Why is being gay considered wrong?

[Aqualung]

It is a valid argument, and here's why. This thread is actually about "Why is homosexuality wrong". You actually gave reasons why you have a beef against homosexuals. One of your reasons was because you didn't like having to pay for people with AIDs. You brought up that argument, and therefore, made it something I have a right to cross examine. Any judge in this country would over rule your objections, and force you to answer any questions I had on this subject. You brought it up, therefore, it's open for debate.

Well, obvoiusly I don't understand what it is you want me to say. What is the problem with me not liking to pay for AIDS? Because it seems that the only problem is that you have to pay for school et al. I don't think that is very fair, as I have said about a million times, but still, I don't know how that has validity in this thread. Please state an actually argument and I'll argue it, but you stating opinion on other matters and expecting me to argue them, I cna't really understand that.

And, with that in mind. Since you have a beef with gays, because you have to pay health benefits, which means paying for people with AIDs. Do you also have a beef with fat people? You do realize that obesity is the biggest health problem facing Americans today, and more money goes to those health care costs, than any other?

Of course I have beef (haha. That's kind of a pun!) with paying for fat people. I don't like having to pay for things that people do to themselves because they can't contorl their eating urges.

What about cancer? That's #2. More money goes to cancer health costs, than it does to fighting AIDs.

Of course I have problems with that, too. Just because (usually) it wasn't their fault they got cancer does not mean that the government should force me to care about them. (this does not mean that I don't care. But I dont' think the govt has any right to make me care if I don't.)

Unfortunately, you "thinking" this, doesn't make it so. Like I said. Many studies have been done on this subject, all of which have proven you wrong.

Your thinking that the studies were completely equal and unbiased does not make them so. If you can prove to me that the studies you speak of actually were fair, then you will prove me wrong. But all you have done so far is to say that "studies show there is no difference." You have not shown how the studies were done, or anything that actually would prove me wrong.

Well, one thing I think is important about debates is to keep an open mind. Sure, fight your battle all you want, but I think it's good to listen and keep an open mind to what others have said.

I am listening, and I am keeping an open mind. But keeping an open mind does not equate me changing all my opinions because someone told me I was wrong, with no real evidence.

With that in mind, I have to say, I have changed a viewpoint, based on your posts. I used to think it was wrong that homosexuals had to pay for school taxes, considering this country won't allow them to marry, adopt children together, etc. So why pay for something they don't get to use. But now that I have read your posts, I have changed my mind. Maybe if I paid MORE for taxes, people like you would have received a decent education. Maybe you would have learned to use your mind for thinking, rather than to spew hate.

What's wrong with my education? Just because I'm a conservative and I beleive in the bible does not mean I'm retarded, and never once have you proven to me that I was wrong in my thinking in any point that I have made.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Ok, I am not reading 68 pages to catch up, so I"ll jump to my opinion and if this is something someone had already said, well ... bite me.

Homosexuality is considered wrong because two of the same sex cannot reproduce. By two being a couple, it is logical to assume that they will end up having sex at one point or another. The fact that reproduction, which is the obvious purpose of sex and life, can naturally be done only by a male and a female, homosexuality is considered wrong.

I'm probably jumping into cold water by dropping a couple of lines after 68 pages of arguments, but I don't care. :bounce

What what, you want to fight? Knockout Knockout

 

[jamaesi]

Now isn't it interesting, that while you embrace and/or practice this wrong act (homosexuality), you then from that basis are trying to tell me that the biblical orthodox church has been wrong on homosexuality from many many centuries. Could there be some polemical bias to your attempts? hmm? As a 17 year old kid you know everything already and are well versed in biblical scholarship?

See, now the issue that I have been talking about this ENTIRE time and only this issue (only this issue) is WHAT the historical biblical and Judeo-Christian position is on the subject. Now you are finally getting it (very slowly). But you NOW deny this as an accurate position from 2000 years?

Debate is rather polemical, first of all, and you obviously have your own biases. Secondly, if you want to use my age to handicap me, then go ahead. I´ll stick to debating the real issues at hand and not slipping in veiled ad hominems. As for my study of the Bible, I´ve read through the book once and taken college level classes on it for kicks. By question the validity of Bible I am not saying I know it all, I am just echoing the fact the Bible was written by men and translated by men and edited by men who were not God or Jesus Christ and added their own bias to it.

