrected a few flaws here or there in my thinking. For that, I'm glad.

ditto, i'm certainly getting my brain tangled up and challenged by this, too. ;)
___

SULLIVAN

i wanted to say that my responses were to the ideas raised by both you and Chris in general and i'm not offended or picking on you, just absorbing everything posted in general into my arguments, thoughts, etc. cuz they're good ideas and any new variables added invariably alter the final answer. :)

Also, I'm not so totally set in my ways that no amount of argument would convince me otherwise. I'm thinking, too. Always thinking

cool, me too, and chris, and all of us! ;) sometimes i feel kinda sheepish though, all this blown up after a cute quiz.

I appreciate your willingness to show respect for the narrow-mindedness I might have come across as portraying, though.

well that wasn't necessarily directed at you, the "you"s I use are often general 2nd person references in hypothetical babbling. but narrow-minded or not people have valid opinions and a narrow minded person can be as right about the need for better schooling in america as the most open-minded person

s is a key point. From a modern perspective, the homosexual relationships the ancient Greeks engaged in seem quite strange. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around this idea, full as I am of the concept that sex is a sacred gift that is the physical expression of the blessed union of souls. Times have changed quite a bit from the age of Socrates and Plato.

times have indeed changed and the thing is ideas are all jumbled up and as we can see here, various people will have various ideas on things and we won't all agree on what love even is! which is why chris said not to argue it. but i say you can still argue about the consequences of love without agreeing on what it is. you can solve formulas with x in an equation and never know what it is, but determine it's relationship to y.

In an aside, I'll say that the three types of love I mentioned are not those strictly handed down from Greek thinkers.... agape ... Developmental Psychology ...

right, i've taken both philosophy and some courses in psychology and it's all jumbled up in my head too. like those three components of a love relationship that determine if it's really love, that one's psychlogy (I think) but I can't remember from who. we learned about agape, too. as for philia, the erotic component was deliberately removed because that component was a sin in the Christian/catholic doctrine. agape was deliberately defined and I can't remember but ... St. Augustine? he discusses it, i do believe, and behaved nothing like a saint and traversed all sorts of philosophical courses in order to come to ideas that have been absorbed into both catholicism and christianity. agape is more closely tied, however, to catholic doctrine. the spirit behind agape is however universal and you can see it in most religions - ie, nirvana, enlightenment, and the pearly gates which all Christians strive for which you could argue Jesus practices and IS.

But nobody needs to engage in a sexual relationship. It is not an essential part of a healthy lifestyle.

I think i agree more with Chris on this. See, some philosophers argue for a state of pure knowledge that will bring peace and good to all. Like the Vulcans. ;) However, human nature is a feeling AND rational nature and to remove the feeling (sexual, emotional, love, sex, birth, childrearing, couplehood) is to deny humanity. Hence monks who deny themselves the outside world for a pure relationship with God. They are welcome to it but I do not agree that THIS is the ideal state for all humanity.

This does not mean it will be a positive and worthwhile growth experience for everyone; nor does it mean that it is mandatory for everyone.

That's very true. But by *nature* it is. ie, no, a serial killer should not be raising children. a wife beater should have wives. an alcholic shouldn't ... etc. Yet the GOAL is that a well rounded human experience will combine the BEST of both the feeling and rationale and this will result in positive relationships. and those who are not capable of whatever TYPES of relationships ( i say it's practically impossible for any one person to be completely incapable of at least one positive relationship with anyone) would not seek them out and are perfectly entitled to NOT have them (ie, monks). but i don't think that's at all unnatural, just what's best for them and who they are, since there is a limit to the universality of people, with everyone and environments, etc., being so individual and different.

What I'm driving at is just this: if I can be convinced that the desire and drive for sexual activity in a majority of people is motivated by something other than pleasure, I will concede the point that homosexuals have just as much natural "right" to their relationships as do the rest of us. However, as long as I remain convinced that the modern-day understanding of sexual activity by the vast majority of the population is simply "getting some"-- e.g., recieving pleasure, I will advocate sexual abstinence in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships that do not feature as their central component an authentic and honest union of souls, an understanding and acceptance of fidelity in emotionality, and an everlasting and multifaceted (not just sexual) commitment to the improvement of both parties.

ok, a step at a time. :) yes, the modern day understanding of sex is to "get some." that does not mean that modern day understanding is correct, or that all people or most people agree with this. yes the 90s show 30 something women on HBO indulging in all their wildest fantasies and that makes it fun, chic, and the thing to do. Teenagers see this element to modern day life and assume that's the way to go an want to do it cuz it feels good - the pleasure principle. But that's not right. That's not the reason to have sex at all, i think we all 3 agree.

But chris and i both believe in an ideal where a healthy person who is flawed but living their lives the best they can gets involved and loves someone else and (preferably) gets married, has kids, etc. now, I don't prefer sex out of marriage but recognize that people are childish, hardheaded, and don't want to wait and want to "test waters" where they should not be "testing" at all. LOVE is the element we're looking for, the fairy tale. modern day people say, pshaw to love, you'll never find it; or, pshaw to love, it doesn't exist. or, pshaw to IDEAL love, you'll never find that perfect someone so settle down with someone who's good enough and respect will grow and that's love enough. regardless, so long as there's a pact of some sort, recognized by a court of law, wedding ring, family members or not, i personally think it's ok to engage in sex so long as the reason is not pleasure alone, but love. which of course has a subjective definition but whatever that definition is, we recognize that it's beyond and above and morally more meaningful and positive than lust.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but, how do you know this for a fact? If the answer is word of mouth,

not necessarily that, sades spoke up and i've seen documentaries but no, i haven't had the pleasure of meeting such a couple personally. as for impasse - i have seen documentation on such couples existing while word of mouth "opinion" doesn't make somethign true, in your example. if mine were only word of mouth, no, that doesn't make my concept true.

So, assuming for a moment the above paragraph is true, then there really IS nothing we can do about a feeling. ...the entire karmic balance will not be further tipped by this further "infraction". ...Or, if we take what I believe to be thmillins definition: that the desire or lust is not a sin(because we can't control it), but the act is, then people should definitely refrain from the act itself, as they will 'get in less trouble', so to speak.

No, the point is not to "get into less trouble" but to try to avoid sin because it is sin. Ideally, my defnition is that we aren't looking for less punishment; we are looking to acknowledge that we deserve it either way and try to avoid it when and where we can and if we CAN'T - we should hope not to be punished for it (though we probably will anyway) and if we CAN that if we DO anyway it's our fault and a knowing trespass and we get to deal with the consequences.

Ooh, we're into cosmology now. Quick question: can a human produce a being as complex as a human? Or, let's take it down a level. Can a simple machine-- say, a Furby --produce another Furby?

well no, because we're not all powerful. :) if we had what our creator had then yes, we could. we were deliberately made without that power. if god had allowed us that power, then we could making beings of the same complexity, as we speak, depending on the power he gave us.

Okay, now let's take it back up: if God could create another being that was his equal, this raises two questions: A) Who created him? B) Why didn't he (create other beings as perfect as him)?

I discussed this above. But, add to that: We will never know who created him or even IF someone created him. Not for us to know, just like ants on the ground have no clue and microbes don't give a d@mn. it is simply not in our power to know, even if we wondered.

love and hormones ... i know we argued a long time ago on this site about science and god. i don't believe they're mutually exclusive. you can indeed measure many human things by science ... and also by other means. so the fact you can measure being inlove by a rise in levels of x doesn't mean that's ALL love is, is hormones.

I'm bringing into the debate one of the most timeless quandaries in modern thought: the problem of Rationality vs Emotionality. Let's not expect to solve that one in this thread.

heh, looks like i touched on it ... ;)

[thmilin]

PT 3 - THE END! hehe.

CHRIS

Yeah, that's the basic definition that seems to be used...though I think, quite surely, that Miriam will disagree with that. It feel sort of like a compromise is being offered to God: I'm not going to act, so don't blame me for wanting to!

yeah, i disagreed. :) buuut ... that's the only choice we have is a compromise, if we've got the feeling (which you say is a sin) but don't act. in my terms, that feeling (in this case of homosexuality) is not a sin, but if you LUST you've committed a sin. if that lust makes you want to commit MORE sins ... you can indeed be blamed for wanting to and will also be blamed if you DO act.

I just think it's funny that people still call me TWT.

you have so many names i like to call you by all of them and it's also about what mood my fingers are in and what they feel like typing. whew! ;)

[Timing]

Not true. We are intended to be heterosexual. Our very build makes that amazingly obvious. We are, by default, IMO, heterosexual. How do I know? I don't KNOW. I do not have incontravertible evidence...nor do I claim to. You don't KNOW either.

I don't have to KNOW. You're the one claiming that homosexuality is learned and then saying that heterosexuals are that because it's amazingly obvious to be that. Children at very young ages have attractions to men or women and they have little concept of physical build or reproduction.

Well, first off, regardless of whether or not you are religious, you have to take things on Faith...every single day. I'd argue that it requires that you take more things on Faith to NOT believe in God than it does to believe in Him. I feel the same way about homosexuality: you have to make more little jumps in logic to assume that homosexuality is perfectly normal.

You can't be serious. Science is based on observation and evidence, not little jumps in faith based logic. You are branding a sexuality based on nothing but religious faith and that's hardly a way to deal with the world. Also, I'm not saying that homosexuality is perfectly normal anymore than dwarfism or blindness is perfectly normal. Homosexuality is not the norm but that still doesn't mean it's learned.

If you don't believe in God, then there is no right and wrong answer. Heck, if you don't believe in God, there is no right and wrong, period. If you don't believe in God, talking about this is all a waste of our time, because every word we use is subjective...there are no absolutes.

There are both right and wrong answers and neither of them have a thing to do with God. 5x5=25 no matter what God you pray to. Science and math are as absolute as it gets. Your religious elitism is disturbing. I don't believe in God and I'm pretty sure about what's right and wrong. Do I get a prize or somethin?

BTW, if we were to judge the religious for all the crimes they have committed against the innocents of this world it would be a hell of a long list of crimes.

