Why is being gay considered wrong?

pdoel said:

Ok, if you want to talk validity in this thread, how about this. How is your not wanting to pay for AIDs valid to a thread on "why is homosexuality wrong"? It isn't. Your comment has nothing to do with why homosexuality is right or wrong. It's basically just a nasty comment that really has no validity, which I have proven. So, if you don't like people commenting on your ridiculous comments, don't make them. And, if you don't want people to get off topic, then maybe you shouldn't have been off topic yourself.

Click to expand...

No, it's valid. If you had read the question too, and not just the title, you would have read "As long as it doesn't harm anyone else, why the big deal?" I'm saying that it does harm me. I have to pay for the AIDs treatment of homosexuals who choose to behave in a risky manner. Until tax reforms, the issue does harm me, so it is "a big deal."

This is pretty funny. These have been studies that have been performed over decades, by many different people, all in the business of doing psychologically studies. What exactly is it that you are looking for? These were studies about children, how they've adapted in life, how they get along with other children, how they do in school, in social situations, etc. It's not like these studies compared children of higher income gay parents who attended private schools, to redneck hick children raised by heterosexual wolves. To be honest, I could quote hundreds of studies, and it's not going to change your thinking whatsoever. Your mind is made up. And you did not come to this decision based on any research, any proof, etc. It's your own prejudices, which is rather sad. Proof could slap you in the face, and you still wouldn't budge.

Click to expand...

How do you know that if you actually gave me proof it woudn't change my views on this issue? you haven't given me any proof, though I'm an open minded person when I see proof. You go ahead and quote hundreds of studies, and, if you turn out to be right, I stop considering the children as a reason I consider homosexuality wrong.

This is the first I've heard you mention the Bible. So far, all I've seen you talk about is your disgust with having to pay for AIDs. And crying when people question you on these types of comments, because they aren't valid to the topic. Even though your comments have no validity on the topic either. Waa waa waa.

Click to expand...

When did I cry? Is it called crying when I don't understand what possible point a person's posts have, so I ask for clearification? I guess a lot of people do a lot of crying on this forum. And I've at least been trying to show how my comments do have validity. All you say is that they don't, but don't give any proof. If you don't want a real debate, why are you here?

Neo-Logic said:

If someone asked me what I thought of it, I would say it's wrong, in my personal opinion. But would I support doing away with homosexuals or condemening them? No, I would not. While I do not advocate it, I also do not condemn it.

Click to expand...

That's the same for me. But for some reason people think that if in theory I think homosexuality is a sin, that that must also mean that I walk around telling every homosexual that I meet that they will burn in a fiery hell. It's not the same thing.

Melody said:

If someone says homosexuality is wrong, that's not pointing a finger and it's not judging. It's merely a statement of their beliefs.
If someone says people who act on their homosexuality are sinners and are going to hell, that's pointing and judging. Only God knows who the sinners are and if their sin is going to send them to hell.

Perhaps that's what is massively wrong with the world...parents aren't teaching their children to "judge" (aka "discern") or teaching them that "this or that" is a sin. I did raise my children this way and it's called "teaching them values" and "teaching them the difference between right and wrong"...both by word and modeling the appropriate behavior.

Click to expand...

Thank you Melody. I have never, not once on this forum or outside of it pointed my finger at a homosexual and told them they were a sinner and going to hell. I'm strictly debating theoretical beleifs, not applying these beleifs in any manner to any one particular person in order to condemn that one person.

I have to pay for the AIDs treatment of homosexuals who choose to behave in a risky manner.

Click to expand...

... Because only gay people get AIDs. Riiiiiight.

Draka said:

I don't know about anyone else, but that just seems a gross comparison to me.

Click to expand...

Gross comparison ? gross is too mild a word - but I respect your control..........

Jensa said:

I believe it's supposed to be disgusting enough to get people to change their homosexuality, Draka. Fortunately, I grew up around dogs and have witnessed much nastier displays than eating vomit. (Let's just say we also raise cows... and the dogs have a rather icky interest in their dung. Ew.)

Click to expand...

well, yes, obviously, sin is vomit - that is why anyone with a stomach infection is a sinner - didn't you know ? Doh!!!

jamaesi said:

... Because only gay people get AIDs. Riiiiiight.

Click to expand...