I understand what Paul "said" about homosexuality. As I stated before, I have reason to doubt the validity of the book. Also, Paul wasn´t exactly a completely tolerant and kind individual, he also has many sexist verses against women, among other things- or is it still shameful for a woman with her hair uncovered to speak in a Church? But the biggest thing about this was that Paul was Paul. Paul was not Jesus, Paul was not God. Paul was writing his letters long after Jesus had left this world. That alone would cause me to doubt what the man had to say on a topic Jesus had said nothing about. Jesus mainly stuck to the love the poor, the sinners, the everyone message I wish more Christians would take heart to.

Just because something has been around a while doesn´t make it right, either. How long did people (and people who used to the Bible to back up this up) believe the Earth was flat? How long as slavery been around? Racism? Sexism? Just because they have been around a long time does not make them correct or defendable positions.

I'll accept your challenge and now discuss if the position is accurate ONLY if you agree to abide by whatever the truth is. So for example, if you can show me that it is A-OK to be a homosexual via the system I abide by (thus the biblical account). Then I will be with you. BUTT (pun intended), if after the challenge you find out it is WRONG via the biblical account to monkey around the Banana Tree, then you must commit (before hand as I did) that you will immediately get some help, adopt my system, and abandon homosexualaity forever.

Am I proving this with what Jesus said? I think the "he without sin shall cast the first stone" story is powerful enough.

Pdoel was kind enough to bring up other quotes, I hope s/he doesn´t mind me quoting.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Do unto others as you'd have others do unto you.

Love they neighbor.

Let he who is without Sin, cast the first stone.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHO SHALL EVER believith in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

By your worldview everyone has sin and all sin is equal. If you ever commit any sin, no matter how small, you need as much "help" as I do.


I await your reply.

Marriage? I think that's between you and a church, and it should have nothing to do with the government at all.

Secular and nontheists can get married and that certainly isn´t from a Church. There are hundreds of rights that a married couple has by law- rights denied to homosexual couples.

Did you know that AIDs is actually not that comman, when compared to other diseases such as TB? Yet more of my tax money goes towards AIDs than any other disease. Why? Because it would be "discimination" against the gay men who get AIDs due to a risky lifestyle. That's my beef. If the tax system would change, I would have little non-Biblica beef.

That´s rather funny. This tells me that...

TB is one of the top three infectious killing diseases in the world: HIV/AIDS kills 3 million people each year, TB kills 2 million, and malaria kills 1 million.

 

[IndigoChild]

Ok, I am not reading 68 pages to catch up, so I"ll jump to my opinion and if this is something someone had already said, well ... bite me.

Homosexuality is considered wrong because two of the same sex cannot reproduce. By two being a couple, it is logical to assume that they will end up having sex at one point or another. The fact that reproduction, which is the obvious purpose of sex and life, can naturally be done only by a male and a female, homosexuality is considered wrong.

I'm probably jumping into cold water by dropping a couple of lines after 68 pages of arguments, but I don't care. :bounce

What what, you want to fight? Knockout Knockout

I'm assuming you don't disagree with homosexuality yourself, just are answering the question? I assume this because of your sig: "Limitation is my enemy and he who imposes it on me shall become my nemesis."

Kat

 

[Aqualung]

AIDS research now gets more money per patient than any other disease. The remarkable success of the AIDS lobby then became a model for people who wanted more money for breast cancer.
among killer diseases, breast cancer and AIDS arenít even near the top of the list. Breast cancer is eighth, AIDS 17th. Yet AIDS, with its $1.8 billion NIH budget, gets the most money. The number-one killer, heart disease, last year got half a billion dollars less. Per patient, the disparities are even greater. Last year AIDS got $2,400 per patient from NIH, breast cancer $230, heart disease just $108. Parkinsonís: $78. And diabetes, which last year killed more people than AIDS and breast cancer combined, just $28.
http://www.actupny.org/alert/2020.html

22 mil for obesity research
80 mil for AIDs research
taken from www.nih.gov/news/budget/FY2005presbudget.pdf

 

[Aqualung]

Secular and nontheists can get married and that certainly isn´t from a Church. There are hundreds of rights that a married couple has by law- rights denied to homosexual couples.