Well, for one, it would not conflict. Some people have a genetic tendency towards obesity (gluttony), or towards alcohol (drunkenness). For people like that, they're going to have a harder time resisting those sins...homosexuality is no different in that respect.

There is a difference between genetic dispositions and actually having THE gene that causes homosexuality, or eye color, or hair color. The difference between your examples is that a homosexual doesn't have to engage in sex to know he's attracted to the same sex while obesity/alcoholism require a great deal of "learned" behavior. If someone never takes a drink they're not an alcoholic.

Aside from that, despite the research that's taken place, no "gay gene" has ever been found...yet people still drone on and on about being "born that way," when they really have nothing solid to base it on at this point.


In 1993, a scientist named Dean Hamer claimed to have isolated DNA markers in males that they suspected could cause homosexuality. Unfortunately, funding seems to be disappearing quickly because of pressure from political and religious groups. I wonder what they're scared of?

Have you ever asked yourself why they "drone on and on about being born that way"? Maybe cause they were? It's funny that you would say they have nothing solid to base their opinions on, other than they being gay and talking from the experience of being gay. You don't even have that to base your opinions on.

[Yoda]

Ok, I'm going to reply to Timing's first and foremost, but it's the most blatantly incorrect. :)

I don't have to KNOW. You're the one claiming that homosexuality is learned and then saying that heterosexuals are that because it's amazingly obvious to be that. Children at very young ages have attractions to men or women and they have little concept of physical build or reproduction.

Yeah, and you'll notice that I do think some people are born with a predisposition. It's still a choice, however. I'm born with a predisposition to stuff my face with food...I'm not going to blame anyone but myself when I do, though. Stuffing my face is still something I CHOOSE to do.

You can't be serious. Science is based on observation and evidence, not little jumps in faith based logic. You are branding a sexuality based on nothing but religious faith and that's hardly a way to deal with the world. Also, I'm not saying that homosexuality is perfectly normal anymore than dwarfism or blindness is perfectly normal. Homosexuality is not the norm but that still doesn't mean it's learned.

Science is based on that, but science is not, forgive the pun, an exact science. Every 100 years we can look back, and think "Boy, I can't believe we used to believe that! How absurd." Every single one of us will die believing something false that is widely accepted because of scientific experiments.

Can't be serious? Are YOU? Are you somehow implying that there's a lifestyle of guide to life that does not require faith? Balderdash, my friend. If you place all of your trust in modern science, you're putting a lot of FAITH into it, because odds alone say some of it is going to flat out wrong, and still more is going to be flawed, and thus, improved some time after your death, and therefore will lead to different conclusions.

There are both right and wrong answers and neither of them have a thing to do with God. 5x5=25 no matter what God you pray to. Science and math are as absolute as it gets. Your religious elitism is disturbing. I don't believe in God and I'm pretty sure about what's right and wrong. Do I get a prize or somethin?

You obviously didn't stop to think about what you were saying for very long. If there is NO God, what is right and wrong? They're opinions. There is no absolute right and wrong. Rape isn't wrong...you just probably think it is. There's no TRUE right and wrong. That's a fact...and that's what I said.

5 x 5 = 25? Prove it. You can't. Without some God, or some Being that gives things absolute truths, and absolute meanings and purposes, everything is chaos...everything is subjective, and nothing has any true meaning...we only have popular definitions, and popular opinion...nothing more. This is the most basic of logical conclusions.

BTW, if we were to judge the religious for all the crimes they have committed against the innocents of this world it would be a hell of a long list of crimes.

Ha. The religious? What, you mean people who say they're doing God's work? If you're going to hold me accountable for a bunch of misguided Christians, then I'm going to hold you accountable for a bunch of misguided atheists. That list would be a hell of a long list of crimes, as well. The validity of a belief should not be measured mostly by whether or not some of it's followers have done horrible things...if you handled things that way, no belief would be appropriate...no belief of any kind. When you have millions (or billions, in the case of Christianity) who believe something, some of them are going to be nutbags.

It amazes me how people will just blurt something without substance out because it sounds good.

There is a difference between genetic dispositions and actually having THE gene that causes homosexuality, or eye color, or hair color. The difference between your examples is that a homosexual doesn't have to engage in sex to know he's attracted to the same sex while obesity/alcoholism require a great deal of "learned" behavior. If someone never takes a drink they're not an alcoholic.

And if someone never has sex with a man, they can still be called a homosexual? Where's your line drawn? What if they hug one? Kiss one? How far does it have to go? The fact of the matter is that you, like everyone else, is clueless when it comes to genetic dispositions and what constitutes what. Yet another reason not to put all your faith in science: because we're not as smart as some people think we are. We've got a hell of a lot to learn.

In 1993, a scientist named Dean Hamer claimed to have isolated DNA markers in males that they suspected could cause homosexuality. Unfortunately, funding seems to be disappearing quickly because of pressure from political and religious groups. I wonder what they're scared of?

Maybe they're scared that he'd find the gene. There's no need to dance around it. I'm not going to let you try and hold me accountable for other screwjobs...not unless you're willing to let me do the same to you (I don't think you'd like that).

Have you ever asked yourself why they "drone on and on about being born that way"? Maybe cause they were? It's funny that you would say they have nothing solid to base their opinions on, other than they being gay and talking from the experience of being gay. You don't even have that to base your opinions on.

Are you kidding me? So, when I say that there's no evidence either way, and I don't think they're born that way, I'm putting all my faith in my religion...but when they come to the opposite conclusion under the same circumstances, you have no ill words? :laugh: Very consistent. Other than being gay and talking from the being gay doesn't tell you jack about what role your genes play in it. Humans can't perceive things like that about themselves so easily. Most people do not know whether they have a hot temper because of genes or upbringing for sure. That's not a notable advantage at all.

Never forget this much: you put faith in external things as much, if not more, than I do. Your faith is in man...or in science, or in yourself alone. Mine, while in many places, lies mostly in The Bible, and Jesus Christ. This world came about one way or another...and science has not been able to explain it. We simply cannot explain how something came from nothing.

Let me ask you two questions (please, just Timing here):

1) Do you believe in evolution? Macro evolution, specifically.
2) What would you think if we sent a team to Jupiter tomorrow, and found a red block made of stone, smooth and square, just sitting there? Honestly.

[sadesdrk]

When I ask people who don't believe in God, what DO they believe in, they usually give me something they've created for themselves. Such as, " Oh, I believe there's a higher power, not really sure what. I think if we all live our lives as decently as possible, and try to love one another...after we die, we will be rewarded. I'm relatively a good person. Never stole, hurt anyone...Blah, blah, blah." Seems to me, it takes a whole hell of a lot more faith to believe in something that YOU are the author of, then something God himself wrote. Even if you don't believe He wrote it, it is written, no one just pulled it out of their @ss or off the top of their head. Ya know?!:)

[Yoda]

Yes, exactly. I have friends who are atheists, but offline and on (Peter doesn't believe in God, but I've got no problem with him)...I get truly ticked, though, when someone like that acts as if religion is all about faith and emotion, and atheism, or some other such thing, is all about logic and science. Anyone not blinded by their own biases will see that virtually every even somewhat widespread viewpoint out there today, whether it adheres to a belief in some kind of God or not, requires faith.

[Steve]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
I get truly ticked, though, when someone like that acts as if religion is all about faith and emotion, and atheism, or some other such thing, is all about logic and science. Anyone not blinded by their own biases will see that virtually every even somewhat widespread viewpoint out there today, whether it adheres to a belief in some kind of God or not, requires faith.

Yep. I agree.

(There's a first time for everything. :eek: :) )

[Yoda]

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!

:eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek: :confused:

:D

[Timing]

Yeah, and you'll notice that I do think some people are born with a predisposition. It's still a choice, however. I'm born with a predisposition to stuff my face with food...I'm not going to blame anyone but myself when I do, though. Stuffing my face is still something I CHOOSE to do.

Do you have a choice in how tall you will be, or the color of your eyes, or the coarseness of your hair? Of course not. A person has a choice whether or not to have sex but homosexuals have no more a choice in who they're attracted to as heterosexuals do. There are heterosexuals who abstain from sex but they're still heterosexuals. You're trying to compare actions with who you are. A very bad comparison.

Science is based on that, but science is not, forgive the pun, an exact science. Every 100 years we can look back, and think "Boy, I can't believe we used to believe that! How absurd." Every single one of us will die believing something false that is widely accepted because of scientific experiments.

Religion isn't exact anything but myth and fairy tale. Science uses methodology based on observeable and measureable fact. Science is always moving forward with improved instruments and technologies, proving and disproving more each day while religion stands on the status quo, thumping the bible until "religious facts" are disproven by science and discarded by society. I actually find it quite funny that you would point out science history because it's religion more than anything else on the face of the earth that has attempted to control science for the sake of maintaining ignorance in order to keep control of the masses. Religion has historically been afraid of science and it's still afraid of it.

Can't be serious? Are YOU? Are you somehow implying that there's a lifestyle of guide to life that does not require faith? Balderdash, my friend. If you place all of your trust in modern science, you're putting a lot of FAITH into it, because odds alone say some of it is going to flat out wrong, and still more is going to be flawed, and thus, improved some time after your death, and therefore will lead to different conclusions.

I really don't know what the heck you're talking about here. I place trust in what can be proven and observed. Do I have faith when some science journal says some planet 50 billion light years away has life on it, well that's pretty low on my faith meter but when that same science journal says I could die of a heart attack if my cholesterol is high, yeah, I have faith in that pretty much. I have faith that the world will keep spinning, the sun isn't the center of the universe, and that the world isn't flat like religion would have had us all believe at one time. I don't need to have faith in omnipotent beings in order to live my life happily and know certain things about my world. Whether or not my "knowing" these certain things about my world is sufficient for you is not really my concern because I'm not pushing my beliefs on the world in the way that your religion does.