No. But, in case you haven't noticed, this thread is about homosexuals. If someone were to start a thread "why is drug use bad. If it doesn't harm anyone else, what's the big deal?" or about any other high risk lifestyle, I would definitely post about having to pay for the treatment of those people, too. But that's not what this thread is about. (Why can't I say something about homosexuals and only homosexuals without having to write a disclaimer that I also beleive this about other people as well, but it's not for this thread? Can't we stay on topic and stop reading into thing that just because I'm staying on the topic means that what I say only applies to the topic?)

Aqualung said:

No. But, in case you haven't noticed, this thread is about homosexuals. If someone were to start a thread "why is drug use bad. If it doesn't harm anyone else, what's the big deal?" or about any other high risk lifestyle, I would definitely post about having to pay for the treatment of those people, too. But that's not what this thread is about. (Why can't I say something about homosexuals and only homosexuals without having to write a disclaimer that I also beleive this about other people as well, but it's not for this thread? Can't we stay on topic and stop reading into thing that just because I'm staying on the topic means that what I say only applies to the topic?)

Click to expand...

I think the reason that the quote was brought up was because you mentioned AIDS as

No, it's valid. If you had read the question too, and not just the title, you would have read "As long as it doesn't harm anyone else, why the big deal?" I'm saying that it does harm me. I have to pay for the AIDs treatment of homosexuals who choose to behave in a risky manner. Until tax reforms, the issue does harm me, so it is "a big deal."

Click to expand...

People are staying on topic because you seem to be under the impression that gay people 'behave in a risky manner'. Indeed, you seem to equate them with drug users in terms of risk.

The reason that people are bringing it up is because this is not true. Also, since "ain't nobody suggesting national healthcare" in America at the moment, I'm not sure how many of your hypothetical tax dollars are going to this.

this site http://www.avert.org/aids-america.htm says that gay men are at a higher risk for AIDs than the general population (as are drug users). A site that I quoted earlier place the tax dollars that are going toward AIDs research at 80 mil. Another said that AIDs was definitely not the top killer of people, but was 11 (I think?). That shows that, since gay men, especially, have a very good chance of taking my tax money, that the statement "it doesn't hurt anyone else" is false. It hurts me, because of the tax system

Please look closer.

(From the same site)

AIDS in America began as something which mainly affected gay men, particularly. Over the years, however, the epidemic has moved towards a gradual gender-balance, as increasing numbers of women have come to be infected with HIV, something we can infer from rising female AIDS diagnoses. During 2003 women accounted for 27% of all AIDS cases, up from 8% in 1985. Heterosexual intercourse accounts for most HIV diagnoses amongst women - 79% in 2003 - and there are strong indications that the main risk factor for many women acquiring HIV heterosexually is the risky behaviour of their male partners, about which they were often uninformed. Recent research in a low-income area of New York City, for example, has shown that women were more than twice as likely to be infected by a husband or steady boyfriend than by casual sex partners. Along with injecting drug use, unsafe sex with other men on the part of male partners appears to be a significant risk factor for some women23.

Click to expand...

By that token, straight women should be blamed for your tax dollars.

Aqualung said:

No. But, in case you haven't noticed, this thread is about homosexuals. If someone were to start a thread "why is drug use bad. If it doesn't harm anyone else, what's the big deal?" or about any other high risk lifestyle, I would definitely post about having to pay for the treatment of those people, too. But that's not what this thread is about. (Why can't I say something about homosexuals and only homosexuals without having to write a disclaimer that I also beleive this about other people as well, but it's not for this thread? Can't we stay on topic and stop reading into thing that just because I'm staying on the topic means that what I say only applies to the topic?)

Click to expand...

From what I have seen the topics people are using are topics that you have brought up. They are using valid comparisons and equivolents to your statements. BTW, drug use DOES harm others...the people that use drugs have to get money for their habit and will steal and commit crimes to get that money, also, someone who is high on drugs on the road or in your workplace can cause you or someone else extreme harm due to their drug induced impairment and loss of judgement. While a homosexual on the road or in the workplace is no different than a heterosexual, and what goes on in their beds and private lives in no way affects you or anyone else directly.

As for the matter of paying insurance or taxes for homosexuals...they pay taxes for you as well and the benefits your state recognized marriage affords you in insurance rates, tax breaks and such. Things currently not afforded to them.