Even though it may be off topic, I don't think anyone should be able to get married outside of a church, or in a church in which they are not members, or if the priest/bishop/whatever doesn't want to marry them. I think marriage is strictly a church thing, so the churches should decide.

 

[IndigoChild]

AIDS research now gets more money per patient than any other disease. The remarkable success of the AIDS lobby then became a model for people who wanted more money for breast cancer.
among killer diseases, breast cancer and AIDS arenít even near the top of the list. Breast cancer is eighth, AIDS 17th. Yet AIDS, with its $1.8 billion NIH budget, gets the most money. The number-one killer, heart disease, last year got half a billion dollars less. Per patient, the disparities are even greater. Last year AIDS got $2,400 per patient from NIH, breast cancer $230, heart disease just $108. Parkinsonís: $78. And diabetes, which last year killed more people than AIDS and breast cancer combined, just $28.
http://www.actupny.org/alert/2020.html

22 mil for obesity research
80 mil for AIDs research
taken from www.nih.gov/news/budget/FY2005presbudget.pdf

Obesity is not contagious, whereas AIDS is. And since straight people are just as likely to get it as anyone else, I would think you would be concerned too.

Kat

 

[jamaesi]

Of course I have beef (haha. That's kind of a pun!) with paying for fat people. I don't like having to pay for things that people do to themselves because they can't contorl their eating urges.

Way to be tolerant. I´m overweight because my health degraded to the point I could hardly just walk around when I was 14 and required three surgeries (two majour back surgeries) in just a few years. I also never eat junk food and was on a rather strict vegetarian diet for six years.

But of course, it´s my fault for you know, having poor genes and all. I shouldn´t have had my insurance pay for those surgeries and just let my back degrade to the point I was paralyzed, right?


You don´t want to pay for me because I´m sick and gay, don´t get health insurance. Don´t whine when you get sick or hurt either and can´t afford your bills either. Of course, that´s rather antiChristian as I will further explain.

Whatever happened to that "compassionate conservatism" since you claim G-d to be a conservative?


I now quote parts of The Christian Paradox by Bill McKibben Harper's Magazine.

But is it Christian? This is not a matter of angels dancing on the heads of pins. Christ was pretty specific about what he had in mind for his followers. What if we chose some simple criterion—say, giving aid to the poorest people—as a reasonable proxy for Christian behavior? After all, in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they'd fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner. What would we find then?

In 2004, as a share of our economy, we ranked second to last, after Italy, among developed countries in government foreign aid. Per capita we each provide fifteen cents a day in official development assistance to poor countries. And it's not because we were giving to private charities for relief work instead. Such funding increases our average daily donation by just six pennies, to twenty-one cents. It's also not because Americans were too busy taking care of their own; nearly 18 percent of American children lived in poverty (compared with, say, 8 percent in Sweden). In fact, by pretty much any measure of caring for the least among us you want to propose—childhood nutrition, infant mortality, access to preschool—we come in nearly last among the rich nations, and often by a wide margin. The point is not just that (as everyone already knows) the American nation trails badly in all these categories; it's that the overwhelmingly Christian American nation trails badly in all these categories, categories to which Jesus paid particular attention. And it's not as if the numbers are getting better: the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last year that the number of households that were "food insecure with hunger" had climbed more than 26 percent between 1999 and 2003.

...

Indeed, it was my work with religious environmentalists that first got me thinking along the lines of this essay. We were trying to get politicians to understand why the Bible actually mandated protecting the world around us (Noah: the first Green), work that 1 think is true and vital. But one day it occurred to me that the parts of the world where people actually had cut dramatically back on their carbon emissions, actually did live voluntarily in smaller homes and take public transit, were the same countries where people were giving aid to the poor and making sure everyone had health care—countries like Norway and Sweden, where religion was relatively unimportant. How could that be? For Christians there should be something at least a little scary in the notion that, absent the magical answers of religion, people might just get around to solving their problems and strengthening their communities in more straightforward ways.
...