You obviously didn't stop to think about what you were saying for very long. If there is NO God, what is right and wrong? They're opinions. There is no absolute right and wrong. Rape isn't wrong...you just probably think it is. There's no TRUE right and wrong. That's a fact...and that's what I said. 5 x 5 = 25? Prove it. You can't. Without some God, or some Being that gives things absolute truths, and absolute meanings and purposes, everything is chaos...everything is subjective, and nothing has any true meaning...we only have popular definitions, and popular opinion...nothing more. This is the most basic of logical conclusions.

This is really where the arrogance of Christianity comes to play. After all, the American Indian never knew right from wrong until Christians showed up with their God and taught the savages about Jesus. The poor uncivilized bastards. Why don't you step out of your present day life and think about the history of the world. Do you seriously mean to tell me that your God and few thousand year old religion is needed for societies to tell right from wrong. You don't think a society of citizens could make up a list of norms/laws to keep an orderly society without your God? I guess that would be news to thousands of civilizations that came before Christianity, not to mention the religions like Buddhism that don't believe in a God. You would do well to refrain from claiming absolutes if you're only basis to substantiate them is that God said so or it's in the Bible. I'm not 6 years old and I don't fall for the "because I said so" gag anymore.

Ha. The religious? What, you mean people who say they're doing God's work? If you're going to hold me accountable for a bunch of misguided Christians, then I'm going to hold you accountable for a bunch of misguided atheists. That list would be a hell of a long list of crimes, as well. The validity of a belief should not be measured mostly by whether or not some of it's followers have done horrible things...if you handled things that way, no belief would be appropriate...no belief of any kind. When you have millions (or billions, in the case of Christianity) who believe something, some of them are going to be nutbags. It amazes me how people will just blurt something without substance out because it sounds good.

Uh, you are the one proclaiming that your God gives you the meaning of what is absolute right and wrong. Religion has done some horrible things? That's the understatement of all time. You want some substance? Ever heard of the Inquisition? The Crusades? How about the Holocaust? That's a pretty dirty, substantive list.

And if someone never has sex with a man, they can still be called a homosexual? Where's your line drawn? What if they hug one? Kiss one? How far does it have to go? The fact of the matter is that you, like everyone else, is clueless when it comes to genetic dispositions and what constitutes what. Yet another reason not to put all your faith in science: because we're not as smart as some people think we are. We've got a hell of a lot to learn.

Do you think celibate monks are "unaware" of their sexuality? Please man... just because you don't engage in sex doesn't mean you don't know what sex you're attracted to. You seem to want to quibble with the definition of sexualities. Were you without a sexuality until you had sex? Of course not.

Maybe they're scared that he'd find the gene. There's no need to dance around it. I'm not going to let you try and hold me accountable for other screwjobs...not unless you're willing to let me do the same to you (I don't think you'd like that).

I hold every religion accountable for what it does. My particular beliefs aren't supported or actively up held by organized groups, secular governments, tax free churches, or the religious right. If you want to hold me accountable for my beliefs, I got no problem with that. Everyone is accountable for what they believe.

Are you kidding me? So, when I say that there's no evidence either way, and I don't think they're born that way, I'm putting all my faith in my religion...but when they come to the opposite conclusion under the same circumstances, you have no ill words? :laugh: Very consistent. Other than being gay and talking from the being gay doesn't tell you jack about what role your genes play in it. Humans can't perceive things like that about themselves so easily. Most people do not know whether they have a hot temper because of genes or upbringing for sure. That's not a notable advantage at all.

They have first hand knowledge of their sexuality, what do you have other than your bible? Nothing. It's not whether gays know whether or not genes play a role in their sexuality, it's whether or not they are "qualified" to speak from experience when they say they have had homosexual tendencies as far back as they could remember which would suggest that they were born that way.

Never forget this much: you put faith in external things as much, if not more, than I do. Your faith is in man...or in science, or in yourself alone. Mine, while in many places, lies mostly in The Bible, and Jesus Christ. This world came about one way or another...and science has not been able to explain it. We simply cannot explain how something came from nothing.

Nah, I have faith in the order of the universe, cause and effect, and what I can observe and measure. You think I have faith because I believe the sun will rise tomorrow and I'll tell you it's been rising every day for a few billion years so it's not exactly faith but rather as close to fact as you can get that causes me to believe it will rise tomorrow.

Let me ask you two questions (please, just Timing here):

1) Do you believe in evolution? Macro evolution, specifically.

Sure I believe in evolution but I don't think we have all the pieces of the puzzle yet. One day maybe...

2) What would you think if we sent a team to Jupiter tomorrow, and found a red block made of stone, smooth and square, just sitting there? Honestly.

I know nothing about Jupiter so I would probably walk right by it. lol If it were a red block made of stone, smooth, square, with latin inscriptions then that might peak my interest. ;)

Well this takes too damn long to write all this stuff but good discussion. When they find the gay gene I'll come back and tell ya I told ya so! ;D

Later

[Yoda]

Do you have a choice in how tall you will be, or the color of your eyes, or the coarseness of your hair? Of course not. A person has a choice whether or not to have sex but homosexuals have no more a choice in who they're attracted to as heterosexuals do. There are heterosexuals who abstain from sex but they're still heterosexuals. You're trying to compare actions with who you are. A very bad comparison.

That paragraph is nothing but rhetoric, so there's no point in my addressing it...you're simply saying "I think they don't have a choice."

Religion isn't exact anything but myth and fairy tale. Science uses methodology based on observeable and measureable fact. Science is always moving forward with improved instruments and technologies, proving and disproving more each day while religion stands on the status quo, thumping the bible until "religious facts" are disproven by science and discarded by society. I actually find it quite funny that you would point out science history because it's religion more than anything else on the face of the earth that has attempted to control science for the sake of maintaining ignorance in order to keep control of the masses. Religion has historically been afraid of science and it's still afraid of it.

You're not thinking clearly...religion? Meaning what? Meaning HUMANS who try to follow God, and constantly fail? You have no logical reason to hold me to what other supposed followers do, anymore than I have the right to hold you accountable for the sins of others with your set of beliefs.

Science is always moving forward, and always correcting itself...which means that it's always making mistakes that it has to fix. Right now you and I believe things, because of science, that are not true. That's a simple fact...and it will always be a simple fact. Science is about a lot of things, and one of them is trial and error. I am NOT some fool who thinks science is evil, but I am not going to place my faith in it, knowing full well that it's just going to reform again in 100 years. Not a good thing to place much faith in.

I have faith that the world will keep spinning, the sun isn't the center of the universe, and that the world isn't flat like religion would have had us all believe at one time. I don't need to have faith in omnipotent beings in order to live my life happily and know certain things about my world. Whether or not my "knowing" these certain things about my world is sufficient for you is not really my concern because I'm not pushing my beliefs on the world in the way that your religion does.

There you go again. Are you incapable of differentiating between idiots and normal, peaceful religious people? No, of course not...because if you don't lump it all together, your argument is significantly weaker...so you have to resort to that. That's a shame. By the way, organized religion did not LEAD the "the world is flat" campaign. They were simply one of the many, many groups that agreed with it. A lot of people did.

This is really where the arrogance of Christianity comes to play. After all, the American Indian never knew right from wrong until Christians showed up with their God and taught the savages about Jesus. The poor uncivilized bastards. Why don't you step out of your present day life and think about the history of the world. Do you seriously mean to tell me that your God and few thousand year old religion is needed for societies to tell right from wrong.

Wow, I was sure you'd pay attention, but apparently not. If you want to preach about science and observation, I suggest you look into logic as well.

It's this simple: if there is no higher power at all...no life force, no Jesus, no God of any sort...just matter, and nothing that takes responsibility for creating it, then right and wrong ARE MYTHS. They are not real things...they are basically defined by popular opinion...and nothing more. This is something you cannot get around...it is a highly simple logical conclusion that I KNOW you can understand if you just bother to.

If there is no God, then who can say that rape is wrong? No one. I can just say "No it isn't." And what can you say? It's all opinion, after-all. But if we have a "boss," someone who sets the rules, absolutes are then possible. So no, I didn't say people can't make up their own rules of right and wrong...but they won't be anything more than opinions. I'm more than happy to argue with you, but argue HONESTLY...which means no jumping to outrageous conclucions (things I never said) and then dismissing them.

You would do well to refrain from claiming absolutes if you're only basis to substantiate them is that God said so or it's in the Bible. I'm not 6 years old and I don't fall for the "because I said so" gag anymore.

This, I think, says a lot about you. Were you by any chance raised in a Christian home? I will not refrain from claiming absolutes, because I believe in The Bible. My point is that someone with no belief in any higher power has no claim to absolutes at all...by definition, they cannot have them, and all those horrible things you like to yell at idiots of the past for, become not wrong...just something you THINK is wrong.

Uh, you are the one proclaiming that your God gives you the meaning of what is absolute right and wrong. Religion has done some horrible things? That's the understatement of all time. You want some substance? Ever heard of the Inquisition? The Crusades? How about the Holocaust? That's a pretty dirty, substantive list.

Yes, The Bible tells us what is right and wrong. Did you read my post, or what? Give me one logical reason as to why I, or The Bible, should be held responsible for people doing things in it's name that it does not teach. Just one. What if I go kill someone in your name, and someone got angry at YOU for it? That's what you're essentially doing here. For someone who speaks of science, you're not making much sense.

Do you think celibate monks are "unaware" of their sexuality? Please man... just because you don't engage in sex doesn't mean you don't know what sex you're attracted to. You seem to want to quibble with the definition of sexualities. Were you without a sexuality until you had sex? Of course not.

I asked you questions...apparently you weren't interested in answering them. Sexuality? How the heck are you supposed to measure something like that? This is all murky stuff, and yet you think you've got it all nailed down? Forgive me if I'm skeptical.

I hold every religion accountable for what it does. My particular beliefs aren't supported or actively up held by organized groups, secular governments, tax free churches, or the religious right. If you want to hold me accountable for my beliefs, I got no problem with that. Everyone is accountable for what they believe.

