EMW

I'd like to think that God, like any earthly father, would want his child to be happy above all else.

Even if their actions cause harm to society? Why should a vast minority's happiness be of more importance than the majority's?

So the Bible tells you it's a sin. So don't do it. But what's it to you if other people do it?

Because it's wrong, and it harms society. So naturally we want to stop harm, but we can't force you to stop it. It's all about rights. You're free to do what you want until it interferes with someone else's rights.

Oh wow I've been gone, well I think the only thing I have to defend right now is Sam's thing about the animals.

People set up trust funds for their animals, they leave animals their possessions when they die. They share their assets, home, lives and more with animals. The animal can't "support itself" in our culture but it's completely sufficient in the wild. They help each other out with things. Dog's help heard sheep and hunt and things like that. I would call that a cohesive business relationship. Let's say a farmer wants to marry his sheep dog? Why not, he loves it, they work together, they share food and housing and have a great sex life. Why should you be able to draw the line at species? What gives you that right when we don't have the right to draw the line at heterosexual?

The bible never commends us not to have sex with animals other than in the same section of scripture that it commands us not to be homosexual so I'm sure it could be interpreted away. As for the man owning the dog, man used to own man and it was no big deal. Times change. There are people in Europe trying to get a monkey or chimp citizenship or something. Who's to say that some day animals will be granted citizenship and marriage rights?

Neighborhood Studios wrote:

I'd like to think that God, like any earthly father, would want his child to be happy above all else.

Even if their actions cause harm to society? Why should a vast minority's happiness be of more importance than the majority's?

How does homosexuality harm society?

So the Bible tells you it's a sin. So don't do it. But what's it to you if other people do it?

Because it's wrong, and it harms society. So naturally we want to stop harm, but we can't force you to stop it. It's all about rights. You're free to do what you want until it interferes with someone else's rights.

How so?

VIP wrote:The bible never commends us not to have sex with animals other than in the same section of scripture that it commands us not to be homosexual so I'm sure it could be interpreted away.

You're sure it could be interpreted that way?
Well I'm sure it can't. So who is right?

There is an obvious difference in two consenting adult human beings having a relationship, and a human being and an animal having a relationship. The difference is scientific and societal, regardless of "But they work together, and you know when the cat rubs his head against your leg...love" arguments. So why don't you argue the relationship between the two human beings. If you can't do that without pulling out awesome arguments like, "Well what about animals and carpets", obviously you do not have an argument. The burden of proof is on the naysayers.

How does homosexuality harm society?

That has been the entire point of the debate, and I really don't want to have to go through 5 pages to quote myself about the harms for the third or fourth times. I refer you to them, and when you spot some more statements about its harms that you disagree with, you can bring 'em up here! Sounds good?

Quote:

Quote:
So the Bible tells you it's a sin. So don't do it. But what's it to you if other people do it?


Because it's wrong, and it harms society. So naturally we want to stop harm, but we can't force you to stop it. It's all about rights. You're free to do what you want until it interferes with someone else's rights.


How so?

You believe that we can abuse rights so that it's OK to do whatever even if it interferes with others' rights?

Neighborhood Studios wrote:

How does homosexuality harm society?

That has been the entire point of the debate, and I really don't want to have to go through 5 pages to quote myself about the harms for the third or fourth times. I refer you to them, and when you spot some more statements about its harms that you disagree with, you can bring 'em up here! Sounds good?

Quote:

Quote:
So the Bible tells you it's a sin. So don't do it. But what's it to you if other people do it?


Because it's wrong, and it harms society. So naturally we want to stop harm, but we can't force you to stop it. It's all about rights. You're free to do what you want until it interferes with someone else's rights.


How so?

You believe that we can abuse rights so that it's OK to do whatever even if it interferes with others' rights?

I've read all five pages and have yet to see how it harms you. So humor me and list it.
How does it harm society and how does it interfere with your rights?

rackfocus wrote:So the Bible tells you it's a sin. So don't do it. But what's it to you if other people do it?

