Forums → WEPR → Homosexuality
| 704 | 155211 |
Since this topic hasn't been popping up much, and since the old threads are all so cluttered up, I took the liberty of creating this new one.
So yes, someone asked me for sources about my claims that 1500 species of animals practice homosexual behaviour? Here.
Source 1
Source 2
Now on to one of the sub questions. Is it natural? Well, someone mentioned that it wasn't natural only for humans. Now, why this discrimination? If the Gods of various religions keep throwing and creating people who are homosexual, either a) They're bad factory operators or b) Something is fishy with whatever anti-gay talk religious conservatives swear is sacred.
- 704 Replies
Honestly, i try to stay away from this topic, i guess i am fine with it, i mean i am not gay, nor do i know anyone who is, but i guess i dont really care if you are gay or not.
@thebluerabit- how do two guys have sex? wait, dont say it, i dont want to know.
besides, according to christianity just not being christian is a sin. why not hate all non-christians? also, since we are all sinners (even the christians) according to christianity why not just hate everybody uncluding yourself
Are you talking about people who hate other people that sin? I'm really confused at where your going.
but nowhere does it say in the bible that you can't be gay.
Romans 1:26-27 (NIV)
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
It goes on to state what these people deserve.
Romans 1:32 (NIV)
Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
We also get a list of things that will get you into hell.
1 Corinthians 6:9 (KJV)
Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Note the bolded part, the Greek word used here is arsenokoites which translates to mean ;a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity.
Leviticus 18:22Actually, the original verse was meant for pedophilla or something along the lines of that, but as it was translated over 2000+ years, the verse changed ever so slightly. Kinda like a big game of "Telephone."
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Actually, the original verse was meant for pedophilla or something along the lines of that, but as it was translated over 2000+ years, the verse changed ever so slightly. Kinda like a big game of "Telephone."
how could you possibly know that then? im pretty sure no one has the "original" book of leviticus
how could you possibly know that then? im pretty sure no one has the "original" book of leviticusHunch. I've heard about it, and... ****, I lost my train of thought. Umm, um.... ****, I forgot. I'll figure it out at a time when it's not relevant anymore.
Honestly, i try to stay away from this topic, i guess i am fine with it, i mean i am not gay, nor do i know anyone who is, but i guess i dont really care if you are gay or not.
@thebluerabit- how do two guys have sex? wait, dont say it, i dont want to know.
umm... in a way that many streight couples do to.
Are you talking about people who hate other people that sin? I'm really confused at where your going.
what i mean is that the religious people who hate gays use their religion to justify their hatred. using the same logic any person like that would hate any other person and even himself. in the end its just homophobia or lack of logic (which both are pretty horibble to have...)
what i mean is that the religious people who hate gays use their religion to justify their hatred. using the same logic any person like that would hate any other person and even himself. in the end its just homophobia or lack of logic (which both are pretty horibble to have...)
I've only heard one logical arguement in my findings and discussions to justify being against homosexuality. the rest just make people sound like intollerent bigots that if it was still deemed "olitically correct" they would be making the same remarks about interracial marriages.
I've only heard one logical arguement in my findings and discussions to justify being against homosexuality.
Which argument would that be?
Actually, the original verse was meant for pedophilla or something along the lines of that, but as it was translated over 2000+ years, the verse changed ever so slightly. Kinda like a big game of "Telephone."
No, not really. In the original hebrew, the word was "Tishcav", which means to lie (in the context of lying down). And according to Jewish law, if a single letter is wrong in the entire torah, you can't use it, and Jews are as strict as you can get about this. So since it has never been translated and has always been kept word for word, I don't understand how anything get's lost in the hebrew.
I've only heard one logical arguement in my findings and discussions to justify being against homosexuality.
i wonder what it is? i never heard even one logical argument
Which argument would that be?
i still didnt agree with it, but it kind of made sense.
the arguement was (and im sure youve heard it), "where does it stop from there?"
they argued that if we let gay people get married then others will start fighting for things like getting married to multiple people, or incest marriages, or getting married to animals.
like if we legalized marijuana, then soon afterwords, there would be another drug that people would want legalized soon after
not that i agree with those arguments really, but i guess i could write it off as a "logical" argument. not quite plausible in my opinion, but i can see what they mean. it isnt based around being a bigot (though typically its the bigot saying it anyway)
not that i agree with those arguments really, but i guess i could write it off as a "logical" argument. not quite plausible in my opinion, but i can see what they mean. it isnt based around being a bigot (though typically its the bigot saying it anyway)
The thing is, if this argument was logical (which it isn't) it would be just as logical to make the same argument against ALL marriage. I mean, if Homosexual marriage is a slippery slope towards inter-species marriage, then surely straight marriage is a slippery slope towards gay marriage, and thus sets the stage for everything else as well.
they argued that if we let gay people get married then others will start fighting for things like getting married to multiple people, or incest marriages, or getting married to animals.
This is called a slippery slope fallacy.
"Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it weâll be doing something that we donât want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldnât do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible."
the arguement was (and im sure youve heard it), "where does it stop from there?"
Recognizing same-sex marriage, some say, will make it more likely
that the law will one day recognize polygamy.
This is a classic slippery slope argument: Even if legal action A today (recognizing same-sex marriage) wouldn't be that bad, or would even be moderately good, it should be opposed because it will increase the likelihood of a supposedly much worse legal action B in the future (recognizing polygamy).
And the argument isn't a logical one, but a psychological one: Though A and B are distinguishable, the argument goes, in practice it's likely that various actors in our legal systemâ"legislators, voters, judgesâ"will eventually end up not distinguishing them.
Slippery slope arguments are themselves pretty meaningless because it is difficult not only to prove that the slope exists but it is equally difficult to establish where the slope began. In other words, if there is a slippery slope to be found with regards to marriage, why couldnât it have started between a man and a woman?
If you let a man and a woman get married, you are starting down a dangerous road! Just wait, they'll eventually be wanting two men to be married! Good Lord, think of the dire consequences of that one! Tsk tsk.
You must be logged in to post a reply!