See, that's not what you're doing. You're essentially talking trash about a "religion" -- it's not even a tangible thing. It is not a person, or a building, or even God. That's ALL you can attack...The Bible does not suggest such horrible things (like I said, look into the murders of the secular world sometimes, if you want to go on about that), God does not suggest that we burn witches as the stake...if you want to talk about them, talk about those people. And if you want to talk about those people, do elsewhere, because it has nothing to do with the teachings of Christianity, or me.

They have first hand knowledge of their sexuality, what do you have other than your bible? Nothing. It's not whether gays know whether or not genes play a role in their sexuality, it's whether or not they are "qualified" to speak from experience when they say they have had homosexual tendencies as far back as they could remember which would suggest that they were born that way.

You're not listening. Even if they had a tendency early on, it could easily be just that: a tendency. That doesn't mean that they must succumb to it.

Um, this particular belief is not really contingent on The Bible...regardless of The Bible, I think homosexuality is unnatural. Again, you're making some assumptions here.

Nah, I have faith in the order of the universe, cause and effect, and what I can observe and measure. You think I have faith because I believe the sun will rise tomorrow and I'll tell you it's been rising every day for a few billion years so it's not exactly faith but rather as close to fact as you can get that causes me to believe it will rise tomorrow.

Hey, I believe it too...but when you choose not to believe in a God, you are putting your faith in something else. And yes, it is FAITH.

I know nothing about Jupiter so I would probably walk right by it. lol If it were a red block made of stone, smooth, square, with latin inscriptions then that might peak my interest.

I'm being serious: what would you think of it? What you logically conclude upon seeing it, assuming you were one of the people on the planet? I'm serious about this: smooth red stone, nearly perfectly square. We'll say 10 feet by 10 feet...just sitting there. What would you think about that?

[thmilin]

Christianity in itself does not "push or pressure" others or beat/guilt/terrorize/soothe them into submission. However - much has been done in it's stead or by people who practice it - as with most religions - to do just that. so no, i don't blame the religion. no, i don't blame christians. i trust a christian such as yourself much more, however, and am much more willing to listen to you, than I am a rabid bible thumper. it's all in the delivery. if you sit down rationally with me and tell me how you disagree without saying I am less of a person or clueless as a person because I disagree, then, I can let things that feel "pressure-like" slide and recognize you aren't out to change me or force things on me but simply wish to lead me down your lane of logic and IF I understand - you and I are happy. if I AGREE - of course you're happier and assuming I am converted then of course I'd be happy to have been converted. though I doubt that I'd agree. :) and i'm sure you feel similarly about the views I spout.

onward ...

It's this simple: if there is no higher power at all...no life force, no Jesus, no God of any sort...just matter, and nothing that takes responsibility for creating it, then right and wrong ARE MYTHS. They are not real things...they are basically defined by popular opinion...and nothing more. This is something you cannot get around...it is a highly simple logical conclusion that I KNOW you can understand if you just bother to.

If there is no God, then who can say that rape is wrong? No one. I can just say "No it isn't." And what can you say? It's all opinion, after-all. But if we have a "boss," someone who sets the rules, absolutes are then possible. So no, I didn't say people can't make up their own rules of right and wrong...but they won't be anything more than opinions. I'm more than happy to argue with you, but argue HONESTLY...which means no jumping to outrageous conclucions (things I never said) and then dismissing them.

though i disagree with timing on the nature of religion and agree with Chris on the fallibility of "absolute science" (or rather, flexibility), i do disagree with you, Chris, regarding the nature of morality (right and wrong).

before "God" Hammarabi or some such in Ancient China created 100 rules or such, did he not? and his subjects followed those rules and were punished for misbehaving. there can indeed be a big "Boss" (man upstairs) and there can be HUMAN bosses who make rules. Thing of Ancient Pre-Christian Egypt. North Africa. Multiple gods ... not one. There was indeed a hierarchy, as with greek gods BUT - the personalities of the gods were manlike, childish, selfish, vain, and entirely fallible.

also, in a more democratic society (though it is more man's nature to have a leader and several followers), rules can be agreed upon. think lord of the flies. i havent' even read this book so i won't talk like i know all about it but the premise - people abandoned on an island. they've got to come up with a system. it is not impossible to do so and it is GUARANTEED that IF anarchy is not the path followed, ORDER will be established in some form or another.

order is a nature of man. man is an animal who may find difficulty in establishing that, BUT - being LIKE GOD, man sets into effect his OWN rules. God need not have personally taught this to him or established a morality for mankind to create one of HIS OWN. it is has only turned out that God was there, wrote up a set fo rules, dictated some text, and created a religion with which to guide his children that INCLUDED a morality for them to follow that HE preferred. Now, like i personally believe, there isn't exactly a complete, untampered with text but regardless - some humans were told, here - here's a set of rules it's good for you to follow. there's a mighty god who'll get mad if you don't. he says it's good for you and you'll be rewarded if you follow and most particularly if you believe. so - here's all you need to believe. teach it to your children and spread it with the world. here's how to live your life - good luck, and much happiness. if you ever get lost, check the book.

you speak of opinions. indeed, individual opinion is nothing but opinion. however, unlike animals, humans have a rational mind that can take MASS opinion and link ideas. this is not something God alone does. now, link those ideas to our human emotion. when we are slapped for no good reason we will feel WRONGED. and most people in the world standing by will say - hey, that man was wrong to slap somebody! that's a bad thing! and so is losing your wife to childbirth, catching the pox, murdering for money, or beating your children. they knew it then before God appeared to establish himself and they knew it after. people en masse can most certainly agree when something's wrong and when that happens - it's not an opinion, it is agreed upon to be WRONG. that's how societal morality is born and maintained.

hence all the religions that DON'T have a main god with their own rules. i really argue egyptian and greek/roman religion aren't of the "god" norm and obviously we get a LOT of our current judicial and ethical systems from them - people with gods who fornicated with virgins, kidnapped wives, murdered people they didn't like and smacked around other gods when they felt like it. and irony is that god did indeed behave in quite similar ways but cuz he's god he has the right to get pissed, smote cities, and send us burning down to hell afterwe die. but i do believe he's different and I do believe he has that right 1) cuz he made us and can do what he wants with us and 2) he has the capacity to love and to my knowledge has developed that part of himself more thoroughly than any other. in some weird way, though I know he's "perfect" in one sense - all powerful, all knowing, can't die, etc etc ... he still feels emotion. that's a very tricky thing. he feels love. pain. loss. sorrow. joy. wrath. so in that sense, i know he's imperfect. but he loves me. and i love him anyway, most particularly because of that. he could disown me and all the others who mistreat his ideal and who harm one another. he's a parent, doing what he can and what he chooses. he's probably darn sick of us all sometimes but then again i'm sure he sees things every day that remind him why he made us and why he loves us and why he'll continue to do so.

he gave us an inherent ability to create, like himself. an ability to learn, grow, know, change, share and exchange ideas. with those capabilities alone were are absolutely able to know "right from wrong" as close to fact as you can get (relatable to how close to fact you can get with a book for if you can be uncertain, Chris, as a Christian about things, so can those who DON'T follow the religion). It is not myth, it is an agreed reality. JUST LIKE the Christian God. Recall that science insists God's a myth. You speak from "fact" and a book, etc, etc, but tell us how there must be faith in science. Well. There is also "faith" in God as I'm sure you'll agree and if you find he is NOT myth - believe he is NOT myth then the same goes for a morality is agreed upon WITHOUT God. Perhaps another form of religion ... I really feel there's a universality to human experience. I speak of a "religion" that we ALL have with or without our added religions - Christianity, Buddhism, muslim, etc. It is as flexible as those other religions can be, for if you notice, there are several denominations of Christianity, and various versions of how people practice other religions according to what they personally believe. that doesn't discount the "ideal" version of that religion ... just like how people might choose to believe in/practice morality doesn't discount whatever the "true" morality is.

[Yoda]

I think there's a misunderstanding here. :) I am not at all saying that people cannot create rules, or order, or their own definitions of right and wrong without God. I'm saying that it's all a ruse...that right and wrong are nothing more than opinions, rather than facts, without some higher power. Think about that for a moment: is anyone here ready to tell me that they believe that rape/murder of an innocent person is wrong only as an opinion? I'm sorry, but such things are TRULY wrong...they're not just wrong because most people think they are. They'd be wrong no matter how few people thought so.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Yes, exactly. I have friends who are atheists, but offline and on (Peter doesn't believe in God, but I've got no problem with him A couple of years ago, I swear, it was trendy to be anything BUT a Christian. Anything of an Eastern influence was so popular. I think now, with a spiritual president and with all the scary things going on, people are meditating more on spiritual things. I don't have a problem getting along with anybody, as long as they're not into Satan worshiping or something. One of my closest friends is a mormon. I have friends who don't believe in anything. My sisters don't either...they pretty much go with whatever is current, reading books on different religeons and whatnot. I have just as much respect for that, as I do for my Christian friends. At least they're searching. Some of the people who go to my church are worse off than my sisters, who are still looking for a faith, because they claim to be Christian, but they aren't active in it.
I tell people who ask, that I believe in God, I believe in his Son and the price he paid; but I will never be religeous. I'm a work in progress. I don't have all the answers and I sin and repent on a daily basis. I am above no one, and I won't ever act like I am. Sometimes people in my church point the finger, and try to point out my faults( and i have a lot...;D)and tell me I don't "act like a Christian". As if there was some cookie cutter version of what a believer is supposed to be.:rolleyes: Yeah, I watch R rated movies, celebrate Holloween, believe in Pro-Choice, and Flirt, and act sexy sometimes...but those things are between me and you-know-who...those are issues that belong to me and Him and I'm not about to let anyone cast judgement on me, and I won't do it to anyone else. Who the hell is to say that homosexuals are living in sin and if they don't repent, are going to hell? Not me. That's dangerous stuff, judgement. I won't play a part in tearing anyone down and lifting myself to a place that isn't reserved for me. I'm not holy, or pretend to know what is. Neither should anyone else.

Okay...tear me apart now....whew. That felt like a confession.:D

[Yoda]

Well, I'm not going to tear you apart, for several reasons:

1) Save for the thing about not knowing how to be Holy (I think The Bible tells us how for the most part), but it's not necessarily a sin to watch R-rated movies or want to feel sexy.