The tendencies I've been describing—toward an apocalyptic End Times faith, toward a comfort-the-comfortable, personal-empowerment faith—veil the actual, and remarkable, message of the Gospels. When one of the Pharisees asked Jesus what the core of the law was, Jesus replied:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.​

Love your neighbor as yourself: although its rhetorical power has been dimmed by repetition, that is a radical notion, perhaps the most radical notion possible. Especially since Jesus, in all his teachings, made it very clear who the neighbor you were supposed to love was: the poor person, the sick person, the naked person, the hungry person. The last shall be made first; turn die other cheek; a rich person aiming for heaven is like a camel trying to walk through the eye of a needle. On and on and on—a call for nothing less than a radical, voluntary, and effective reordering of power relationships, based on the principle of love.

http://harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html

 

[joeboonda]

The Bible, God's word, states that it is a sin in both old and new testaments. We ALL have sinned and do sin, so singling out one of the many sins listed in the bible and judging ppl for that one particular sin is not the answer. Genetics? We all inherited our sinful nature from Adam and Eve, and since the fall, people are born with tendencies to different sins, i.e. an alcoholic. one guy can handle it, another becomes a drunk. Main thing is we ALL have sinned, but Christ paid for ALL the sins of the whole world, which includes ALL your sins, and offers salvation as a free gift to anyone who accepts it. Christians still battle sin once they are saved, so gay ppl must also. I never been gay, so I'm not an authority, but the Bible is my authority, if it says its wrong, its wrong, so get help for it. I sin in other ways, and fight all the time, sometimes I do well, sometimes not so well. But, since my sins are all paid for, and I know I am going to Heaven, it makes me want to do better. Hope that helps

 

[Ceridwen018]

Even though it may be off topic, I don't think anyone should be able to get married outside of a church, or in a church in which they are not members, or if the priest/bishop/whatever doesn't want to marry them. I think marriage is strictly a church thing, so the churches should decide.

But...you're wrong.

Marriage has been a "state" insitution first and foremost in this country, as well as throughout history. The Church ceremony allows a couple to be "recognized" by the god/goddess of their choice, but nowhere in a society which held organized marriage has there not been some sort of necessary state recognition. Also, your rules do not allow for atheists, agnostics, and other like them to be wed. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

To relate this all back to the topic as closely as possible, I would like to point out that this is what clears the way for gays to get married. When gay marriage is legalized completely, that will not mean that Churches have to recognize the marriage! It just means that the couple's marriage will be recognized by the state.

 

[Aqualung]

Obesity is not contagious, whereas AIDS is. And since straight people are just as likely to get it as anyone else, I would think you would be concerned too.

Kat

That wasn't the point, and it wasn't related. It was related to this quote

You do realize that obesity is the biggest health problem facing Americans today, and more money goes to those health care costs, than any other?

I was proving that, even though obesity may be the biggest health risk, more of my tax dollars are going toward AIDs than obesity, with a site that exaclty contradicts what pdoel said.

 

[Aqualung]

Obesity is not contagious, whereas AIDS is. And since straight people are just as likely to get it as anyone else, I would think you would be concerned too.

Kat

Straight people are only likely to get AIDs if they shoot drugs, or behave in other high-risk manners, like how homosexual lifestyles are high-risk

 

[Aqualung]

Way to be tolerant. I´m overweight because my health degraded to the point I could hardly just walk around when I was 14 and required three surgeries (two majour back surgeries) in just a few years. I also never eat junk food and was on a rather strict vegetarian diet for six years.

well, that's sad. And, no matter what I think in theory, I do care, and I would help pay for people's health care if it chanced as it did to you. but, I don't think the govt has the right to tell me that I have to pay for it if I don't want to.

But of course, it´s my fault for you know, having poor genes and all. I shouldn´t have had my insurance pay for those surgeries and just let my back degrade to the point I was paralyzed, right?

Of course not. Stop twisting my words. Just because I say that the Government has no right to dictate what I care about does not mean that I don't care about anything or anybody.

You don´t want to pay for me because I´m sick and gay, don´t get health insurance. Don´t whine when you get sick or hurt either and can´t afford your bills either. Of course, that´s rather antiChristian as I will further explain.

I do care. You're misunderstanding. You are thinking that just because I dont want my cares dictated to me that I don't care at all.
And, by te way, I woudn't go whining to anybody. I wish I lived back in the day when there wasn't that sort of expectations that other people will just automatically care for you. In theory it would be nice if everybody did care enough that they would just pay for people who were less fortunate, but that's not the way it is, and I don't think it is the govt's job to make it that way. (and don't you go twisting again. Just because I theoretically don't like the government dictating my cares does not mean that I don't care or that I woudn't help)

Whatever happened to that "compassionate conservatism" since you claim G-d to be a conservative?

