What are you even talking about? Are you going to bring some intelligent conversation to the table? Or are you going to spew semi-coherent babble all over the forums like you have been until my ferret ninja assassins track you down? [/end rant]
Really...I have no idea what you are talking about.
People keep posting attacks on homosexuality based on religion. This cannot happen because 1) it is fallacious 2) it is idiotic
If you need a god to help you explain everything in the world around you then just stop trying. Either your brain is not developed enough for you to come up with independent ideas or you simply haven't read enough (or both, I suppose).
People do that because without any religion, homosexuality is fine. So without religion, there would really be much less arguement, and the entire Religions part of the World Events, Politics, Religions, Etc. forum would not even exist.
There are plenty of reasons beyond religion to not have homosexuality. One of the most prominent is that it does not help to ensure the future existence of the human race. If everyone turned homosexual, the human race would die out in a generation. If we are just another animal (albeit one with the ability to reason) then our primary functions are self defense and procreation. If you incorporate these ideas into what a definition of a creature that's alive, then in that sense it goes against "nature" or whatever to have homosexual relations. Also, we keep saying that homosexuality is bad. That means that even thinking about it or feeling that way is bad. Do we actually mean that, or just the act of doing the nasty with of the same gender? Am I okay if I think about being a homosexual all the time but I just don't make wampum?
And then, there are the articles I posted earlier about lesbians and gay men having children themselves. So really we don't need men because they can't carry a child (yet).
Muhaha *cough* hahaha!
*tames angry, stereotypical, lesbian hatred for males*
With some animal species it actually helps reproductive behavior and practices to act homosexually part of the time. So really, in some animal cases is does help procreation.
I think if they want to get married it is their problem. I don't care, I just won't take part.
My friend on the other hand has this interesting argument: I have no problem with them being togather, but they can't call it marriage. They can have a different ritual, but marriage by definition is one man and one woman.
If my brain recalls correctly, Bush and his people tried to define marriage a few years back as a man and a woman, and that kinda failed.
Marriage is a union between two people irregardless of sex, gender, race, or ideals. It shouldn't be so callously and irresponsibly defined as a single style or type.
Gah, 28 pages! Yes, I read them all...not that I am bragging, but man, that was a lot. I'm going to respond to a couple things...bear with me, as I don't have the normal quote option.
notataco: I dont mind being around any type of homosexaulity unless they are trying to convert me.
If someone is trying to convert your sexuality, there is probably something wrong with them as a person (see next quote), not because they are gay. Try not to attribute the behaviors of one person to a group of people.
Asherlee: I try to convert women all the time
Case in point
Asherlee: But I thought priests were celibate. So, wouldn't all priests be more asexual than anything?
Asexual in that they don't have sex, yes. Asexual in that they don't want to have sex, perhaps not.
At Moegreche (a reply to various comments on this page):
I'd like to see you explain everything in the world around you all by yourself. Don't worry about everyone "turning" gay, the religious right would never let that happen But seriously, if someone thinks homosexuality is wrong because children aren't a byproduct, does it automatically become fine if they make a child using artificial insemination or adopt a child that wouldn't have lived otherwise? If a gay person/couple does their part, so to speak, to "ensure the future existence of the human race" is it suddenly acceptable?
Isn't "reason" considered part of our nature? If I reason that homosexuality is perfectly fine for me, am I still going against my nature? Eh, semantics, I suppose.
Carlie, I know that a few that are good. If only for lifting heavy things.
Eyes, about the priests - I think it is such a bad idea that they restrict such a natural human action. I wonder if that's why a number of priests molest young boys...
I read about this, I think. That a portion of Christianity is based off the opposite things in Paganism. Like we get our notion of the devil from the male god of fertility in Paganism. But Pagan held sex in their ceremonies and thus anything Christian needed to be pulled away from sex. I think...
Actually in some forms of Christianity, you need to be married to be a priest. At one point in Roman Catholic Christianity there were woman priests, but they just eventually got pushed aside. I think it was out of predjudice, but I am not sure why. Sex is actually a big bible topic. Prostitution is an accepted thing in teh bible.
Can you find any evidence of women priests? From what I understand, the Roman Catholic Church only recognizes baptized males as capable of being ordained. Do you have names of women priests? Wait, why are we talking about this?