2) I'm way too tired to argue about abortion right now...otherwise I would. :) I've got arguments on God, Reagan, and homosexuality going...so I'd be a fool to start up another one.

3) You're mostly right: there is no cookie-cutter...or, at least, there ought not to be. I swear more than I'll bet most of the people in my church do, for example. I don't pretend it's okay, but it doesn't make me any less of a believer. I hope that some of the less religious people out there realize that very few of us actually fit that "Ned Flanders" personification.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
2) I'm way too tired to argue about abortion right now...otherwise I would. :) I've got arguments on God, Reagan, and homosexuality going...so I'd be a fool to start up another one.
The abortion thing goes back to my seriousness of judgement. I think that making it illeagal will cause more problems than there are with it being legal. It would be the wrong choice for me, but I'm not gonna stand here and say the same for some other woman. I'm not her, I don't know her situation...pro-lifers always want to say," Well there's women out there using it for birth control. That's wrong. The woman getting one for medical reasons, that's okay I guess." Hello!? Judgement. Again. I'm not making choices for anyone but me.:)

[Yoda]

Stop, stop, you foul temptress! I hath not room for another debate! :)

[thmilin]

sades sades sades!! i totally agree!! :) ditto on the atheist AND believing friends. ditto on seeing it anti-trendy to be Christian. ditto on not being "religious." ditto on it being between me and "you know who" and ditto to the "cookie-cutter" version!

chris:

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I am not at all saying that people cannot create rules, or order, or their own definitions of right and wrong without God. I'm saying that it's all a ruse...that right and wrong are nothing more than opinions, rather than facts, without some higher power. Think about that for a moment: is anyone here ready to tell me that they believe that rape/murder of an innocent person is wrong only as an opinion? I'm sorry, but such things are TRULY wrong...they're not just wrong because most people think they are. They'd be wrong no matter how few people thought so.

and they'd be wrong REGARDLESS of whether "some higher power" or that higher power's rules said so.

the meaning for wrong and right does not COME from "some higher power." it can. but without the higher power "right and wrong" is not a ruse.

so listen. if YOU, as a christian, say, - killing is wrong. that means you're right and wrong has meaning and you have a right to use that morality and your morality has meaning BECAUSE it comes from a god/religion/higher power.

but what my understanding was, and now, when you say things like "ruse" and "myth" is that those WITHOUT religion or a higher power - their right/wrong judgements have no meaning, because it doesn't come from a source like yours.

and i'm saying no source is NEEDED. right and wrong IS. regardless of how someone of religion or not chooses to define it.

YOURS is an opinion regardless of whether or not you've got a book or religion to guide you to that conclusion. MINE is not a ruse just cuz I have no such book or religion. If MINE is a ruse, then SO is yours for if MINE is an opinion, then SO is yours.

i say BOTH are opinions. any interpretation of morality. which doesn't support your argument - if i read it correctly - that those who don't practice faith in some higher power must therefore have merely "myth" and "ruse" while those who DO have what - fact? it isn't. it's still an opinion no matter how much certainty you have. that certainty, as you argued before - is based on faith.

[Yoda]

Well, you could argue that they're all opinions...but that's getting past my actual point, which is that when you believe in some Higher Power, you can make the argument that that Power sets the rules of right and wrong. If you have nothing at all of the sort, there's really nothing other than opinion. You have to concede that the most horrible things imaginable are only wrong by popular opinion.

Yes, right and wrong IS. But says who? If it's just you and I, and some other humans who say that, it's just an opinion. Right and wrong are what they are regardless of how many people agree with them. Without God, though, right and wrong is determined by the majority...they fluctuate and change constantly. Did slavery become wrong when people started to speak out against it? No, it was wrong all along. Why? Because wrong has a SET meaning.

If you don't believe in any Higher Power, though, wrong has no set meaning. It's all just a big mess, and all you have is your opinion...things are not wholly wrong, or absolutely wrong. That's what I'm trying to say, basically.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by thmilin
sades sades sades!! i totally agree!! :) ditto on the atheist AND believing friends. ditto on seeing it anti-trendy to be Christian. ditto on not being "religious." ditto on it being between me and "you know who" and ditto to the "cookie-cutter" version!

Ah...that is a relief. I'm so glad you agree. Those are just a few of the things I feel strongly about...and they're the important ones.:D

[thmilin]

*booty bumps sades* yes, we're all settled. :)

which is that when you believe in some Higher Power, you can make the argument that that Power sets the rules of right and wrong. If you have nothing at all of the sort, there's really nothing other than opinion.

no, because HUMANS can set the rules of wright and wrong. And they may no cover them all ... just like God hasn't necessarily covered them all (truly, the number of rights and wrongs is likely beyond our counting capabilities) because for whatever reason he chose to limit it to what he did.

You have to concede that the most horrible things imaginable are only wrong by popular opinion.

Not really. Like you said below - they're wrong whether you think they are or not.

Yes, right and wrong IS. But says who? If it's just you and I, and some other humans who say that, it's just an opinion. Right and wrong are what they are regardless of how many people agree with them.

Yes and right/wring being defined BY GOD doesn't mean they can't exist WITHOUT him. As in - God points to the things we do and says - Bad. Good. He is 1) enlightening us to the idea of bad/good and 2) saying what is bad/good and what we are to treat bad/good. It remains an unknown whether his definition of bad/good is a) his opinion or b) they were absolutes and he merely pointed them out to us.

I argue for B and that we can find them on our own but it IS true with the shifting, fallible nature of mankind that people won't see it. Many people thought slavery was wrong but did it anyway. They KNEW it was wrong - only some rather perverted folks twisted it around in their heads to make wrongs "right" (it's "bad" to degrade, abuse, or enslave other people. it's "bad" to say a human being isn't a human being. but do so anyway, so you needn't think the africans are "people" and can treat them as objects - so you aren't doing anything wrong in your mind by enslaving them).

.Without God, though, right and wrong is determined by the majority...they fluctuate and change constantly. Did slavery become wrong when people started to speak out against it? No, it was wrong all along. Why? Because wrong has a SET meaning.

yes it does. basically - here's my hypothesis:

there is an absolute. wrong/right. it's the same exact thing as truth. as in, there are 3 truths - yours, mine, and the real truth. we may or many not discover that REAL truth and we aspire to - truth, and what is RIGHT and JUST.

now, the world is round but for centuries people had the OPINION that the world was FLAT and that THAT was right. so yes, in that sense "what was right" changed when people discovered that was not the case. howEVER - the world was as round before that discovery as after. now, god may have said - look, the world is round. or he may, as in this case, have not had anything particular to say on that subject. regardless of his silence OR his input - the world is round.

so, for slavery - the law and popular OPINION (for some) interpreted slavery as "right" and our popular opinion has changed ... but the "wrong" of it, just as you said, is still there.

and that wrong is defined REGARDLESS of your chrisitian belief or an atheist's beliefs. that IS set, that IS fixed and that DOES exist with or without a "higher power." an atheist might heartily agree with you that slavery, racism, etc, are wrong. so, just because you're christian your opinion is fact, and because he isn't his is merely unfounded opinion?

i say, definitely not.

If you don't believe in any Higher Power, though, wrong has no set meaning.

hmm, a sidenote - if, let's say, there are 100 rights and wrongs. and the bible and 10 commandments cover 60% of them. What happens to a christian when they've got to figure out the other 40%? You may have a spirit of conduct to guide you there but that's as vague a base as someone else's being raised by the 10 most spiritually brilliant men in the world. So in that sense there aren't always "set" right and wrongs for ANYBODY - religiously affiliated or not. add to that my opinion regarding interpretation -

an example could be, you have read the "men shall not lie with men" line as "no sex, no love, no desire between men." that's an interpretation of right/wrong. god might have just meant no sex. he might have meant sleeping. i'm just saying, though yeah, i agree he meant sex. but see? our difference in reading that ALONE is opinion. now, that opinion could still exist from another devout christian. he'd see one wrong, you'd see something else! all from this book which lays it out there for you. with that difference ... there's a set meaning but in reality ... it's your friends' truth, your truth, and the bible. and the bible may have it exact or be god's interpretation of the right/wrong he felt like telling you about. soo ... applying that "set" business to a religion alone and not to those without it is entirely arbitrary. or seems to me.

there are absolute wrongs. no killing other people. bad bad bad! that's set in stone. so's lying. so what, people say, we lie all the time or, little white lies are ok. killing in self defense is ok. etc.

that's interpretation. that's each person's opinion. YET - mankind has made the rule that lying and kiling are NOT good. and that IS set. not in stone, or in one authorized book like Hammurabi's but - set.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by thmilin
*booty bumps sades* yes, we're all settled. :)

Word sistah...word!:D I'll leave you two to your banter, just thought I'd put in my two cents.;D

[Jared's Uncle]

This is all Bull! "Homosexuality is unnatural" Sex is not the religious and defining moment of a persons life. If you want to have a good time with somebody and you are sexually attracted to them, then go at. This is true for same sex or heterosexual sex. If two people feel like having a good time I say let them and don't condemn them for doing something that is "unnatural"

[Yoda]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes: If it's unnatural, do it anyway. Who says you can't make love to a goat, right? :) If the goat likes it, who cares if it's unnatural? :D Oh, and thanks so much for this insightful tidbit:

This is all Bull!

From a secular standpoint, it might not matter...but it is obviously unnatural. If you don't believe in God (wouldn't surprise me, Zwee) then yeah, it's not as big a deal. If you don't believe in God, nothing's a big deal. If you don't believe in any kind of God, it's illogical to do anything aside from things that you want to do, and that benefit you directly, too.