Why do you think I'm not compassionate? If I met you in real life, not in a debate forum, you would see that I am compassionate. But debate forums are a good place to argue theoretical beleifs. Just because I think homosexual actions are sinful, or that I don't think the government should prioritse what I care for, does not mean that if I saw a gay person I would shoot them, or shun them, or anything like that, or that I actually don't care one way or the other what happens to people who happen to get stuck in a position where they can't pay for my health care.

 

[Aqualung]

But...you're wrong.

Marriage has been a "state" insitution first and foremost in this country, as well as throughout history.

I don't care what it "has been." I was just stating my personal beleif on the sacredness of marriage, and how I think it belongs only in the church. I don't care what society has said marriage is, or what history has shown it is. My opinion about this matter is contained completly within myself. I just threw that out there to say that I could care less whether or not gay marriage was legal (in response to what someone else said), because I think it is up to churhces, not govts, to marry and to recognise marriage and to perform marriage.

Also, your rules do not allow for atheists, agnostics, and other like them to be wed. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

I know that, and, if marriage were stricty a church thing, I don't think any would get married. But if it were a church thing, I would definitely rework the whole "civil union" thing to have exactly the same legal benefits as a marriage. I think the two should be exaclty equal, except a marriage must be done in a church.

[QUTOE] To relate this all back to the topic as closely as possible, I would like to point out that this is what clears the way for gays to get married. When gay marriage is legalized completely, that will not mean that Churches have to recognize the marriage! It just means that the couple's marriage will be recognized by the state.[/QUOTE]
I recognise that, but that does not change the fact that I think marriage is strictly for the churches. I do think that civil unions should be equal to marriage (which should only be done in a church), because I don't like the idea of a government legislating such a moralistic thing.

 

[pdoel]

Well, obvoiusly I don't understand what it is you want me to say. What is the problem with me not liking to pay for AIDS? Because it seems that the only problem is that you have to pay for school et al. I don't think that is very fair, as I have said about a million times, but still, I don't know how that has validity in this thread. Please state an actually argument and I'll argue it, but you stating opinion on other matters and expecting me to argue them, I cna't really understand that.

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.

Your thinking that the studies were completely equal and unbiased does not make them so. If you can prove to me that the studies you speak of actually were fair, then you will prove me wrong. But all you have done so far is to say that "studies show there is no difference." You have not shown how the studies were done, or anything that actually would prove me wrong.

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.

What's wrong with my education? Just because I'm a conservative and I beleive in the bible does not mean I'm retarded, and never once have you proven to me that I was wrong in my thinking in any point that I have made.

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.

 

[pdoel]

Even though it may be off topic, I don't think anyone should be able to get married outside of a church, or in a church in which they are not members, or if the priest/bishop/whatever doesn't want to marry them. I think marriage is strictly a church thing, so the churches should decide.

Incorrect. Marriage is not a religious institution. It's been around since the beginning of time. Long before organized religion, and long before the Bible.

 

[pdoel]

well, that's sad. And, no matter what I think in theory, I do care, and I would help pay for people's health care if it chanced as it did to you. but, I don't think the govt has the right to tell me that I have to pay for it if I don't want to.

Hmmm. Exactly my point about having to pay school taxes so that the children of heterosexual couples can go to school. I don't think the government should force me to do so, and the fact that it has, doesn't mean that I hate children, or hate heterosexuals.

To be honest, your prejudices about having to pay taxes has nothing to do with the topic at hand. So, if you don't like people commenting on your thoughtless posts, you may want to rethink what this topic is about, and either stop posting, or try and actually give a valid argument on the topic at hand.

 

[joeboonda]

Marriage was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden Genesis 2:24- Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. This was way before any government. Also, non-christian nations all married men to women throughout history. I dont care if gays get married, but dont make a bible-believing pastor do it, go somewhere else.

 

[Jaymes]

I don't think many gays want to force a pastor to marry them.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Marriage was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden Genesis 2:24- Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. This was way before any government. Also, non-christian nations all married men to women throughout history. I dont care if gays get married, but dont make a bible-believing pastor do it, go somewhere else.

Don't 'make' them do it? Is it that, or don't 'let' them do it?

Also, non- Christian nations have married men to men and women to women throughout history, as well. By this logic, that makes it okay, right?