Where did you get the impression that I was the person clubbing these people with tire wrenches? I really don't care what they do in their spare time. I think about a quarter of my friends are homo or bi but what's it to me? I just don't think that God approves of it, if I did I'd probably be gay. I have personal convictions about it and I think that all Christians should too. If you're not a Christian you're not bound by those rules so it really doesn't matter. The only society gays could possibly harm by being gay is the other gays and they know the risks and chose to participate. It's nothing to me if other people do it, I just don't approve of it.

VIP wrote:

rackfocus wrote:So the Bible tells you it's a sin. So don't do it. But what's it to you if other people do it?

Where did you get the impression that I was the person clubbing these people with tire wrenches? I really don't care what they do in their spare time. I think about a quarter of my friends are homo or bi but what's it to me? I just don't think that God approves of it, if I did I'd probably be gay. I have personal convictions about it and I think that all Christians should too. If you're not a Christian you're not bound by those rules so it really doesn't matter. The only society gays could possibly harm by being gay is the other gays and they know the risks and chose to participate. It's nothing to me if other people do it, I just don't approve of it.

Yes, but some of those who do not approve of it attack those who do it, and make it more difficult for those who chooses it as a lifestyle. If it were truly "you do what you want", then it would be legal in all states.

First off, I can pull up any number of articles on the harm it causes to the individuals that partake it in. For example:

It is such a rational examination that I intend to undertake in order to show that homosexuality is physically harmful to those who practice it. The scientific evidence supporting this assertion is overwhelming. Mr. Firehammer writes that "Michigan's statewide 'gay' newspaper, Between the Lines, reports the risk of anal cancer 'soars' by nearly 4,000% for men who have intercourse with men. 'The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive.' Between the Lines admits there's no such thing as 'safe intercourse' to prevent this 'soaring' cancer risk ..." Even a publication devoted entirely to a homosexual readership is willing to admit that the disparities in disease contraction between homosexuals and heterosexuals are enormous. The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported in 1999 that

- "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."
- "Women who have intercourse with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."
- "Significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals." It seems that there is a correlation between the choice to pursue homosexuality and the choice to pursue other self-destructive behaviors as well, since the initial barriers of rational and moral restraint to the deleterious undertakings of those individuals have fallen.

I'll humor you, even though it is right in the posts:

What's worked for millennia and for the vast majority of the world is fine and it's how we were made to interact. Why pervert or try to change what ain't broke?

But how does this action benefit society? Answer me that.

How do homosexual acts contribute to the well being, foundation, and success of humanity? It doesn't, it's for selfish pleasure only. As in, it only benefits the immediate party.

Anyway, there is no debate if you look at this purely from a Biblical standpoint. My point exactly.

Sex is made to procreate. That's its purpose. Not to have fun with someone you think is attractive.

It's an issue of boundaries, whatever level you argue on. Change is hard, and in this particular case I don't think change in society is neccessary. Again, why fix what isn't broken? Why change our lifestyle for the 2%-7% of America (homosexuals)? I say majority rules. And that's how America works in a democracy, folks.

It's a morals and boundaries issue. It's against my morals and boundaries, and against the morals of the vast majority of America. Desensitizing America by making such acts acceptable will help to degrade the innocence and sanctity of sex and love AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE: for procreation. You can't argue that that's the purpose of it from the beginning of time.

True enough rack focus but I don't think that America is ready for that yet. I really don't care if it's legal or illegal, that's not the argument here. Premarital sex and even cheating are legal sins and you don't see people running around trying to put up laws about it. I don't get what the big fuss about the legality of homosexuality is. I though this debate was about the ethics of it.

Neighborhood Studios wrote:First off, I can pull up any number of articles on the harm it causes to the individuals that partake it in. For example:

It is such a rational examination that I intend to undertake in order to show that homosexuality is physically harmful to those who practice it. The scientific evidence supporting this assertion is overwhelming. Mr. Firehammer writes that "Michigan's statewide 'gay' newspaper, Between the Lines, reports the risk of anal cancer 'soars' by nearly 4,000% for men who have intercourse with men. 'The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive.' Between the Lines admits there's no such thing as 'safe intercourse' to prevent this 'soaring' cancer risk ..." Even a publication devoted entirely to a homosexual readership is willing to admit that the disparities in disease contraction between homosexuals and heterosexuals are enormous. The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported in 1999 that

- "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."
- "Women who have intercourse with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."
- "Significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals." It seems that there is a correlation between the choice to pursue homosexuality and the choice to pursue other self-destructive behaviors as well, since the initial barriers of rational and moral restraint to the deleterious undertakings of those individuals have fallen.