[Yoda]

Miriam: I still don't think we're on the same page. Yes, despite what Zwee or Timing says, right and wrong exist, because they're wrong in their beliefs...but I've been speaking from the assumption that they are correct...I'm saying "If you believe this to be true, then there's no right and wrong." I'm telling them that if they want to believe this one thing, this other thing is linked to it.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by Jared's Uncle
This is all Bull! "Homosexuality is unnatural" Sex is not the religious and defining moment of a persons life. If you want to have a good time with somebody and you are sexually attracted to them, then go at. This is true for same sex or heterosexual sex. If two people feel like having a good time I say let them and don't condemn them for doing something that is "unnatural" I vote this," Statement Most Likely to Take You Where You Don't Want to Go." I could go so far with that little gem, but I won't. It's obvious where I could go with it, T lightly touched on it with his," Making love to a goat." example. Truly. Let's all set aside our morals and hump anything and everything because," ...you feel like having a good time.":rolleyes:

[Jared's Uncle]

We aren't talking about goats here. We are talking about two human beings that are capable of having love for one another. Why is it unnatural to love another human being? I just don't understand it. Also if one finds somebody of the same sex to be attractive why can't they have a romp in the hay. You say that just because we can do something, doesn't mean that we should. Well I agree, but why can't we(as the human race) have sex with someone of the same sex. It is the most natural thing in the world to love someone and then to express that love in a physical way.

[Yoda]

Sure, it's natural to love someone. It's natural to fall in love with a beautiful woman who happens to be married...where we divert paths, Zwee, is that I think that homosexuality is a sin. I don't think homosexuals are freaks or anything. Also, I might add that you CAN still make love with someone of the same sex...it's not against any law. Even though I think it's wrong, I would not outlaw it if I had the opportunity...I wouldn't outlaw adultery either, though.

[Jared's Uncle]

So why is it a sin then?

[Yoda]

It is against God's law. It is against God's intention of sex. I'm sure you know all this, though...you're just trying to make some point that I've heard before, but that doesn't get us anywhere, such as "You just believe it because it's what is taught in The Bible."

[Yoda]

Oh, and if you want a more practical reason, I believe it is harmful to the person engaging in it. I'm sure you don't, but there's nothing I can do about that.

[Jared's Uncle]

How is it harmful to the person engaged in the sex? As for the whole it's in the Bible thing... well that's your religion and nothing can be done about that. Would you kill your son if God asked you to? Do you not believe in evolution?

[Yoda]

How does it harm them? Well, it goes back to religion: I believe sin is a very erosive thing. I don't know if I'd kill my son. I might be too weak too...or I might not be sure if it was really God. Thankfully I doubt I'll ever have to make such a horrible choice.

As for evolution: I'm not a nutball who completely dismisses it. For one, I believe in microevolution. I just don't believe in macroevolution. Now, I'll also acknowlede that it's not completely ridiculous to think that The Bible is more symbolic than most people think, and therefore evolution and Christianity might not conflict with one another...but IMO, they do, and macroevolution is not factual.

[Jared's Uncle]

OK well that's your religion on sin and what not. So I can't argue that. So Im done. You believe what you want to. I would never mess with someones religious believes.

[Yoda]

Alright, fair enough. Do you believe in God? What about evolution? I'm curious.

[Jared's Uncle]

I do believe in God, but I think he's a lot more fun then you think. I also believe in evolution, but a kind of determined evolution in which god created all of the stuff to get the ball rolling to get us in the end. I dont practice because obviously i have objections.

[Yoda]

Ah, I see. Interesting. Thanks for humoring me there...I'm glad to know those things.

[Steve]

Ok, I've got a couple things to say:

TWT, why aren't you taking into account that sex is FUN? Why would God make it fun if all it was meant for was the survival of the species? And I'm pretty sure homosexuals have just as much fun as heterosexuals do. (And I don't think you'd make comments as rash as saying "it's not real love", because let's be honest: how do we know?) Sure, anything in excess can be bad, but why would God make it such a marvelous enterprise if he didn't want us to have some fun? I mean, damn, if it was just like doing the laundry, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, right?

How is being in touch with yourself and your feelings religiously unhealthy? Are you saying "gays really don't FEEL that way, they're just under Satan's influence"? (or something along those lines)

What if the pope tomorrow said that "hey, you know, us Christians, we've been wrong all these years about gay people, they really are alright" and they had a big concert where elton john performed? Would you change your stance on it? Just curious.

Also out of curiosity, do you feel that single-parent homes are sinful as well?

[Yoda]

Well, Steve, let me start by saying that I do not follow The Pope. I am not Catholic, and I think The Pope makes his share of mistakes. I admire him for leading a pious and dedicated life, but he is not infallible to me...I refuse to obey all he says, because he DOES mess up sometimes.

Sex is fun...I'm not a religious nut who thinks that all sex is bad. I think sex is wonderful...the ultimate expression of love...just not between two people of the same sex. Sex is more than fun, it's also sacred, IMO. Homosexual sex is a misuse of it. Perhaps you've assumed that I'm one those Christians that doesn't believe in birth control, or sex for any reason other than reproduction...which of course, isn't true. :)

As for single-parent homes: it depends. For one, I think it's just asking for trouble. I 100% fully believe that the OPTIMAL situation for a child to grow up in is one with a loving mother and father. Psychological evidence is strong in showing us that a child can have problems if they lack male OR female affection growing up. This doesn't just go for homosexuals...it goes for any single-parent household...or single-gender household.

No, they're not under Satan's influence...that's taking it a bit far...but I do believe they are being tempted to sin. It's a sin they are born, most likely, ith some predisposition to. I'm not in favor of throwing stones at them...I take a more sympathetic approach. However, if someone asks me if I think it's okay, I'm certainly not going to say I do, because I honestly don't. I think it's harmful to them, and a sin against God.

[sadesdrk]

Jarod's Uncle/Zwee-Yeah okay, you said you agree with the part I was adressing, so I'm satisfied. As far has two people of the same sex getting it on, that's not really my bag of debate...so T can have that discussion with you. I know what seems right in MY head, but I'm not gonna force that on someone else, whatever people do behind closed doors, is between them. It doesn't concern me.

[patti]

gotta edit myself outa' this one....this isn't my bag of debate

[Jared's Uncle]

I must reiterate that this is all bull! That's the only arguement that I can have now because obviously everybody is too stuborn and you know saying that it is bull expresses my feelings toward some people's views.

[sadesdrk]

Yeah, you're right. This is all a load of bull. What were we all thinkin'?

[Yoda]

patti: yes, people will argue for some rules, and break others (or that same rule!) themselves at times. It does not make them much more hypocritical than any of us...surely all of us have lied at one point or another...and surely we've all told someone else NOT to...the only thing that keeps us from hypocriscy in such situations is the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of having made that same mistake, for the most part. If a Priest (or basically anyone else, with some exceptions, I'd imagine) had sex out of wedlock, and acknowledges it as a sin, I have no problem with him discouraging others not to do it.

And yes, I agree, I think repressed sexuality is bad...of both the hetero and homo variety. That's not to say that I support someone going out and acting on their homosexual urges (or heterosexual, if it leads to sex out of wedlock, or an unwanted pregnancy, or anything irresponsible and/or sinful)...but it does mean that I don't support them pretending they don't have the desire when they do.

I'd much rather they face up to it, and (hopefully!) fight against it...not in a "secretive" way that has them shameful constantly and repressing it, pretending it does not exist...but in a way that acknowledges it's existence, and recognizes it for what it is. I mean, after all, am I really repressing my sexuality if I decide to wait for marriage, or if I decide to never have sex at all, if marriage never comes? I don't think so...I think there's a difference between repression, and voluntary self-control.

And yes, I would not be at all surprised if many cases of such abuse were the result of people being shamed into hiding such feelings. That's completely the wrong way to go about it.

As for "feminine" men...well, it bugs me even if they're straight. I get kinda ticked when someone gay seems to find a need to actually change their voice and manner to go with it. If you sound a certain way, or act a certain way, naturally, and have always felt that way, that's one thing...but I think it's a bit over the top if you find yourself going out of the way to act that way. It'd be equally as stupid for me to go out of my way trying to act overly manly all the time, even if it's not the way I naturally acted.

[Jared's Uncle]

Shut up you big dork

[thmilin]

*steers around big dung pile in middle of thread*

this is where i'd come up with all my requisite points to argue ... but my hands hurt. and i'm sweepy. so nevewmind. the debate stands! let others enter and read in awe ...

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Jared's Uncle
Shut up you big dork

Alright, as far as I'm concerned, that's strike two. Say something worthwhile, or don't say anything at all...or I'll have to ban THIS name, too.

[Jared's Uncle]

wohhhhh strike two.... where was strike one. I wasn't informed of the first one your highness. And how is that strike two this entire thread is just our opinions.

Does it really hurt your feelings that much?

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by Jared's Uncle
wohhhhh strike two.... where was strike one. I wasn't informed of the first one your highness. And how is that strike two this entire thread is just our opinions.

Does it really hurt your feelings that much? Guess OG's sig is appropriate after all...;D

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Jared's Uncle
wohhhhh strike two.... where was strike one. I wasn't informed of the first one your highness. And how is that strike two this entire thread is just our opinions.

Does it really hurt your feelings that much?

No, I'm fine, thanks for asking. This is not about whether or not I'm annoyed, this is about you contributing nothing at all to the conversation. Posts that consist of "This is bull" or some other such wording, are not welcome in a serious conversation. Your highness? Uh, yeah, ok...whatever man. If sarcasm is your only weapon, go back to the drawing board.

Strike one? Well, you HAVE been banned from here before, I believe. If you've messed up before, the tolerance level for future actions is shortened, I'm sorry to say. Has to be that way.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by sadesdrk
Guess OG's sig is appropriate after all...;D

Oh yes, indeed. Every single night I cry myself to sleep.

"Marky Mark called me stupid!" :bawling: :bawling: :bawling:

Don't flatter yourself, Mr. Funky Bunch. :rolleyes: I'm only concerned with keeping my board running smoothly and not allowing crap like that on here too often.

[spudracer]

This is hilarious. Watching people that want to make themselves look very mature, but strike out with some childish comment.

