How Gay are you?

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

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

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.

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

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

MoFo MoJo -- 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.)

Hmmm, are we just making conversation now T?

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

You believe it 'cos you heard it?
Elaborate.

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.

Hmmm, Well it would fit his persona.

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.
...

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!

Thanks...I think.


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...

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?


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.

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.