AIDS is not a homosexual disease either. Heterosexuals get AIDS as well...children of heterosexual parents are BORN with AIDS. Unless you want to somehow seperate paying insurance rates at a certain premium between what can be used for a heterosexual adult or child with AIDS or a homosexual with AIDS then your argument doesn't work. It also sounds quite uncaring for those affected with this cruel and fatal disease...no matter what their age or sexuality.

The truth of the matter is that homosexuals do not cost heterosexuals anything more than what are paid for themselves anyway...however homosexuals pay for things for heterosexuals that they themselves are not allowed. That is not right...no matter how you look at it.

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to FeathersinHair again.

Curses!

Jensa said:

I believe it's supposed to be disgusting enough to get people to change their homosexuality, Draka. Fortunately, I grew up around dogs and have witnessed much nastier displays than eating vomit. (Let's just say we also raise cows... and the dogs have a rather icky interest in their dung. Ew.)

Click to expand...

Not so much about being disgusting, rather it is supposed to illustrate going back to sin. I got the comparison from a couple places in the Bible.

Proverbs 26:11 As the dog returns to his vomit, so the fool repeats his folly.

2Peter:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome °, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again his ; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Still sick

turk179 said:

Aqualung, even if the stats that you posted were accurate now, the amount that comes out of your paycheck because of aids is nominal in comparison to everything else. The percentage of gay men in America is only about 5% according to several sources. Out of that 5% only a percentage of that are infected with aids. The elderly in America are estimated at 13% of the population. Now how many of them do you think are on a prescription drug plan through medicare? This is only one example out of many thousands of different items your tax dollars are going to. To me a good comparison to gays causing you harm because of the tax system would be if you fell off of a bridge and looked at all the damage caused by it and then said, "darn, I broke a fingernail."

Click to expand...

You must spread karma....

Coins your way!

Draka said:

You must spread karma....

Coins your way!

Click to expand...

Hehee, coins from you, frubals from me! Such a good comparison!

FeathersinHair said:

Hehee, coins from you, frubals from me! Such a good comparison!

Click to expand...

Yeah it was! My man can come up with some good things. I knew there was a reason I liked him .

Turk...good one baby!:jam:

Nice work Turk.
This thread is getting harder and harder to keep up with, every morning I look at it and there's about another 50 posts.

Aqualung said:

No, it's valid. If you had read the question too, and not just the title, you would have read "As long as it doesn't harm anyone else, why the big deal?" I'm saying that it does harm me. I have to pay for the AIDs treatment of homosexuals who choose to behave in a risky manner. Until tax reforms, the issue does harm me, so it is "a big deal."

Click to expand...

But still, you are off topic. Your beef is with the US Government, and what they choose to spend your taxes on. Your beef isn't with homosexuals. Your beef is with how your tax dollars are being spent. Also, you are changing your story. First you didn't like having to pay health benefits for homosexuals. But the information you posted was about government funding to RESEARCH. Not health benefits.

Again. If your beef is valid, then my comments about having to pay school taxes so the children of heterosexual parents can go to school is also valid.

When did I cry? Is it called crying when I don't understand what possible point a person's posts have, so I ask for clearification? I guess a lot of people do a lot of crying on this forum. And I've at least been trying to show how my comments do have validity. All you say is that they don't, but don't give any proof. If you don't want a real debate, why are you here?

Click to expand...

I do want a debate. It's just that you seem to throw out off topic points, and when people point out holes in your ideas, then you ask them to stay on topic. You give points, but you don't want them discussed. You don't want people to point out where you are wrong. I'm perfectly happy debating these points. I'm not the one who kept complaining because I had valid points to contradict yours.

Aqualung said:

But that's not what this thread is about. (Why can't I say something about homosexuals and only homosexuals without having to write a disclaimer that I also beleive this about other people as well, but it's not for this thread? Can't we stay on topic and stop reading into thing that just because I'm staying on the topic means that what I say only applies to the topic?)

Click to expand...

You really don't get it, do you? We are off topic, because you DROVE us there. Yes, you can say why you think homosexuality is wrong. But complaining about how the government spends your tax dollars, is not a reason why homosexuality is wrong. That's really what your beef is about.

And, if you want to discuss that, then maybe YOU should start a new thread about government spending.

Your comments that you have a beef against homosexuals because you have to pay for AIDs, like it or not, comes off as rather prejudiced and judgemental.