Anyways, Zwee, didn't know you before, but the reputation you have on here isn't a very good one. If you want to stay, I suggest you conform to the rules man. Just a suggestion. :D

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by TWTCommish


Don't flatter yourself, Mr. Funky Bunch. :rolleyes: I'm only concerned with keeping my board running smoothly and not allowing crap like that on here too often. *giggle*:D

[Jared's Uncle]

I was contributing I wanted to address the fact that the conversation was bull. But im staying out of all this stuff, and im just going to stick with movie talk now.

[thmilin]

i actually thought he was just kidding and though it was pretty useless, other pretty usless inserted comments have been around the board before. is it cuz it was a bit negative? in which case I understand. i just didn't take it too seriously.

[sadesdrk]

I just thought it was funny T called him Mr. Funky Bunch...:laugh: I don't even care if he came on here and said some random comments, he's not bothering me...yet.:D

[B&W]

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. - Leviticus 18:22

In the Old Testament and again in the New Testament, God calls homosexuality a sin that is disgusting to him (an abomination to him). Sin always has it's conquences. With homosexuality comes guilt, emotional scars, condemnation, and possibly disease and death - not to mention how it can imact the people around a person. - Ron Luce


By the way those books on animal homosexuality r always written by abnormal scientists (if u know what i mean).


Peace,

[Yoda]

Took it again. 28% this time.

[firegod]

I tried it and got 33%, which is less than average. I figured I'd score pretty high, considering that homosexuality doesn't bother me, and especially considering how I don't have an old-fashioned bone in my entire body.

[sadesdrk]

I loved that quiz. Funny funny stuff.

I looked back over the thread, and laughed again at Chris's "Mr. Funky Bunch" comment. :laugh:

[Yoda]

:laugh: I'm rather fond of it as well. I was totally busting up when I posted it.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I am 64% GAY.

[sadesdrk]

Aw. Jason. :love: We know, honey. :)

[Mary Loquacious]

I am 40% gay, but only 26% b*tch. How the hell am I gonna figure out what the other 34% is comprised of??

...Wait, it's sh*t. I knew that already. :D

The Canadian thing strikes again:

On the b*tch test, one of the questions was, "Are you from Canada, you b*tch?" :laugh:

[Yoda]

I love their treatment of Canada. :laugh:

Are you directly responsible for the well-being of an invalid, senile, or otherwise Canadian person?
:rotfl:

[Mary Loquacious]

Canada. Oh, Canada.

"Our government has apologized for Bryan Adams on numerous occasions."

:laugh:

[Yoda]

Time's have changed
Our kids are kids are getting worse
They wont obey their parents
They just want to fart and curse!
Should we blame the government?
Or blame society?
Or should we blame the images on TV?

No, blame Canada
Blame Canada
With all their beady little eyes
And flappin heads so full of lies
Blame Canada
Blame Canada

We need to form a full assault
It's Canadas fault!
Don't blame me
For my son Stan
He saw the darn cartoon
And now he's off to join the Klan!

And my boy Eric once
Had my picture on his shelf
But now when I see him he tells me to f*ck myself!
Well, blame Canada
Blame Canada

It seems that everythings gone wrong
Since Canada came along

Blame Canada
Blame Canada
There not even a real country anyway
My son could've been a doctor or a lawyer it's true
Instead he burned up like a piggy on a barbecue
Should we blame the matches?
Should we blame the fire?
Or the doctors who allowed him to expire?
Heck no!

Blame Canada
Blame Canada
With all their hockey hubbabaloo
And that bitch Anne Murray too

Blame Canada
Shame on Canada
The smut we must stop
The trash we must smash
Laughter and fun
Must all be undone
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before someone thinks of blaming uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus
:rotfl:

Didn't Robin Williams throw in a line when he sang it at the Oscars, too? I could've sworn this was part of the song:

Because when Canada is gone
They'll be no more Celine Dion!

[Sexy Celebrity]

This thread turns me on. People talking about how gay they are.... oooh. Do you think it would be alright if I jumped in the shower with my computer?

[Mary Loquacious]

I think they subbed the Celine Dion line for "It seems like everything's gone wrong since Canada came along."

I dunno why.

[L .B . Jeffries]

I few things became clear in this thread by only a simple scan 1.) if only you guys talked about movies this much and put the amout of effort and love in those posts as in here things would be crackin. 2.) what's this making fun of canadians you need only look at the TV show called THIS HOUR HAS 22 MINS to get a clear picture of how blood knowlegable you guys are in the south. and 3.) I'm very happy so I'm 100% gay :laugh: so as not to get you mixed up as to what kind of gay i'll point it out to yea dictionary style. (Gay (ga) adj. [ME. gai < OFr. < ?Frank, *gahi, swift, impetuous, akin to G. jah] 1. joyous and lively; merry; happy; lighthearted.

stinkin test won't let me do it keeps on erroring out, oh well. :)

[The Silver Bullet]

I think they subbed the Celine Dion line for "It seems like everything's gone wrong since Canada came along."

I dunno why.

She was in the audience.
My guess is they didn't want her rioting.
She's like that.

:yup:

[Raziel1]

i am only 22% goody

[Yoda]

...yes, very good. This being such a scientific test and all. :laugh:

[Raziel1]

you know that test was retarded:yup: :yup: :yup:

[Sexy Celebrity]

Then you must have passed. :yup: :yup: :yup:

[The Silver Bullet]

Ha.

Indeed he would have.

:laugh:

[Yoda]

It ain't that kinda test. It's not like they ask you a bunch of questions about interior decorating and Oscar Wilde and if you get enough right, you're declared gay. :D

[Raziel1]

Toshay fellas. I should of known you'd get me on that one...

smart alecs:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[The Silver Bullet]

I do believe you mean touche.
But okay.

THE GAY TEST
Silver Style

Question #1:
Do you talk gay?

Question #2:
Do you walk gay?

Question #3:
Are you sexually attracted to members of the same sex as yourself?

If you answered yes to question three, the chances are you are probably gay and/or bisexual. The first two questions determine whether or not you look silly to other people...

[Raziel1]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
[B]I do believe you mean touche.
But okay.

Thanks for the correction. Someday my mommy's going to teach me how to spell.:yup: :laugh: :laugh:

[sisboombah]

lol ive done that before. i did the one for straight ppl and i came out about 40% gay and then i did the gay one and i came out about 70% gay. lol

P.S...i am gay

[Monkeypunch]

Okay, I took this test, and I turned out only 17% gay, but I'm a whopping 46% Bastard! woohoo! I probably shouldn't be proud of that. But hey! they asked if I liked Beer. Beer drinking doesn't make one a bastard. not fair.

[ed209]

i only got 23%:yup:

[Gracie]

I got a 17% gay on the test. CAN YOU SAY :WHOOP-WHOOP?

[blibblobblib]

i got 63% gay when i took it! WAH HOO!:D

I was suprised to see so many homaphobic remarks on this post. Quite sad really :(

[FiLm Fr3aK]

25%

hmmm...I always thought I was a "people" person,

:)

[Herod]

50% gay.

It could be because of all of those times where I had sex with other guys.

:rotfl:

By the way, Bibblo...
Homophobe means displaying an irrational fear of homosexuals i.e. Arachnaphobe is irrationally afraid of spiders.
So slapping the term on someone who argues logically against homosexuality is just as unfair as someone saying that homosexuals are pedophiles.

Different strokes for different folks, man.
If Chris beleives homosexuality is a sin, and as long as he isn't being offensive or illogical, let him. If you or someone else wants to practice homosexuality, go ahead.
But the last thing this fight needs, is people caging others into categories, espescially doing it willy-nilly, and without any thought of the meanings or reprecussions.

[edwardtumath]

I am 30!!!!! Uh oh! He he he he!

[blibblobblib]

Originally posted by Herodotus

Homophobe means displaying an irrational fear of homosexuals i.e. Arachnaphobe is irrationally afraid of spiders.
So slapping the term on someone who argues logically against homosexuality is just as unfair as someone saying that homosexuals are pedophiles.

Different strokes for different folks, man.


Your totally right, Different strokes, different folks. But when i say "homaphobe" i use it correctly. ive looked almost all through this post and there has been what I consider homaphobic remarks. Im not gonna pick bits. Its a pointless fight. everyones totallly entitled to their own opinion and there voice to speak it, but if this post was titled "homosexuality, right or wrong?" then i would expect peoples veiws on the subject. as it is not, i was shocked to read "people caging others into categories, espescially doing it willy-nilly, and without any thought of the meanings or reprecussions."

maybe your post should be meant for others as well as me Herodotus.

[Yoda]

Eh? I hadn't noticed any homophobes here...disapproving of homosexuality does not make you homophobic. An irrational fear of homosexuality does.

[LordSlaytan]

28% Next time I'll answer the questions honestly and see what happens.:D Seriously, I'm not gay. Really. I mean it. Honest Injun. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Hondo333]

36% Gay, I am gayer than most, but not as gay as the typical Straghit guy

[Piddzilla]

I wonder what a person who disapproves of other races than his own is called if not a racist.

[Revenant]

28% I'm straight but it doesn't bother me in the least what percentage I would have got.

On additional note I took the.......

Personality test: Accountant

Gender Test: You are a Man! (I'm not :p)

[Ezikiel]

I'm 19% gay. Me and all my friends took it and I'm the straightest. :D

I also took the gender test and they got my gender wrong 4 times. :(

[Yoda]

I wonder what a person who disapproves of other races than his own is called if not a racist.
I don't follow your point here. A person who disapproves of other races than his own solely because they are, in fact, other races, is indeed a racist. The word homophobe, on the other hand, is not the homosexual equivalent of the word racist. It's a very different word with different roots, connotations, and implications.

Herod already covered this, and the "phobe" suffix really ought to settle the matter.

[r3port3r66]

Herod already covered this, and the "phobe" suffix really ought to settle the matter.

Maybe he means homophone? Kidding...kidding

[Yoda]

Maybe he means homophone? Kidding...kidding
Sounds like a modern slant on "E.T. phone home." I imagine it would look something like this.

http://freespace.virgin.net/andy.valve/pics/pinkp5.jpg

I kid, I kid. :D Sorry.