I'll humor you, even though it is right in the posts:

What's worked for millennia and for the vast majority of the world is fine and it's how we were made to interact. Why pervert or try to change what ain't broke?

But how does this action benefit society? Answer me that.

How do homosexual acts contribute to the well being, foundation, and success of humanity? It doesn't, it's for selfish pleasure only. As in, it only benefits the immediate party.

Anyway, there is no debate if you look at this purely from a Biblical standpoint. My point exactly.

Sex is made to procreate. That's its purpose. Not to have fun with someone you think is attractive.

It's an issue of boundaries, whatever level you argue on. Change is hard, and in this particular case I don't think change in society is neccessary. Again, why fix what isn't broken? Why change our lifestyle for the 2%-7% of America (homosexuals)? I say majority rules. And that's how America works in a democracy, folks.

Firstly, what's the link for your article(s)?
Secondly, none of those negatively affect society. As for drinking, and drug use: most sub-cultures have these problems. If society didn't frown upon homosexuality, and it was widely accepted, incidents of suicide, drinking, and drugs would be vastly lower. But when you are 15 years old, and your parents hate who you are, and people pick on you and call you names, what do you think is going to happen?

Pretend that homosexuality is the norm and heterosexuality is not. You are hetero, but you aren't allowed to marry. What do you do? Do you have pre-marital sex? You get into relationships knowing they can never go beyond dating. That's pretty depressing. Not to mention you are less likely to stay in a relationship because you can't marry or have a deeper relationship. So you move to the next partner.

Put all this crap in context and it's far less sensational.

And here's a good aspect of gay relationships: adoption. Thousands of children in foster care. Gay couples are more likely to adopt the children that heterosexual couples created and abandoned.

It's a morals and boundaries issue. It's against my morals and boundaries, and against the morals of the vast majority of America. Desensitizing America by making such acts acceptable will help to degrade the innocence and sanctity of sex and love AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE: for procreation. You can't argue that that's the purpose of it from the beginning of time.

If sex is strictly for procreation, then heterosexual couples should only have sex to have children.

It's an issue of boundaries, whatever level you argue on. Change is hard, and in this particular case I don't think change in society is neccessary. Again, why fix what isn't broken? Why change our lifestyle for the 2%-7% of America (homosexuals)? I say majority rules. And that's how America works in a democracy, folks.

Actually, we live in a representative Republic. So if our elected officials vote for homosexuality, then that IS the majority.

VIP wrote:True enough rack focus but I don't think that America is ready for that yet. I really don't care if it's legal or illegal, that's not the argument here. Premarital sex and even cheating are legal sins and you don't see people running around trying to put up laws about it. I don't get what the big fuss about the legality of homosexuality is. I though this debate was about the ethics of it.

It's both, I guess, since the topic is just "homosexuality".
America isn't just ready, but it's happening.
There are laws about adultery, but they are not used because they do not fit in with current society.

rackfocus wrote:There are laws about adultery, but they are not used because they do not fit in with current society.

I didn't know that, what are they?

America isn't just ready, but it's happening.
I'm not arguing with the content of this sentence but they way you wrote it. The position of the modifier makes it sound as though America is happening. It would be better to say: America isn't just ready, they're making it happen. Or something like that, I don't know, it just sounds better to me.

Where are we going with this?

No, homosexuality doesn't harm society as it stands. Infact NS, it is probably doing society a favor by limiting population.

The condom thing, that is an interpretation, but nowhere in the Bible does it actually state any disagreement to have safe-sex. VIP, this is a good example of how different denominations are formed. Now, I don't beleive in condoms, but it is important to actually quote Bible when backing up a biblical point, because the Bible doesn't talk about them.