[Piddzilla]

I don't follow your point here. A person who disapproves of other races than his own solely because they are, in fact, other races, is indeed a racist. The word homophobe, on the other hand, is not the homosexual equivalent of the word racist. It's a very different word with different roots, connotations, and implications.

Herod already covered this, and the "phobe" suffix really ought to settle the matter.

Herod is wrong.

"Phobia" means irrational fear of something. That does not mean that different kinds of "phobes" have to react in the same way when exposed to the subject they have an irrational fear of. Furthermore, arachnaphobia is a medical or psychological phenomenon while homophobia is mostly a socio-cultural phenomenon. An arachnaphobe will have a very hard time explaining to you why he or she is so afraid of spiders while a homophobe most certainly will be able to give you a hundred reasons to why he or she hates gay people. Arachnaphobia and homophobia are both rooted in irrational fear but while the arachnaphobian fear is because of psychological reasons, the homophobian fear is based in ignorance or prejudice. Just like racism (= a form of xenophobia).

You don't have to be running for cover, screaming in panic, confronted with a homosexual to be a homophobe. Fear doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as horror or panic. The fear of homosexuals integrating in society, or the fear of homosexuals having too much power or equal rights as heterosexuals, or claiming that homosexuality is a sin - those things are expressions of fear, i.e. homophobia, as well.

[r3port3r66]

OK Yoda, that is the funniest thing I think I've ever seen you post. Good job. I'm glad to see your sense of humor has a basic level too. Sexy is going to be proud of you! I hope I can give you rep dude!

[Yoda]

Herod is wrong.

"Phobia" means irrational fear of something.
That's exactly what he said:

"Homophobe means displaying an irrational fear of homosexuals"


That does not mean that different kinds of "phobes" have to react in the same way when exposed to the subject they have an irrational fear of. Furthermore, arachnaphobia is a medical or psychological phenomenon while homophobia is mostly a socio-cultural phenomenon. An arachnaphobe will have a very hard time explaining to you why he or she is so afraid of spiders while a homophobe most certainly will be able to give you a hundred reasons to why he or she hates gay people. Arachnaphobia and homophobia are both rooted in irrational fear but while the arachnaphobian fear is because of psychological reasons, the homophobian fear is based in ignorance or prejudice. Just like racism (= a form of xenophobia).
Every person I know who hates spiders will not hesitate to give you reasons for their fear. The reasons are admittedly vague, but I don't think the two are as unlike as you'd have me believe.

More importantly, though, is that the difference you speak of seems largely semantic to me. There is no reason whatsoever that a social or cultural phenomenon cannot manifest itself psychologically. In fact, I'd say it invariably does.


You don't have to be running for cover, screaming in panic, confronted with a homosexual to be a homophobe. Fear doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as horror or panic. The fear of homosexuals integrating in society, or the fear of homosexuals having too much power or equal rights as heterosexuals, or claiming that homosexuality is a sin - those things are expressions of fear, i.e. homophobia, as well.
This, in my opinion, is where your mistake lies. While it's true that virtually every homophobe will try to rationalize their disapproval, not everyone who voices disapproval need necessarily be a homophobe. This is rather like telling someone with morning sickness that they must be pregnant.

Moreover, you're setting up a bit of a straw man here; no one's claimed that a homophobe needs to express "horror" or "panic" to qualify as such.


OK Yoda, that is the funniest thing I think I've ever seen you post. Good job. I'm glad to see your sense of humor has a basic level too. Sexy is going to be proud of you! I hope I can give you rep dude!
I'm glad you weren't offended, because I know I was preying on stereotypes a bit. :)

[Piddzilla]

That's exactly what he said:

"Homophobe means displaying an irrational fear of homosexuals"



That's one line taking out of context. I was talking about his entire post. (Sorry, Herod.. No offense meant...)

Every person I know who hates spiders will not hesitate to give you reasons for their fear. The reasons are admittedly vague, but I don't think the two are as unlike as you'd have me believe.

More importantly, though, is that the difference you speak of seems largely semantic to me. There is no reason whatsoever that a social or cultural phenomenon cannot manifest itself psychologically. In fact, I'd say it invariably does.

Firstly, I didn't say that a social or cultural phenomenon cannot manifest itself psychologically. On the contrary, I said:

"arachnaphobia is a medical or psychological phenomenon while homophobia is mostly a socio-cultural phenomenon"

The "mostly" is important here. I put it there to show that I didn't exclude other reasons to homophobia. I am sorry that I didn't state it more clearly.

Secondly, the difference between hating spiders or thinking they are yucky or scary and actual aracnaphobia is huge. Most psychological phobias are being graded into ten levels where 1 is a very mild case of phobia and 10 a very bad case, but the 1 is still worse than just thinking "spiders are nasty".

What I am saying is that just because there is a "phobia" at the end of both of the words doesn't mean that they are the two variations of the same kind of phenomenon. I am not sure how homophobia "got its name" or when it was first used, but I am sure that it was to illustrate the irationality rather than to diagnose a disease.

This, in my opinion, is where your mistake lies. While it's true that virtually every homophobe will try to rationalize their disapproval, not everyone who voices disapproval need necessarily be a homophobe. This is rather like telling someone with morning sickness that they must be pregnant.

Again, that's not what I said. Herod said in his post that homophobia is "the same kind of phobia" as arachnaphobia, and that's not it. Just saying something like "I don't think a homosexual is right for this job" (stupid, but you know what I mean...) does of course not necessarily mean that the one who said it is a homophobe. But saying that you'll have to have the same emotions or feelings against homosexuals as arachnaphobes have against spiders to be a homophobe is completely wrong.

Moreover, you're setting up a bit of a straw man here; no one's claimed that a homophobe needs to express "horror" or "panic" to qualify as such.

No, but that is what the comparision to arachnaphobia suggests.

[nebbit]

Well i always knew i was average, 32% average for my gender etc etc. ;D

[Sexy Celebrity]

Shockingly, when I took the test as a woman, I am 53% lesbian. But what's with the cartoon of the two wheelchair bound girls staring at each other and saying "This is interesting" ?

[Jackie Malfoy]

But I know if I took that test I would be 100% stright and that is not a bad thing it is a good thing inleast for me and my parents!lol!
I mean I know I am stright yu know if you are gay or not and I aready know that I am clean and stright aready!
Also a long time ago the word gay meants happy so yes I am gay (Happy)!Today is such a good gay (Happy)day!See you around!JM :cool: :rolleyes:

[Knoxville]

Well I'm 33% Gay, that's 1% Gayer than most straight females, I always knew I was above average.

[Sir Toose]

[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]But I know if I took that test I would be 100% stright and that is not a bad thing it is a good thing inleast for me and my parents!lol!

No you wouldn't. Not unless you believe that gays are a different species. You have a lot in common with gays.

[Golgot]

No you wouldn't. Not unless you believe that gays are a different species. You have a lot in common with gays.


No no, she's clean, gays are dirty. She's made that quite clear (tho i hope she scrubs everywhere. Neglect behind the ears for one day and who knows what might happen. She may mutate).

But i think she's in the clear. It's been established on another thread that she's a prist-teen person. :)

[Philmster]

A slightly disturbing test, but, 23%, Im not gay.

[Piddzilla]

God damnit! I'm almost gay! 42%!!!! What will mom and dad say?? :(

[Sexy Celebrity]

God damnit! I'm almost gay! 42%!!!! What will mom and dad say?? :(

They'll say, "Make us a souffle".

[Piddzilla]

They'll say, "Make us a souffle".

HEY, I CAN DO THAT TOO!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!


What's a souffle?

[Golgot]

Erm, a puffy, fluffy example of the culinary art.

Something you cook. :)

[Piddzilla]

Erm, a puffy, fluffy example of the culinary art.

Something you cook. :)

You're gay, right?

[Golgot]

You're gay, right?

Only 28% apparently. Dammit. I'm subnormal :rolleyes:

[Piddzilla]

Only 28% apparently. Dammit. I'm subnormal :rolleyes:

In other words, you're a homophobe.

[Golgot]

In other words, you're a homophobe.

Men are evil i tell you! :)

(actually, i'm surprised that website worked for me. Last time i did one of their personality tests it constantly crashed when it tried to tell me my rating, no matter what computer i was on. I'm uncategorisable i tell you :);))

[r3port3r66]

28% ?! Doggon it Gg, I am so crushed!

[Golgot]

28% ?! Doggon it Gg, I am so crushed!

Hey, it must just mean i hate myself :) - or at least 28% of myself ;)

[r3port3r66]

Hey, it must just mean i hate myself :) - or at least 28% of myself ;)

No matter. I'm still crushed over the other 72%! ;)

[Golgot]

No matter. I'm still crushed over the other 72%! ;)

Heheheh. Just coz I don't get a thrill when i touch someone else's todger playing football? I'll try and jiggle around a bit next time ;) :rolleyes: (i'm not entirely sure these tests are accurate anyway ;)) - like, i like women with both short and long hair. But i went with long hair coz more of my liasons and emotional-abrasions have involved women with long hair. Did this tip the balance in some way? Who knows :shrugging-smiley:

(incidently, did anyone think all of the "women" at the end were men?? I did pick the classic-prom-girl looking one, even tho i thought she was a man, just coz i wasn't that impressed by any of them.)

[megalith]

I'm 43% gay, which is 11% over the average....... :eek:

Hmmmmm... Well yeah, I am very "intimate" with my girl friends, I guess.

[Monkeypunch]

I'm 43% gay, which is 11% over the average....... :eek:

Hmmmmm... Well yeah, I am very "intimate" with my girl friends, I guess.

:eek: Oh, no! Not again!!!! :eek:

(I am just kidding....)

[Jackie Malfoy]

Actly I am a human being not an alien sorry!And I am stright not really a clean person through who ever told you that on another site they lied! :cool:
Anyway just leting you know that I am 100%stright and proud of it!See you around!JM Just wanting to clear that up with yuo and I have a boyfriend n ot a girlfriend! :cool:

[Golgot]

Ah, sorry, to be gay is to be a dirty alien. Now it's all clear :rolleyes: :p ;)

(erm, and it was you who said the "clean" thing young princess pristeen ;))