And you can say that you will interpret it differently. You cant. It is clear that God does not want us to sleep with he same sex, as well as animals. In the OT, sleeping with animals was worthy of death. You should know this. You said that you have gone through church and 'Sunday-school', so interpretations should have not even been brought up.

You can't keep bringing up the interpretation problem with the Bible. The truth is, the Bible is very very black and white. The only thing that changes is society. For example, the black slave white ownership deal was totally ok years back. Christians enforced it. But if you read the Bible, you will know that it said nothing about that. Infact, the Bible was against it. So why is the Bible a better moral guide then ourselves? Because it is always the same. The same virtues and traits apply to today's society, as well as to the generations living thousands of years ago.

I don't think that NS's arguments are valid. That is a matter of opinion. The way that homosexuality harms society is that the whole movement is one step closer to a non-functioning world. Again, I bring up my argument about having sex with objects and animals. If your argument is correct, you need to stop arguing the animal case being wrong. Don't dismiss this, because it is a huge flaw in what you are saying.

Its funny how this leads back to God again. Where would we be without him?

Why would God care? Wouldn't you think He would want his child to live happily? Wouldn't you think that God would want foster children to get loving parents regardless of their sexual orientation?
I'd like to think that God, like any earthly father, would want his child to be happy above all else.

He wants us to be happy, he doesn't want us to sin! I can't believe you even said something so... Retarded? My dad wouldn't want me to do drugs, but he still would love me if I did. God doesn't want you to sin. That obvious.

Oh, and also I have something that will stand on a christians view and an atheists view. It isn't natural and you cannot argue that.

No, homosexuality doesn't harm society as it stands. Infact NS, it is probably doing society a favor by limiting population.

That is very true, by the year 2050, it may be expected that if a war doesn't break out the world will have to start living in small apartments (sort of what some of the poorer Chinese live in today) and have a more rice-based diet. But, that is very irrelevant to this topic. And it still doesn't make it right even if they are doing society a favor.

Anyways, homosexuality is not natural and the point is that you cannot argue it. If it were natural guys would have vaginas...

envisageworks wrote:
And you can say that you will interpret it differently. You cant. It is clear that God does not want us to sleep with he same sex, as well as animals. In the OT, sleeping with animals was worthy of death. You should know this. You said that you have gone through church and 'Sunday-school', so interpretations should have not even been brought up.

I've lived among many different religions, and all religious texts are interpreted differently. In the Muslim religion, stealing is worthy of getting your hand chopped off, and adultery (female) was rewarded with death by stoning in the OT.

You can't keep bringing up the interpretation problem with the Bible. The truth is, the Bible is very very black and white. The only thing that changes is society. For example, the black slave white ownership deal was totally ok years back. Christians enforced it. But if you read the Bible, you will know that it said nothing about that. Infact, the Bible was against it. So why is the Bible a better moral guide then ourselves? Because it is always the same. The same virtues and traits apply to today's society, as well as to the generations living thousands of years ago.

That is my point entirely. Society, including the society under which the Bible was written, continually changes. During those times, homosexuality was looked down upon. Wouldn't it make sense for the people who are writing a guidebook for societal morals write against homosexuality, just as they write against stealing, eating bottom dwellers and pork, etc...

I don't think that NS's arguments are valid. That is a matter of opinion. The way that homosexuality harms society is that the whole movement is one step closer to a non-functioning world. Again, I bring up my argument about having sex with objects and animals. If your argument is correct, you need to stop arguing the animal case being wrong. Don't dismiss this, because it is a huge flaw in what you are saying.

The animal case is invalid because you are taking it to the extreme to prove a point, and that is frowned upon in debates because that is the refuge of the weak. Perhaps we were discussing cake, and I said cake is bad because someone people may eat cake 24/7. Sure, that's bad, but that doesn't make cake bad. It makes taking eating cake to the extreme bad. Plug in anything for "cake".

Its funny how this leads back to God again. Where would we be without him?

If we believed in Buddha, it would all lead back to Buddha.